vocal mic tricks

[therigaletto]

anyone got any good tricks of the trade to get that nice natural "feels like the singers right next to you" sound? Im using the Blue Bluebird through PT 7.0 with Waves bundle and a 4x4 clearsonic vocal booth. Thanks!

[Luke V]

A good compressor. It will bring the vocal right up front. Try whatever you have lying around.

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

if u want that 'upfront' sound, it's really important that U have the wall behind the mic well damped.
use the waves renaissance compressor.

[thesedaze]

Use a nice preamp w/ a good amount of clean gain. For the mix itself, a compressor would help, but don't overdo it. I've had more success getting this 'effect' with a good mic/preamp combo rather than a compressor.

A compressor in this case would be POST tracking, as a compressor during tracking is usually used for limiting purposes.

[LSchefman]

A singer who knows how to "work" a mic is also a big help.

[thesedaze]

Definately good advice there! Also knowing the characteristics of that particular mic's polar pattern can help determine where to situate the singer in front of the mic, and how far to back off for loud parts, etc. Most of that stuff can occur with trial and error, but if you don't have a lot of time to waste, take a look at the stats for the mic.

[MichaelK]

A singer who knows how to "work" a mic is also a big help.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

You get the "right next to you" sound from being right next to the mic. But there's an art to it; a singer can't just plant himself/herself up close all the time.

Rent the movie Being Mick. It's a documentary shot in the late 90s when he was recording a solo album. There are a couple of scenes of Mick working a mic for his master takes that are an education in themselves. It's a master at work, well worth seeing, and you'll get a feel for what I'm saying.

Compression is great, I always use compression on a vocal, but what it does is even out levels. It doesn't make a vocal sound up close and personal when it was recorded at a distance. George Martin has said that John Lennon was a master at working the mic up close - and they had one of the best vocal compressors in history.

[therigaletto]

Great advice guys! So is the general conssensus to Compress POST tracking? Also what kind of Preamps is everyone using? Thanks guys!

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

unless U have a really great hardware compressor and know what sound U are looking for and are happy with the sound U are tracking w/, go w/ compressing after. if U only have software compressors, there is no need to track w/ compression and it will only tax the resources of Ur computer (i'm assuming U're using a computer DAW) to do so.
preamps?
groove tubes, great river, chandler, avalon, manley, d.w.fearn, focusrite into apogee AD/DA16X w/ dangerous music 2buss summing.

[MichaelK]

I track vocals with some compression and compress after, too.

[hw2nw]

let the singer track with some reverb on his/her voice...it's a real confidence booster for most. You can always take the plugin out later.

[loudboy]

Great advice guys! So is the general conssensus to Compress POST tracking? Also what kind of Preamps is everyone using? Thanks guys!

Sorry, I think you'll find that the vast majority of folks track vocals with a compressor. Not a lot, I usually use 3:1, with maybe 4-5 dB of GR if they get really loud. This tames the dynamic range, and gives you a nicer signal. Then you can spank it during mixdown. The lead vocal is still the ONLY thing that gets analog signal processing at mixtime at our place, other than summing. It's the best/easiest way to get that sound you're talking about.

For $175 you can get an RNC, which'll put you right there sonically, if you just have a home studio. Next step up (a big one) is a Distressor or 1176.

We've been liking either a Soundelux E-47 or Elux 251, into either an API, GR MP-2MH or MP1-NV, into a Purple MC77 (1176 clone) for vox lately, although it depends completely upon the singer. We've used everything in the studio to track a vocal, at one time or another. There's really no rules, just suggestions... <g>

Loudboy

[elambo]

Actually, most people I know don't compress going in. With the boost in quality gear over the past 5 years it isn't necessary anymore to hit the convertors so hard - make it up in the box and you won't lose any definition. If recording at 16bit - sure. At 24 there's no reason to risk a poorly-set compressor on input that can't be re-expanded.

For that close sound, I stay clear of any reverb and make sure there's an adequate amount of high end, adding it in if necessary. And an aggressive compressor can help. That and the high end helps bring up the breaths (literally, the breathing) which the mind perceives as "close."

[MichaelK]

>> Not a lot, I usually use 3:1, with maybe 4-5 dB of GR if they get really loud. This tames the dynamic range, and gives you a nicer signal. Then you can spank it during mixdown.

That sounds about right. I try to keep it to an average of 3 dB GR at most, 5 - 6 only in "emergencies." I find a little bit at various stages sounds better for voice than a lot at any one stage.

FWIW, I'll just reiterate that a voice singing softly sounds different from a voice singing at normal levels, and if you want to capture it right, you move in close - or better yet, have the singer move in close. If you want a close-miked sound for anything else, you put the mic up close, so why would this be different?

[brad347]

FWIW, I'll just reiterate that a voice singing softly sounds different from a voice singing at normal levels, and if you want to capture it right, you move in close - or better yet, have the singer move in close. If you want a close-miked sound for anything else, you put the mic up close, so why would this be different?

When talking about getting up close on the mic you have to consider proximity effect if you are using a cardioid microphone, which is something nobody has mentioned yet.


As far as compressing on the way in, everything i've ever been taught is that it's a better idea not to if you don't have to.

[MichaelK]

When talking about getting up close on the mic you have to consider proximity effect if you are using a cardioid microphone, which is something nobody has mentioned yet.

Actually, I rarely have mine in a cardioid pattern. But that's part of working the mic too, using it if it's there.

[loudboy]

As far as compressing on the way in, everything i've ever been taught is that it's a better idea not to if you don't have to.

From Gearslutz, re: vocal chains and that "in your face, modern sound"...

A buddy of mine did a bunch of the Clarkson stuff, and I know he used his Soundelux 251 into what I can only guess is something like a Summit TLA or CL1B/La2a as I know he prefers those types of comps for tracking that type of singer (as opposed to 1176, etc.).

U47 -> Neve 1073 -> Urei 1176 -> LA2A -> Apogee converter -> Pro Tools

Something I read about the Avril recordings:The Voc-Combo on her first Hit was U87/1073/Distressor.

Any large diaphragm Cap mic from £600 up should do the trick. Try any Focusrite ISA pre into a tfpro P38 compressor set to the LA2A mode, and like the previous guy said compress the living day lights out of it! Thats why its important to get a nice sounding comp.

I've been using the U99 lately with either the Avalon 737 or the GR MP2-NV... and my compressors vary... same as EQ's..

I'm using a Manley Reference through a Portico and RNC.

U 47 Tube or Sony 800 ... vintage Neve channel strip... 2 fader compressor in the middle set up [ride the input to compressor ride the output to storage medium] ..3-5 Db compression max and then process it as you like LATER..this method works with all types of music and gives a clean very workable and smooth vocal recording when done correctly..

I'm not quite sure, but I think we used one of my U87s, again through the Hardy M-1 (the only pres I had at the time) and the Neve compressor

I guess these guys don't know what they're doing... <g>

It's all part of building the sound you want. Also, the way the mic/pre/comp responds is something that can't be duplicated after the fact. Most modern vocals are hit really hard, if you do it in stages, it's a lot more palatable.

Loudboy

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

As far as compressing on the way in, everything i've ever been taught is that it's a better idea not to if you don't have to.

