JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Freaky! lol
Freaky! lol
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
This thread can be a bit of a head spin just trying to clarify what is being asked or discussed. Possible equipment failures, mysterious EQ changes just compound it.
From what I can see we were discussing a mic shootout for the OP's voice. For me that's a head spin in itself. It takes me back to my younger days.
When I questioned him a bit more the OP seemed to be under the impression that unless the sound was almost right, for his voice, , for the final mix (!) coming out of the mic's XLR, or maybe out of the pre, he would never get that back in processing later on. It would be lost for good.
I have to say, that is a very good question, but it's a question rarely asked these days. 50 years ago it would have been far more common to ask, because it was a far more common problem.
It relates to the possible limitations of the recorder and the issue of noise masking. 50 years ago, the best mics had better fidelity, especially in dynamic range, than the best recorders. This was before professional noise reduction for analog tape machines (the word analog was never applied to tape machines then. That came later) was developed by people like Ray Dolby and David Blackmer, which changed the situation a fair bit.
Back then, a good mic might be able to cope with the dynamics in the 1812 overture but the recorder couldnt. The session recorder had to be nursed along using various methods of dynamics control including manual fader riding, done sometimes very strictly according to a preplanned fader riding score which the operator read as sheet music. He literally "played" the tape machine's input fader like a musical instrument to compress dynamics. Dont believe me? Read the recording texts of that era. John Borthwick's name comes to mind but my memory might be wrong on the name.
Another example might be a grand piano piece. Pianos tend not to have a lot of high frequency energy compared to say cymbals or trumpets. So while the loudest passage might be very loud overall, much of the piece has very little highs in it, especially the quite parts. There is nothing to "mask" the tape machine's hissy noise.
So some engineers deliberately inserted an equaliser after the mics and pre's, and ahead of the recorder and boosted treble by a certain amount so that what treble content the piano playing had would be stronger and more easily mask the tape machine's trebly hiss. Of course on playback they reduced that amount of treble boost by exactly the same amount so that there was no net change in the sound of the piano.
Tape afficionados - and I'm one of them - will rightly remind me that this was just pre emphasis/de emphasis. Yes it was, but this was an engineer adding even more pre emphasis/de emphasis than was already in the tape machine by design.
But even back then the pre emphasis added was not done by choosing a special microphone when the 1812 or a piano piece was recorded. They used EQ and/or dynamics control on the way in to nurse the tape machine along and get a more pleasing sounding final product. If they hadnt done that, yes, you would have lost something that was there coming out of the mic but never got onto the tape.
But ever since good analog Noise Reduction systems were developed in the mid 60's onwards, and tape stocks improved, the problem has faded away as a recording issue. The advent of good digital recording meant that even the Noise Reduction systems didnt have to be used any more, further simplifying things. The recorder became for all intents and purposes, as good as the mic, if not better. You didnt have to nurse the recorder along with a preprocessed signal from the mic.
Does this relate to the OP's question? I think it does. Yes there is still the option to eq the voice "on the way in" instead of afterwards at the mixing stage. But it's no longer necessary as it was 50 years ago.
But apart from that, is choosing a mic with a personallly tailored response practical?
Is there an 1812 Overture mic out there? Is there a piano sonata mic out there? Is there a highriser vocal mic? Maybe there is somewhere out there, but it's highly unlikely.
Today some mic companies market their mics as suitable for particular types and genres of music. This seems dubious advertising and thankfully seems to be only from the lower end mic companies.
In the end, even if you could find such a mic, these days, it's neither practical nor necessary to do it that way. The recorders are so good - probably better than the mics - that you can EQ and fine tune the sound to personal preference at your leisure, after the original raw recording has been made.
The irony here for me is that back then, people were doing exactly what the OP asked about here, including compressing on the way in, EQing on the way in, choosing a mic which would not cause the tape machine too much trouble. But we did it because in those days we had no choice. It was often the only way to make a decent sounding recording... Ah, I long for those simpler days...
Tim
From what I can see we were discussing a mic shootout for the OP's voice. For me that's a head spin in itself. It takes me back to my younger days.
When I questioned him a bit more the OP seemed to be under the impression that unless the sound was almost right, for his voice, , for the final mix (!) coming out of the mic's XLR, or maybe out of the pre, he would never get that back in processing later on. It would be lost for good.
I have to say, that is a very good question, but it's a question rarely asked these days. 50 years ago it would have been far more common to ask, because it was a far more common problem.
