locking in vocals?

[KonradG]

from what ive heard, everyone touches up their vocals with some kind of program. is vocalign a touch up? because from the pictures ive seen it just seems like it makes two tracks sound alike.

What do i need to crisp the vocals up just a little?

 

[noisewreck]

What do i need to crisp the vocals up just a little?

Fry them some more

 

[Farview]

There is no need for any program or 'touching up' if you just sing it right in the first place. Vocalign lines up the timing. If you practice, you can learn to perform things the same way every time, so you won't need to spend money on software to fix something that shouldn't be broken to begin with.

None of this was possible 15 years ago. Back then, if you wanted to double your vocals, you had to sing it the same way twice. You had to be in control of your instrument, imagine that.

 

[KonradG]

There is no need for any program or 'touching up' if you just sing it right in the first place. Vocalign lines up the timing. If you practice, you can learn to perform things the same way every time, so you won't need to spend money on software to fix something that shouldn't be broken to begin with.

None of this was possible 15 years ago. Back then, if you wanted to double your vocals, you had to sing it the same way twice. You had to be in control of your instrument, imagine that.

Hey im sorry to bust your home recording bubble but its true that the vast majority of singers (good and bad) use vocal touch-ups to ensure that they are locked into the key of the song. "imagine that"

im not pulling this out of my ass, an ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL MUSICIAN (singer) told me what makes a good singer is the smaller amount of vocal touchups one used compared to everyone else, not by who has to use it or not.

so dont give me that "back in the day" bullshit, because there's new shit out and intend on using this "fancy dancy technology that everyones makin such a rackit about".

so if there's anyone in here who knows what the fuck they are talking about... let me know.

thanks

 

[KonradG]

ps.

i would also like for the people who leave advice to actually have a couple fucking words in songs of their own. two points for munsters!

 

[noisewreck]

^^^ You should listen more carefully

 

[Farview]

Hey im sorry to bust your home recording bubble but its true that the vast majority of singers (good and bad) use vocal touch-ups to ensure that they are locked into the key of the song. "imagine that"

im not pulling this out of my ass, an ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL MUSICIAN (singer) told me what makes a good singer is the smaller amount of vocal touchups one used compared to everyone else, not by who has to use it or not.

so dont give me that "back in the day" bullshit, because there's new shit out and intend on using this "fancy dancy technology that everyones makin such a rackit about".

so if there's anyone in here who knows what the fuck they are talking about... let me know.

thanks

Listen Sparky, I have worked and continue to work with some of the biggest name singers and musicians. The Munsters theme is just a joke.

Yes, I have used Autotune. Not because the vocalist couldn't sing it, but because the budget or schedule didn't allow for fixing it. Or, every blue moon, when the performance is so convincing that I didn't want to lose it.

If you are trying to use these tools as a way of getting around learning to sing, fine. I could give a fuck if you learn anything. Just remember, none of this works live. Once you get in front of an audience, you will still be out of tune and out of time.

 

[Farview]

ps.

i would also like for the people who leave advice to actually have a couple fucking words in songs of their own. two points for munsters!

I would like it if people would take the advice they are given, even if it isn't what they want to hear.

 

[Dogman]

You could go into the MP3 clinic, listen to some stuff, and if you find vocals you like, ask the poster what they did, and used on them.

 

[noisewreck]

Alright, Konrad. Check out Melodyne. In fact you can completely butcher the vocals on a take, but it's OK because you can totally rearrange the melody and timing of what you just sang using this little app... Will give you the illusion of having extra crispy vocals, but tempura it won't be.

 

[Mountainmirrors]

You said you just want to "crisp up the vocals a little bit", so I'm assuming you're talking about compression.

First of all, singing against a blanketed wall will do wonders. Then try some compression. Try for starters:

2.85 ms attack, 41 ms release, 1.82:1 ratio and tweak your threshold until it reads a reduction of 6db.

Then eq: try for shits and giggles a high pass filter at 100 hz, -1.5 db at 250 hz, +2 db at 3k and +1 db at 10k.

Naturally, all voices are different, so my suggestions are just what works on my voice, with my choice of backing sounds, with my mic/pre and in my room.

I hope this is what you were asking about. Cheers!

 

[Farview]

6db of reduction seems a bit much, especially for such a low ratio. But if it works for you, cool.

I usually go with 4:1 but I try not to get any more than 4db of reduction (when someone suprises me). Proper mic technique will make it so you don't need compression to keep the levels in line, so you can then use it to create the sound you want.

 

[noisewreck]

6db of reduction seems a bit much, especially for such a low ratio. But if it works for you, cool.

Interesting you'd say that. I remember reading a couple of years ago (I think in MIX mag) that someone (well known, the name escapes me now) was doing up to 10-12dB reduction on vocals, and was very proud of it too, saying something like "yeah man, don't be afraid to compress the hell out of those vocals". Granted, I suppose it depends on the situation, the desired effect and other factors, but it did seem a bit extreme.

 

[Farview]

6db wouldn't be that much if the ratio was 7:1. But at less than 2:1 the the compresser would never let go...ever. I like to just catch the peaks and leave the vocal alone as much as possible. It also depends on the quality, or more importantly, the transparency of your compressor. Some compressors can do 12db of reduction without harming the vocal, some can't do any more than 2 or 3db without ruining something.

 

[noisewreck]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[DavidK]

im not pulling this out of my ass, an ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL MUSICIAN (singer) told me what makes a good singer

Thats just idiotic/ One musician told you something and it is now gospel?

Opera singers are "good" singers. Try and find one who uses anything...

 

[noisewreck]

Try and find one who uses anything...

Pavarotti... uh... he uses microphones... come to think of it, he should also use Autotune A bit of musicianship wouldn't hurt him either.

 

[mixsit]

Try for starters:

2.85 ms attack, 41 ms release, 1.82:1 ratio and tweak your threshold until it reads a reduction of 6db.

Mountainmirrors, I'm really curious. 2.85 ms, 1.82? Man that's some kind of fine.
Wayne

 

[Mountainmirrors]

I use the Voxengo Marquis. For some reason, it just has a sound to it at lower levels that few others do. This is a good thing.

Anyways, ymmv. I've gone from both controls at 1 o'clock on the UAD-1 LA2A to that setting on the Marquis and it sounds great.

6db of reduction on the highest peaks is not a lot.

 

[dkelley]

A nice hardware compressor will help easily with a vocal take, a software compressor will be also very useful but is somewhat harder to get a good sound from. Once you get the settings just right in software though it'll be perfect for you and can improve a vocal take immensely.

My theory about why software compressors aren't as easy to setup as hardware versions is to do with levels of signals and how software plugins interpret input levels. If you have a quiet vocal take you will have to bring up it's virtual level BEFORE you put it into the plugin compressor or it will sound like crap. In hardware that is more often a non-issue, the levels coming into the compressor are generally something we try to fix out of habit anyway. Within Sonar for example, you have to imagine that there is an out to a hardware compressor from your mixer, where Sonar skips the cords and mixer out levels to go to the compressor. How do you get around that? Make up for the level problems some other way (increase the audio level of the take using offline editors, add another inline level increaser before the compressor, or use a compressor that has variable input gain and tweak it just right). I've had amazing results from the cheapo cakewalk compressor plugins, just learn to set it up right and you'll be good. However I almost always use higher end software products than the ones that come with my daw software. UAD-1 is amazing, voxengo, kjaerhus, waves, and a few other high end software products really do work great as long as you learn the inherent problems with your daw before expecting perfection.

I hope that's helpful!

Don