How do the "experts" set up Pro Tools for vox rec?

[d0082]

Just wanting to get some help on the "best" (I realize this is fairly subjective...) way to set up Pro Tools to record vocals. To make things a little easier (hopefully) in answering the questions, I'll start with some constants/assumptions: let's say I know I'm going to be using at least two similar layers of vocal tracks, and let's also say I know I'm going to use exactly four inserts for my vox tracks: Melodyne (I'm not a great vocalist), EQ, D-verb, and compressor.

First, is it best to use a Send and send those two vocal tracks to the same Aux track to handle at least the D-verb all in one, if not the EQ and compressor, as well (i.e. so you know you'll always have similar settings for the two+ vox tracks, and don't have to worry about keeping them parallel if/when you make adjustments as you go)?

Second, is there an obvious natural order to put the inserts in (and I guess this answer depends somewhat on the answer to the first question): e.g. always pitch correction first, always compressor last, or something like that? (again, assuming I just have those four inserts mentioned above, but any other advice and/or rules of thumb regarding inserts - vox or not - not mentioned would be much appreciated, as well!)

Third, I've heard of some people using a "guerilla amp" method, whereby if they basically know how they want/like their EQ (and maybe compression, as well) set up for vox tracks, they'll run those inserts PRE-recorded track, so the track is actually written with the inserts effect included (hopefully that makes sense). In other words, the inserts effect is permanent on the writing of the vox to that track, and can't be adjusted afterward. As I understand, the only real benefit to this is saving CPU later on? Anyway, the bottom line question here is, do many people do this, and do you guys think the cons outweigh the pros of using this so-called "guerilla amp" method?

Alternatively, if any experienced people here use Pro Tools and wouldn't mind just sharing a screen shot of their Mix window (or, if you know where there are some helpful PT vox rec setup screenshots available elsewhere) to show how they do things, that would be hugely appreciated!

Thanks a lot,
Dan

 

[Massive Master]

IMO/E -- The verb on the aux is a no-brainer from the start (as opposed to inserting in line). I'd argue the EQ and compression be applied to the individual sources (and the aux send to the reverb buss for that matter, but that's just me). At least for control -- For shaping and what not, you could arguably use a buss that the vocals go to if you want to add some sort of leveling compression or what not.

"Obvious natural order?" No. "Typical for most of the time?" EQ, dynamics, auxiliary. But there are valid an useful reasons to do otherwise also. Hopefully obvious reasons for the "typical" order -- You want to first bring the source to include what you want (if you're reducing low end or sibilance, get rid of it at the first chance so those things don't affect what's down the line). Then dynamics for the same reason -- If you're reducing the dynamic range, you probably want that signal sent to the aux buss(es).

That said, I tend to compress the aux buss before the compressor and possibly even the return signal -- Not always, but rather frequently, especially when working digitally.

Printing to the source -- Not on a bet, no way, no how, not ever. Not with digital, that's for sure. You can "freeze" a track whenever you want. There's absolutely no reason that I could ever think of to commit to the "end result" of a track without hearing it in the context of the mix.

As far as "recording setups" -- "Input to track" is pretty much what you're going to find I'd imagine.

 

[KineticSound]

+1 on John's comments. (And he knows his stuff)

On the track print, should you find that your CPU overloads due to a large number of tracks, soft-synths, or plugins, you can always print your effected vocal to a new track, then freeze the original. This allows you to listen to your "draft" track in the rest of the mix, but still go back and change something in the original if needed. I think this is what John was eluding to, but wanted to clarify.

Curious: what's your signal path getting into Pro Tools? (i.e. what mic, preamp/interface, etc.)

 

[Massive Master]

That's basically it -- Haven't used PT in some time now, but I knew there had to be some way to "freeze" in there.

Curious: what's your signal path getting into Pro Tools? (i.e. what mic, preamp/interface, etc.)

That's the first 9.5 yards there... Software, schmoftware -- What's picking up the source is what's making a difference.

 

[jaynm26]

+2 john

 

[d0082]

Thanks a lot for the help John and David. I had no idea about the freezing option, so that's very good to know, should I run into CPU issues down the road. As it is, sounds like it by far makes the most sense to not print to the source.

John: So it seems EQ and dynamics at the source, in general, and you'd do de-esser even before EQ... Also, if I understand correctly, you'd generally (noting your comment that there are always valid exceptions) only have reverb (does this include delay?) on the aux?

If you don't mind taking the time (if not, I understand... I'm a noob, so I apologize), why is having verb on the aux a no-brainer?

Curious what you use instead of PT... is it no longer "industry standard" amongst the pros?

Also, I'm not sure I understood the "compressing the aux bus before the compressor"... (If I'm totally off, I'm also curious about this as a separate question): Do you usually have a compressor on your MASTER as well? And/or how do people doing mixing/mastering get songs for radio play to get the max sound effect (I know, lots of *groan*s here) if not via a compressor on the MASTER? Something in post-processing?


David: I'm in KC, as well! As for your question, I'm using a Rode NT1-A for vox, going directly into an Mbox2 (with phantom/48V). Any recommendations for improvement on that, or does that get the job done well enough?

Thanks again guys- I appreciate you taking the time,
Dan

 

[KineticSound]

Dan,

First off... when we're done posting, your noob prerequisite is to come on down to Overland Park and help me install some dB-3 in the walls of the new tracking room. Glad to see others from Kansas City on the board! Actually, when the new space is finished, you're welcome anytime.

Don't change a thing about your signal path. The Rode NT1A and M-Box2 are of fine quality.

 

[JeffroMixesYou]

They are really processor intensive and one (or a few different types) of verb help "glue" a mix together. If you had a different reverb on every single track your computer would hate you and the track would feel a bit all-over-the-place, instead of occupying the same "space".

why is having verb on the aux a no-brainer?

 

[Massive Master]

John: So it seems EQ and dynamics at the source, in general, and you'd do de-esser even before EQ... Also, if I understand correctly, you'd generally (noting your comment that there are always valid exceptions) only have reverb (does this include delay?) on the aux?

If you don't mind taking the time (if not, I understand... I'm a noob, so I apologize), why is having verb on the aux a no-brainer?

I don't think I've *ever* put a reverb inline (as an insert). Zero flexibility and huge CPU loads -- Imagine using 6 of them on a drum kit -- vs. one aux buss for the entire kit (or 30 elements in the mix). The ability to compress or EQ (or both) the send or the return (or both), one solo to hear the buss to tweak the send/return (which you wouldn't even be able to do with it as an insert).

It's just how it's done. It's how it's always been done. Even in tape days. The occasional exception would be made, but usually just because you ran out of auxiliary busses. Yes, same with delay (assuming "echo" as opposed to actually delaying the signal, which would be done strictly as an insert).

Rule of thumb -- If you're adding something (spatial, modulative, etc.) to the source, you're using an auxiliary copy of the signal. If you're *changing* the source (timbrally, dynamically, etc.) use an insert.

Curious what you use instead of PT... is it no longer "industry standard" amongst the pros?

It was basically always the "standard" since it came out. They were incredibly clever with their marketing, going after the biggest *clients* of the studios (advertising agencies). Just about every studio I know *has* it -- But I don't know of any that rely on it solely. "Standard" has nothing to do with "best" or "most flexible" by any means.

For the record, I use Samplitude. You couldn't pay me to go back to PT land.

Also, I'm not sure I understood the "compressing the aux bus before the compressor"...

Sorry - I meant compressing the aux send signal before the reverb. Imagine one of those folky ballads where once in a while the guitarist gives it a big thwacky strum and you get a giant reverb spike - or excessive sibilant consonants and the giant verb swell from them that makes them even more apparent -- Putting a hard knee on that signal "limits" the signal to the reverb keeping it in line and not accentuating those problematic issues.

Or the quiet/loud rock/metal tune where you want a giant reverb to take up some space during the quiet passages but you want it to back down on the louder parts so it doesn't take over -- Same thing, different approach by using a gentle ratio that simply reduces the signal to the reverb as the aux signal gets louder.

Same thing with EQ'ing that signal -- Maybe you want the kick in the same room as the rest of the kit so you want reverb on it. HPF'ing the aux signal before it hits the reverb allows the verb to react to the "tick" but not to the "whoomp" of the kick. Low end takes up plenty of space -- So does low end in a reverb signal. That can muddy a mix up really fast.

(If I'm totally off, I'm also curious about this as a separate question): Do you usually have a compressor on your MASTER as well? And/or how do people doing mixing/mastering get songs for radio play to get the max sound effect (I know, lots of *groan*s here) if not via a compressor on the MASTER? Something in post-processing?

I mix through a compressor more often than not. But (A) it's established very early (rarely ever added later) and (B) it's almost never nipping off more than a dB or so (if the mix is asking for more, it's probably something in the mix that's actually asking for it). It's a color/glue thing more than anything else.

"Max sound effect" -- Not sure what you're asking there. If you're talking about the overly-compressed post-mastering loudness-war thing, that (some would say unfortunately) happens during the mastering phase (although it's only a small part of that process).

 

[d0082]

Thanks a lot, guys... and thanks, John, for taking all that time to help. A lot of good tips and advice in there that will come in very handy.

I watched a youtube demonstration of Samplitude - it looks like a pretty slick DAW.

I was indeed asking about the loudness-war thing - obnoxious, I know... But pulled back quite a bit from that kind of extreme, I was mostly just asking because the couple songs I've bounced from PT ended up needing some of that compression (or whatever exactly is going on along those lines in the mastering phase).

David: I appreciate the offer on the new space... sounds like it's going to be far beyond anything I've ever seen (in person, at least). However, I'm probably not the guy you want for installing dB-3... I'd likely end up stapling myself into the wall (never to be heard from again)!

Thanks again, guys.

 

[polarity]

Being a newbie to the land of recording I will add this. From all my searching and youtube watching if you were going to take the entire process and break it down to "here is what you do" this is what I've found

1) EQ - Usually I've seen this done using a send but in groups. So make 1 bus named VocalsEffects or whatever and send all your vocals to that bus (maybe not all if you want some to sound different but you get the idea). If you're mixing this too what I've seen done is to EQ out some of the lows and some of the highs (I'm sure PT has something like Logic where you can play the track and watch it in the EQ and adjust). The guy I was watching was strict about add/subtract EQ. If you take 1 frequency you don't like and turn it down 3.5db then you need to take one you like and turn it up 3.5. Basically saying you don't want to change the volume of the mix from EQ.

2) Compression: Next was to setup your compressor. He usually had a mid-high knee and a low attack and release (so the compressor could move at the speed of the dynamics in the vocals). Again here was big on keeping the volume the same so if the compressor is doing 3db of gain reduction you want to add bac 3db in gain inside the compressor.

3) Reverb: This was completely subjective and the spaces were designed depending on the vocal, the type of song and all sorts of other things.

I know this is not THE way to do anything, if there is 1 thing I've learned in all my searching it's that there is no perfect process. It's all about your ear and finding the way to make it sound how YOU want it to sound. This is simply a place to start and then find your own process. There is so much more to those 3 steps too depending on what you're mixing. Some of the stuff they were talking about like finding space in a mix and making everything sound like it's in the same room are HUGE when you get to that level. If everything just comes up the center your brain doesn't recreate the space and it doesnt sound right. Turn on your favorite song and listen with your eyes closed. Guitar to the right, bass a little left. Vocal up the center. Drums sound center but back, etc.

Master: If you have time I do have a question too. If you listen to any pop song, or hell any song recorded by a professional in a studio something happens with the vocals. It goes from clear recording to that perfect radio quality. It's not pitch or anything it's just a sound. Let me find you a link real fast.

These two links are the same Youtube artist. One done before he got a job at a music studio

Just a Dream - Nelly cover Jake Coco - YouTube - before studio
Journey - Don't Stop Believin' (Acoustic cover by Jake Coco) - YouTube - after studio

The vocals are just so much more polished now. Is that just a side from getting amazing mics and preamps, outboard gear, etc. Or is there something going on in software that gives it the "polished" sound?

Thanks guys

 

[Farview]

The general rule of thumb deciding between auxes and inserts:
If the effect needs to be 100% wet, like with eq and compression, use an insert.

If the effect needs to be blended with the original signal, like delay, reverb, chorus, etc... use an aux send and set the plunging to 100% wet.