JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques Recording Studio and Gear Forum compressors for vocals

I've been thinking about getting a compressor solely for vocals. My vocal performance is pretty dynamic, and until now I've been using VST/DXi compressor plugins on my vocal tracks, but it seems like unnecessary processing overhead to fix something that should be addressed before the signal gets recorded. I figure a decent compressor/limiter can help me get a smoother, even signal.

Some newbie questions:

- pre or post? Where's best place to put the compressor in the signal path?
- should I look into multiband compressors or is that overkill?
- are digital compressors kewl? I'd like to be able to save compressor settings and label them instead of working dials every time, but it's not worth it if they sound lousy.

And lastly, I'm looking for brand/model recommendations. I'm a total moron when it comes to gear.

Thanks in advance!

------------------
Scott Andrew and the Walkingbirds
Lo-fi DIY acoustic pop
Hear it: http://www.scottandrew.com/main/music

Avalon 737sp is the current reigning champ for vocals when recording from a mic.

Most people don't need a multiband compressor. That's usually for broadcast stuff (USUALLY).

Digital compressors are great during mixing if you need to compress something in a mix. Sonelksis (sp?) is pretty nice. Anything by Waves is awesome.

Jody

Mornin Scott,
I'm no expert, so FWIW;
I've got a table top ART Levelar tube compressor that cost me less than $100. I run it through the Post fader aux on my mixer. This made for less knob twiddling for me. And the more twiddling I do, the confuseder I get
It took me awhile to get all the gain stages correct. At first, it raised the noise floor to an unacceptable level. But, it's saved some tracks for me (sometimes I get too excited )
The next best recording gear I bought was a Berry digital eq. Even if I don't have the eq enabled, it has an adjustable limiter which doesn't allow a signal over -6db through to the sound card. I know, that's probably cheating. But,
I can use all the help that I can get,
Bill

There are two primary reasons to use compression. One is to electronically ride the gain so as not to overload the electronics,causing distortion, on the way into your recording medium of choice, and two, to use the compression as an "effect".

In the old day's, there was a balancing act between the noise floor and the available dynamic range of a given piece of gear. A vocalist could have a dynamic range of 90db, a whisper to a scream. If the dynamic range of a particular piece of equipment in the vocal chain is 60db, they needed to reduce the vocal's dynamic range by a minimum of 30db, otherwise, the whisper would be lost in the noise floor and the scream would cause distortion in the electronics of said piece of gear. They used to "ride the faders", manually adjusting the volume. This was very difficult and repeatability was next to impossible.

Then some brainiac devised a method of electonically riding the gain, (don't remember who off hand), and compressors were born.

Unfortunately, there were some drawbacks. after compressing, make up gain raised the noise floor of the track and it colored the sound, but you compromised and found the "middle ground". Then some people liked the sound that the compressor imparted on some material and it started being used as an "effect".

Current recording technology has drastically raised the dynamic range. Mid level gear typically has a dynamic range of 96db or better. At 44.1 24bit you can record with no compression and still stay well above the noise floor with no "overs". This is my preferred methodology on tracks that I don't want a compression "effect" on. If I need to reduce the dynamic range of a given track to bring it to the front of the mix I lean towards "riding the faders" which is much easier now with track automation. Repeatability is now possible. This sounds much more natural to my ears.

I personally don't like the "effect" that budget compressors impart on tracks. To my ears they suck the life out of them.

High end compressors can sound cool for "effect" on certain tracks. Distessor, 1176, LA2A etc. Sometimes I'll mult a track and squash the heck out of it, then bring it in underneath the un-compressed track to taste.

