What factor/element punches a mic through a mix?

[bcfromfl]

I just purchased a new MikTek CV4 tube/transformer LDC to replace my KSM32. Among the differences between the mics is the result of now having vocals sit nicely ahead of the mix, while the Shure sounded like I was singing in the distance behind other tracks, no matter what degree of post-processing I used.

Miktek provides an individual response curve for each of their mics they sell, and I see that the CV4 has a subtle boost from 1K up. I suppose that might be part of what I'm noticing, but I could EQ the KSM32 as well and not get the results I'm hearing. The level I'm using through my Apogee Duet is essentially the same for both mics. I'm guessing that much of the CV4's magic comes from the transformer, but I don't understand how it could cause such a striking difference. Maybe the transformer is boosting the volume level beyond what I'm used to from the KSM32 on my virtual mixing board (Logic Pro), and an identical actual volume from the KSM32 would sit similarly in the mix? Of course, then I'd have harshness and "brittleness" to contend with. The CV4 is truly a silky mic by comparison.

The sensitivity of the CV4 is amazing as well -- I could sing without a pop filter when using the KSM32...but not any more! The soft expressions I can now evoke add a rich element to my recordings.

Anyone wanna buy a Shure?

Thanks in advance for your input.

-Bruce

 

[moresound]

You do get what you pay for right bcfromfl?

 

[bcfromfl]

Absolutely...I'm just wondering what that "je ne sais quois" is exactly that separates the sound quality from the two condensers, and produces the marked difference. I don't have any audio engineering background, but I thought with a better understanding of this my recordings could possibly benefit.

-Bruce

 

[moresound]

Well you now own a tube mic right? with variable polar patterns ....what pattern are you using?

 

[bcfromfl]

I have the KSM32/CG, which is cardioid-only, of course, and I found that of the nine patterns available on the CV4, I got the results I'm looking for with their cardioid setting as well.

I know...seems like a waste with all those great patterns to choose from...

-Bruce

 

[moresound]

One day you'll use more patterns!
The tube and the mic circuitry will have a lot to do with how well your new mic is sounding compared to the Shure.

 

[bcfromfl]

Thanks for your optimism! I've read about folks turning their mics every which way to improve things, and perhaps if I turned the CV4 sideways I could engage both capsules with another pattern and get something nice. Don't have time to experiment right now...

-Bruce

 

[moresound]

When you do have time.... experiment with that mic and get to know it inside and out!

 

[bcfromfl]

Will do. Thanks!

-Bruce

 

[mshilarious]

The KSM32 was mostly designed as an instrument mic, basically flat response, not too large of a diaphragm. Also, Shure likes several layers of grille to protect against spittle.

I don't know your new mic, but if the transformer saturates at all, that creates harmonic distortion, but generally only on low frequencies. Makes things sound thicker. Also, the transient response of the diaphragm will be slower, which makes things mellow.

Finally, the obvious factor that punches a mic through a mix is Chuck Norris singing. With his fists

 

[bcfromfl]

Ha -- the Chuckie Norris approach to recording...

Thanks mshilarious for those observations. I suspected there was more in that Shure grille, but when I held the two against a light source, it wasn't tremendously different.

The proximity effect is very apparent and heavy with the KSM32, and at first when I was comparing the two, I thought, that sounds really cool. But it didn't take long for the KSM32 to start "wearing" on me, and the harshness (maybe higher frequency stuff?) began making the vocals unpleasant. My wife helped me compare the two, and her comment was that the CV4 was "gentler" -- even at identical volume levels. It can still be punchy and dramatic, but smoother. I'm not noticing any significant bass enhancement, at least not to the degree of the proximity effect from the KSM32. As you noted, there must be some conditioning of the transients going on.

I can't describe how different, and nicely, the vocals just sit right out in front, like they're suspended from a cloud...

Sweetwater did a comparison with the CV4 against the Avantone CV-12, MA-200, Neumann u87 I think, and a custom Bock 151, and all the engineers preferred the CV4. (The rep I purchased it from, also an engineer, was present at the test.) I know that sounds like hype, and I don't have any way of evaluating their test to dispute it...but this mic sure is nice. Wish I knew more about mics and recording to really get the most out of it.

-Bruce

 

[dgatwood]

There's not a single factor. It's a combination of things.

