|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 8, 2013 16:11:25 GMT -6
a hardware compressor for a while...I have somehow made myself think that I can't record vocals without one...and I know that's just the Devil talking...
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 8, 2013 16:23:10 GMT -6
That being said, I wish UA would come out with an Apollo Mini or something...I would love to be able to buy that for $1000 or below and be able to use the UAD stuff on the way in. That way I could afford to buy it and clock with the Symphony. I'd love to use the LA2A collection and the Fairchild on the way in.
BTW, I've been testing out an Emotiva Stealth DC-1 DAC and it's freaking fantastic. $499. Honestly, I really think it [might just i]sound[/i] better than the Symphony DA. Bigger/punchier bottom, smoother top and mids...I'm not sure which one is more true, though. I know this - my mixes have been lacking top end sheen and I've thought maybe it was my monitors (Focal Solos and now Pro Acs) or then I thought it might be the power amps...but I'm beginning to think the Symphony DA is a touch bright, so I've been pulling it out...Now - who knows - it could be my ears...Not about to sell the Symphony, but man - what a bargain this Emotiva is...
|
|
|
|
Post by jsteiger on Dec 8, 2013 16:24:55 GMT -6
Impossible. You should look into a STA Level. They are amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Dec 8, 2013 20:33:24 GMT -6
Impossible. You should look into a STA Level. They are amazing. I heard really good things about the STA. I say get the best sound to tape rather than waiting till the mixing stage. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 8, 2013 22:21:33 GMT -6
Well, you know...this really isn't anything to hem and haw over. You own one now? Just don't use it. That's what it's like.  I couldn't wait to ditch print compression on the way in. Compression rarely makes anything sound better in isolation if you're gain matched, IMO. It's ALL about mix context and getting everything heard and bringing up details that are getting lost with the mix... But, you know--I guess everyone has to go through their phase where everything sounds better compressed....especially potent with analog units that introduce all kinds of cool sounding distortions that have little to do with the actual stated purpose of using a compressor. I certainly did. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 8, 2013 23:12:30 GMT -6
Impossible. You should look into a STA Level. They are amazing. You, Sir, sucketh... I'm rationalizing... |
|
|
|
Post by jsteiger on Dec 8, 2013 23:14:20 GMT -6
Did you sell the Brute?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 8, 2013 23:23:01 GMT -6
Of course you can record without one. You'll just need to mix with two!
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 8, 2013 23:51:07 GMT -6
I use the amazing UAD LA2 plug on the way in, print with it judiciously, if I need more later, fine, but it's been working nicely. I'd keep my eyes out at evilbay, there's bound to eventually be an Apollo that falls through the cracks that you can put a low bid in for.
None of my tracks were done with hardware compressors. and they sound fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by wreck on Dec 9, 2013 10:39:59 GMT -6
I have never owned a hardware (rack) compressor. Maybe it shows in my vocal mixes, I don't know. I usually clip gain everything within reason then run it through a software comp and I really don't feel like I am missing anything, but maybe that's because I don't know what I am missing. I do, on occasion, regret not having one when the vocalist clips the pre, but that's not something you would have to worry about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 9, 2013 13:23:44 GMT -6
Ok - let me say this...my gear obsession is totally jonesing to buy another compressor...but...I'm sitting here tracking a guy I'm producing just through a pre and straight in and I have to tell you - it's better. I always seemed to have this "essy-ness" - like smearing or something that was coming across. I was kind of blaming it on melodyne, but man, here it is without it. It's almost like the compressors I've been using were adding some top end in an unattractive way. Maybe it's user error...
