Sound Design Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for sound engineers, producers, editors, and enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The main problem my finished tracks have is a poor quality vocal sound. I generally try to apply a dynamic range compression filter first and then add some reverb/chorus as appropriate but I can never get results that are good enough. What do you suggest is the best way to treat a good, untouched vocal take?

share|improve this question

migrated from Jan 27 '14 at 15:04

This question came from our site for engineers, producers, editors, and enthusiasts spanning the fields of video, and media creation.

up vote 16 down vote accepted

Definitely EQ. if you're not using a super-high quality mic then there's going to be a need for frequency compensation, and a good bit of EQing can make even simply lightly-reverbed vocal tracks sit much nicer in your mix.

Also, don't drown your vocals in FX (unless that's the aim of the track, or you're using a vocoder ;) ). A good plate reverb, maybe a smidgen of delay (with automation to accentuate key words/sounds) and a little EQ will generally do the business.

share|improve this answer
I've got some guidelines for the frequency ranges to use for various instruments including vocals. Should I just boost the volume for that range? – jeebs Dec 8 '10 at 11:19
Yes, to start with. I find the best way to do my EQing is to overboost where I think there's a deficit with a high Q, then sweep the frequency to find exactly where the problem is. Then, I just dial it back down in both gain and Q and compare it to the dry singal a couple of times. Wash, rinse, repeat :) Plus, I'd suggest not accepting this answer just yet, someone else might have a much better suggestion :) – Ed J Dec 8 '10 at 12:24
@Ed woodcock: exactly the way I do it. – Pelle ten Cate Dec 8 '10 at 12:57
Thanks Ed. I've unticked your answer for now but I'll re-award it to you later if no-one comes back with anything more definitive/popular. – jeebs Dec 8 '10 at 14:36
Generally with vocals you can take out a little of the midrange (around 300 Hz or so) to get a cleaner, more distinct sound. – BenV Dec 8 '10 at 15:59

What happened to dynamics?

Depending on the situation, I use the following:

EQ -> A little compression -> [monitor out for singer] -> Multiband compression aka de-esser -> compression -> reverb

Everything pre-fader except for the reverb.

The first compressor is just making things a bit more comfortable for the singer and really shouldn't do much. The de-esser is not always necessary, but some singers need it, especially when recorded with a large diaphragm condenser. It should not be set up to make a huge difference either. The last compressor actually does the 'real' job. :)

share|improve this answer
+1 de-esser. It's not always a necessity but for some singers you will need one. If you don't want to multiband (can make things a little flat if you get it wrong) you can always side-chain compress with the vocals notched on the accentuated frequencies as the side-chain source. – Ed J Dec 8 '10 at 14:48

Compression, for me. Properly adjusted, will make your vocal more punchy giving a bit more impact to the song, as vocals are the most noticed things to listeners.

A very good sounding, easy and cheap compressor is in TB Ferox. Notice this will also bring up whatever is between the words, such as background noise.

If the voice is a bit muffled, you can try adding EQ above 15 kHz or such. It will sound more aggresive.

Generally, however, other FX won't help with a not so good voice recording. If you feel the voice can't be made to sound decent, you definitely need a better recorded sound, probably in the order: better mic > better preamp > better room (taking the actual singer's voice out of the equation).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.