Best Vocal Mixing Tip EVER

Yeah, I found that on my own a while ago, but never knew it was worthy of a tip. I usually run two different EQs, one pre compressor, one post compressor.

I do all the cutting pre-compressor, and all the boosting(if any) post compressor. Seems to work best that way. Boosting into the compressor can be useful, but can make those boost frequencies sound strange if pushed too much.

Anyone ever heard of a de-esser?

Honestly, I had never really thought about this...and I've been using EQ's after the compressor...I'm certainly gonna give it a try.

Me too , always used to boost after the compressor , and I've always had to deal with nasty sibilance . Thats a thing of the past now . 


Setup an EQ before and after a compressor with the same settings on both EQ's . Then listen to what each one does to the sibilance . Post compressor will make some nasty sibilance that will need to be dealt with big time .  Pre-compressor EQ , you might only need a light touch of a de-esser or none at all . 

Scum, what eq r u using after comp that causes that? Curious minds want to know ?

Ive seen him talk about this somewhere else too. I think he is referring to boosting top end into the compressor instead of after. Obviously a technique if the goal is a bright vocal, or you wouldnt be boosting at all.

And I agree Scum....it sounds alot better to me too.

I also do this on parallel drum bus...boosting top and bottom into the compressor

Look at all these plug ins behind him in that video picture.  

I generally EQ before compressing.

EQ'ing the 'woof' out of an acoustic guitar BEFORE the compressor is a no brainer unless you want the compressor working overtime trying to clampdown the low end while hardly touching anything else.

As far as de-essing goes, if it is needed, we have a SPL Hardware de-esser, several plugin de-essers and the good old 'do it manually in an editor'.

Which de-essing method is used depends on $$.

However the best method I've found is to duplicate the vocal track, cut out everything leaving only the 'esses', any plosives and hard consonants intact and then phase reverse the 'esses' track and adjust the level of the track to control the level of sibilance cancellation against the original vocal track.

It sounds better than any hardware unit or plugin but can add anywhere up to an hour of extra work per vocal take.
(The SPL hardware de-esser also uses phase cancellation to attenuate the sibilance but still requires arbitarily chosen filters which are subject to some degree of compromise IMO.)

For the manual de-essing method somewhere between 4 to 7db of sibilance cancellation (attenuation) does the job nicely and will allow a fair bit of high end boost without getting spitty. Others boost the highs before de-essing but I usually de-ess before EQ'ing.

I'll give the client a demo of this method and most do prefer it once they hear how natural the esses sound even after adding top end EQ.

The SPL hardware de-esser spends most of its time patched into both the reverb sends to the 480L.

Sorry I was somewhat lacking in detail with my explanation

I slice the DUPLICATED vocal track each side of the 's' and remove all the audio between the 'esses'.

So I end up with an entire track of just little individual 's' waves.
Then I glue all these 'esses' together into a single wave file.
So now I have one track containing a single wave file of 'esses'.

This track is then phase reversed and the level adjusted against the original vocal track (on the same buss) to control the amount of sibilance reduction.
If both tracks are set at the same level the 'esses' cancel completely.

As you begin to lower the level of the 'esses' track you will hear the sibilance begin to return.

Reducing the level of the 'esses' track between -4 to -7db (down from '0') is usually about right.
If you want to boost the high EQ quite heavily for a very bright airy vocal then de-ess say at -4 as this will provide more de-essing than at -7 but the EQ will make up for it. Basically use you ears and adjust to taste.

Some additional targeted level adjustment maybe required but generally I find not that much is needed.

The louder 'esses' meet their louder out-of-phase counterparts while the quieter 'esses' meet their quieter out-of-phase versions.

You could even say that the 'esses' meet their 'nem-esses'.

I then usually apply and EQ, verb etc.

I like fine tuning the amount of cancellation with EQ and any verbs etc enabled as it lets you adjust the de-essing in context as you can balance the amount of sibilance to remain natural with the applied EQ and especially bright plate reverbs.

I'll point out the more you do, the faster you get at it, and you can begin to identify which 'esses' are going be more, or less, of an issue by simply their visual appearance. Some 'esses' you can simply ignore altogether if they are low enough in level.

I think you were clear from the start. What I'm getting at is that you "have one track containing a single wave file of.." the sections of the track that have not just esses, but ALSO whatever other sounds are accompanying the esses in that moment.  I'm suggesting that high and low pass could be applied to the 's' track so the focus is on phase reversing the esses and only the esses.

hahahah!!

^^ All true - I've been aware that most of the time the s snippets contain little in the way of pitch information outside of the target frequency - I'm just wondering how critical it is to be persnickety about these things. My guess is that unless you have a growly gravely singer, taming the lower frequencies probably isn't that critical, but higher frequencies include the "air" in the room (when you're capturing the space in any way - intentionally or not) will be sucked out along with the bath water and could potentially cause unwanted breathing, right?