The best effect for recording vocals is to RECORD NO effects. Vocals are always recorded DRY, and then you add effects when you mix the song down. That way you have more control over the effects, and you can alter the effects to blend with the music to better suit the mix. You can always ADD effects later, but you can't REMOVE an effect once it's recorded with the vocal....get it?

Maybe a good Mic Modeler plugin if you don't have any mics that give you the sound you like, but I agree with the other two respondents; Use a GREAT mic and a GREAT mic pre, record the vox trax dry and THEN effect in the mix.

The most important element in the chain (and one that seems to have been displaced in our day (I heard on TV that the SuperBowl half time show is being totally pre-recorded . . . too many variables and too much risk for things to go wrong, LOL)) is to start with a good vocalist.

I started this reply to be humorous, and would like it to stay that way. On the other hand, the Superbowl example, IMHO, shows how far we've allowed the pendulum to swing towards technology and away from talent.

All these well paid, super famous "artists" who are afraid to chance a live performance. I know the venue is challenging for a live performer, but, then, again, it's the challenge that makes the performer. What purpose does it serve, exactly, to have each and every performer up there doing lip-sync?

Sorry to derail the thread. I agree with the previous posters, although I'm not certain they gave the questioner the benefit of the doubt. I've read through BigK's post several times and don't see where he/she indicates whether the FX will be applied during acquisition of the source or during post production.

I record classical vocalists and find that even large, rich voices benefit from just a touch of reverb (so do the instruments that accompany them). I really don't use any other FX.

Just my two cents.

Caruso

Presuming you've already got a good microphone, a good singer, a good preamp, a good room, a pop filter, and a good soundcard... record it dry. Then depending on the type of music, there are all sorts of things you can do to the vocal...

The most common vocal effect is reverb. Make sure you experiment with all the parameters, and that the reverb is appropriate.

Some microphones may have a great sound, and not need EQ, but I'm a fan of the whole 'airy' sound, so sometimes a boost around 10Khz or above can help with that.

I'm a big fan of the R0DE series of Microphones.. get one. The NTK is great.. and the NT1000 on a lower budget...

If you have sibilence problems, check that the singer is on-axis with the microphone diaphragm. Try increasing the distance between the singer and the microphone. Try different microphones. Just because it works for one singer, doesn't mean it'll work for another. As a last resort, try using a de-esser, but that can compromise your quality of sound!

Some types of music work with more extreme effects. For example, the punk 'Blink 182' sound has a chorus on it, and sometimes a distortion as well.

If there's a really full sounding mix, to cut through the wall of sound, double or even triple tracking can help. Try this technique:

Record the main vocal, pan this central. Record another of the same vocal, pan this left, put it low in the mix. Record a third same vocal, pan this right, put it low in the mix. Try to make sure all the consonants are lined up otherwise it'll sound strange. Synchro Arts Vocalign rocks for lining up these takes! But anyway, if the lead vocal is loud enough, it'll cut through really well now, and have more stereo width to boot.

Another effect to try (with caution) is a pseudo-stereo plugin. This can help if a singer is not good at double tracking.

Almost forgot to mention. The most important: Compression. Make sure the levels are controlled throughout the song.

There's more to it.. but my hands are getting tired!

l8rs,
Jason

I agree 100% with the "Artist" factor. I, for one, am really put out with all these "fix-it" boxes & plug-ins. The saddest thing that has happened to music is the ability for those with none to be able to sound as if they have alot.

When I'm doing the session (and calling the shots), if the vocal is off - we do it again. Most of the time when a band or artist asks for help in helping them to make their project great, they will give way to allowing me to work them harder than they might do for themselves in order to bring out their best performances. Obviously, we have to be sensitive to their limits, but I will not let them (or myself) rely on some "magic box" to "create" a great performance. I also dislike the copy/paste routine common to digital recording.

Sorry for the soap-box answer, I just strongly believe in the good 'ol days when artistry & performance dictated whether or not you "made it".

BTW- you can also use EQ to make a LdV stand out in the mix. In a great mix, each instrument has its own little space carved out in which to sit. This gives the mix more depth, clarity & punch. The term used to refer to 2 or more instruments that occupy the same space (in the freq. spectrum) to where they become muffled or indistinguishable is "masking". When mixing, you need to listen very carefully for this phenomenon.

JL
OTR

Caruso,
Thanks, you're right. Nothing in the post was supposed
to indicate that I am not currently recording dry without FXs. I always
record dry and apply the effects when I am mixing. My question
was, as someone new to VA 2.0, are the effects that ship with this
software good for vocals and what FXs are folks getting good results
with.

I admit that I always just slap a little reverb on when I am done
and call it good. One responder mentioned compression. I guess
I am not familiar with the purpose of this effect. What does it do
and why is it good for vocals.

As a first time poster, I really appreciate the assistance that has
been given.

Technically speaking, compression is not an "effect" but rather a "process" (although it can be used as an effect). "Effect" refers to a signal altering device to which is sent only a PORTION of the original signal (as thru an aux send). "Processor" refers to a signal altering device thru which the ENTIRE signal is passed (ie. insert).

