I don't like the look of what's going on around 70Hz.

Could you post a sample of your vocal tracking (just the vocal, not the backing track)?

Boswell, post: 464661, member: 29034 wrote: I don't like the look of what's going on around 70Hz.

Could you post a sample of your vocal tracking (just the vocal, not the backing track)?

this is a sample .

does ,this 70hz issue, have an effect on my muffled voice ?

Well, that sounds quite acceptable - not what I would call "muffled". Perhaps your monitoring is not telling you the truth?

Boswell, post: 464663, member: 29034 wrote: Well, that sounds quite acceptable - not what I would call "muffled". Perhaps your monitoring is not telling you the truth?

oh , it is with my monitoring that I make the measurements and then I compare to pro takes in studio and the voice seems like veiled at home.

it's the acoustics.

Kurt Foster, post: 464665, member: 7836 wrote: it's the acoustics.

Do you have any suggestions?

record in a room with better acoustics.

Kurt Foster, post: 464667, member: 7836 wrote: record in a room with better acoustics.

I will ,
but I was hoping to improve the acoustics of this room for recording too.

There's something strange about your measurement responses. The waterfall plot shows a huge fall-off at around 100Hz, then a big peak at 50Hz. I'm not convinced that the peak is a real room response - I have a feeling that it could be mains hum getting into the measurement.

Now that I've had a chance to analyse your vocal sample, I see no evidence of a huge 50Hz peak. However, there is other non-Gaussian noise that you should turn your attention to once you have sorted out the current problem.

How are you making the comparisons with the studio recordings of your voice? Are you hearing them both on the same equipment in the same acoustic space. By this, I mean, for example, you could be taking a recording made in your room on your equipment to the studio, and listening to it put against a recording of the same passage done in the studio. This would compare your gear with the studio's gear, and your room's acoustic against the studio's acoustic. It would not be a proper comparison if you came back from the studio with a memory of what your voice sounded there and simply decided it was not the same as when you listened to your home studio recordings.

Boswell, post: 464669, member: 29034 wrote: There's something strange about your measurement responses. The waterfall plot shows a huge fall-off at around 100Hz, then a big peak at 50Hz. I'm not convinced that the peak is a real room response - I have a feeling that it could be mains hum getting into the measurement.

Now that I've had a chance to analyse your vocal sample, I see no evidence of a huge 50Hz peak. However, there is other non-Gaussian noise that you should turn your attention to once you have sorted out the current problem.

How are you making the comparisons with the studio recordings of your voice? Are you hearing them both on the same equipment in the same acoustic space. By this, I mean, for example, you could be taking a recording made in your room on your equipment to the studio, and listening to it put against a recording of the same passage done in the studio. This would compare your gear with the studio's gear, and your room's acoustic against the studio's acoustic. It would not be a proper comparison if you came back from the studio with a memory of what your voice sounded there and simply decided it was not the same as when you listened to your home studio recordings.

Thanks for the time you take to answer and analyze my problem .

-Very interesting your remark on the 50 and 100 Hz. I made measurements for the sound card (apollo twin) that I put here.
do you notice a problem with the soundcard in this frequency range?

-What do you mean by non-Gaussian noise that i should turn attention on?

-For the comparison with the studio recordings , I just compare mines with recording vocal I download from product page on thomann or youtube. they sound upfront compared to mine.

Attached files

az35000, post: 464668, member: 51960 wrote: I will ,
but I was hoping to improve the acoustics of this room for recording too.

what can you do? it's already deader than :censored: ! the room is too small. all you can do is put up absorption. the minute you put up something to add some liveliness it's only gonna sound like :censored: in a different way. at least that's how i see it.

Kurt Foster, post: 464671, member: 7836 wrote: what can you do? it's already deader than :censored: ! the room is too small. all you can do is put up absorption. the minute you put up something to add some liveliness it's only gonna sound like :censored: in a different way. at least that's how i see it.

thanks for your feedback I will take it in consideration .

If the decay of the 50hz sustains evenly for a a long time its likely mains hum. Otherwise its probably a 50hz room mode being excited and its harmonic nulling at 100hz.

You can improve the room by adding bass trapping. Corners are good locations. The perimeter around the ceiling where the wall and ceiling meet is a good place. As is the rear wall, and floor to ceiling corners.

If you do tuned traps like Helmholtz/slat resonators, or perforated panel traps, you can maintain some mid/hf energy in the room.

You can always use a hpf on the mic, pre, or in the mix.

From Build it Like The Pro's, by Rod Gervias.

First of all thanks for your support.

kmetal, post: 464676, member: 37533 wrote: If the decay of the 50hz sustains evenly for a a long time its likely mains hum. Otherwise its probably a 50hz room mode being excited and its harmonic nulling at 100hz.

-a 50hz hum , am Is upposed to hear it in the headphones when I record? because there I hear nothing except the veiled voice.-_

-Yes I use a HPF on pre and mix. sometimes on the sm7B too .

kmetal, post: 464676, member: 37533 wrote: You can improve the room by adding bass trapping. Corners are good locations. The perimeter around the ceiling where the wall and ceiling meet is a good place. As is the rear wall, and floor to ceiling corners.

-I will take that in consideration , but people tell me that my room is dead and
I am scared to tadd other basstrap and get the room more dead.

A really good test for any space is to run a sweep tone - 20Hz to 20KHz through your monitoring system, and use a iPhone app to see the volume as the sweep progresses. Usually you don't even need the app, you can hear the peaks and troughs. This should tell you the room's features and you need to analyse them carefully.

az35000, post: 464660, member: 51960 wrote: I chose a spot in a corner where the bass is not very present.

It might be blunt but .. try other places in the room with different mic orientations... you may find a better place to record. . .
Just saying ;)

paulears, post: 464680, member: 47782 wrote: A really good test for any space is to run a sweep tone - 20Hz to 20KHz through your monitoring system, and use a iPhone app to see the volume as the sweep progresses. Usually you don't even need the app, you can hear the peaks and troughs. This should tell you the room's features and you need to analyse them carefully.

its works and gives the same results.thx

pcrecord, post: 464681, member: 46460 wrote: It might be blunt but .. try other places in the room with different mic orientations... you may find a better place to record. . .
Just saying ;)

already tried thank you :)

3.4m X 3.3m X 2.7m .... 11 ' 1" x 10' 7" x 8' 8" ... roughly. is the 3.4 the height?

Kurt Foster, post: 464684, member: 7836 wrote: 3.4m X 3.3m X 2.7m .... 11 ' 1" x 10' 7" x 8' 8" ... roughly. is the 3.4 the height?

no the height is 2.7 m .....8'8''

What would really help is a proper recording of your voice reading. As in like a voiceover, then a pitched singing something with light and shade rather than a fast shirt clip that we heard. Voice text be from speaking reveals the room a lot and we’ve not really heard very much.

i was mistaken in saying the room is too small. we Americans are metric challenged. :LOL: but the 8.8 foot ceiling is a problem. the only thing worse than a 9 foot ceiling is an 8 foot one. this is partially because 8 foot places the actual physical null or node at 4 foot which is exactly where your ears are when sitting. from what i've heard from your very short clip, the room sounds like you have over done the absorption. are you mixing in the same room or is it a vox booth only? the answer will dictate the way to proceed. if you are mixing in the room then place absorption in the 4 corners as traps and on the wall behind the speakers. then have an assistant take a mirror and move it along the side walls while you sit at the mixing position. anywhere you see the reflections of the speakers, place absorption. i guess a cloud over the mixing position would help but if the floor is carpeted it may be too much. you may need to place some absorption on the wall behind the mixing position to attenuate flutter echo.

if you are using the room as a vocal booth i would treat it with an acoustic slat wall treatment.

Some Iso boot are sold with very small dimentions. My recording room is 11*10 feet with 7 ceilling. 2 corners are converted in bass traps, tick carpet, foam on the ceilling, sonopans on the surface of the walls.. pretty dead space. But I'm able to do good recording in it. Drums, guitars vocals, violins. . . for me since the room is dead, I need to chose the right mic and placement for each jobs and I'm quite successfull at it.
There is so many DIY videos to do bass traps.. I'd start with only those and remove anything that affect only high frequencies.. (exemple thin foams or similar)
Once the room problems are resolved, your in for a mic / vocal matching game. You need to try as many as you can with your voice and chose the right one for you.
They all say the Sm7B is the best.. but not for everyone...
For exemple in condensers.
U47 inspired mics and capsules are giving rounder bottom and less HF (perfect for sibilant or nazal voices)
C12 inspired mics and capsules give a boost in the HF, (perfect for darker voices)
U87 Inspired mics are more balanced sounding.. great starting point for any voices, but not ideal for all..

paulears, post: 464686, member: 47782 wrote: What would really help is a proper recording of your voice reading. As in like a voiceover, then a pitched singing something with light and shade rather than a fast shirt clip that we heard. Voice text be from speaking reveals the room a lot and we’ve not really heard very much.

OK paulears I will send a longest audio with me talking and singing . but i can already say that i have less room reflections when i talk than when i scream.

Kurt Foster, post: 464687, member: 7836 wrote: this is partially because 8 foot places the actual physical null or node at 4 foot which is exactly where your ears are when sitting.

-Very interesting information .

Kurt Foster, post: 464687, member: 7836 wrote: the room sounds like you have over done the absorption. are you mixing in the same room or is it a vox booth only?

-the room is for mixing and a vox booth .but i guess its too different things when its comes to acoustic treatement. but it s will be really useful to do mixing and tracking in the same space .

Kurt Foster, post: 464687, member: 7836 wrote: if you are mixing in the room then place absorption in the 4 corners as traps and on the wall behind the speakers. then have an assistant take a mirror and move it along the side walls while you sit at the mixing position. anywhere you see the reflections of the speakers, place absorption. i guess a cloud over the mixing position would help but if the floor is carpeted it may be too much. you may need to place some absorption on the wall behind the mixing position to attenuate flutter echo.

-I already have absorption (47'2 X 23'6 X 2') behind speakers and cloud over mixing position and in mirroring position at my left . and i have a wardrobe with curtains at my right so no treatement there.
the floor is covered with linoleum.

Kurt Foster, post: 464687, member: 7836 wrote: if you are using the room as a vocal booth i would treat it with an acoustic slat wall treatment.

it's look like diffusion treatement isn'it ?

pcrecord, post: 464688, member: 46460 wrote: My recording room is 11*10 feet with 7 ceilling. 2 corners are converted in bass traps, tick carpet, foam on the ceilling, sonopans on the surface of the walls.. pretty dead space. But I'm able to do good recording in it. Drums, guitars vocals, violins. . . for me since the room is dead, I need to chose the right mic and placement for each jobs and I'm quite successfull at it.

it's keep hope to know that with small room as me ,you have nice recording :)

pcrecord, post: 464688, member: 46460 wrote: There is so many DIY videos to do bass traps.. I'd start with only those and remove anything that affect only high frequencies.. (exemple thin foams or similar)
Once the room problems are resolved, your in for a mic / vocal matching game. You need to try as many as you can with your voice and chose the right one for you.

yes i think that basstrap will resolve a big part of the problem.

pcrecord, post: 464688, member: 46460 wrote: They all say the Sm7B is the best.. but not for everyone...
For exemple in condensers.
U47 inspired mics and capsules are giving rounder bottom and less HF (perfect for sibilant or nazal voices)
C12 inspired mics and capsules give a boost in the HF, (perfect for darker voices)
U87 Inspired mics are more balanced sounding.. great starting point for any voices, but not ideal for all..

I have a condenser ( rode nt1 but same problem than the SM7B with a bit more reflections) . and i cant buy all this mic with my little budget . anyway you are right mics are not for all voices.

paulears, post: 464686, member: 47782 wrote: What would really help is a proper recording of your voice reading. As in like a voiceover, then a pitched singing something with light and shade rather than a fast shirt clip that we heard. Voice text be from speaking reveals the room a lot and we’ve not really heard very much.

so there is a longest audio with some talking and singing, waiting for your feedback :)

[MEDIA=audio]https://recording.o…

Attached files 5-Audio 203 [2020-06-26 004238].mp3 (1.5 MB) 

Slat absorbers trap bass, but preserve the life in the mids and highs.

I'm going out on a limb here. I don't hear much 'room' sound at all, but odd things are happening when the levels perk up. The sound seems to become harder, and thinner as the volume goes up, and SM7Bs (I have one here) don't do this. In fact they tend to sound nicer when pushed. Looking at the waveform displays the harmonic content is quite high. You mentioned

So I take my shots via SM7B + FetHead + mogami cable >> preamp "UA610" unison simulation in "APOLLO TWIN" in thunderbolt connection to my mac MBP 2012 SSD AND 16 GB of RAM.

Is this recording via this chain? I wonder if the problem is simply that the tube simulation is way too high, and as valves traditionally had higher levels of harmonic distortion, the plugin is not enhancing, but destroying the quality of your fine mic and preamp. Have you tried recording totally unprocessed? I'm a fan of adding these as effects afterwards, and certainly not recording with them enabled and never having a dry copy to experiment with.

I'm also wondering if the extra amplification from the FET Head is making it worse? Have you tried going direct from the mic to the Apollo? I'm just so surprised at the sound being so unlike my SM7B which I rarely use because it is too warm and lacking sparkle. SO many people decree extra gain is required. I never find gain an issue with mine at all - on all the interfaces I have here. I can do voice overs and of course sing into it without gain/noise being an issue.

