Through this setup, every time an “s” comes through on the copied signal, it will activate the de-esser on the main signal – but it will do it about 50ms earlier than when the actual “s” from the main signal would occur. Put a De-Esser, or a multi-band compressor (like Waves C6) – something with an external sidechain – on your main vocal. Move the copy ahead of the main vocal by 50ms. Make a copy of your vocal on a separate track. It's a major pain in the ass to set up in analogue mixing, but it's easy in digital. Here's some that can get better results, although they require a bit of trickery. #QUIZTONES MAC OS X PLUS#This is good for evening out the tone, but has all the drawbacks of wideband, plus it induces eq artifacts (although they are fairly minimal). This is the same as wideband, except instead of turning the whole signal down, you're just turning down the treble range, as opposed to the whole of the signal when it triggers. The other con is that you'll tend to catch some of the treble of non-sibilant words and pull down the overall “spark” of the vocal. It makes your sibilant sound less intrusive but spikey, and may be just as annoying. This is much faster than fader riding, however, it tends to leave the leading edge of the “s” unaltered. The con is that this is time consuming.Īnother basic approach, this is compression that is reacting only to the frequency range. So here's a few ways we can deal with sibilance effectively. So even if the “s”s and “t”s are below the other vocal sounds, we're still gonna hear them clear as day. First – because of the way we hear, we are more sensitive to higher tones even at lower volumes. The big con here is that this can be awkward for a performer – if it throws off the performance or sense of pitch, it's not worth it. This will cut down the sibilance significantly. Have the vocalist chew up some gum and stick it to the roof of his/her mouth. If sound projecting from the upper palette is the problem…. The con is that the evenness of the frequency response will be somewhat disrupted by grabbing an off-axis response. Angling the mic will mostly change the way the treble range is picked up, as lower frequencies are somewhat less directional. You may want to tip the mic a bit off axis, aiming it slightly left or right of the mouth, or perhaps somewhat down. Something that has a rolled off, smooth top end, that will take well to EQ. A ribbon mic, a softer dynamic mic (like an RE20), or a vintage sounding condenser (U67), might be a good grab. This almost goes without saying, but if the vocalist is overly bright, you might want a darker microphone. Knowing this, there are a number of ways we can try to deal with problem before it hits the tape… err … computer (2012 right?). Certain tongue shapes, space in the front teeth, shape of the palette, or just a learned way of speaking can produce overly sibilant delivery. Sibilance comes from an exaggeration of sound that projects from the roof of the mouth. This article will be about taming sibilance – and the pros and cons and trickery of each mechanism for doing so. Imagine recording the following phrases and you'll get an idea of how sibilance occurs. The issue with taming sibilance is that it lives right in the presence and “shiny” range of the vocals – that nice top end down to about 2-3k. Nothing screams “unseated vocal” like a bunch of “s”s and “t”s that hop right out of the mix.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |