Lennon vocal sound?

Hello,

This is the first post I have put in this section as I've been spending loads of time and money sorting out all my guitars (with lots of good advice from this forum). I have now returned to writing and recording and have a question related to vocal recording. I have a Beatle type song that was written by accident while trying to write another song and so I thought I would record it and give it a Beatles style recording. The problem for me is getting a authentic vocal sound. Can anyone give me advice on how to create a Lennon/ Beatles type vocal sound in terms of use of plugins, reverb, delay that will create an authentic feel. Can anyone suggest any plugins or effects that they have experience with.

Thanks

Tricky as there was no real consistency in the vocal chain from album to album for Beatles releases.

You could try U48 or U47 mic, a Chandler preamp, Fairchild 660 compressor.
That chain is around $50k but won't make you sound like Lennon.
I would suggest that it more to do with the writing/arranging than anything else.
Reverb and delay alone won't get you there and plugins don't come close to anything authentic imho.

Let's face it- some of the early records were done with less than stellar gear but they still sound excellent.

You could try U48 or U47 mic, a Chandler preamp, Fairchild 660 compressor.

.................

Reverb and delay alone won't get you there and plugins don't come close to anything authentic imho.


Ya those vocal tracks are great partly due to the analog gear used to record them. There is a real flavour and a warmth in these recording introduced by the equipment.

There are plugins that can approximate the sound of this vintage analog gear but these are quite expensive. Examples being UAD's Fairchild 670 comp costs about $150 bucks plus it needs a UAD dsp card to function at about $500, the good news here is the UAD card comes with a Pultec EQ and a good reverb. You could get an approximation of vocal chain for $650 bucks with UAD plugins. Nomad Factory have some Fairchild plugin emulations but your looking at $300to $500bucks as you need to buy a full suite with the exception of one or two channel strips for $150, and of course Waves have some vintage type plugins that cost about $400 a pop or $1000 plus for a suite.

If you don't have the money all you can do is use what you have to the best of your ability, and fill the holes with freebies and the freebies don't come close to the quality of UAD, Waves or Nomad Factory IMO.

Here's two great links that deal with the vocal chain. One article deals with the use of free plugins the other with eq on the vocals.

http://www.hometracked.com/2007/01/11/best-free-vocal-plugins/
http://www.hometracked.com/2008/02/07/vocal-eq-tips/

There are plugins that can approximate the sound of this vintage analog gear but these are quite expensive.

Especially expensive in that they don't really come close.

I'm not trying to be an ass about this, but I have some of the units the UAD card claims to emulate (although not a Fairchild) and bought a UAD card when they first came out to pair with my TDM rig. I sold it eventually as I found the 'emulations' sounded nothing like the gear they were attempting to emulate.
The 1176 and LA2 models are not particularly close- try and do 10db of gain reduction on an 1176 UAD plugin and you get none of that lovely smooth squashed creamyness that you get with an original 1176.
Even the UA reissues sound different to the original 1176's- mainly because UA changed the transformer architecture on the reissues (cheaper to produce).

The only hardware that comes close to the original 1176 tone is the Purple Audio MC77- which I would say sounds subjectively better.

In plugin land- the only vintage emulations that I trust with my own audio is are McDSP plugins- filterbank and compressor bank as well as analog channel for some console/tape emulation.
They are not as instantly gratifying as the real gear- it takes a bit of experience and practice to get them to fit.

I know this is a forum for hobbiest more than professionals but I'd urge people to not believe the hype surrounding these plugin emulations.
You are almost always going to be better served by spending your money on one or two great channels with hardware compression and eq.

The best "emulation" of the old UA gear comes in the form of the Empirical Labs "Distressor".
I have two of them, stereo linked and they are simply amazing sounding units- from 1176 style compression to a great optical (LA2) chewiness.
They are 'digitally controlled analog' rather than a digital emulation.

when i think of the early Beatles vocal sound, especially Lennon's, it's the doubled vocal tracks that stand out to me rather than effects/sound treatment.