I'd suggest dumping the gizmos and recording direct to the interface with no plugins - just mic - interface - DAW-press record! I suspect this will solve the weird sound you've got. Excess gain causing excess harmonics. SM7B mics just don't sound like that!

paulears, post: 464696, member: 47782 wrote: I'm going out on a limb here. I don't hear much 'room' sound at all, but odd things are happening when the levels perk up. The sound seems to become harder, and thinner as the volume goes up, and SM7Bs (I have one here) don't do this. In fact they tend to sound nicer when pushed. Looking at the waveform displays the harmonic content is quite high. You mentioned

for this record there is no preamp simulation ,it s just the SM7B the fethead and soundcard ( apollo twin preamp) .

You said that my sm7B sound thinner and harder as the volume goes ? do you think that i have an issue with the mic itself?

in my case i also hear reflections when volume goes up .

paulears, post: 464696, member: 47782 wrote: I'm also wondering if the extra amplification from the FET Head is making it worse? Have you tried going direct from the mic to the Apollo? I'm just so surprised at the sound being so unlike my SM7B which I rarely use because it is too warm and lacking sparkle. SO many people decree extra gain is required. I never find gain an issue with mine at all - on all the interfaces I have here. I can do voice overs and of course sing into it without gain/noise being an issue.

my sm7B need more gain without fethead ( about 60 db) and with the fethead i need just 29 db) ,anyway i already try without the fethead and the difference is so subtile.

paulears, post: 464696, member: 47782 wrote: I'd suggest dumping the gizmos and recording direct to the interface with no plugins - just mic - interface - DAW-press record! I suspect this will solve the weird sound you've got. Excess gain causing excess harmonics. SM7B mics just don't sound like that!

as I said earlier I didn't and I never use effects or plugins when it comes to test mic or soundcard.

Good at least I know that my sm7B dont sound as a SM7B now :)

:eek:)

kmetal, post: 464694, member: 37533 wrote: Slat absorbers trap bass, but preserve the life in the mids and highs.

thank you Kmetal for the advice i will take it in consideration.

Yes - but the question is why? What kind of distance are you working at? Do you have any other microphones - I think you mentioned a Rode, but the problem was there with that too. This only leaves the interface if you are not using the plugins. The FET removal made a subtle change?

It could be acoustics, I don't know. Do you have a pic of how you are using the mics?

-my position: too close to the mic without touching de pop filter .
-the fet removal make the sm7b a litte bite noisy cause of the preamp gain up to 60 db.
-with the rode i have the same reflections problem. but the tiny just when i m using the SM7B

i wonder what if you move the mic three feet one way or the other and then redo the test? would the charts look any different? i'm also thinking being in the corner isn't a real good thing. :rolleyes:

Kurt Foster, post: 464704, member: 7836 wrote: i wonder what if you move the mic three feet one way or the other and then redo the test? would the charts look any different? i'm also thinking being in the corner isn't a real good thing. :rolleyes:

I tried many positions in the room. the intensity of reflections change , but no perfect position still now.

I listened to the recording, it is not so unbalanced that it could not be mixed in a song.
Are you sure you might not like your voice like 90% of signers and you're trying to make it sound like someone else..
Natural reason is that we normaly hear our voice through bones inside our head and the mic can't.. the mic hears what others hear.
You could also have a problem of fidelity with your monitors and/or the room acoustics.. but what I'm hearing on the recorded side isn't that bad..
Did you try to bring that recording somewhere else (car, friends or family systems ? )

I'm confused now - I think pcrecord could be right. We are listening for issues caused by something external, but the rather dark tone overall is just you? Or maybe you and the mic not working in a complimentary way? There's a bit of room, a bit of this and that, but the fundamental thing could just be your voice.

Clearly you're not happy - maybe more distance, and a different mic, or a point up or point down mic position? I just don't think we are hearing what you hear?

Hi every one , I havent been here these days cause my uncle just passed away.

so thanks for all your support i will take into account all your advices and remarks .

pcrecord, post: 464708, member: 46460 wrote: Are you sure you might not like your voice like 90% of signers and you're trying to make it sound like someone else..
Natural reason is that we normaly hear our voice through bones inside our head and the mic can't.. the mic hears what others hear.

I haven't any problem with how the voice technically sounds . but with how my mic capture some low frequencies and some reflections.

as paulears and pcrecord said maybe its the wrong combinaison voice / room/ mic.

I think that we are not really hearing 'problems', clearly you don't like it which is concerning, but I'm sure some combination of position/distance and tweaking could make it fine for us. Condolences on your loss.