i can certainly see this if one were recording an orchestral ensemble or jazz or bluegrass. pop and rock recording is all about smoke and mirrors. in analog times it was not uncommon to hit the tape hard on vocal tracks to give it presence and an up-front sound. likewise with modern, digital recording with artists like tori amos, aimee mann, john mayer. it is inconceivable that their vocal sound is achieved by any other method than compression during tracking and mixing.
it certainly requires more than a modicum of experience, cojones and a clear vision of how one sees the entire track coming together when the complete multi-track has been recorded. i think that a fairly decent hardware compressor is part of the equation. some piece of grainy sounding, prosumer grade box with a tube operating at sub par voltages ain't gonna give up the goods. it's all about crafting the sound that goes into the DAW with the foresight that one is gonna process the sound even further during mixdown.
if the only decent compressors one has are software, i think it prudent to hold off on compression until mixdown. even then, to get an up-front, modern vocal sound out of software it's usally better to use two compressors of differing colours used in more subtle ways that to use a lot of gain reduction on one. my personal preference when working this way is to use a a very distinctive sounding comp like the waves ren or PSP vintage warmer followed by a far more neutral comp.
in the end it comes down to whatever the individual can make work to achieve the desired results. same as it has always been.

[MichaelK]

As far as compressing on the way in, everything i've ever been taught is that it's a better idea not to if you don't have to.

I kinda missed this last time...

I'll just say this: I don't know anyone who doesn't. Just out of curiosity, where were you taught this and who taught it?

[therigaletto]

I kinda missed this last time...

I'll just say this: I don't know anyone who doesn't. Just out of curiosity, where were you taught this and who taught it?

So would you use software comp during tracking?

[elambo]

Other than quoting gearslutz, what is the science behind the advantages of a compressor before the A/D vs. putting the compressor directly after the A/D? "Because other people do" is certainly an answer, but not very informative. If there's a good reason I'd be happy to try it.

[Denyle_Guitars]

Other than quoting gearslutz, what is the science behind the advantages of a compressor before the A/D vs. putting the compressor directly after the A/D? "Because other people do" is certainly an answer, but not very informative. If there's a good reason I'd be happy to try it.

Because the A/D will clip before most other devices in the chain (and in a bad way). Or someone might want to push the preamp or compressor for a certain sound.

[MichaelK]

So would you use software comp during tracking?

No. They degrade the signal and there's no point when you can do software compression any time. I mean before tape or AD converters.

When I say I don't know anyone who "doesn't" I mean as a matter of policy, belief, religion or whatever.

[elambo]

Because the A/D will clip before most other devices in the chain (and in a bad way). Or someone might want to push the preamp or compressor for a certain sound.
Are you trying to put a compressor BEFORE the mic pre? Otherwise, you're not pushing the preamp any harder with a compressor.

Preventing an A/D from clipping is one reason to limit, not compress, before the A/D. Good point - that's a reason to insert a dynamics processor pre-DAW.

Pushing the compressor for a certain sound can be done post-A/D with equal results while still having the safety of changing compressor settings without affecting the original source. Put a compressor BEFORE and you're stuck with the compressor setting you choose.

[MichaelK]

>> Are you trying to put a compressor BEFORE the mic pre? Otherwise, you're not pushing the preamp any harder with a compressor.

You can push the pre before the compressor and have a stronger signal going into the compressor than you could going directly into the A/D

>> Preventing an A/D from clipping is one reason to limit, not compress, before the A/D.

Why not compress?? Where did you get this from? :confused:

>> Pushing the compressor for a certain sound can be done post-A/D with equal results

If by "equal" you mean "the same," no, the results are not necessarily the same. You can get an overall louder signal to tape using a compressor.

>> Put a compressor BEFORE and you're stuck with the compressor setting you choose.

I think that's a given, but only a problem if you don't have the experience to know what you're doing. If you do, it's better to get at least a little bit on the front end.

Try it some time when there's no money on the line, experiment, play with it. Do several takes of the same section with different thresholds and ratios and see what works and what doesn't. Maybe some singers have different dynamics from others and work the mic differently. Maybe "belters" need different treatment than whisperers. Maybe more or less compression works better on one type of song than another.

[Denyle_Guitars]

Are you trying to put a compressor BEFORE the mic pre? Otherwise, you're not pushing the preamp any harder with a compressor.


The compressor is going to squash any signal that exceeds the threshold, it doesn't really care by how much (ignoring the ratio part for now).

