Issues with recording quality

F

fvckthatguy

New member
I'm having issues with recording. I do not like the way that vocals are coming out, its as though they're veiled and not crisp. There is no clarity, they sound puffed. I've posted 2 links below. The first link is for a song called Hidden rooms, this was recorded on a neuman 103 microphone at a smaller scale studio. Notice how the voice is very very clear, ignore any mixing or mastering differences between this and the second song. The second link is for a song called "make it", this was recorded in my room using a neuman 102 microphone connected to a presonus 96 usb, which in turn is connected to my laptop. The vocals are not crisp or firm, i don't know how to encapsulate this into words but have a listen to the two tracks and you will notice a difference. I've read this might be due to me not using a preamp but I'm not certain if a preamp even functions that way. Thanks in advance !



Dropbox - ZAK HALLL - HIDDEN ROOMS (Master).wav


Dropbox - ZAK HALLL - MAKE IT.wav
 
That's a fairly dramatic difference but it may be down to the mics themselves. The TLM 103 is known to have a much brighter top end than the 102. Some people like the 103 sound but others (myself included) find it so bright as to be almost harsh.

This is certainly the difference I heard on my monitoring--Rogers Studio 1 monitors, Rogers LS3/5A for nearfield and Sennheiser headphones. In all cases, the Hidden Rooms recording sounded, if anything too bright to me and I actually preferred the sound on Make It.

Clearly this is really down to personal preference and only you know how you want your voice to sound. I don't think an external pre amp would make a great deal of difference. If you're rich, a change to the 103 would likely give you what you want. Otherwise, maybe have a play with EQ on your voice and try adding a bump in the upper mids--this might get you closer to the sound you want.

Edited to add: I started my post more than an hour ago then got distracted before finishing it. In that time, kastus made his post--I had a listen to his version and that's indeed the sort of change I was suggesting with the EQ--but you'd only want it on the voice not that backing track which was almost painful at this end! :)
 
kastus said:
hi!
1. neuman 103 and neuman 102 are not the same.
2. y've got different record chains. (room!!!-mic-preamp-soundcard) all in that chain make changes.
3. mixing issues. (and maybe mastering)

Listen to the link. I use EQ(boost highs) and limiter. Dropbox - ZAK HALLL - MAKE IT__EQ.wav
Click to expand...
I would go a different route. As in- on the two tracks I hear the 'first on the list of differences to be addressed being a cloudy prominent upper bass/low mid bump on the second track, where the 1st is appropriately well balanced tone wise. It sounds like it could be 'too close to the mic proximity effect, or could be solved with appropriate trims and shaping in the bottom three or so octaves.
 
Bobbsy said:
That's a fairly dramatic difference but it may be down to the mics themselves. The TLM 103 is known to have a much brighter top end than the 102. Some people like the 103 sound but others (myself included) find it so bright as to be almost harsh.

This is certainly the difference I heard on my monitoring--Rogers Studio 1 monitors, Rogers LS3/5A for nearfield and Sennheiser headphones. In all cases, the Hidden Rooms recording sounded, if anything too bright to me and I actually preferred the sound on Make It.

Clearly this is really down to personal preference and only you know how you want your voice to sound. I don't think an external pre amp would make a great deal of difference. If you're rich, a change to the 103 would likely give you what you want. Otherwise, maybe have a play with EQ on your voice and try adding a bump in the upper mids--this might get you closer to the sound you want.

Edited to add: I started my post more than an hour ago then got distracted before finishing it. In that time, kastus made his post--I had a listen to his version and that's indeed the sort of change I was suggesting with the EQ--but you'd only want it on the voice not that backing track which was almost painful at this end! :)
Click to expand...
Interesting ..differences in prefs', evaluations :)
 
kastus said:
hi!
1. neuman 103 and neuman 102 are not the same.
2. y've got different record chains. (room!!!-mic-preamp-soundcard) all in that chain make changes.
3. mixing issues. (and maybe mastering)

Listen to the link. I use EQ(boost highs) and limiter. Dropbox - ZAK HALLL - MAKE IT__EQ.wav
Click to expand...

Thanks for the attempt but point 1. is useless to the point of being disrespectful as I am aware that they are two different mics.
As for point 2 that isn't at all specific, I'm looking for an actual clear cut solution or something I can do to rectify the problem. Vague speculation doesn't help, I want actual information like what extent the preamp would have an affect, how does the room make a difference and in what ways, i.e smaller room, bigger room etc etc As for point 3. that didn't solve it to any extent, as I said please ignore the mixing and mastering I'm talking ONLY about the crispness of the voice. It sounds like I'm rapping over a layer or clouds.
 
Bobbsy said:
That's a fairly dramatic difference but it may be down to the mics themselves. The TLM 103 is known to have a much brighter top end than the 102. Some people like the 103 sound but others (myself included) find it so bright as to be almost harsh.

