Preamp that will give more clarity and sheen

  • Thread starter Thread starter highriser
  • Start date Start date
I'm going to have to completely agree with Tim here. The mic is not the issue. It is the performance, probably the room as well, and the subsequent needed use of dynamic control (to attempt to fix the performance) that is going to be necessary in this situation. The mic choice is not necessarily going to fix the issues here. And likely not. Sorry... :(
 
Just going back to square one though...

The original post (before any samples were posted for discussion) simply asked for pre amp recommendations to add "clarity and sheen" to an SM7B. With the utmost respect, even if you're an SM7B fan, that mic would never be one I'd describe as having "clarity and sheen". Like most large dynamics, it's designed to go in exactly the opposite direction--ultra "warmth". Some find this pleasing; I find it woolly and lacking in detail compared to most LDC mics. It's a matter of preference but, to me at least, trying to add "clarity and sheen" to a mic that is the antithesis of these characteristics is simply not the way.

Having listened to some of the examples, I agree that there are other things going on beyond the mic choice and the discussion of things to try is certainly worthwhile. However, none of this changes my mind that the SM7B is simply the wrong mic for this voice. I was away when the other thread (comparing 3 mics) was posted so didn't reply when I listened yesterday. However, to my ear, Mic 1 (the SM7B as it worked out) was a distant third compared to the other two mics demonstrated. I actively disliked the sound. Even if there are other things wrong, I always believe that getting the mic right in the first place is the best way to start--and the SM7B was a long way from "right" in this combination of voice, technique and room.
 
Bobbsy, you're right, but I get the feeling he's dealing with a global issue here.


I'm siding with Jimmy + Tim. I bet there's no mic to fix this and the room just does't sound nice.

OP, is there rhyme or reason to your treatment, or is it just stuff stuck to the walls?
It kind looks like a lot of it is very thin stuff, or even just heavy sheets.

Unless some proper planning went into it, I'd lift all the light stuff down and start from scratch.
 
Just listened to another Alabama track. Same thing.

Again, the backing has been properly produced, with EQ, compression, perhaps some reverb. No vocal line can hope to "sit" in that mix without similar production treatment.

The room is almost certainly not a factor either. I cant hear any room reverb at all, and you would expect that since the backing track is compressed up and so masks any room reverb that might be audible when you solo the vocal.

This is classic Karaoke bar stuff. A properly produced, balanced backing track and someone howling into a mic over the top of it with no other treatment or sophistication on the vocal track. It cries out for exactly the same careful production techniques used on the backing tracks.

You could use the most expensive Neumann LDC on the market and still have exactly the same problem. It's not a mic issue. It's a production issue.

I'm sorry but for me this is "Listening Skills 101". You cant buy listening and production skillls at a music store or as a piece of software or hardware. And I have to admit, some people who have been recording for years just cant hear it. Cant identify the issues. For me the problems here stick out like a sore thumb, and for someone with the production skills, it's not hard to fix.

Probably any one of the mics listed would be fine to capture the vocal. It's what you then do with that raw track that puts all the "clarity and sheen" on it.

The OP possibly has all the production tools right in his DAW right now, without spending another cent on mics or pre's. He just needs to learn the listening and production skills, and become competent with the tools.

So much time and money probably wasted, not to mention multiple page forum discussions which only confuse the poor guy even more.

I agree 100% with Gekko's earlier wise advice.

Tim
 
Tim Gillett said:
The room is almost certainly not a factor either. I cant hear any room reverb at all, and you would expect that since the backing track is compressed up and so masks any room reverb that might be audible when you solo the vocal.
Click to expand...

That's not what I meant though.
Admittedly, it's just a guess/suggestion, but I wonder if his treatment is destructive. Is it unnaturally dead?

There are much more qualified people to talk about it here so I'm asking rather than telling, but I'm thinking maybe stacks of lightweight panels could just be completely killing the high end in that room?

Good points about the dynamics etc.
 
Steenamaroo said:
That's not what I meant though.
Admittedly, it's just a guess/suggestion, but I wonder if his treatment is destructive. Is it unnaturally dead?

There are much more qualified people to talk about it here so I'm asking rather than telling, but I'm thinking maybe stacks of lightweight panels could just be completely killing the high end in that room?

Good points about the dynamics etc.
Click to expand...

