do you really need expensive mics? rawness

dream1up

New member
I might be uneducated about mics but this i'm curious.

if you sing really well, do you really need an expensive mic? how much difference does an average costing mic have with an expensive one?
how much of an edge? or do the expensive mics cover up more for singers who can't sing?

I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, I'm jsut curious.

for example, I used my macbook mic for my recording, and I hate my voice. if i buy a good mic, will it cover it up? hahah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A29AnJrXP6A (here;s what i'm talking about)
 
I might be uneducated about mics but this i'm curious.

if you sing really well, do you really need an expensive mic? how much difference does an average costing mic have with an expensive one?
how much of an edge? or do the expensive mics cover up more for singers who can't sing?

I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, I'm jsut curious.

for example, I used my macbook mic for my recording, and I hate my voice. if i buy a good mic, will it cover it up? hahah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A29AnJrXP6A (here;s what i'm talking about)

You need a mic to track vocals. How expensive/inexpensive has nothing to do with what works. Every mic is different, and the cheaper ones MORE different (from the same exact model). If you had all day to test every mic in a stockroom, you could find a cheaper mic that sounds better than the most expensive mic in the world (on your voice).

That is why there is no answer to this question that makes people happy.

You could effectively drop a mic, dent the grill, tweak the diaphram just right, by total accident, and have the best sounding mic in the world for your application.
 
for example, I used my macbook mic for my recording, and I hate my voice. if i buy a good mic, will it cover it up? hahah
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A29AnJrXP6A (here;s what i'm talking about)

Really expensive mics (for the most part) tend to reveal things and show more detail, not cover them up. Some of the cheap condensers have an exagerated top end or thin diaphragms that also show more detail than they should.

You might sound better on an sm-58 than on a Ela M 251.
 
First, expensive mics don't cover up anything. Usually just the reverse. Vocal mics are like shoes. Cheap shoes that fit are better than expensive ones that don't. Expensive shoes that fit are *usually* better than cheap shoes that fit, but that can also depend on the job. The best combat boots in the world suck for ballet. Also, expensive often means better made, but not always. Sometimes it just means-big name. The problem is- no one can predict what mic and preamp combination will make any given singer sound good, and- it can change, depending on the room, the song, the mix. That's why studios usually have a bunch of mics for vocals. All you can do is put up mics that work for somebody, and listen. The mic that works isn't always the "best" mic, or the most expensive mic, or even a mic that was made for vocals. I have one client who sounds better on an AKG D112 than a $2000 main vocal mic. The D112, BTW, is a mic made for standup bass that most folks use on kick drum or bass cabs. Does it mean that that is a better mic than a Neumann U87 or a B.L.U.E. Kiwi? No. It means it's the right mic- For him.

I wish I could make it simpler than that, but I can't. If you run a studio, start collecting mics, and put up whatever mics you have, and listen to the singer. The mic that works on him or her may suck on somebody else, and price is not a good predictor. If you are a singer, never miss an opportunity to sing through a mic you've never tried. You might find the Holy Grail. And pray that you are one of those people that sounds good through a cheap mic. It'll save you thousands. Good luck.-Richie
 
First, expensive mics don't cover up anything. Usually just the reverse. Vocal mics are like shoes. Cheap shoes that fit are better than expensive ones that don't. Expensive shoes that fit are *usually* better than cheap shoes that fit, but that can also depend on the job. The best combat boots in the world suck for ballet. Also, expensive often means better made, but not always. Sometimes it just means-big name. The problem is- no one can predict what mic and preamp combination will make any given singer sound good, and- it can change, depending on the room, the song, the mix. That's why studios usually have a bunch of mics for vocals. All you can do is put up mics that work for somebody, and listen. The mic that works isn't always the "best" mic, or the most expensive mic, or even a mic that was made for vocals. I have one client who sounds better on an AKG D112 than a $2000 main vocal mic. The D112, BTW, is a mic made for standup bass that most folks use on kick drum or bass cabs. Does it mean that that is a better mic than a Neumann U87 or a B.L.U.E. Kiwi? No. It means it's the right mic- For him.
Perfect. I couldn't have said it better.
:)
 
I too find the opposite to be true. The better mics don't hide anything and give a more accurate representation of the sound source. As an instrumentalist, I want this transparency. So my trombone sounds like a trombone, not like a buzz saw in the alps. Now if I was a singer, perhaps I'd want a less honest mic that makes my buzz saw voice sound like a trombone. For an instrumentalist, there's just no substitute for the good stuff. For vocalists, use whatever works for you and your situation. Which may or may not work for anyone or anything else other than you.
 
Spot on, Richard!

I would also say that a good singer is a good singer......thru any mic. You can put a singer in front of any mic made, and you will be able to tell if that person is a good singer. A good singer sounds good.....period.

