vocal processing tips...

  • Thread starter Thread starter bcfromfl
  • Start date Start date
B

bcfromfl

New member
I appreciate the help I've gotten from this board -- thanks to all. I have another question, that I hope is not too difficult to answer given my novice understanding of recording techniques!

I searched this board, and also the web, for processing tips for vocals. I have an excellent mic, running through an Apogee Duet into my Mac with Logic 9. My processing chain is like this: EQ (bass rolled off, slight boost to highs), compressor, limiter, ensemble (turned way, way down), reverb (with wet turned down as well), and a light addition of exciter to add back in a bit of sparkle. The result is good, and very "transparent", but not exactly what I'm looking for.

I read about copying my track (two times, and also four), cutting all frequencies below ~300hz, compressed 20:1, pitch shifting, adding slight delay, panning hard left and right, etc. But when I tried this stuff, it didn't result in what I would call a pleasing effect. I had the copied tracks turned down very low so I could barely hear them, and when I did A->B comparisons, it was so subtle as to not be worth the trouble. Then a louder vocal would come along, and they would become more noticeable with chorused harmonics. Just not what I'm looking for.

I also read that some use doubled vocals...although that this technique sounds like...well...doubled vocals! That's certainly not my goal either.

Below are two YouTube links that represent what I'm looking for. Aside from the obvious skill of Robert Goulet and Brian Stokes Mitchell, what sort of processing do you think is being used here? There is a "smoothing" across transients, and a "richness" that make these recordings a joy to listen to. It's more than just the quality of the microphone, or their training. Am I simply hearing a million-dollar reverb?

Thanks much!

-Bruce

Robert Goulet, "If Ever I Would Leave You" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwfYHVJHMOA

Brian Stokes Mitchell, "Dulcinea" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLsQvCKG58k

Edit: I fixed the links, I hope!
 
Last edited:
Both sound like a great vocalist in a great room and little more. The Goulet track is probably 5 feet from a ribbon and the Mitchell a bit closer, I'd imagine on a ribbon again or some relatively light moving coil.

I work with a lot of Broadway vocalists... Usually live-to-two-track (which is how most of the older recordings were made, probably the Goulet, probably not the Mitchell), many times actually live in concert (which severely limits my options). Almost always a ribbon or other dynamic for the vocalist, perhaps a RE20 or SM7b (personal favorite). Heck, I've done a bunch with a wireless 58 - and occasionally I'll pull a LDC for a breathier female or quiet male (but they're usually far too detailed for the task otherwise). I rarely compress (occasionally a 1.1:1 leveler if someone is a little whacky), rarely EQ other than perhaps a HPF.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, John -- extremely helpful! I just purchased a MikTek CV4 (tube/transformer LDC) a few weeks ago, and it's most definitely a very sweet mic. Very interesting that you're using ribbons (and dynamics!) -- I didn't know that they were a popular choice for commercial vocals.

I've been using the default EQ setting in Logic for "male ambient vocal," which has the bass completely rolled off. Perhaps I need to bring it back, and that will add the richness I'm missing. I'm pretty sure I tried that already, but I'll give it another go.

-Bruce

Here's a studio recording from Nathan Gunn -- same smooth, rich sound as the others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmGQBjEptR0

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
bcfromfl said:
Here's a studio recording from Nathan Gunn -- same smooth, rich sound as the others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmGQBjEptR0

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
That's not anywhere near the "same" smooth, rich sound as the other two (which were not anywhere near the same as each other).

Ribbons *are* dynamics. Nothing unusual about using dynamics on vocals... Happens all the time. I use condensers far less than dynamics for most vocal applications. Most engineers I know do also. I'm still not sure where the whole "you use condensers for vocals" thing came from (except rap videos where they always rent Sony 800's and Bluebirds - and advertisements...).

