How do I develop a sense of what a high quality recording sounds like?

cdj

New member
Hi there,

I've started trying to collaborate with some amateur producers I met on Reddit but they pointed out that the quality of my vocal recording isn't good enough. They really liked my singing but not the audio quality. I've since purchased better gear (Nady pop filter, Rode NT1, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2) and though it sounds much better to me I'm still not sure if it's good enough.

How can I learn what a professional vocal recording, before it's mixed and mastered, is supposed to sound like? Are there any sites where I can download the unprocessed vocal track from professional recordings? Or is there any other way to get some frame of reference?

Any advice is appreciated. Thank you!
 
A couple of things. Are your friends giving you detailed info about why they think your vocal recordings are not up to par? If so...what are they saying? As well...you can post here and we can give you some advice which will likely be accurate.
 
It's reallife innit. You cannot hear what you sound like in the room so get someone else in to record. If you cannot find a signer just get someone to read a short text for you.

You can then compare their real voice with that reproduced. Now, both capturing and especially reproducing* really natural speech is notoriously challenging but if the results are just a reasonable impression there is little wrong with your recording technique.

If you can grab speech from BBC Radios 3 and 4, that is well recorded.

*Most noticeably the monitor speakers. Cheap ones seem to be aimed at the young, bit of 'boom&tish'. Headphones are better but even here, quality tells.

Dave.
 
Thank you both for the replies.

A couple of things. Are your friends giving you detailed info about why they think your vocal recordings are not up to par? If so...what are they saying? As well...you can post here and we can give you some advice which will likely be accurate.

The feedback provided did not go into any detail. But you're right, I should go back to them and ask. I will also try posting here once I'm allowed to post URLs.

It's reallife innit. You cannot hear what you sound like in the room so get someone else in to record. If you cannot find a signer just get someone to read a short text for you.

You can then compare their real voice with that reproduced. Now, both capturing and especially reproducing* really natural speech is notoriously challenging but if the results are just a reasonable impression there is little wrong with your recording technique.

If you can grab speech from BBC Radios 3 and 4, that is well recorded.

*Most noticeably the monitor speakers. Cheap ones seem to be aimed at the young, bit of 'boom&tish'. Headphones are better but even here, quality tells.

Dave.

Thanks for the BBC radio recommendation. I will have a listen. And also comparing the real-life source to the recording, this makes too much sense. I forgot to consider that I can just get someone else to sing on my setup. This is why I posted to the newbie section!

Thank you both!
 
Mickster has a good point. Its one thing to say you don't think something sounds "pro" but they should let you know why they think that.

The NT1 and Scarlett should easily make good recordings. Are there issues with the room acoustics? You might need to do some treatment to control reflections. You might need some compression or EQ adjustment, but most likely that would be done when mixing.

Looking forward to hearing some of your recordings.
 
You can also consider posting a sample here (in the MP3 clinic) and ask for comments.

Yeah, the only way to get any subjective advice is to post a clip. At the very least, those who listen can tell you if there is something really wrong.

Any single track recording of voice or instrument will always be raw and near impossible to determine how it will sound in a mix, but there could be obvious signs that some of us may be able to give advice about...

Best! :)
 
Mickster has a good point. Its one thing to say you don't think something sounds "pro" but they should let you know why they think that.

The NT1 and Scarlett should easily make good recordings. Are there issues with the room acoustics? You might need to do some treatment to control reflections. You might need some compression or EQ adjustment, but most likely that would be done when mixing.

Looking forward to hearing some of your recordings.

I can't really hear any issues with room acoustics in my latest recording but I'm not really sure what I would hear if there were issues. My recording room is actually the inside of my car with blankets on the windows. I will definitely put some recordings up once I hit the minimum post limit. Thank you!


Yeah, the only way to get any subjective advice is to post a clip. At the very least, those who listen can tell you if there is something really wrong.

Any single track recording of voice or instrument will always be raw and near impossible to determine how it will sound in a mix, but there could be obvious signs that some of us may be able to give advice about...

Best! :)

Thank you. I'm excited about hopefully being able to record high quality vocals and then working on more collaborations with others. I actually found a free course on coursera called "The art of vocal production" that is offered by Berklee College. I've started it today and it's been really great so far. I think with some feedback from folks on this forum and with the knowledge gained from the course I might be able to make a good, clean recording.
 
You can also consider posting a sample here (in the MP3 clinic) and ask for comments.

Thank you! I wasn't sure if I should put it there or maybe the Vocal technique + Processing discussion. So many different sections in this forum, it's hard to figure out where to ask stuff. I will go with your suggestion.

EDIT: ended up posting it in vocals section
 
Last edited:
I very much agree with the use of BBC Radio as a good yardstick for good vocal recording. I would add that the BBC uses professional quality dynamic compression. This 'smoothes out' some of the natural rise and fall in the volume of the human voice (or other sound source). The result is much better clarity and intellegibility, higher 'presence' (but not intrusive) and a less 'jumpy' delivery than speech as we experience it 'in real life'. However, the quality of BBC compression, the level at which it is set, the rate of attack / release and other adjustable parameters is carefully adjusted by engineers with a great deal of experience, so that the audio remains perfectly 'transparent'. The result is that almost no listeners are aware that the broadcast audio has been manipulated in any way, and it comes across as an entirely natural sound. Counter intuitively, good dynamic compression - which is really and very crudely about 'squashing down' - DOES allow the illusion of second-to-second loudness and sudden emphasis in a speaker's voice, even including shouting (refer BBC Radio Drama) but keeps it within limits that won't cause your gear to clip / distort, without detracting from the listener's experience by listening to something that sounds unnaturally 'flat' or monotonous. You can spend £1000s on a high end stereo compressor, but around £100 spent on a Behringer MDX2600 V2 (refer Thomann) or similar budget 'pro-sumer' compressor will give worthwhile results once you've read up on the subject and spent a few hours tweaking around with it. Just don't hit the audio over the head with it, be judicial, don't crank it right up, and make careful A-B comparisons as you go along. Over compression will do anyone's head in, and is worse than none at all
 
Back
Top