can mastering fix sibilance?

jgest · Post by **jgest** » Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:54 pm

I am in involved in a project where I give a vocalist music, and he tracks in his own privacy and studio, vocals. There seems to be some sibilance manifesting and the vocalist "says" he is taking all "proper" precautions to avoid it. Since I don't have much control over how or what he is doing tracking wise, can sibilance be fixed in the mastering scheme? I assume it would be a multi band compression scenario, but I am nervous about the idea of trying to fix things in the mastering phase when I intuitively know it is better to address before hand.

Any thoughts, ideas on the matter? Like I said, once I give the vocalist the music, I no longer have much more "engineering" control over what happens. The guy likes to track in private and on an eclectic schedule.......

David Polich · Post by **David Polich** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:03 am

If he's sending you the multi-track files back after he records, then it is an easy matter to insert a de-esser on the vocal tracks. Here are three good de-essers:

http://www.eiosis.com/e2deesser

http://www.sonnoxplugins.com/pub/plugin ... resser.htm

http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=325

I've seen some mastering engineers use de-essers, however, I've never been a fan of de-essing an entire mix, since it always removes clarity from cymbals, hats, and percussion along with vocal sibilance. If a mastering engineer starts to reach for a de-esser, that's my clue to stop, go back and re-mix the track.

Mr_Clifford · Post by **Mr_Clifford** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:44 am

Yeah, fix it in the mix, not at mastering.

jayjo19 · Post by **jayjo19** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:57 am

as it's been said, fix it BEFORE mastering. the mastering engineer can't really do much (if at all) since the frequency of the sibillance is probably the same as other instruments (hat, cymbals, etc). it would get rid of the S's and screw up other things in that same frequency range.

if you can, tell him to just send you the voc track(s) or if he knows how to "draw" automation, tell him to dip the S's (easily recognizable on the waveform).

good luck !

kassonica · Post by **kassonica** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 1:54 am

It can be fixed in mastering IF you master in stems and they should have pretty good de-essers, however mastering in this way is more expensive.

I would get the multi tracks files from him and de-es it yourself if you can.

Also the kind of mic may not be helping and make sure he is not EQing going in. Using a darker sounding mic will help somewhat or even a dynamic.

Also if you compress or limit it either pre or post it will raise the sibilance even more.

Alas though some singers just have that sound.

The waves de-esser is one of the best software ones going, if you can handle dealing with the company.

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:09 am

Have you asked the vocalist to either use a different mic/preamp, or change their mic technique? One suggestion is for the singer to change the angle of the mic, so that the voice goes past the mic instead of directly into it - like raise the mic so it's pointing at his chest. Or try the pencil trick, which is to rubberband a pencil to the front of the mic grill, pointing up (the pencil, not the mic.)

On the subject of mics/pres, a cleaner pre could help, or a mic with a less hyped high end. If it's a cheap Chinese condenser mic, that's probably the culprit. Have the singer try a Shure SM7b. It's the standard vocal mic for pop music, and it's only $300. Another one that tames sibilance is the Oktava 319, which is best purchased through Oktavamod.com, where the guy mods the mic to get it to sound better.

The singer could also try recording with a less-hot level. Many interfaces, including stock Motu's, will distort when they get close to max level, and that could be causing the S's to break up. The BLA mod helps with this problem, but recording with conservative levels is still a good technique if you want clean tracks with no distortion.

Of course, de-essers are the last resort, and the Eiosis is probably the best of the bunch, but it's much better to address sibilance in the recording stage. It's also possible for the singer to just take it easy on the S's, something any singer with any recording experience can do if they set their mind to it.

It's tough trying to get people to go to the next level with their technique/equipment, but it's called professionalism, and if there's money involved, it's not unrealistic to expect it. Perhaps you could point the singer to this thread and hope he takes it to heart.

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:19 am

kassonica wrote: The waves de-esser is one of the best software ones going, if you can handle dealing with the company.