I would say a vintage plugin or suite of plugins from UAD, Waves, or Nomad Factory, are close enough to their harware counterparts to be usefull.
For the cost of a $1400 harware compressor I can have 2 or 3 plugin suites that would cover every base with enough sonic variety in every category of effect. I would have to mortgage my house or wait 20 years for ebay deals to have a collection of hardware that is as usefull as my 2 or 3 suites of plugins. That IMO is the beauty of software. Would the plugins mimick to a tee a Beatles production, probably not but they would sound a heck of alot better than using Kjaerhaus or Blue Cat freebees off of KVR. I think investments in quality plugins are worth it for amatuer audiophiles.

I would say a vintage plugin or suite of plugins from UAD, Waves, or Nomad Factory, are close enough to their harware counterparts to be usefull.
For the cost of a $1400 harware compressor I can have 2 or 3 plugin suites that would cover every base with enough sonic variety in every category of effect. I would have to mortgage my house or wait 20 years for ebay deals to have a collection of hardware that is as usefull as my 2 or 3 suites of plugins. That IMO is the beauty of software. Would the plugins mimick to a tee a Beatles production, probably not but they would sound a heck of alot better than using Kjaerhaus or Blue Cat freebees off of KVR. I think investments in quality plugins are worth it for amatuer audiophiles.

No argument that the hardware route is more expensive- but once you've gone the hardware route it is very difficult to be satisfied with plugins.
I am not talking about time based stuff- delays, reverbs and such- but rather compressors, eq and preamps.

For a lot of people recording 1-2 channels at once- to get a great, professional front end is cheaper than a lot of people think and it is stuff that you never get rid of and will always be classic.
For example- an API preamp is $700 NEW- you can find them used for about $500.

I'm not anti-plugin, at all- I probably have around 20k invested in plugins (TDM is always double the cost of native).
One further point is there is no guarantee that the plugins will work in 5-10 years time.
Formats change, computers require constant upgrades.
Looking at the total cost of ownership is something I need to look at.
Case in point is the UA TDM plugins- basically 4 plugins for Protools that UA made, very similar to the plugins on the UAD card.
I own them.
I paid around $2000 for the 4 plugins.
About 2 years ago UA decided to stop developing them for TDM.
They worked up until Protools 6, but I am on Protools 7 now.
They offered a rebate for TDM owners (hence I bought the UAD card) but it never worked the way it should, didn't sound the same as the TDM plugins, introduced latency I didn't need in my signal path so I had to bail on it.
Basically, that 2k went GOODBYE because UA decided to change their strategy.

This stuff happens all the time- and I am not that bothered- but I make the point because whilst I spent $2000 on my distressors, I can always sell them for about that at some time in the future, and they sound kick ass.
Used software is either close to worthless or very actually worthless.
Some companies won't support the sale of software under any circumstances.
Waves insist on a $150 'transfer fee' if you wish to sell your software (and charge WUP on a yearly basis).

Maybe I'm old school in this regard- but looking at the TCO- there isn't a whole lot in it.

I realise I'm going into a lot of detail here that doesn't really address the OP's question so I'll leave it here.

when i think of the early Beatles vocal sound, especially Lennon's, it's the doubled vocal tracks that stand out to me rather than effects/sound treatment.

Apparently, Lennon disliked the sound of his own voice and would always ask for it to be tweaked. The "flanger" was a prime example. Two tape machines running together, and the engineer would put his hand lightly on the flange of one of the tape reels. I don't think you can get a plug-in to emulate that technique!!:lol:

when i think of the early Beatles vocal sound, especially Lennon's, it's the doubled vocal tracks that stand out to me rather than effects/sound treatment.

I'm with this as well. The doubling of the vocal is a hallmark of Lennon's vocal sound. It was the one thing that was consistent through out the years. The gear, eq, and effects may have changed over time but he always doubled his vocal track (at least when it was available to do so).

Apparently, Lennon disliked the sound of his own voice and would always ask for it to be tweaked. The "flanger" was a prime example. Two tape machines running together, and the engineer would put his hand lightly on the flange of one of the tape reels. I don't think you can get a plug-in to emulate that technique!!:lol:

:mrgreen: http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=281 :shock:

I don't mean this sarcastically, but see if you can get George Martin involved. In all seriousness, George should be credited as the 5th Beatle. He was the driving force behind their success. Unfortunately, he's gone. The guy was a GENIUS!!!!

when i think of the early Beatles vocal sound, especially Lennon's, it's the doubled vocal tracks that stand out to me rather than effects/sound treatment.