It relates to the possible limitations of the recorder and the issue of noise masking. 50 years ago, the best mics had better fidelity, especially in dynamic range, than the best recorders. This was before professional noise reduction for analog tape machines (the word analog was never applied to tape machines then. That came later) was developed by people like Ray Dolby and David Blackmer, which changed the situation a fair bit.
Back then, a good mic might be able to cope with the dynamics in the 1812 overture but the recorder couldnt. The session recorder had to be nursed along using various methods of dynamics control including manual fader riding, done sometimes very strictly according to a preplanned fader riding score which the operator read as sheet music. He literally "played" the tape machine's input fader like a musical instrument to compress dynamics. Dont believe me? Read the recording texts of that era. John Borthwick's name comes to mind but my memory might be wrong on the name.
Another example might be a grand piano piece. Pianos tend not to have a lot of high frequency energy compared to say cymbals or trumpets. So while the loudest passage might be very loud overall, much of the piece has very little highs in it, especially the quite parts. There is nothing to "mask" the tape machine's hissy noise.
So some engineers deliberately inserted an equaliser after the mics and pre's, and ahead of the recorder and boosted treble by a certain amount so that what treble content the piano playing had would be stronger and more easily mask the tape machine's trebly hiss. Of course on playback they reduced that amount of treble boost by exactly the same amount so that there was no net change in the sound of the piano.
Tape afficionados - and I'm one of them - will rightly remind me that this was just pre emphasis/de emphasis. Yes it was, but this was an engineer adding even more pre emphasis/de emphasis than was already in the tape machine by design.
But even back then the pre emphasis added was not done by choosing a special microphone when the 1812 or a piano piece was recorded. They used EQ and/or dynamics control on the way in to nurse the tape machine along and get a more pleasing sounding final product. If they hadnt done that, yes, you would have lost something that was there coming out of the mic but never got onto the tape.
But ever since good analog Noise Reduction systems were developed in the mid 60's onwards, and tape stocks improved, the problem has faded away as a recording issue. The advent of good digital recording meant that even the Noise Reduction systems didnt have to be used any more, further simplifying things. The recorder became for all intents and purposes, as good as the mic, if not better. You didnt have to nurse the recorder along with a preprocessed signal from the mic.
Does this relate to the OP's question? I think it does. Yes there is still the option to eq the voice "on the way in" instead of afterwards at the mixing stage. But it's no longer necessary as it was 50 years ago.
But apart from that, is choosing a mic with a personallly tailored response practical?
Is there an 1812 Overture mic out there? Is there a piano sonata mic out there? Is there a highriser vocal mic? Maybe there is somewhere out there, but it's highly unlikely.
Today some mic companies market their mics as suitable for particular types and genres of music. This seems dubious advertising and thankfully seems to be only from the lower end mic companies.
In the end, even if you could find such a mic, these days, it's neither practical nor necessary to do it that way. The recorders are so good - probably better than the mics - that you can EQ and fine tune the sound to personal preference at your leisure, after the original raw recording has been made.
The irony here for me is that back then, people were doing exactly what the OP asked about here, including compressing on the way in, EQing on the way in, choosing a mic which would not cause the tape machine too much trouble. But we did it because in those days we had no choice. It was often the only way to make a decent sounding recording... Ah, I long for those simpler days...
Tim
Last edited:
GuitarLegend
New member
Highriser had a choice of mics and wanted us to tell him, in our opinion, which one sounded best. Nothing wrong with that, different mics do produce different qualities of recording. Not necessarily better or worse, just different. There are any number of examples online to hear different mics.
But underlying that was a problem with the DAW that was EQing the audio on the way in. It was making it difficult to discern one mic from another, so most of the thread was concerned with sorting that problem out. It seems to have been resolved now and Highriser can now offer his selections as intended. Whether there is a right mic for whatever is beside the point. He wasn't asking that. He wanted to know which mic sounded better to us. Why complicate the issue with the philosophy of audio engineering when he just wanted a straight answer?
This was an extension to another thread that was asking about mics. To resolve the EQ problem, he was asking about preamps. The point was moot if the DAW was interfering with the recording.
But underlying that was a problem with the DAW that was EQing the audio on the way in. It was making it difficult to discern one mic from another, so most of the thread was concerned with sorting that problem out. It seems to have been resolved now and Highriser can now offer his selections as intended. Whether there is a right mic for whatever is beside the point. He wasn't asking that. He wanted to know which mic sounded better to us. Why complicate the issue with the philosophy of audio engineering when he just wanted a straight answer?
