EQ on Vocals

[Zachyboy4]

Hey, im trying to mix vocals into a song (duh) but after i compressed them i noticed that they seem to have a real sort of boxy sound, probably the result of a shitty vocal booth, low end mic, and shitty preamp.

What i was wondering is if tightening up the tracks eq in some way could maybe eliminate some of this.

 

[Bobbsy]

There's no magic bullet but I might suggest playing with a bit of cut in the 400-500Hz range (though it's worth experimenting with cuts a bit either side of that as well. You might also experiment with a very slight boost in the 2000-5000Hz range, again experimenting by ear, though certainly try the cuts first.

 

[Zachyboy4]

Yeah i figured.. Ive been experimenting on the Eq for a bit and still cant get it to sound as good as i would like. Im not so sure about boosting anything though.when i do that i usually end up with some form of a problem later on.

 

[chavernac]

try to highpass up to 120hz/220hz depending on the genre of music.
try a gentle boost with a shelf at 10khz.
it should get rid of the boxiness

 

[saads]

Before trying to fix it with the EQ, try to get a good take. One way you can make that happen is by not using a shitty vocal booth. A nice open room with some basic room treatment will sound better than you think.

 

[moresound]

Before trying to fix it with the EQ, try to get a good take. One way you can make that happen is by not using a shitty vocal booth. A nice open room with some basic room treatment will sound better than you think.

This truth will set you free!

 

[suringe]

yes,,,,record a dry take,,,no eq,,no hardware,,,just mic, pre,and recorder mmmmmuch easier,,,if you get a take that only needs a little tweeking to sound good,,,thats a keeper,,,it's more about the artist,,,and the mic then it is about the eq,,,,if you have to eq the hell out of it it will never sound good

 

[RAMI]

probably the result of a shitty vocal booth, low end mic, and shitty preamp.

Yeah, probably.

Not that you can't make it a little better. The first thing I'd do, as saads said, is get out of the so-called "vocal booth". It's probably hurting your sound more than any EQ will be able to fix.

 

[Freddie Crookz]

Good tips... props to all you for this.

 

[Fletcher]

Hey, im trying to mix vocals into a song (duh) but after i compressed them i noticed that they seem to have a real sort of boxy sound,

First - as it would seem rather obvious - lose the compression you were doing... its obviously not the right tool for the job. As you're probably using a DAW you can go through the song [word by word if necessary] and automate the level of the vocal so its correct for the presentation. Compression is just a lazy man's way of doing just that... and while compressors can be used to alter the character of the sound of the voice they should make that alteration in a good way [which yours obviously isn't].

Someone suggested that you boost the 2-5kHz range... chances are that if you're asking this question on this forum and used a condenser mic that microphone probably has a plethora of information in the 2-5kHz range... most of the "Maocraphones" you will find at the local guitar selling superstore have that upper midrange boost function [makes the mic seem louder when you're "testing" them in stores... and at that level of the game... loudest mic wins!! -- and make no mistake, those mics are about "moving units" an not "clarity of audio"].

You will also find that the region of audio that makes things appear "boxy" is in the 250-400Hz range. You may want to attack this area with a db or 2 [in other words - don't go nuts] EQ dip... a octave - octave and a half bandwidth is probably all you will require [I don't remember the number... probably something like a "Q" of 1.5 to 2 ish] and that should help as well.

There seems to be a school of thought that has been growing increasingly popular over the last 15 or so years that everything NEEDS to be compressed. Frankly, its complete bullshit. Compression is a great tool when used properly... but very few take the time to learn how to use the things really well and end up trying to use them as a crutch. Guess what... they often end up causing more problems than they fix -- unless you have good ones.

Plug - ins will be good someday, but that day ain't to-day... the necessary computing power to properly drive a compressor in software will most likely be available sometime in the next 5-7 years... but it ain't available now... and automatic dynamic range control (compression) is hell of a lot more math intensive and complex than modern computers can really handle... hence you have crappy sounding plug ins that do very little to really help the music... but they do sell a lot of units!!! so their makers are very happy people while to overall quality of recorded music suffers.

