Sound so different with different mics.

[kickingtone]

Hi, I need some help please from anyone who understands "head tones".

 

I think that all the mics I have been practising with, so far, have been for speaking/podcasts, rather than singing. The feedback I have been getting from clips I have posted is that my "head tones" are weak or that my tone is dark

 

Just out of curiosity, I was messing around recording on a spare mic from a cheap £4 headset. The result does sound different to me. I am wondering if the head tones are coming through OK when I use this mic? Here's a clip. The bass tones are worse than my main mic (the spare mic is tiny), but I am more curious about the head tones.

 

http://soundcloud.com/kickingtone/mitm007le

 

Can equipment be responsible for weak sounding head tones?

[richardkim_co]

I use a compressor to keep the vocal volume consistent and it does a great job of amplifying head tones.

 

Most external multiband professional compressors are pricey so perhaps you can find a consumer grade one?

[kickingtone]

I use a compressor to keep the vocal volume consistent and it does a great job of amplifying head tones.

 

Most external multiband professional compressors are pricey so perhaps you can find a consumer grade one?

 

That's cheating!

 

(It is fine for production, but not OK when you are learning to sing, as I am.)

[highmtn]

@kickingtone

 

When you sing, you are singing with a dark tone. You've probably heard the term "covered sound"? Covered sound or "rounded tones" happen when you sing with a round-shape, allowing the lips to cover the teeth.

 

You can control the tone of the voice in many ways, by adjusting where you direct the "beam" of sound to go within your vocal tract, and by adjusting the position of the soft palate, whether your teeth are bared, or covered, whether you sing with a big smile, raised cheeks, how much breath support you uses, etc.

 

A mic WILL make a difference in how a recording sounds, but remember: If the original sound is not optimal, the recorded sound will be affected most by the original sound, as opposed to the mic.

 

Yes, you can use a junky mic that will make most things sound junky, or a sparkly mic that makes most things sound all sparkly... But in all things, try to adjust your voice first.

 

The style of music you sing can sound covered intentionally, and if that is the sound you want or like, there is nothing wrong with that.

 

By adjusting the position of the various components of your vocal instrument you can effect the tone, the quality, and the texture of your voice. You can experiment with positioning your tongue, opening your throat wider, aiming the sound at your teeth or hard palate, or at the soft palate, at a point beyond your upper lip beneath your nose, etc. These adjustments can act as an "E.Q." to the tone of your voice.

 

Adjust these things first, then compare various microphones. Go for what YOU like. If you like it, it's good for you.

 

All the Best!

 

 

Bob

[kickingtone]

Adjust these things first' date=' then compare various microphones. Go for what YOU like. If you like it, it's good for you.[/quote']

 

Hi, highmtn.

 

I'm OK with DARK (in fact, I prefer dark), but I don't want a type of dark that is a side effect of "weak" or "thin".

 

I created the two clips below on two different cheap £4 headsets. Then I added standard reverb in Audacity, and I am OK with the result.

 

My thinking is that, if i upgrade to the correct decent mic., it'll sound like this and I won't have to add the reverb.

 

Trouble is, getting a mic that doesn't faff around too much with the tone, or boost the base and kill the overtones, like my podcast mic seems to.

 

What I am looking to eradicate is "weak", "thin" or "swallowed". Would any of those terms apply to these clips?

 

http://soundcloud.com/kickingtone/btpmf010lv

 

http://soundcloud.com/kickingtone/tsib004lv

 

A mic WILL make a difference in how a recording sounds' date=' but remember: If the original sound is not optimal, the recorded sound will be affected most by the original sound, as opposed to the mic.[/quote']

 

Trouble is that there seems to be a MASSIVE difference between the mics.

 

I made the mistake of buying a mic just because it interfaced easily with my laptop. At a mere £40, I figured that it had to be better all round than the < £5 stuff I'd been using. And it most likely is, for the right application.

 

Just recently, I recorded using the £4 headset. When I put the headset down, I could still clearly hear the notes I had been singing. Not so with the £40 mic! With the earphones just a couple of feet away, all I can hear is a general cackle!

 

I looked at the frequency trace in Audacity, and there is a MASSIVE difference. The dirt cheap mic has a pretty normal trace. The £40 seems to have an humongous boost in the low frequency range, and is attenuated in the 3kHz area. I did a thread on that strange trace a while back.

