Mmmmm......Juice. 8)

Hi guys, my first post.
Stumbled randomly over this corner of the net.

My reason for posting in this thread is simply that I do feel imvho that it is filled with quite a lot of misinformation.
This might be a bit of a too strong word to use, but please bear with me- english is not my first language.

First of all- to the original poster.
I listened to your song. I do not think your vocal sound is that bad at all. It actually to my ears sounds like the most well tracked instrument on that recording. With the artfacts from the data compression it was difficult to hear nuances, but;

In general- it sounds like everything is a bit much EQ'ed- the drums in particular. It is understandable if your mic choices aren't the most flexible- trying to compensate for less than ideal tracking is hard.

The 414 sounds like it brings out a bit much sibliance in your voice, this is a well known problem with the 414.
Is it overcompressed? It sits well, but sounds maybe a bit small. This might be a result of overcompression.

The 414 is, like the U87 microphones that go well with only a few applications- sibliant singers is not one of them. The 414 might be a bit more all-round than the U87, but doesn't sound GREAT on anything(with a possible exception of toms and metal guitars)
The U87 actually sounds great on some singers and applications(acoustic guitar, french horn, acoustic bass- that is all)
I would say that both of these mics are overpriced in the US, specially these days with the €/$ exchange rate.

The mics I would usually use for sibliant singers are; Neumann U47(very expensive) Soundelux E47(still expensive) Neumann M49 (very expensive) etc. GREAT condensers are expensive, period.
More budget oriented; RE20, SM7
And the best among them, and a real Condenser killer (when combined with a great preamp); The Sennheiser MD441, historys best dynamic microphone.

Ribbons might be a good choice too, if you want a FAT vocal sound; Coles 4038(expensive in the US) Royers etc.
The "hidden" gem on a budget might be the Beyer M160- which might look a little wimpy, but sounds huge, flattering and forgiving on your kind of voice.

So, just to clear up a few other things from this thread;

1/Someone posted a list over priorities in the vocal recording chain.
With the preamp before the mic????
That is wrong.
A good preamp can never compensate for a bad mic. A great mic still sounds good, if not sensational, on a mackie pre.
I would rather track a singer with an E47 into an Behringer pre, than an C414 into a V72.

2/Someone mentioned the AKG C19- no such mic has ever existed. The D19 on the other hand where used by The Beatles for Toms, some OH, and talkback. Not Vocals.
;)
It is a GREAT mic on toms- the only mic i prefer to the C414b/TLII in that application.
For vocals, on every recording done at Abbey Road, Beatles used U48, the Cardioid/Figure of 8 version of the Cardioid/omni U47.

3/ Someone mentioned the UA LA610 as a good pre for vocals, this is ofcourse strictly my opinion- but for that kind of price you can actually get MUCH better.
Someone else mentioned V series preamps as a good choice, that kind of pre, at least an variation of it can be had for a sensational price in the form of the TAB funkenwerk V78, aboout $1000 for a single-channel, and a stereo version for a bit less than the double of that. That is the best Price/quality ratio in the preamp world ever.

Good luck in your search.

As I said, your vocals does sound pretty good. But I would say A MD441/V78 would sound even better!

I'm a firm believer in the mic pre being the utmost and first consideration. What changed my mind after years of recording?
The Redd 47...

If you search a few newsgroups you'll begin to learn more about this item and as it related to Abbey Road, the REDD 37's, the REDD 51's and V72S models (EMI Modified V72's).

I didnt recommend it because it is expensive, but from my own experience after 5 years of use is basically I would sell both
my tube Neumanns long before I would the REDD...it does that much magic, with any mic.
- As a disclaimer we all know nothing beats a great artist and the amazing song first..!

The V72-76-77-78 is truely as you state one of the best values out there in mic pres. Its a shame the dollar has dropped in value compared to the Euro, V72's used to sell near $325-450 quite often, and the 72a's a little less. I regret no buying them at the time, ocassionally there are is a good deal out there but you have to have the money and patience at hand.

The Sennheiser MD441 is excellent I'll agree, especially if your in a bad room or one with less than stellar acoustics. Great combo the 441 and v78 together...what would the cost be? around $1200 total?

Great first post too...welcome!

PS: Mine is the second and third with the top off, check my old posts for specifics.

Of course it was the AKG D19, slip of the finger. However, I did see photo's of John Lennon actually sing through them, however it might be in the period after the Beatles??
The issue of the importance of mic versus micpre:
they were in 6th and 5th place?? So that means I think they're both as important. Still I think from a financial point of view it could be better to upgrade the micpre than the mic itself. The upgrading from a Behringer to a Sebatron will give you more quality than upgrading from a Studio Projects to a Neumann. And it will cost you less. Of course that will only be the case if you had a decent mic anyway,
Cheers, Gomp

I am on a buget so i use AT-819s Shure-SM57s XML990(rarely use) and a B2

what others have mentioned is true, room dynamics, the song and the singer make the difference.