This is certainly the difference I heard on my monitoring--Rogers Studio 1 monitors, Rogers LS3/5A for nearfield and Sennheiser headphones. In all cases, the Hidden Rooms recording sounded, if anything too bright to me and I actually preferred the sound on Make It.

Clearly this is really down to personal preference and only you know how you want your voice to sound. I don't think an external pre amp would make a great deal of difference. If you're rich, a change to the 103 would likely give you what you want. Otherwise, maybe have a play with EQ on your voice and try adding a bump in the upper mids--this might get you closer to the sound you want.

Edited to add: I started my post more than an hour ago then got distracted before finishing it. In that time, kastus made his post--I had a listen to his version and that's indeed the sort of change I was suggesting with the EQ--but you'd only want it on the voice not that backing track which was almost painful at this end! :)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I am not rich haha, this is why I'm doing all of this. I definitely have read online that the neuman 103 was harsher and I even heard a couple of tests done online. The problem is I'm not necessarily trying to get the same exact voice but listen to make it again and very very carefully. Try to visualize this but it feels like the vocals are going through a cloud or something, they aren't wet if that makes sense. There has to be a way to rectify this as even with an iphone there is vocal wetness. The terminologies may not be accurate but I know exactly what I'm talking about as I hear it
 
mixsit said:
I would go a different route. As in- on the two tracks I hear the 'first on the list of differences to be addressed being a cloudy prominent upper bass/low mid bump on the second track, where the 1st is appropriately well balanced tone wise. It sounds like it could be 'too close to the mic proximity effect, or could be solved with appropriate trims and shaping in the bottom three or so octaves.
Click to expand...

You sound like you're the one who's possibly understanding this the best. How can I rectify this and please use very clear and simplistic terms, a step by step as I'm a rapper and not an engineer, I'm just trying to get to the point of self recording for budget reasons.
 
I don't disagree with anything said so far, but the brighter track is unnaturally bright to me.
While mic choice, room, positioning etc are all extremely important, I suspect an eq is the tool that's going to make up the greatest amount of ground.

If you are tracking very close to the microphone and/or in a boomy room, certainly move back a bit so that the proximity effect is less pronounced
but, beyond that, I'd do what you're doing and play with a low cut and high shelf eq.
 
To me, the 2nd track's vocals sound somewhat boxy with no air. Are you using some kind of isolation shield near the mic? If not, then its the room problem (as well as the mic difference), but should be treatable with some EQ work, as already mentioned.
 
fvckthatguy said:
You sound like you're the one who's possibly understanding this the best. How can I rectify this and please use very clear and simplistic terms, a step by step as I'm a rapper and not an engineer, I'm just trying to get to the point of self recording for budget reasons.
Click to expand...
Cool, but just realise we' won't know ..what someone does or dosn't know yet.
So we back up a bit further..
It sounds like it could be 'too close to the mic proximity
effect ..
Click to expand...
Did you look up 'mic proximity effect?

Here's an example- used this one as it has it at various distances.
http://cdn.shure.com/specification_sheet/upload/123/beta58a-specification-sheet-english.pdf
Your mic is flatter and extends lower (rolls off at 70Hz or so so extrapolate for the general idea)
You should do a few tests recording at different distances.
or could be solved with appropriate trims and shaping in the bottom three or so octaves
Click to expand...
So eq'ing what you have.

Try High Pass Filter -HPF; attacks from the bottom -dumps frequencies further and further below the setting. Start low and work up.

Or a Low Shelf cut; Cuts everything the same amount below the setting.
Or sometimes- a combo of both; The HPF for the really low end, and the Shelf can extend up into the higher range, independent of the HPF.
Try experimenting up into the 150-200 or so range.
At the same time.. take care getting too close with the 'clippers down there ;)
 
You know what most of the comments so far prove? It's that differences in monitoring and differences in preferences make a huge difference and there no single correct sound!
 
Differences in taste for sure :guitar:
But the 'best is (also) supposed to be one that 'prevails regardless / in spite of, 'the monitors.
:>)
 
Yer take three recording engineers and you get.......!

There is of course a correct sound, the original but do you like it?

Dave (no one has mentioned 'the elephant'? People have VERY different ears! Be interesting to know all the relative ages?)
 
My ears are 65 years old and start to roll off at about 14K these days. Based on that, you'd think I would prefer the brighter recording but I don't!

Not that it matters but all my monitors (other than the headphones) are 34 years old so you can say I know the sound rather well!
 
My ears are 61.5 years old, and definitely have some high end loss, plus tinnitus (worse in my left ear - that one faced drummers too many years). But I was just comparing the two tracks, not making judgement on what 'sounds best'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top