 

I wondering if the mic (which is primarily for podcasting) is just a BAD IDEA for singing, especially for a dark timbre. (It has been helpful in one way, in that it has forced me to really explore my tone.

 

There seems to be so much equipment around these days that boosts low frequencies.

 

All the Best!

 

 

Bob

 

Thanks.

 

 

[WRGKMC]

There are differences in mics but you have to look at a much bigger picture. An experienced singer is much less influenced by any particular mic. His singing skills are refined and he doesn't let the sound quality he hears recording influence his singing skills like a beginner might. An experienced singer will likely know how to project his voice under all kinds of poor conditions, on stage where he hears mostly side cabinet boom, poor sound system, poor quality mics, bad room acoustics etc, yet he will still maintain his voice quality.

 

One of the biggest issues with tracking is the headphones you use. They are in fact more important then most mics. Unless your ears are hearing what's truly being picked up by a mic, your not going to be able to "work" a mic properly. For example, consumer grade headphones often have scooped mids and enhanced low end. A singer will adapt to what he hears and since the proximity effect of many microphones causes an increase in bass as you get closer, the singer will back off farther then they should to reduce the bass. This can cause the voice to wind up sounding thin instead of thick and lush.

 

Other headphones may also have a high end boost. The singer again places himself on the mic to avoid this high end response and he wind up with a recording that lacks treble. You see, whatever the mic and headphones have too much of, the singer attempts to adapt to and winds up with too little. If the headphones lack mids the singer will try and project more mids with his voice and when that recordings played back on other speakers, he will have too much mids and not enough highs and lows.

 

This problem can be compounded because these peaks and valleys can occur from the headphones and/or the mic

 

The key here is to get headphones that have a very flat response. This way you only have the mic to deal with. Its even better when the mic and headphones both have a flat response but this can be even more difficult to work with. Most people get used to having some EQing from a mic and work with that shaping when singing.

 

So long as the mic peaks are in the right places and complement the singers voice, there's nothing wrong with a mic that colors a voice is a positive way. Its ultra important that the singer does hear the true response of that mic however. All of his vocal decisions are based on what he hears. You already have to deal with hearing your own voice directly and indirectly. Allot of what you hear as bass tones comes from the direct larynx vibrations through your skull to your ears. Putting headphones on is allot like sticking your fingers in your ears and hearing skull vibrations only which is mostly bass tones. If the headphone frequencies are wrong all of your singing techniques will shift as you attempt to sound normal with what you hear.

 

There is allot you can do after recording using EQ's compressors etc to correct these abnormal shifts. It takes allot of experience getting it right but you'll always get better results if your tracks are optimal to begin with.

 

As I said, and experienced singer is much less likely to let what he's hearing influence his tonal range but even they can benefit from quality monitoring. Small details come through better, you have better dynamics and you're inspired to sing better when it sounds good.

 

Of course mixing on decent studio monitors is just as important, and it all comes down to how the voice sounds in a mix with other instruments. Often times what you hear solo may sound totally different in a mix. Solo you tend to adjust a wider frequency response to fill the speakers from top to bottom. In a mix, no two instruments can fill the same frequency ranges or you have masking. Vocal frequencies are often carefully carved out in the mix. Highs that may clash with cymbals may be rolled off, Mids may be sculpted around the snare and guitars, Bass may be completely rolled off below 200hz so they don't interfere with the kick and bass.

 

This is why you want to track with w wider frequency range with minimum coloration. You may not know what actually needs to be EQed to make it sound good in a mix until you're well into completing that mix.

[kickingtone]

Thanks, WRGKMC. You explained that so well!

 

Here is my plan:

 

1. Get no frills mic and headphones with FLAT response.

 

2. Learn to sing listening to mic feedback.

 

3. Back off the correct distance from the mic.

 

Right now, I am singing blind into the mic, so I will have to figure out how to set it up with headphones.

 

This is the mic I am using. It is a podcast mic. You reckon that it should be good for singing with some practice?

 

http://www.podcastadvice.co.uk/prosound-usb-podcast-mic-reviewed/

 

 

I don't understand why it is so much worse than a £4 mic, unless it is not meant for singing.

[davie]

I tend to have the opposite issue from you. Since I have a lot of high overtones in my voice, a lot of mics tend to sound overly bright. My main advice would be to base your singing more on sensation rather than sound. Gauging your singing through sensation is the only way to truly reach the optimum projection and sonic balance. Using subpar microphones or audio equipment could also yield unsatisfying results as well. Its true that cheap mics won't give you a transparent sound because they aren't designed to handle a wide range of frequencies well. Even if you just use a SM58, it should give you pretty accurate sound. If you are planning to buy a new microphone, then I would take a close look at the specs and the frequency response graph. For example, if the singer needs more warmth in their voice then look for a mic that emphasizes the low-mid range, same applies to the opposite, a singer who needs more brightness, clarity or airiness should go with something that emphasizes the higher range more.

[WRGKMC]

^^ Most dynamic stage mics should do a fair job frequency wise, but they also have a proximity effect. A condenser will pick up a fairly flat response whether you're near of farther back from the mic.

 

This is where two different avenues of training come into play.

 

People who play in bands and use stage mics learn how to "work a mic" to get their voice to project. When they sing softly and get close to a mic the sound gets louder and has more highs and lows. Its sounds bigger. When they belt out a note you'll see a lead singer move the mic farther back to maintain the proper volume level and prevent overpowering the mic.

 

Most large diaphragm Studio Condensers and pod mics have very little difference in volume or frequency response. When I have them going in my studio I can hear myself rubbing my shirt from 5 feet away and though it has a sweet spot of maybe a foot from the mic, they are extremely forgiving. Someone with little or no micing techniques can get away with murder. If they move around or don't know how to project their voice its still going to do a fair job. In fact someone with good miking skills has to throw most of them out the window which can be very difficult for someone used to performing live. They are so used to using the mic to their advantage. Loosing that control can be very annoying in fact.

 

I know when I first started using condensers I had to completely retrain myself to sing through them.

 

Later I found the best option for me was a hand held condenser. I could work it like a dynamic mic yet get the full response of a condenser. It has some proximity response but not as shallow as a dynamic.

 

People do tend to do the best with what they got. I used so many bad mics and bad PA systems growing up. I know it stunted my ability to be as good as I could have been. I pushed my voice to sound good through bad gear and I did more herm then good. I did learn to work a mic very well however and can do stuff that's at least mediocre. My recordings wouldn't impress a really good singer but I'm not going to be making people stick their fingers in their ears either.

 

I'm more of a live showman and I know how to work a crowd when I sing. I have a heightened sense of my surroundings and can visualize how people are hearing me from the back of the room. I know how to work with a rooms resonance and reflections as through the entire room is a reverb chamber and you project your tones to excite the vibrations in the room. This is not something you pick up overnight. You have to have played many different clubs and concerts to even understand it no less make it work for you. Echo/reverb units can help, but they are not three dimensional. Its not like you're having sound come back at you from across the room with a different tone.

 

If course knowing the speed of that reflection and timing your music to it is the key to getting people excited. Working your voice into that live sound is only part of it but a very big part. Its funny how many people have come up to me and said I actually sing well. I know its my ability as an illusionist at work which is all that really matters.

[kickingtone]

I tried out a small condenser mic recently. I won't be buying one of those! It was picking up everything, and the reverb was madness, even in the worst room for reverb.

 

I'm going to try to get hold of an SM58 to test it out.

[Chordptrn]

 

Condensors have a proximity effect. High passing can reduce it.Listen to a radio announcer on FM radio

[davie]

Typically, small condenser mics aren't meant for vocals. You would think they're a good choice since many of them have a pretty flat and even frequency response, but I have tried one on vocals before and the results were just "okay". The main issues with using a SDC is the high sensitivity. Plosives and pops would pick up very easily even with a pop filter. Some vocal overtones might be overemphasized as well.

 

Not only do condensers have proximity effect but pretty much most mics with a cardioid pickup pattern will to some degree. This includes both condensers and dynamic mics, such as the SM58. The SM58 is really versatile mic, you can't go wrong with it in most cases. Kickingtone, though from your recordings I've heard, I think a large-diaphragm condenser might be the best choice for you. They generally help give more openness to darker-sounding voices.