Processing Vocals - Parallel vs. Plain Compression

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
Post Reply
RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

06 Apr 2018

Vocals are one of the most dynamic sounds we can record, and there can be a lot of dynamic changes, hence we barely can get away without compression.

One method is a general compressor, set up with a tasteful amount of attack that even adds a bit of punch (though I want to keep sounds as natural as possible). Problem with this is, that it not only controls the macro dynamics (big changes), but also squashes the more decent transients a bit. Not the best sound, let's face it.

Let's not worry about the remaining peaks - you do either a serial, secondary compression/limiting (in my preference, multi-band soft clipping), or whatever you prefer. De-essing frequency limiting is also another topic.

Back to the raw recording, there's the other solution of parallel compression. Some do light compression, or none on the raw vocals, and a harder, parallel processing. It's a fact, that this one blends the original dynamics, but the parallel processing's god awful sound will still be audible. It will be there, no matter what. The special thing, though is, that this method still adds some wanted transients, that the classical compression affects rather badly.

This results in some awful agony. Dx Average dynamic destruction with a clean sound, or parallel processing with added dirt?
Don't even say "why not parallel process the classically compressed sound with the raw recording", because it will be insufficient. I'd end up dialing an almost completely wet signal anyway.

The only solution seems a trade-off with the dirt at the moment. Aka - creating both processing methods, and then make a parallel mixing between the two like so: put them into a crossfader, then fade to taste (just like dry/wet, only classical/modern).

Welp. Thoughts, ideas?

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

06 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Vocals are one of the most dynamic sounds we can record, and there can be a lot of dynamic changes, hence we barely can get away without compression.

One method is a general compressor, set up with a tasteful amount of attack that even adds a bit of punch (though I want to keep sounds as natural as possible). Problem with this is, that it not only controls the macro dynamics (big changes), but also squashes the more decent transients a bit. Not the best sound, let's face it.

Let's not worry about the remaining peaks - you do either a serial, secondary compression/limiting (in my preference, multi-band soft clipping), or whatever you prefer. De-essing frequency limiting is also another topic.

Back to the raw recording, there's the other solution of parallel compression. Some do light compression, or none on the raw vocals, and a harder, parallel processing. It's a fact, that this one blends the original dynamics, but the parallel processing's god awful sound will still be audible. It will be there, no matter what. The special thing, though is, that this method still adds some wanted transients, that the classical compression affects rather badly.

This results in some awful agony. Dx Average dynamic destruction with a clean sound, or parallel processing with added dirt?
Don't even say "why not parallel process the classically compressed sound with the raw recording", because it will be insufficient. I'd end up dialing an almost completely wet signal anyway.

The only solution seems a trade-off with the dirt at the moment. Aka - creating both processing methods, and then make a parallel mixing between the two like so: put them into a crossfader, then fade to taste (just like dry/wet, only classical/modern).

Welp. Thoughts, ideas?
Are there any examples of vocals you've ever heard that don't suffer from the problems you describe above? If so, then there are ways to achieve what you want without any trade offs.

Audio examples can take the place of a wall of text when you're asking questions like these…
;)

You may want to look into some old school solutions, aka "riding the fader". Good engineers often do this when recording very dynamic sources, sometimes before they hit any compression at all, as they are tracking the vocals. If you're not confidant doing that, then record the vocal with no compression, and flatten out any extreme dynamics BEFORE hitting any compression. This gives the compression less work to do!

Some times you have to "hand craft" your sound, and not rely on the tools to do all the heavy lifting for you, or you may end up with unwanted artifacts.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

06 Apr 2018

The key is knowing why you're using compression. Don't compress just to compress. Have and know the reason why you're doing it. If you're using mild light compression on just the highest peaks it shouldn't affect smaller dynamics nor affect transients enough to sound "bad". That would mean you set the threshold too low and/or ratio too high. Also remember compressors can either add punch or subtract it depending of the attack and release times. If you set the settings right (dependent on material), the compression will sound natural. Parallel compression is about bringing up the volume of lower dynamics of the vocal without crushing the main vocal in the mix, hence the heavy compression because the louder dynamics of the vocal aren't needed in the parallel channel.

User avatar
Timmy Crowne
Competition Winner
Posts: 357
Joined: 06 Apr 2017
Location: California, United States

06 Apr 2018

selig wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Some times you have to "hand craft" your sound, and not rely on the tools to do all the heavy lifting for you, or you may end up with unwanted artifacts.
This.
QVprod wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Don't compress just to compress.
And this.