I dont think so. A completely dead room, doesnt actively kill what's coming out of the vocalist's mouth and straight into the mic. There is just no added room reverberation. A dead room might make singing harder as you get nothing "back" from the room but in a good setup, it's easy to feed some artificial reverb into the cans if it gives the vocalist more confidence, and I'm all for it. Even some compression in the cans as well if it allows the vocalist a more free, relaxed performance.

Or if you want to capture the room's actual reverb, do it with other mics placed in the best position in the room to pick that up, and recorded to separate tracks. If you like, feed that room reverb into the vocalist's cans to give him confidence. The vocal mic is there to capture the vocal, not the room.

Cheers Tim
 
Last edited:
Tim Gillett said:
I dont think so. A completely dead room, doesnt actively kill what's coming out of the vocalist's mouth and straight into the mic. There is just no added room reverberation. A dead room might make singing harder as you get nothing "back" from the room but in a good setup, it's easy to feed some artificial reverb into the cans if it gives the vocalist more confidence, and I'm all for it. Even some compression in the cans as well if it allows the vocalist a more free, relaxed performance.

Or if you want to capture the room's actual reverb, do it with other mics placed in the best position in the room to pick that up, and recorded to separate tracks. If you like, feed that room reverb into the vocalist's cans to give him confidence. The vocal mic is there to capture the vocal, not the room.

Cheers Tim
Click to expand...

Fair enough, Tim.
Cheers. :)
 
Bobbsy said:
I agree that there are other things going on beyond the mic choice and the discussion of things to try is certainly worthwhile. However, none of this changes my mind that the SM7B is simply the wrong mic for this voice.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have to agree.

His singing style can use some work, and the room could be better treated, though I don't either of those would really change how the mic is picking up his voice, and so starting with that, he can then consider the other things.

I've put up a half dozen mics in front the same voice in the same postion...and there is always a clear winner. I do think he would benefit from finding a mic that does that for his voice...and of course, working on his style and also fine-tuning the room, though honestly, for singing....I don't think his treatment is taking anything away or adding anything bad. Maybe for other sources, but for his singing, the treatment he now has shouldn't be a major issue.
 
Since your bringing some new perspective into this thing -we 'been spinning our wheels big time!
At one point I was considering 'room has big lumps' around a hundred' (and it does according to the mode calc routine) and treatment took away all the highs.
Anywho check out his hallway test-
Hall test by Adam Mishan on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
Sounds pretty good. (Don't know the mic

add.. We're still hearing no sign of 'room on this one too.. 'but that's for another day i spose

last add (I swear :D For all I know the real diference is he just put a little more energy into the voc!
 
highriser said:
Hi Ethan, do you have any suggestions of mics that may work for my voice?
Click to expand...

I don't usually suggest microphones because there are literally hundreds of them and I have direct experience with fewer than a dozen. I can tell you that I have a pair of audio technica 4033s that I use for almost everything.

--Ethan
 
Ok. So for everyone who said that it needs compression and reverb and I know. There is no processing on this because it is a mic shoot out I am comparing the bare mics. To say that these need processing is self- evident. I want to know which mic is the best starting point on which to build a good processed track.
 
highriser said:
Ok. So for everyone who said that it needs compression and reverb and I know. There is no processing on this because it is a mic shoot out I am comparing the bare mics. To say that these need processing is self- evident. I want to know which mic is the best starting point on which to build a good processed track.
Click to expand...

A sensible way to proceed as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I add compression and EQ and often a touch of reverb to my vocal tracks--but, before I get to that stage I try to record with the most suitable mic. The better the dry recording, the less processing you'll need later.

A bunch of us have mentioned mics for you to try and the final choice will be down to you. However, I note that the common denominator of suggestions seems to be that a LDC with good clarity in the upper ranges will be be place to start looking...er, listening!
 
The issue is I need to go for options that I can audition first the adk and SE's are not available to rent at long n mquade near me I don't want to buy without trying it first.
 
highriser said:
Ok. So for everyone who said that it needs compression and reverb and I know. There is no processing on this because it is a mic shoot out I am comparing the bare mics. To say that these need processing is self- evident. I want to know which mic is the best starting point on which to build a good processed track.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you dont seem to understand. True, different mics can sound different but it's not the main game.
Take as an example, the Shure SM58, though it's more a stage mic. Other models from Shure and other manufacturers would be just as good for the purpose. A live sound engineer has a bunch of such mics and vocalists from all genres of music will get up there and just sing through one of those mics and the engineer who knows what he's doing can make any artist sound fine using such a mic.
Sure such mics have a presence peak and a low bass rolloff but they're there for a reason in that application.

