tracking vocals

[ash]

apart from the obivious top notch equipment, how are the standard pop/rock lead vocals (Pink, Nickelback etc) edited or recorded?
I assume they are double tracked somehow. but does that mean the same line is recorded twice, or is a single edited afterwords?

[kludge]

Mainstream pop vocals are often "comped" (compiled) from several takes. Choose a word here, a phrase there, whatever best expresses. But again, there's no "right" way to do things!

One of my bands was doing vocal takes last night. We have two female vocalists who often harmonize or sing unison lines, so we've tracked a lot of their vocals live in a room together... with sound coming off the monitors rather than headphones. From a purely technical standpoint, it's crap... I have to deal with bleed and possibly phase problems. But from a performance standpoint, I get a lot more out of them than I would trying to overdub on headphones like the "correct" engineers would do.

It's all about the performance. Technical issues are tertiary.

[loudboy]

It's all about the performance. Technical issues are tertiary.

In the examples he mentioned, the "technical issues" ARE the performance... <g>

Most of today's big-budget pop/rock couldn't exist w/o excessive comping, tuning, etc.

[LSchefman]

And so-called "top notch" equipment isn't always the case with big name acts.

My son is tracking a very well known band with a highly respected producer, and the vocalist is using a standard Rode mic. They could use any mic they wanted to. They tried a bunch, and this is the one that worked for the vocalist.

Tells you something. Real-deal producers and engineers use what works for the creative goal, and don't worry about the name on the mic!

[ash]

about comping: so I put a vocal track together with bits and pieces of various takes, having one single vocal track now. what do I do with it? any kind of doubling to make it sound huge? as said, talking about standard pop/rock productions.

[rob2001]

about comping: so I put a vocal track together with bits and pieces of various takes, having one single vocal track now. what do I do with it? any kind of doubling to make it sound huge? as said, talking about standard pop/rock productions.


I think the standard is that there is no standard. Voices are more varied than just about anything thats recorded in a band setting and songs vary even more.

Not to sound arrogant or say i'm good at it, but to sound huge.....sing huge! This has been my honest experience. No matter what tricks I use on vocals, it always comes down to the original performance.

As far as things to do with vocals after they are recorded....

Finding the right type and amount of compression is big. But compression is a pretty big subject in itself. It's easy to get it very wrong. It's one thing to know the terminology and another thing to understand what it means and sounds like. I'm still workin on that one, along with everything else! There is a ton of info on compression on the net.

Effects can be cool depending on the song. Reverb works well, super fast delays work well, or longer delays if the song can support it, and modulation effects like chorus or even flange are possible , if the song calls for it. I think effects are a creative decision and not so much a matter of a great core sound.


Double tracking or unison tracks is an effect (actually sang 2 or more times) and it's one technique I use that really sets the vocals up where they belong....when the song can support it. I'm thinking if you had a hard time putting together one vocal track, putting up another track that will sinc up with the first will be pretty hard. Otherwise, you can copy the first track and time shift it just a bit for some thickness, but a carefully adjusted delay will have a similar effect. The copy/paste thing will not sound like a true double track.


As far as modern day editing and/or techniques, I know nothing and thats ok with me! If by "standard, you mean popular music, I don't like much of whats being done to singers. Not all, but many popular songs feature "flavor of the day" techniques. But thats another thread for sure!

I wish there were a "standard" answer, (well, maybe not) to the question but it really depends on the singer, the song and what you as a recordist want to hear. The possibilities are endless...

[Rusty G.]

I usually track my vocals by "punching" in where needed.

Vocals are a funny thing. Sometimes the scratch track turns out to be the best.

As for what to do with the vocals to make it sound bigger. There are many tricks. . .Add some reverb (plate, spring, room, hall, etc.). Maybe a little "de-esser". Then, compression. If it's still not where you lilke it, you could try adding a little chorus effect, but this quickly sounds llike a gimmick. Try using as little as possible. If this doesn't work, how about a little delay, like use a stereo plug-in and try 30 to 50 milliseconds to one side or the other.

Everyone uses effects. The trick is to try and make it sound like you didn't.