Mixing is like practicing medicine. The least invasive procedure is the best, and avoid unnecessary squeezin'.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

06 Apr 2018

selig wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Are there any examples of vocals you've ever heard that don't suffer from the problems you describe above? If so, then there are ways to achieve what you want without any trade offs.

Audio examples can take the place of a wall of text when you're asking questions like these…
;)

You may want to look into some old school solutions, aka "riding the fader". Good engineers often do this when recording very dynamic sources, sometimes before they hit any compression at all, as they are tracking the vocals. If you're not confidant doing that, then record the vocal with no compression, and flatten out any extreme dynamics BEFORE hitting any compression. This gives the compression less work to do!

Some times you have to "hand craft" your sound, and not rely on the tools to do all the heavy lifting for you, or you may end up with unwanted artifacts.
You know, I never really gave others' vocals that much thought, but if we pay closer attention, it could be that perfect recordings aren't exactly common.
Now when it comes to my own vocals, of course I will hear even what's not there at some point. xD

True, but it was quicker to type out than creating examples this time.

Don't worry, I do consider those macro dynamics, hell even while recording, behind the microphone (watching distance, and performance loudness). And of course I do some pre-mixing, so everything is more or less the same audio level, but some compression is still inevitable - and I want that to sound as transparent as possible. Otherwise it gets lost in the song mix.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

06 Apr 2018

QVprod wrote:
06 Apr 2018
The key is knowing why you're using compression. Don't compress just to compress. Have and know the reason why you're doing it. If you're using mild light compression on just the highest peaks it shouldn't affect smaller dynamics nor affect transients enough to sound "bad". That would mean you set the threshold too low and/or ratio too high. Also remember compressors can either add punch or subtract it depending of the attack and release times. If you set the settings right (dependent on material), the compression will sound natural. Parallel compression is about bringing up the volume of lower dynamics of the vocal without crushing the main vocal in the mix, hence the heavy compression because the louder dynamics of the vocal aren't needed in the parallel channel.
I compress, so I don't have to manually balance the loudness of smaller differences out. Thing is, I do look for some added punch, but yeah, that will affect the natural sound, so I'd have to do some parallel mixing with the raw sound - but that might not be balanced enough then. Thus I'd need to make a secondary group of harder parallel processing, and then mix it with the softly processed group.

But I've also thought of doing a group processing where A is a very subtle balancing compression, and B is the punchy one as the "hard" parallel processing.

If confusing:
(X meaning crossfading, like Dry/Wet)
A = Raw X Subtle
B = Raw X Punchy
Then
A X B

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

06 Apr 2018

WeaponX323 wrote:
06 Apr 2018
selig wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Some times you have to "hand craft" your sound, and not rely on the tools to do all the heavy lifting for you, or you may end up with unwanted artifacts.
This.
QVprod wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Don't compress just to compress.
And this.

Mixing is like practicing medicine. The least invasive procedure is the best, and avoid unnecessary squeezin'.
Of course, I do agree!
But also that: "I want to keep sounds as natural as possible" - doesn't that already say it?

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

06 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
QVprod wrote:
06 Apr 2018
The key is knowing why you're using compression. Don't compress just to compress. Have and know the reason why you're doing it. If you're using mild light compression on just the highest peaks it shouldn't affect smaller dynamics nor affect transients enough to sound "bad". That would mean you set the threshold too low and/or ratio too high. Also remember compressors can either add punch or subtract it depending of the attack and release times. If you set the settings right (dependent on material), the compression will sound natural. Parallel compression is about bringing up the volume of lower dynamics of the vocal without crushing the main vocal in the mix, hence the heavy compression because the louder dynamics of the vocal aren't needed in the parallel channel.
I compress, so I don't have to manually balance the loudness of smaller differences out. Thing is, I do look for some added punch, but yeah, that will affect the natural sound, so I'd have to do some parallel mixing with the raw sound - but that might not be balanced enough then. Thus I'd need to make a secondary group of harder parallel processing, and then mix it with the softly processed group.

But I've also thought of doing a group processing where A is a very subtle balancing compression, and B is the punchy one as the "hard" parallel processing.

If confusing:
(X meaning crossfading, like Dry/Wet)
A = Raw X Subtle
B = Raw X Punchy
Then
A X B
Imho, you're over complicating it. If you want added punch then you don't want the raw sound. What you describe seems to be changing the rawl sound simply to mix it back in giving you the same "problems" you started with. If you want a natural vocal sound then you can just do light compression (about medium attack and mid to slow release) or even a small amount of limiting on the vocal and it will still sound natural. 3dB of gain reduction (sometimes even less) is plenty. If you need more compression than that to level out small differences then you need to manually adjust your audio clips.