You posted while I was typing. I haven't tried the Waves de-esser, mainly because I've already demo'd their stuff once, and now I can't demo it again. What a loser company, although I do use their Rvox and Maxxbass all the time.

edit - Heil PR35 is another dynamic mic worth checking out - cheaper than a SM7, and might be a better choice, depending on the singer.

kassonica · Post by **kassonica** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:37 am

duncan wrote:
kassonica wrote: The waves de-esser is one of the best software ones going, if you can handle dealing with the company.
You posted while I was typing. I haven't tried the Waves de-esser, mainly because I've already demo'd their stuff once, and now I can't demo it again. What a loser company, although I do use their Rvox and Maxxbass all the time.

edit - Heil PR35 is another dynamic mic worth checking out - cheaper than a SM7, and might be a better choice, depending on the singer.

Yea I don't have ANY waves stuff, too expensive and the Company well need i say more BUT i have used them in studios, even a mastering engineer used one on the last band I produced when the vox track was a stem and it really is transparent.

Most de-essers are not very transparent and it really is best not to use them at all.

It can be better to zoom in on the worst ones and just automate an EQ dip on them in the right frequency range but lotsa work that way.

davedempsey · Post by **davedempsey** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:30 am

You can do quite a bit at the mastering stage depending on the mix. If there's only kick, bass and vocals in absolute center then using MS decoding you can separate out to mono channels and work the 'centre' with de-esser, which shouldn't really hurt the kick and bass, then reverse the MS process to retrieve the stereo mix with sibilance removed. This is easier in the traditional analog mastering domain but still doable in he digital domain, although a little more fiddly.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:57 am

If it's a synthetic-sound-based project, Josh, you're in with a better chance of getting away with the de-ess-in-mastering option.

It's still a no-no in my book; I'd press the guy to provide just his tracked vocals for you to mess with.

jgest · Post by **jgest** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:31 am

monkey man wrote:If it's a synthetic-sound-based project, Josh, you're in with a better chance of getting away with the de-ess-in-mastering option.

It's still a no-no in my book; I'd press the guy to provide just his tracked vocals for you to mess with.

the drums are synthetic, and are synths tracks, but all else is organic.......guitar, bass, etc.....
I have no real control (it's a first for me to work this way) over the situation. At first I had no real expectations beyond collaborative tinkering, but the guy seems to have some talent and I am always surprised and impressed with his ideas and work. He says he tracks with a de-esser....but who knows

Sadly I have a poor monitoring environment right now and I am not set up to handle a complex mix with vocals. With our second kid......I lost my studio 2 years ago as wifey made it a nursery

jgest · Post by **jgest** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:32 am

davedempsey wrote:You can do quite a bit at the mastering stage depending on the mix. If there's only kick, bass and vocals in absolute center then using MS decoding you can separate out to mono channels and work the 'centre' with de-esser, which shouldn't really hurt the kick and bass, then reverse the MS process to retrieve the stereo mix with sibilance removed. This is easier in the traditional analog mastering domain but still doable in he digital domain, although a little more fiddly.

thanks for the info

jgest · Post by **jgest** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:34 am

David Polich wrote:If he's sending you the multi-track files back after he records, then it is an easy matter to insert a de-esser on the vocal tracks. Here are three good de-essers:

http://www.eiosis.com/e2deesser

http://www.sonnoxplugins.com/pub/plugin ... resser.htm

http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=325

I've seen some mastering engineers use de-essers, however, I've never been a fan of de-essing an entire mix, since it always removes clarity from cymbals, hats, and percussion along with vocal sibilance. If a mastering engineer starts to reach for a de-esser, that's my clue to stop, go back and re-mix the track.

Thanks for the links. I agree with you as my intuition is not happy about trying to fix things in the mastering phase should have been addressed before hand. That is sloppy engineering in my book.....

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 12:22 pm

Adding to the list, I think the UAD-1 De-esser is great.

pcm · Post by **pcm** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 2:28 pm

Better to fix it in the mix. It CAN be fixed in mastering, I do it all the time. The Waves de-essers are excellent, btw. I sold my three Orban de-essers after I got the Waves stuff.