This was an extension to another thread that was asking about mics. To resolve the EQ problem, he was asking about preamps. The point was moot if the DAW was interfering with the recording.
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Biting my lip...
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
Just because an OP asks a question doesnt mean it's the best or right question to ask, or even a valid one.
What "sounds better" can be very subjective. It can be an individual preference thing. Subjective and objective arent the same thing.
The OP wanted a straight answer but on closer examination it seemed he was labouring under the false premise that unless the vocal sounded almost finished for inclusion in the mix as it was being captured, he would lose something. I have been trying to show that with today's recorders, that is false.
I gave him a straight answer. Maybe not the straight answer he wanted to hear but straight nonetheless.
Tim
PS: for those wanting more technical background, I gave a brief explanation as to why historically it was an issue but isnt really today.
Last edited:
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Huh...???
So....are you saying that it's now more practical to just take a basic, undefined sound...a "raw" sound....record it, and then manipulate it afterward to get what you wanted it to be in the first place...?
I dunno...I guess I'm doing it all wrong. I usually try to get the sound I want during tracking.
One thing to keep in mind is that it's not as easy as it seams to add something that is not already there.
It's much easier to cut out stuff.
If there's no high-end....just cranking up the EQ in the high-end after the fact doesn't really work....which is why in the "old days" (and even these days) they try to get the sound they want right at the start....
....but YMMV.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Count me firmly in Miroslav's camp. I also try to get the sound as near perfect as I can at the tracking stage.
As Miroslav says, even the best processing in the world can't replace things that aren't there. Just like amp modellers for guitars are never the same as the real thing, neither is it possible to make an SM58 sound like a U87 with all the EQ in the world.
As Miroslav says, even the best processing in the world can't replace things that aren't there. Just like amp modellers for guitars are never the same as the real thing, neither is it possible to make an SM58 sound like a U87 with all the EQ in the world.
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
Funny how we use words differently. When I say "raw" I mean "everything", or "all the ingredients" even though we might discard or reduce some of them later on in the mix.
You interpret my "raw" as the exact opposite, that we have "left something out".
How did you do that Miroslav? Did you honestly misunderstand me?
But then as if to prove it wasnt coincidence, this:
When I clearly explained the old practice of boosting treble AHEAD of the noisy, hissy tape stage, NOT after, where it would do no good, you had me say the opposite, that I was suggesting boosting treble AFTER it was too late in the chain.
Perhaps you'd better read my post again.
Tim
GuitarLegend
New member
I still say that the OP had a problem with his DAW that was killing the highs on the way in. It seemed to me that you were telling him to fix it up later with EQ. I thought it better to solve the first problem and then go on to the mic question. I apologise if I read you incorrectly. Again I respect your experience Tim. I just think that ignoring the bug in the DAW wasn't the way to go.
GuitarLegend
New member
That could hurt... :/
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
If I had thought there was a bug in the DAW such as a roll off above 4khz would I have said to ignore it and just fix it in the mix? Did I say that?
Update:
Hang on a second. If it was in the DAW it would have only affected the project and not the original file. in other words it was already caused at the mix stage. The captured file was fine. In tracing such an issue it would make much more sense to question whether it was a project setting rather than a hardware problem. A gentle rolloff from 4khz in the pre sounds strange anyway. As I read it, apparently there was nothing wrong with the pre...
I think it's only reasonable to expect the OP to supply files for us which dont have such obvious glitches in them.
Tim
Last edited:
GuitarLegend
New member
I was going to say, "not in so many words" but it was a long post
You did say "...The recorders are so good ... that you can EQ and fine tune the sound to personal preference at your leisure, after the original raw recording has been made..."
So I get the impression that you did say something along those lines.
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
I was going to say, "not in so many words" but it was a long post
You did say "...The recorders are so good ... that you can EQ and fine tune the sound to personal preference at your leisure, after the original raw recording has been made..."
So I get the impression that you did say something along those lines.
I was acting on the assumption of a good mic, a good pre, a good recorder etc, and no processing in the DAW.
BTW which are the files with the rolloff above 4khz, and without it, ie: all other conditions the same for comparison. I dont know which ones to listen to.
Thanks
Tim
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
I thought I might make a few observations.
