|
Post by Guitar on Dec 14, 2016 18:22:51 GMT -6
I built this 251, and I'm getting what for me seem to be some spectacular and inspiring vocal sounds, really got me going right now. This mic makes me sound like a better singer. The problem is I seem to need a De-Esser on almost any given performance. I don't consider myself a particularly sibilant singer, in fact my voice is actually probably better described as somewhat dark.
I am using an ADK GK-12d capsule. I am fairly certain that if I changed my capsule to a Heiserman, Campbell, or BeezNeez, the presence boost would move into the air regions and give that flatter darker mid you'd expect from a CK12 microphone. I've done some intensive internet research, and I do believe this particular ADK capsule to have some of that spittiness or edginess to it. I love the low end on it though. I'm getting a very 'warm' sound in the mids and bottom. I had some similar issues with my similarly of Chinese provenance Peluso capsules which are long gone. Also not a true CK-12. I have yet to try out a properly made CK12, by that I mean historical correctness of the complex acoustic chamber in the backplates. This is ADK's brightest capsule, and you can hear it. I could also consider the ADK GK-251d capsule, which might give a similar but somewhat darker tonality.
This reminds me of my Peluso 2247 SE, which always seemed to need some little EQ, so it fell out of favor. I know EQ is very common, de-essing is probably fairly common, I just for some reason expect a vocal mic to sound nearly ideal when recorded flat. I do have a couple mics that sort of work like that. I don't know if that is a realistic expectation or if I should think more of a 'perfect vocal chain' involving these other elements as a standard practice.
It's just a little nerve-wracking because it's so close, and there's not a whole lot of DIY kind of work left to do at this point. I've darkened the top and boosted the lows as much as I comfortably can, the problem zone is in that tricky high-midrange area. With a little de-essing and avoiding top end boosts, the vocals sound great, and sit in a good place in the mix. Well, way up front. A couple DIY options I haven't experimented with are lowering the capsule polarization voltage, and/or using the second half of the tube as a buffer to lower THD and tube coloration.
Backing off the mic seems to help some, my natural tendency is to get right up on it. Maybe I just need to practice better engineering depending on what mic is set up.
I don't know if I've been lazy, sloppy, or lucky, but I have very rarely had to use de-essing on most of the mixes I've done in the past 15 years. To suddenly need it all the time seems kind of strange to me. I was looking around the net, and it seems like a lot of people use it somewhat to very frequently as a matter of course.
I guess I'm curious what people think about de-essing in general. If it comes up a lot and you just do it, or if you put in all kind of setup to completely avoid it?
I'll probably end up with a different capsule. If you had a mic with sibilance problems would you think it was a bad mic?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 14, 2016 18:26:48 GMT -6
I de-ess pretty frequently. Really depends on the singer first, then the mic. Some compression approaches tend to bring it out too.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Dec 14, 2016 18:33:49 GMT -6
Sometimes it makes vocals sound better regardless of ssss.
Recently I've started ti try it on every vocal and make the call as sometimes it smooths out a vocal just slightly.
|
|
|
Post by mdmitch2 on Dec 14, 2016 19:17:25 GMT -6
I use if frequently, especially with brighter modern productions. I also built a matador c12 and used a microphone parts capsule, and just dealt with the sibilance. Since then I've done a few recordings with Heiserman's c12 and the sibilance was much less of an issue. It also had a much more pleasing tone and beat out the Chinese capsule on all counts. Monkey, I know it's a bit of a drive from Asheville, but if you happen to be in the Raleigh/Durham area, you could demo Eric's C12, or his other mics/capsules.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Dec 15, 2016 4:06:45 GMT -6
I built this 251, and I'm getting what for me seem to be some spectacular and inspiring vocal sounds, really got me going right now. This mic makes me sound like a better singer. The problem is I seem to need a De-Esser on almost any given performance. I don't consider myself a particularly sibilant singer, in fact my voice is actually probably better described as somewhat dark. I am using an ADK GK-12d capsule. I am fairly certain that if I changed my capsule to a Heiserman, Campbell, or BeezNeez, the presence boost would move into the air regions and give that flatter darker mid you'd expect from a CK12 microphone. I've done some intensive internet research, and I do believe this particular ADK capsule to have some of that spittiness or edginess to it. I love the low end on it though. I'm getting a very 'warm' sound in the mids and bottom. I had some similar issues with my similarly of Chinese provenance Peluso capsules which are long gone. Also not a true CK-12. I have yet to try out a properly made CK12, by that I mean historical correctness of the complex acoustic chamber in the backplates. This is ADK's brightest capsule, and you can hear it. I