That being said, compression is often used as an effect. Over-compressing a signal adds a very unique sound and can be an interesting effect on certain instruments in some songs. However, the primary purpose of a compressor is to limit the dynamic range of a signal. That means: to decrease the difference between the highest signal level and the lowest signal level. In this case, the best compressor is one that is not heard. You can readily hear a cheap compressor working - sometimes even muffling the sound. Typical uses of a compressor are to smooth out and lower the level of peaks in the signal so that the entire signal level can be increased w/o causing distortion due to clipping, etc. For vocals, a compressor is commonly used to keep the signal level of the vocal from getting too hot thereby allowing the overall level to be raised as well as providing a smoother, more constant signal level. When a signal has less dynamic range, it stays in the foreground of the mix more & draws more attention to itself. This helps to bring the vocal out more in the mix. Another example of this is the use of compression on electric guitar. Used properly, compression helps to get the guitar IN YOUR FACE. Keep in mind, though, that more compression means less breathing room and can be very fatiguing to the listener. Classical music composers, directors and musicians abhore the use and effects of compression. They strive to maximize the dynamic range of their material. In contrast, rock, alternative, heavy metal and similar musical styles routinely compete for your attention.

I don't mean to assume that you know nothing about the subject, however, the proper use of compression is probably the most difficult to master since different types of audio signals react differently to the various parameters available for adjustment on compressors. Don't be afraid to experiment with them. Compressors can be very musical.

JL
OTR

Its really ironic. Recording studios normally are so well acoustically treated that they are "dead." The human voice leaves the speakers lips and drops down to the floor within 3 feet.

If you have such a recording environment, you need to add some "ambiance" back into the mix. But how much of what you add in, well, that really takes a lot of trial and error.

I suggest that first you decide how you WANT it to sound. There has to be a "virtual" goal. Then apply the necessary tweeks to achieve that sound.

What is nice about this DAW era is you can record it flat as a pancake and add in the spice later. And remember "a little dab will do ya." Don't go crazy with the processing and effects.

Can anyone recommend where I can learn more about techniques to put different instruments in different spaces in the mix. I'm familiar with the concept and it makes a lot of sense. I'm also on a mission right now to really work on my final mixing abilities. I have 4 songs that I want to do as good a job as I can right now. I read somewhere that reverb gives the illusion or places an instrument farther back in the mix or space. Also that higher frequencies tend to bring it more to the front of the mix. It seems obvious that right and left panning will separate the instruments. So then do you recommend panning one instrument 30% left and another 60% left etc? or do you go with 50% one side then use a little reverb on one instrument to push it back a little in the mix and more reverb on the next to push it back further and thereby separate it from the previous instrument even though they're both at 50% pan?

I am really not dealing with that many instruments. Drums, bass (does panning a bass have any effect? I heard that bass frequencies don't have much of a stereo quality to them) 1 to 4 guitar tracks, lead vocal (which I've been duplicating, panning 30% to each side and sliding one track slightly), and one or two back up vocals.

I know most of the expertise in this area will ONLY come from experience, but I am looking for some tips to experiment with so I can get the experience. Can anyone help here on this forum or recommend a book that deals with separating instruments in a mix?

Thanks
Todd
NaCL

This didn't post to the end of the thread the first time so I am reposting at the end of the thread. Sorry for the duplication.

Can anyone recommend where I can learn more about techniques to put different instruments in different spaces in the mix. I'm
familiar with the concept and it makes a lot of sense. I'm also on a mission right now to really work on my final mixing abilities. I have
4 songs that I want to do as good a job as I can right now. I read somewhere that reverb gives the illusion or places an instrument
farther back in the mix or space. Also that higher frequencies tend to bring it more to the front of the mix. It seems obvious that right
and left panning will separate the instruments. So then do you recommend panning one instrument 30% left and another 60% left etc?
or do you go with 50% one side then use a little reverb on one instrument to push it back a little in the mix and more reverb on the
next to push it back further and thereby separate it from the previous instrument even though they're both at 50% pan?

I am really not dealing with that many instruments. Drums, bass (does panning a bass have any effect? I heard that bass frequencies
don't have much of a stereo quality to them) 1 to 4 guitar tracks, lead vocal (which I've been duplicating, panning 30% to each side
and sliding one track slightly), and one or two back up vocals.

I know most of the expertise in this area will ONLY come from experience, but I am looking for some tips to experiment with so I can
get the experience. Can anyone help here on this forum or recommend a book that deals with separating instruments in a mix?

Thanks
Todd
NaCL

Personally, I am a big fan of the Waves plugins. Everyone seems to agree that the track goes down dry, but the truth is that some of us with small home studios just don't have the dough for a good large diaphragm condenser. I have found that in punk rock and most loud, agressive music, using a 58 with a pop filter will do the trick (even Madonna did this for years...and her recordings didn't seem to suffer too much, did they?), although I usually have to drop about 3-6db, depending on the singer, at about 250hz, just to boost intelligibility a bit (without doing this, is gets a bit muddy and difficult to understand). Bring up your HF a bit at about 10k, too, just to give it a little more "openness". Compression, Paragraphic EQ and Verb on mixdown, and that's it. Another quick note...Set your sampling rate as high as possible...you may not notice the difference at first, but it REALLY shows in the finished product.

Technically speaking the question was "What is the best effect for RECORDING vocals?" ANSWER=DRY.....Ahhhhh, so maybe the question should have been, "What is the best effect for MIXING vocals?". Well, obviously as you can tell by all the responses and opinions, that this question is like assholes....everyone's got one. Take them all as word of advice and experiment and add them all to your arsenal of artillary. There is NO ONE set way of mixing a vocal.

The question about PANNING BASS: Bass is normally panned DEAD CENTER just like most LOW Bass frequency instruments (kicks, 808 Hum). The reason for this, is that Low frequency instruments are "NON-Directional"...what that means is that the WAVELENGTH of the sounds is big enough that your ears cannot decifer if the sound is coming from the left or right. Just like, when you place a sub woofer in your studio or in your living room for your surround sound system. You have 1 sub-woofer, and it does not matter if you place it on the Right of Left side of the room, since it is "Non-directional".....it's non-directional because the wavelength is much longer then the size of your head....technically speaking :-).