vocal effects question

  • Thread starter Thread starter blindman jones
  • Start date Start date
EDAN said:
Errrr, ok. So is it a law that they are to be used solely for dynamic processors? If so you have a lot of pro producers breaking it! Part of the problem as noted already is that most home recording people use low end effects unit which don't have seperate wet and dry controls. You can still certainly use the inserts anyway, but having a better effects unit with seperate wet and dry controls makes using the inserts the same as using the sends/rtrs.
Click to expand...
I have never seen an effects processor that doesn't have a wet/dry control. One of the reasons people don't do it is because you can't (for example) put a stereo reverb on a snare drum by inserting it on the mono track.

But again, as far as giving advice to this guy, with his equipment, inserts are not the way to go.
 
I just read somewhere, " If you add a voice processor to your setup thinking it will mix your tracks themselves, or even make it easier for you to mix them, you'd be fooling yourself - you'd just have a more exspensive recording that doesn't sit well in the mix."

I belive I'll read up on a mic processor for compression Etc.
Other than that mic. techniques and capturing the best recordings.
 
EDAN said:
Errrr, ok. So is it a law that they are to be used solely for dynamic processors? If so you have a lot of pro producers breaking it! Part of the problem as noted already is that most home recording people use low end effects unit which don't have seperate wet and dry controls. You can still certainly use the inserts anyway, but having a better effects unit with seperate wet and dry controls makes using the inserts the same as using the sends/rtrs.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify as inserts CAN be used for efx but not recommended.

Though you can patch a time-efx processor (such as dig delays, a 'Verb unit or a multi-efx processor) into a channel insert, there a several reasons not to do so. 1st, you have to adjust the proc'sors onboard wet/dry mix ctl to st the level of effect you desire. Many efx proc'sors contain an inversely proportionate wet/dry mix ctl. This means when you incr the dry output level, you also decrease the wet level and vice-verse. That type of control may be suitable for mono efx like chorus and flanging but generally, you want a fixed
50/50 mix of wet & dry. However, it is extremely difficult to adjust the mix on delays or 'Verbs in a channel insert if your processor doesn't allow independent control of both the wet & dry output levels.

For example, you want to raise the 'Verb level on a vocal track during mixdown w/o decreasing the amount the signal's dry level in the mix. The efx proc'sor inversely proportionate mix ctl won't enable you to do that, becuase incr'sing the wet using that ctl will lower the dry at the same time, defeating your intended purpose. Also, if you have fader-automation on your mixer, recalling 'Verb scenes/levels is much easier on the boards aux-ret faders than
performing this function manually thru inserts.
Although the best way to process individual trks w. 'Verb, echo and chorus is by using the aux sends, if an xtra efx unit is ever needed for just 1 track, a channel insert can be used. A mono effect can be ret'd to the board's insert-ret jack and the efx processor's wet/dry ctl can be used to certain degree to set levels. It's not the best way, but it's better than not having any more aux sends/rets left.

EDIT>>>>>

I forgot to add there's one catch mono efx in a channel insert; unless the track's dry signal returns to it's channel insert, you will not hear any audio on the original channel, because the mixer's insert send is basically normaled to it's insert return. If the normal is broken by plugging a cable into the insert jack and the signal is not ret'd to the insert jack, the channel's dry signal will not reappear on that channel fader (unless you patch your insert ret/send to a half normaling patch bay). Simply too much trouble using the channel inserts for efx processors.
 
Last edited:
Misterqcue

Good point I just read that in my manual.

( " You will not hear any audio on the original channel " )
 
One way that i've found to bring vocals out is double tracking. As long as you do it well, it really thickens the vocals. You could also mult the vox track, delay the multed track slightly, it will achieve the same (albeit more mechanical sounding) effect.
 
brendandwyer said:
You could also mult the vox track, delay the multed track slightly, it will achieve the same (albeit more mechanical sounding) effect.
Click to expand...

Not really. It just sounds like the vocal track is louder with some delay. (Or if the delay is short enough - some phasing). There is no substitute for real double tracking.

You can get a lame approximation of double tracking mechanically, but you need to do a little detuning as well as delay to make it sound like anything decent.

An interesting and more effective variation on the multed lead vocal technique has been called the "Motown Exciter Effect" and has been discussed in the past on some other audio forums.

You can read about it here:

http://www.recordinginstitute.com/R2KREQ/excomp.htm


Here is an excerpt that sums it up:

With the Motown mix approach there were problems. If you wanted the lyrics to be heard you had to use a lot of compression on the vocal so that the the softer words could still be heard over the higher-level music. In addition you boosted the "presence range" (around 5 kHz) with an equalizer. The only problem with this is that it took the life & natural dynamics out of the vocal.

Lawrence Horn came up with a brilliant idea. He took the vocal and split the signal so that it when to 2 console channels. Before the vocal signal went to the second channel, it went through a compressor. Now he had two channels of the vocal - one compressed and one uncompressed. On the uncompressed vocal he added very little with the equalizer and he added the reverb. On the compressed channel, he compressed the h**l out of it and added a ton of high-frequency equalization. What he would do is bring up the "natural" channel to full level to get the basic natural sound on the vocal. On the other compressed and equalized channel, he brought this up just enough to add excitement and presence to the vocal sound.

The result was nothing less than amazing. In the mix the vocal sounded very natural and bright. None of the music ever "stepped on" the vocal and you could hear each and every syllable in the lyrics. The vocal never got lost.


Final note: there is no reason to limit the use of this technique to vocals. But you would not want to use it on more than one or two tracks in any one mix.
 
Normally you wouldn't. Lead vocal is usually straight up. The Motown technique is a way of making the vocal more present - not to try and get a special or weird effect - so the 2nd channel is also straight up.

There's no law that says you can't play with the panning, but the original intent was to be transparent, not tricky.
 
This is also called 'New York compression' and 'LA compression' depending on where you are from and/or what instrument you are doing it to.
 
I was just researching the web and just read that very same article!!
( Motown Exciter )
I wrote it down and tacked it to my wall - Pretty Weird???!!
It got me thinking on that subject or time era.
The recordings back then are worth researching.
I like old metal - Blues - to some Country, But listened recently to some old
ETTA JAMES, Man did they do that right!! Everyone says Aretha Franklin has "the voice" (and she does, one of the best R&B ) but you listen to her first couple of albums, I don't think they did her voice justice. It's way back in the mix, ANYWAY, their recordings sounded GREAT way back then and here we are today trying harder than ever, with today's equipment!!
Makes me think of learning basic fundamentals more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top