could also consider the ADK GK-251d capsule, which might give a similar but somewhat darker tonality. This reminds me of my Peluso 2247 SE, which always seemed to need some little EQ, so it fell out of favor. I know EQ is very common, de-essing is probably fairly common, I just for some reason expect a vocal mic to sound nearly ideal when recorded flat. I do have a couple mics that sort of work like that. I don't know if that is a realistic expectation or if I should think more of a 'perfect vocal chain' involving these other elements as a standard practice. It's just a little nerve-wracking because it's so close, and there's not a whole lot of DIY kind of work left to do at this point. I've darkened the top and boosted the lows as much as I comfortably can, the problem zone is in that tricky high-midrange area. With a little de-essing and avoiding top end boosts, the vocals sound great, and sit in a good place in the mix. Well, way up front. A couple DIY options I haven't experimented with are lowering the capsule polarization voltage, and/or using the second half of the tube as a buffer to lower THD and tube coloration. Backing off the mic seems to help some, my natural tendency is to get right up on it. Maybe I just need to practice better engineering depending on what mic is set up. I don't know if I've been lazy, sloppy, or lucky, but I have very rarely had to use de-essing on most of the mixes I've done in the past 15 years. To suddenly need it all the time seems kind of strange to me. I was looking around the net, and it seems like a lot of people use it somewhat to very frequently as a matter of course. I guess I'm curious what people think about de-essing in general. If it comes up a lot and you just do it, or if you put in all kind of setup to completely avoid it? I'll probably end up with a different capsule. If you had a mic with sibilance problems would you think it was a bad mic? Yes. I have a few mics that I won't use because of that and I choose vocal mics to avoid sibilance. I also work with mic placement and mic technique and avoid pop filters (aka sibilance generators) like the plague. I think I've used a de-esser once in the last several years and if I recall correctly it wasn't on vocal. This is in spite of having a somewhat sibilant character to my voice that annoys me and which has been somewhat exacerbated over the last couple of years by dentures (which I have also modified slightly to control sibilance and a slight whistle.)
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Dec 15, 2016 6:05:40 GMT -6
How cute they're little footballs..... laces out.... name the movie 😂
Sibilance appears as football esque shapes in PT's waveform view. I Clip gain in PT, use fades, and or Audio suite eq. Some of the little footballs need up to minus 10db others are perfect with -2-3db, -6db etc.
To my ears and everyone else I work with, they prefer this workflow and sound and understand it does cost them more $ because it take s me more work and time which is fine, I used to include it in my price b4 a year ago because I want to provide the best sound anyway.
Rarely will i put a high frequency limiter that does not contain attack and release settings on vox. Never in my life have I heard a "SW" de esser make a vocal sound better by just inserting one. From my research and experience sibilance is not one specific frequency, so multiple de esser 's would be needed to target the true sibilance area of the vocal. Like lots of things in music, a little goes a long way.
If you must use a de esser, find ones with range ( how many db it will do maximum reduction wise regardless of threshold) and attack / release controls so you can tailor your high frequency limiting to the vocal and not sound like a blanket is thrown on the vox from 4K and up ever time a hard consonant or sibilant is sung.
|
|
|
Post by kevinnyc on Dec 15, 2016 8:33:08 GMT -6
Hehe the same movie from which the quote "Dan Marino should die of gonorhea and rot in hell" came from.....
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 15, 2016 9:52:43 GMT -6
Well, I'm not afraid to track with a dbx 902 if need be, it is frequently better sounding than the natural technique and delivery of the unwashed masses, and I haven't F'ed it up yet. The de-esser plug in DP is pretty dang good, fairly tunable with look-ahead. But sure, none is better if you can figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 15, 2016 12:16:23 GMT -6
I also built Matador's C12 fitted with Tim Campbell's CK12 capsule, Cinemag CM-13114 output transformer and a NOS GE-6072 tube. Running it through a SCA J99 preamp it doesn't seem excessively sibilant. Still testing and tweaking however.
Bear in mind it's not often just one thing and several small things can all combine to make sibilance rear its ugly head.
|
|
|
Post by john on Dec 15, 2016 13:17:31 GMT -6
recently used my dbx 263a on a lead guitar that was a bit harsh. worked like a champ.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 15, 2016 13:24:43 GMT -6
If you're gonna smash the crap out of some drum room mics, 902's in high frequency limit mode are really useful as part of the chain.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 15, 2016 13:29:25 GMT -6
Every vocal, every time.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Dec 15, 2016 13:34:58 GMT -6
Yeah I almost always use it, even if just barely.
