# What are your favorite plugins for improving male vocals?



## puremusic (Oct 13, 2018)

What are your favorite plugins for improving male vocals?


----------



## packetslave (Oct 13, 2018)

I’m usually mixing live vocal recordings, not pristine studio recordings, and usually working under a time crunch, so I get a long way towards a solid sound with with CLA Vocals “Rock Male Dry” or iZotope Neutron “Basic Male” plus a good reverb. If the vocalist has weaker mic technique, I’ll throw on Waves Debreath. 

Then, of course, there’s Melodyne.


----------



## Sanlky (Oct 13, 2018)

there is no plug in to improve mail vocals, just critical listening and lots of tools.


----------



## Henu (Oct 17, 2018)

No plugin will improve a bad singer.


----------



## SonicArtworks (Oct 17, 2018)

The UAD Massive Passive EQ would be my choice


----------



## Nmargiotta (Oct 17, 2018)

UAD Teletronix LA2A for compression, Manley Vari-Mu for compression, and Maag for EQ.


----------



## R. Soul (Oct 17, 2018)

Izotope's Nectar 3 is about to be released. Looks like it could be a great set of tools for vocals.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2018)

Do you know why this thread is turning into a full catalog of all the plug-ins on the market?

Because unless you specify what the frick is wrong with the vocal in the first place, you're going to get people listing everything from rose fertilizer to custard mix.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2018)

^ I didn't intend for that to sound as nasty as it did, by the way - just saying, I mean, you know, like, what's the specific issue? There's no one-size-fits-all answer, in other words.


----------



## puremusic (Oct 18, 2018)

I don't mind the catalog aspect. I was looking for a general overview, don't know what is/isn't out there. I was curious if there was more stuff aimed specifically at vocals like Nectar which I just found out about here and through the sales. If there's no omni plugin, what people prefer to use interests me. I trialed Nectar 2, wasn't too pleased, but I'll give Nectar 3 a try too. Looking forwards to it.

I have Melodyne here for pitch correct. Though I am always curious about Antares nowadays. I remember when they first came out with their box I tested it out, it was impressive if electronic.

Let's see.. specific.. Is there a plugin that will fix the issue of Bing Crosby sounding like Bing Crosby rather than a more operatic and biting voice? Can I haz the Bing to Fling VST?


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 18, 2018)

@puremusic : My experience is, that among the countless plug ins out there there are in fact some that are extremely well suited to treat male vocals. 
I also named several with an explanation, why i think they are convenient.
However, since the moderation is afraid that this thread turns into a catalogue of all plug ins out there, i deleted my post. 
While some may think that the use of a forum is to share experiences, we should never forget that the most important thing is to avoid upsetting moderators.


----------



## puremusic (Oct 18, 2018)

I would happy to hear about these via PM if there's an issue with it being posted on the thread if that would be alright.


----------



## sean8877 (Oct 18, 2018)

I agree I always like to hear what plugins other people are using for certain tasks, I usually end up learning about plugins I wasn't aware of.


----------



## robgb (Oct 18, 2018)

I'm assuming that you don't really mean improving the quality of the vocal, but improving the quality of the sound and how it fits into the mix? If so, you really can't go wrong with the Scheps Omni Channel plug-in from Waves. It's an all around channel plug with multiple movable sections (preamp, comp, eq, de-esser, gate) that will improve the sound of vocals and any other instrument you can think of. But, especially for vocals, it has two de-essers built in. I took one of my vocals and started with one of Andrew Scheps's vocal presets and the difference was night and day. From there you can tweak to your heart's content.


----------



## Sanlky (Oct 19, 2018)

There is no specific channel, EQs, Compressors, Deessers, Saturators, they are all tools, and you can use anyone you like and make it sound amazing.


----------



## KMA (Oct 20, 2018)

Living Fossil said:


> @puremusic : My experience is, that among the countless plug ins out there there are in fact some that are extremely well suited to treat male vocals.
> I also named several with an explanation, why i think they are convenient.
> However, since the moderation is afraid that this thread turns into a catalogue of all plug ins out there, i deleted my post.
> While some may think that the use of a forum is to share experiences, we should never forget that the most important thing is to avoid upsetting moderators.



That's too bad. I enjoy reading each person's rationale for selecting one tool over another.

It's kind of why I come here, actually.


----------



## puremusic (Oct 20, 2018)

The UAD plugins are ones I've wanted to try for awhile. I'm sure someday I'll see someone selling their kit of them at a price I like and dive in, as long as my pockets haven't been emptied by the latest libraries. It's probably handier to use their tape plugins than an actual reel to reel though I still have that on my list for the future too.

I'll take a listen to Waves stuff again, it's been awhile since I tried their stuff my perspective will be different now, they have so much.


----------



## KMA (Oct 20, 2018)

@puremusic 

I think the most important thing you can do to improve vocals (or anything for that matter) is subtractive EQ. Figure out what frequencies are unattractive or unneeded, and remove them. From there, it’s your choice of colouring (additive EQ, drive, saturation), de-essing, compressing, etc.

With that in mind, the plugin that gets used first (and the most often) is Logic’s Channel EQ.

Hope that’s not too boring, but it's the truth


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 20, 2018)

Living Fossil said:


> However, since the moderation is afraid that this thread turns into a catalogue of all plug ins out there, i deleted my post.
> While some may think that the use of a forum is to share experiences, we should never forget that the most important thing is to avoid upsetting moderators.



No need for a flounce-out!

I posted as a private citizen. That wasn't a moderation post, and it wasn't directed at you personally, it was a comment on the whole thread.

Again as an individual, I find threads where someone asks a vague question and everyone responds by listing what they've bought to be somewhat frustrating.



puremusic said:


> Let's see.. specific.. Is there a plugin that will fix the issue of Bing Crosby sounding like Bing Crosby rather than a more operatic and biting voice? Can I haz the Bing to Fling VST?



See, now we're getting to an answerable question.

Yes, you can use a compressor to take away his dynamics, distortion to make it sound nas-tee, EQ the upper midrange to make it sound harsh, and then run the whole thing through my favorite plug-in: the Frodgniq X&14XL Pro version 2 (version 1 was buggy).


----------



## greggybud (Oct 20, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Do you know why this thread is turning into a full catalog of all the plug-ins on the market?
> 
> Because unless you specify what the frick is wrong with the vocal in the first place, you're going to get people listing everything from rose fertilizer to custard mix.



LOL. And it's why, as the home hobbyist market grows exponentially, and some developers create increasing amounts of VST marketing gimmicks, a lot of these threads become laughable. It's not necessarily bad, but misleading a casual user by implying a combination of secret VST mojo, when the concepts, tools and technology have existed in the past, does expose some threads as...tiresome.

IMO it's a reason why professional ME's (professional like we all know who they are) stopped posting in certain other forums. The thrust has morphed from experience, skill, audio, and procedures to VST Tool-of-the-Month, shoot-outs, presets, and long effect chains that often end up counter-productive. Bob Katz among several others years ago gave up contributing in forums by discussing concepts and procedures with bedroom newbies dispensing advice about the new limiter-of-the-month. 



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Let's see.. specific.. Is there a plugin that will fix the issue of Bing Crosby sounding like Bing Crosby rather than a more operatic and biting voice? Can I haz the Bing to Fling VST?


[/QUOTE]

Thanks for being more specific. I would start with tracking. The selection of the mic is a good start, not to mention room, position etc. If you don't have a microphone cabinet, you can try Antares Mic Modler, but the modeled mics IMO are a far cry from the real thing. Like maybe only 50% there. I haven't used it in 15 years, but do remember using the modeled Manley Reference Gold on lots of vocals.

Have you thought of taking a soloed vocal track of a male vocal you love and via some EQ tools such as ProQ2 imprinting the EQ characteristics on the Bing Crosby?

Finally, find an EQ with very narrow Q. Waves Q is a good start. Massenburgs UAD MDWEQ5 would be better. Best to just spend hours, perhaps days learning by trial and error what manifests best results. Subtractive EQ. It's worked for me, but no guarantees. It depends on the problem.



