From: chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen)
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers
Subject: Re: Noise in recording vocals
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:55:55 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA

In article <1992Apr16.020317.5358@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jdobbs@assistant.beckman.uiuc.edu (Jim Dobbs) writes:
>chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com (Chris Christensen) writes:

(Craig Anderton reference deleted.  It's true but that's not the fish
I'm after today......:-)

The lesson for today was on Vocal Stressing, how to get a nasty vocal
in there.

>>I would suggest that (and you didn't say if you had) you heavily
>>compress your vocal.  When you are doing that patch a graphic, or
>>parametric in BEFORE the conpressor.  Use the EQ to "stress" the
>>important part of your voice (this is where the term _vocal.stressing_
>>comes from and describes this technique).
>
>>Feed the reverb with the compressed/stressed signal.  After you have
>>this printed to tape, double it down to another track through a delay
>>and the EQ/compressor set-up if you think it needs it.....

>Well, I agree with part of this & disagree with part of it.  I guess I
>mostly agree - here goes...

>I guess it depends in part on your tape format & amount of outboard
>gear.  In the studio, the general rule is to almost never print effects
>of any kind - always adding them during mixdown, the reason being that
>if you print a sound with an effect you are permanently stuck with it.

My suggestion was generic,  If you regularly print effects than do so,
if not don't.  And there is no real set standard in the recording
industry.  They have equipment limitations also!

>However, if you have only 4 tracks or know you will have to bounce
>them before you are done, OR if you have a limited number of effects to
>use during mixdown, then you will sometimes HAVE to print an effected
>sound. 

>Compression (especially on vocals) is an exception to these rules, as
>is EQ in most cases - many times the only sound you will want is the
>compressed, EQ'ed sound (again, especially on vocals.)  If you are not
>compressing your vocal at all yet, then you are in for a VERY pleasant
>surprise.  This will make a great deal of difference, as it will bring
>the softest part of the sound up to a high level for better
>signal/noise ratio, while keeping the hottest parts of the program from
>clipping.

The act of compressing on tracking and doing it ALSO on mix down is
common and a realistic way of getting a good vocal in a high density
mix.

>I guess the only thing that worries me about Chris' response is
>something Chris is probably assuming you already know (you probably DO,
>too.)  That is that when you are using an EQ, it is ALWAYS better to
>REDUCE levels than to BOOST levels, as you add noise along with the
>desired content when you boost using an EQ.  On a related subject, I
>think people use EQ way too much - they tend to use it like vitamins
>when they should be using it like medicine.  End of sermonette.

I would agree and disagree with you here too!

EQ should always be used when necessary, period....

And I would agree that some people use too much EQ,  what they really
abuse is "Aural Exciters..."  Used to crispen up a part or an entire
mix......

Vocal Stressing is the specific place where excessive EQ'ing will
bwnefit the product.  Remember that it's the Vocal, it's not always
full up, right?

And an important note,  I did suggest the second pass through a delay
and compressing again.....

The thing that people get way to concerned about is noise build up in
a mix.  Look to the performance FIRST then work to clean up something,
or if possible think about it in the creative process.  Just don't
hamper the creative process with to many technical constraints!!!!

-- 
Chris Christensen                  The opinions I express are my own,
chrisc@gold.gvg.tek.com            and sometimes they are wrong!
916-478-3419 FAX 916-478-3887      After all, I AM only human.
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers