Recording Classical Tenor Voice

B

brigo

User
Hello!
I am a classically trained tenor and I am looking for a new microphone for my small home studio. I am singing classical - type vocal excersizes, etc.

I am using a RODE NT3 which I like, but I find it makes my voice a bit harsh, and overly metallic.

I read the thread posted by the Bass-Baritone attending Berkely. Any suggestions for recording a tenor voice?

Thank you!
 
A popular microphone used a lot in the 60's/70's was the Electro-Voice 635a. It's been superseded by the likes of DPA, but still has very good sound on a tenor or soprano voice. They can be picked up used for around $70 in excellent condition, or $100 new. One nice feature is that while it's an omni, you can "eat it' up close to keep most of any room sound out of it at home.

They can sound amazing though when put in a professional concert hall!
Many classical records were done with a pair of them 30+ years ago.

Chris
 
Thanks - I think those mics are Dynamic. The Rode NT3 is a condenser, and people say that condenser mics record a truer picture of the sound. This is especially important in classical singing.
Do you think this is true??
 
i have used DPA 4011s and schoeps cmc64s and akg c481 on classical vocals. in LD, you might try a neumann tlm93 or tlm170. to me, the key is selecting a mic with a basically flat frequency response curve. far too many of today's new mics have a high-end lift that causes the harshness that you are experiencing (though that same high-end emphasis can be flattering on some applications - it is just not too good an idea for classical applications). also, classical vocals need to be miced very differently than pop/rock vocals. ie, the mic generally should not be closer than 3-4 feet for an opera singer, and generally, it helps considerably to record in a nice hall.
 
Yes a condenser will (other things being equal) give a more accurate representation of your voice.

But...

Usually someone with a good trained voice also has a good ear, and the 635a will offer more than enough tonal feedback information.

Since you mentioned "exercises" and NOT a duet album with Pavoratti :),
methinks it's a more practical choice than spending yet more $$$.

Are you planning to just mainly "practice" record at home?

Chris
 
The EV 635 is a good microphone, but it's not what I would choose to capture fine nuances of a vocal performance... it's an announcer's microphone, meant to be clear but not really full range.

My first choice would be the AEA R84. Rather expensive, though.

I've had good results with the AT4033. Smooth highs.

Sennheiser MD 441 or MD 421, or EV RE20 would be nice choices in dynamics.
 
AG, if you get a chance, check out the postings of people like Bob Ohlsson, Scott Dorsey, or Dave Josephson over at RAP on the 635a.

Or better still, just ask them-it's a VERY underated vocal mic by those who haven't used one extensively. Ohlsson, for example, generally rates it superior
to the MD421(!) as far as matching the singer's voice more often.

Chris
 
If your tracking room is anything like mine, consider looking for a better space; a tenor voice is extraordinarily complex and does NOT develop in my spare bedroom one whit. I move my gear to a small church and, rough as that is, the trained vocal results are better there than anything I can cobble up in my home space; the room is far more limiting than the mics are.

The other thing I've tried, with some success, is distant micing with one or two cardioid condensers and an omnidirectional large diaphragm condenser combination. If I had only one, it would be the omni.

The only mics I have of that type are the Studio Projects B1 (a pair) and the C3 (set to omni). I would pick the C3 first, but find that a pair of B1s gives me three signals of different character that blend well.

I space the C3 directly in front of the vocalist at about four feet, diaphragm upside down, and head high or slightly higher. One B1 is in nearly the same position, about a foot to one side. The other is off axis another five or six feet at head height. A singer will turn and move while singing and this minimizes dead spots, as well as giving a bit more variety.

A good preamp makes a huge difference. Mine is a good entry level preamp; the better you use, the better result you will get. Don't mess with mixer preamps unless your mixer is better than mine. :cool:

I live for this kind of stuff. When it's right, it'll send chills up your spine. I haven't gotten it right yet, but I'm getting closer.
 
brigo said:
Hello!