[loudboy]

Are you trying to put a compressor BEFORE the mic pre? Otherwise, you're not pushing the preamp any harder with a compressor.

This is impossible - compressors are line level units...

Loudboy

[elambo]

This is impossible - compressors are line level units...

Loudboy

I wasn't the one who said a compressor would drive the preamp harder, something I knew wasn't possible and part of my point.

[elambo]

The compressor is going to squash any signal that exceeds the threshold, it doesn't really care by how much (ignoring the ratio part for now).

You didn't exactly answer the question.

[elambo]

>> Are you trying to put a compressor BEFORE the mic pre? Otherwise, you're not pushing the preamp any harder with a compressor.

You can push the pre before the compressor and have a stronger signal going into the compressor than you could going directly into the A/D

>> Preventing an A/D from clipping is one reason to limit, not compress, before the A/D.

Why not compress?? Where did you get this from? :confused:

>> Pushing the compressor for a certain sound can be done post-A/D with equal results

If by "equal" you mean "the same," no, the results are not necessarily the same. You can get an overall louder signal to tape using a compressor.

>> Put a compressor BEFORE and you're stuck with the compressor setting you choose.

I think that's a given, but only a problem if you don't have the experience to know what you're doing. If you do, it's better to get at least a little bit on the front end.

Try it some time when there's no money on the line, experiment, play with it. Do several takes of the same section with different thresholds and ratios and see what works and what doesn't. Maybe some singers have different dynamics from others and work the mic differently. Maybe "belters" need different treatment than whisperers. Maybe more or less compression works better on one type of song than another.
yes, yes, I'm well aware of all of the effects of compressors, but what no one mentioned still is what advantage this has BEFORE the A/D. Not once has anyone described how the sonics are improved. Higher output from the mic pre? No advantage. More signal to tape? Not really an advantage in 24bit digital land. If to actual "tape" then yes, there's saturation to talk about.

Why mention that I should try a compressor pre-A/D when there "no money on the line?" You agree that it's a risk then? Yes, it absolutely is. Someone suggested squashing the piss out of vocals on the way in??? Do you think there might be a chance that the producer or someone won't want that at some point during the mix? Yes. Even at mild settings, it's not smart to make these assumptions. Compress after and don't worry.

[Denyle_Guitars]

You didn't exactly answer the question.

OK, I'll elaborate. Let's say you set the ratio @ 4:1. So, a 4 db gain at the preamp will only give you 1 at the back end of the comp. It's conceivable to really push the preamp while maintaining roughly the same volume. That's just one of endless possibilities. You know there aren't any hard and fast rules when it comes to this stuff.

You'll need to ask someone who knows more about converters but as I recall, the dynamic range of the digital side is limited by the bit depth. To process the audio, there has to be min and max baselines, then the audio is scaled to fit. If you compress pre a/d, you actually increase resolution by maximizing the info in each step of the scale. If I'm way off base, I apologize, but I think this is where you'll find the answer to your question. Maybe there's a digital process guru that can explain it better.

[MichaelK]

>> what no one mentioned still is what advantage this has BEFORE the A/D. Not once has anyone described how the sonics are improved. Higher output from the mic pre?

I did, but I'm not going to re-read it for you.

>> No advantage. More signal to tape? Not really an advantage in 24bit digital land. If to actual "tape" then yes, there's saturation to talk about. Why mention that I should try a compressor pre-A/D when there "no money on the line?" You agree that it's a risk then?

It's a risk for you because you're not experienced. I was trying to help you understand and suggest a context in which you could try it for yourself. In other words, I was doing you a favor.

There's no point in "debating" with you because you're belligerent and unwilling to learn. If you want to argue philosophy about things you've read on the internet, please continue with someone else.