If you still say need more punch after that, then sure parallel compression can be an option for that, but you're supposed to mix the parallel signal in to enhance the natural sounding vocal. Not vice versa (yes it matters). Also its not necessarily the same as cross fading. Cross fading decreases one signal as you increase the other. Sure that's how a dry/wet knob works, but when dealing with faders on a mixer, the more natural vocal is at a static value while you mix in the parallel to enhance it.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

06 Apr 2018

QVprod wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Imho, you're over complicating it. If you want added punch then you don't want the raw sound. What you describe seems to be changing the rawl sound simply to mix it back in giving you the same "problems" you started with. If you want a natural vocal sound then you can just do light compression (about medium attack and mid to slow release) or even a small amount of limiting on the vocal and it will still sound natural. 3dB of gain reduction (sometimes even less) is plenty. If you need more compression than that to level out small differences then you need to manually adjust your audio clips.

If you still say need more punch after that, then sure parallel compression can be an option for that, but you're supposed to mix the parallel signal in to enhance the natural sounding vocal. Not vice versa (yes it matters). Also its not necessarily the same as cross fading. Cross fading decreases one signal as you increase the other. Sure that's how a dry/wet knob works, but when dealing with faders on a mixer, the more natural vocal is at a static value while you mix in the parallel to enhance it.
It could also be, that I need to give examples after all, cause I tend to sound confusing. xD

Thing is, during sound design, I usually tried setting both sounds to approximately even levels, and then crossfade, cause that way I could hear how much changes are happening to the sound. Mixing to a static level resulted in adding incorrect amounts for me, when it came to (originally) a single sound..

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

06 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
QVprod wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Imho, you're over complicating it. If you want added punch then you don't want the raw sound. What you describe seems to be changing the rawl sound simply to mix it back in giving you the same "problems" you started with. If you want a natural vocal sound then you can just do light compression (about medium attack and mid to slow release) or even a small amount of limiting on the vocal and it will still sound natural. 3dB of gain reduction (sometimes even less) is plenty. If you need more compression than that to level out small differences then you need to manually adjust your audio clips.

If you still say need more punch after that, then sure parallel compression can be an option for that, but you're supposed to mix the parallel signal in to enhance the natural sounding vocal. Not vice versa (yes it matters). Also its not necessarily the same as cross fading. Cross fading decreases one signal as you increase the other. Sure that's how a dry/wet knob works, but when dealing with faders on a mixer, the more natural vocal is at a static value while you mix in the parallel to enhance it.
It could also be, that I need to give examples after all, cause I tend to sound confusing. xD

Thing is, during sound design, I usually tried setting both sounds to approximately even levels, and then crossfade, cause that way I could hear how much changes are happening to the sound. Mixing to a static level resulted in adding incorrect amounts for me, when it came to (originally) a single sound..
If you mixing in a parallel signal and you can't really hear the change then the problem is probably the processing on the parallel. Parallel compression means your compressing at extreme settings. If the settings are correct for the application you want, it should be very noticeable when you add too much of the highly compressed parallel signal to the static signal.

User avatar
Timmy Crowne
Competition Winner
Posts: 357
Joined: 06 Apr 2017
Location: California, United States

06 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Of course, I do agree!
But also that: "I want to keep sounds as natural as possible" - doesn't that already say it?
I hear you, and you’re right that we rarely if ever hear perfect, yet uncompressed, production-quality vocals. We don’t always notice how unnatural a vocal is because we rarely have access to the original recording.

With parallel tracks, it’s also good to color it with some EQ or filtering because the aggresive compression usually alters the tone in an unintended way. Too quick attack and release settings can cause chattering or distortion.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

06 Apr 2018

WeaponX323 wrote:
06 Apr 2018
selig wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Some times you have to "hand craft" your sound, and not rely on the tools to do all the heavy lifting for you, or you may end up with unwanted artifacts.
This.
QVprod wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Don't compress just to compress.
And this.