I am using a RODE NT3 which I like, but I find it makes my voice a bit harsh, and overly metallic.


Thank you!
Click to expand...

As a matter of interest has anyone else listened to the recordings and come to the same conclusions as yourself (without you prompting them)?
Also be careful that you are not listening to faults in your monitor chain as this has to be taken into account.

Just a thought.

Tony
 
Yes, a few others have noticed a certain metallic-ness in the recordings.
The truth is that it could be anything, including my own singing technique, which tends to be a bit on the "ping-y" side. So, "pingy" tenor voices tend to be bright and I think recording makes them even brighter. (I have 20 years of training, but I am not a great singer :-)

I am not using very fancy equiptment.
MIC PRE: M-AUDIO DUO. This feeds directly into an audiophile 2496 siund card.
Monitors: WHarfedale 8.2 Actives (purchased through HR member deepwater).
MIC: ROde NT3.
SOftware: SOnar 3, winXP pro.

So, I am trying to give my voice the best shot it can get by not having anything boost or emphasize any specific frequency.

Does anyone here know if the RODE NT3 boosts the high end? I am not sure from the graph in the manual, as I am not an expert on the specs.
here is a pdf of the manual: http://external.fullcompass.com/ImageFromDB.aspx?imgid=1768&srctbl=doc

In answer to chessparov, I do both practice recording to see how I sound, but I also produce some CD's of liturgical music for students and casual listeners. So I need a decent sound, but it doesn't need to be top perfect quality.

Here are some recent ROUGH mixes of some things I am working on. The mixes are not final. I am singing all of the parts. Some sections need to be re-recorded due to some intonation problems. I am standing about 8 inches from the RODE mic, singing right towards the center of the mic, and it is placed about nose height.


 
About the recordings the first thing that springs to mind is are you using a pop shield as the spoken parts seem to have a lot of blast noise but strangely not the sheen that is on the singing.

The echo that you have added seems to be of the "bright room" type and this seems to have added an edge. What are the vocal recordings like without any FX. Can you post a quick excerpt?
 
wilkee said:
About the recordings the first thing that springs to mind is are you using a pop shield as the spoken parts seem to have a lot of blast noise but strangely not the sheen that is on the singing.
Click to expand...

The spoken part was recorded months ago, without a pop shield. I will be redoing that. The singing was done this week, with a pop shield.

The echo that you have added seems to be of the "bright room" type and this seems to have added an edge. What are the vocal recordings like without any FX. Can you post a quick excerpt?
Click to expand...

I am not home now, but I will might post some new excerpts with fx later tonight. Thanks for your comments!
 
Oh, About ECHO. This is a microphone thread, but WILKEE mentioned it, so I thought I would ask. I am experimenting around with reverb for the vocals. I just want a little space to the sound. The room itself is dead.
The samples I posted were using LE Pantheon reverb that came with Sonar3, and i am using the "HALL" setting.
I am controlling the amount of WET in the mix by doing an AUX send, and adjusting the amount of WET that returns.
Any suggestions for specific reverb settings for classical vocals recorded in a dead room? Should I post this in another forum/thread?
Thanks!
 
brigo - You didn't say you were a cantor. I am a part-time cantor. I listened to the R'tzei for shacharit, and my impression is that the main thing is that you need to bring your singing forward in the mix. You do have something of a cutting (pinging?) quality to your voice, but that kind of comes with the cantorial territory IMO. If you want to bring a little more fullness or reduce the "ping", a nice ribbon mic is just the thing!

OT question: Do you have that accompaniment in shul, or is that to make the recordings nicer?
 
AGCurry said:
brigo - You didn't say you were a cantor. I am a part-time cantor. .
Click to expand...

I am just part time also.

You do have something of a cutting (pinging?) quality to your voice, but that kind of comes with the cantorial territory IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes, it might come with the territory, but I do not really like it! :-)
I prefer a warmer rounder sound, but have yet to achieve it my own singing.


If you want to bring a little more fullness or reduce the "ping", a nice ribbon mic is just the thing!
Click to expand...

Do ribbon mics boost anything, or are they fairly flat response?
I am looking for a mic that will reproduce "what I sound like" as much as possible. Of course, I might be blaming the extra harshness/metallic-ness on the RODE NT3 when it might be all me.

Do you have a ribbon mic that you use and like and would recommend?


OT question: Do you have that accompaniment in shul, or is that to make the recordings nicer?
Click to expand...

Nope, the shul is "neo-ortho/conservadox/whatever", so no instruments allowed. My arrangements are just for the recording. The one with the strings (using garritan's personal orchestra sound library) is prove that I can arrange for string quartet, in the "ahava raba mode"!
 
Brigo, keep in mind that the human ear does not hear in linear fashion.

So the RCA 44's and 77's that were among the standard vocal mics for many years weren't flat and their effective top end response went up to around 15 KHz (and rolled off well before then). The R84 doesn't go up to 20KHz either.

Without directly hearing your voice in person, another "safe" choice should be the Electro-Voice RE15. It was designed by EV to have similar characteristics to the RCA 77 ribbon without the potential high costs of ribbon repair.

Close enough to where many radio, broadcasting, and pro studios would dispose of 77's directly into the dumpster as cost of repair exceeded their
value at that time (60's/70's). Then they'd use EV 666's, or later on the RE15. Of course the SM5/7 and Sennheiser 421 have been popular also.

The RE20 "condenser killer" (broadcasting nickname) got that by being issued in order to compete with the Neumann U87's popularity in higher end
broadcasting channels like NPR. It has a crisper top end compared to the RE15, not necessarily better on a given voice/musical arrangement.

In fact, RCA Studios had millions of hit records sold using the RE15 on the lead vocal. The RE16 and EV 635a were also used, especially because these microphones wouldn't emphasize bass too much on female vocalists.

Am a "bright" 2nd tenor/high baritone BTW and would have no qualms about using any of these EV mics for commercial release if a strong AE is at the
helm. It's the magician not the wand. :)

Chris

P.S. As the RE15 is discontinued it would be wise IMHO for anyone
interested to snap them up as their value continues to rise,
which has happened (significantly) to the 666 lately.
 
Brigo, I do high holy day services for the kahal of Columbia, Missouri. The past two years, I have brought my AEA R84 (it's a big room). Aside from the fact that it makes me sound as glorious as I can sound, it has the advantages of a) a long reach - you don't have to be close to it, and b) bidirectionality, so that whether I'm facing east or west, I don't have to move the mic.

My second favorite ribbon, which I use often for recording, is the Shure SM33/330/333 (3 different versions of basically the same mic). It's a hypercardioid and it's very smooth.

Ribbon mics, like any other mics, do have rises and valleys in frequency response. However, a good ribbon will be free of any *sharp* peaks and dips, so the resulting sound is perhaps the most natural of the three major mic designs.

Chessparov, the R84's *advertised* freq response is to 20khz. Whether it actually makes it there, I don't know and don't much care. The EV 635's advertised response is 80-13khz, so... Most people (especially we fogies) are pretty much done hearing above that, so I'm not sure what your point is. I'm a fan of many EV mics (I have 635s, an RE20, 3 N/D367, and an RE55) and have nothing bad to say about most. I just wouldn't choose a 635 for a flattering recording of most singers...
 
AG, I had mistakenly remembered the R84 as effectively topping out at around 16kHz. The graph, however, indicates a dip of some degree about there IMHO. Would love to try a R84 out sometime, bet it sure sounds great.

One logical concern with the 635a is for the deeper baritone or bass singers since this mic provides little of their type of lower end bass frequencies.
Have tried it on various tenors and sopranos with uniformly good results in the past though.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top