How much difference does a quality mic really make?

M

maxabillion

New member
Ok, I realize this is a stupid question (I'm primarily a guitar player and know that the guitar and amp make a HUGE difference, but the thing is that a great player could probably make a squier and practice amp sound pretty good still). I want to know about this idea and its relation to mics and singers.

For example, in early Sinatra recordings (My Funny Valentine, for example), how much of that great rich warmth is coming from the mic itself? or is it more of a quality given by the preamp? Or is it eq? Or is that really exactly how Sinatra would sound singing in the shower?

Mind you I'm not talking about the quality of his voice, but rather that warm vibration on the vocal track (its most apparent to me in the first two lines of the song - "My funny valentine/ sweet comic valentine...".

My problem comes from my vocal tracks being a bit thin and squeaky-clean in terms of sound (I discussed a bit of this under the Singing/vocals forum on a thread called "recording vocals tips..."). I realize I am not and never will be Sinatra of course, but I would like to see if I can mimic a bit of the fullness and warmth on his and other's vocal tracks. Its a quality I hear on many recordings (off the top of my head - Florence and the Machine's 'You've got the Love'; Interpol "Pace is the Trick" ; The National "Fake Empire") Almost like they are singing through a tube amp with just the slightest touch of overdrive or something. Something my recordings lack.

Would investing in a nice 3-400 dollar condenser mic give me what I am looking for (or even a little bit of what I am looking for) or would the money be better spent on a preamp, or more extensive vocal lessons? I'm lost on vocal recording, so please help!

Thanks in advance!
 
I'd suggest not thinking of mics in terms of "quality". Different mics sound different, and assuming there's a quality level can be a nasty, expensive and ultimately unsatisfying trap. Check this out: Do I have a Fake Neumann U87 Ai ????? - Gearslutz.com

Post #8, especially.

I listened to the Sinatra recording just now, his vocal sounds moderately compressed, slightly distorted (probably a side effect of the compression and/or ancient, imperfect equipment it was recorded with) and scooped in the mids. It could be a result of the equipment, the equipment's interaction with his particular voice, any processing done on it - there's no real way to tell, and it doesn't matter exactly how he got that sound. You don't have to (and likely can't anyway, because, like you said, your voice is not his voice) get it the exact same way. You just need to know what, exactly, the sound is you're looking for, and how to get there from what you've got now. This comes with experience, and you'll still need to know these things even if you have $100,000 of mics, preamps, and whatever else. That said - if there's actually a problem with your microphone, like it's introducing some kind of undesirable distortion - there's no way to get rid of that and it might be a real roadblock. Maybe a sound clip would help.
 
The mic matters but you really have to look at the entire chain as you alluded to, you have to find the right balance to match and compliment your voice. In your cited Sinatra case the result starts with the legendary voice, a wonderful tube ribbon mic, into a tube mic amp and likely a tube mixer going direct to tape or disc and he was likely in a vocal booth with all of those elements contributing. A better mic may be a step but it is not the ultimate answer.
 
bassbrad said:
the mic matters but you really have to look at the entire chain as you alluded to, you have to find the right balance to match and compliment your voice. In your cited sinatra case the result starts with the legendary voice, a wonderful tube ribbon mic, into a tube mic amp and likely a tube mixer going direct to tape or disc and he was likely in a vocal booth with all of those elements contributing. A better mic may be a step but it is not the ultimate answer.
Click to expand...

^^^this^^^
 
bassbrad said:
the legendary voice
Click to expand...
Fo shizzle.
bassbrad said:
tube ribbon mic, into a tube mic amp and likely a tube mixer going direct to tape or disc and he was likely in a vocal booth with all of those elements contributing. A better mic may be a step but it is not the ultimate answer.
Click to expand...
You're probably right, since it was recorded in 1955, and that's all they really had, and I totally agree that all the elements combined are the whole picture.

Your post could be interpreted as implying, though, that all the tubes and tapes and stuff have something to do with "the ultimate answer". Not saying you're saying that, necessarily, but sometimes people say weird stuff like that around here (outside of Analog Only, where they're supposed to play together). Had it been recorded after solid state designs (Neve, SSL, etc) caught on and made all the noisy (not to mention relatively unreliable, expensive, and dangerous) tube stuff obsolete, I'm certain it would have been recorded through a solid-state chain without a second thought, and sound even better. (Yea, I tacked that last part on to ruffle feathers :p)
 
Tube circuits are not necessarily noisier than solid state, especially in a preamp design where there is going to be an input transformer in front of the tube. The transistor designs are a lot more efficient though.
 
TyphoidHippo said:
Your post could be interpreted as implying, though, that all the tubes and tapes and stuff have something to do with "the ultimate answer". :p)
Click to expand...
Not trying to imply anything it is just that the available technology imparted a certain amount of warmth or a pleasing subtle distortion that contributed to the end result. Can we achieve this with contemporary technology, yes with careful alchemy. I did forget to mention the X factor which included a producer and engineer who knew what mic to use and how to use it and all the other equipment.

What I meant is the mic alone is not the answer you have to find a balance with your recording signal chain from source to recording medium and you have to master each step along the way.
 
This is a U87 going through a Universal Audio 6176 and post-processing in logic vs an SM58 going through a Focusrite Liquid Saffire 56 set to emulate a Neve preamp with Logic's post processing (except it was live):
U87 vs SM58.mp3 - File Shared from Box - Free Online File Storage

This is the mix of the studio version:
OTP U87.mp3 - File Shared from Box - Free Online File Storage
This is the mix of the live version:
BAAD Sessions: Pronto Mama - One Trick Pony - YouTube

It's usually to do with the performance, the preamp and the microphone in my opinion!
 
a good mic makes a difference of 3 on the X-axis, and a difference of 4 on the Y-axis. But some mics only make a difference of 2 and 3, so watch out for those ones. Cheap mics make a difference of 1 and 1 so they're not really worth the money.

oh and an expensive mic is anything over $350, so an SM7B at $349 is not expensive unless your state has sales tax, or you live in Australia. But back when Sinatra was singing, $350 was worth a lot more so you could probably have gotten pretty much anything for less than that, so there were no good mics in the 1950s.

hope that helps some.
 
