|
The Steel Guitar Forum Store
Visit Our Catalog for Strings, Instruction, Music and Accessories |
Click Here to Send a Donation
Steel Guitar Links |
Moderator: Shoshanah Marohn
YES !Daryl Thisdelle wrote: . Last but not least I use the meters.
I am certainly not an expert, but my guess is that the amount/type of compressionnis going to be subjective.Bud Angelotti wrote:I've been watching this thread and picking up as much as I can. Thanks all!
Can any of you give me any pointers as far as the use of compression on the vocals to give them a little punch? Not limiting. Just maybe a starting point to give the vocals a little punch in the mix?
Thanks again !
My 2 cents: I assume by "punch" you mean that the vocal sits perfectly in the mix. That means that the track has been reduced in dynamic range, quiet parts have been brought up while loud parts have been lowered and the track has a quality that makes it seem to jump out of the speakers without being too loud. To assume that it's just compression is an oversimplification. It usually is a combination of compression and fader rides because over compression gets in the way of retaining that liveliness, that "breathing" quality. So a lower ratio, the correct attack and release times , combined with fader rides is a better way than just slamming it. EQ plays a great part as well, especially whether it's pre or post compressor. And distortion in small amounts can really help when it adds musical harmonic content.Rick Schacter wrote:I am certainly not an expert, but my guess is that the amount/type of compressionnis going to be subjective.Bud Angelotti wrote:I've been watching this thread and picking up as much as I can. Thanks all!
Can any of you give me any pointers as far as the use of compression on the vocals to give them a little punch? Not limiting. Just maybe a starting point to give the vocals a little punch in the mix?
Thanks again !
I would think it depends on the singer and the song.
I'll be interested to see what others have to say on this.
I like what Warren Huart does in his videos but I can't help thinking that heis one of those guys that reaches for processing before he even listens and what you end up with in that example is just flat and boring sounding, even maybe but musical? Seriously, if you use a maximizer in addition to your 1176 on your individual tracks to even things out and then run it all into a maximizer in your mixbus and then run the bounce through some mastering plug in for some more maximizing (remember, that's a tool to make things loud, nothing more, and as such it's very destructive) then you shouldn't be surprised that it has that nasty fuzz riding all over the track which is very evident in the finished product at the end of each video. I would caution against using the maxim plug on vocal tracks unless you are going for "that" sound which is so pervasive these days.Rick Schacter wrote: FWIW, here's someone that I've been paying attention to for mix advice.
Maybe this will be helpful to you:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dVTFbuADKTE
Yes Rick, it certainly is.my guess is that the amount/type of compressionnis going to be subjective
I get your point & thanks for posting it. He did make the vocal somewhat better. And Werner's point-
I was going back to an earlier post in the thread where someone, I believe Tony, mentioned a certain amount of compression being used, right from the get-go, as a starting point for steel, and I would like to apply that to the vocal, not to oversimplify, but to simplify a starting point from which to work from.To assume that it's just compression is an oversimplification.
Actually, Bud, this is a "compression" thread in the "recording" section of the forum.Bud Angelotti wrote:
I realize this is a "steel" thread, but to my way of thinking, the vocal is #1.
So it's not just meBob Hoffnar wrote:Interesting... The finished vocal in the vid sounds like that robot voice sound I find intolerable in pop music these days.
I'm not sure what "the mix sits in the vocals" means. When someone says "the vocals sit in the mix" they don't mean that the vocal is in there somewhere, it means that it sits on top without sounding separate from the mix. The entire mix needs "glue" to hold it together while allowing for the important parts to be up front without seeming too loud. Compression, especially bus compression is often used to serve that function but it has it's drawbacks.Bud Angelotti wrote:... The vocal tells the story, literally. The vocals don't "sit in the mix". The mix, sits in the vocals. But again, thats just me & my ears.
My point is that the assumption that compression alone will give you the "punch" you seek is an oversimplification, not the procedure itself. There's nothing wrong with tracking with compression every time IF you know what you're doing and it fits the genre. If you have a great quality outboard compressor and you like what it does to your signal then by all means, print it. My concern is that one ends up using compression on every vocal track all the time. If , on the other hand you could print uncompressed (if ITB there really is no advantage of committing compression to the track) and use fadermoves (automation) and only small amounts of compression you might find the result more pleasing, I know I do.Bud Angelotti wrote:... And Werner's point-I was going back to an earlier post in the thread where someone, I believe Tony, mentioned a certain amount of compression being used, right from the get-go, as a starting point for steel, and I would like to apply that to the vocal, not to oversimplify, but to simplify a starting point from which to work from.To assume that it's just compression is an oversimplification.