To answer your specific questions,

When trying to use compression for reducing the dynamic range transparently, go pre fader. This will make all the equipment upstream have a more stable signal to work with. (mostly moot for modern gear)

Multiband compressors are usually used at the mastering stage to squeese every last bit of dynamic range out of your material, so it's louder then the next guy's (icky)

There are some cool "digital" compressors. Compression by it's very nature is not a "set and forget" kind of device. You need to "twiddle" the knobs on each individual track to achieve the results you are looking for. A setting that work's on a trombone during the "break" most likely won't work on the "chorus", where you don't want it to step on the vocal. If I may be so bold, I'd suggest this approach. (Assuming you don't have thousands of $ to throw at high end hardware compressors). Compress at mix down. For volume level decisions, listen to a particular track, in a particular section. Where is it to loud? Where is it to soft? Now load the most transparent compressor you have, we're not trying to change the sound here, just get the track to sit in the mix where we want. Now "twiddle" the knobs until it sit's where you like and move to the next section and repeat. Repeat for other tracks. You can also achieve this with "fader automation" as I mentioned earlier. This sounds more natural to my ears, and gives you note by note control.

If you're trying to change the sound of the track, ie, using compression for "effect", sky's the limit. Pre, post, whatever manipulates the sound to your wish's. Experimentation is the key here.

For a inexpensive hardware compressor that's relatively transparent, there is the RNC. (Real Nice Compressor) About $250.00. A google search will bring it up. Some people swear by some of dbx's offering's. I think they suck the life out of the sound. YMMV.

For compression "effect", the UAD-1 is a PCI card with emulations of the 1176, LA2A that are pretty good. They have a bunch of other efects to. I think they are running about $650.00 street.

Hope this helps!

Rob





------------------
http://www.songramp.com/homepage.ez?Who=RJC

I use the RNC. I got it for $175 new. I'm happy with it. It has also received a lot of very good reviews in the recording magazines.

------------------
Stone Marmot
www.stonemarmot.com

I am a huge fan of vocal comression. I actually compress to tape or pro tools and then often comress again in the mix. This may sound a little over the top, but that's only if you hate the sound major label rock and pop records. Heavy vocal compression done right can let you keep vocals up front and still make the rest of the track sound big as well.

I use plug in compressors only as a last resort. People will argue both sides of this point, but i have never heard a plug in that gets vocals to sit in a mix as well as a decent analog compressor. My fave is the Emperical Labs Distressor, but they cost about $1300. But for under $200 you can get an RNC by FMR audio. Best bang for the buck comressor I have ever heard. When you are compressing try using a slow attack and fast release as your start point and tweek from there.

------------------
Ronan Chris Murphy
Home Recording Boot Camp
"Recording School for the Rest of us"
www.homerecordingbootcamp.com

Thanks for the detailed and thorough advice, everyone

------------------
Scott Andrew and the Walkingbirds
Lo-fi DIY acoustic pop
Hear it: http://www.scottandrew.com/main/music

Ronan, try the Sonelksis. I think that's the spelling. It's relatively very new and really damn good for a plug in. But it's also pricey.

Jody

My personal choice is DBX166XL Comp/Limiter/Gate. Fantastic piece of affordable workhorse product in the studio and on the road.

AAhhhh, Bluezguy..

I thought I was the only one that still had a 166 in the rack, much less use it all the time.

I love mine, and I've gotten to know it pretty well over the years.

I've heard nothing but good things about the RNCs natural sound and"bang for the buck"

But....me and this old dbx are gonna keep on chuggin' along.

Bob

Salavations there Bob,
I've got 4 of them! Two of the dbx166xl's are in my guitar/vocal rig for the road...the other 2 are in my tapeless studio...one for stereo guitar input the other for stereo voice. It must be a northern 'thang'. I got the stuff in Detroit.
Happy Squashin',
Jake.

I have both the RNC and a 166 in my rack. I love the RNC for vocals (in "Supernice" mode), but I really don't like it for bass.

The 166 is more versatile in that it can handle vocals, as well as other instruments - just not quite as smoothly or transparently as the RNC.



------------------
Larry
www.audibleresponse.com

We've had some great suggestions here.
The RNC is probably the best bet for the techno inhibited. It gives good results without much tweeking.
Vocals really work best through a compressor with an optical detector circuit like the classic LA2. The relatively slow attack/release works well for vocals. One of my favorites is the Ashly CL52. No matter how much I squash things, I can't really hear any side effects from compression.

------------------
"Take 276, you know this used to be fun."
John Entwistle