Cool guys I appreciate the help. I figured that it was going to be that every part of the signal chain contributed to the specific sound. I guess part two of the question would be, if you had a few hundred to invest in a bit better equipment (namely to get good warm vocal tones) would you go for a tube ribbon mic (or any other type of mic) or a preamp (which I assume can also improve the sound quality of my guitar and bass tracks as well?) or something entirely different? Or just save my money and keep singing/practicing haha?

Right now Im using a CAD e100^2 into a M-Audio Fastrack Ultra and into my DAW (PT9). I also have an SM58, and Some budget priced MXL (one small and one large condenser) from like ten years ago that I almost never use.
 
With that interface I dunno if a better mic is going to do all that much for you. OTOH the Cad mic is a pretty useful mic so you could try a mic pre or a mic processor into the FastTrakUltra. I am getting some respectable results using a DBX Vocal Pro processer but there are lots of choices.
To get a warmer vocal sound you might try some different mic techniques or a different space to record your voice in and adding some gain stages for warmth.
 
That's what I'm trying to do Typhoid, I was just seeing if it was a possibility that I was setting up for failure with my current rig. Its sounding like I can get pretty quality recordings (not necessarily top notch but good) with what I have but I will probably look into a decent preamp. If anyone has any suggestions for a reasonably priced one I would love to hear it, but otherwise its back to the practice room. thanks everyone for your input!
 
It is unlikely that Sinatra used any compression in 1955. Primitive compressors with variable-mu tubes and push-pull configuration were brand new in the early 1950's, and were intended for broadcasting, not music recording. The "compressor" was more likely a guy with good ears and a clue, riding a fader. Gated compressors as we know them did not become available until the 60's, and weren't really perfected for some years after that. I agree with the statements above regarding the relevance of every component in the signal chain. The importance of the room cannot be overestimated, probably second only to the performance itself. The mic comes next, and no, ribbon mics didn't have tubes in the old days- they were dynamic mics. Mostly, they still are. The preamp did, however, and probably the least important component in the signal chain is the fracking tube. Some great preamps have tubes, and some don't. Some of the worst preamps ever made have tubes, and they didn't do anything except sell cheap preamps. Next comes dynamic and frequency based FX (effects), if any, A-D conversion, if any, and finally, the actual recording medium, which is not that important. Often in modern recording, FX is applied after A-D conversion, using digital FX. I believe you should always think about the signal chain from front to back, not the other way around.

As far as the mic goes, yeah- an expensive mic is often a wonderful thing, but the most important thing, I think, is finding the *right* mic. Plenty of expensive mics make certain singers sound awful. Some singers sound very good through the right cheap mic. Some shoes fit, and some don't, and it has very little to do with how expensive the shoes are. All other things being equal, expensive shoes are usually better than cheap ones. Don't be looking to solve signal chain issues by just getting a more expensive mic. What you need to do is find the *right* mic, which is a lot harder. As they say- before you find the handsome prince, you have to kiss a lot of frogs.
 
maxabillion said:
That's what I'm trying to do Typhoid, I was just seeing if it was a possibility that I was setting up for failure with my current rig. Its sounding like I can get pretty quality recordings (not necessarily top notch but good) with what I have but I will probably look into a decent preamp. If anyone has any suggestions for a reasonably priced one I would love to hear it, but otherwise its back to the practice room. thanks everyone for your input!
Click to expand...

Look - there's transparent preamps and there's colored ones. You're not going to get a better transparent preamp than the Octane pres in your Fastrack Ultra without spending a lot of money, and even then, the differences are only on paper. You'd never be able to tell the difference in a true double blind test unless you're really pushing it to the edge of it's SNR by using a super-quiet mic on a super-quiet source from a distance. I'd bet good money on that. Aside from msh (and others who would cheat with analysis tools, lol), I'd bet damn near nobody could these days. As for colored preamps, if you're even asking these questions - it's way too early to be seriously considering dumping money in them. That's like buying a JCM2000 the first day you have a guitar because somebody told you "Marshall has a warm toob sound" or some shit, and then you get one and crank the gain up and convince yourself you just instantly got better. Remember when everything sounded better with more distortion - I certainly do. Beginners have no concept of tone for a good while, aside from louder and more distorted and overuse of hokey effects and stupid bandaids like that. Now go down the road a ways - eventually guitarists develop an ear for guitar tone, and it's very possible you realize you actually hate the marshall sound, and it's completely inappropriate for your music, and you should have gotten a dual rectifier. Congrats - you just wasted a ton of money. Now take the difference in guitar amps and divide it by about 1,000, and you have the audible difference between good (good in an objective way here - low noise, no nasty distortion that nobody would ever want, etc) colored preamps.
 
Yeah I was figuring that the preamp colored things a lot but I guess that was a noob assumption. I do want to make it clear that I'm not just trying to throw money at this until I sound good haha I'm really trying to get some good info and I feel like I have. Obviously, better equipment gives a nice starting place but it won't record the song for me. I guess I wanted that warmth and figured it had to be coming from somewhere. But like all things (amps, preamps, mics and more) that somewhere is actually a lot of separate somewheres. Damn, looks like I have to actually test out a bunch of stuff. This should adequately kick me in the wallet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top