1 Performance
Throughout HR there are numerous pages reinforcing the critical importance of a good performance in achieving a good recording. I've also advised this, adding that it is risky to fix things in the mix that should have been fixed in the tracking, and to fix things in mastering that should have been fixed in mixing. Get the sound right at the start, and everything else falls into place. I can't read anything in TG's post that suggests adopting the Ancient Art of Turd Polishing. What he was referring to was the pre-emptive action taken in the past to deal with known and expected problems that would be encountered later in the recording path.
2 Technological realities
I have no doubt that some microphones are better in some areas than others. For example, my go-to mike for violin is an AT853, normally used for ensembles. But I have yet to find anything better for capturing the detail of a violin. It follows that some mikes will be better suited to some voices than others. Having said that, even though I prefer the AT853 for violin, it doesn't mean the others sound bad. They do a very reasonable job. The Shure SM7b is around $400 to $500 in Aus, maybe less if you go to ebay. I expect that any vocal mike in that price range is going to be broadly comparable in quality, and will deliver reasonable results. It may not be an exquisite match to the material being recorded, but it should not be disastrous. This broad comparability extends even more, in my view, to interfaces and preamps. This suggest to me that if you have problems in the quality of recordings, you should look first at other areas of the signal path, before considering replacing the technology as an answer.
3 Real-time vs Post-tracking processing.
When I first entered the digital era, I had an ISIS soundcard. I used this with a mixer because the ISIS was line-level only. I also used the EQ on the mixer, as well as a number of outboard devices (compressor, etc), mainly because they were there. I eventually ditched the ISIS in favour of Presonus, which had its own preamps. Despite this, for a while I still used all the hardware, until I realised that I was causing myself unnecessary grief. By adding EQ, compression, whatever, while tracking, I was actually creating my own unpolishable turds. What is done is really difficult to make undone. These days I have nothing between the mike and the interface, i.e. it is just the raw signal that gets into the machine, and I relish the fact that I can now change my mind. Wrong EQ? Okay, try something else. This is a flexibility that opens so much scope in recording.
1 Performance
Throughout HR there are numerous pages reinforcing the critical importance of a good performance in achieving a good recording. I've also advised this, adding that it is risky to fix things in the mix that should have been fixed in the tracking, and to fix things in mastering that should have been fixed in mixing. Get the sound right at the start, and everything else falls into place. I can't read anything in TG's post that suggests adopting the Ancient Art of Turd Polishing. What he was referring to was the pre-emptive action taken in the past to deal with known and expected problems that would be encountered later in the recording path.
2 Technological realities
I have no doubt that some microphones are better in some areas than others. For example, my go-to mike for violin is an AT853, normally used for ensembles. But I have yet to find anything better for capturing the detail of a violin. It follows that some mikes will be better suited to some voices than others. Having said that, even though I prefer the AT853 for violin, it doesn't mean the others sound bad. They do a very reasonable job. The Shure SM7b is around $400 to $500 in Aus, maybe less if you go to ebay. I expect that any vocal mike in that price range is going to be broadly comparable in quality, and will deliver reasonable results. It may not be an exquisite match to the material being recorded, but it should not be disastrous. This broad comparability extends even more, in my view, to interfaces and preamps. This suggest to me that if you have problems in the quality of recordings, you should look first at other areas of the signal path, before considering replacing the technology as an answer.
3 Real-time vs Post-tracking processing.
When I first entered the digital era, I had an ISIS soundcard. I used this with a mixer because the ISIS was line-level only. I also used the EQ on the mixer, as well as a number of outboard devices (compressor, etc), mainly because they were there. I eventually ditched the ISIS in favour of Presonus, which had its own preamps. Despite this, for a while I still used all the hardware, until I realised that I was causing myself unnecessary grief. By adding EQ, compression, whatever, while tracking, I was actually creating my own unpolishable turds. What is done is really difficult to make undone. These days I have nothing between the mike and the interface, i.e. it is just the raw signal that gets into the machine, and I relish the fact that I can now change my mind. Wrong EQ? Okay, try something else. This is a flexibility that opens so much scope in recording.
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
Amen Gekko.....
