Right mic and set-up for classical vocals?

[kickingtone]

WARNING: If you've come here from another forum, but you don't like vocalists, it's your own doing! Don't start fuming about "clickbait"!

 

I've just realized that because classical vocals are about working the environment, and contemporary vocals are about directly working the mic, the recording methods are completely different.

 

So, what happens if you borrow some classical techniques when learning to sing contemporary style? This is what I have done. I don't sing classical style, but I have found certain technical aspects of it provide a good foundation for contemporary style. This has impacted the way my vocals tend to record.

 

I discovered a while back that I have to back way off the mic to record my voice and/or not sing directly at the mic. At first, I did think that it must be something weird about the mic, and I started researching different mics. Then it occurred to me to find out about "recording classical singing".

 

Good old YouTube! I did a search for "recording classical singing" but could find nothing satisfactory. Then, a couple of days later, this pops up in my recommended list!.

 

I recall being recommended a condenser mic, and that is starting to make sense, too.

 

Interesting video...

 

[video=youtube;IeeSqtsE7Eg]

[davie]

I find that small diaphragm condenser mics generally work best with classically-trained voices. SDC mics are usually very neutral sounding, accurate and have good transient response. I mainly sing pop/contemporary style but using a classically-based technique (Swedish-Italian) and in my own experience SDCs and dynamic mics tend to work best for me. If the vocals are leaning a bit to a edgy rock style then I might opt for a dynamic mic like a Shure SM7B. However mic selection is very individual and voice-specific, not all mics suit all voices, it comes down to what fits right with your own voice. For example, large diaphragm condensers are some of the most commonly used mics for recordists but they usually don't go well with my vocals because the presence boost in many LDCs overemphasize the higher overtones and causes the recording to sound distorted. Mic recording techniques might be another factor as well, try experimenting with different mic positions before doing anything else. Sometimes a minor adjustment can go a long way.

 

What mic are you currently using?

[kickingtone]

What mic are you currently using?

 

(Thanks. I'll definitely be checking out the difference between small and large diaphragm condenser mics.)

 

Right now, I use a very cheap dynamic mic with cardiod pickup. But that is OK, I sort of bought a cheap mic deliberately for training. For example, it has such a poor response that it forced me to better project my voice. I was struggling to get a decent signal out of it until I discovered the classical mask. Now I have to back off the mic at least a foot, or sing away from it.

 

Working up from cheap mics like that has really helped me to appreciate specifically what better quality mics have to offer. Trying to get a cheap mic to do what it can't do well helps me to maximize my own effort and get a sense of how much better a superior mic is, instead of a woolly indoctrinated sense that it "sounds great".

 

Biggest problem for me right now is the low frequency stuff. The contemporary style buzz or fry for low frequency notes seems to be more mic friendly than the classical style "boom" on low notes, even though boom is a bigger sound and projects more. I guess the real amplification on the boom comes from environmental feedback. It is designed to reach the furthest seats in an auditorium, whereas low buzz/vocal fry is such a "small" sound that it can't reach even the first row without a mic.

 

But on a sub-optimally configured mic (or just the wrong mic?), it appears to be the other way round. The buzz comes through easily, and the boom can almost vanish, especially if you do not have decent speakers or phones to listen back with.

 

I like the contrast between a more classical sounding "cry" or "call" and the classical "boom". I think that it can be used in contemporary vocals to give a percussive effect, or tension and release effect.

 

I try to do that in the following clip. The repeated word "through" is supposed to carry the percussive "boom" and finally the release effect. But I don't think that my mic is picking it up at all well, even though I am fairly convinced that I am projecting it.

 

 

For contrast, here it is using an even worse mic. The contrast has been thoroughly flattened.

 

 

I don't even know if the difference is noticeable without the correct speakers or phones.

 

 

 

[davie]

I think you're getting a decent sound in the first clip. The true test of how well a mic performs is how well the recording will fit into a full mix. Also, expensive doesn't necessarily equate to being "better", it just depends on if it suits the voice for a specific song. I've gotten passable results from a $15 dynamic mic before, so you never know. lol

[davie]

How would I work out which type of microphone would suit my voice then?

 

It really depends. But for the style of music you want to sing, I think a dynamic mic like Shure Sm57 might do well. It's a mic used by many rock singers.

[kickingtone]

I think you're getting a decent sound in the first clip. The true test of how well a mic performs is how well the recording will fit into a full mix. Also' date=' expensive doesn't necessarily equate to being "better", it just depends on if it suits the voice for a specific song. I've gotten passable results from a $15 dynamic mic before, so you never know. lol[/quote']

 

If I sing right up close to the mic, I get a decent, workable proximity effect. A few inches back, and I get a very dry but reasonably clear sound. Further back, as in that first clip, and it starts to pick up some of the ambience (which is what I want), but at the expense of quite a bit of clarity. That is the problem. I think that a more sensitive mic wouldn't lose so much clarity at a distance of just one or two feet. I'm greedy, I want the ambience and the clarity.

 

(I do know that contemporary recording techniques involve dry recordings that shut out the ambience.)

 

I looked up reviews for the mic, and several commented on the lack of clarity and sensitivity. So, it is unlikely to be a problem with the particular set-up I am using.

 

I'll definitely keep it as a training mic, though. It's been great for that. And it has a rugged build. Hasn't tipped over even once since I bought it.

 

The second clip mic sounds really plastic, and it is! For comparison, I would guess that the first clip is 3/4 of the way to clarity. But it's all in my imagination right now!