Mixing is like practicing medicine. The least invasive procedure is the best, and avoid unnecessary squeezin'.
OK, that genuinely made me laugh out loud, in addition to being 'sound' advice. :)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

06 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
I compress, so I don't have to manually balance the loudness of smaller differences out.
OK, that's problem #1 - you're possibly trying to find a short cut to something where the long way is the way that will give you what you ACTUALLY want. Almost all compressors give a "sound", which I (and others) happen to LOVE!
BUT, if you don't love that sound (and it's not 100% right for every project IMO), you need to learn to ride the fader. This takes practice, but I've yet to find an "automatic" tool that can give me what I want to hear (because we all want to hear something slightly different, and it varies from song to song, from singer to singer).
RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Thing is, I do look for some added punch, but yeah, that will affect the natural sound, so I'd have to do some parallel mixing with the raw sound - but that might not be balanced enough then. Thus I'd need to make a secondary group of harder parallel processing, and then mix it with the softly processed group.

But I've also thought of doing a group processing where A is a very subtle balancing compression, and B is the punchy one as the "hard" parallel processing.

If confusing:
(X meaning crossfading, like Dry/Wet)
A = Raw X Subtle
B = Raw X Punchy
Then
A X B
Yes, definitely over thinking it!

You also need to consider the source. This starts with the performer, the space they are in, the microphone, and the rest of the chain and how you set it all up. Those are some of the biggest variables right there, most of which cannot be overcome by some clever setup of compressors, EQs, and crossfaders.

Even with the same singer on the same setup, I need totally different approaches to vocal levels. On some songs the automation looks like a NYC skyline, with different levels for each word, even each syllable. Then on the very next song, I may not need ANY fader rides at all! There is simply not a "one size fits all" for every song, and you have to learn to listen and decide what's actually needed on a song by song (sometimes on a section by section) process.

Like QV said, "Don't compress just to compress". That right there is GOLDEN, I tells ya!
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

06 Apr 2018

QVprod wrote:
06 Apr 2018
RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018


It could also be, that I need to give examples after all, cause I tend to sound confusing. xD

Thing is, during sound design, I usually tried setting both sounds to approximately even levels, and then crossfade, cause that way I could hear how much changes are happening to the sound. Mixing to a static level resulted in adding incorrect amounts for me, when it came to (originally) a single sound..
If you mixing in a parallel signal and you can't really hear the change then the problem is probably the processing on the parallel. Parallel compression means your compressing at extreme settings. If the settings are correct for the application you want, it should be very noticeable when you add too much of the highly compressed parallel signal to the static signal.
I did hear the changes, but I either added too much, or too little. It's like the case of distortion. A sound won't necessarily become "harder", louder, if we just clip it - but we will really hear the effect if with the same amount it's clipped, we reduce its audio level at the same time.
In other words, the added audio level kind of fools my ears. At least that's how I see it.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

06 Apr 2018

WeaponX323 wrote:
06 Apr 2018
RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Of course, I do agree!
But also that: "I want to keep sounds as natural as possible" - doesn't that already say it?
I hear you, and you’re right that we rarely if ever hear perfect, yet uncompressed, production-quality vocals. We don’t always notice how unnatural a vocal is because we rarely have access to the original recording.

With parallel tracks, it’s also good to color it with some EQ or filtering because the aggresive compression usually alters the tone in an unintended way. Too quick attack and release settings can cause chattering or distortion.
I must say, I even heard pretty bad vocals on older vinyls, yet they knew their $h!t...
Yep, that's why I rather wanted to say parallel processing. Either way, once the compression and de-essing is done, I would start my specific frequency spectrum balancing equalization, etc.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

06 Apr 2018

selig wrote:
06 Apr 2018
RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
I compress, so I don't have to manually balance the loudness of smaller differences out.
OK, that's problem #1 - you're possibly trying to find a short cut to something where the long way is the way that will give you what you ACTUALLY want. Almost all compressors give a "sound", which I (and others) happen to LOVE!
BUT, if you don't love that sound (and it's not 100% right for every project IMO), you need to learn to ride the fader. This takes practice, but I've yet to find an "automatic" tool that can give me what I want to hear (because we all want to hear something slightly different, and it varies from song to song, from singer to singer).
RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Thing is, I do look for some added punch, but yeah, that will affect the natural sound, so I'd have to do some parallel mixing with the raw sound - but that might not be balanced enough then. Thus I'd need to make a secondary group of harder parallel processing, and then mix it with the softly processed group.

But I've also thought of doing a group processing where A is a very subtle balancing compression, and B is the punchy one as the "hard" parallel processing.

If confusing:
(X meaning crossfading, like Dry/Wet)
A = Raw X Subtle
B = Raw X Punchy
Then
A X B
Yes, definitely over thinking it!

You also need to consider the source. This starts with the performer, the space they are in, the microphone, and the rest of the chain and how you set it all up. Those are some of the biggest variables right there, most of which cannot be overcome by some clever setup of compressors, EQs, and crossfaders.

