How do I get that sound ?

[cjacek]

Hello,

Ok, here's the deal .. I'm a high-baritone and I've tried the sm57, sm58, beta 58 and a few lower grade large condenser mics and I took great care to be away from the mic as to avoid excessive bass response (usually 4 - 8 inches away) but I found that my vocal always seems to be predominated by low, "boomy" tones which don't sound anything like I want it to sound. Here's a link to a song recorded by Elvis in '57. It's uncompressed, no reverb added and it's right there close to your ear vocal. Now, I would expect that he used a tube condenser mic but it does not explain reasons why he doesn't sound overly low and boomy, even though he seems to be pretty close to that mic! Did they completely reduce the bass response in his voice at that studio or what ? Can someone please explain how this lack of "low" is possible when Elvis, or whomever, is so close to the mic ? I want that type of clear, "trebly" sound to counteract my "lowish" voice. Please click HERE for the clip. It's about 3.5 MB.

Thanks,

Daniel

 

[DonF]

I don't think there's a "formula" to achieve what you're after. You are correct in that, at least for cardioid mics, keeping your distance will reduce the proximity effect. Unfortunately, it also reduces the "presence" you seem to be looking for. So what you probably need to do is to use a bit of EQ on the low end to take care of the boominess.

Can you tell us more about your signal chain? What preamp, what kind of sound card (or whatever you're recording on), etc. It all makes a big difference.

DonF

 

[shortyprs]

I don't know anything about Elvis' recording, but I'm familiar with this problem. For live vocals, I went through my sm57, sm58 and beta 58. My voice always seemed to have a muffle on it. I could get a much better sound with a condensor, but struggled to keep the presence, fullness and warmth that I like. So, here's what I know:

For live sound I switched to a sennheiser 845. Much nicer! Brighter, but smooth and warm. Plus, it's hypercardoid pattern allows me to play with eq and volume levels with greatly reduced feedback. A very nice mic for an upper ranged baritone.

For recorded sound, the SP C3 does a very nice job in our range. My voice is pretty thin and the mic tended not to flatter me as much as I'd hoped, but it would be excellent for a stronger singer. The problem wasn't the mic as much as my voice.

If your voice goes to the thin side, check out my post on mic's for the whimpy midranged voice. I'm in the process of checking out various mic's that were suggested, but don't have a conclusion yet.

Your preamp can make a huge difference. I have three less expensive pre's and each 'likes' different mic's and voices. Check out Dot's preamp Listening Session for a more dramatic example.

Good luck! You won't regret the 845 for live sound.

 

[Han]

I wouldn't be surprised if that Elvis sound was recorded with an old Shure 55SH. A Typical 5khz peak.

http://www.shure.com/microphones/models/55sh.asp

Not a great sound IMHO, certainly not the sound of a U47 or a RCA ribbon.

 

[sloop]

I agree with shortyprs

The Sennheisers might be a good choice for you. Either the 835, 845 or 855. They all sound great. For the price, the 835's are tough to beat. I just switched out at home for my vocals. The Senny's are much better.

 

[ozraves]

I thought a good portion of the old Elvis stuff was recorded with a Neumann U47.

 

[chessrock]

Can someone please explain how this lack of "low" is possible when Elvis, or whomever, is so close to the mic ?

Because he was Elvis.

You, however, fall in to the very large and broad category of not Elvis.

How do I know? Becuase Elvis is dead . . .

. . . and you are not, as you are here posting stuff on the BBS.

To put yet another spin on things, Elvis and Cjacek very likely have what are called different voices. A very commonly-occuring phenomenon when any and/or all of the following conditions apply:

a) You were not born on the same day in the same place to the same mother

b) You do not share the same name or location

c) You do not share the exact same genetic makeup

If you've performed the above test and any and/or all of the above apply, then chances are very high that you are not the same person . . .

. . . and it is a very well-known fact in the Science community that different people have different voices, which includes different vocal timbres, registers, bass content, etc. etc. etc.

 

[mixsit]

There is a tone I have always admired that falls in this zone cjacek may be hearing. It's very big, close and rich, but not boomy. Lots of examples out there. (George Jones comes to mind)
My guess is; close enough and/or the right mic for the size and tone, with the correct roll off and/or voicing on the bottom few octaves.
Wayne

 

[DonF]

Re: Re: How do I get that sound ?

You, however, fall in to the very large and broad category of not Elvis.

Meanie! I was going to get around to that, but would have broken it to him gently.

DonF
(also not Elvis)

 

[cjacek]

Wait a minute!!!

Hold on there GUYS!! Did I say I wanted to sound "like Elvis" ?? Sure I do as do many others but it ain't gonna happen. Elvis is Elvis and no one can duplicate the sound he had. I don't know if some of you misunderstood me or not (chessrock and DonF) but obviously some took the question for what it was and answered the way it was intended. Wasn't I clear enough with what I asked ? I was after a particular sound that obviously a mic captured. I can tell you for sure that if I had given Elvis, or whomever that shares some of his singing characteristics, an sm-57, they would never get "that" sound. For those of you who made helpful mic recommendations and such I thank you but for those who misunderstood my question, for whatever reason, I DO hope you can re-read what I had asked and make another attempt. Thank you very much in advance.

Daniel

 

[cjacek]

I don't think there's a "formula" to achieve what you're after. You are correct in that, at least for cardioid mics, keeping your distance will reduce the proximity effect. Unfortunately, it also reduces the "presence" you seem to be looking for. So what you probably need to do is to use a bit of EQ on the low end to take care of the boominess.

Can you tell us more about your signal chain? What preamp, what kind of sound card (or whatever you're recording on), etc. It all makes a big difference.

DonF

Thanks Don for your reply. Yes, you pretty much understand what my question was about and here's my signal chain: sm-57 to mackie or behringer mixer to analog tape. No multitracking. No compression (I like it that way ). I add some reverb going in. What did you mean by "EQ on the low end" ? My mixer has a fixed low eq, so I should reduce that, say, 5db or something, to reduce that low end sound a bit ? Other than that, I assume I still should keep some distance away from the mic ?

Thanks very much!

Daniel

 

[cjacek]

I don't know anything about Elvis' recording, but I'm familiar with this problem. For live vocals, I went through my sm57, sm58 and beta 58. My voice always seemed to have a muffle on it. I could get a much better sound with a condensor, but struggled to keep the presence, fullness and warmth that I like. So, here's what I know:

For live sound I switched to a sennheiser 845. Much nicer! Brighter, but smooth and warm. Plus, it's hypercardoid pattern allows me to play with eq and volume levels with greatly reduced feedback. A very nice mic for an upper ranged baritone.

For recorded sound, the SP C3 does a very nice job in our range. My voice is pretty thin and the mic tended not to flatter me as much as I'd hoped, but it would be excellent for a stronger singer. The problem wasn't the mic as much as my voice.

If your voice goes to the thin side, check out my post on mic's for the whimpy midranged voice. I'm in the process of checking out various mic's that were suggested, but don't have a conclusion yet.

Your preamp can make a huge difference. I have three less expensive pre's and each 'likes' different mic's and voices. Check out Dot's preamp Listening Session for a more dramatic example.

Good luck! You won't regret the 845 for live sound.

Thanks MAN!! Would the 845 be good for recorded sound ? The C3 seems a bit pricey for me. Have you had experiences with a behringer b1 ?

Daniel

 

[cjacek]

I wouldn't be surprised if that Elvis sound was recorded with an old Shure 55SH. A Typical 5khz peak.

http://www.shure.com/microphones/models/55sh.asp

Not a great sound IMHO, certainly not the sound of a U47 or a RCA ribbon.

Thanks!

Daniel

 

[cjacek]

Re: I agree with shortyprs

The Sennheisers might be a good choice for you. Either the 835, 845 or 855. They all sound great. For the price, the 835's are tough to beat. I just switched out at home for my vocals. The Senny's are much better.

I'll be sure to check these out! Thanks!!

Daniel

 

[cjacek]

There is a tone I have always admired that falls in this zone cjacek may be hearing. It's very big, close and rich, but not boomy. Lots of examples out there. (George Jones comes to mind)
My guess is; close enough and/or the right mic for the size and tone, with the correct roll off and/or voicing on the bottom few octaves.
Wayne

CORRECT! Yeah, you know what I'm talkin' 'bout!

Daniel

 

[DonF]

What did you mean by "EQ on the low end" ? My mixer has a fixed low eq, so I should reduce that, say, 5db or something, to reduce that low end sound a bit ?

Yes, that's what I meant.

Other than that, I assume I still should keep some distance away from the mic ?

Not if you want that "in-your-ear" sound. To get that, you need to work the mic pretty close. I personally prefer an omnidirectional mic for my vocals (I love the U87 in omni mode), because I can work it very close, and there's no proximity effect. Sadly, I don't have a U87, so I have to EQ my way to the sound I want.

DonF

 

[cjacek]

Yes, that's what I meant.Not if you want that "in-your-ear" sound. To get that, you need to work the mic pretty close. I personally prefer an omnidirectional mic for my vocals (I love the U87 in omni mode), because I can work it very close, and there's no proximity effect. Sadly, I don't have a U87, so I have to EQ my way to the sound I want.

DonF

Thanks DonF! Yeah, I did what you suggested, with my sm57, and it really DID improve things a whole lot! It's gettin' closer to "that sound"! I however am interested in what omni mic you use and how you use the eq to get to the sound you want, in your case ? Are the omni mics the only ones that don't show the proximity effect ?

Thanks,

Daniel

 

[cjacek]

Another question ...

I was just wondering if dynamic, handheld, mics can also be omni-directional or is it only on large condenser types ? As I understand, I hope correctly, that any omni-directional mic will have a lack of the pronounced bass increase as one gets closer to it - has no proximity effect. Right ? Ok, then, are there any dynamics which are omni-directional ?

Thanks again,

Daniel

 

[Dot]

Shure makes an omni dynamic
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/product/157395/SHVP64A/REG/1454

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions

 

[Han]

Re: Another question ...

I was just wondering if dynamic, handheld, mics can also be omni-directional or is it only on large condenser types ? As I understand, I hope correctly, that any omni-directional mic will have a lack of the pronounced bass increase as one gets closer to it - has no proximity effect. Right ? Ok, then, are there any dynamics which are omni-directional ?

Thanks again,

Daniel

There are many omni dynamics, Sennheiser MD21 and Electro Voice RE50 are two of them that comes firt to mind.

And you are right, an omni has no proximity.