 

 

[davie]

 

If I sing right up close to the mic, I get a decent, workable proximity effect. A few inches back, and I get a very dry but reasonably clear sound. Further back, as in that first clip, and it starts to pick up some of the ambience (which is what I want), but at the expense of quite a bit of clarity. That is the problem. I think that a more sensitive mic wouldn't lose so much clarity at a distance of just one or two feet. I'm greedy, I want the ambience and the clarity.

 

(I do know that contemporary recording techniques involve dry recordings that shut out the ambience.)

 

I looked up reviews for the mic, and several commented on the lack of clarity and sensitivity. So, it is unlikely to be a problem with the particular set-up I am using.

 

I'll definitely keep it as a training mic, though. It's been great for that. And it has a rugged build. Hasn't tipped over even once since I bought it.

 

The second clip mic sounds really plastic, and it is! For comparison, I would guess that the first clip is 3/4 of the way to clarity. But it's all in my imagination right now!

 

 

IMO, I think its more important to capture the clarity of a vocal performance over the ambience or room sound. Even if you make a dry recording you can always add reverb in post-processing. There are also other methods of getting the natural ambience into a recording such as dual miking a close-far pair of microphones, one mic close to the vocalist and another mic at a distance, then blend the two together.

[davie]

 

do you think that mic is best for pop songs as well?

I mean are you saying its more to do with the inderviduals voice type or the style of music they will be singing. or if we look at it in a more tecnical angle, vocal mode petagogy.

thing such as chest, head voice mix K megister, fesetto, twan and just plain nutural opera and sound color as well

 

Yeah, I think a SM57 is a completely acceptable microphone for pop songs too. It's one of the most versatile mics out there.

[Mr.Grumpy]

Davie, do you really mean the SM57 and not the SM58?

 

The Shure SM57 and SM 58 both use the same mic 'capsule', but the SM 58 is intended for vocal use and has the built in ball pop filter. The SM 57 is intended for recording and amplifying of instruments, but can also be used as a vocal microphone as long as one takes care not to sing/speak "plosive" sounds into the mic at close range.

 

I've seen old footage of the rock/blues band Cream where Jack Bruce was singing into an SM 57, and he has an awesome singing voice.

 

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\tsm58-vs-sm57.jpg Views:\t1 Size:\t53.7 KB ID:\t32475761","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"32475761","data-size":"full","title":"sm58-vs-sm57.jpg"}[/ATTACH]

[davie]

Davie, do you really mean the SM57 and not the SM58?

 

I think either one would do fine. Both are pretty similar. Many rock singers have used both mics, even on studio recordings. I think SM57 might be more common in some circles because most recording studios always have a few of them due to their multiple applications (eg. drums and guitar amps). Whereas at live venues the SM58 seems to be more common.

[CosmicDolphin]

is this the industry standard mic? is it suited to live perfomances or recording?

 

Live really..as they are cheap and fairly indestructable although you can get a certain sound with them in the studio too. There's quite a pronounced presence boost from 3k upwards which helps singer to cut through a live mix. The Beta 58 is a more sensisitve version of the mic with a super-cardoid pickup pattern so it has better off axis rejection ( i.e. it won't pick up so much spill from the rest of the band )

 

You always want a 58 in you mic bag if you are engineering but for a home studio where you will only have a mic or two I'd opt for a large diagphram condenser like the the Rode NT-1 for vocals and then probably an SM57 if you are micing up guitar cabs.

[CosmicDolphin]

Your the sound engineer, so can I ask, what do you think the quality of the recording would be like if you recorded off of a SM58 mic? (through a mixer)

 

It will be okay, it just depends on what you are recording - there are other mic's that are more versatile if you are only having one in your home studio. LIke the NT-1 I mentioned.

 

The only mic I kept when I sold all my gear was my AT4040 which is a decent large Diaphragm Condenser without breaking the bank but it works well on vocals and gutars which is mostly what I record - I woudln't use a 58 for recording my acoustic guitar for example. But it could be an option if someone was singing like a male rock vocalist. It's horses for courses really.

 

I have owned various mics over the years.

 

AKG C1000 ( these are £100 now and the going rate was £399 in about 91 when I got mine ! )

AKG C3000

AKG D112

Electrovoice RE20 ( this is a great dynamic mic if you can afford it )

SM57

SM58

Beta 58

MM-1 ( measurement mic )

PZM's x 2 ( stil got those somewhere )

AT4040

 

The all have their uses but when I quit gigging I sold most of my outboard and bought a more compact setup for making music at home.

[kickingtone]

 

IMO, I think its more important to capture the clarity of a vocal performance over the ambience or room sound. Even if you make a dry recording you can always add reverb in post-processing. There are also other methods of getting the natural ambience into a recording such as dual miking a close-far pair of microphones, one mic close to the vocalist and another mic at a distance, then blend the two together.

 

I think I will go for a better mic. If that doesn't do the job, I'll try the two mic solution.

 

The problem I think with adding reverb post-process is that it gets applied uniformly. It doesn't vary in a natural way. So much of musical expression and emphasis comes from variation. Reverb can be added to get a bigger or fuller sound, but classical techniques are supposed to do that anyway, through working the environment, instead of curtaining it off.

[CosmicDolphin]

 

What did you used to gig?

 

Engineered for a 10 piece Funk/Rock band

 

[CosmicDolphin]

 

The problem I think with adding reverb post-process is that it gets applied uniformly. It doesn't vary in a natural way..

 

Lol, natural way = ruining it with whatever terrible room reverb you have. And you will have a terrible sounding space in any domestic situation. Unless you live in Abbey Road or something.

 

You could get a more natural sound from a free reverb plugin than anything you could record yourself unless you really know what you're doing , and have a matched pair of decent mics..and a great sounding space.

 

[CosmicDolphin]

 

Why did you pack it in?

 

Not getting signed, band splitting up , starting a family etc.