The "In-Depth Vocal Mixing" Thread

deesser usually goes first, reverb typically is a post fx send. eq or comp first, well depends on the sound you're shooting for. do you want to eq the compressed signal, or compress the eq'd signal? 2 different sounds here.
 
More important then the signal chain or plugins is:

When mixing, start with your vocals as soon as possible, if vocals play a significant role in your song. Mix the drums first, then add the bass and then bring in the vocals while everything else it muted. Then bring in the rest and make it sit around the vocals. I once did it NOT in this order and it totally messed up the vocals.
 
Fragle said:
deesser usually goes first, reverb typically is a post fx send. eq or comp first, well depends on the sound you're shooting for. do you want to eq the compressed signal, or compress the eq'd signal? 2 different sounds here.
Click to expand...

dude x) i understand that, geeeez x) ... but why is the comon way to put deesser first like you said??? do you have any reason why you put it first or just go for it cause its typicall... i use it after eq and i still have nice highs given by the eq, i just have deesser to come in on that one freq after eq when vocals are deessing and turn it down... ( when i think about it now, its much easier to find where to deess with highs boosted on eq, too... hm just found one benefit from doing deess after x) ) so am asking if am doing it wrong or should i say, not like its by the book or something... but it sounds great so i go with it... i was just curious why deesser first? cause i saw people using it first... though some were puting it after... if you can tell me benefits from doing deessing first rather than doing it after eq am listening... x)
 
I send vocals to a Stereo Delay and change the tempo on each side to give it depth and bring it up just barely in the mix. I also use a plate reverb. Then i use an EQ and Compressor on the main track. I Always stack vocals at least once. Sometimes more if necessary.
 
qwe said:
dude x) i understand that, geeeez x) ... but why is the comon way to put deesser first like you said??? do you have any reason why you put it first or just go for it cause its typicall... i use it after eq and i still have nice highs given by the eq, i just have deesser to come in on that one freq after eq when vocals are deessing and turn it down... ( when i think about it now, its much easier to find where to deess with highs boosted on eq, too... hm just found one benefit from doing deess after x) ) so am asking if am doing it wrong or should i say, not like its by the book or something... but it sounds great so i go with it... i was just curious why deesser first? cause i saw people using it first... though some were puting it after... if you can tell me benefits from doing deessing first rather than doing it after eq am listening... x)
Click to expand...

you're deessing first to remove nasty hf spikes so you can cleanly boost the top end afterwards.
 
RiF said:
More important then the signal chain or plugins is:

When mixing, start with your vocals as soon as possible, if vocals play a significant role in your song. Mix the drums first, then add the bass and then bring in the vocals while everything else it muted. Then bring in the rest and make it sit around the vocals. I once did it NOT in this order and it totally messed up the vocals.
Click to expand...

but one should not foget that the LAST element you mix will most likely
(or should i say always) be your loudest element in the mix.

thats why you want to make final adjustments / rides after everything
in the mix is settled. believe me, boosting 1 db @ 3 k on guitars
will 99% of the times force you to reride the vox again...

so : do vocals last if vocals they are your main instrument (basically selling the mix to the listener). and make them the star of the mix.

:lol: i sound like charles dye.haha
 
ahjteam said:
it's in parallel that way. and so that other tracks can use the same reverb too.
Click to expand...

another n00b question, but why not output all of the tracks through a group channel rather than sending? what's the difference. When i parallel comp drums i find that sending increases the volume but sometimes get phase problems.
 
this chain will make any vocalist even if they whisper scream, sound like a total bad ass
1, waves rvox
gate: -49.0
comp: -26.6
gain -5.6
2.Rcomp
thresh: -16.7
attack .50
release 59.3
ratio 10.26
gain: 13.2
3.eq (just kill some 240hz
4.BT analog trackbox (moar compression)
thresh: -26.1
attack 85.ms
release 236
ratio 6:4:2
make up 1.5db
5. de-esser

it clenches the vocals to no fucking end my vocals are the only thing i like on my recordings really
 
-Loco- said:
another n00b question, but why not output all of the tracks through a group channel rather than sending? what's the difference. When i parallel comp drums i find that sending increases the volume but sometimes get phase problems.
Click to expand...

If you send, you can adjust the amount you send to your verb without changing the volume of the main fader. Lots more wet/dry options this way
 
I use a shit load of compression in small increments. Usually the chain is:

SM7 or Kiwi > Great River Me1nv > API 550b (usually just a +2 shelf @ 10 or 12 hz) > Distressor 6:1 quick attack quick release, up to 10 db in reduction on the peaks. It's such a fast compressor this setting will tame any vocal without pumping.

Come mix time it's occasional L1 shaving off a hair > api 550b > distressor 3:1 or 4:1 dist 2 or 3 as much as 10 db reduction > La2a 3db reduction
 
Since I mostly mix metal I've worked with growls a lot (usually my own though). I use Cubase SX3 with a shitload of Waves plug-ins.

This is the chain:
- Waves RVox (great comp+gate+limiter for vocals btw!)
- Waves Q10 EQ
- Datube (built in tube-like overdrive that comes with cubase)
- DeEsser (if it sound too airy)
- DoubleDelay (with little feedback)
- Reverb A

At this part I just gate and compress the shit out of it and cut a lot of lows and noisy frequencies in the EQ and boost a bit around 4khz for that aggressive sound.
I use the overdrive very subtle, if the vocals are good you don't need that much, if any at all. I know compressing before EQing kinda sucks, but with RVox it's a whole other thing.
I sometimes put reverb and delay as sends.

Check out a song I've written and mixed called "Saturation Point" right here:
www.myspace.com/amongthedebris
 
CatharsisStudios said:
this chain will make any vocalist even if they whisper scream, sound like a total bad ass
1, waves rvox
gate: -49.0
comp: -26.6
gain -5.6
2.Rcomp
thresh: -16.7
attack .50
release 59.3
ratio 10.26
gain: 13.2
3.eq (just kill some 240hz
4.BT analog trackbox (moar compression)
thresh: -26.1
attack 85.ms
release 236
ratio 6:4:2
make up 1.5db
5. de-esser

it clenches the vocals to no fucking end my vocals are the only thing i like on my recordings really
Click to expand...

Golden :) THX DUDE!
 
My chain:
ReaEQ: High pass, cutting some low mids and boosting some highs
GComp: Heavy Settings
De-Esser I can't remember
Whatever verb I find in the VST list using send

And everybody's dancing.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

XxSicRokerxX
How do you get depth in your vocals?
Replies
6
Views
1K
F.O.H.
JonWormwood
J
B
The Sytematic Mixing Guid - Chapter Bass
Replies
26
Views
3K
F.O.H.
agentmetal
A
neptunian
Common vocal recording/mixing mistakes?
Replies
22
Views
3K
F.O.H.
waltz mastering
W
Ermz
Vocal tuning question
Replies
9
Views
1K
F.O.H.
Zombietakeover
Z
W
Vocal Levels Are Fine In Mono But Too Quiet In Stereo. Help?
Replies
6
Views
3K
F.O.H.
withallduerespect
W
Top Bottom
Back