Compressor woes...

[Scott Chasty]

I've been having some recent problems getting a good vocal sound in my
studio. I have an SPX 990 unit. But the pot it's wired into gives me a lot
of noise, and yes, it should be cleaned and / or put onto another module...
but well, let's just say that I'm not trilled about our engineering
department at this time, and the company refuses to get a new board, (this
one dates back to '74 I believe). Okay, so that aside, I have some other
options. I have an old Symetrix unit that's pretty user-friendly, but the
compressor on it is a little too harsh. It has an EQ on it, but when I turn
that off, or down too much, it gives me a really "hollow" sound.

Also, I'm recording everything into ProTools, so my other option is to just
record it dry, and add compression in there. But, my question with that is,
should I be adding the compression directly onto the vocal channel, or
should I be creating an aux channel and adding the compression through
there? Our other producer uses an older SPX unit but brings it up through
his board and mixes it with the dry signal, so should I be doing the same on
the software side of things in ProTools?

As you can see, I'm kinda new at this. I do pretty good with guitar sounds,
but have never mastered the art of good vocal sounds. Gimmie a break, I was
hired for my editing abilities :)

Any help would be appreciated.

[Rick]

You do this for a living?

[Sugarite]

> I've been having some recent problems getting a good vocal sound in my
> studio. I have an SPX 990 unit. But the pot it's wired into gives me a lot
> of noise, and yes, it should be cleaned and / or put onto another
module...
> but well, let's just say that I'm not trilled about our engineering
> department at this time, and the company refuses to get a new board, (this
> one dates back to '74 I believe). Okay, so that aside, I have some other
> options. I have an old Symetrix unit that's pretty user-friendly, but the
> compressor on it is a little too harsh. It has an EQ on it, but when I
turn
> that off, or down too much, it gives me a really "hollow" sound.
>
> Also, I'm recording everything into ProTools, so my other option is to
just
> record it dry, and add compression in there. But, my question with that
is,
> should I be adding the compression directly onto the vocal channel, or
> should I be creating an aux channel and adding the compression through
> there? Our other producer uses an older SPX unit but brings it up through
> his board and mixes it with the dry signal, so should I be doing the same
on
> the software side of things in ProTools?
>
> As you can see, I'm kinda new at this. I do pretty good with guitar
sounds,
> but have never mastered the art of good vocal sounds. Gimmie a break, I
was
> hired for my editing abilities :)

I would argue that the mic/preamp is much more important to vocals than what
compressor you use and how. I would just get it into protools with the best
mic/pre/converter I had, and only use a hardware compressor if it were a
high-end tube unit or a Distressor. If I didn't have any good comps kicking
around I'd use plug-ins but leave things pretty thin and rent gear for
mastering or let a good mastering house beef them up. I wouldn't recommend
balancing wet and dry signals in Protools since each plug-in adds a slight
delay, and the dry signal has to go through some null plugs to bring them
back into phase, a lot of extraneous operations.

[ScotFraser]

<< my question with that is,
should I be adding the compression directly onto the vocal channel,>>

Yes, the compressor is inserted in the vocal channel.

<< or
should I be creating an aux channel and adding the compression through
there?>>

No, aux sends are for reverbs & delays, etc.

<< Our other producer uses an older SPX unit but brings it up through
his board and mixes it with the dry signal, so should I be doing the same on
the software side of things in ProTools?>>

For reverb, yes, for compression, no. Even though the SPX90 has a compressor
algorithm in it, you will die by lethal injection if you ever attempt to use it
as a vocal compressor.
Scott Fraser

[Bill Ruys]

"Scott Chasty" <scottychay@home.com> wrote in message
news:2VA2b.848775$3C2.19014762@news3.calgary.shaw. ca...
>
> Also, I'm recording everything into ProTools, so my other option is to
just
> record it dry, and add compression in there. But, my question with that
is,
> should I be adding the compression directly onto the vocal channel, or
> should I be creating an aux channel and adding the compression through
> there? Our other producer uses an older SPX unit but brings it up through
> his board and mixes it with the dry signal, so should I be doing the same
on
> the software side of things in ProTools?
>
Are you actually trying to control the dynamics? The above paragraph has me
wondering. I have heard that some engineers use a compressor on an aux bus
as an "effect", but it's not something you'd do to control dynamics at all.
For this, the compressor must be inserted into a channel.

What exactly are you wanting the compressor to do for you?

Bill.

[Chay]

> Are you actually trying to control the dynamics? The above paragraph has me
> wondering. I have heard that some engineers use a compressor on an aux bus
> as an "effect", but it's not something you'd do to control dynamics at all.
> For this, the compressor must be inserted into a channel.
>
> What exactly are you wanting the compressor to do for you?

Basically, just to round out the sound. The application here is radio.
And yes I do this for a living, but it's a very small market. The job
requirements were having at least three teeth, and the ability to stay
vertical for eight hours a day.

Any thoughts on good compressor / eq settings for spoken word?

[Scott Dorsey]

Chay <scottychay@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> Are you actually trying to control the dynamics? The above paragraph has me
>> wondering. I have heard that some engineers use a compressor on an aux bus
>> as an "effect", but it's not something you'd do to control dynamics at all.
>> For this, the compressor must be inserted into a channel.
>>
>> What exactly are you wanting the compressor to do for you?
>
>Basically, just to round out the sound. The application here is radio.
>And yes I do this for a living, but it's a very small market. The job
>requirements were having at least three teeth, and the ability to stay
>vertical for eight hours a day.
>
>Any thoughts on good compressor / eq settings for spoken word?