Even with the same singer on the same setup, I need totally different approaches to vocal levels. On some songs the automation looks like a NYC skyline, with different levels for each word, even each syllable. Then on the very next song, I may not need ANY fader rides at all! There is simply not a "one size fits all" for every song, and you have to learn to listen and decide what's actually needed on a song by song (sometimes on a section by section) process.

Like QV said, "Don't compress just to compress". That right there is GOLDEN, I tells ya!
About #1 I'm okay with a trade off, but there's only so much we can manually do, BUT I'll still give it a try and compare things.
When I'm the performer myself though, then I have the true physical control, so I hear how I need to move; and interestingly I once managed to perform in a "compressed, de-essed" way. Problem was that afterwards, I spoke like that, too for a short time. xD

Okay, that fader-riding as you describe it, sounds like a hell lot of work. I feel the automatic vocal slicing for REX - suggestion I posted the other week - would come in handy.

Now, I only compress when needed. -> As for the crossfader thing - it can happen that I find myself turning it totally dry.

I have to find an efficient solution from these with some trade-offs.

Thank you everyone, again!

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

06 Apr 2018

McDSP Moo and Klanghelm MJUC (VST/AU) can do super slow compression which won't sound like a compressor but is more like riding the vocal with a fader. This sometimes works like magic for example on very complex voices with a lot of dynamics.

I also use iZotope Declick a lot because I hate the "mouth drop" noises a voice often makes, and most compressor can crazy on these things. I kill these out of the signal most of the time. Hate hearing them too :)

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

06 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Okay, that fader-riding as you describe it, sounds like a hell lot of work.
It's not work at all, you just grab a fader and make it sound level to your ear.
You can fine tune the automation if you miss bits when recording fader moves.

If in the end you find riding a fader to be a hell of a lot of work, I don't know what else to say!!!
;)
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

07 Apr 2018

Marco Raaphorst wrote:
06 Apr 2018
McDSP Moo and Klanghelm MJUC (VST/AU) can do super slow compression which won't sound like a compressor but is more like riding the vocal with a fader. This sometimes works like magic for example on very complex voices with a lot of dynamics.

I also use iZotope Declick a lot because I hate the "mouth drop" noises a voice often makes, and most compressor can crazy on these things. I kill these out of the signal most of the time. Hate hearing them too :)
Cool! Gonna check those out.
There's also a trick where you take a vocal sample, reverse it, and process that way. It's said do be very friendly with transients.

Btw, which exact mouth drop noises do you mean? Something I want to avoid is, when it comes to whispering vocals, there are some nomming-like spitty tongue/mouth noises. xD (Yeah, I know, gotta avoid sugary foods and drinks before performing, that makes a rather thick saliva. Bleh.)

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

07 Apr 2018

selig wrote:
06 Apr 2018
RobC wrote:
06 Apr 2018
Okay, that fader-riding as you describe it, sounds like a hell lot of work.
It's not work at all, you just grab a fader and make it sound level to your ear.
You can fine tune the automation if you miss bits when recording fader moves.

If in the end you find riding a fader to be a hell of a lot of work, I don't know what else to say!!!
;)
Well sooooryyy! xD I thought you meant, stopping at every tiny bit and to fine adjustments, which could take days.
The way you described it now, sounds much faster, though. But I'm afraid, I would also hurt good dynamics, even if I can adjust. Still better than generic compressors, eh?

User avatar
Marco Raaphorst
Posts: 2504
Joined: 22 Jan 2015
Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
Contact:

07 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
07 Apr 2018
Marco Raaphorst wrote:
06 Apr 2018
McDSP Moo and Klanghelm MJUC (VST/AU) can do super slow compression which won't sound like a compressor but is more like riding the vocal with a fader. This sometimes works like magic for example on very complex voices with a lot of dynamics.

I also use iZotope Declick a lot because I hate the "mouth drop" noises a voice often makes, and most compressor can crazy on these things. I kill these out of the signal most of the time. Hate hearing them too :)
Cool! Gonna check those out.
There's also a trick where you take a vocal sample, reverse it, and process that way. It's said do be very friendly with transients.

Btw, which exact mouth drop noises do you mean? Something I want to avoid is, when it comes to whispering vocals, there are some nomming-like spitty tongue/mouth noises. xD (Yeah, I know, gotta avoid sugary foods and drinks before performing, that makes a rather thick saliva. Bleh.)
General mouth noises.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests