How far away from the mic should I sing when recording?

ajdambro

New member
Recording too close gets a very bassy response and can sound kinda unprofessional. Also distorting the whole signal is a possibility...

However recording too far can mean that your vocals sound weak and too quiet... compression can solve this, but room noise will be picked up too.

Also, we all know that condensor mics are the best option for vocals. Personally I'm using a Behringer C-1 (with a pop filter, I'm not too amateur) and find that too close and too far is what I always end up recording.... any suggestions?
 
Also, we all know that condensor mics are the best option for vocals.
Uh... No. Not even remotely true by any stretch. Not that condensers don't have their place here and there...

That said -- The source is the distance that best serves the recording. If you want it "in your face" then you get it up in your face. If you want it to sit back some, you sit back some. If you want it to sound distant and roomy, you get farther away.
 
Recording too close gets a very bassy response and can sound kinda unprofessional. Also distorting the whole signal is a possibility...

However recording too far can mean that your vocals sound weak and too quiet... compression can solve this, but room noise will be picked up too.

Also, we all know that condensor mics are the best option for vocals. Personally I'm using a Behringer C-1 (with a pop filter, I'm not too amateur) and find that too close and too far is what I always end up recording.... any suggestions?

Where it sounds good.

Too simple? thats the answer. It depends are you singing loud, soft? Put your voice up loud in a good set of headphones and learn to move and sing where it sounds good.
 
One thing that really opened up my mind is something that yep said in that epic thread over on the Cockos forums. If you want the vocals to sound more natural, sing further back. If you want it to sound bigger and more in your face, sing closer.
 
Recording too close gets a very bassy response and can sound kinda unprofessional. Also distorting the whole signal is a possibility...

What you're talking about here is proximity effect. Ever go to the movies and hear the guy with the deep voice in the previews say, "ONE man. ONE mission"? That's proximity effect. It has its uses and is definitely not unprofessional if employed correctly. The reason why you think it might distort the input is that dynamics are exaggerated the closer you get and so is overall level. The remedy here is proper gain staging.

Generally, the further you are away from the microphone the less dynamic swing there is. The trick is to use this phenomenon to your advantage and that is totally application dependent. For example:

If the vocals on a certain part are very intimate and delicate and need an up-front sound, like the singer is singing right on the tip of your nose, it would probably serve the material well for him/her to be mere centimeters from the diaphragm. If the singer is belting it might be a better idea to back off quite a bit to a foot or so. Maybe more. Experienced singers will have good microphone technique and automatically adjust their distances based on their performance. However the producer might make a call occasionally and ask the singer to get in deeper or back off a little.

And don't forget that the further away the singer is from the microphone, the more room tone will get in there. This may be a good or a bad thing depending on how good or bad your room sounds.

Watch the film Sound City by Dave Grohl. At the end he gets Stevie Nicks to sing a tune and she demonstrates a well seasoned mic technique.

However recording too far can mean that your vocals sound weak and too quiet... compression can solve this, but room noise will be picked up too.

I don't think you're thinking about this in the right way. If it's too quiet, turn up the gain! And yes, more room tone will get in there. It's a matter of finding a balance between signal vs room. There's a happy medium but since every room is different, the distances will vary. If your room sounds bad, you may want to get in a little closer. I generally sing about 6 inches away from the microphone because for most of the stuff I do I want that up-front sound. I also compress on the way in with a tube compressor and that helps give the vocals a bit of character and smoothness.

Also, we all know that condensor mics are the best option for vocals. Personally I'm using a Behringer C-1 (with a pop filter, I'm not too amateur) and find that too close and too far is what I always end up recording.... any suggestions?

First, as Massive said, that's not true. Michael Jackson's Thriller album was recorded with a Shure SM7. Bono uses an SM58 in the control room! Microphone selection, unless your options are severely limited, should always be chosen based on the voice it has to reproduce. That doesn't always mean it's a condenser.

Part of your problem may be the C-1. Truthfully, it's not a great mic and is notorious for having a hyped top end. Not to say it's not usable but maybe it's just not a good match for your voice? Try pairing it with a tube preamp and maybe a compressor/de-esser to warm it up and smooth out the response. YMMV

Hope that helps.

Cheers :)
 
First, as Massive said, that's not true. Michael Jackson's Thriller album was recorded with a Shure SM7. Bono uses an SM58 in the control room! Microphone selection, unless your options are severely limited, should always be chosen based on the voice it has to reproduce. That doesn't always mean it's a condenser.
Well c'mon now -- That's only the biggest selling album of all time and one of the biggest selling artists of all time.

But seriously -- I can't think of *one* studio I've ever been in that didn't have a 7b or RE20 semi-permanently set up in the vocal room. Nearly every "legendary" vocal mic out there is a dynamic or a ribbon (essentially another type of dynamic). And most of the condensers that are exceptionally decent for vocal use are the ones that have strangely "dynamic" curves.

And definitely - *especially* in a home-studio situation where the acoustics in the space might not be up to snuff, the *only* reasonable choice in many cases would be a dynamic. Durable, less sensitive, much less "room" sneaking in there -- And of course, in the case of the 7b and RE20, a very, very controlled and vocally-flattering proximity effect even when right up on the cage.

Again, I'm not saying to not use a condenser out of hand -- If your vocal is very "instrumental" (think classical / operatic, where the voice is as much "instrument" as "words") or you actually want a freakish amount of detail (breathy, highly detailed, especially female vocals - Mariah, Celine, etc.) and the space is worthy, go for it.

But most of the time, expect the typical condenser to pick up something similar to what's actually there -- and think about it -- How often do we as recording engineers want to capture exactly what's there...? Not that it doesn't happen, but we're usually trying to capture that part of the source that will best serve the mix in a manner that flatters the source.

Otherwise, we'd be using omnidirectional mini-element electret condensers on everything.
 
... Part of your problem may be the C-1. Truthfully, it's not a great mic and is notorious for having a hyped top end. Not to say it's not usable but maybe it's just not a good match for your voice? Try pairing it with a tube preamp and maybe a compressor/de-esser to warm it up and smooth out the response. YMMV

Hope that helps.

Cheers :)
;) That's a '$2000 fix for a two hundred dollar mic?

In the mean time if there's too much 'zing could also try rotating it to get a bit off axis.
 
I agree that dynamics are great for recording vocals, especially ones like the Sm7 and RE20, and that many great records were made with them, I do have to question the statistic that the vast majority of records were made with dynamics. I'm pretty sure most classic vocals were recorded with U47s and U67s, and maybe the original U87 as well.

Again, not disputing the fact that dynamics are great for vocals (they are), but I'm pretty sure more classic vocals were done with condensers than with dynamics/ribbons as far as pure statistics go. Maybe its just the past 20 years where dynamics have an edge?
 
U47FET's were popular (still are) but they still have a rather "dynamic" sound to them. It's really only recently (15, maybe 20 years) where condensers have suddenly turned into the mic du jour for vocals. Sort of went along with the advent of home studios and NS10's. Especially with the ChiCons... I can totally see using U47FET's, currently the Rode NT2's, Sony 800G's -- Again, because they have that "voice-friendly" curve going on.

But aggressive vocals into cheesy Chinese hypey bottles in bad rooms and then "My vocals don't seem to sound like (insert name of person with exceptionally good voice being recorded by a team of professionals using gear that flatters that person's voice in an exceptionally well-controlled space) and I can't figure out why..." I never understood it and I don't ever expect to.
 
;) That's a '$2000 fix for a two hundred dollar mic?

In the mean time if there's too much 'zing could also try rotating it to get a bit off axis.

Yeah, I figured it was a bit of a stretch but he could always borrow one. However the ART Pro Channel II is $299 and a worthwhile investment for the beginner. It's cheap but it's a good unit.

Cheers :)
 
I've been finding that there are tons of free VSTs that can do what a tangible preamp/compressor like the one you linked can do. Sucky thing is that I'm on a Mac and free VSTs are hard to come by...

But anyways, I personally like turning knobs and pressing physical buttons rather than doing a ton of clicks on a mic. Thank god my Zoom R8 can be used as a controller in Cubase and other DAWS.
 
Back
Top