Big Sound For Vocals On Their Own?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BigEZ
  • Start date Start date
B

BigEZ

The Devil Has Blue Eyes
Hi All,

I'm working on a song with a solo vocal intro which I just can't seem to make sound big enough. I've got some reverb on it and tried using some NY compression. The vocals sound fine when the music kicks in but too empty on their own...any suggestions?

Thanks,
 
I should also say that an obviously doubled/chorused vocal would not work well here.
 
I am no expert at this so wait for a qualified answer ... but the thought did cross my mind that I would put a short delay on the reverb, like perhaps 100-150 ms, so that people hear the power of the voice without the reverb and then the reverb kicks in to give its sound. It's just a thought which I might try when I get the chance.
 
Is it just a volume thing? Making the vocal a little louder at the beginning might sort it out. I find reverb to make things smaller as they feel more distant, so reducing the reverb might help. It's probably going to sound more reverberant on it's own then when mixed in the track so balance the verb levels so they are perceptively the same pre/post track.

One other thing is EQ, make sure you put enough bottom end in the voice. You probably won't need that much when in the track, depending on the style of music, as it'll get muddied up, but on it's on it'll need to cover more of audio spectrum. Volume and EQ are the main areas to look at I would say. Maybe have a look at this for some tips... MixTips: Mixing: Make life easy for yourself
 
I agree with all the suggestions so far, I'd just like to add, you say you don't want an obviously doubled vocal, but thats not the same thing as a doubled vocal. If the double is done (sung again) tight enough and played lower in volume (maybe 6-10db) down it could be the thickness your after. An even more subtle effect can be just doubling certain words, which naturally have emphasis often at the end of each phrase or every other phrase ( not sure how long your intro is) I would at least try it to rule it out if nothing else, hope this helps.
 
Just thought... might not be the style of music you're doing, but for really big vocal sounds check out Frank Sinatra. His records, particularly In The Wee Small Hours Of The Morning, have HUGE vocal sounds on there. A lot to do with the singing, the level and the EQ (in the track it's to do with arrangement too, but that's no help to you)... all done on a 3 track machine too.
 
Spare Dougal said:
Just thought... might not be the style of music you're doing, but for really big vocal sounds check out Frank Sinatra. His records, particularly In The Wee Small Hours Of The Morning, have HUGE vocal sounds on there. A lot to do with the singing, the level and the EQ (in the track it's to do with arrangement too, but that's no help to you)... all done on a 3 track machine too.
Click to expand...
This is true, but also remember that Frank was cut off above around 13/14k to create that warmness. He was also singing into a U47...
 
Not sure what kind of music or vocal style you are doing....
...but one way to make a vocal sound big, is to have them get right up to the mic, I mean almost touching it (pop filter, of course)...and then sing accordingly (don't belt it as much as you would from a further distance).

Adding reverb and delays...IMHO...will actually diffuse and pull back the vocal, making it sound more distant, though you do get that extra ambiance. Maybe first record it up-close, at a lower singing level, which will give it a more "personal", in-your-face sound...and then add just a touch of reverb to open it up so it isn't too dry.
 
Multi tracks!! Just put down several tracks of the same vocals
 
Kierkes said:
This is true, but also remember that Frank was cut off above around 13/14k to create that warmness. He was also singing into a U47...
Click to expand...

Actually, many of the shots of Frank "in studio" with the U47 were merely promo shots. IOW - faked.

Bob Ohlsson revealed in a thread on another forum that "virtually everything he recorded after leaving Capitol was done with a handheld 57".

More info:

Bob Ohlsson said:
According to Voyle Gilmore, one of his producers and the head of Capitol A&R at the time, virtually everything Capitol ever released used an RCA 77 and according to Wally Heider, who attended most of the Reprise sessions at United/Western, he used a hand held 57.
Click to expand...

The point is that much of what is perceived as a big and expensive vocal sound is down to the mic selection, performance technique, and a cleverly crafted mix (automation, vocal riding, etc). I would say processing comes last and is often omitted if the original sound was properly captured.

Cheers :)
 
Mo Facta said:
Actually, many of the shots of Frank "in studio" with the U47 were merely promo shots. IOW - faked.

Bob Ohlsson revealed in a thread on another forum that "virtually everything he recorded after leaving Capitol was done with a handheld 57".

I'm not saying he didn't ever use a U47 but the point is that much of what is perceived as a big and expensive vocal sound is down to the mic selection, performance technique, and a cleverly crafted mix (automation, vocal riding, etc). I would say processing comes last and is often omitted if the original sound was properly captured.

Cheers :)
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, although wasn't the SM57 introduced in 1959/'60, so the early Frank stuff would have been done on something else. I was led to believe it was an RCA 44B. I wouldn't put my house it though. I've certainly got better sounds out of a 57 than a 47 sometimes. Those extra 10 really make a different :laughings:
 
Spare Dougal said:
I'd agree with that, although wasn't the SM57 introduced in 1959/'60, so the early Frank stuff would have been done on something else. I was led to believe it was an RCA 44B. I wouldn't put my house it though. I've certainly got better sounds out of a 57 than a 47 sometimes. Those extra 10 really make a different :laughings:
Click to expand...

You are correct. He in fact used the Shure 546, which is in fact an earlier predecessor to the 57. The difference between them is that the 546 has a copper coil and an impedance switch:

1_5a4502c7d91f365421b8ab772e83c4f5.jpg


I edited my post with more info from Bob regarding his earlier recordings. Read above.

Cheers :)
 
Ah yes the RCA77 I thought is was either that or the 44. I thought the 77 was elvis but not Frank, but obviously everything capitol.
 
Thanks for all the suggestions...Miroslav, I will give the close micing a try.
 
You've received a lot of good advice. I'll throw out one more idea - stereo delay. You need to be careful with it because it can really screw up phasing if over used. But if you don't go overboard, it can help make something sound bigger. I really like it for something like a guitar riff. Might work for a vocal too in some situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top