[MichaelK]

dynamic range of the digital side is limited by the bit depth. To process the audio, there has to be min and max baselines, then the audio is scaled to fit. If you compress pre a/d, you actually increase resolution by maximizing the info in each step of the scale. If I'm way off base, I apologize

Close enough. :)

[loudboy]

yes, yes, I'm well aware of all of the effects of compressors, but what no one mentioned still is what advantage this has BEFORE the A/D. Not once has anyone described how the sonics are improved.

It's all about the sound of the units interacting. Here's an analogy:

Running your guitar through pedals, and into an amp. If you can tell me that it sounds the same to put a pedal effect, like OD, chorus or delay on a previously recorded track, instead of playing through it and into the amp, then I guess you'd be content with compressing after the fact.

There's yet to be a plug-in that sounds even close to an 1176, or a Distressor. Coming back out to it not only adds an extra D/A-A/D conversion, it just doesn't sound the same.

You can do whatever you like, there's really no rules here. If you can get good results, by all means, knock yourself out. Everyone has their own way of working...

Loudboy

[elambo]

>> what no one mentioned still is what advantage this has BEFORE the A/D. Not once has anyone described how the sonics are improved. Higher output from the mic pre?

I did, but I'm not going to re-read it for you.

>> No advantage. More signal to tape? Not really an advantage in 24bit digital land. If to actual "tape" then yes, there's saturation to talk about. Why mention that I should try a compressor pre-A/D when there "no money on the line?" You agree that it's a risk then?

It's a risk for you because you're not experienced. I was trying to help you understand and suggest a context in which you could try it for yourself. In other words, I was doing you a favor.

There's no point in "debating" with you because you're belligerent and unwilling to learn. If you want to argue philosophy about things you've read on the internet, please continue with someone else.
Actually, you only ever said what happens with the compressor in front, you never explained how it improves the audio. Simply saying that it drives the A/D harder isn't saying how that's better. Understand? Saying that you're able to have higher output from the preamp isn't saying how it's better sonically. Does that make sense?

I don't think I can understand why you're being so defensive over this. I'm looking for an explanation from people who seem very certain that putting a compressor first is best, but I have only read that it does this and it does that, TECHNICALLY, but now how that's improving your audio. If you're in this conversation to learn, you'll be willing to try to understand my issues thoroughly. Instead you've insulted me by calling me inexperienced. If you're looking to dictate, you've already done so and won't continue. That seems to be what you've done. If you don't understand my question, I can't make it any clearer. Feel free to remove yourself from this discussion. No need to respond.

[elambo]

OK, I'll elaborate. Let's say you set the ratio @ 4:1. So, a 4 db gain at the preamp will only give you 1 at the back end of the comp. It's conceivable to really push the preamp while maintaining roughly the same volume. That's just one of endless possibilities. You know there aren't any hard and fast rules when it comes to this stuff.

You'll need to ask someone who knows more about converters but as I recall, the dynamic range of the digital side is limited by the bit depth. To process the audio, there has to be min and max baselines, then the audio is scaled to fit. If you compress pre a/d, you actually increase resolution by maximizing the info in each step of the scale. If I'm way off base, I apologize, but I think this is where you'll find the answer to your question. Maybe there's a digital process guru that can explain it better.

You're correct - it does increase dynamic range (at the risk of solidifying compression that might be unwanted later) but my point from earlier is that 24 bits of dynamic range has been shown to be more than enough even for quiet recordings. There's no perceptable noise from decent convertors at 24 bits and recording hot, to the limit, isn't improving things. I know there's a synergy between gear when pushed hotter, as loudboy has said, and I'm not doubting a sonic "difference", what I can't agree with is the trade-off of having a compressor in place that can't be taken out. I'm not looking to prove anyone wrong - if it's better I'LL do it. To this point, I haven't seen enough reason to stop compressing after the A/D where it's infinitely adjustable.

[elambo]

It's all about the sound of the units interacting. Here's an analogy:

Running your guitar through pedals, and into an amp. If you can tell me that it sounds the same to put a pedal effect, like OD, chorus or delay on a previously recorded track, instead of playing through it and into the amp, then I guess you'd be content with compressing after the fact.

