The best and accurate way is to use the right mic and preamp to fit the voice.
Some will use a ribbon mic others will use dynamic mics like the SM57 or SM7. But every voices are unique and require unique solutions.
I built a T47 from microphone-parts.com which have the sweetest highs.. I think the Roswell mini 47 also has that vintage thamed HF Vibe.

Over the years I've discovered that fixing in the mix isn't a good idea.
Also, we often make things worst while mixing and chasing for a sound the source isn't able to produce.
Please post a sample of a raw track so we can evalute where you're at. It'll be easier to give accurate advice.

pcrecord, post: 445549, member: 46460 wrote: The best and accurate way is to use the right mic and preamp to fit the voice.
Some will use a ribbon mic others will use dynamic mics like the SM57 or SM7. But every voices are unique and require unique solutions.
I built a T47 from microphone-parts.com which have the sweetest highs.. I think the Roswell mini 47 also has that vintage thamed HF Vibe.

Over the years I've discovered that fixing in the mix isn't a good idea.
Also, we often make things worst while mixing and chasing for a sound the source isn't able to produce.
Please post a sample of a raw track so we can evalute where you're at. It'll be easier to give accurate advice.

Appreciate! I"m just wondering: Does Strong/Hard compressed with auto-gain to -12/0 on vocal will caused the unsmooth (ears hurt) result?

mactreouser, post: 445550, member: 47968 wrote: Appreciate! I"m just wondering: Does Strong/Hard compressed with auto-gain to -12/0 on vocal will caused the unsmooth (ears hurt) result?

Usually not, unless you are using an emulation type compressor that has its own sound or if the compressor has an exciter.
I'm sure you can test without the compressor and check if the signal exhibit the same defects.
Microphones will also give different resuts depending on the distance and angle from the source, you could try signing at an angle from the capsule and see if it sounds better.

pcrecord, post: 445551, member: 46460 wrote: Usually not, unless you are using an emulation type compressor that has its own sound or if the compressor has an exciter.
I'm sure you can test without the compressor and check if the signal exhibit the same defects.
Microphones will also give different resuts depending on the distance and angle from the source, you could try signing at an angle from the capsule and see if it sounds better.

I see! I got your points!
This like most probably the way we sang with the angle of the Mics and the way we "mouth" the Ssss...Zzzzz... Am I correct? As well as the Character of the Mics!
So, any other issues that may probably caused the Unsmooth High? like... Audio Interface?

p/s: all recorded below/before "clip" and clean recording

The result of a recording can be affected by all the aspect in play ;
The room, instrument/performance, mic and placement, preamp, converters and also any other physical units on the signal path.

PS. I don't see the audio clip.
It should be converted to mp3 with max 320kb to be compatible with this forum...

mactreouser, post: 445547, member: 47968 wrote: Hi,
How to make a vocal's Hi-Mid to High frequency smooth and sweet during the process ?

Besides microphones and preamps, the quality of converter and sample rate is important too. Cheap converters do not deal with the upper freqs as well. Tin, glassy, sss, metallic, harsh comes to mind. Better tracking chain, less need for high frequency vocal processing tricks.

pcrecord, post: 445553, member: 46460 wrote: The result of a recording can be affected by all the aspect in play ;
The room, instrument/performance, mic and placement, preamp, converters and also any other physical units on the signal path.

PS. I don't see the audio clip.
It should be converted to mp3 with max 320kb to be compatible with this forum...

That's true!

audiokid, post: 445559, member: 1 wrote: Besides microphones and preamps, the quality of converter and sample rate is important too. Cheap converters do not deal with the upper freqs as well. Tin, glassy, sss, metallic, harsh comes to mind. Better tracking chain, less need for high frequency vocal processing tricks.

Thank you for your precious patience upon my question!

1) Higher Sample Rate (like 88.1khz) better/smoother Ssss or Shhhh ? I'm still with 44.1khz, but in 24bit
2) Cheap Converters - Is this means stand alone converter instead of Audio Interface? So, Entry Level Audio Interfaces (like Zoom, MobilePre, Scarlett...) might not comes out a quality Sibilance? Everything will be good on Higher End ones?
3) Does Dynamic Mic solves the Sibilance Smoother (the Mixed Use of Large Diaphragm Condenser & Dynamic Mics) ?

mactreouser, post: 445565, member: 47968 wrote: Thank you for your precious patience upon my question!