The KSM32, AFAIK, is fairly flat. Things won't jump out in a mix, but they won't be emphasized, either. For instrumental recording, that's probably what you want. For voice, not so much, generally speaking, unless your vocalist has a harsh voice, in which case it might tame it a little.

I like explaining by extreme example, so I'll use an SM57/58 as an example of how not to bring something forward in a mix, and if you want to actually bring something forward, just do everything opposite.

First, there's the high frequency roll off. An SM57/58 is always going to sound dull on vocals, which tends to make you focus on it less. The high frequency roll off starts down at around 12 kHz, which means various high frequency components of the voice (sibilance in particular) are missing. (Your KSM32 doesn't have this problem, though a slight boost at the top might bring some things out.)

Second, a lot of mics have a bump in the upper mids (referred to as a "presence peak" that brings out the sparkle in vocals. In the SM57/58, it's too high in frequency, occurring right before the roll off, up near 12 kHz. (Your KSM32 is the opposite of this---too much of a peak, which can make voices sound harsh as a result; they'll seem to stand out in the mix at first listen, but on a dense mix, it won't come through because the presence peak is too high and too narrow.)

Third, the low end is emphasized from about 60 Hz to about 300 Hz, which means even without adding any proximity effect, it sounds boomy. Bring it closed, and this is accentuated. (Your KSM32 starts out flat, but is still more prone to proximity effect than large diaphragm condensers such as your new mic.)

The net result of this is that an SM57/58 sounds like you'd expect a mic to sound with massively scooped mids, a uselessly high presence peak, and no real high frequency response to speak of. Tracks recorded like that tend to bury themselves in the mix. (Your KSM32 neither buries nor brings out tracks, by contrast.)

So to get more presence of a vocal in the mix, try several things:

1. Experiment with adding a presence peak somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-5 kHz. Move it around to suit, widen the peak to suit, etc.
2. Add a little top end emphasis with a shelving EQ.
3. Roll off the bottom end.
4. Finally, add dynamic compression to the resulting EQed track. Your tube mic might be doing a little of this by its nature, depending on how it was designed, and that by itself would make a track seem to sit forward in the mix.

Clear as mud?

 

[bcfromfl]

Thanks very much, dgatwood, for taking the time to explain all that -- it's very helpful! Interesting that you identified and described the harshness from the KSM32 that I've noted.

I've read about the various "presence boosts" that some mics have, which is why I was a little surprised to see that the CV4 has a boost from 1K all the way up to 15-17K. Perhaps this is to help compensate for a tendency in the other direction. But, it's extremely well balanced, and I wouldn't use the words "overly bright" to describe it by any stretch of the imagination. Very sensitive, and somewhat sibilant, but not like other mics I've heard. With my voice, "S's" and "P's" don't seem to be much of an issue (since adding the pop filter), but I do have to be careful of "T's" at the end of some words.

My voice requires a lot of compression and limiting, so I use that liberally, and I also roll off the bottom end. (Even when I did this with the KSM32, though, it still resulted in my vocals remaining buried.) In some of my recordings with just a solo piano, I've been experimenting EQing the piano down in that 2-5K range, to avoid masking issues with my voice. Perhaps a better approach would be to boost the vocal, but I guess I didn't try that because I'd thought it would make my voice unnatural-sounding. Sounds like if I keep it in moderation, it'll be OK.

Also, depending upon what kind of reverb I choose, and how wet I make it, changes EVERYTHING. So much to know! I'm grateful that the CV4 is so outstanding that I can make great recordings despite knowing so little!

I wish I knew as much as you guys, but I also know that understanding has come from years and years, and thousands of tracks!

Thanks again!

-Bruce

 

[oretez]

There's not a single factor. It's a combination of things.

Have not auditioned MikTeks yet but they are definitely on the horizon

as to how they compare with other mics as to what 'punching through' the mix might be is largely subjective

but some of things you described about what your vocals 'need' suggest that you didn't quite give the KSM32 appropriate ground on which to work

but while I think the KSM32/44's are decent entry level workhorse mics I would hope that the MikTek's are going to be a step (at least above) and for a well made (or even a poorly made) mic everything: grill capsule tube (or fet) transformer and circuitry that ties it together all can contribute to a distinct sound

that you have found a decent mike that supports your voice is great (and your interaction with it actually encourages me to step up audition (though for any number of reasons you might not find complimentary))