There's yet to be a plug-in that sounds even close to an 1176, or a Distressor. Coming back out to it not only adds an extra D/A-A/D conversion, it just doesn't sound the same.

You can do whatever you like, there's really no rules here. If you can get good results, by all means, knock yourself out. Everyone has their own way of working...

Loudboy
Again, I'm not telling anyone that they're doing it wrong because there are no rules, but there are things to be careful of. I'm careful of commiting myself to compression I may not want later. Michael is experienced enough to know at all times what everything in the studio needs to be set at before he mixes, but as he's pointed out, I and the rest of the engineering world create the mix at the end.

I undertand your analogy. There is no plugin like the real 1176, but you can use a real 1176... POST A/D, and high-end A/D and D/A isn't hurting you. The big boys do it all day on a lot of tracks.

[MichaelK]

I have only read
And therein lies the problem with "learning" from you. Instead of reading what people are (very patiently) trying to tell you and arguing with their "logic," why don't you shaddap and try it?

Maybe this is a culture inherited from another web site (and I strongly suspect that's the case), but it seems that in discussions of audio on the 'net people would rather die a thousand deaths than cop to not knowing something, or that they could stand to learn more. I really don't get it. What's the big deal?

As for me being an expert... ha! I'd love to be. Loudboy has his hands on this stuff every day, Les has been making a living recording for what, 15 - 20 years. I'm into it maybe three days a week, what with all the other stuff I have to do, and most of what I learned is self-taught out of necessity. I've been into it for seven years and the most I can say for my "expertise" is that (a) I know music, (B) I can play, (c) I have good ears, (d) I learn very fast and (e) I listen to people. I have been very fortunate to have been around some great people, both in music and audio. But that doesn't make me them. There's so much shit I don't know, compared to some of the guys in this forum, it's staggering.

Is that defensive? I dunno, call me inexperienced and let's find out.

Anyway, good luck.

[Denyle_Guitars]

You're correct - it does increase dynamic range (at the risk of solidifying compression that might be unwanted later) but my point from earlier is that 24 bits of dynamic range has been shown to be more than enough even for quiet recordings.

As I understand it, it's not a question of "dynamic range" so much as "resolution." Example, If your audio peaks to +16db but the bulk of it is under -10db, you might not be clipping the converter. But you still have to slice up the audio during a/d processing. Because of the +16 db peaks, you've divided the audio so that most the info in only a few slices.

[elambo]

And therein lies the problem with "learning" from you. Instead of reading what people are (very patiently) trying to tell you and arguing with their "logic," why don't you shaddap and try it?

Maybe this is a culture inherited from another web site (and I strongly suspect that's the case), but it seems that in discussions of audio on the 'net people would rather die a thousand deaths than cop to not knowing something, or that they could stand to learn more. I really don't get it. What's the big deal?

As for me being an expert... ha! I'd love to be. Loudboy has his hands on this stuff every day, Les has been making a living recording for what, 15 - 20 years. I'm into it maybe three days a week, what with all the other stuff I have to do, and most of what I learned is self-taught out of necessity. I've been into it for seven years and the most I can say for my "expertise" is that (a) I know music, (B) I can play, (c) I have good ears, (d) I learn very fast and (e) I listen to people. I have been very fortunate to have been around some great people, both in music and audio. But that doesn't make me them. There's so much shit I don't know, compared to some of the guys in this forum, it's staggering.

Is that defensive? I dunno, call me inexperienced and let's find out.

Anyway, good luck.
Are you still here?

[loudboy]

The big boys do it all day on a lot of tracks.

And the big boys almost always compress to tape, when tracking vocals...

Let's just leave it at that.

Loudboy

[elambo]

And the big boys almost always compress to tape, when tracking vocals...

Let's just leave it at that.

Loudboy
To "tape" - yes they do. I don't doubt it. How much compression do you think is average?