you are welcome, and it's a pleasure

mactreouser, post: 445565, member: 47968 wrote: 1) Higher Sample Rate (like 88.1khz) better/smoother Ssss or Shhhh ? I'm still with 44.1khz, but in 24bit

yes.
However....
Better converters "convert all sample rates smoother. Which means, better converters sound better at 44.1.
Better converters deal with transients "smoother". They also sound fuller, more open and cleaner, true, > smooth. :)
But, this doesn't mean we should all go out and buy the most expensive converters either. Its simply the truth between "good, better best" and why some engineers invest in better converters, like myself.
I invest in excellent converters so my vocals, instrumentation, mix has the best chance with all mics or preamps I use. I also want the best for my clients. And finally, its easier to mix music that has a clearer, less problematic image.

mactreouser, post: 445565, member: 47968 wrote: 2) Cheap Converters - Is this means stand alone converter instead of Audio Interface? So, Entry Level Audio Interfaces (like Zoom, MobilePre, Scarlett...) might not comes out a quality Sibilance? Everything will be good on Higher End ones?

absolutely. However, lets not be confused with the interface of these converters you mention. Interface has nothing to do with the sound of the Analog side of the converter. At least to my understanding. Interface has the analog information already "converted" to digital.

mactreouser, post: 445565, member: 47968 wrote: 3) Does Dynamic Mic solves the Sibilance Smoother (the Mixed Use of Large Diaphragm Condenser & Dynamic Mics) ?

No but it may sound better for you and/your converters (dynamic microphones are less sensitive to fast transients and don't have the high frequency response of the condenser variety.) They are less "effected" by room acoustics, proximity between you and your room "walls, ceiling etc". Or, simply put.... a dynamic mic may fit your preamp, voice, room better for the application at the time.

Dynamic mic for vocals may be a better choice for poor acoustics, live band to name a few reasons. http://recording.org/threads/dynamic-microphone.45939/

audiokid, post: 445566, member: 1 wrote: you are welcome, and it's a pleasure

yes.
However....
Better converters "convert all sample rates smoother. Which means, better converters sound better at 44.1.
Better converters deal with transients "smoother". They also sound fuller, more open and cleaner, true, > smooth. :)
But, this doesn't mean we should all go out and buy the most expensive converters either. Its simply the truth between "good, better best" and why some engineers invest in better converters, like myself.
I invest in excellent converters so my vocals, instrumentation, mix has the best chance with all mics or preamps I use. I also want the best for my clients. And finally, its easier to mix music that has a clearer, less problematic image.

absolutely. However, lets not be confused with the interface of these converters you mention. Interface has nothing to do with the sound of the Analog side of the converter. At least to my understanding. Interface has the analog information already "converted" to digital.

No but it may sound better for you and/your converters (dynamic microphones are less sensitive to fast transients and don't have the high frequency response of the condenser variety.) They are less "effected" by room acoustics, proximity between you and your room "walls, ceiling etc". Or, simply put.... a dynamic mic may fit your preamp, voice, room better for the application at the time.

Dynamic mic for vocals may be a better choice for poor acoustics, live band to name a few reasons. http://recording.org/threads/dynamic-microphone.45939/

Wow... Once again, Thanks a lot for your patience and it's really useful to me!
However, after these years of working on indie project, I started sort out / realized / noticed the obviously Pretty Sounds mentioning above, and now, I would like to do something to "upgrade" my sound quality for Recording, yet on the Mixing stage too!

As your precious opinions, how should I spend a little small amount to enhance the quality at the moment? (my setup just as simple as Mic - Audio Interfact - DAW) Shall I grab an AD/DA Converter? I found this Behringer ADA8200 but unfortunately it's out of stock!

What's your advice or suggestions?

mactreouser, post: 445572, member: 47968 wrote: As your precious opinions, how should I spend a little small amount to enhance the quality at the moment? (my setup just as simple as Mic - Audio Interfact - DAW) Shall I grab an AD/DA Converter? I found this Behringer ADA8200 but unfortunately it's out of stock!

It's hard to decide on the next unit without having the whole plan and needs you have.
In any case the ADA8200 isn't a high end pre/converter. I don't think it's better than a Scarlett or other affordable interfaces.

The best quality would be achieve with some boutique preamps and highend converters, but as a compromise there is audio interfaces that give better overall quality while opening futur upgrades.
If you go for an RME or Anteloppe or Universal audio or Audient or Apogee : those will be a step up from a Zoom or scarlett.
I love RME because their real time mixer and drivers are the best I worked with.
An RME UFX would be my first choice if I was starting off with the knowledge I have today. It has honest preamps and good converters and also good connectivity for futur upgrades.
OR
If I was planning only signing or voice over, I'd go with a highend preamp like the Focusrite ISA 430 with the digital option card and any affordable interface with a matching digital input.