mshilarious
Banned
I have tried to stay away from this board because I am an angry, bitter old man. Not really, but close enough. But I just can't take this thread anymore. So keep that in mind when you read this.
First off, I agree with Richie's recs, generally, but for the fact that OP has already tried and rejected the Shure SM87. Yeah, there are better vocal condensers, but that's a big step down the path of mics with better HF response than an SM58, so . . .
OK, giant problem: some of the physics presented are deplorable. OP, there is no commercially available mic that suddenly possesses none of a particular frequency somewhere in the mids or high-mids. I mean, best I could do is give you a mic with an 12dB dip, but it would sound so immediately horrible that you would reject it on all sources at all times. So let's forget about that notion. The vocal mics we are talking about are all within +/-10dB in the relevant range; that's a wide range but the response curves typically approximate first- or second-order filters, so these variations are well within the reach of an EQ. There is no such thing as nothing to EQ. And even if that were true, it would only affect certain notes--a mic has no way of knowing whether say 700Hz is a fundamental or an overtone, for example. And almost inevitably when you create a midrange dip acoustically in a microphone, you create a peak somewhere else.
Let's think about voices, timbre, and vocal technique. Female voices are typically much less "rich" than male vocals. That means the average female voice contains fewer overtones than the average male voice. The overtone series a given person possesses tends to be relatively constant within each register. For example, if I switch from baritone to falsetto, my overtone series will change, but between baritone notes it's essentially the same.
The fundamental range of a typical female vocal is maybe middle C to high F, the treble clef if you like. Sure, last weekend I did a show (me=stagehand) with a nationally renown soprano who tore the heads off of a 600 seat auditorium with a high Bb. She wasn't using amplification either . . . but for the average pop chick, let's say a fundamental range of 262Hz to 700Hz.
The typical female might possess four overtones, that gets you up to 3.5kHz. The 5kHz to 8kHz range contains the consonants. Beyond that, you don't care too much unless she's a breathy singer and you like a lot of heavy breathing in your PA. Whereas a male singer singing an octave lower might have useful overtones another octave higher. Or Janis Joplin . . .
Now, is she a typical singer? Obviously not. But does she have more or fewer overtones? More overtones = more HF = easier to cut through a mix. So I'm guessing she has fewer. All mids and no high-mids = really hard to hear. Would you describe her as having a 'pure' voice? Is is a 'pure' alto? That's about as tough as it gets for hearing detail.
Next, how about her vocal technique? You say she can sing; I'll stipulate that she has good pitch, good phrasing, whatever, but she isn't being heard. Keep in mind that your mind is a very, very powerful vocal signal processor, and will compensate for variations in person that become unacceptable when heard over a PA. Is her timbre constant note to note? Is her projection constant? Does she get nasal or swallow certain notes? How is her diction? How about her microphone technique? Does she eat the thing so bad she can't move her lips for proper enunciation?
I am not a vocal coach, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that the $600 or whatever that Neumann vocal condenser costs is better spent on a few voice lessons to find out what the real source of the problem is.
Then suddenly the SM58 might work . . . and one of Richie's mics might work still better, but the point is EVERY mic she uses will work better.
In the meantime, boost 3kHz and hope for the best.
First off, I agree with Richie's recs, generally, but for the fact that OP has already tried and rejected the Shure SM87. Yeah, there are better vocal condensers, but that's a big step down the path of mics with better HF response than an SM58, so . . .
OK, giant problem: some of the physics presented are deplorable. OP, there is no commercially available mic that suddenly possesses none of a particular frequency somewhere in the mids or high-mids. I mean, best I could do is give you a mic with an 12dB dip, but it would sound so immediately horrible that you would reject it on all sources at all times. So let's forget about that notion. The vocal mics we are talking about are all within +/-10dB in the relevant range; that's a wide range but the response curves typically approximate first- or second-order filters, so these variations are well within the reach of an EQ. There is no such thing as nothing to EQ. And even if that were true, it would only affect certain notes--a mic has no way of knowing whether say 700Hz is a fundamental or an overtone, for example. And almost inevitably when you create a midrange dip acoustically in a microphone, you create a peak somewhere else.
Let's think about voices, timbre, and vocal technique. Female voices are typically much less "rich" than male vocals. That means the average female voice contains fewer overtones than the average male voice. The overtone series a given person possesses tends to be relatively constant within each register. For example, if I switch from baritone to falsetto, my overtone series will change, but between baritone notes it's essentially the same.
The fundamental range of a typical female vocal is maybe middle C to high F, the treble clef if you like. Sure, last weekend I did a show (me=stagehand) with a nationally renown soprano who tore the heads off of a 600 seat auditorium with a high Bb. She wasn't using amplification either . . . but for the average pop chick, let's say a fundamental range of 262Hz to 700Hz.
The typical female might possess four overtones, that gets you up to 3.5kHz. The 5kHz to 8kHz range contains the consonants. Beyond that, you don't care too much unless she's a breathy singer and you like a lot of heavy breathing in your PA. Whereas a male singer singing an octave lower might have useful overtones another octave higher. Or Janis Joplin . . .
Now, is she a typical singer? Obviously not. But does she have more or fewer overtones? More overtones = more HF = easier to cut through a mix. So I'm guessing she has fewer. All mids and no high-mids = really hard to hear. Would you describe her as having a 'pure' voice? Is is a 'pure' alto? That's about as tough as it gets for hearing detail.
Next, how about her vocal technique? You say she can sing; I'll stipulate that she has good pitch, good phrasing, whatever, but she isn't being heard. Keep in mind that your mind is a very, very powerful vocal signal processor, and will compensate for variations in person that become unacceptable when heard over a PA. Is her timbre constant note to note? Is her projection constant? Does she get nasal or swallow certain notes? How is her diction? How about her microphone technique? Does she eat the thing so bad she can't move her lips for proper enunciation?
I am not a vocal coach, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that the $600 or whatever that Neumann vocal condenser costs is better spent on a few voice lessons to find out what the real source of the problem is.
Then suddenly the SM58 might work . . . and one of Richie's mics might work still better, but the point is EVERY mic she uses will work better.
In the meantime, boost 3kHz and hope for the best.