I can pretty much always get the sound i want through my mics. sometimes it takes tweeking and different mic placments.

Voice training will go a long way also.

thanks,
-Blaumph

Hi, I remember using a V- series pre-amp for the first time. it was a great kick! Beatles fanatic as I am, I could suddenly hear my recordings colored with some very full, warm, saturated yet extremely open, maybe even bright sound that imidiately gave me the "this is it!, this is the sound of legends!" feeling.
Know what I mean?

Exact same impression I got, seems like it took forever to get to that perfect recording chain...once you start tracking you realize how little eq you need, mixing even ITB is less stressful.

I do think the gear priority chain is something like;
1/Capsule(KK47? KK87? TK12? M7? Chinese junk?)
2/Microphone electronics(Tube? Fet? Discret? IC?)
3/The recording medium (2"? Adat? PT?)
4/pre-amp (Discret? Tube? IC? Op-amp? Class A? Class A/B?)

Klaus Heyne said recently an ideal collection of mics would contain
mics with a KK67, KK47-M7, and a CK12.
All the above come both tube and FET designs, its a great starting point...U87-U47fet-414EB or U67-U47-C12/24
As far as U87's go, each person has a mic that works best, finding it though it a lifelong process.

As I have understood, the difference between V72 and V72s is simply that the V72's fixed gain is at 34dB, while the V72s's is at 40dB, plus the voltage was different. (The V72 had to be exactly 220Volts) The REDD 37 was V72s's, while the REDD 51 is quite a mystery altogheter, but most likely featured EMI build V72 sound-alikes.
I believe all will be relieved in the coming book:
http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/

I'm aware of the book and am waiting patiently for its release, there are few mysteries that will be solved that I'm sure of.

As for cheap V series pre and line amps its hard to find those great
deals over hear in the US but once in a while you'll find a terrific deal.

Recently looking a a few Quad Eight items, I'll let you know how they measure up...!

Kind regards...

$1500 to spend..strident vocal..beatles-esque powerpoppunk

This thread is the shit, guys and girls.. thanks to all. I am loving hearing the different opinions.

I have a rode k2 that sounds OK on my voice through my sytek, which is transformerless and solid state, also known for being pretty transparent and colorless. My voice is pretty strident and midrangey and I've found tube pres compliment it best. I want as much beatles-esque coloration and warmth as I can afford for about $1500.. I plan to hit the pre, compressor and tape fairly hard to get a vocal sound that I feel best suits the music... Definitely not an alison krauss vocal tone, more of a james brown / wilson pickett sort of overload. I'm considering a manley mono mic pre, but am having second thoughts. I probably can't afford the redd47 (1st choice), but I don't know if the manley would be more appropriate for a beatles type of warmth and coloration than the tab v78, which is also about $500 cheaper.
Maybe I should scrap the mic? I'm sure someone here has a better idea than I do. I can also get telefunken stuff at a wholesale discount, so maybe that helps my situation? (I haven't tried any of their new mics)

sorry for the rambling. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

tony

I too listened to your song.

Maybe your mic/signal chain is good, and it could be a final mix issue that makes you dislike the depth of the vocals? Maybe those in the know could shed some light on this.

Also, have you done a shootout with all the mics you presently own, with your voice? Maybe there's a gem in your midst and it will reveal itself by testing them all. Wouldn't it be just bitchin to find out one of the skeletons in your closet was the perfect mic for your voice?...unless you reeeeeeaaaaally want to buy that new tube mic :twisted:

It would be interesting to do said vocal test just a capella, and then with the band behind you. You might hit on something that sounds like poo poo by itself, and then just sits in the pocket perfectly once it's mixed in with the band.

Tis possible, no?
Keith

Re: $1500 to spend..strident vocal..beatles-esque powerpoppu

tonystl wrote: This thread is the shit, guys and girls.. thanks to all. I am loving hearing the different opinions.

I have a rode k2 that sounds OK on my voice through my sytek, which is transformerless and solid state, also known for being pretty transparent and colorless. My voice is pretty strident and midrangey and I've found tube pres compliment it best. I want as much beatles-esque coloration and warmth as I can afford for about $1500.. I plan to hit the pre, compressor and tape fairly hard to get a vocal sound that I feel best suits the music... Definitely not an alison krauss vocal tone, more of a james brown / wilson pickett sort of overload. I'm considering a manley mono mic pre, but am having second thoughts. I probably can't afford the redd47 (1st choice), but I don't know if the manley would be more appropriate for a beatles type of warmth and coloration than the tab v78, which is also about $500 cheaper.
Maybe I should scrap the mic? I'm sure someone here has a better idea than I do. I can also get telefunken stuff at a wholesale discount, so maybe that helps my situation? (I haven't tried any of their new mics)

sorry for the rambling. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

tony

The V78 will probably get you what you're looking for.

Thanks all for participating in this thread. Shmaba wrote: The mics I would usually use for sibliant singers are; Neumann U47(very expensive.....

Has anyone had experience with the Neuman M147 which is supposed to be the new version of the u-47?

I also am thinking that using a tube preamp (possibly the brick b/c of price) may decrease the harshness of my 414 thereby softening up the sibilance in my voice.

Justin
P.S. Yes, vocal lessons help alot as well. I have been taking them for the last month.

Great work Kids! I certainly should have included mic placement in my original list as a 'B' to the 'room'.....To really know your room takes many dedicated hours of mindless droning in order to focus the sound correctly. You dont really need a mic to do this ....at least to get it close, simply wander around all the while clapping loudly and shouting a single short word........my wife usually has to go shopping as I sometimes choose a word thats....well...its one of those.

Lately I've had a lot of fun demo'ing some mics.The ADK Area51 TT tube mic has been an eye-opener. Very warm and detailed.

Its good to read that there are 'others' who, like me, believe that the environment and the mic are interlaced.Both of these come well before any other gear per se. And I also agree about the V series micpres.Very cuddly! I have lusted after the Mercury stuff for some time now. Unless the lottery helps out or the album sells a trillion copies, it aint gonna happen soon.Perhaps someone has had the opportunity to play with the Helios pre...Or is it not quite out yet? Cant find any info. My favorites have always been pres that you drive one way for clean and clear and another way for warm and ballsy.API's for example. I'm also a fan of the John Hardy camp of micpre construction. Since I've owned a couple of real nice tube audiofile stereo components, I know that tubes arent always 'driven' sounding. My old Marantz Model 9's were extremely clean as were the McIntosh's.....But I dont personally equate 'clean' with 'transparent'....Clean is perhaps a lack of second order artifacts or at least having a contolled amount in place for warmth.

Very good thread.!!!

Let's get back to the list for a while. Basically, it goes like this:

1. Everything that is purely acoustical (voice, room, mic placement)
2. Everything that is electroacoustical (microphone)
3. The rest (which is usually purely electronic)

Furthermore, to split it up:

1a. Voice itself
1b. Room (but ONLY if the singer is not very close to the microphone, otherwise the room doesn't have that much of an effect)
1c. Mic placement (can also override 1b)
2a. Mic itself (polar pattern, polar pattern stability, frequency response, diffuse field response, etc.)
3a. Compressors and similar "heavier" processing
3b. Preamplifier & other more transparent electronics
3c. A/D converter

Many spend hours scratching their heads about 2a, 3b and (worse yet) 3c, without realizing that so much of the difference lies in 1b and 1c. And note also that things such as temperature and humidity (not to mention the number of people inhabiting the room) will influence the way the room sounds.

J-MADD wrote: Thanks all for participating in this thread. Shmaba wrote: The mics I would usually use for sibliant singers are; Neumann U47(very expensive.....

Has anyone had experience with the Neuman M147 which is supposed to be the new version of the u-47?

I also am thinking that using a tube preamp (possibly the brick b/c of price) may decrease the harshness of my 414 thereby softening up the sibilance in my voice.

Justin
P.S. Yes, vocal lessons help alot as well. I have been taking them for the last month.

The M147 is a strange mic. Some might claim it is a cynical attempt to cash in on the U47 name, and that it is priced accordingly, but it is more reasonable on ebay. I love the M149, and the 147 has a lot in common with it, but the 149 is much more versatile, and along with different patterns you also get very different sound characteristics. The 147 sounds great on some singers, but only on some singers. It is often described as dark, but the main difference between 47 and M147 is that the U47 is simply one of the greatest mics ever built, but the 147 can sound great in some situations. I think it was rather brave of Neumann to make design decisions that many people would regard as blasphemous, but putting 47 in the name is stretching things a little. It's still worth a try, because it is capable of standing on its own merits. I'd probably buy one myself, but I have too many other mics on my acquisition list already. Have you tried the AT4060?

John Stafford

No John I have not tried it, but it is definately on my list of possibilities. I have yet to read a bad thing about the 4060 and it is waay cheaper than the other mics I have eye'd (u87, 147, a lot of the soundelux stuff). As was stated, I kind of have a harsh S sound in my voice. I have put a pencil vertically on the mic and sometimes I sing off center to de-emphisize this. But I think boosts in mic frequency around the 7-10 khz region really make this flaw stand out. I have never used a tube mic, but think perhaps it could be forgiving in this respect.

Justin

brittle vocals

one important thing to think about is relative volume. for instance. you are playing loud guitars and so forth you need to have a very loud voice. no amount of amplification will get a soft voice to stand out well against loud music. janis joplin, ozzy, dio. these people had loud voices. if you compare them to the likes of dave mathews, for instance, he has a softer voice and it dosn't come as out of front when he has that whole giant band with that guy beating the drums so loud and so forth. i find him to sound better when he is playing solo.