|
Post by rowmat on Aug 1, 2019 2:14:24 GMT -6
Off axis as Bluegrassdan has said and also Rowboats phase reversal is the absolute duck's nuts if you've the time - you can automate according to how much cancellation is required for each piece and also the original track stays intact.(Tks Rowmat one of the best tips ever) Cheers, Ross Wouldn’t highlighting the sibilant “footballs” and turning them down via clip-gain (PT) do the same thing? Yes as far as reducing the individual 'esses' are concerned but creating an 'esses' only track allows for overall global control of the sibilance.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 1, 2019 3:47:46 GMT -6
Wouldn’t highlighting the sibilant “footballs” and turning them down via clip-gain (PT) do the same thing? Yes as far as reducing the individual 'esses' are concerned but creating an 'esses' only track allows for overall global control of the sibilance. I've done both and for the most part, both take the same amount of work to execute ..though I suppose one could argue that it takes more time to individually lower the clip-gained sections (in Logic too!). But I prefer clip-gain for that very reason. Some esses just don't need as much taming as others. For that matter, in a lot of cases they don't need any taming, so you don't even bother to 'highlight' them. If you want global editing, it's MUCH easier to use a de-esser. The other reason I'm not so much a fan of the phase inverted method is that it requires synching at the sample level, and if you do any editing to a snippet of a vocal you have to be very careful to make sure you're doing the exact same to the inverted sibilant track. For some reason, that's gotten me in trouble on occasion.
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Aug 1, 2019 6:26:25 GMT -6
44 is my all time fave! How close (in tone) do you feel, is the 84? Thanks, Chris The R84 has some of the qualities, for sure! And it’s a unique mic itself. Like on a tenor sax for example. Mind numbingly good. But honestly, I have never heard another ribbon do what the R44 does. It has the most beef and a massive low/low mid weight, with the widest, biggest sound you can get from a ribbon. Silky soft top. Super detail. also, very quiet. IMHO. Nothing else gives me the same exact thing that it does. Have yet to really hear anything that does that.
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Aug 1, 2019 9:28:41 GMT -6
Just 3 little tips 1. I don't use anything with a Chinese capsule, at least not made up until 2019., 2. I don't use an overly bright microphone, and it's kind of hard to beat a U series or a ribbon, 3. a 22 to 30º angle back works wonders, also have the singer sing over the top of the mic, not directly into it. 3. And don't hang the mic. It encourages sibillance 3. a diffusing pop filter like a Stedman can help 3. I use a de-esser inline when it's still bad, and always use a de-esser plugin once recorded. B.I.O.N. pro tools stock de-esser is absolutely fabulous. See? Three little tips. I would agree with most points but I have to disagree on the Stedman pop filter. I have a couple. I used to use them on vocalists all the time. in theory, they should be good, but in practice I found them unusable. Do a test with multiple pop filters. Simply record your voice blowing into the pop filter. Easily the worst that I've used is the Stedman. It creates a whistle that is as bad as sibilance. I've done a lot of testing on this. I've had some singers that had horrible resonances in theirs vocals. The Stedman always made it worse. I typically use a Pauly or an old Popper-Stopper. They both do the trick. I know a lot of guys don't like to use pop filters at all. I'd rather not risk getting spit on an expensive K47 or M7 capsule. Just my two cents. Not meaning to be combative. I just ran into so many problems on recordings with the Stedman filters that it's kind of a trigger point now.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 1, 2019 10:17:29 GMT -6
Thanks Adam. I do also love the Sontronics Sigma 2, which is another "fit" for my voice (Baritone and 2nd Tenor). Chris
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Aug 1, 2019 10:27:01 GMT -6
My voice can create weird resonances on many pop filters of different materials. It’s a buzzing sound that can sound like the mic is distorting in the low mids. It only happens on certain vowels and only if I’m very close to the filter. I’ve learned to avoid it!
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 1, 2019 17:17:22 GMT -6
So going over the posts so far, it's looking like maybe a little more than half do have mic preferences/tendecies/choices for sibilant singers, and also more than half of you use recording techniques/tricks. But there are just a few who pretty much just fix it in the mix.
