Recording better vocals

  • Thread starter Thread starter PersonalJesus
  • Start date Start date
Thanks for the posts guys. Paul tell me more. The Mindprint has compression and EQ built in. If i just had a pre without those things wouldnt I need to buy standalone compression and eq if I wanted it before it goes into the computer. There are a ton of different mic pres why do you reccommend the Phoenix DRS-1, it certainly lacks features and is 40% more expensive? Basically the reason I was willing to buy the Mindprint was the I have a 45 days satisfaction guarantee. So I know I wont end up regreting it because if I dont like it Im just going to send it back. Im still in the learning stage. I wish I could just buy all the mic pres, AB them and then pick one.
 
The DRS has a shine to it that is exactlym what you are looking for. So when you get it, fork out another $160 when you have it at Full compass for an RNC and you get a better compressor, too. Your goal is those shiny pop vocals, then you gotta reach for it. Worry about an EQ later, you dont need to start EQ'ing to tape this early in the game. It takes a long time to to not fuck things up that way.
YMMV.
 
chessparov said:
The Meeks ALL have the same pre.

The entry version 3Q is more limited in features and doesn't
ahve the "iron" feature. (still an excellent value IMHO)
Also they had at least one Grace at the booth to do some
A/B's with so that's how that got involved.

Unfortunately, the Meek's with the iron feature didn't happen
to be connected when I stopped by. They were super-busy there.

With all due respect, when you're shooting for a certain tone reminicient of a certain artist, it primarily comes from the singer themselves not the gear.

As long as you already sound reasonably reminscient of whomever, you're already 95%+ there.

It ain't going to come out of pre's or A/D convertors...
(worthy gear purchase considerations nonetheless)

Chris
Click to expand...

Thanks, Chris. Interesting about them all having the same pre. The older Meeks didn't.
 
Well, the tests didn't run the full two weeks. Here's the recap:

I put up 5 pairs of mics, and recorded him and his daughter singing some stuff that had loud and soft passages. The mics ranged in price from under $70 to over $1,000.

From there, I'm going to make a CD-R for him with 10 tracks of him, and 10 tracks of her, all randomly placed, so he doesn't know which mic is which.

I told him that when he gets the disc, grade the mics on a piece of paper (from best to worst), and put the paper away for a week. Next week, listen to the CD again, and grade the mics, and put that new piece of paper away. Let another week go by, listen to the CD and again grade the mics.

Then I told him to look at all 3 sheets and see if there's one mic consistently near the top of all the lists; that's the mic for him. His daughter will do the same thing on her tracks. Then he can call me to find out which mics he and his daughter actually picked by listening only.

Here are the mics we used:

Beyer Soundstar MKII
Shure SM7
MXL V67G
MXL V69ME
MXL V77
MXL 990
Earthworks SR71 (he brought this one.)
Neumann TLM103
Coles 4038
AEA R84

Well, he called today and said he found the best mics for himself and his daughter, now what were they? The mics he and his daughter for her voice? The Shure SM7, the MXL V77, and the MXL 990. For himself, he picked just two: the AEA R84, and his own Earthworks SR71.

He had no way of knowing which mic was which, since I loaded all the tracks in no particular order. He would have never considered the MXL mics or a Shure SM7, so he figures I probably saved him several thousand dollars.

Interesting results, huh?
 
On the subject of pop vocals, I'm going to have to agree whith whomever it was that brought up the importance of compression.

A lot of modern boy-bandish pop vocals you hear today are basically "scooped and squashed." Reverb doesn't even seem to play as much of a role as it did when, say, Whitney Houston and the likes were making generous use of it. Didn't you know (?) : Dry is the new wet.

By "scooped and squashed," I'm basically refering to mics that have a natural smiley-face curve to them, with a lot of the high end sizzle. The Blue Dragonfly and Blueberry both kinda' come to mind. In the ultra-budget range, I'm thinking of the Studio Projects C1 or the Rode NTK.

The SM-7's a great microphone. No doubt. But it's pretty mellow and smooth, overall, with a fairly present midrange. It doesn't have all that high end goop going on. Not enough for Justin or Averil or Britney or whomever.

For today's pop vocal sound, I'd go with a condenser that's bordering on being too sibilant. Big dip in the midrange with good sizzle in the highs. Track in a dead room. No reverb. Run it through a clean pre. Use generous amounts of compression and use it tastefully and artistically. And you gotta' know what you're doing with it. This is where it becomes an art, and the good engineer knows how to work the attack/release times, thresholds and ratios like an artist knows his paints.

And as for the secret weapon that no one seems to ever mention: It's the whisper track. When you double/triple the vocals, make sure that you throw in a "near whisper" version where the vocalist purposely sings it really airy, almost whipered. Mariah Carey has basically made a career using the whisper track. If you mix it in the right way (barely audible), it will have an effect on the vocal tantamount to a natural aural (oral?) exciter.
 
Harvey, I believe most all of us singers have a
self-identity on what we would like to sound like.
This colors our judgement compared to the actual reality of its true tone IMHO.

Having the singer evaluated by a pro like yourself
would be more reliable in the long run normally.

My understanding is that the "smiley face" curve can easily rob the vocal of some sonic punch BTW.

Chris
 
All great ideas and appreciated. Im 90% sure Im not going to get the mindprint. Go big or go home for me. Im probably getting a GREAT RIVER ME-1nv or PHOENIX AUDIO DRS-1. Run it with a RNC as suggested. As for a mic I think im going to see how many of the people I know will let me borrow their mics so I can get a few more mics to test. I may even be able to borrow an SM-7 from the college I go to.

chessrock, I had never heard of the "whisper track" thanks for the tip, Im going to try it.

I think Im going to wait a couple of weeks before picking up a pre. Im going to get a new one from Mercenary because they seem really legit.

One of the most important things Im going to be doing is working on some treatment for my room. Either Im going to convert a walk in closet into a vocal booth or make a DIY vocal booth using the blankets on mic stands technique.

Thanks guys!
 
Yeah the 'whisper track' is the shizit.With a great set ofnearfields you can hear this technique on practically every pop vocalist out there these days.Seems I first heard it on DefLeppard vocals so methinks it came from the Lord Mutt.....Also, double ...triple...quadruple....takes after takes...this makes things so damn huge and inyerlap....be sure and watch the EQ on those doubled takes....dont want that unsightly buildup..
 
Quincy Jones may have been the first to truly perfect the whisper track.
 
OMG, I listened to the Justin Timberlake album and I can totally hear the whisper track. Its like a little voice singing at the same time fattening things up. I also listened back to an Incubus song that had confused me before because I was hearing something and couldnt tell what it was and I think he was doing a whisper track, only singing it an octave higher. The song is "just a phase".

When you record backup vox of the same voice do you EQ each voice differenly or are all the voices pretty much EQed the same.
 
Personal, an expert in treating rooms is Ethan Winer.
He has a forum over at www.musicplayer.com
Great at answering questions and has his own business doing this stuff. The products available there are far better than blankets.

Chris
 
Harvey Gerst said:
...Well, he called today and said he found the best mics for himself and his daughter, now what were they? The mics he and his daughter for her voice? The Shure SM7, the MXL V77, and the MXL 990. For himself, he picked just two: the AEA R84, and his own Earthworks SR71 ... Interesting results, huh?
Click to expand...

Harvey,
I've got a lot of respect for you, so please don't take this the wrong way. But it seems to me that the test, while informative and interesting, needs a bit more to make it totally correct. I think you should also do a test with a full instrumental mix. I think that hearing vocals in context would provide an additional element to things that may affect the decisions. It may be more difficult to hear just the vocal, but it will certainly provide a bit more context for picking a mic. Just my 96 kHz.
 
PJ (if I may call you that), you certainly have a fine tenor voice.

As far as any microphone suggestions, listening only makes the RE20 and SM7 stronger picks for you than the 414 in my mind. They will complement your voice IMHO and lessen the ambient room sound.

Your song was the first MP3 I ever played on a computer BTW. Just got a new Mac recently with
itunes. (computer challenged here!)

Chris

P.S. Check your PM (private message box)
 
Last edited:
PersonalJesus said:
When you record backup vox of the same voice do you EQ each voice differenly or are all the voices pretty much EQed the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, Cavedog kinda' mentioned what he called "the unsightly buildup."

On the backup tracks, it's probably safest to submix them and treat them as one track. Although on the whisper tracks, you might want to mess around with them a little.

Also be careful what kind of mic you're using on the backup tracks. Something dark and basically non-sibilant is usually a good choice. Otherwise, the esses and consonants can pile up and create the unsighly buildup. -- Unless you purposely swallow them, which is unusually difficult to do, when you think about it.

I get the feeling Chessparov is trying to pimp something. :D Every other post he's PM'ing people. :D What you pimpin' there, Chris?
 
Rev E said:
Harvey,
I've got a lot of respect for you, so please don't take this the wrong way. But it seems to me that the test, while informative and interesting, needs a bit more to make it totally correct. I think you should also do a test with a full instrumental mix. I think that hearing vocals in context would provide an additional element to things that may affect the decisions. It may be more difficult to hear just the vocal, but it will certainly provide a bit more context for picking a mic. Just my 96 kHz.
Click to expand...
No disrespect perceived, Rev. In this case, he's not a newcomer to the music business, and he's got a few albums to his credits already. As most singers will tell you, they don't care much about the mix - they want their voice to be the star of the show.

It's the old joke about how many singers does it take to change a light bulb? Just one; they stand still, and the world revolves around them.
 
Chessrock, I resemble that remark.
Check your PM! (just kidding)

The last PM before this one was a "sleeper" gear suggestion for someone, and this one was an invite to croon a tune sometime with my weekly
a capella quartet chapter meeting.
(I live in Orange County, CA too)

You know I have a hard time staying on topic as it is...

Chris
 
Ahah! Busted. I knew you were hustlin.'

:D

You know you can't recommend sleeper gear without sharing with the rest of the class.
 
Harvey Gerst said:
No disrespect perceived, Rev. In this case, he's not a newcomer to the music business, and he's got a few albums to his credits already. As most singers will tell you, they don't care much about the mix - they want their voice to be the star of the show.

It's the old joke about how many singers does it take to change a light bulb? Just one; they stand still, and the world revolves around them.
Click to expand...

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