1.6-3k is low for a de-esser. Try 4k or higher. Trust your ears. Depends on the mic, singer de-esser (different algorithms between de-essers), etc.

Try finding a used dbx263 deEsser. It's the cheaper half rack version of a dbx902...but is jsut as good. A VERY good deal.

if you are into a DAW, let deesing for the mixing stage. if ya are a PT TDM user, insert a digi deesser along with a PAZ (Waves RTA).

Verify where are the peaks happening mostly and work with the de-esser setting. For example, my voice tracked with an At4050 thru my console mic pre/dbx analog comp is around 8khz. But I have faced situations up to 12khz. :p:

I usually record vocals thru an at4060. I have used, of all things, a peavey de esser which actually worked. But its not mine, and peavey? I'll look into the DBX263.

I also find it very hard to obtain decent de-essing. In some ways one also has to take the mastering in account, as the hi-end (around 16-20k) always is boosted slightly.

I'm using the dbx263 but I'm not sure I'm getting the settings right. If I set it to 4k, it sounds like frequencies above is slipping through, and if I set it to 8k it's the frequecies below that jumps out.

The 263 has a normal/broadband switch, but I really can't decide in which mode it should be. I guess it should be "normal", but if someone could shed a light on that I'd be very happy.

I usually record vocals with C414 in cardioid, homemade popfilter (stocking on a pianostring) eq flat, and through dbx 163 compressor and Mackie console to analog tape. I'm not de-essing when tracking. The compressor is usually set to work around 4-8 dB gain reduction.

For this particular mix (I'm almost done now) I ended up making a compromise by reducing the de-essing not to make it too audible, and roll off some high end. And as Hack said, the vocals becomes a bit dull sounding...

try WAves or Digi de-esser. A thresold around -23db for very strong sibilant singers shall do the job.

One trick: USe PAZ to evaluate the frequency content of your vocal track without and with Reverb sends engaged. It can alo be that the high frequency damping of your reverb patches are not properly set. Some LPF/HPF might help tailoring the overal sound.

:p:

A combination of a sonogram and a spectogram will tell your eyes better than what your ears can describe, the frequency ranges and threshold you need to set respectively.

It is very helpful but nothing compares to nice trained ears for final evaluation.

Let's take this in order:

I usually record vocals with C414 in cardioid, homemade popfilter (stocking on a pianostring) eq flat, and through dbx 163 compressor and Mackie console to analog tape. I'm not de-essing when tracking. The compressor is usually set to work around 4-8 dB gain reduction.

First, you are going into the Mackie (for the Pre) , and then into the 163x on the insert....right?

Second, If you (or whom ever is singing) is very sibilant you cab try differrent mic and/or mic them from more of the side, rather than directly in front. This helps to varying degrees. Try backing off the compressor a little hit it at round 4db .

The 263 has a normal/broadband switch, but I really can't decide in which mode it should be. I guess it should be "normal", but if someone could shed a light on that I'd be very happy.


The "normal/broadband" switch tells the 263x weather to help work on only the high frequencies by using a hi-pass filter before the detector, while in broadband mode the whole signal goes to the detector. If there's too much low-end stuff like p-pop's ,then "normal" mode can work better. It's one of those things where after you've got it set up, switch in/out and pick which sounds better...if you can't hear a diff. pick one. On the Big Brother DBX 902 deEsser, usually it's left in the equivalent of broadband mode, and it works just fine.

I'm using the dbx263 but I'm not sure I'm getting the settings right. If I set it to 4k, it sounds like frequencies above is slipping through, and if I set it to 8k it's the frequecies below that jumps out.

Contrary to the oscilloscope crowd (just a little humor there) DeEssing DOES work best in the 1.8K to 2K to 4K range. On a DBX902 it's around 1.8K for males and 2.5K for females....the 4K & 8K are more like the "first harmonics" of the Ess fundamental...regardless of what the analyzer looks like.
Start by hitting the DeEsser really hard...like 10b of 'Gain Reduction'. Then sweep around the 1.5K to 3K region untill you get the maximum reduction in 'esses. Then...back off to maybe 4-6db of gain reduction. BUT do this by ear...back off untill you hear an 'S' ..but not a sharp/sibilant 'S'.

For this particular mix (I'm almost done now) I ended up making a compromise by reducing the de-essing not to make it too audible, and roll off some high end. And as Hack said, the vocals becomes a bit dull sounding...

DeEss first in your chain, then EQ. If you DeEss right, yuo should actually be able to ADD a shelving EQ , anywhere from 5K up to 12K (depends on source & mix) a few DB for air.

