Recording "dry" vocals.

[thefruitfarmer]

At the moment I seem to be attracting a little interest in my home studio from vocalists.

What they are asking for is dry and unprocessed vocals that they can then send to a proper producer to add all the processing with their own equipment, in a professional studio.

However..................

The best results I have had is when I have processed a little on the way in.....I use a dbx 286A and give the singer or rapper a little compression and maybe EQ the voice to bring out some of their individual tones.....I use a Rode NT1 mic and the dynamic range going through the dbx is happy within a sweet spot of about 10dB....the room is very dry with loads of Rockwool too...doing it this way gives a very clear sound with only very minimal room artifacts.

When the vocalist has some "resistance" of the compressor to "push" against and a particular twang in their voice slightly accentuated this seems to boost their confidence and they relax and give a better performance.

So, does Mr Producer need a completely dry vocal, with full dynamic range to play with in whatever way they see fit?

What I am thinking is that I perhaps should use the preamp in the desk (A&H mixwizard), it may have a greater dynamic range, rather than the dbx 286a, and have the treated vocal as the foldback for the vocalist.

But, experience tells me that the slightly processed vocal on the way in will be the one I would actually use, with additional processing, and that would be the one I would use in a mixdown demo for the artist.

What I may end up doing is simultaneously recording two tracks together of each vocal, one slightly compressed and EQ'd and the other completely unprocessed...

How would others approach this?

I feel a little confused.

[Sam Inglis]

I would usually take the word "dry" to mean without any reverb, delay or room ambience. If I was mixing a track I don't think I'd have a problem with the engineer applying a bit of EQ and compression on the way in -- as long as it was the right EQ and compression. For instance I'll almost always take out some 200Hz on a close-miked vocal so it wouldn't bother me if that was already done. However, if the tracking engineer added high frequency boost to an already bright sound, that would be a problem.

[Jack Ruston]

I agree. I'd compress a little bit, but I'd avoid anything to aggressive and in particular I'd make sure the compression wasn't affecting the ess's etc adversely. The producer may want to treat those separately. Equally I don't think you'd be criticised for just recording it totally uncompressed if that made sense on the day.

J

[The Elf]

I prefer to receive totally unprocessed material for mixing. There really is absolutely no need to compress or EQ while tracking, so why do it?

But I have no problem with light compression as long as it's done by someone who truly knows what they're doing. Too often I have to sort out vocals damaged by compressor settings referenced by the wisdom of 'this bloke on the Internet'.

[Mike Stranks]

... and have you tried giving the vocalist a slightly processed sound in their cans, but still recording it totally dry?

[thefruitfarmer]

Thanks Sam and Jack.

Seems there is an acceptable amount of minimal processing that will be absolutely fine, especially if it gives a better performance.

Has anybody ever sent something off to a producer and then had it returned because it is too processed?

Would I be advised to have an unprocessed track recorded simultaneously? Just to cover my ass lol.

[thefruitfarmer]

There really is absolutely no need to compress or EQ while tracking, so why do it?

I don't agree with that, but I do appreciate where you are coming from and the way that works for you. Someone receiving my recordings could well have that preference too.

Thanks.

[thefruitfarmer]

... and have you tried giving the vocalist a slightly processed sound in their cans, but still recording it totally dry?

Not tried that as experience tells me that the slightly processed track will be the one I would mix down from....so I would want to keep it.

...think it is all pointing to recording the slightly processed track and an unprocessed track simultaneously.

[The Elf]

Seems there is an acceptable amount of minimal processing that will be absolutely fine, especially if it gives a better performance.

If EQ or compression are required to improve a performance (and it can work really well in some circumstances) then apply it only to the foldback. Time-based (especially delay) effects really can make a big difference to a vocal performance, so I will often record these as a reference, usually replacing them later.

Has anybody ever sent something off to a producer and then had it returned because it is too processed?

Well I've sent them back, but only to try to get the best for my client. Invariably, with a little coaching, the result has been much better.

Would I be advised to have an unprocessed track recorded simultaneously? Just to cover my ass lol.

You could, but I don't see much value in it.

[The Elf]

There really is absolutely no need to compress or EQ while tracking, so why do it?

I don't agree with that

Not trying to be argumentative, but why would anyone *need* to track with EQ or compression?

I can understand it being a *preference* - and to each his own - but *need* to do it? Maybe a mic pre that has something very special about it?...

Just curious.

[Mixedup]

There really is absolutely no need to compress or EQ while tracking, so why do it?

Two reasons.

One — if you're mixing it yourself — is that it removes the necessity to make decisions later. If you get things right, that's a good thing in my book. I don't see why the 'get things right at source' maxim has to apply only to performances and mics. I love it when you can pull up the faders and the job is almost done. Light compression *can* help with that and leave you asking less of your plug-ins. As can moderate EQing or saturation.

Two, maybe when tracking you have access to some gear that does nice things, and you won't have access to that when mixing. Why not use it, instead of hoping you can get close to it with plug-ins later?

To the OP... you *could* always record two versions — one clean and processed — in parallel to two different tracks if you're really worried about screwing things up. Send your favourite and if they don't like it you have a back up. If they do like it, you know that it's not an issue and you can continue doing what you do.