GuitarLegend
New member
Hi Tim, it would be better to get two recordings of the same song but this is one that is distinctly down in the high end
NTKac by Adam Mishan on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
This recent one that was done after he replaced the DAW in the same computer with the same audio interface:
Voice test by Adam Mishan on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
When there was some question about his voice, he posted this recording of his guitar:
Acoustic test by Adam Mishan on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
To which I posted a response with a recording of my acoustic guitar with an SM58:
Acc test by GuitarLegend on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
There are many other similar recordings on his SoundCloud page but those are the most striking
There is no sudden cutoff at 4kHz, it just begins to taper from there, and almost nothing above 7kHz except where sibilance pushes it a bit, whereas the backing tracks register up around 14kHz in places as in this recording where you can hear a difference in the backing track and the vocal frequencies
Alabama's by Adam Mishan on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
I couldn't fault his gear and I didnt believe his voice was the problem. There were comments about the lack of room reverb even when he took it out into the hallway:
Hall test by Adam Mishan on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
I could "hear" the total absence of highs in those recordings and thats why I was hunting for the bug in the gear. His mic went straight into the interface which was connected via usb to the DAW. I was thinking about the interface but in doing a swap it turned out that the interface was fine, so it had to be the DAW or the computer it was running on. Then he installed a copy of Reaper and got a much better result.
T
Tim Gillett
Banned
Thanks for that info Guitarlegend. I listened to the Alabama track on the top and even though you may be right about the treble rolloff, for me the thing that stuck out is still the wild volume variations which I find really annoying, but that's just what you'd expect when a fully produced backing track was mixed with a raw vocal track. It's neither one thing nor the other.
Again my basic scepticism is about a shootout between mics for a particular voice, and expecting to find a mic which does most of your post production EQ for you, and just for that vocalist.
A good quality, flat vocal mic picks up everything, and passes it on to the recorder, warts and all. That's its job.
To me the only alternative to a mic which captures everything is one that doesnt capture everything. Well for a start it should cost less to make and sell. At least that's in its favour...
Cheers Tim
Again my basic scepticism is about a shootout between mics for a particular voice, and expecting to find a mic which does most of your post production EQ for you, and just for that vocalist.
A good quality, flat vocal mic picks up everything, and passes it on to the recorder, warts and all. That's its job.
To me the only alternative to a mic which captures everything is one that doesnt capture everything. Well for a start it should cost less to make and sell. At least that's in its favour...
Cheers Tim
GuitarLegend
New member
Oh I definitely agree with the vocal over the backing track. There is so much I could do that would be half the fun. Just the top end was bugging me. I would have liked to hear the warts 
I think the mic should capture enough to give you options. I have an AKG P420 that captures the sound of paint drying on the wall...
I think the mic should capture enough to give you options. I have an AKG P420 that captures the sound of paint drying on the wall...
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
That's a similar, but different (though valid) point.
Thing is...I don't believe anyone was talking about the use of *processing* during tracking.
I thought we were talking about using the best mic/pre combination to get it right on the way in.... VS ...using some imaginary "universal" mic that works on any source equally well, and then adding things to it later to make it sound like something else or to fix what is not right.
There is nothing "practical" about doing the latter, and it's not the studio SOP of choice that I am aware of...and that's all I'm saying....which is what was being suggested.
Sure, you can EQ and process and tweak and do all kinds of great things in a DAW, but it's just so much easier and certainly better sonically to get it right going in, and the right mics make a difference ...which I'm sure you would agree with. That said, we've all had to "make do" with the mics at hand, and then you just do the best with what you have.
There are not too many one-mic-fits-all models out there, and of those that do excel at almost any source, their price tags tend to excel with their capability and quality....certainly not for the typical home-rec budget.
The really cool thing is that these days there are so many mics to pick from that are in the affordable range, so having a few for different purposes and different flavors is possible for most but the tightest budgets.
This site is peppered with mic threads and the Mic Forum is one of the busiest because most people do understand and/or come to realize that mics are important, and the right mics even more so.
I doubt it would be very believable for anyone to suggest that any old mic will do and you can fix it or change it in the DAW after the fact...but I'm sure some folks end up working that way out of necessity or fallacy.
To the OP....
Once you sort out your DAW issues and connections and what have you...find the mic that works best for your voice.
It's just so much easier and better that way.
M
mixsit
Well-known member
I would like to point out and add, that while I also found most of the earlier voc examples lacking mid and upper mid articulation- There are es' tones. And he is (except in the hall test' perhaps) singing in a very controled and 'covered manner (intentionally or not). As an example, to my ear consanants, and other articulating tones are deffinetely held 'back, 'controlled compared to the body of the tracks.
I'm for one confused, been around and around with the best guesses.
Tried on the 'it's a frequency/equipment flaw/eq' idea at one point- But you know what? You also can't 'pick up or 'eq what for the most part isn't there.
Damn, a wish I could just have ten minutes with you dude!, to hear, run a few'.. The question ..err answer' would be so easy!