[Timmylikesthing]

I'll give you 2 different approaches that I've used on the past 2 sessions.

Both of these used Pro Tools as the DAW. And Autotune (another discussion for another time).

1) Singer is a bit more nasally and sings with a TON of dynamics. Crushing the vocal was going to happen regardless, but I didn't want to do it. The chain was SM7B -> LA 610 mkII. Standard higher end home studio stuff. The pre on the LA610 is set hot (SM7B needs a ton of gain), EQ is set to add a little low end and alot of high end (SM7B is a darker mic). Compression is set to reasonable. Probably higher than I'd like but not TOO high. When the singer got to a loud part. I'd stop. Adjust the preamp gain and patch him in. Quiet part, stop, preamp gain, patch him in. Post, just a low end roll off to get rid of any boominess and some reverb. There were no doubles, nothing. The right mic, with the right vocalist, and the right preamp/eq/comp can make all the difference.

2) Singer is a softer voiced type (not too soft, but definitely not as dynamic as singer from #1. Chain ends up being Neumann TLM103 -> Chameleon Labs 7602. Touch of general EQ on the way in, but nothing like the first guy. No pre-daw comp. We were doing quick pre-production takes, so we're checking quality of the sounds we could get and not necessarily shooting for the moon, yet. I set pro tools to record his vocal to 2 separate tracks. On track 1, I put a comp (Massey CT-4, for any PT guys), an amp sim (Sansamp PSA) set semi dirty and blended to just add a touch of grit, EQ (Low end roll off), and reverb. Track 2 has the Waves Doubler plugin (Just adds a spatial chorus/delay) and Reverb. We then had him sing an octave below, as the part was pretty high and sounded "disconnected" from the music. That one was processed the same as track 1. We then add him go back and add some selected harmonies at certain accent points. Seems like a lot of work for a "check to see how things sound," but he's a solid vocalist and this took about an hour. I then set the Main vocal level, brought in the Double until you could barely notice it, Brought in the Octave until it just fattened up the track and glued it in place, and then added the harmonies. We managed to get that "Pop" sheen from that. The performances were a touch off, but I think we could knock it out of the park given some more time. We'll probably switch pres to the LA-610 just to test.

2 different sessions. 2 totally different approaches. #1 took the most time. Punching and riding the gain is not something I recommend for every singer. #2 is something you could do with a comped take. I've learned to never underestimate the power of a well placed harmony.

[mikefair]

Everything you can do in the studio ends up helping good singers a lot more than it helps not so good singers. Reverb and delay makes your mistakes last longer. If need a lot of pitch correction, you can really hear it in the final mix.

The Beatles doubled nearly every vocal track until around Revolver. Then they devised a thing called Automatic Double Tracking - a little delay and flange. A little bit goes a long way.

[kludge]

Parallel compression can be useful for a "huge" sound. Make a copy of the vocal track, or reroute, or whatever works in your DAW. The main vocal should only have light compression to preserve the dynamics. The second vocal should be squashed to heck and gone. Blend them to taste.

Autotune and similar software is usually used to far too much effect on modern vocals to make the pitch absolutely spot-on. It's a part of the modern sound, even if it isn't "huge". It's awful, to my ears.

[Pietro]

Make the singer really comfy so he/she can sing well.

And doubling the lead vocal? If you double a vocal that sounds like weak crap, you now have double the weak crap... Get 'em to sing better...

[kludge]

And yes, what everyone is saying here is absolutely true - MAXIMIZE THE PERFORMANCE. Recording quality isn't even secondary - it's tertiary! You CANNOT tech your way to an amazing vocal recording. Either the singer has it, or they don't.

Last year, I was sitting in on a mastering session with a long-term pro mastering engineer. He made a point of playing a Jeff Buckley recording he'd mastered for us. It was recorded over a telephone on a radio show call-in. And it was STUNNING, heartbreaking and humbling. Why? Because Jeff Buckley was a brilliant singer! Sing crap into $50k worth of gear and no one will care. Sing genius over a telephone wire and you'll break hearts.