-------------------
Now for the DAW. I also use the waves DeEsser (they're great!) when I'm tracking/OD'ing in my daw...if I need to do that...hopefully I've found an acoustic way around, but sometimes that's just how they sing.
But, if I'm mixing w/ a daw (even if I'm mixing on an analog board and the daw is my tape machine) THE BEST WAY TO DE_ESS is to not use a DeEsser at all, and instead zoom into all the spots where there's a 'S' to fix and do a volume ride (anwhere from 4-6-10-? db) on just that part of the beginning wave-form where the huge 'S' build-up is...THIS WAY IS THE BOMB.

-----------------
UNRELATED DeEsser Trick
----------------
As an unrelated bonus...here's something you can use as outboard analog deEsddr for if you are trackng drums.
For Snare. Weather you use 1 mic on top, or two (top & bottom), etc. bus the snare to two tracks. Track #2 will be our unprocessed snare for when they go to the sidestick. On bus# 1 go through a DeEsser first, then a compressor. Hit the DeEsser hard @2.5k with 10db of gain reduction, then kiss the compressor @4:1 with a 1/4 to 1/2 db of gain reduction. This works great on loud rock drums with heavy hat. Your OH's still get the "air" of the snare..this will give you more shell. And you switch to or ride up the unprocessed track for side-stick sections.
------------------

Thanks Recorderman, Great tips. I will try them out right away, as I'm scheduled for doing vocaltracks this weekend. :)

RO rocks! :p:

I would de-ess post eq.
Comp > Eq > de-ess. :s:

ACB,
Like RM says, I would de ess first, then comp and eq, or eq and comp. The de esser will work better on a un compressed signal and then you will have a cleaner track to process with eq and dynamics.

Originally posted by RecorderMan:
UNRELATED DeEsser Trick
----------------
As an unrelated bonus...here's something you can use as outboard analog deEsddr for if you are trackng drums.
For Snare. Weather you use 1 mic on top, or two (top & bottom), etc. bus the snare to two tracks. Track #2 will be our unprocessed snare for when they go to the sidestick. On bus# 1 go through a DeEsser first, then a compressor. Hit the DeEsser hard @2.5k with 10db of gain reduction, then kiss the compressor @4:1 with a 1/4 to 1/2 db of gain reduction. This works great on loud rock drums with heavy hat. Your OH's still get the "air" of the snare..this will give you more shell. And you switch to or ride up the unprocessed track for side-stick sections.
------------------

:) A diamond in the rough, thanks RM!

--Rick

Originally posted by Alécio Costa - Brazil:
I would de-ess post eq.
Comp > Eq > de-ess. :s:

anyyway that works for you works....period.

I myself generally chain in this way.
DeEss (if I'm using one)-limiters (High threshold and high ratio, gain reduction of about 1db)-compressor (low ration; 2.5:1 to 3.5: to 1 at about 4-5db if it's a 160, if it's an 1176 then 4:1)-then EQ. Just one scenario. As Andy Johns has stated in the past...one good reason to compress first is that compressors by thier nature knind of reinforce and build up the fundamental, rollin off the top as they do. So If you're trying to add top with the EQ your fighting yourself (not to mention the old adage that if you tweak your qe your affecting yuor compression). Where I do stray from this is either if & when & use a high-pass filter (first in line) or just some subtractive EQ (usually on a badly recorded tack).

But...again...whatever get's you through the night.

How's the weather down south...today's the firsr break in about three weeks from a heat wave we've been havin' in ol' LA.

Wow... great tips.

In this particular "Los Angeles vs. Brazil" controversy, I vote with Los Angeles.

However, futbol would be a different story. Gots to go with "the beautiful game..."

Originally posted by RecorderMan:
Try finding a used dbx263 deEsser. It's the cheaper half rack version of a dbx902...but is jsut as good. A VERY good deal.

Harrumph! IMO the bestht de essther on the planet! You can make sthomeomne sthound like they have a sthpeech impediment with it! :D

i believe that the main difference between the 1/2 rack
263 & the 902 is that the 902 has a bit more headrom. they are great. i sometimes de-ss pre vocal
processing and post - because if i am doing really
heavy compression , it usually lets that first transient still
spike thru. sometimes with the right compressor like an
la 2a the attack on those helps take care of it.
speaking of 1/2 rack dbx stuff, i know that
back in the day tom alge used to carry around the compressor unit of the same model ( not the d-sser )
for his lead vocals. what i would also do on an ssl is
on the old e's you could side chain the eq to dynamics.
or better yet , id sometimes use an extra fader to
key the neighboring vocal fader so that if an ssss was
really bad id push up the trigger fader. but what it
really did for me was allow me to not key the F's &
the th's. you could set this up with a daw too.
now i just use an waves ren d-sser.
s

Heh, heh,
Speaking as theplug-insForum Guy, I have to say that if you want you use bypass automation on a plug-in de-esser to have it activate only for "esSSes" and keep it off for the rest. I find the Waves de-esser is so good it doesn't even need that trick. It is one of the bestplug-insIMHO.
Kuul trick for the drums R-Man. David

LA x Brazil?
Is this a joke?

