The mic just may not be a good match for your voice. It doesn't mean the mic is junk or that you're not a good singer - it just might not be a good mic for you. Is there anybody that would let you demo or borrow some other mics to try?

What mic do you use on stage? I'd start there.

Onstage I use an SM58. I have an SM57 I can dig out (I always use a double mesh pop filter.) I'll try that!

Thanks for your reply.

Could it be the pop filter? I mean I kind of doubt it. But I have to use it - I can pop out windows with my plosives! LOL!

I would try the SM58 for the studio vocals instead of the MXL 990. It will probably give you the result you are looking for, or at least would give you a good indication of whether it's the mic or your technique that needs further attention.

I'm trying out my SM57 as we speak (read?).

It does make a big difference, and I'm liking it on my Vox. I'm also doing my tube trick and am recording straight SM57 and tube SM57. I've uncovered so many new tone possibilities, now I have to ask the "forbidden question":

How do I get "that sound"?

I hear country music singers with this deep booming bass that is obviously boosted. But it is never overboard; it is tight and controlled. Multi band compressor, perhaps?

Since I have no choice but to record the tube effect, should I add any emphasis to certain freqs? Drive the tube harder? Compress before the tube? I'm using an old Art SGX2000 which is a multi effects device with front panel and programmable eq, compression, exciter, reverb, etc. All of these can be recorded to my DAW since they are inline with the tube. Naturally I dont want to put reverb or chorus or anything like that, but what about the other effects? In your experience, what are some good ways to drive the tube side of things.

(The other channel is straight SM57 form a clean pre-amp. I'm blending the two channels at the mixer.)

My tube is a 12AX7 made by Electro-Harmonix. It is a replacement for the 15-year old tube that was in it.

Hi,

The lower end probably comes from a condenser in a good room. The room makes a big difference. If you've got a decent room and are on a budget the best luck I've had besides the aforementioned 58 would be a Studio Projects B1 for a large diaphragm condenser for about 100 bucks. It can be a little bright on the top end, but that's an easier cure. I am a trained singer and vocal coach and if your budget was in the 800-1000 range you would have lots of options. If your room isn't at least decent you're probably better off with the dynamic 58.

You may want to invest in a good pop screen as well for those plosives. It allows for distance and control.

Phil

Eat the mic. The proximity effect can be your friend here. Always do this at church when I'm adding bass harmony. I've always done it with a 58, but it should be about the same with a 57 and a pop filter.

What do you guys think of ribbon mics for this problem? I've been itching to pull the trigger on one, but I lack experience with them. I was looking at the MXL R-144. Inexpensive but well reviewed.

Looks like the thread is winding down.

I just want to take a moment to thank all of you who chimed in. I've taken your advice and I am getting much better results. I'm using my old SM57 with a pop filter halfway down my throat. I'm also experimenting with using the SM57 and the MXL990 at the same time recorded to two tracks. I then blend them as need. With the extra tube track from my tube trick I posted earlier.

Thanks again!
-JohnTodd

PS I just discovered M/S stereo! Wow!

Hi John,

The big baritone voices you hear coming out of Nashville, probably start with exceptional voices, a big-budget professional studio, a big-budget mic in a perfectly designed room, a big-budget producer, and a professionally mixed and mastered product. The deadly combination of talent & money. I'm not saying a talented person can't make a great recording with less money. But you gotta have realistic expectations when you're comparing your results to a major label release. Aim high, but don't get too discouraged if it isn't sounding like a million bucks. It takes talent and practice to be a great singer, it also takes talent and practice to be a great recording engineer.

I think you're experimenting and that's the best thing you can do. Although good ribbon mics can be beautiful sounding- I'd caution you against getting a ribbon mic and eating it. Some ribbons aren't as fragile as they used to be, but they still aren't going to take kindly to being swallowed.

I know MXL mics are a good dollar value, but given your results with the MXL condenser, I'd want to buy the MXL ribbon mic from a dealer that will let you return it if you hate it.

A better dedicated compressor, better suited to vocals, would put you a step or two ahead. I assume you're eating the SM57 because you like the bass boost. A decent compressor teamed up with a decent EQ can do that all day long. Thick tone and the perceived loudness you get from compression might be a win for you.

Power AND control.

Keep at it.

This is pretty funny. SM57/SM58 one of the greatest recording vocal microphones ever. Hands down. And in this months issue of MIX Sylvia Massey has got a almost identical article/column to this thread. And I don't find the Beta 58/57 to be universally compatible in the same application as the SM57/58. It's fine if you want that extra high frequency response which I don't always want and you shouldn't either.

Yeah hey, if you have one of those lovely, real, authentic, vintage, U 47's for those old-time country vocals, you're also talking about good input transformers on good transistor electronics. If you like clarity and a more aggressive timbre, use transistor technology. If you like it a little mushy when pushed, use a tube. And don't forget to tweak up the gain and open up that feedback loop for that IN YOUR FACE quality. Personally I prefer SM58's with extra foam filters. I like those colorful decorative foam pop filters. Foam is better for smoothing the quality a little more. It's the same reason why I like my long hair over my ears instead of behind my ears. But all you guys with little or no hair don't have that option of adjusting your listening apparatus without this extra natural filter I've grown. When my hair was shorter, I had a tendency not to add enough high-end in my mixes. But that extra loss of .5 to 1 DB of difference, made quite a difference. And we have never really discussed here how your hair may be affecting your mixes and recording issues? Maybe your vocals sound too thin because you have no hair?

Try some hair and call me in the morning
Mx. Remy Ann David

LOL! Oh, I have hair. Mine is similar to John Lennon during the making of the Abbey Road album. I know what you mean about attenuation! When I'm doing final mixing and mastering I tie mine back or else I'll put too much high in the mix.

A great sounding room is a weakness in my studio. Have any of you seen those portable "box iso booths"? Looks like a square road case with foam in it, and fits around the mic with a little room to spare. One side is open to sing into. I was thinking of constructing such an apparatus. That might help with the room tone?

Anybody got any favorite VST compressors? Or maybe I'm just not using what I have very well. I'm not really an engineer, I'm a "critical musician". People tell me my mixes are fantastic - well balanced, clean, clear. I'm aware of trying to put too much of my instruments in the mix and so on. But I can always use improvement.

Take Blockfish for example. Just using the presets on it made my vox sound so much better. Any favorite settings for a country music vocal - attack, release, thresh, ratio, etc?

Thank you so much for your help in all of this.

RemyRAD, post: 351953 wrote:
...and open up that feedback loop for that IN YOUR FACE quality.

Hmmm, not following on that one. What does it mean? The only feedback I know is to leave the monitors on when the mic is live and make it howl.

Negative feedback within an amplifier. The more feedback you have, the more the output is an exact copy of the input, ignoring any gain change. As the degree of feedback is reduced, the output becomes less an exact copy of the input, and has characteristics that are properties of both the source and the amplifier. Some folks like these combinations if they work well.

Almost got my sound, please look. (Images inline)

I've almost got the "big boy" sound I'm after. Thanks to all of you who have helped out along the way. I have a couple of general questions here.

OK, here are some screencaps (in thrilling zero-quality jpeg format!) These are the plug-ins for the lead vocal.

#1: Condenser Mic:

This one is the direct-channel with my MXL 990 into the Presonus Firepod and into the DAW.
It is rigged as the treble half of an "exciting compressor", hence the hi-freq rise in the EQ.
Notice the plug-ins.

The first VST Dynamics is a noise gate because I breathe heavy.
Second is Blockfish set for vintage vocal sound, and tweaked. Since this is the treble side, this compressor smashes the crap out of the signal.
Third VST Dynamics is another gate to gate the junk Blockfish brings up.

#2 Mic-TUBE channel:

This is the full-fidelity side of the "Exciting Compressor". No EQ needed on this one.
First VST Dynamics is a noise gate.
Second is BLockfish again, but much less compressed for a general "taming" effect.
Next VST Dynamics is another gate.

#3 Voc Sub group"

This is where the two above channels are combined for my conveniece. After each channel is EQ'd, compressed, and balanced at the faders, they go here.
Izotope Ozone 4 is used here for brightening, punching, and making it thick and big.
VST Dynamics is another gate (just in case) and also a gain addition of +12db.
To the right you can see my reverb send at -7.59 db.

OK, so I am getting a clean almost noiseless signal at the sub group. I am getting a decent "big boy" vocal sound now that I will continue to tweak and enhance. My question is: Am I using too many plugins? Is this normal? Seems like an awful lot of tweaking just to get a good sound. Do you professionals so this? Am I using one plugin to compensate for my lousy settings on another plugin? Or is this just a case of "do what works and forget about it"?

Your thoughts?

Thanks
-John

PS Autotune is a hold-over from my original demo of this song. My demos are so out of tune that I offend even myself with them!

Should be:

"Do you professionals DO this?"

Sorry. :)

Tilting the mic...what a great thing!

My latest development is to tilt the mic about 45 degrees and raise it up around forehead level. This has helped with the excessive sibilance and gave me a "rounder" sound.

I've learned to back off the compression a lot - it does make my voice fake.

So, John, have you learned that microphone placement is far more important than utilizing any kind of silly plug-ins? The whole body, not just the mouth, is a resonating & sound generating device. It's not what you've got but where you stick it. That's the first and most important thing to realize about microphinship. Ribbon, dynamic, large capsules, small capsules, really tiny capsules are your first stage of recording & equalization. You also have to decide whether you want a transformer input or a transformer less input. In this one respect I would not agree that LESS IS MORE. In this respect Less Equipment can equate to More Stupid, higher profit margin, lower quality, ease of manufacturing. It all depends on what your favorite flavors are? Compression? I love compression. Have you considered combining Compressed & Uncompressed? As in parallel processing in a computer-based analog kind of way? I'm not talking about a mix knob nor computer imitation of one. There can be so much minutia to consider that without a proper knowledge and understanding of each piece of equipment and how each piece interacts with other pieces is the true key to understanding both form and function. Equipment shootout reviews are fun to read but are even more informative when more of us crazies TRY THIS AT HOME KIDS. How about using a lot of compression with a low ratio of 2:1 and slow attack with moderate release times? Or how about just some limiting at 20:1 with a really fast attack time and really fast release times with a very high threshold? Now is that with lots of microphone gain or just a little microphone gain? Was the high pass filter engaged? Plug-ins? I'm too old for tampons. Did you learn that a $100 US Shure SM58 & $3.50 US Signetics 5534 IC chip can actually sound better than a Neumann $2500 US U87 & $1500 US UA blah blah? And what in relationship to some other recorded stuff does this relate to? How does it sit? How does it layer up? Do you like the sound of single ended equipment better than balanced? One of the best mastering guys in the business used to feel that way. Probably still does? I'm not trying to make fun of your posts here. It's just that you were on that leading edge of the learning curve. So it's fun to hear when someone like yourself is suddenly enlightened by what they're hearing. That's the first mark of a good engineer.

Keep those observations coming. And remember: a lot of compression can make you sound better than fake. When you do it right. Then you say fake, you may be referring to your engineering rather than your performance? Maybe both? So I wouldn't use terminology quite like that. Over enhanced? Too thick? Too squeezed? Fake? Fake can encompass more than equipment selection, its usage, it's misusage, lack of technique, poor choice, inability to "work" a microphone. Fake could imply that you're just not capable? So, not fake. Just not what you wanted.

Fake Producer/Engineer & Broadcaster celebrating 40 years of being fake this year. No, really I'm not faking this.
Mx. Remy Ann David

(No, none of us are beautiful at this age)

Love your post!

