ojan327 wrote:I wanted to know if I'm crazy or are there other people out there who automate the DeEsser threshold on vocals to try to get them as close to perfect as possible?? (In my case, not only controlling S's, but Z's, CH's, P's, V's, etc.)
lagerfeldt wrote:A third solution is to make a duplicate of your vocal track, including all processing, but insert a Utility > Gain plug-in at the end of the chain and flip the polarity (called phase invert in the Gain plug-in). Then use the scissors or marquee tool to remove everything but the sibilant areas. Use volume automation on the remaining regions to control how much de-essing you want.
The theory behind the above method is that you're simply phasing the sibilance out. This method does not require any de-esser plug-in in the chain.
camillo jr wrote:BTW, did you mean high pass filter rather than low pass for the Linear Phase EQ?
lagerfeldt wrote: I think you posted this before but I forgot all about it!
camillo jr wrote:After setting everything up, it was very easy to adjust the amount of de-essing simply by adjusting the gain plug's level, which I had parked around -9db. On the LP EQ, I was surprised by how gentle the slope and the boost was to make this work.
fader8 wrote:After duplicating the track and reversing its polarity, place a Linear Phase EQ, followed by a Noise Gate, in the last inserts of the dup track. Solo this track. Bypass the gate for the moment.
jschmidtiii wrote:This forum is incredible. Fader, quick question about what you said here:fader8 wrote:After duplicating the track and reversing its polarity, place a Linear Phase EQ, followed by a Noise Gate, in the last inserts of the dup track. Solo this track. Bypass the gate for the moment.
Why linear phase EQ vs. channel EQ? I don't have a firm grasp of the difference between them. I did some searching and learned that linear phase is a bit more cpu intensive and is generally used for mastering, but that's as far as I got. Thanks!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests