Recording baritone vocals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Billduncan
  • Start date Start date
B

Billduncan

New member
I have a decent studio with reasonably good equipment; Tascam 2488neo, and Sonar pc. I record some bluegrass bands and Gospel groups.

My major challenge is getting a good recording of a smooth baritone lead singer without getting too much bottom end. If I cut the bass on the vocal I tend to lose the smooth buttery baritone tone, and it seems to get harsh to my ears.

Any suggestions appreciated.

Bill Duncan
 
Can you give more information, What mic are you using, where is it being recorded, in a studio, treated room, untreated room, etc.

Cheers
Alan.
 
I record in my studio. It is 24' x 24', carpet floor, wall treatment panels. I use a TLM 102 mostly. I also use a Shure SM 27, a MXL R144. I like the tone of the TLM best. The R144 does good but it gets boomy if they get too close. I record usually direct into the Tascam. Sometimes I go through a Mackie mixer if needed. I try to record all the vocals separately if allowed. Some groups want to record all together at one time, which is why the mixer board.
 
Last edited:
I was asking about the room because if the room is not right it will exaggerate the boom in the voice you are trying to deal with. The TLM102 should cause no problems with the vocal, however I would not have the singer right up against the mic, try at 4" 6" 8" even 12" away and see if the problem improves.

The thing I find about vocal is that as a rule there is nothing below 100 Hz but boom / mud, I usually shelve at 100 Hz. I realise the problem when dealing with baritone vocal in that you don't want to lose the baritone texture but what to remove the boom.

What you may have to do is partly shelve the 100 Hz where by the 100 Hz is not shelved to 0 but drops down around a 100 and then levels out at a reduced dB, which raises another question, is the standard 2488 EQ going to get this. Another eq trick is to also reduce frequencies that are harmonics of the frequency that has the problem. I.E. if the problem is a 100 Hz, reducing 25, 50, 200, 400, 800 can also improve the sound. I am not saying reduce all of them, but by cutting 1 or 2 of them a few dB can improve the sound a lot.

Cheers
Alan.
 
Thanks Alan. I think you are right about the 2488 eq. It just isn't sophisticated enough for extremely fine eq tuning. I am in the process of learning the PC based Sonar, but I am not there yet, and I am not comfortable using it with other folks recordings.
 
i dont know if this is 'good' advice; obviously getting the chain and technique right is paramount...but.

if i ever have this problem, i'll consider parallel compression.

Two copies of the voice,,one is eq'd so it's thinner than you'd like (as you described),

the other has the higher frequencies tamed slightly, and is compressed heavily.

set the volume using the thin voice, and dial in the other one to taste.

hope that's useful.
 
I don't know for sure if this is a factor, but I noticed that you stated you record in a square room, which could be causing some increased low frequency resonance, which in turn could be affecting your ability to capture the sound you want. (Square rooms have the same series of axial mode frequencies in two dimensions, which increases the resonance of those frequencies). Rectangular rooms of the ratio 1.00 x 1.60 x 2.33 (for instance, 10 feet tall, 16 feet wide, 23.3 feet long) give a much more favorable distribution of modal frequencies. Partitioning your room to those dimensions may help.
 
You know, my room may be a contributor. It's 24' x 24' x 7'8". It isn't perfect, but it's what I have. I have added treatment to the walls, and carpet on the floor to try and tune the space. One entire wall is treated with low hz. traps, and I try to always have singers face that direction to cut down on low hz. reflections. I am going to add some movable partitions with attenuation panels.

I've been working today on some eq settings suggested by other forum members. I am trying hard shelving (cut) at 100hz.
 
After trying some of the suggestions offered by forum members I have run many tests and come up with some good findings.

I did the recordings on a Tascam 2488 NEO with a TLM102 mic. I started by running the mic through a tube preamp and a 32 band graphic eq and cutting 100hz and below to the max, then attenuating 250hz and under by varying amounts. The improvements were remarkable.

I also found that getting the singer to move in closer while controlling his dynamics better, made things much easier to get down satisfactorily.

I was surprised to learn that the proximity effect of the mic was very usable to obtain a richness in the vocal, but it is imperative that the singer maintains almost exact distance and direction, (where he aims his mouth) in relation to the mic. The smallest variance makers a big difference in tone.

I am in no way saying that I have exactly the sound I want and can hear in my head, but I am closing in on it!
 
You could also consider a different mic.

I hava baritone voice, and had a hard time in the past getting the low end to sound right. With some mics it was thin, with others boomy or muddy....and I tired a bunch of "vocal" mics.

That all went away once I got my ADK TT/CE tube mic. It's the best I've used for baritone vocals.
With the multi-pattern choices...you get a lot of variety, and that also makes it great for other types of voices too, just dial in the pattern that works best.

I don't really need to cut or boost any frequencies to "fix" things...and the mic sounds equally good at varying distances...so no need to lock into one spot in front of the mic. I usually put up a pop filter at about 8"...and sing "near" the pop filter, sometimes on it, sometimes a bit back, depending on dynamics.
 
I am always considering different microphones, only the lack of money keeps me from having them.

I plan a mic purchase soon and hope to upgrade. However, the TLM 102 is what I have at present, and I am certain that it's capabilities far exceed my ability to realize its' full potential.

Bill Duncan
 
Billduncan said:
...the TLM 102 is what I have at present, and I am certain that it's capabilities far exceed my ability to realize its' full potential.
Click to expand...

Well...you might surprise yourself.
When you can hands-on compare...that's when you will hear the difference from one mic to another. I have some top-notch mics that SUCK on baritone vocals, IMHO, so you really have to try a few out.

Since I mentioned the ADK...you should check out their stuff, they have very reasonably priced mics.
Some guy did a shootout on Gearslutz between the U87 (which is even higher-end than the TLM 102) and the ADK TT/CE...and the majority preferred the rich, full sound of the ADK...for about 1/3 the price.
I'm not saying the TLM 102 is not a good mic...but it just may not be the right mic for your application, so you end up having to "fix" the sound more than you might need to.
 
Point well taken. I will check out ADK. Thanks for the advice. Anything that would require less "fixing" interests me. I've always had a lot of respect for Neumann mics, but maybe there are other choices that are better for my purposes.

Bill Duncan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top