Out of curiousity, I asked a few friends in Chicago about this. These are guys who are doing Platinum albums, audiophile recordings and multi-million dollar films. The field was relatively split with those who record to 2" using compression going in, the others NOT. When I asked why, they unanimously said because it allows more more signal to tape without noise and prevents overs. One guy said that tape itself compresses. When I asked about compressing to digital all the digital guys said that commiting to compression before going in isn't necessary and even the tape guys couldn't explain why you'd feel the need to hit the A/D so hard. At the end I'd explain why I even asked this question - because people here have said that everyone compresses right after the mic pre. The comments from them where all a variation of "of course, it's a habit from days when compression to analog was necessary. A lot of people still think that way and compress the piss out of the signal going in."

Maybe it's an online forum thing - in none of the phone calls I had did anyone assume I was trying to preach and they didn't get pissy when I asked "why." Maybe because I know them already, but I doubt that's it. Here though, some seem think this is a contest with a winner at the end.

I think in general, those who have mastered this craft haven't done so by ignoring questions and suggestions or by being affraid to debate when it comes up. Unfortunately, the tone here is one of "just do what I say because I say it."

[elambo]

And therein lies the problem with "learning" from you. Instead of reading what people are (very patiently) trying to tell you and arguing with their "logic," why don't you shaddap and try it?

Maybe this is a culture inherited from another web site (and I strongly suspect that's the case), but it seems that in discussions of audio on the 'net people would rather die a thousand deaths than cop to not knowing something, or that they could stand to learn more. I really don't get it. What's the big deal?

As for me being an expert... ha! I'd love to be. Loudboy has his hands on this stuff every day, Les has been making a living recording for what, 15 - 20 years. I'm into it maybe three days a week, what with all the other stuff I have to do, and most of what I learned is self-taught out of necessity. I've been into it for seven years and the most I can say for my "expertise" is that (a) I know music, (B) I can play, (c) I have good ears, (d) I learn very fast and (e) I listen to people. I have been very fortunate to have been around some great people, both in music and audio. But that doesn't make me them. There's so much shit I don't know, compared to some of the guys in this forum, it's staggering.

Is that defensive? I dunno, call me inexperienced and let's find out.

Anyway, good luck.
Since I've became a member here your name has stood out. You quite often take the same stance as you are with me now, that you know the right way and everyone else needs to "shaddap." I got tired of you ripping on people so I've called you to task a few times. Each time you knew enough to be dangerous, then backed off once you realized that you didn't have the complete story. The thread about the null test, which you tried to argue with me vigorously and finally realized you didn't know what the hell you were talking about, was one example (I tried to find it but couldn't). Then suddenly you found respect for my opinion. Huh, that's gone again. I've stayed civil during this conversation, or at least tried to, while you've remained unwilling or unable to answer the simple overlying questions. Typical for you. I'm aware of loudboy's day job, and I've talked enough with Les to understand where he's at. Les has always had an open mind, and he's always eager to learn. Loudboy typically does, even if he seems to be frustrated with this particular topic. There are some other well regarded engineers lurking as well. But it's very assuming of you to call me inexperienced. Music is my day job. I've been recording for almost 20 years, 15 years professionally. My studio is the busiest in the midwest at the moment for what we do (primarily film and tv music) and this year we received music house of the year. I have awards on regional, national and international levels for composition AND engineering including Clios, Addys and Golden Lions. One album was short-listed for the Grammy's a few years back. I was one of the first people to record sessions off-site and send AIFs via the internet back to our studio. The union that tracks session data has told me that I'm one of the busiest guitar players in the city, and that our company in particular passes more contracts through their doors than nearly any other. I'm asked quite often by people who we're now considering "big dogs" to advise about audio even though I have less studio time under my belt. I've participated in videos from Digidesign about engineering and written papers about recording techniques. I'm quite comfortable with my knowledge of most of the interworkings of audio, but always greedy to learn more. Hence this conversation, if it could be called that. I couldn't really care less if you agree with my opinion (which you won't address) - I was hoping to learn something from yours.

