New Studio - Inadequate mic locker

Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen, Mick Jagger, Paul Rodgers, Steve Tyler, Madonna,
Bjork, to name a few (!) it has been a "go to" mike rather than just for scratch vocals.

You'd be surprised how many hits used an SM57 or other Unidyne III
microphone then, especially in the 60's and 70's.
Bob Olhlsson has said that many times he has used the '57 on a vocalist
over the U47's/U67's and Tele's that were in the studio locker to track the
lead vocal.

Let me know when ANY of the microphones here, other than the Neumann's
you mentioned, rack up more million+ selling hits. :)

Chris
 
chessrock said:
Perhaps what I should have said is that they sound sloppy compared to the Rode NTK (and others in it's range). I was actually surprized at how much I liked them just on my speaking voice, and figured they'd make some killer voiceover mics. But put it in a busy mix and the vocal pulls sort of a disappearing act -- and it has to do with this murky low-mid thing it's got going on, and it sounded that way on a few different singers I tried it on.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, when I used the v67 I had to use the low pass filter a lot on vocals. With the NTK I hardly ever have to EQ vocals.

The reason why I didn't just stick with the v67 is because, like you said, its clearly better on most sources. I guess I just think the phrase "far cry" makes more sense in a sentence like "The SM48 is a far cry from the Blue Mouse." What I would say about the difference between the v67 and the NTK is this: they're different, but they're not so different that they would seem out of place in the same type of studio. I would definitely think that, if you had an NTK and not a v67 or vice versa, that you'd use them for the same purposes. They're similar enough that it doesn't make sense to own both of them, IMHO.
 
chessparov said:
You'd be surprised how many hits used an SM57 or other Unidyne III
Click to expand...

I'd bet you'd be just as surprized how many didn't, and rather used something more expensive and of higher quality.
 
I'm actually quite aware, being a fairly well stocked (600+ albums & growing) record collector, of how often each kind of microphone is used.

"Expensive and higher quality" doesn't have as much meaning in pop music compared to classical when you are aiming for a certain type of vocal sound like in rock, R&B, and rap.
Besides, other than (probably) the Stephen Paul microphone coming out, not many home recordists will be shelling out the $$
for a U47, U67, or a '251.

Chris
 
chessrock said:
... put it in a busy mix and the vocal pulls sort of a disappearing act -- and it has to do with this murky low-mid thing it's got going on, and it sounded that way on a few different singers I tried it on.
Click to expand...

The murky low mid thing is definitely a subtle but big tipoff to the quality of mic youre dealing with (aside from the 12dB boost at 8k). I think rode mics in general, the NTK, NT2, and NT1000 are all very tight there. You can really hear the tone in the 350Hz range instead of a kind of fuzzy hum. It would instructive to run a bunch of takes from dif mics through a multiband while soloing the low mids to hear the dif. I picked up a used NTK about a month ago and while IMO its not as universal on vocals as everyone seems to think, its amazing on electric bec of the full and *tight* low mids. It also has a 158dB SPL.
I think rode beats out studio projects and marshall on that count. Thats also one of ATs strengths.
 
a couple of questions for Chessparov, asked out of pure curiosity with no hostile intent: (end disclaimer)

When you referred to the Toft preamp, you said it "should" be a world class preamp, which left me confused as to whether you have had a chance to hear it yet, or were recommending it based on research from afar. If you have heard it, can you elaborate a little about your impressions?

Secondly, in your dialogue with Chessrock, you mentioned that you are well aware of what microphones were used on what recordings, because you have a collection of 600+ records. I've got quite a few more than that, but I haven't a clue as to what mics were used on 99% of them. How can you tell? Just by listening? Or is there a secret code in the liner notes? :p

Again, please interpret the above questions as totally lacking in hostility or disrespect... (Sometimes when I'm being totally sincere, my writing style still leads people to believe I'm being sarcastic...) :cool:
 
LD, sorry if my post was (understandably) unclear.

I have a number of books that have been studied in conjunction with various records at home, where they go over what types of mikes were used. For example, on the Beatles recordings, they were usually recorded with either a U47 or Telefunken 251, sometimes a Coles 1038. The early Beach Boys records used the Shure 545 Unidyne III, along with a number of Motown records, like various recordings with The Marvelettes.

On occasion, I have been able to determine things like the microphone in "Dear Mr. Fantasy" (Traffic) to probably be a ribbon
without reading the studio documentation first.
Found out recently it a Beyer 160, and that they figured it
out only from studio pictures as Eddie Kramer had forgotten what
Jimmy Miller had used for Steve Windwood's voice.
The "rolled off" top end to Steve Windwood's voice seemed
to indicate that to me, along with the mellower tone than
his other vocal recordings.

In the United States, during the 60's, the Shure microphones were more easily available than the Neumann's and Telefunken's,
and were thought of as standard studio vocal microphones.

Any product that comes from someone like Malcolm Toft or Stephen Paul will have a high probability that it will be top notch.
Certainly worth trying out in any case.
Only meant to be conversational, not written in stone...:)

Chris
 
Also meant to mention that you can learn about what microphones were used on many recordings by reading
"classic tracks" in Mix. Like how the MC5 used SM57's and 58's
on their first (live) classic album in this month's issue.

