Blind test: Best Vocal Mic

Mic number 2

REALLY?! That was the worst one imho. Quite stuffy and distorted.

Mic 1 and 3 tend to have a little better top end and sound quite similar (on PC speakers at work anyways). However they all sound a little distorted on the louder passages. I'd recommend choosing mic 1 or 3 and then checking you are not clipping or driving your pre-amp too hard.

How did you record these (the path)? I assume they're all dynamics by the timbre. I just ask, because I think you can get a clearer tone on whatever you're using, even if it's low cost stuff.

Also, sing just a little further away from the mic for a more open/less stuffy sound. Give it some room to breath, especially if it's a condenser.
 
I have a focusrite Scarlett 8i6 into a PC laptop. And the mics are 2 condensers and one Sm7b. The condensers are a kel audio song sparrow and hm1x. I was not driving them to clip though. I put all the capsules the same distance away from me at about 5 to 6 inches from the capsule. Should I still back up?
 
What would you suggest in order to get a better tone with what I have
REALLY?! That was the worst one imho. Quite stuffy and distorted.

Mic 1 and 3 tend to have a little better top end and sound quite similar (on PC speakers at work anyways). However they all sound a little distorted on the louder passages. I'd recommend choosing mic 1 or 3 and then checking you are not clipping or driving your pre-amp too hard.

How did you record these (the path)? I assume they're all dynamics by the timbre. I just ask, because I think you can get a clearer tone on whatever you're using, even if it's low cost stuff.

Also, sing just a little further away from the mic for a more open/less stuffy sound. Give it some room to breath, especially if it's a condenser.
 
Accapella - 1 and 3 sound the same to me - dull and lifeless. 2 sounds more open, airy, brighter, punchier.
Mix - same thing....
 
Accapella - 1 and 3 sound the same to me - dull and lifeless. 2 sounds more open, airy, brighter, punchier.
Mix - same thing....

Similar here- but I'll go #2 at least is a bit more open than 1 and 3. To me they all sound cloudy/ closed in- yet you say 5-6".
Maybe a bit farther out? But again- they're soo similar, and I can't help wonder- 'wool and a bit of 'ess- Where are the upper mids?
Now I have seen voices 'all upper end and thin' maybe yours happens to be just the opposite?
 
So maybe I should try a mic that emphasizes more high end. Any suggestions? at2020 maybe?

BTW
The mics are 1 an SM7b
2 a song sparrow
3 a HM-1X
 
Could it be my room that's the problem?

You see I used to have an apogee one and the internal mic worked very well With my voice but then I had to get rid of my Mac and now I'm using a PC and I need to find a microphone that does the same thing on my voice that the one did.
 
So maybe I should try a mic that emphasizes more high end. Any suggestions? at2020 maybe?

BTW
The mics are 1 an SM7b
2 a song sparrow
3 a HM-1X
Interesting
http://www.shure.com/uploads/specification_sheet/upload/83/us_pro_sm7b_specsheet.pdf
http://www.kelaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/curve_ss.jpg
http://www.kelaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/curve_hm1.jpg
Basically three fairly flat mics ('HM1 amazingly so for a large dia )
Most likely all being directional they'll have a nice fat rise in the 50 to 150 range (not indicated on the plots) which might explain some of the common 'thick tone.
#2 Sparrow' seems to have the bit of top lift we're hearing.
But a question remains- is your voice also 'covered sounding (naturally) as well? (Non of these are lacking highs per se..
I'd say try back off a bit (reduces the low lift
And/or the 'mid lift switch on the SM7.
Before spending some money :D
 
Interesting
http://www.shure.com/uploads/specification_sheet/upload/83/us_pro_sm7b_specsheet.pdf
http://www.kelaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/curve_ss.jpg
http://www.kelaudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/curve_hm1.jpg
Basically three fairly flat mics ('HM1 amazingly so for a large dia )
Most likely all being directional they'll have a nice fat rise in the 50 to 150 range (not indicated on the plots) which might explain some of the common 'thick tone.
#2 Sparrow' seems to have the bit of top lift we're hearing.
But a question remains- is your voice also 'covered sounding (naturally) as well? (Non of these are lacking highs per se..
I'd say try back off a bit (reduces the low lift
And/or the 'mid lift switch on the SM7.
Before spending some money :D

ill give it a shot!
It is hard to tell for myself whether my voice is naturally covered sounding. I can say that when I first started recording myself I was surprised by how dull and kind of boring my voice sounded played back to me, I guess i didn't put much energy into it then... so the honest answer is I'm not really sure but it is possible
 
Hey I just went back and listened again -to see how much of what we've been talking about might be 'focus, or projection'/energy in the singing.
But instead- I'm changing my vote to #1- for the mids that are there and a tad bit more than the others, and a es' freq is a bit lower.
You know it's not like any of this is necessarily way out'o whack'. A light eq dip around 100 or so or some high pass filter.. a touch of high mid maybe.. (depends on where you want to land..
The Shure has a high mid eq ..might actually be more than you need (don't know, don't know the mic.
Or the distance' as eq..
 
Back
Top