Obviously, as the OP I'm fighting the problem with my vocal. I'm using a Blackspade UM-4X (which is 47-ish) and I love pretty much everything about it except when it comes to sibilance. I've tried pretty much all the techniques posted here. I have a pretty well treated space and I always sing at least 18" away from the mic and always off axis. Heck, I don't even aim at the mic. I've experimented with aiming under, over, and side and I've ended up aiming a good 10" to the side. (Hmm. with a little trig you can calculate the exact angle). I've tried the inverted parallel trick. I do use de-essers AND clip gain, which works, but it's a lot of work and I was kind of curious if there might be a reason to change mics.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 1, 2019 18:17:33 GMT -6
Have you tried figure 8? Chris
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 1, 2019 18:29:28 GMT -6
Have you tried figure 8? Chris I think so with this iteration of the mic (I started with the UM-17). I use to have a detented choice of some 30+ patterns between cardiod and figure 8 - now I think just it's just two. Now that you bring it up - I'll have to go back and check to make sure.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Aug 1, 2019 18:44:18 GMT -6
Yes as far as reducing the individual 'esses' are concerned but creating an 'esses' only track allows for overall global control of the sibilance. I've done both and for the most part, both take the same amount of work to execute ..though I suppose one could argue that it takes more time to individually lower the clip-gained sections (in Logic too!). But I prefer clip-gain for that very reason. Some esses just don't need as much taming as others. For that matter, in a lot of cases they don't need any taming, so you don't even bother to 'highlight' them. If you want global editing, it's MUCH easier to use a de-esser. The other reason I'm not so much a fan of the phase inverted method is that it requires synching at the sample level, and if you do any editing to a snippet of a vocal you have to be very careful to make sure you're doing the exact same to the inverted sibilant track. For some reason, that's gotten me in trouble on occasion. My point is that is that no de-esser I have used, either hardware or plugin, works as transparently as this method and a key reason is does because it IS accurate down to sample level. I spent many an hour trying to work with plugins and hardware de-essers and if they had done a decent job I would not have bothered with this method.
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Aug 1, 2019 19:31:54 GMT -6
I've been having issues with editing one of my own vocals not as much for sibilance (though that too) but for hard k sounds. One thing I've done in the past and probably will do here is actually just plain drawing volume automation on too loud syllables, no matter what they are. I generally get quite natural-sounding results that way, actually.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 1, 2019 19:46:49 GMT -6
I've been having issues with editing one of my own vocals not as much for sibilance (though that too) but for hard k sounds. One thing I've done in the past and probably will do here is actually just plain drawing volume automation on too loud syllables, no matter what they are. I generally get quite natural-sounding results that way, actually. If it's at the beginning of a phrase (which is admittedly not common for K's), I've found that sometimes just using the fade tool like you normally might, but "overshooting" and cutting into the transient does the trick. I find myself using it with words that start with vowels.
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Aug 2, 2019 1:24:15 GMT -6
Just to be sure, you have tried the Fabfilter deesser and it doesn’t do the trick for you?
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 2, 2019 3:21:51 GMT -6
Just to be sure, you have tried the Fabfilter deesser and it doesn’t do the trick for you? No I haven't. I've only tried a handful of de-essers, but some good ones like eiosis ..and multi-band compressors. What does Fabfilter bring to the table that the others don't?
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Aug 2, 2019 3:36:32 GMT -6
Just to be sure, you have tried the Fabfilter deesser and it doesn’t do the trick for you? No I haven't. I've only tried a handful of de-essers, but some good ones like eiosis ..and multi-band compressors. What does Fabfilter bring to the table that the others don't? Instant problem solving with no side effects, in my experience. Usually with the default settings.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Aug 2, 2019 5:56:18 GMT -6
Just 3 little tips 1. I don't use anything with a Chinese capsule, at least not made up until 2019., 2. I don't use an overly bright microphone, and it's kind of hard to beat a U series or a ribbon, 3. a 22 to 30º angle back works wonders, also have the singer sing over the top of the mic, not directly into it. 3. And don't hang the mic. It encourages sibillance 3. a diffusing pop filter like a Stedman can help 3. I use a de-esser inline when it's still bad, and always use a de-esser plugin once recorded. B.I.O.N. pro tools stock de-esser is absolutely fabulous. See? Three little tips. I would agree with most points but I have to disagree on the Stedman pop filter. I have a couple. I used to use them on vocalists all the time. in theory, they should be good, but in practice I found them unusable. Do a test with multiple pop filters. Simply record your voice blowing into the pop filter. Easily the worst that I've used is the Stedman. It creates a whistle that is as bad as sibilance. I've done a lot of testing on this. I've had some singers that had horrible resonances in theirs vocals. The Stedman always made it worse. I typically use a Pauly or an old Popper-Stopper. They both do the trick. I know a lot of guys don't like to use pop filters at all. I'd rather not risk getting spit on an expensive K47 or M7 capsule. Just my two cents. Not meaning to be combative. I just ran into so many problems on recordings with the Stedman filters that it's kind of a trigger point now. Very good point. Most times I use two: The Stedman amd one of the nylon screen types, together.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Aug 2, 2019 6:35:00 GMT -6
If you have the artist sing the phrase with more of a smile on their face the “s” will minimize.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 2, 2019 6:45:23 GMT -6
No I haven't. I've only tried a handful of de-essers, but some good ones like eiosis ..and multi-band compressors. What does Fabfilter bring to the table that the others don't? Instant problem solving with no side effects, in my experience. Usually with the default settings. Possibly, but what makes it different than anything else I've tried? I can see where the default settings might be perfect for a few vocalists and good for a range of vocalists, but also likely to be inappropriate for all vocalists whose essess fall outside the 'range.'
