Hey guys, I'm working on a mix of my cover of "Superstition" by Stevie Wonder. I think the vocal might be a bit low in the mix and a bit too congested around 300-500k/not bright enough. I used my new Telefunken Elam 251 and for the price, I'm trying to make decisions about whether or not I should hold onto it or go with another vintage tube that suits my voice. Feedback is greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
DAvid Korn
Topic Tags
Comments
So tbd i'm feeling a little frustrated.. Ive been searching for
So tbd i'm feeling a little frustrated.. Ive been searching for the right mic and preamp for many years now and have had zero luck. I just recently purchased the Advanced Audio remake of the Telefunken 251 for about $1000, and every review online raves about Advanced audio and this mic. I had been looking for a tube mic for so long that gave me that full bright tube sound with character and smooth transients. That was the key issue, the transients. Every mic i've owned previously, AKG C141, Neumann tlm102, LewitLCT540, had a "harshness" in the 1-3khz range on every vocalist that i spent hours trying to remove from records. This new mic has everything I want in terms of body and character and sound, EXCEPT it gets harsh and painful in that EXACT range. I'm wondering if it's possibly my signal chain, or maybe im imagining things...
I run the Tube mic into the mic input of my Focusrite ISA pre amp and then into my Scarlett 6i6 DI where it goes into my computer via USB 2.
Help is much needed!!!
Thanks!!
Heres a sample of a completely dry vocal that had that harshness
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
I feel your frustrations, you obviously have a good ear and are
I feel your frustrations, you obviously have a good ear and are looking for better sound. Kudo's on your passion.
Pretty much every mic I own sounds better through quality preamps and converters. That mic (although I have no experience with it) should sound pretty good and your Focusrite ISA micpre is good as well so that narrows things down to tracking levels and the converter analog counterparts.
The converter is not the greatest from a pro audio standpoint so the way deal with harshness, keep your gain staging lower than what you are accustom to at present. Keep lowering it until your find the sweet spot.
Higher end gear deals with headroom freq bursts and input levels in general, better.
Your voice (singing) sounds good but I do hear a subtle limiting happening on this example which indicates something peaking on the way in (AD).
Try recording at lower levels.
DKAUDIO, post: 445413, member: 49673 wrote: It's about 2k and it
DKAUDIO, post: 445413, member: 49673 wrote: It's about 2k and it's triggered by my overtones.
audiokid, post: 445412, member: 1 wrote: Just for curiosity, what freq area do you find the harshest? Example: 3k, 5k, 7k etc?
I can solve the problem sorta with a C1 multiband compressor, but I don't want to have to doctor every vocal. I would love to get a good sound from the start and work my way forward. I was considering returning the 251 and trying their U47 but the more I think about it, the more I realize it's probably not an issue with the mic
DKAUDIO, post: 445413, member: 49673 wrote: It's about 2k and it
DKAUDIO, post: 445413, member: 49673 wrote: It's about 2k and it's triggered by my overtones.
Just a hunch, retrack that again but this time allow for 20db of upper mid headroom. Let me know how it sounds.
When you process it, keep the mp3 around -8. Its cool to increase the volume, better increasing it to tracking hot.
audiokid, post: 445415, member: 1 wrote: Just a hunch, retrack t
audiokid, post: 445415, member: 1 wrote: Just a hunch, retrack that again but this time allow for 20db of upper mid headroom. Let me know how it sounds.
When you process it, keep the mp3 around -8. Its cool to increase the volume, better increasing it to tracking hot.
I can upload that in a few minutes! To the booth!
DKAUDIO, post: 445414, member: 49673 wrote: I can solve the prob
DKAUDIO, post: 445414, member: 49673 wrote: I can solve the problem sorta with a C1 multiband compressor, but I don't want to have to doctor every vocal.
Mulitbands are the last thing I use. I may use one (if you forced me) in mastering but never in the mix or tracking.
Lower end analog gear actually sounds like multiband compression.
You are way better off lowering your tracking level and allowing the preamp and capture to bloom before it ever needs crushing.
It sounds like you have the C4 on right now? Don't use it for now. Lets isolate things.
audiokid, post: 445417, member: 1 wrote: Mulitbands are the last
audiokid, post: 445417, member: 1 wrote: Mulitbands are the last thing I use.
It sounds like you have the C4 on right now? Don't use it.
Lower end analog gear actually sounds like multiband compression.
You are way better off lowering your tracking level and allowing the preamp and capture to bloom before it ever needs crushing.
Actually with that first MP3 it was completely dry. No processing at all!
DKAUDIO, post: 445419, member: 49673 wrote: Actually with that f
DKAUDIO, post: 445419, member: 49673 wrote: Actually with that first MP3 it was completely dry. No processing at all!
Good.
I suspect your chain can be improved through gain staging strategies. Looking forward to your next example. More so, what you hear on your end next.
audiokid, post: 445420, member: 1 wrote: Good. I suspect your c
audiokid, post: 445420, member: 1 wrote: Good.