A good mic doesn't make a singer sound good. A good mic makes the recording of a singer sound better, but it does not make the singer better. I'd rather record Steve Perry with a SM57 than record Bob Dylan with a U87......

now back to our regularly scheduled program....:D
 
Different mics bring out different things, whether expensive or cheap. The things that cheap mics tend to emphasize are often harsh brittleness in the highs (partially caused by poor mic circuitry, partially caused by the diaphragm, partially caused by the source), which sounds bad.

More expensive mics tend to not have the harshness problems. Many still emphasize the highs. You'll find that this works well on some sources, splits your eardrums on others, but at least it sounds cleanly bright instead of harshly bright.

The key in choosing a mic is figuring out what you want to emphasize, what you want to mask, and picking a mic that does both in the right amounts. That, in turn, depends highly on the source.

For my voice (high tenor), I like something nearly flat and accurate, with a little extra boost down low to deemphasize overtones, making my voice meatier. For a baritone or bass voice, I'd probably want something with more of a presence peak like a Hamburg. For an alto, presence peak at a higher frequency like a Vienna. For a soprano, probably flat again, but having not worked with many sopranos, I'm not sure about that.

For brass, I like a ribbon because it tames the overtones again. For acoustic guitar, flat or a little warmth, depending on the guitar. For piano, flat. For overheads, a little warmth, a little high end roll-off. And so on.

What mic was this recorded with? Macbook mic? Seriously? Wow. I've gotta drop those guys a note and give them some kudos. That's a lot cleaner than I would have expected. :)

Okay. So you're obviously getting a lot of reflection in the recording off of walls and stuff, but I'm thinking your voice could use a little bit of sparkle on the high end and a little extra warmth on the lower mids, and a little less in between, but I'm listening through Macbook speakers, so take that with a grain of salt. :D

Listening to the clip, I'm guessing you're somewhere between a high baritone and a medium (fairly full-voiced) tenor. It's hard to guess what mic would work best for that voice, but this nagging voice in my head says that assuming the Macbook mic is fairly flat, I'd start with a brighter mic than what I normally use---maybe a CAD M9 (which works for me, but is on the bright side) or one of the group buy 6802T mics or maybe an ADK Hamburg.

If you're looking for something cheap that takes EQ well, you might also consider an Apex 210 or Nady RSM-2. It will sound dull on your voice as shipped, but you can EQ the heck out it of without it getting harsh. I just got a good laugh by reading the Zzounds reviews of the RSM-2. Despite not giving names, I can tell that the first one was written by Michael Joly, and I wrote the other one.... Heh. I pretty much agree with everything Michael said, though I don't find the headbasket resonance to be all that problematic except when miking trumpet. It sounds harsh to me on that. I like it on voice and trombone, though.
 
I guess I missed that part where that was recorded with a macbook mic. Now I'm going to have to try laptops as overheads fer cryin' out loud!!

"Position the screen so it's pointed at the 12th fret away from the sound hole"

"Wait, then I can't read the lyrics!"

"We'll set up something with a desktop and remote access!"


something like that.:rolleyes:
 
I always say ...

If it's not the most expensive mic on the shelf, then it's probably going to sound like utter garbage.

And you might as well just use a tin can and a shoe string.

Short of that, whatever these other guys said sounds about right.

:D
 
I once thought equipment did not make the most difference but rather the guy who uses it and the source that's being recorded. Though this holds true when using more expensive mics, I had to admit a cheap chinese condenser mic could not compete with a U87 when I did a shootout of the 2 mics.

GGK.
 
A good mic doesn't make a singer sound good. A good mic makes the recording of a singer sound better, but it does not make the singer better. I'd rather record Steve Perry with a SM57 than record Bob Dylan with a U87......

There's a difference between a bad singer and someone who sings differently. Dylan's vocal sound is what it is, not because of limitations, but because it suits the music (non-believers should really give Lay Lady Lay a listen). And while any sane person wouldn't want to hear Dylan singing Journey/S.Perry songs, the reverse is also true: no sane person wants to hear Steve Perry singing Dylan either.

I'll take Tom Waits and a bullhorn over Steve Perry and a truckload of U87s any day. :D
 
Do you really need expensive mic's?
Depends. My experience is with acoustic instruments rather than vocals.

There are inexpensive mic's that work well in particular applications. Naiant mic's come to mind for acoustic instruments.

There are expensive mic's that do also. Schoeps and DPA come to mind for the same application.

There are inexpensive mic's that bring out the worst in particular applications.

There are expensive mic's that do also.





IME, generally if you use an expensive mic ($1K and above) that's right for the application, and compare it to a cheap mic that's also right for the application, the expensive mic will be noticeably better. But the cheap mic, used well, will sound better than an expensive mic used badly.
 
Back
Top