"Fake" turned out to be over-produced. Like a super singing alien with a voice no human could ever have. So, I backed off the plugins and angled the mic, now I get a more natural sound. My voice exercises are paying off - singing is like mixing, there is always more to learn.

I've been using parallel compression. The technique I use is called the "exciting compressor", and it is a trick I learned here at this forum. I squash the condenser side of the signal and cut all but the highs, while the tube side goes through with modest compression and a good EQ setting. They are blended at the sub group. Just need to tweak it some more.

I've also discovered the joys of compressing AFTER the EQ! WOW!

I'm loving this thread. Let's keep it going, other are reading. Let the knowledge flow! :)

Parallel compression is more about taking a dry signal (voice/drums/etc), and busing it to an effects/aux channel, which is compressed. Then blend the two to taste. (I like a good amount since the dry signal is still available).
What you're doing is very similar, but w/ the added EQ and tube stages.

Note that doing this on a "group" channel is NOT the same:
Think of a group channel as a master bus for all tracks sent to it. Everything that happens to the group channel, happens to all source channels.
You want an FX channel, in Cubase/Nuendo. In this case, the dry signal is being bused both to the stereo bus (or group>stereo), AND to the FX channel. Or, the two operate independently of each other.
As an example, if you mute the group channel, the dry is also muted. If you mute the FX channel, you still have the dry.

This technique is equally valuable for reverb, delay, or any effect.
Like Remy said, it is usually much better than slapping a compressor/reverb/etc right on the track, and using the "Mix" or "Blend" control... or doing the same to a group channel in Cubase/Nuendo.

Finally, I like EQ before compression as a rule. I prefer that the compressor is only dealing w/ the frequencies I want it to. Plus, I want the track to sound "right" first. With the appropriate EQ and mix level, you may not need as much compression as you think.
There are always exceptions and reasons to do otherwise, but these methods have worked for me.
YMMV.

Hope that helps

The "true" parallel compression idea is a great one. I've taken to using my version of it and following that with the true kind. So now I take the DI/Tube channels to the Group as before, and then send from the group to an FX channel and put the treble EQ/squash on that, and blend to taste.

So I am getting a much better sound with this, but I am still wondering about one of my questions: Is this too much processing? It sounds great, but am I doing this to compensate for a glaring weakness somewhere earlier in the chain? By "glaring weakness" I mean something that may be obvious to the more learned amongst us, but not so obvious to me.

Or is it a matter of "just do what makes it sound good"?

I try to do what makes it sound right.

And I think there is a difference between "good" and "right".

Codemonkey, post: 352955 wrote:
And I think there is a difference between "good" and "right".

Can you elaborate?

Brief: good sounding electric guitar will never sound "right" in an orchestral setting.

This next point doesn't really hold true for lead parts of a mix; but certainly for background stuff, parts that sound good in their own right might not sit well in the full mix. If everything "shines", nothing does: you get a bright mix. If everything has "meat": you usually get "mush". Maybe I just like mince and tatties ... (meat, and mush potato).

In this context, your lead vocal might be "good" and "right" at the same time though.
However you might find that using lots of effects and compression doesn't sit well in some songs; e.g. if they are light, airy, and the backing/band has a lot of dynamics or is completely acoustic. Equally you'll probably struggle to find a single lead vocal from any pop song that hasn't been processed somehow. It doesn't sit well with what's around it.

True, very true. I learned a long time ago to do a cursory FX setting on a solo channel and then always tweak it in the mix.

My vox is better now, though not perfect. I tried driving the tube a little harder and got better results. A little crunch in my low end.

Ironically, I got the idea from listening to the mix on a cheap pair of $5 headphones! THe fidelity of the mix was awful but I loved the vocal sound. I duped it by adjusting the FX and BINGO!

It's warm, sweet, full-bodied, mellow, with enough treble to stand out. Going good so far.

Anybody at all have a similar story?