I hate to say it.
But if it's in good shape (and most of them aren't, it's true), the Audimax
does a surprisingly good job of levelling out voices without noticeable
pumping of the noise floor between words. The nifty hardware that locks the
gain level during quiet parts really does work very well. It's a special
purpose tool for a special job, really.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Caffrey]

In article <20030826032505.02500.00000670@mb-m23.aol.com>,
scotfraser@aol.com (ScotFraser) wrote:

> << my question with that is,
> should I be adding the compression directly onto the vocal channel,>>
>
> Yes, the compressor is inserted in the vocal channel.
>
> << or
> should I be creating an aux channel and adding the compression through
> there?>>
>
> No, aux sends are for reverbs & delays, etc.
>
I know of some albums that are very well respected for their mixes where
there were compressors used on aux sends.

Thre's aslo the feed back trick where you put a compressor on a send, send
your vocal to it, bring the output of the compressor back up on a channel
and send a little of it back to itself.

Aux sends are for when you wnat to make once device available to more than
one channel and/or controlling the exact level that ou want to send to
that particulart device.



www.monsterisland.com

[Scott Chasty]

Cool, unfortunately they're not going to be spending any more money on my
studio this fiscal, so I'll stuck with what I have.

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Chasty <scottychay@home.com> wrote:
>Cool, unfortunately they're not going to be spending any more money on my
>studio this fiscal, so I'll stuck with what I have.

You don't actually pay money for Audimaxes... call up the other stations in
the area. SOMEBODY has one at the transmitter site gathering dust that they'll
trade for beer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ScotFraser]

<< I know of some albums that are very well respected for their mixes where
there were compressors used on aux sends.

Thre's aslo the feed back trick where you put a compressor on a send, send
your vocal to it, bring the output of the compressor back up on a channel
and send a little of it back to itself.>>

Given the original poster's lack of expertise I think esoteric applications are
not what he needs to hear about right now, & putting a comp on an aux counts as
an esoteric application. He needs to start at a more basic level, i.e. a
channel insert.

<<Aux sends are for when you wnat to make once device available to more than
one channel and/or controlling the exact level that ou want to send to
that particulart device.>>

Yeah, I think I know that. Given the original post I'm going to stick with my
advice that he insert the compressor on the vocal channel.


Scott Fraser

[Bill Lorentzen]

Go ahead and apply the compressor on an insert in ProTools. I'm not familiar
with the comps in PT, but you could start with a 4:1 ratio, and medium-fast
attack and release. Go for about 5 dB of reduction, and tweak it by
listening. They may have presets available on those plugs too. If there is
none for V/O, use a gentle vocal comp setting.

I think you may find that adding some low EQ adds to the sound nicely. Don't
go crazy with it though. And listen to it kind of loud to make sure there
isn't too much (low end disappears at low volume).

Good luck.

--
Bill L


"Scott Chasty" <scottychay@home.com> wrote in message
news:dAM2b.845656$ro6.16767010@news2.calgary.shaw. ca...
> Cool, unfortunately they're not going to be spending any more money on my
> studio this fiscal, so I'll stuck with what I have.
>
>

[Monte P McGuire]

In article <2VA2b.848775$3C2.19014762@news3.calgary.shaw.ca>,
Scott Chasty <scottychay@home.com> wrote:
>Also, I'm recording everything into ProTools, so my other option is to just
>record it dry, and add compression in there. But, my question with that is,
>should I be adding the compression directly onto the vocal channel, or
>should I be creating an aux channel and adding the compression through
>there? Our other producer uses an older SPX unit but brings it up through
>his board and mixes it with the dry signal, so should I be doing the same on
>the software side of things in ProTools?

When I do this in ProTools (TDM), I use plugin compressors inserted on
the playback / record track and have a nice time of it. Why are you
considering mucking around with hardware inserts (dealing with all
sorts of converter latency) to random early 80s multieffect units that
aren't even known for working well for vocal compression when you can
run some seriously nice compressors as plugins?

The McDSP CompressorBank is a great compressor for vocals, and it has
only 2 samples of latency. I use it all the time for vocals - I
record the preamp straight into the converters and use it on the
monitor side with great results. The Waves Renaissance Compressor is
also quite nice for this use, but it has 64 samples of latency, so
it's not quite so ideal if your talent has to monitor through it. In
the mix when noone's cue mix is passing through them, both sound
great, are easy to control and are relatively inexpensive. The
'freebie' Digi dynamics plugin is pretty mediocre and it's hard to get
usable results from it, but I'll bet it'll work better than an SPX-90
on an insert loop, and it's free to you since you already have it in
your rig.

These would be my obvious choices. If you want to use hardware, then
how about inserting an analog compressor between your mike amp and the
converters and printing your tracks through that? Maybe funds are not
available, but heck - why do your bosses think that you can hammer in
nails without buying you a hammer? Get the tightwads to pony up for
some tools that work. Your task is so far from rocket science that
it's not funny. Printing a competent voiceover has to be the A#1
basic task of any recording room - if you can't do it with what you
have, you have to ask some serious questions to yourself and those
around you.


Best of luck with Ebeneezer Scrooge,

Monte McGuire
mcguire@theworld.com

(BTW, your other producer who brings up an SPX-90 return with the dry
signal is adding a good bit of phasing to the audio, since the delay
through the SPX-90 is not zero (and not an integer multiple of samples
in any workstation I know of, so it's not even able to be compensated
for). I'm sort of surprised that noone has noticed this, but do their
tracks sound phasey and thin to you? Overall, this sounds like a
seriously messed up place to work, somewhere where audio is taking a
'back seat'. Are they at least paying you well?)