[thefruitfarmer]

There really is absolutely no need to compress or EQ while tracking, so why do it?

I don't agree with that

Not trying to be argumentative, but why would anyone *need* to track with EQ or compression?

I can understand it being a *preference* - and to each his own - but *need* to do it? Maybe a mic pre that has something very special about it?...

Just curious.

It just works better in my situation

With kit I use find the "dynamic sweet spot" is limited to maybe 10dB range.

With a better mic, better pre-amp etc it could be different.

[Bob Bickerton]

I'm with Elf on this one. Sure if you had esoteric outboard gear that gave a unique sonic signature which couldn't be replicated in the box, but a DBX286 isn't in that league! Not necessary and you run the risk of not getting it right.

Bob

[thefruitfarmer]

a DBX286 isn't in that league!

No it is not ....

...however, with the Rode NT1, it is that that sounds the best, compared to using Mackie 1604vlz pre-amps, or a Joe Meek VC3.

I will try the A&H desk's preamps with it though, which I have n't actually done yet.

[Wonks]

Fruity. I'm trying to e pragmatic rather than idealistic here. You are trying to capture the best vocal sound possible with the equipment you have. If the people you are recording can't stretch to some proper studio time where they have better mics than an NT1 and your DBX compressor, then they are not going to be able to spend the money for a 'producer' who has a decent studio. If the 'producer' really has a 'professional' studio, then why aren't they recording the vocals there?

If you give the 'producer' a decent vocal track that sounds good but is devoid of excess compression, reverb, echo etc, then I can't see why anyone can't work with that. You could quite easily use a different mic that adds the same EQ as you use, so as long as it's very gentle, then why not tweak away?

[thefruitfarmer]

Fruity. I'm trying to e pragmatic rather than idealistic here. You are trying to capture the best vocal sound possible with the equipment you have. If the people you are recording can't stretch to some proper studio time where they have better mics than an NT1 and your DBX compressor, then they are not going to be able to spend the money for a 'producer' who has a decent studio. If the 'producer' really has a 'professional' studio, then why aren't they recording the vocals there?

If you give the 'producer' a decent vocal track that sounds good but is devoid of excess compression, reverb, echo etc, then I can't see why anyone can't work with that. You could quite easily use a different mic that adds the same EQ as you use, so as long as it's very gentle, then why not tweak away?

Hi Wonks

What I have got is the room treated with Rockwool, which is a big step up from recording in someone's living room, and kit which I am familiar with and know how to get a good vibe with...

One guy will bring his own 700 quid Neuman with him and he wants to send dry vocal to Producer in Canada, and I agree that the mic choice will make as much difference as tweaking the EQ anyway, the NT1 is quite "hyped" too....but his Neuman does suit his voice really well. The other guy is a rapper, who will give me his own backing tracks. The rapper has been recording vocals with an engineer friend in his living room and these were the vocals that were returned when sent to producers, which would otherwise have been included on various mix tapes. As far as I know the problem was the artifacts of the living room, but I will go and see engineer friend and prise the truth out of him ... lol

What I have pretty much decided now is to record two simultaneous tracks, one via my dbx286a with the desk EQ because I know make a vocalist feel good by adjusting their sound, and another with as much dynamic range as the desk will allow.

What I have learned from this thread is that the jury is out and that I really don't know what the preference of any producers receiving these vocals will have. What I do know is that I need to be recording vocals that are acceptable to the producers to get any more recording jobs off these guys.

I suppose I was hoping to be able to avoid over-complicating the process but it looks like I am going to have to be a bit more sophisticated than I would when making my own demos. Probably end up with 3 tracks of recorded vocals, one dry and with full dynamics, another lightly treated with the dbx 286A on the way in, and a third processed further, with parallel compression and whatever else I feel would add more vibe to the thing....

[Bob Bickerton]

Looking at this from a producers point of view I think you should be up front and give them unprocessed files and say this what I can do with this talent in this room with my best mic and preamp. It's either going to be good enough or not. By all means process the monitor and to satisfy the artist, we all do that.

Bob

[Mike Stranks]

I've been pondering this a bit over the past couple of days and thinking back over my own experiences as a receiver and sender of tracks...

I've also had a couple of conversations with The Elf about this in the past as he has more experience than me in the 'transfer' market.

I think the conclusion I've come to is that both as a sender and receiver I prefer unprocessed and 'as was'. Of course that all implies that the mic was correctly positioned, that the room is at least 'OK' etc etc.

My conversation with The Elf started when I was due to mix an album that had been recorded elsewhere. The tracks arrived with some processing already done which left me with restricted mix options. The tracks sounded 'nice' as standalones, but that's not what I want or need.

And my recent experiences as a sender are that people explicitly say that they want takes/tracks that are clean. Obviously they want them de-fluffed etc. but the 'sound' is down to them as mixers.

Just sayin'....

[Jeff Knowler]

Hi guys

I do a lot of mix work and the best way to receive vocal tracks (IMHO) is with as little processing as possible (unless special fx etc). A little compression to help the singer should be okay though. Melodyne or tuning is okay as long as it's done well.

It's an obvious statement but processing can always be added, esp in this day and age...it's very difficult to take it away. The only real exception I can think of is if vocals are tracked to tape, when you need to get the best signal-to-noise ratio possible.

Jeff