KMA said:


> That's too bad. I enjoy reading each person's rationale for selecting one tool over another.



I used to enjoy that too. Especially from professional mix engineers and mastering engineers who explained their rationale. But it seems these days most are gone, and now it's much more tool/brand focused as opposed to concepts and procedures. Our VST market is saturated, competition is fierce, and it seems the thrust is more short-cut tools for the lazy who desire instant gratification. 

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as it works, but why then do these posts occur more often than ever before? Something isn't working?


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 20, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Again as an individual, I find threads where someone asks a vague question and everyone responds by listing what they've bought to be somewhat frustrating.



Maybe you should either read what's written in such threads in order to understand what's written (which would help you not to be frustrated), or you should - as a "private person" - ignore them. But you should avoid subcutaneously arrogant generalisations that ignore or devaluate described experiences.

Of course users always rely on "what they've bought". 
But if i share a subjective experience in describing why i think that for the (vaguely) requested features 2-5% of the plug ins that i've bought (and used over several years) are worth mentioning, it's basically the opposite of "listing" what i've bought. 
It's a subjective selection that might help others.


----------



## greggybud (Oct 20, 2018)

Living Fossil said:


> Of course users always rely on "what they've bought".



There was a time when users relied on what was available in whatever studio they rented. So it's not necessarily "what they bought" except for their golden boxes or special monitors etc. Yes, mostly hardware. It gave engineers a fantastic general knowledge about a lot of competing gear. I think that transfers to software too however due to cost not as much. When Waves first released their tools they were extremely expensive. The Native Power Pack (laughable today) was very expensive. You didin't generally go out buying this stuff until you knew the benefits of....what was a real investment.

Today most, or at least a lot of software can be demoed and compared and its relatively ridiculously cheap compared to any time in the past, so it's not always "what they've bought." The playing field is leveled. So what motivates these type of questions?

I can't speak for Nick, but I understand the frustration when someone asks a wide open question and the replies are rose fertilizer to custard mix. I too usually ignore the posts because a reply is futile until specific questions are asked. IMO, forum users have reflected a gradual shift from intimately understanding the basics...different EQ, M/S techniques, parallel/series and different types of compression, gain staging...your foundational tools to "what VST improves male vocals." 

Apologies if I sound like a pompous jerk.


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 21, 2018)

greggybud said:


> Today most, or at least a lot of software can be demoed and compared and its relatively ridiculously cheap compared to any time in the past, so it's not always "what they've bought." The playing field is leveled. So what motivates these type of questions?



Vocal chains are sometimes quite complex, and there is lot of know how involved.
So i guess, OP wanted to get some informations.
Working with tools over years give you quite a different experience than demoing something for a short time.



greggybud said:


> I can't speak for Nick, but I understand the frustration when someone asks a wide open question and the replies are rose fertilizer to custard mix. I too usually ignore the posts because a reply is futile until specific questions are asked....
> 
> Apologies if I sound like a pompous jerk.



For sure you are not a pompous jerk if you don't like this kind of posts, but don't forget you're neither the custodian of other forum members.

Instead of being frustrated it's better to develop some reading competence, which allows you to decide in few time if some chunks of information are useful for you or not.
Then you can focus on what's interesting for you and ignore what is irrelevant for you.
But one should respect that others have an other focus and are free in asking for informations they think is important for them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 21, 2018)

Living Fossil said:


> Maybe you should either read what's written in such threads in order to understand what's written (which would help you not to be frustrated), or you should - as a "private person" - ignore them. But you should avoid subcutaneously arrogant generalisations that ignore or devaluate described experiences.



Or... maybe you should avoid starting idiotic fights on the internet?


----------



## chillbot (Oct 21, 2018)

Wow lotsa musicians arguing with musicians. Very helpful.

I agree with Nick in a way, @puremusic had you posted a more specific example of "how do you fix THIS vocal" I think you could get a more helpful array of responses.

I don't really distinguish between male/female vocals, as far as plugins that "improve" (whatever that means in this case). The one thing I might say with males is I favor a fairly severe gate in combo with fairly severe compression which kind of makes them pop out. Like there's no fade in or fade out, it's all or nothing, in your face. If that makes sense, who knows.

But as far as vocals go in general I've been really happy with the results of some Waves plugins that @Jdiggity1 turned me on to, including CLA Vocals, Eddie Kramer Vocals, JJP Vocals, Maserati VX1, and Reel ADT. All are good. But really Melodyne is king for me.


----------



## bill5 (Oct 21, 2018)

KMA said:


> That's too bad. I enjoy reading each person's rationale for selecting one tool over another.


Me too. But I think the orig point was a lot of people don't bother with much if anything in terms of rationale, they just say "try X!" Which IMO has no value. WHY should they try X? 

And not ripping on the OP but the question was very vague; I could list pretty much any plugin that could qualify as "to improve male vocals," esp since plugins aren't gender-specific. Improve it how?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 21, 2018)

chillbot said:


> The one thing I might say with males is I favor a fairly severe gate in combo with fairly severe compression which kind of makes them pop out. Like there's no fade in or fade out, it's all or nothing, in your face. If that makes sense, who knows.



Okay, now this is getting much more interesting. What is the gate doing? In other words, I generally think of gates (when they're not being used for noise removal) as the reverse of compression - i.e. expander/gates increase the dynamic range, compressors limit it.

(Obviously there are other uses for both.)

EDIT: I'm thinking you use the gate for the tails?

***

One of the basic answers that applies to *pop* vox in general - yes, male or female - is that compression is what gives you the smooth, even sound you hear on records.

The reason the old LA-2A compressor is famous is that it can give you crazy amounts of compression, like 15dB, and still sound natural even though you can hear it working. That's because its optical sensor (is that what it's called?) reacts dynamically to the input.

I'm not saying that means you have to use an LA-2A emulator - there are lots of plug-in compressors with different sounds, and you have to try them to get a feel for them - but the LA-2A ones I've heard are all very easy to use and don't require phaffing around with endless parameters. That's worth a lot to me when I'm recording a real person and don't want to break to flow.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 21, 2018)

Another point: it's normal to compress any instrument (including vox) more than once for different reasons.

The first time might be a hardware one to keep the instrument within the dynamic range of your recorder (or interface, or whatever). You can get into arguments about whether it's better just to record at a lower level to avoid overloading, but I figure that if I'm going to compress anyway, why not just do it on input. Besides, my hardware channel strip has an okay one built in.

Then you might want to level the sound, which is where the LA-2A-style compressor would come in (actually, I believe it's even called a "leveling amplifier"). You can also use hard compression to play with the attack transients, as I think Herr Chillbot does?

And then you might compress the whole mix, so that's a third or fourth compression stage.


----------



## X-Bassist (Oct 21, 2018)

puremusic said:


> I don't mind the catalog aspect. I was looking for a general overview, don't know what is/isn't out there. I was curious if there was more stuff aimed specifically at vocals like Nectar which I just found out about here and through the sales. If there's no omni plugin, what people prefer to use interests me. I trialed Nectar 2, wasn't too pleased, but I'll give Nectar 3 a try too. Looking forwards to it.
> 
> I have Melodyne here for pitch correct. Though I am always curious about Antares nowadays. I remember when they first came out with their box I tested it out, it was impressive if electronic.
> 
> Let's see.. specific.. Is there a plugin that will fix the issue of Bing Crosby sounding like Bing Crosby rather than a more operatic and biting voice? Can I haz the Bing to Fling VST?



Antares doesn't sound as good or natural as melodyne, it's a bit metallic/robotic by comparison. Try messing with the vocal a bit in Melodyne, after the pitch correcting, you can try raising the formant without changing the pitch that might help a male vocal stand out.

EQ-wise, most vocals land in the mid-range of frequencies. Male vocal bass is usually around 800hz, female vocal about 900hz, mid-range for both is 1k to 4k, with clarity being around 5k (sibilence about 8k-9k). So these frequencies on any decent eq with a bell curve and fairly narrow Q will help you to poke that vocal out, especially that magic 5k.  My favorite EQ is Fab Filter Q2, can do surgical work and tone mods, with extras like sidechain controls and EQ matching.
https://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-q-2-equalizer-plug-in

Next part is compression. Fab Filter has a good one C2, that is the most transparent.
https://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-c-2-compressor-plug-in
Novotron from Kush Audio gives bass and vocals extra punch, clarity, and saturation:
https://www.thehouseofkush.com/plugins/novatron
10-Day Trial on their download page.

Some compressors like U-He pressworks gives you character (make fatter or warmer) as well (the waves CLA 2 or 76 compressors could give you some less expensive character), which can be important for a heavy male vocal (like Bing Crosby or a metal vocal) but less so on lighter voices.
https://u-he.com/products/presswerk/
Most compressors set to 3:1 ratio, adjust the threshold so the loudest note has a gain reduction of -6 to -9dB, and it should be good to go. -12dB or more if you want a more radical compression, which can also help male vocals to stand out (or try a higher ratio 5:1, 8:1). Limiting can also help if it's a good limiter. Fab filter L2 is the most transparent one I've ever heard, and is great on the master bus as well.
https://www.fabfilter.com/products/pro-l-2-limiter-plug-in

Then there is Kush Audio Clariphonic. You just missed their half price sale, but they will have another one. Clariphone adds clariy and high end that wasn't in the recording.
https://www.thehouseofkush.com/plugins/clariphonic-dsp
It does it by adding harmonic distortion in specific higher frequencies (4 settings with amount controls are on the front, with a focus knob to boost high mid-range). The effect comes across as extra air or clarity (like on an airy, soft female vocal, making it sing) can bring out a male vocal like nothing else. There is a 10 day demo, worth a shot to see if it helps your male vocal. Sign up for their newsletter. Demo downloads here:
https://www.thehouseofkush.com/support/downloads

Another idea for male vocal is adding some warm distortion. Sound Toys has decapitator with works for that warm subtle distortion or something crunchy:
https://www.soundtoys.com/product/decapitator/

For something more radical iZotope makes Trash 2, which has a lot of great distortion presets from mellow to extreme and trashy. Can add mucho edge to a male vocal and can be adjusted or mixed back lightly into the dry signal. (sells for as little as $50):
https://www.izotope.com/en/products/create-and-design/trash.html

Lastly their is the question of if you want to try something radical. I had been looking for something that could really change the vocals, and I kept trying different things that either did a poor job, or wasn't convincing (too processed) or just sounded too weird. But came across this Ircam Tool that can actually change a male voice to a heavier voice or a different character voice, without sounding too processed. Now mind you I was using this for dialog, it may be difficult with a singing vocal to keep it from sounding processed or phasey. But when I got it on sale I was happy with the purchase. Made some monster voices right off the bat. For me it sounds good when making subtle changes as well.
https://www.flux.audio/project/ircam-trax-v3/

Other radical ideas are plugins from Zynaptiq.
Like morphing between a vocal and an instrument:
https://www.zynaptiq.com/morph/
Or reverb that resonates and creates tones:
https://www.zynaptiq.com/adaptiverb/
Or crazy, crazy, Ka-ray-zee:
https://www.zynaptiq.com/wormhole/

Cheers. -XB


----------



## X-Bassist (Oct 21, 2018)

For those wanting to know more about what a great limiter can do.


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 22, 2018)

bill5 said:


> And not ripping on the OP but the question was very vague; I could list pretty much any plugin that could qualify as "to improve male vocals," esp since plugins aren't gender-specific. Improve it how?



Of course it's not that much about the specific plug ins, but rather about ways in using them.
At which level those processes are gender specific, is depending on many factors. Sometimes it's more the character that has an influence.

E.g. with voices that need fundament it's sometimes a good thing to send the voice to a pitchshifter, transpose it down an octave and mix it back at a very low level (usually it's necessary to do some additional EQ-ing on the lower octave i.e. to high pass it). Nectar's harmonizer is really good in this kind of stuff.

With dreamy voices a good trick is to send the voice to a bus where you just take the top end (i.e. highpass in the high mids), send it through a Chorus (Microshift or similar), followed by a plate reverb.
Also here: only in small amounts.
Ii've found use for this rather for female voices however.

When it comes to voice doubling, i prefer using alternative (time aligned) takes. Either two takes (panned to the very left and very right).
Or you take one alternative take and pan it straight into the middle. This can create a very distinct color. But it only works if the two takes (i.e. main and supplying) are very similar, so you'll need a good singer for this.

Some thoughts to the problem with harshness/saturation:

A big problem with voices processed with plug ins can be a certain harshness which results from saturation in different places.
Usually it's better not to mix too many of these coloring EQs, compressors and other saturators but rather combine "clean" processors with a few dedicated coloring ones.
A really good compressor for vocals with a good control over the saturation is Klanghelm's (ridiculously) cheap MJUC.
As a dedicated saturator, my favorite is the Black Box Analog Design HG2 from Plugin Alliance.
Lots of control and a mix knob.


----------



## chillbot (Oct 22, 2018)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> EDIT: I'm thinking you use the gate for the tails?


More for the attacks. So there is no 'fade in' the voice just appears out of nowhere. But the reason I say it's more for males is there a sort of gutteral attack that men tend to have that is cool when boosted. Think of the guy that does the trailer voiceovers... ("in a world, where...") not that deep but maybe you get the idea.


----------



## chillbot (Oct 22, 2018)

@Nick Batzdorf 

Not sure I described this super good. I think of the gate as working in conjunction with the compressor for like "super-compression".

Here's a (fiji) vocal I just happened to have up:






I think you can hear in the tail that there was already a compressor going on in the recording, oh well. Here it is with my compression added:






Now here it is gated FIRST (way overdone to prove a point) and THEN with the same compression as above:


----------



## chillbot (Oct 22, 2018)

Only lets me upload 5 files per post so here's the audio.

Original:

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/voc-mp3.15899/][/AUDIOPLUS]

Compression:

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/voc-comp-mp3.15897/][/AUDIOPLUS]

Gate + compression:

[AUDIOPLUS=https://vi-control.net/community/attachments/voc-gate-mp3.15898/][/AUDIOPLUS]


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 22, 2018)

Coolio. Good tip. More creative than reaching for a transient plug-in.


----------



## greggybud (Oct 26, 2018)

Living Fossil said:


> Working with tools over years give you quite a different experience than demoing something for a short time.



Absolutely! Trying the demo is just a good start, but IMO often you may need more time than the demo allows. Several developers including UAD will give you more time if you simply ask them, and especially if you communicate to them the specifics, that you are serious. They want the sale.

From my perspective users need to learn their tools, and I mean really learn them. Learn and know every single parameter, it's extremes, when to use it, on what type of material, and best of all...know the results in your head even before applying the actual processing. Then, knowing your personal tool arsenal...start asking the specifics. This is my perception as a retired ME and now hobbyist. 

My perception of what increasingly exists is a gearslutz mentality of buying 20 VST compressors, and never really learning any of them because you have so many. But naturally, one of your 20 compressors you have licensed is called "The Perfect Male" and among the 1,846 included factory presets you get "Pee Wee Herman" and "Barry White" either of which must be perfect, since the developer left out "Bing Crosby" right? Wait...as an additional purchase, the Bing Crosby preset is available! Now you just need to know where to insert "The Perfect Male" in that sometimes complex chain, but that will be another post where users list their chain when reality dictates mastering is totally dependent on the content. Then, after reading forum shootouts, you're worried you don't have the shoot-out winner...which of course was just released this year, but no fear...Black Friday comes soon. 



Living Fossil said:


> don't forget you're neither the custodian of other forum members.



