Harmonic Exciters (and others) for bright vocals...

What do you think? Good way to make vocals stand out when used subtly? A quick way to fatiguing, thin, buzzy sounding vocals?

I have been trying to get a vocal track to sound sharper and more up front in a mix lately and haven't been having much success with eq (high-passing, increasing at 4k, 8k, 8k+). I am hesitant to apply heavy compression because I'd like to try and maintain some of the dynamics of the vocal performance... so I'm wondering what opinions people might have on using harmonic exciters. I played around with the ones in Izotope's trash and couldn't decide if I liked the added presence or if it just made the track sound a little too dirty as if my preamp had been pushed a little too hard when tracking it. I found myself lowering the wet mix and gain until it didn't really make a noticeable difference from the original vocal in order to get rid of what I didn't like, but then again I was really listening for it so maybe if I just sat down and heard it with a little effect on it I would like the sound better?

The vocal track itself I am happy with, it just seems like a lot of vocals are really bright (maybe too bright sometimes) on commercial stuff that I am unsure about it. I am having a hard time getting a bright, upfront sound without making it sound... well... kind of crappy.

Any opinions / advice?

You're probably going to get a lot of negative responses to using Aural Exciters because of their tendency to make vocals sound brittle.

To make a vocal pop out on the top end, I like to use a mic that already has a beautiful top end, and then adjust the EQ to bring that out a little more if necessary while still maintaining a nice, warm sound. I typically will sweep somewhere between 10kHz on up and see if I can add some air to what's already there. I feel like this technique works really well, and I don't feel the need to run out and buy an Aural Exciter or BBE.

I've used Aphex Aural Exciters before and owned a BBE. I tended to use them "improperly". What I did when I had mine was to crank the thing all the way while recording several passes of background vocals. The ensuing sound was rather choir-like if I did three or more passes of someone singing the same background vocal line, and if I did six or more passes, it'd really sound like a choir.

If you do choose to try an Aural Exciter or BBE, I think you could probably get a decent top end sound if you use it sparingly. I've never tried a plug-in of this sort before, only a hardware BBE, which I used for the background vocals that I mentioned, a nice effect. Used subtlely, the BBE could help you out if you are getting nowhere with the EQ, but it's been my experience that you can achieve this just fine with an EQ.

Perhaps it's your application...i.e. the mic, preamp, placement, speakers.

What are you using for a mic, preamp, speakers, male or female vocal?

In general, a large condenser is sought for vocals. And of course, not all large condensers are suited to a vocalist. You probably already know this.

I find that the closer to the mic, the more warm it sounds, further away from the mic, say a foot or so, less bass and the upper registers of a voice come through more clearly.

However, if in a mix without the opportunity to retrack, perhaps less bass end will help the highend. And, like you hint at, some compression may help as well. Start softly with a high threshold...just kissing the peaks of the track, and a light ratio of 3:1.

It might help if you post a link to a section of the song you're working on as an example.

But, don't be afraid to try the exciter...if it sounds good, why not?

I THEEENK Aphex Exciters started out trying to add back in harmonics lost on old recording processes, and it worked well for that. Now, it seems more like an effect. Yes, I use it to FAKE UP the vocals to equal commercial products.... everything is pushed these days and I can not create the exciter effect with EQ or technique. It is an exaggeration and that is how I use it. Just bought a new one last year and love it.

I've screwed around with faking it by doing weird stuff like ramping up everything above 15k on a vocal track and sometimes doing that on a side channel I could gate. I'll set the high EQ on 20k, turn it's gain all the way up, and slowly back down the Frequency until I hear it add that shimmer

but a limiter/compresser is my main tool for keeping vocals out there

I have an aphex 104c2 exciter. It's my secret weapon on many a record But I would never use it on a vocal.

What are your choices there?

I'm mostly using a Lawson L251, which is sort of a replica of the old Telefunken ELAM 251, which are known for their gorgeous, airy top end. I seriously lucked out and won this mic in a drawing. I mention this because it's something like $24-2500 and out of reach of many people's budgets.

There's other mics that will do it as well. And on the cheap, I'm told that some of the Rode mics (K2, NTK) have a rise in the top frequencies. I have one of the original versions of the Rode NT2, which has a marked rise at around 12kHz, and it can be good for some vocals, particularly male vocals, baritones. It has a nice top end. It can sometimes be a bit much for some female vocals or people who have sibilance issues.

There's other ones, but I can't think of them right now. The C12, I think, and some others.

There was a secret weapon that some people used when digital recording was fairly new, that did what you wanted.

If you can get your hands on a Dolby noise reduction stand alone unit unit that was used for tape recordings and run your vocals through it, it was originally used in recording to boost high frequency in soft passages and decrease trebble in louder passages. On playback it would reverse the process. This would reduce tape hiss in the process. If you run your vocals through one it adds that high frequency sheen you're looking for. You can find them on Ebay anywheres fron 20~$100 every once and awhile. They are in high demand for getting exactly the thing you're trying to use it for. Heres some examples from various manufacturers that may work.

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?homeproc&1231250960&/Teac-AN-300-Dolby-Noise-Reduct

http://www.atkcorp.com/pdfs/proc024.pdf

http://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/103695-teac_an60_stereo_dolby_noise_reduction_unit/

http://cgi.ebay.com/RARE-Vintage-1970-Advent-101-Dolby-Noise-Reduction-Unit_W0QQitemZ350121501031QQcmdZViewItemQQimsxZ20081107?IMSfp=TL081107116011r506

Interesting...

This has definitely given me some ideas as far as things to try and look into. I did find a simple thing that made a big difference though and kind of made me go "duh." I have a fair amount of delay going on in this song so I just tried pushing up the cut-off frequency on the highpass filter that filters the delays on the plug-in I'm using. Made a big difference... seems muddy delays were muddying up the whole vocals sound. Added a bit more compression to that and it seems to have improved a bunch. But I will definitely be looking into some of these ideas. Thanks!

I like doing that, and with how easy it is to slap a plug-in across an auxiliary track or before a delay, there's no reason not to.

In the same spirit, I also use EQs and high-pass filters and compressors before the reverb.

I occasionally do that kind of thing with reverb in the aux send vs echo. I occasionally use it on the drums as well.

If the song revolves around the vocal (most important element?) then the most effective thing you can do is be a spectral management crowd control specialist . Find the areas in the other tracks that might compete with the meat of the vocal (3-5khz) , then , use tear gas and billy club on them ; They might sound emasculated when soloed , but they deserve it for trying to mask the vocal !!!!

my.02 cents

If you are using Logic 8, I put the Multipressor as the last plug in in my vocal chain and pump up the compression to about 4:1, and that gives me a very breathy, crisp sound to my vocal track. Unfortunately I know nothing about recording that I haven't figured out on my own, so that may be a very stupid thing to suggest. Ultimately, try it if you have access to that program and see how it works for you.