Is there any other reason to compress vocals other than to control the transients? I recorded my vocals recently. When I finally got a comp good enough I individually reduced the gain of each wave that was too high. When finished I thought it sounded pretty level. I know this is time consuming and tedious, especially if I'm the singer, but is this wrong? Thanks in advance for any input.
To compress or not to compress
- Thread starter murf214@
- Start date
Some people dont compress vocals at all, they just ride the fader, some compress the crap out of them to make them more smoooooth I guess. I just did that to a mix about 5 minutes ago and I think it sounds pretty good. Riding the fader is kind of like compressing, the idea is to smooth out and get a more consistent level. Fader riding still lets you have more dynamic range. What your doing is killing the synamic range, sort of like a compressor or limiter really. It should be ok as long as it sounds good in the end.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I would rather highly suggest manually tweaking volume before compression of any kind. With simple volume automation as it is now, it almost seems ridiculous not to.
"Back in the day" we had to do it on faders - And if you screwed up, on any fader, you started the mix over again. And again, and again.
Now you can just click a few times and draw a line? It's a no-brainer.
*Then* compress if needed. It'll be much more effective than it would be responding to extreme transients.
"Back in the day" we had to do it on faders - And if you screwed up, on any fader, you started the mix over again. And again, and again.
Now you can just click a few times and draw a line? It's a no-brainer.
*Then* compress if needed. It'll be much more effective than it would be responding to extreme transients.
Seafroggys
Well-known member
the human voice is generally more expressive in terms of volume than, say, an overdriven guitar. You may be belting some rock vocals, but it will fade in and out constantly against a rhythm section. Compression makes it even out, though volume automation is a good idea.
Saying the same, different version- Volume automation/ridding is (can be) the more natural sounding tack, vs comp. (.. light comp can sound pretty 'natural too, etc, YMMV, not available in all.. )
Also suggest consider where the automation is- if there is also going to be comp on the track. Pre-fader/comp/insert (trim'/gain' point?) is a different impact on how the track behaves vs post comp automation.
Also suggest consider where the automation is- if there is also going to be comp on the track. Pre-fader/comp/insert (trim'/gain' point?) is a different impact on how the track behaves vs post comp automation.
Maybe this question is a little off topic, but it's still related to vocal compression (or generally signal compression):
What's the difference between compressing the signal INTO the software DAW (through a hardware compressor while recording), and recording the raw signal uncompressed and then using a software compressor VST or such?
Maybe there's a different combination of volume automation ~ compression you could use?
What's the difference between compressing the signal INTO the software DAW (through a hardware compressor while recording), and recording the raw signal uncompressed and then using a software compressor VST or such?
Maybe there's a different combination of volume automation ~ compression you could use?
iownrocknroll
New member
I'm a firm believer of all three techniques used together.
To sound "comerical these days, you almost always have to use combined vocal takes.....that being said.
For a lead vocal, I will normally track with some light compression, somewhere around 2:1 shooting for around 3-5 db of gain reduction. Something to keep things level.
I dig the Waves C4 comp plugin for each vocal track, It'll allow you to control 4 specific ranges of the voice, work well to thicken the low end and the desser in there is nice too. the 300hz to 3khz range i normally shoot for another 2-4db of gain reduction(depending on the mix)
I'll also through a peek limiter on my vocal buss just to grab anything going crazy, set that for 1 db of gain reduction.
I'll also "tune" my vocals in Melodyne and add or remove some amplitude to specific words or parts of words.
Thirdly, I will do fader automation for more dynamic parts(intro, bridge, outro)
Compressor(in and out of the box) add characteristcs that amplitude adjustment and automation don't. 2nd and 3rd harmonics, bringing up the "breaths" taiming pops, transformers, tubes, hot plate voltage, add alot.
I'll my mixes to sound "commercial" I want my mixes to sound like "the killers, fall out boy, butch walker, pink, paramore"
that's how the industry is going these days.....if you wanna make cash
To sound "comerical these days, you almost always have to use combined vocal takes.....that being said.
For a lead vocal, I will normally track with some light compression, somewhere around 2:1 shooting for around 3-5 db of gain reduction. Something to keep things level.
I dig the Waves C4 comp plugin for each vocal track, It'll allow you to control 4 specific ranges of the voice, work well to thicken the low end and the desser in there is nice too. the 300hz to 3khz range i normally shoot for another 2-4db of gain reduction(depending on the mix)
I'll also through a peek limiter on my vocal buss just to grab anything going crazy, set that for 1 db of gain reduction.
I'll also "tune" my vocals in Melodyne and add or remove some amplitude to specific words or parts of words.
Thirdly, I will do fader automation for more dynamic parts(intro, bridge, outro)
Compressor(in and out of the box) add characteristcs that amplitude adjustment and automation don't. 2nd and 3rd harmonics, bringing up the "breaths" taiming pops, transformers, tubes, hot plate voltage, add alot.
I'll my mixes to sound "commercial" I want my mixes to sound like "the killers, fall out boy, butch walker, pink, paramore"
that's how the industry is going these days.....if you wanna make cash
NL5
Unpossible!
jmorris
New member
seems to me if you ride the fader or bring down peaks after recording your just acting as limiter. Either is fine,whatever gets you the results.The end result is you are trying to smooth and level out the signal.Unless you are wanting to use compression as an effect like the vocals in Beatle's Lady Madona....very compressed. If you are riding a fader on input during recording I might suggest using a compressor on the way in instead.For me, I would not want to sit there and ride a fader ,also if you become distracted and move the fader,gain knob or whichever. too much either way you could have a problem.With digital today as it it you also should be able to run the input low enough not to have to worry about clips.The idea that you have to run every signal maxed hot is very "old school".
jmorris
New member
Maybe this question is a little off topic, but it's still related to vocal compression (or generally signal compression):
What's the difference between compressing the signal INTO the software DAW (through a hardware compressor while recording), and recording the raw signal uncompressed and then using a software compressor VST or such?
Maybe there's a different combination of volume automation ~ compression you could use?
very good question! The difference is if you run a compressor into your DAW as you record and DON'T know what you are doing you have the risk of screwing it up and not being able to undo it. If you run singal into DAW clean, no compression then use compression after in the mix stage, any errors ( errors being way too high ratio.threshold etc.)with that compression can be fix,modified,tweaked to your hearts content...no big deal,non destructive!
NL5
Unpossible!
Just want to throw out another two cents.
I think 9 out of 10 people on this BBS can only recognize the sound of bad compression. I bet most have know idea that the vocals they hear on the radio have had multiple passes of pretty hard compression. That chic from Paramore has just unbelievable levels of compression. Even something like the Shins WTNA vocals - they got hit with a bluestripe at probably 8-1 and 6-8 DB of reduction - just on the way in. (That comp is the BEST sounding comp I have ever heard - if they ever sell it, I'll cut both my kidneys out with a butter knife to get it) It was then compressed by the 2". Compressed by the bluestripe again during mixdown. Compressed a bit by the buss comp. And that's at a minimum......
I think 9 out of 10 people on this BBS can only recognize the sound of bad compression. I bet most have know idea that the vocals they hear on the radio have had multiple passes of pretty hard compression. That chic from Paramore has just unbelievable levels of compression. Even something like the Shins WTNA vocals - they got hit with a bluestripe at probably 8-1 and 6-8 DB of reduction - just on the way in. (That comp is the BEST sounding comp I have ever heard - if they ever sell it, I'll cut both my kidneys out with a butter knife to get it) It was then compressed by the 2". Compressed by the bluestripe again during mixdown. Compressed a bit by the buss comp. And that's at a minimum......
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I always attack peaks either with automation or - more likely for me - manual editing. That doesn't mean ALL peaks, however, as even with the ease of today's NLE software, it's still time-intensive (and mentally fatiguing over time) to automate or manually edit a few hundred peaks per song.
The idea I follow is to use manual editing to tame the "wildest" peaks - rarely more than a half-dozen to a dozen per song if the tracking is good - which stick up a couple of dB or more above the "average" peaks. Sometimes after looking at a rough 2mix, I'll go back to individual tracks and knock down otherwise average-only peaks in multiple tracks that when combined in the mixdown cause runaway peaks.
Then, and only then, do I decide if I want or need any compression for effect on top of that.
I prefer volume editing over using a limiter for these purposes because they tend to have more "natural" curves than most limiters and sound more transparent than limiting to me.
G.
The idea I follow is to use manual editing to tame the "wildest" peaks - rarely more than a half-dozen to a dozen per song if the tracking is good - which stick up a couple of dB or more above the "average" peaks. Sometimes after looking at a rough 2mix, I'll go back to individual tracks and knock down otherwise average-only peaks in multiple tracks that when combined in the mixdown cause runaway peaks.
Then, and only then, do I decide if I want or need any compression for effect on top of that.
I prefer volume editing over using a limiter for these purposes because they tend to have more "natural" curves than most limiters and sound more transparent than limiting to me.
G.
iownrocknroll
New member
I agree!!!!
COMPRESSION, COMPRESSION, HOW WE LOVE OUR VENOM!
You almost have to do it anymore, there are some fantastic compressers out there. Art VLA for the cheap, distressor it fantastic, anything by Manley.
I have an old Sony 1/4inch gets some use too(for the strokes, hives, nyc garage sound)
I'm saying depending on the band, depending on the song......since DAW's don't "give you" anything, you have almost have to compress on the way in. hell, i compress on the way in for everything but electric guitars, and even sometimes I'll run them through a comp, or a EQ just for the character the electronics can add.
COMPRESSION, COMPRESSION, HOW WE LOVE OUR VENOM!
You almost have to do it anymore, there are some fantastic compressers out there. Art VLA for the cheap, distressor it fantastic, anything by Manley.
I have an old Sony 1/4inch gets some use too(for the strokes, hives, nyc garage sound)
I'm saying depending on the band, depending on the song......since DAW's don't "give you" anything, you have almost have to compress on the way in. hell, i compress on the way in for everything but electric guitars, and even sometimes I'll run them through a comp, or a EQ just for the character the electronics can add.
If you do something and it sounds good, you are doing it right.
Just a heads up in case ya didn't know there's edit mode (and hey, not that I never jibberished out' then read what I actually wrote- my sh*t gets fixed a lot
Anyhow, there's a big downs side I think to 'just do such and such'. It's sort of like saying peaking' or not going in the red is the done deal. Sort puts 'problem at hand', sound and style, the end result as secondary. Smacking a limiter is a whole different animal than the ten ways you might need to go to get there.
Last edited:
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Why would you normalize anything? Especially a single track - That's more or less a "really, tremendously bad" idea when you think about it, no...?
And if you're even close to clipping your converter on the way in, you've got much bigger problems than limiting...
And if you're even close to clipping your converter on the way in, you've got much bigger problems than limiting...
Last edited:
IDP
New member
i dont use a limiter tostop clipping i use it to normilize ...the limiter i have lets me normilize to and volume so my 2 main vocal track i limit to -6 .. no where close to clipping and already at the level i want it, this is what the limiter does for me.. but in the cents that your thinking im using yes bad idea very bad idea