[elambo]

My first check of internet articles from top engineers brought up this, from Bob Katz:

"If possible, put the uncompressed sound on a spare track--it may save your life. If there's any 'rule,' most engineers would agree to save the decision on drum and percussion compression until mixing."

He happens to mention the only "rule" in recording and it relates to compression on input - that it's NOT used for drums by most engineers, and certainly not him. So that's one exception.

I saw a few orchestral engineers who not only don't touch compression on input, but don't touch it altogether.

After my last post I called a friend who's recorded everyone. He's now working primarily at networks handling final audio just before it hits air. He said that a compressor always lived in his signal chain before he hit tape. Everyone did. But now that he's hip to ProTools he never compresses to tape. The exception being one or two female vocalists where a little control even before the convertor is mandatory. Unprovoked, he said to me, "why the f!ck wouldn't you just do it afterwards?" I could only laugh.

I'll do some more searching...

[MichaelK]

>> The thread about the null test, which you tried to argue with me vigorously and finally realized you didn't know what the hell you were talking about, was one example (I tried to find it but couldn't). Then suddenly you found respect for my opinion.

I remember that thread and your test, and I'm not going to drag up the particulars again. Suffice to say that your interpretation of what I was thinking by the time you got through is very different from the reality.

>> But it's very assuming of you to call me inexperienced. Music is my day job. I've been recording for almost 20 years, 15 years professionally...

OK, you're right. I made an assumption I ought not to have made and I apologize. I'm more than a little bewildered, but I'll drop it.

P.S. edit: I also apologize for the "shaddap" - that was just uncool

[elambo]

>> The thread about the null test, which you tried to argue with me vigorously and finally realized you didn't know what the hell you were talking about, was one example (I tried to find it but couldn't). Then suddenly you found respect for my opinion.

I remember that thread and your test, and I'm not going to drag up the particulars again. Suffice to say that your interpretation of what I was thinking by the time you got through is very different from the reality.

>> But it's very assuming of you to call me inexperienced. Music is my day job. I've been recording for almost 20 years, 15 years professionally...

OK, you're right. I made an assumption I ought not to have made and I apologize. I'm more than a little bewildered, but I'll drop it.
I don't know - I thought we got pretty specific about the null test. I didn't feel that there was much interpretation. I think much of that discussion was to ensure that we WERE being clear. Original intent of that post aside (I don't even remember the original intent of that post... Or this one). In any case, I don't believe it's relavant here and don't feel the need to bring it up again.

Thanks for the apology. I feel filthy having to state my credentials. Out of pride for myself and all the hours and sweat that I've put into this occupation, I couldn't let it seem as though I was a casual hobbyist. If I were I wouldn't pretend to know this shit. Nah, I probably would anyway.

The more I look into this the more I realize that both using AND not using a compressor have merit, depending on the application. Although I'll personally never use a compressor going in, I can understand how it helps some people to make the decision about compression early on and be done with it. It also frees up that compressor for other uses later. With the way I work, partly because clients are constantly getting their hands all over everything and making changes, I have to have ultimate flexibility. I gain nothing of ultimate value by compressing going in that I can't recreate later. For the record, I had an 1176 hardwired before my A/D for about 7 years. Most of the time it worked great. Some times I wished I'd taken it easier on the compressor and couldn't fix it. I think you'll understand my point of view, even if you don't agree.

[MichaelK]

I feel filthy having to state my credentials. Out of pride for myself and all the hours and sweat that I've put into this occupation, I couldn't let it seem as though I was a casual hobbyist.

I understand both sides of that. Sorry I provoked you. My people skills are truly abysmal sometimes.

[elambo]

I'm pretty thick-skinned so no hard feelings. I only ever wanted to learn the upside of compressing so early in the signal path since people seem to be doing it. I picked up some tips, or at least some knowledge, and that's a great use of this forum as far as I'm concerned.