The Gunn vid - Yes - He's one of those guys (and that's one of those songs where) I'd throw a condenser on -- You have three completely and utterly different recording and vocalizing types so far with these three clips - really hard to know what you're shooting for at this point. The recording styles are completely different, the vocal presence in the recordings are completely different, the spatiality (whether natural or synthetic) is completely different -- The only thing in common is three rather wonderful baritones.

The rest of your chain might be some sort of help - The room is obviously going to have a gigantic (GIGANTIC) impact on the recording with that mic also...

EQ presets... Forget it. Use what you need.
 
Thanks again, John. Gosh, I thought I had a good ear, but I'm envious of how you picked out nuances that I missed...I'm trying to paint the forest, and you see the different species of trees in the forest. I gotta get to that point, as well as understand more of what you do!

If I had to choose between the three recordings, I suppose Nathan's is the closest to what I'm trying to achieve. I was relieved that you confirmed that you would put a condenser on him! At least I'm doing SOMETHING right! :)

I appreciate you taking the time to share a bit of what you know. Thanks again!

-Bruce
 
It's still all very 'program dependent' -- The Gunn recording is very sparsely instrumented, lots of room for subtle detail - As long as the space is up to the task, capture that detail along with the other instruments.

The Mitchell recording sounds a lot like an "Original Soundtrack" type recording -- A lot of those were mobile rigs right in the venue (easier to get everyone to perform where they're performing). Split the stage, mic the pit, put the principals far upstage and go (you might notice a lot of 'original Broadway soundtracks' are very 'dry' and simple recordings without much 'polish' applied just for that reason - Many were recorded live, sans action). He might be chewing on a hand-held 58 on that one. In any case, there's a lot of very close-mic'ing of most elements.

Contrasting that with the Goulet recording -- That's a big voice in either (A) a big space or (B) a space 'created' to match the orchestra's space. Very easily could be a live-off-the-floor recording or a vocal overdub off the same soundstage. Could be another soundtrack recording - But this one is very spacious - Lots of room, nothing close-mic'd in there, but still has a warm, detailed but slightly 'compact' sound like you'd get several feet from a nice ribbon.

Moral: No one mic is best for everything.
 
Many ways to add warmth and richness to vocals, but the key is getting a good vocal recording to begin with. I don't EQ or compress vocals when recording. You can always add that later, and you won't really know what it needs until it's in the mix. One thing about compression, you can't take it away once it's there.

Things I've had the best luck with are:
Two vocal takes and mix 'em both in
Saturation plug ins
Ping pong echo with short echo times used lightly
Even a rapid panning plug can add some barely perceivable movement and interest.
Processing through gear with transformers and or tubes
Soft clip plugs
 
Again, thank you, John, for your detailed post! I'm so glad I asked this question, because I've learned so much from this thread!

I started out with a KSM32, but it left me dissatisfied. Its flat response is good, but it has a tendency to impart a harshness/brittleness on vocals that becomes unpleasant to listen to quickly. Another issue I discovered is that it sits back in the mix, and I had trouble lifting it out front. The MikTek I mentioned is wonderful...so smooth and silky...and it sits right out in front like it's suspended from a cloud. (How's that for visualization!) The sensitivity and level of detail it captures is amazing too, and opens up a whole new dimension of vocalization possibilities for me.

The only thing I'm missing right now is a certain "je ne sais quois," a bit more thickness to my vocals, I guess. I know it's in the processing, as I'm positive that the mic is doing its job. Next time I fire up my Mac (my vintage G5 sounds like low-flying aircraft!), I'll flatten the EQ and see if that helps.

Thanks, too, guitar zero, for those tips. All my vocal processing is downstream, so the original recording is always preserved. All I have to do is delete the settings from the channel strip and I'm back to raw audio. I'll dig into the EFX plugins I've got, and see if there's something you mentioned that I can use. One thing I really need is that compressor -- I've got a big voice, and I think I'm around 5:1 right now so the softer parts sit right in the mix.

-Bruce
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top