How to handle wildly dynamic mic input from vocals ?

I think that the idea of "mic technique" might be a little overrated. Not saying it's completely meaningless, but I don't think that it really has to be as dramatic a thing as many people seem to think. Most of the time it should really be subtle - a slight head turn or slight backward shifting. We're generally not talking about taking a step here.

There are some negatives to "mic technique". The most important in my mind is the tonality change that happens when the vocalist's face hole moves away from, or off-axis to, the microphone. Then of course any time you're moving you have the potential to make (unwanted) noise.

OTOH - purists will tell you that volume automation is the only way to deal with this problem, and they're not completely wrong. It is impossible to find a compressor setting that is perfect for the quiet sections and the louder sections. The two-stage compression thing helps. A multi-stage series/parrallel setup works better. At a certain point you've spent more time twiddling the knobs on all those compressors than you would have spent drawing in automation curves! And if you've got some sort of knob or fader to move then you can get some sense of the old "mixing as a performance" thing which I sort of miss but really completely don't. Once you get the wild mood swings under control with volume automation, it becomes much easier to find the compressor settings that enhance the track, rather than working so hard to correct it.

I personally haven't mixed anything where the vocals deserved that much attention in a little while...so I just slam them through a compressor. ;)
 
ashcat_lt said:
I think that the idea of "mic technique" might be a little overrated. Not saying it's completely meaningless, but I don't think that it really has to be as dramatic a thing as many people seem to think. Most of the time it should really be subtle - a slight head turn or slight backward shifting. We're generally not talking about taking a step here.

There are some negatives to "mic technique". The most important in my mind is the tonality change that happens when the vocalist's face hole moves away from, or off-axis to, the microphone. Then of course any time you're moving you have the potential to make (unwanted) noise.

OTOH - purists will tell you that volume automation is the only way to deal with this problem, and they're not completely wrong. It is impossible to find a compressor setting that is perfect for the quiet sections and the louder sections. The two-stage compression thing helps. A multi-stage series/parrallel setup works better. At a certain point you've spent more time twiddling the knobs on all those compressors than you would have spent drawing in automation curves! And if you've got some sort of knob or fader to move then you can get some sense of the old "mixing as a performance" thing which I sort of miss but really completely don't. Once you get the wild mood swings under control with volume automation, it becomes much easier to find the compressor settings that enhance the track, rather than working so hard to correct it.

I personally haven't mixed anything where the vocals deserved that much attention in a little while...so I just slam them through a compressor. ;)
Click to expand...

Another good point, forgot about this. Something I do frequently - but do not use volume automation for. I make scissor cuts in the editor for the quiet and louder regions, then raise the gain on the quiet parts directly on the region. I find this a lot easier than volume automation. Sometimes the results are much better than compression alone, as it allows you to tune the compressor better if the difference in volume ranges are less 'dramatic'.
 
ashcat_lt said:
OTOH - purists will tell you that volume automation is the only way to deal with this problem, and they're not completely wrong.
Click to expand...

So, who has written the "Auto Volume Automation" function? We need a function that gives you a algorithm based 'best guess' at what the volume automation should be, along with some control parameters steer the outcome to your liking. Enthusiasts and developers, take note!

I'm glad you mentioned that. Given that there is no clipping, this should keep qualityto a maximum.

... you learn so much here..... :)

FM
 
Ok, making progress.

Reading around the web, I'm seeing advice that mouth to mic distance should be 6 to 9 inches. I'm sure all of the articles are most basic of guides and real engineers could speak for a day on the subject but for me this is the start.

I'll have to see how close I can get my two condenser mics to sit next to each other and set up a pop filter aiming at the join between the two mics. You can't have one further back because the proximity effect will change the sound on this one too much.

... being different mics thay might be too different to use anyway but I'll listen and see.

You think this is worth trying? Do you think it's too off axis for the mics?

FM
 
ashcat_lt said:
I think that the idea of "mic technique" might be a little overrated. Not saying it's completely meaningless, but I don't think that it really has to be as dramatic a thing as many people seem to think. Most of the time it should really be subtle - a slight head turn or slight backward shifting. We're generally not talking about taking a step here.

There are some negatives to "mic technique". The most important in my mind is the tonality change that happens when the vocalist's face hole moves away from, or off-axis to, the microphone. Then of course any time you're moving you have the potential to make (unwanted) noise.

OTOH - purists will tell you that volume automation is the only way to deal with this problem, and they're not completely wrong. It is impossible to find a compressor setting that is perfect for the quiet sections and the louder sections. The two-stage compression thing helps. A multi-stage series/parrallel setup works better. At a certain point you've spent more time twiddling the knobs on all those compressors than you would have spent drawing in automation curves! And if you've got some sort of knob or fader to move then you can get some sense of the old "mixing as a performance" thing which I sort of miss but really completely don't. Once you get the wild mood swings under control with volume automation, it becomes much easier to find the compressor settings that enhance the track, rather than working so hard to correct it.

I personally haven't mixed anything where the vocals deserved that much attention in a little while...so I just slam them through a compressor. ;)
Click to expand...

I got a kick out's Bruce Swedien's interview in Tape Op- praphrasing 'if a singer needs a comp (he'd) call for a new singer..
Must be nice huh? :D
Anywho just to add-
Options
a) mic technique
b) leveling on the way in
c) Level automation and/or level automation and post track compresion >
d) Automate gain ('trim) pre-track comp plug > Another two very different sounds
They're all (for the most part) different sounds
-- Very ofter a bit of each can be appropreate
 
Your 0404 already has what you need....

Hi,
Having had an 0404 and still using EMU cards among others, the DSP Patchmix already has some decent comp/limiting in it if you know how to use it. Just a thought to save you a few bux....

Cheers!
 
pure.fusion said:
Hi all,

I'm lead to believe that a "real" singer will have vocal mic technique and will be good at keeping a (more) constant level into the mic. I never see this!

What do you guys do to handle widely varying levels into the mic? Do you allow for the loudest level without clipping and then boost the crap out of the soft bits which end up being really soft?

What's the go?

Cheers,
FM
Click to expand...

My two bits is that the singer really needs to learn how to use a mic properly how can they function live if they can't work a mic?
Compression helps but isn't a substitute, also it adds its own effects to the sound.
 
Are hardware compressors much better than software in recording? I just started reading and i thought that hardware compressors are used more for live and software for studio recording...
 
That, like everything, depends.

If you happen to have a compressor that you know you're going to use on a given track, and you've got the balls to make a decision at tracking time and stick to it, then you might as well track through the compressor. Or if for some reason you just cant get a "healthy" average level without occassional peaks hitting 0dbfs, a hardware comp/limiter is usually better than digital clipping. A lot of folks also like to insert hardware into their mixes for whatever it is they think they do which software can't.

OTOH - My live rig now has everything mixed ITB, and I've got a VST compressor on the vocal track.

There aren't any rules. Sound really should be the only determining factor, but most often practicalities get in the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top