Sorry for the lecture... but I would caution you to not believe the sales and marketing hype... read a lot about the equipment [how it works, what it does] and develop your listening skills so you can find solutions to your problems that require as little outside equipment as possible. Very often - the less "engineering" you do, the better things turn out.

Best of luck with all you do!!1

Peace

 

[Bobbsy]

Gee...and here I've been using software-based compression for years, both "in the box" and live on digital consoles. My ears must have deceived me when it worked and sounded fine! I must stop using the software based compression the the Midas, Digidesign, Yamaha and DiGiCo consoles or my Audition-based DAW immediately!

I agree that compression is over-used and often very badly used by people who don't understand the settings--I must have sent people to read the Rane notes on dynamics processing a couple of hundred times over the years. But to say that good software-based compression is 5-7 years away is simply not supported by my experience.

 

[Bisson820]

Plug - ins will be good someday, but that day ain't to-day... the necessary computing power to properly drive a compressor in software will most likely be available sometime in the next 5-7 years... but it ain't available now... and automatic dynamic range control (compression) is hell of a lot more math intensive and complex than modern computers can really handle... hence you have crappy sounding plug ins that do very little to really help the music... but they do sell a lot of units!!! so their makers are very happy people while to overall quality of recorded music suffers.


Peace

This is hilarious...

 

[JimmyS1969]

Yeah, even the free Density MKII sounds damn good. I would agree that a stock Cubase compressor leaves much to be desired. There are however many good high end plug ins available. And the fact that you can use multiple instances, make them even more desirable and economical.

 

[Bisson820]

i just love how he stated that there is too much math in compression for modern computers to handle... yet we can send someone to the moon... i guess there's less math in that...

 

[moresound]

Fletcher usually knows what he is talking about. I'm sure there are reasons for his declarations.

 

[Bobbsy]

Maybe he overstated his case or something, Moresound. My favourite hardware compressor is a Drawmer. However, if I listened to its output and compared it to what I can do with software compression just using the stock Audition stuff or other software compression in my DM1000 or the variety of software compressors in the Midas Pro 6 I was using at the local theatre earlier today, I certainly couldn't claim to hear the difference.

...and I certainly wouldn't claim that acceptable compressor plug ins for computers are 5-7 years away. That'll be news to all the people doing mixing or post production on Protools or Pyramix for lots of CDs, TV or feature films.

I have no problem with his contention that compression is overused and often used badly by people who don't understand the controls. I don't even have a problem when he says that it's often better to painstakingly adjust your levels manually. But the rest is just plain wrong.

 

[moresound]

Could be just a bit of nit-picking on his behalf for as we all know a plug-in is just a Simulation of a hardware unit. etc. etc. ..... We have heard all of the banter on this issue.

 

[RRuskin]

.....................There seems to be a school of thought that has been growing increasingly popular over the last 15 or so years that everything NEEDS to be compressed. Frankly, its complete bullshit. Compression is a great tool when used properly... but very few take the time to learn how to use the things really well and end up trying to use them as a crutch. Guess what... they often end up causing more problems than they fix -- unless you have good ones.....................

Peace

This should be etched prominently in every control room across the land.

 

[JimmyS1969]

This should be etched prominently in every control room across the land.

Agreed........

 

[TrustMeScience]

Sure. There are plenty of records that would sound cooler with less compression. There are also that would only be half as cool if they weren't mangled like crazy. (Dave Fridmann's amazing work on The Flaming Lips' Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots instantly comes to mind). So it cuts both ways.

As for the original question, yeah, sometimes certain compressors can excentutate one part of the midrange or another. This can be totally awesome and unbelieavably well-suited to the song, or kinda crappy and a totally bad choice. Use your ears and decide!

That said, it's not uncommon to EQ a vocal to make it sound ready for release. As often as not I'll suck out a little low-mid between 200-500 depending on the voice and recording and add something around 5k, 8k, 10k or 12k.

It all depends though. Sometimes you'll need to do the opposite.

I totally agree with Fletcher that we shouldn't EQ and compress everything by default, but I'm sure he's not suggesting we never use EQ or compression, ITB or otherwise. I don't know anyone who makes great-sounding records that I enjoy listening to who would say that!