If you haven't, try FabFilter ProDS. It is head and shoulders above the rest in my opinion. Sounds like it's not there.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Dec 15, 2016 15:42:48 GMT -6
I de-ess any time its necessary - which for my mixes is most of the time.
Most of the things I'm working on is rock with some belting or screaming singers - often untrained, for sure. Often times I have to compress the hell out of those singers to make 'em compete with the instruments. That compression really accentuates the esses. So, in a way, the more I have to compress the more likely I am to have to de-ess.
I use a combination of techniques: multiband compression (separate the essy region into a couple bands and tap 'em down a few db) and automation/clip gain. Like one person above said, it seems to control a little bit o' the harshness even when esses aren't flying around.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Dec 15, 2016 16:41:46 GMT -6
Well, I'm not afraid to track with a dbx 902 if need be, it is frequently better sounding than the natural technique and delivery of the unwashed masses, and I haven't F'ed it up yet. The de-esser plug in DP is pretty dang good, fairly tunable with look-ahead. But sure, none is better if you can figure it out. I apologize for not adding "SW" de esser 👍 Have heard and seen DBX 902 do miracles
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Dec 15, 2016 16:42:59 GMT -6
Eqing ( Hi Freq. boosting ) after compression will not help sibilance or hard consonants either.
De esser's are for lazy people 😂 You guys obviously don't know how " pros "use clip gain 😳🖕😂 and you definitely don't have clients that "expect radio ready mixes " 😂😬
( yes I'm poking fun and playing around )
See I like charcoal grill flavor and you like natural gas for convenice.... we are both grilling our filet mignon to perfection though ( or wagu Kobe if you're balling )
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 15, 2016 16:49:54 GMT -6
Haven't read through the thread yet, but I rarely use one now. As my mic collection has become smaller, but higher quality, I haven't had to use one.
I had that problem with my 251/C12 clone, but once I moved to the U47, I haven't needed to de-ess at all.
One thing that I did notice is that having the singer stand back a little more, around 8" from the mic, I get drastically less pop and SSSSS, even without a pop filter. I usually just use a soft pop filter to help soften the vocals mechanically rather than use a de-esser now.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Dec 15, 2016 17:23:58 GMT -6
Comparing our Flea 47 (F7/EF12) to our Bock 251 the Bock is smoother in the sibilance area. The Flea has the typical U47 midrange presence which does extend into the sibilance zone.
The Bock is dead smooth throughout the midrange but does have more air than the Flea however this mostly occurs above the 10-12khz range.
|
|
|
Post by hasbeen on Dec 15, 2016 22:50:51 GMT -6
I use one in my vocal chain most of the time. I like it and seem to miss it when I don't use one. I replaced my DBX 920 with the 500 series version.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Dec 16, 2016 1:21:02 GMT -6
I use one in my vocal chain most of the time. I like it and seem to miss it when I don't use one. I replaced my DBX 920 with the 500 series version. what do you think of the 500 series version. cheers Wiz
|
|
|
Post by hasbeen on Dec 16, 2016 2:09:11 GMT -6
I use one in my vocal chain most of the time. I like it and seem to miss it when I don't use one. I replaced my DBX 920 with the 500 series version. what do you think of the 500 series version. cheers Wiz I like it fine! Seems same as the rack if memory serves. Nice quiet de-essing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 9:55:34 GMT -6
As an unfortunate owner of an NT1A - I have d-ess on speed dial
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Dec 16, 2016 10:11:21 GMT -6
As an unfortunate owner of an NT1A - I have d-ess on speed dial Didn't everybody's favorite modder, Jim Williams, design this thing? I'm surprised they get slagged on so much with him getting such universal praise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 10:25:19 GMT -6
Needs a change of capsule which costs as much as the mic I think.
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Dec 16, 2016 10:29:11 GMT -6
I designed the NT-2 and NT-1, not the A versions that are surface mount. I've rebuilt a lot of dbx 902's but I've never had a reason to use one in the last 40 years. Pick the mic and preamp carefully and those things will collect dust. Sibilance is acceptable and necessary for a natural sound. Over use that stuff and the singers get a lisp and sound gay.
|
|