I suspect your chain can be improved through gain staging strategies. Looking forward to your next example. More so, what you hear on your end next.
Unfortunately, I still Hear it :(
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
DKAUDIO, post: 445421, member: 49673 wrote: Unfortunately, I sti
DKAUDIO, post: 445421, member: 49673 wrote: Unfortunately, I still Hear it :(
[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.or…
Quick side note, I had originally purchased the additional ADC card for my ISA before buying this mic which made the signal a bit fatter and clearer but still gave me troubles with those HF. Also, the only piece of gear that I haven't swapped out to try to solve this issue is the 6I6
DKAUDIO, post: 445423, member: 49673 wrote: Quick side note, I h
DKAUDIO, post: 445423, member: 49673 wrote: Quick side note, I had originally purchased the additional ADC card for my ISA before buying this mic which made the signal a bit fatter and clearer but still gave me troubles with those HF. Also, the only piece of gear that I haven't swapped out to try to solve this issue is the 6I6
I ended up returning it because it wasn't worth it for $400
audiokid, post: 445425, member: 1 wrote: The second version does
audiokid, post: 445425, member: 1 wrote: The second version does sound better to me but I still hear what you are not liking. Unfortunately, you are reaching a point where it may cost more money now.
Any recommendations? Should I get a better AD converter? Or a better interface? The card made for the ISA wasn't amazing.
DKAUDIO, post: 445427, member: 49673 wrote: Any recommendations?
DKAUDIO, post: 445427, member: 49673 wrote: Any recommendations? Should I get a better AD converter? Or a better interface? The card made for the ISA wasn't amazing.
Don't know for certain. Can you test gear before you buy where you are?
The AD has impact on the sound. The interface moves digital to and from the DAW. Right now I believe you need to improve the analog side which would be any one of these. Mic, micpre, converter. I would only be guessing to say which is the weakest. My guess is your AD.
A few more questions out of curiosity, What sample rate are yo
A few more questions out of curiosity,
- What sample rate are you tracking at?
- What is your peak value during tracking" example, -20, red, green, yellow?
- What DAW platform are you using?
- I mentioned turning your DAW input down but did you try turning down the input gain on the preamp and/ or converter as well?
class="xf-ul">
see this too.
http://recording.org/threads/reasons-to-track-at-lower-levels.59145/
http://recording.org/threads/levels-and-metering-analog-v-s-digital.59447/I'm sure others will chime in later. Good luck, I hope I've helped some. You have a good voice too.
Ok, first, that DI goes to a part of the preamp of the scarlett
Ok, first, that DI goes to a part of the preamp of the scarlett and doesn't have the right impedance. So you are going preamp to preamp. This doesn't say it's a bad thing but you are not recording the sound of the mic and ISA alone. If it's an ISA one, you could buy the converter option, but god knows why Focusrite didn't match the spdif format of the Scarlett... so having a converter like the Mitek AD96 could be a better option.. (worth the price, I use one with my LA-610)
But before you do anything else, I'm gonna talk about my ISA experience.
I find them very nice and quiet preamp but with my nazal voice, not my best choice. I mostly go to the LA-610 for my type of voice and also for the included compressor.
What I suggest you do ; book an hour or two in a big studio, make them record your voice with many mic/preamp combination.. Also bring your mic to compare it.
I'm sure it'll be the best investment for you.. you'll get time to analyse the results and hear what mic with what preamp sounds the best for you without changing gear 1000 times...
To finish, what you don't like may well be in the natural sound of your voice...
pcrecord, post: 445432, member: 46460 wrote: Ok, first, that DI
pcrecord, post: 445432, member: 46460 wrote: Ok, first, that DI goes to a part of the preamp of the scarlett and doesn't have the right impedance. So you are going preamp to preamp. This doesn't say it's a bad thing but you are not recording the sound of the mic and ISA alone. If it's an ISA one, you could buy the converter option, but god knows why Focusrite didn't match the spdif format of the Scarlett... so having a converter like the Mitek AD96 could be a better option.. (worth the price, I use one with my LA-610)
But before you do anything else, I'm gonna talk about my ISA experience.
I find them very nice and quiet preamp but with my nazal voice, not my best choice. I mostly go to the LA-610 for my type of voice and also for the included compressor.What I suggest you do ; book an hour or two in a big studio, make them record your voice with many mic/preamp combination.. Also bring your mic to compare it.
I'm sure it'll be the best investment for you.. you'll get time to analyse the results and hear what mic with what preamp sounds the best for you without changing gear 1000 times...To finish, what you don't like may well be in the natural sound of your voice...
Is it possible that it's entirely the way I'm singing and not a cause for concern? Also, if I were to go with a better AD converter, even though it's not a higher end piece of gear would the
Behringer ADA8200 be an improvement?
DKAUDIO, post: 445435, member: 49673 wrote: Behringer ADA8200 be
DKAUDIO, post: 445435, member: 49673 wrote: Behringer ADA8200 be an improvement?
not at all.
pcrecord, post: 445432, member: 46460 wrote: What I suggest you do ; book an hour or two in a big studio, make them record your voice with many mic/preamp combination.. Also bring your mic to compare it.
I'm sure it'll be the best investment for you.. you'll get time to analyse the results and hear what mic with what preamp sounds the best for you without changing gear 1000 times...
great advice. (y)
Sounds like he may well be, Kurt. pcrecord, post: 445432, member
Sounds like he may well be, Kurt.
pcrecord, post: 445432, member: 46460 wrote: Ok, first, that DI goes to a part of the preamp of the scarlett and doesn't have the right impedance. So you are going preamp to preamp.
Marco, nailed this but I'm not convinced this is all his problem, but certainly not helping. The Scarlett is the weak link in his configuration one way or the other.
audiokid, post: 445442, member: 1 wrote: Sounds like he may well
audiokid, post: 445442, member: 1 wrote: Sounds like he may well be, Kurt.
Marco, nailed this but I'm not convinced this is all his problem, but certainly not helping. The Scarlett is the weak link in his configuration one way or the other.
I don't think so. I'm going out of the main xlr out on my pre and going into the quarter inch input #4 on the back
audiokid, post: 445444, member: 1 wrote: For added discussion, I
audiokid, post: 445444, member: 1 wrote: For added discussion, It never ceases to amaze me why people spend big bucks on a mic and run them though low end preamps /converters.
I'd rather have a top micpre and an $80 SM58 to most of the rack crap on the market.
The pre is nice it's just the converter. I bought the pre before I knew about the power of converters
DKAUDIO, post: 445446, member: 49673 wrote: The pre is nice it's
DKAUDIO, post: 445446, member: 49673 wrote: The pre is nice it's just the converter. I bought the pre before I knew about the power of converters
I agree on the ISA, but the Scarlett has preamps too, correct. How do you bypass the gain stage of the Scarlett? (could there be a phantom power issue here as well?)
I'm not familiar with theses products nor a tech guy, but pcrecord and Kurt have good points. If you are pushing "pre amp to preamp" you are smashing the signals ( like using 2 distortion PEDALS chained together).
I do think you need to upgrade your ADC though. Good ones come at a premium $.
audiokid, post: 445450, member: 1 wrote: YES.(y) I agree, do tha
audiokid, post: 445450, member: 1 wrote: YES.(y)
I agree, do that and then upload an example.
I have tried bypassing the ISA wig this mic for this song, And it's actually much worse. Also, I'm sure I'm not going from pre amp to pre amp, the input I was going into on the scarlett is a DI with no extra preamping or coloring, but I think it boils down to the converter
DKAUDIO, post: 445451, member: 49673 wrote: I think it boils dow
DKAUDIO, post: 445451, member: 49673 wrote: I think it boils down to the converter
(I'm not dismissing you ALSO have an impedance mismatch) ..... The Scarlett is the weak link here, creating obstacles. But I am enjoying and agreeing with the other comments to help trouble shoot this all with you.
Being said... Good converters cost more money than a few hundred $ though.
How many AD channels do you need at once? I'd go from there and then start researching for better.
i can't say but the specs on the 6i6 are stated as line in Maxim
i can't say but the specs on the 6i6 are stated as line in Maximum input level +16 dBu @ 52k Ω.
again not sure about it but the ISA specs @Maximum Output Level +24 dBu with 150 Ω source impedance.
is this ok?
what i think is happening is an impedance mis match. 150 Ω into 10kΩ line input. I'm not sure that is kosher.
https://us.focusrite.com/usb-audio-interfaces/scarlett-6i6
specifications">https://us.focusrite.com/mic-pres/isa-twospecifications
audiokid, post: 445452, member: 1 wrote: (I'm not dismissing you
audiokid, post: 445452, member: 1 wrote: (I'm not dismissing you ALSO have an impedance mismatch) ..... The Scarlett is the weak link here, creating obstacles. But I am enjoying and agreeing with the other comments to help trouble shoot this all with you.
Being said... Good converters cost more money than a few hundred $ though.
How many AD channels do you need at once? I'd go from there and then start researching for better.
I'm enjoying this! It's nice to have pros help me with this kind of stuff. And it helps take some of the stress away. I only need one or two
Kurt Foster, post: 445453, member: 7836 wrote: i can't say but t
Kurt Foster, post: 445453, member: 7836 wrote: i can't say but the specs on the 6i6 are stated as line in Maximum input level +16 dBu @ 52k Ω.
again not sure about it but the ISA specs @Maximum Output Level +24 dBu with 150 Ω source impedance.
is this ok?what i think is happening is an impedance mis match. 150 Ω into 10kΩ line input. I'm not sure that is kosher.
https://us.focusrite.com/usb-audio-interfaces/scarlett-6i6
specifications">https://us.focusrite.com/mic-pres/isa-twospecifications
Interesting!!!
DKAUDIO, post: 439882, member: 49673 wrote: Yeah I think so! the
Hi David, if you upload audio to our server, you will get a better response. FYI, I did try to go there but it asked for permission.