Not at all a custodian. It's just my perspective. After lurking in forums for at least 20 years there has been a huge exodus of skilled, knowledgeable, and sometimes even "famous" engineers actively participating, which I think that is sad. There are various reasons, but one that resonates repeatedly is lack of interest and too busy. Too busy is self explainable, but lack of interest meant forum users not understanding concepts, arguing with the knowledgeable or even "famous"...of course they can be wrong too. Also subjective shootouts with placebo effect, and mostly the fact that experience takes years, and a preset or new tool, is rarely a substitute for experience. That is not to mean you can't learn from anyone who posts. It's not to mean the CLA isn't good. It's simply my observation over many years after speaking with some well known and highly respectable engineers as to why they no longer participate.



Living Fossil said:


> Instead of being frustrated it's better to develop some reading competence, which allows you to decide in few time if some chunks of information are useful for you or not.



Reading competence has always existed. IMO what has changed in forums is the conceptual with emphasis on theory, application, and other basics. An example, if an ME said part of the chain is series compression, how many readers would theoretically know how to set the parameters for each subsequent compressor as a starting point? Wait a sec...for marketing, that could be a new VST development idea. Design and build a VST that includes insertable multiple series compressor emulations, and automatically set the parameters for the user! This is what sells today. User buys the tool, but does the user really know whats going on with series if it doesn't ultimately achieve the the users objectives?

Today, it's more like why not just slap 2 or 3 of 20 available VST limiters near the end, crank them up, because hey...thats how you get it loud, and call it a day? If that works great. But why the never-ending "get it to sound like...?" Today, while posts are much more specific like this male vocal post, the emphasis appears to be the specific tool that manifests a shortcut equivalent to Greg Wells, CLA, Eddie, JPP, or why can't I get it like Bob Ludwig. And it's not just the room or equipment with Ludwig. IMO it's marketing, and while those tools can help, other elements as revealed in this initial post are missing...exponentially in recent times. So yes, much more scanning chunks to the point of loosing interest, which I think is sad.



Living Fossil said:


> But one should respect that others have an other focus and are free in asking for informations they think is important for them.



Of course always respect. But if the question is too general you get rose fertilizer to custard mix, and I think it's prompted a lot by marketing that is aimed at newer or casual users, often leading them down what appears to be the ticket, but ultimately the wrong road.

Apologies for being long-winded but feel better now.


----------



## Living Fossil (Oct 26, 2018)

@greggybud : thanks for taking the time for clearing things up. Obviously, we share very similar thoughts...
My point in defending this thread was that it offers a good possibility to expand some of these aspects without transforming into a name-the-plug-in ralley.
Fact is, voices in actual popular music often are very well processed and there is a lot of know how involved. And by naming some effects/plug ins you can convey some aspects of these chains, since with more elements used, problems not only get solved but new ones may arise.
So it's more about raising awareness for involved processes than endorsing specific plug ins.
(i mentioned in my reply harshness, but there are other ones - e.g. a smooth and convincing deessing can be a serious task if there is compression going on in different places...)
But of course it's also a good thing to name specific tools that work.

And (i guess in the same way as you) i'm very skeptical about the "all in one" solutions.
Lots of tools provide good results without much effort, however, make it nearly impossible to get to the "right" result...


----------



## Thorsten Meyer (Oct 26, 2018)

While recording use a vintage Neumann or a budget tube mic in combination with a nice Preamp works wonders when you run the vocal while recording through such a chain.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 27, 2018)

greggybud said:


> Design and build a VST that includes insertable multiple series compressor emulations, and automatically set the parameters for the user



Most compression plug-ins have presets for different applications.

But - obligatory car analogy - it's like a brake pedal preset: use this to slow down when you're about to run into a wall; use this to slow down in traffic.

I don't think there's a shortcut to learning how to use a compressor - you just have to roll up your sleeves and listen to what happens when you change the attack, release, and ratio. And knee.

Then you have to try different compressor plug-ins to hear what they sound like, because they all react to the signal a little differently - even if you can filter the signal to the detector circuit to change that. The classic example is the 1176, which tends to brighten and thin the sound (because of what it does to the low end).


----------

