How Do YOU Get A Sweet Vocal Sound?

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

BigEZ

The Devil Has Blue Eyes
Hi All,

Considering you've recorded the best vocal track possible, what do you do in the mix to get that sweet larger than life vocal sound? I.e. effects, EQ, etc.

Just looking for some different ideas to try.

Thanks,
 
My recorded vocals are always pretty dry cos I don't have a nice sounding room, so for me it's all in the reverb.

I rarely use a reverb with long tails or whatever, but I definitely use it to shape the tone of the voice.
The room size/type/early reflection amount/frequency dampening etc all play a big part with my vocals.
 
Double take and then eq/reverb as necessary! Although I'm not exactly a guru at this stuff! :laughings:
 
double tracking, I like to use one track pretty dry, the second one with a decent amount of verb and some highs rolled off to give a body to the vocals. I might also experiment with some lofi mics into amps.
 
As everyone else here has stated...
Double tracking will get you a nice tight sound. Just make sure to line up those "s's" and "t's," otherwise it's just going to make things worse. =]
I saw you posted another thing like this on acoustic guitar... The effects and EQ depend on the song and the quality of the recorded track. With EQ, just mess around with it until you get something that sounds good. Especially if you're new to EQ and are just starting recording. It'll help you get an ear for what frequencies you like on your voice and which you don't if you just start sweeping around.
 
Doesn't double tracking gives you a chorusy sound? Or does double tracking means two mics on the same vocal take?
 
It's one mic and at least two takes.

Yeah, it can give you a chorusy sound but it depends how well tracked it is and how you pan them, if at all.

I always recommend nirvana's in bloom as a great example of tight double tracking.
 
Ok I understand. What if you don't want that chorusy sound? I've work in many studios (as a session player) and never did I saw the singer double tracking his/her vocals...
 
Good question. I'd like to hear the answer to that as well.
 
In that case you might want to clone your single take and nudge it by a few ms, then pan to taste.
 
Jonesey9 said:
In that case you might want to clone your single take and nudge it by a few ms, then pan to taste.
Click to expand...

Don't do that. That's half the definition of chorus.

That's like saying if you don't want reverb you could try recording in a big hall.


I don't think nevermind had a chorusy sound.

Some people double track and have each part as prominent as the other which can give a chorus effect.
Others record a main take, then maybe two doubles. They pan the doubles and reduce them in volume so you thicken the sound without obvious chorus.

Another way is to have two copies of your vocal (whether digital copies or two takes).
Prep one of them as the main voice, then on the other one cut some of the highs and compress the balls out of it.

You can introduce the comped duplicate gradually to thicken your sound.




That said, the guy I'm recording at the minute just got a nice tight reverb and a very subtle tight delay. That was all.
 
What do you guys think Adele did to get that sweet sound on "Someone Like You"? Apart from having a killer voice of course. I don't hear any doubling or chorus in that song.
 
Olijanovi said:
Ok I understand. What if you don't want that chorusy sound? I've work in many studios (as a session player) and never did I saw the singer double tracking his/her vocals...
Click to expand...

It takes 6 things to get the "full" sound in one take

1. Good Mic
2. Good Pre
3. Good Room
4. Good Placement
5. Good Vocalist
6. Good ears at mixing.
 
Double the vocals. It's easier to take it away later than to wish you had done it later. Doubled vocals can make it sound very "chorusy", but it doesn't have to be that way. Take this scenario, for example:

Primary vocals are centered in the mix. Then the doubled track is dropped down in volume and pushed to the far L and R using a widening plug-in. Now you have a solid vocal in the center that seems to sit across the entire stereo image. You have to be careful though not to have the doubled track too hot.

In addition, you'll only want to try and double vocals if the vocalist can pull off a clean & tight performance the second time. An R&B or soul singer may do tons of vocal runs, etc. that would make doubling a track a nightmare.

Another recommendation would be to have the singer try not to hit the P's and T's etc when singing so you don't have to worry too much about those not being exactly on top of each other. So the vocalist would sing the word "DON.." instead of "DON'T", etc.
 
Everyone is saying double track the voice. That is absolutely ridic! LOL!

That shouldn't be the lead factor in getting a good sound.

The absolute biggest factor is one that is uncontrollable. A good singer. This is the biggest part. Knowing when to move farther from the mic and closer to the mic plays into this as well.

The room. The mic. The pre... I think these speak for themselves.

Knowing how to mix the take is also important. The right amount of EQ and compression. A subtle (or sometimes heavy) amount of reverb or delay. I cannot tell you how to use these. It is specific to the take. All of these play a big factor in getting a good sound. Don't let yourself be limited to double tracking to get a fuller sound.
 
Everything is different, but I use a nice vocal mic (NTK or SM7B) into a Neve style pre. 4-6 takes and comp to get two good ones. When I mix I compress with an 1176 and EQ a little "warmth". One gets some delay or reverb and I turn it up about 10% almost like a wet/dry, and leave the best take pretty dry. The "wet" take gets compressed a little more too.

But, it all depends on the genre, singer, desired outcome, gear you have available, room, and engineer. Also a big factor is what else is in the mix and what space you have for vocals.
 
It's not the lead factor. The OP had said, "Considering you've recorded the best vocal track possible, what do you do in the mix to get that sweet larger than life vocal sound? I.e. effects, EQ, etc."

No one said, "you must limit yourself to double tracking to get a fuller sound". However, if you don't have a doubled track, then that is one less tool at your disposal when you go to mix the vocals. And most of the time, if a doubled track is mixed well the vox WILL be fuller and the standard listener won't even notice the doubled track is there at all.
 
DogmaticVox said:
It's not the lead factor. The OP had said, "Considering you've recorded the best vocal track possible, what do you do in the mix to get that sweet larger than life vocal sound? I.e. effects, EQ, etc."

No one said, "you must limit yourself to double tracking to get a fuller sound". However, if you don't have a doubled track, then that is one less tool at your disposal when you go to mix the vocals. And most of the time, if a doubled track is mixed well the vox WILL be fuller and the standard listener won't even notice the doubled track is there at all.
Click to expand...

Sorry but it seemed like if there was a poll and "double track the vocals" was an option, that seems like the decision many would make. I almost always double track, but I almost always get rid of the extra track. If you can't get a sufficient sound with one track, then something is wrong.

There are a number of things that go into this, and "double track the vocals" isn't the only thing the OP wants to hear.
 
IMO, two takes of a vocal track is a necessity. Not just to use it, but I find that less than great singers will improve by taking the time to duplicate themselves. Even great singers can benefit from a duplicating their tracks. Most times, I have the second track barely audible. In a dense mix, having the second track very low under the main one (usually like 20-30db), adds a quality that cant be done with time manipulation, modulation, or pitch nudge. In some situations, I will use a VST doubler (a combination of delay, pitch shift, and who know what else) to enhance things a bit, but it really comes down to the original track. The better preamps/mics I use, the less any of this matters. The natural timbre of a vocalist comes through better with better gear. The thread title should probably be changed to 'With the gear YOU have, How Do YOU Get A Sweet Vocal Sound, and how do I Try to Make it Close WITHOUT Too Much Expense'. There are techniques that can work to achieve a better sound with effects. The problem with giving advice on this, is that no good advice can be given without actually hearing the track in question. Even then, it is just personal opinion. There are no rules. Hell, I on occasion will use the Hass effect on vocals as an effect. There is a place for everything, and nothing works every time in every situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top