Chris
 
Except the (live) moniker for the first MC5 record should have been emphasized instead of de-emphasized. As I read it, this band was one of the loudest things going...ever! Under the circumstances, what choices did they really have considering the time, style of music and the repotedly insane decibel level.

Since this question essentially involves studio recording, what passes on live recordings is less relevant. Nevertheless, the style of music to me is a tip off. For rock vocals where the singer is belting it out, sure (ha) I understand using an 57 or 58. But, in today's modern R&B styles, for instance, where the vocals are softer, more breathy, and have less dynamic range (that might be compression I guess but still...) and are usually doubled, tripled, quadrupled and just plain piled up, I would imagine that 57s and 58s rarley if ever are used.

Just a thought. Actually, come to think of it, this post is not really relevant to the original question either.
 
chessparov,

"When you referred to the Toft preamp, you said it "should" be a world class preamp, which left me confused as to whether you have had a chance to hear it yet, or were recommending it based on research from afar. If you have heard it, can you elaborate a little about your impressions?"

I seem to have missed your answer to littledog's question?
 
DJL, nope haven't heard the Toft stuff...yet.
Anyone wanna take bets on it though? :)
I can alway use some extra $$.

What was interesting on the MC5 recording was that they found the
high SPL level actually helped instrument/vocal separation.
Read the article if you don't believe me.

Given the choice, I'd take Paul Rodgers on rock lead vocals on a '57 over
most any pro rock singer on a Neumann or Telefunken, as it's the quality of
the singer's voice and performance way over what microphone is used.
The point of my previous posts on this was that you can simply TRY one
out without previous preconceptions.

Chris

P.S. Relatively trivial, however, left out that the AKG C12 was also used
for lead vocals by the Beatles on my previous post.
 
Chessparov, I think you're not quite correct with the microphones used on the recordings you mention. I have a collectors box of the Beach Boys with lots of pictures, and on practically every studio picture you see Neumann microphones. Plus the vocal sound sure does sound like recorded with LD condensers, at least on those remastered CDs. The Beach Boys used state of the art equipment and the best session musicians available back then.

Motown, too, was pretty well stocked with microphones even back in the 60s. At one point, however, they did something radical: they gave all their microphones away and recorded with about 40 KM86 multipattern SD condensers. Here's a very interesting interview with one of the engineers: http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/tapeop/olmo/olmo.php
 
(Buzz noise) That's an incorrect answer Rossi.
You are the weakest link! (just kidding)

Yes they used U47's, like on "Pet Sounds", however if you ask
Mark Linett or Chuck Britz (if Chuck's still around-long time ago!),
they'll tell you they used RCA DX77's and Shure Unidyne III 545's
too. For Motown, just post that question for Bob Olhsson at
www.gearslutz.com and he'll verify the use of Unidyne III's too.
He's a supercool guy BTW.

Chris
 
Well, as for the Beach Boys, I don't really care for most of the stuff before Pet Sounds. I don't think they used unidynes for their fabulous harmony vocals. If they did use it on vocals, I bet they used it on Mike Love's lead vocals. His voice sounds different, somehow. I actually prefer Carl and Brian Wilson as vocalists. Carl in particular seemed to have a natural gift for phrasing. Listen to "God Only Knows" - the lead vocal doesn't even appear so special, but when you try to sing it yourself you realize how great a singer he was.

Bob Ohlson acutally mentions the unidyne in the interview, but I don't think they used it as the main vocal mic. Not that you acually said that, but that's how I understood you. Stevie Wonder, I've heard, still likes to use a KM86 on his vocals.

Rossi
 
Contact Mark or Bob and then you'll know what I know.

The RCA 77DX can be a terrific mike on vocals too.
That's what Al Green used for his main vocal microphone BTW.

Keep in mind that a SM57 through an API or Neve is a totally different animal than going into a Mackie or Behringer mixer.


Chris
 
Agree with you on Carl and Brian, they had fine tenor voices,
and are my favorite singers in the group.

Speaking of "state of the art", if you listen to the Beach Boys
hit "Wendy", you can hear one of them coughing in the background if you listen close enough. They may have cleaned that up in current CD re-mastering like they did to John's voice
cracking in the Beatles "If I Fell". Actually prefer those "mistakes"
as they make it sound more authentic for me.

Chris
 
Hey Chris, I agree the SM57 can be a great vocal mic. I also like my Beyer M300. It really depends on the kind of vocal you envision. Dynamics vs. condensers are to me like comic strips vs. photographs. You can't really say which is better, it's just a matter of taste and purpose. Dynamics have less detail, but sometimes that's exactly what you want.

I don't know how much processing went into those Beach Boys remasters, as I don't have any old BB vinyls. The remasters sound great to me. It's also astonishing how big and detailed a mono recording can sound.

Sometimes those remasters bring out those little mistakes and gadgets. When you listen to Simon and Garfunkel "So Long Frank Lloyd Wright" you hear Paul Simon and Roy Halee yell "So long allready Artie" during the fade out. You can barely hear it on the vinyl, but on the remaster you can hear it distinctly. I like that stuff, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top