My only LDC is a Rode NT2. I bought it without ever listening to it. I trusted the maker and the mic from reading reviews from reviewers I felt I could trust. I read the specs. I knew it would sound fine. It does sound fine. But I could have bought any of 10 other LDC's which would have been equally good.

If you are concerned to reveal small subtleties in the mic and preamp in your audio samples, present the vocal track soloed with no backing track, even though you might have sung to that track. Ideally have two of the mics under test, side by side, and picking up the same vocal performance at the same time.

The last thing you should do is mix your vocal with a backing track which swamps the quiet sounds on the vocal track! If there are deficiencies in the mic or pre, or room at low levels, you have guaranteed that we cant hear them!

In the end you seem to be implying you know more than good sound engineers, good mic makers. I doubt you do. Listen to wise advice. It usually pays.

All the best

Tim
 
I'm sorry but I have to disagree, sure a good engineer can polish a turd but I want to be polishing a diamond that is almost there on my voice. Going fora vocal mic based on other's reviews is a poor way to go about it because it changes voice to voice. That is a fact. So an nt2 might work for you but be a turd for me. I'm looking to find that diamond producing mic and simply polish it up
 
I can do it solo'd but that is a bad representation of what I'm looking for cause I am not doing acapella. While the vocal is sitting oddly in the mix cause of lack of comp the tone of the mic is there and I'm looking for the best starting tone
 
This was your acoustic guitar test in the other thread



This was my response with an acoustic guitar with a Shure SM58 with no treatment whatsoever, just the raw recording



Every mic you have used, in every room in which you record, whether vocal or instrument, exhibits the same characteristic loss of highs.

If the tracks have no EQ applied to them when they are exported from your DAW, then something that is common to all these recordings is attenuating those highs, possibly on the way in. What is common to all recordings?
 
I guess the only way to figure it out is replace each component of my chain piece by piece. And pick out the problem?
 
highriser said:
I guess the only way to figure it out is replace each component of my chain piece by piece. And pick out the problem?
Click to expand...

In the other thread I suggested that the Focusrite Scarlett is possibly malfunctioning in some way. I trust Focusrite but things can go wrong with any product. If it is a new item, you may be able to get a replacement. But you need to substitute some other audio interface to verify that that is the problem before going to the trouble of getting a replacement. Its the only thing that makes any sense in this case
 
highriser said:
I'm sorry but I have to disagree, sure a good engineer can polish a turd but I want to be polishing a diamond that is almost there on my voice. Going fora vocal mic based on other's reviews is a poor way to go about it because it changes voice to voice. That is a fact. So an nt2 might work for you but be a turd for me. I'm looking to find that diamond producing mic and simply polish it up
Click to expand...

No, the best sound engineer in the world cant polish a turd. That's also a myth.

You say "it changes from voice to voice." What is the "it" you are referring to?

You are right that the mic needs to be good but you are taking it to an extreme level of individualism, attempting to match the mic to your voice. It just doesnt work like that.

To speak of your particular voice, maybe it would be enhanced with a bit of EQ boost in the lower mid range for example. But that boost would be needed virtually regardless of which mic you used. If you used 10 different LDC mics, you would have to apply the same boost on each mic! So the resulting sound would then be significantly different from the raw sound of all those mics, which would very likely be very close to each other in their raw state.

Choosing a mic for a particular frequency response curve, as you seem to be after, is also a poor way to do it as mics arent made that way. You would have to chance on a mic which just happened to have a curve pretty well matched for your voice's EQ needs. Why not just do the EQ in the mix? That is what EQ is for.

There is a huge array of good mics out there these days and perhaps that huge range is part of the "problem". If there was only one good mic available, we'd all be using it and there's be no discussion needed. When confronted with many options we can become paralyzed.

Sadly there is a lot of ignorance/superstition with mics. After having a hit record some artists insist on only recording in the same studio, using exactly the same mic etc, that they did when they had that hit record. Sure it might make them feel more relaxed and as a result perform better but that's about all it is likely to be.

You seem to have the basics there. A good mic, good gear, a pop filter screen, room OK, not micing too close or far, a voice which is in tune and in time.

Learn what is a good EQ for your voice to perhaps enhance it.
Dont worry about the mic or the pre. They're probably fine. Just keep singing and recording and enjoy yourself.

Cheers Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top