ACB, tell me about that Ronaldinho that Man-UTD is thinking of buying.
And keep smiling :) :c:

Hey, tomorrow there will be a soccer game between Brazil and USA.

I guess this is the only game betwen the 2 countries down here!

what about avoiding unwanted essing in the first place? I've often found that placing the mic off axis and a few inches above the direction of the singing can help reduce esses and plosives without resorting to electronic methods.

Great thread!

I also have a tough time de-essing to my satisfaction, and have instead tried to focus on reducing the ess-ing problem in the first place by varying the mic and mic placement. It just seems to me that rather than struggle to remove a problem with the recording, I should work to avoid the problem in the first place. I have not been as successful as I would like, but I am at least working on it.

I have a Rode NT2 that can be very silibant, especially on female vocals, I now avoid that as the first mic choice for female vox. Also, I have been raising the mic above the mouth as was mentioned early on in this post, and that seems to help quite a bit as well.

I recall reading that the esses and plosives are projected straight out the front of the mouth, but everthing else travels upwards aswell. I try to get the singer to sing normally (sometimes into a dummy mic), and then angle the mic down from above so that the vocals travel"across" rather than straight at the capsule. I don't use a pop shield or pair of ladies tights!

Not such a problem with dynamics - I don't know if this is "good practice" (whatever that means), but certainly seems to help with condenser mics.

I'm very glad to see this being discussed as it's one of the most recurring problems I face. For Vinyl, there's an excellant de-esser in the Neumann SAL-84 cutting rack. I had ours modified by Chris Muth (designer extaordinare) to be more responsive to my needs. De-essing for vinyl is of absolute importance. Things that pass ok for CD can really wreak havoc with a cutter head. Vinyl is less forgiving as far as that type of distortion is concerned. I also use it to de-ess for CD on occasion.

I have also used the De-esser on the TC electronics finalizer plus for CDs. Seems to do the job. That's just about the only function I use from that box.

I use Nuendo for recording, and I find that because each time you cut an audio clip it gives you (in common now with Cubase SX) a volume handle for the clip, I just spend 20 minutes snipping on each side of each "S" and "T" and just pull the volume handle down on each one. It really is easy and fast and gives a perfect result without artifacts.

The Spitfish plugin that is free from digitalfishphones is very good if you want to strap a de-esser across the track, works well on vocals and is great for de-essing drum loops with too much hihat too.

Wow Steve...that sounds like a lot of work to edit each letter individually, although I guess it can be worth it for a song that you really love (a labor of love). But this is why we haveplug-insto automate that for us...automatically search and destroy! Hehe...

For the odd note here and there however, I do agree that this is a good solution.

In defense od Steve (not saying you need it...) If I'm doing a "record" (something more im[portant than just a demo) I do the equivalent process by doing volume rides on the specific waveform for 's' 't' p-pop's ect, whatever is needed. It is sonically superioir. and w=once it's doe it's done. It doesn't take that much time (no more than most things do in the studio.)

* note: formula for estimated studio time:
estimate how much time you think it'll take; multiply times two; add two hours=how much time it'll really take)*

If it's just a demo or I'm not in the mood, etc...I jsut slap the waves DeEssser across it (a good deEsser)

I'm glad to see some of y'all do the "manual" de-ess thing too. I usually do this the day of mixing during one of my first play-throughs as I'm listening to the tracks and getting my game plan together.
I've never had the pleasure of using a plug or box that de-esses to my liking. They always seem to do something weird at some point or another. I end up micro-tweaking so much I might as well have gone through and done 'em by hand/mouse.

Plus, I like being able to really shape the sibilence to the lyrics. Sometimes 'esses' are cool. Not usually, but sometimes.

I just tell my repeat clients to write songs with no 'esses'

Originally posted by Stuntmixer:
I'm glad to see some of y'all do the "manual" de-ess thing too. I usually do this the day of mixing during one of my first play-throughs as I'm listening to the tracks and getting my game plan together.
I've never had the pleasure of using a plug or box that de-esses to my liking. They always seem to do something weird at some point or another. I end up micro-tweaking so much I might as well have gone through and done 'em by hand/mouse.

Plus, I like being able to really shape the sibilence to the lyrics. Sometimes 'esses' are cool. Not usually, but sometimes.

I just tell my repeat clients to write songs with no 'esses'

Another winner at capturing my point of view. Double dittos on the custom factor. Some "esses" are coooler than others.

I would write more but I gotta go edit my esses. I knew this would be the best way to deal with the esses, I just believe in recordermans "how much time will this take" formula.