Yep, that's the main studio trick they used for John. In fact, he was so adamant that his vocals be doubled, yet lazy enough that he didn't want to actually sing twice, that they invented ADT (Automatic Double Tracking) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_double_tracking).

Cheers, Tim

I don't mean this sarcastically, but see if you can get George Martin involved. In all seriousness, George should be credited as the 5th Beatle. He was the driving force behind their success. Unfortunately, he's gone. The guy was a GENIUS!!!!

Gone? As in dead?
You might want to let him know, as he is apparently unaware of the fact.

Brian Epstein (manager) died in 1967, but George Martin is definitely alive.

Little OT but do you guys ever think there will be a group to have as much impact as the Beatles. Pure musical genious, don't think it can ever be matched.

Except when Waves introduces their next pure genious plugin:lol: :lol:

O.K., don't go nuts here ... the popular processing of John's vox used doubling (either track the vocal twice or auto-double with a short delay, around 30-50 milliseconds) and slapback echo like they used on old Elvis records. To get the distorted vocal sound, just turn up your microphone preamp gain until it overdrives (must use a preamp with output gain control to attenuate overdriven vocal signal, or you'll clip your recorder inputs - this is bad.)

mud

To get the distorted vocal sound, just turn up your microphone preamp gain until it overdrives (must use a preamp with output gain control to attenuate overdriven vocal signal, or you'll clip your recorder inputs - this is bad.)


Actually the way most people do it (back in the day preamps NEVER had output pots) is to crank the pre and then use a pad of around -10 to -20db to tame it before the recorder.
Analog recorders have more tolerance for overs than digital recorders do though.

I have a Groove Tubes Vipre (lovely preamp) that I crank up to 55db of gain and then pad it severely to bring in into protools without clipping.
It sounds awesome.

when i think of the early Beatles vocal sound, especially Lennon's, it's the doubled vocal tracks that stand out to me rather than effects/sound treatment.

+1 doubling & tight harmony.


You might contact Andrew Gold about this too... he does some convincing Lennonesque stuff and he is a genius... and very nice and approachable.

+1 to the "doubling", slapback and a bit of overdriven pre-amp. Oh ... and sing really well with a distinctive style too :wink: .

Actually the way most people do it (back in the day preamps NEVER had output pots) is to crank the pre and then use a pad of around -10 to -20db to tame it before the recorder.
Analog recorders have more tolerance for overs than digital recorders do though.

I have a Groove Tubes Vipre (lovely preamp) that I crank up to 55db of gain and then pad it severely to bring in into protools without clipping.
It sounds awesome.

True, true, Jim ... actually, I believe the sound was a combo of OD'ing the mic pre as well as the tape deck input - can't do that (hit the recorder real hot) today with digital media, though. Digital, as you well know, has virtually no tolerance for overs ... :shock:

mud

True, true, Jim ... actually, I believe the sound was a combo of OD'ing the mic pre as well as the tape deck input - can't do that (hit the recorder real hot) today with digital media, though. Digital, as you well know, has virtually no tolerance for overs ... :shock:

mud

Yup, you nailed it.
I work in a lot of 2" equipped studios.
We hit the 2" first and then bounce straight to Protools HD on a regular basis.
Nothing really gets recorded to 2" we simply use the deck as a big saturation machine.
I don't have one in my personal studio anymore as it's not cost effective, but I love doing it when time and budget allows.

Wow some excellent info here, really got alot out of this. Great topic Noah!!!

you HAVE to read geoff emericks book "here, there and everywhere". it will give you lot´s of ideas about the beatles in the studio.

when i think of the early Beatles vocal sound, especially Lennon's, it's the doubled vocal tracks that stand out to me rather than effects/sound treatment.

He's telling you how to get the sound....did you pick up on it?...........cheers! JIMO

No guys. This an easy one. Even I can answer it. Here' how it was done. First you get John Lennon, then have him sing into a mic. Hmmmm. One problem I see right off...........