Any ideas on how to monitor with compression but not track it short of buying an Apollo?
|
|
|
|
Post by wreck on Dec 9, 2013 14:19:55 GMT -6
I have plugins on tracking sessions all the time. I just try and use Zero (or close) latency plugins. The new slate VBC is zero latency if you have it. SSL Comp is Zero I believe. I guess they don't have to be Zero, but my computer isn't new and it helps in my case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Dec 9, 2013 14:22:31 GMT -6
Slate VBC is very good, but for vocals, the UAD LA2 just can't be beat, at least in my experience. I've had them both for a while now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 9, 2013 14:33:59 GMT -6
I would split the mic pre to the recorder and also to a (probably cheap) hardware compressor and monitor off of that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2013 14:57:02 GMT -6
I would think it to be a settings issue on the hardware. If it is essy, I usually find my attack is too slow. Perhaps smeared is either barely slow or too fast with yours. Have you run tests incrementally changing the attack? It may help you find the right spot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 9, 2013 14:57:27 GMT -6
I guess I could always put a cheap HW compressor before the headphone system.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 9, 2013 15:06:33 GMT -6
Ok - let me say this...my gear obsession is totally jonesing to buy another compressor...but...I'm sitting here tracking a guy I'm producing just through a pre and straight in and I have to tell you - it's better. I've believed this for a long time, tracking with compression removes some things, locks you in, and eliminates options in the mix, Bruce Swedien has said this forever.."tracking with compression is kookoo"(i'm pretty sure that was it?) If you are limited on hardware, and know EXACTLY what you want in the end, then print compress, eq, effects to your hearts desire. I personally want as much control over dynamics/frequency range at mix time as i can get, removing original transient info and dynamic range while tracking, will never allow you to get it back. IMV, the only time to track with compression is when you have an unruly player/singer, and thats usually resolved with a little lower level, good mic placement, and safety limiting. ? Why would you commit compression to disk if you have 1000 virtual compressors at hand for mixdown? If a player wants to hear all those effects while tracking, set it up on the HP mix, chances are good that that particular set up will not be the best for the completed track anyway. as always JMO, YMMV |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 9, 2013 15:46:25 GMT -6
Ok - let me say this...my gear obsession is totally jonesing to buy another compressor...but...I'm sitting here tracking a guy I'm producing just through a pre and straight in and I have to tell you - it's better. I always seemed to have this "essy-ness" - like smearing or something that was coming across. I was kind of blaming it on melodyne, but man, here it is without it. It's almost like the compressors I've been using were adding some top end in an unattractive way. Maybe it's user error... Any ideas on how to monitor with compression but not track it short of buying an Apollo? You're welcome. Analog mixer is the obvious choice...and the one I use. Cheap ass little Behringer line mixer I used years ago as a keyboard sub...that and some inexpensive Y cables...and yes, I've actually tested with and without to make sure the Y wasn't affecting tone. Getting a singer to sing with ANY digital compressor is going to be a chore. I get off key if you give me a digital FEED...but, I'm admittedly an odd bird--I can show it with fretless bass, too...I don't know if it's PCM or lower rate PCM....I just don't care--because it also allows me to keep the daw set on some ungodly 1024 buffer or something and never change it...that's also a solid answer for getting them "more me", too. While you can do the same thing with the hardware digital mixer on the soundcard, it gets trickier on some to not change the level going to the software. I always recommend there is an little analog mixer around...there are just people (like me) who get the track doen faster with an analog feed than digital. It makes a whole lot easier when dealing with a computer. Mine's a 1U rack...no big footprint...it's only recieving--so it's no where in the audio path that gets monitored (outside phones) or cut...I actually saw someone locally had a Rane 1U for sale for like $75--which is a killer deal, because when I was buying at least, they were $400 or something--I knew they'd likely be a better choice than B...but, it was $99 vs $400+ for a little utility mixer for some old keys--I try to spend where it matters, ya know? But, if I didn't already own it, I'd pick up that used Rane and use it. |
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 9, 2013 15:47:30 GMT -6
Sweiden, huh? Like I'm in good company. usually when I mention it, I get looked at like I have a third head.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Dec 9, 2013 15:57:32 GMT -6
When tracking to tape? Sure. You usually don't need it because you have that glorious tape compression! But nowadays going into a DAw, you don't. So, some sort of analog compression warms things up and puts that protective barrier in place that simulates the 3db to 9db compression you got going to analog tape, whether you realized you were getting it or not. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 9, 2013 17:14:27 GMT -6
The dynamic range of a musical performance can be as wide as 120dB.