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Aug 2, 2019 6:53:24 GMT -6
Instant problem solving with no side effects, in my experience. Usually with the default settings. Possibly, but what makes it different than anything else I've tried? I can see where the default settings might be perfect for a few vocalists and good for a range of vocalists, but also likely to be inappropriate for all vocalists whose essess fall outside the 'range.' Well, you can adjust the range to whatever you need. It performs hassle-free, transparent de-essing with two different operation modes. Usually you don't even have to configure it, but if you need to, it's got what, 3 controls? It's got a 30-day demo. If I had to sum up what's different to anything else you've tried... Well, I'm not you, but I'd say: what you tried didn't work. This one probably will
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 2, 2019 6:55:44 GMT -6
Pros should be able do this easily enough by ear, but does anyone make a plugin that has you sample a few offending esses, then analyzes them and adjusts accordingly? One of the problems with deessers is that too much de-essing creates a lisp. What would really be cool is if the plugin could generate a more "appropriate" ess that could then be mixed back in with the attenuated offending ess. If such a concept worked - the plugin could then include a small library of sampled esses, which could be chosen and tweaked by the user. I don't even think it would matter if it wasn't the perfect solution - I'll bet it would sell!
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 2, 2019 9:06:12 GMT -6
If you have the artist sing the phrase with more of a smile on their face the “s” will minimize. Interesting! Just practicing it without a mic I can tell that the defining frequency range of the ess seems to move up considerably when you smile. It's not a natural instinct, not the same as raising the soft palette (though I think they are related in cases), and not one of the 'extra' things I want to have on my mind while recording, but definitely worth investigating a little further.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Aug 2, 2019 10:23:45 GMT -6
If you have the artist sing the phrase with more of a smile on their face the “s” will minimize. Interesting! Just practicing it without a mic I can tell that the defining frequency range of the ess seems to move up considerably when you smile. It's not a natural instinct, not the same as raising the soft palette (though I think they are related in cases), and not one of the 'extra' things I want to have on my mind while recording, but definitely worth investigating a little further. We call this singing into the mask. The easiest way to start a singer's journey in this technique is simply telling them to smile. It has become less popular in pop music these days, as pop has gone toward the marble mouth technique which seems to emulate older blues singers like Billie Holiday, but I could show you examples of modern singers using mask technique while going for that sound and presenting a clear and more defined version of it. It's also more resonant. It was big with crooners like Dean Martin, rock singers like Freddie Mercury (much of his sound is due to that), and more. Anyway, just one solution. When people come into my studio I'm more a producer than engineer and I will coach them through it. Most are talented live performers, but have little experience in studios. They trust me though, since they've usually worked with me on stage before and know I'm not slinging BS.
EDIT: This technique also helps with pitch issues and range extension. Can't quite get the high note? Smile into the sound and give it more of and "ah" vowel. Done...
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Aug 2, 2019 15:25:43 GMT -6
I've been having issues with editing one of my own vocals not as much for sibilance (though that too) but for hard k sounds. One thing I've done in the past and probably will do here is actually just plain drawing volume automation on too loud syllables, no matter what they are. I generally get quite natural-sounding results that way, actually. If it's at the beginning of a phrase (which is admittedly not common for K's), I've found that sometimes just using the fade tool like you normally might, but "overshooting" and cutting into the transient does the trick. I find myself using it with words that start with vowels. Yep, I've been doing some of this as well. It turns out most of these actually are at the beginning of words. "can't" "can" "corner" etc.
|
|
|
Post by shoe on Aug 2, 2019 15:27:12 GMT -6
If it's at the beginning of a phrase (which is admittedly not common for K's), I've found that sometimes just using the fade tool like you normally might, but "overshooting" and cutting into the transient does the trick. I find myself using it with words that start with vowels. Yep, I've been doing some of this as well. It turns out most of these actually are at the beginning of words. "can't" "can" "corner" etc. I also do this when using my RS124 sometimes. It's a slow compressor so if I don't want it to clamp down super hard after it has a full release, and I also don't want to put a faster compressor in front (usually I use an 1177 with it but sometimes don't want that sound) drawing a fade in can result in it leveling things more evenly.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Aug 2, 2019 16:20:42 GMT -6
And just sing "happy songs" live then! Chris
|
|