Analogue tape (without noise reduction) has a dynamic range of about 72dB.
32-bit digital audio has a theoretical maximum dynamic range of 192dB, but the best of electronic designs can only provide 130dB maybe.
with such tremendous bit depths, resolutions, and considering the huge dynamic range, and S/N ratios available to you today, lowering your levels while tracking into the digital domain is good practice, and adding compression after the fact is a totally viable and reasonable thing to do.
What's not debatable, is If u do it this way, it gives you a larger color palate, and more options to work with overall at mix time....if you have the gear/plugs to cover it.
YMMV, art is subjective, there is no right and wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Dec 9, 2013 17:42:47 GMT -6
Normal compressors do nothing to replace or simulate tape. I'm calling winky BS. Unless you were crushing everything into the red all the time, which would also, well--suck...tape didn't significant reduce dynamic range. It was actually the opposite-you needed compression to get the rms of dynamic things above the noise floor. If you compressed later, it would make hiss unbearable. It was functionally neccessary where now its not--feel free to make the artistic choice, I certainly won't argue with whatever works for you, but your statements about the effect of tape and the functional reason then and now is flawed. That why I mean....it was a huge thing for me to be able to NoT...I recorded to tape for a decade or more before moving to digital...I always loved the sound of NOT using them with tape, but it was functionally needed. With 24bit digital, you just don't need. |
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Dec 10, 2013 1:27:49 GMT -6
Sibilance is a moving target. If you don't hear it while recording (without a comp), it'll show up when mixing (maybe that's the mix guy's problem...unless you're the mix guy too!)
JJ Blair says to turn the mic off axis from the singers mouth...ahh... less sibilant. But it's darker! So u add eq to brighten it up and there's the freaking sibilance again!
I don't even worry about it...I focus on the tone of the sung notes and then deal with sibilance later... clip gain, eq hi-cut at 8k, de-esser, whatever...it's really not a difficult problem to fix.
That aside... I love using hardware comps while recording vocals. I generally use one hardware comp (STA, 1176, VCA whatever) for the tone and modest gain riding, and then also have a TDM comp on the input for additional glue. Singers will sing better if they hear themselves well and evenly.
|
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Dec 10, 2013 1:50:38 GMT -6
Oy...
Lately I've been going through a distressor, into the Retro 176, Inward nitro EQ and then the doublewide.
A lot of compressors but not a lot of compression. Granted I'm workin with a really dynamic singer that likes to do whole song takes.
It's more about envelope shaping and knee characteristic than minimizing dynamic range for me. I'm trying to get her to sound more urgent or like, super human.
Anyway...now you guys have me thinking I'm all wrong!
Wink...
Ahh eff it!
|
|
|
|
Post by littlesicily on Dec 10, 2013 1:57:31 GMT -6
Oy... Lately I've been going through a distressor, into the Retro 176, Inward nitro EQ and then the doublewide. A lot of compressors but not a lot of compression. Granted I'm workin with a really dynamic singer that likes to do whole song takes. It's more about envelope shaping and knee characteristic than minimizing dynamic range for me. I'm trying to get her to sound more urgent or like, super human. Anyway...now you guys have me thinking I'm all wrong! Wink... Ahh eff it! Man, I've not had one mix guy complain about my vocal files when I record with compression... quite the contrary. I think it's about recording what sounds good more than the method. With any given singer, I usually have 2-3 mics setup that I think will most likely work, then as they sing I quickly patch thru 1 of 3 different preamps, then once the pre is determined I'll start patching thru one of 3 different comps till I find the sound I like. Before they hit the bridge, I've got it dialed in, no eq except for some HPF. I like the STA-Level, for example, for the tone and the "taming the shrill" factor as much as anything. |
|
