Is this primarily a singing technique issue or a post-recording EQ issue, or
both? The reason I am asking is because I have found that in some of my live
recordings the singer sounds like they are right up on the mic. I can EQ the
boomy-ness out but it still never sounds like a good commercial studio
recording. Something too "present" in it still as compared to the lightness
and "close but not too close" sound of a good commercial vocal recording.

At the same time though, I watch live concerts and see the vocalist almost
swallowing the mic, yet the recordings sound clean and light instead of
heavy and boomy due to proximity. This is with a good live peformance mic
like a Beta 58 even, not a dedicated "recording" mic or LDC.

Any tips appreciated.

-Ben

They do a LOT of processing to get that Beta 58 to sound good after the
fact. It also helps when you are a really good singer and can basically
sound amazing singing through a tin can. 58s sound good live usually
because they are EQ'd and compressed and the music is REALLY LOUD so you
don't (or can't) notice. Live recordings with 58s usually do sound
inherently inferioir to my ears.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Ben Hanson wrote:
Is this primarily a singing technique issue or a post-recording EQ issue, or
both? The reason I am asking is because I have found that in some of my live
recordings the singer sounds like they are right up on the mic. I can EQ the
boomy-ness out but it still never sounds like a good commercial studio
recording. Something too "present" in it still as compared to the lightness
and "close but not too close" sound of a good commercial vocal recording.

At the same time though, I watch live concerts and see the vocalist almost
swallowing the mic, yet the recordings sound clean and light instead of
heavy and boomy due to proximity. This is with a good live peformance mic
like a Beta 58 even, not a dedicated "recording" mic or LDC.

Any tips appreciated.

-Ben

And by the way, "inferioir" I'm guessing is even worse than "inferior"!

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Trevor de Clercq wrote:
They do a LOT of processing to get that Beta 58 to sound good after the
fact. It also helps when you are a really good singer and can basically
sound amazing singing through a tin can. 58s sound good live usually
because they are EQ'd and compressed and the music is REALLY LOUD so you
don't (or can't) notice. Live recordings with 58s usually do sound
inherently inferioir to my ears.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Ben Hanson wrote:

Is this primarily a singing technique issue or a post-recording EQ
issue, or
both? The reason I am asking is because I have found that in some of
my live
recordings the singer sounds like they are right up on the mic. I can
EQ the
boomy-ness out but it still never sounds like a good commercial studio
recording. Something too "present" in it still as compared to the
lightness
and "close but not too close" sound of a good commercial vocal recording.

At the same time though, I watch live concerts and see the vocalist
almost
swallowing the mic, yet the recordings sound clean and light instead of
heavy and boomy due to proximity. This is with a good live peformance mic
like a Beta 58 even, not a dedicated "recording" mic or LDC.

Any tips appreciated.

-Ben

Trevor...

Send me your snail-mail address and I'll forward you a couple of *real*
live recordings (direct clones of the house mix - live to DAT) using all
57's and 58's where nothing at all could be done in post but to throw
away what we didn't want. Sure... they aren't studio recordings, and
they aren't all _that_ great, but they are representative of modest tools
getting the job done in a commercially acceptable manner. Recording
off of the FOH house mix has been quite the debate at times, and the
majority of people believe that it cannot be done, but I can offer proof to
the contrary. A little high-pass filtering and some judicious EQ can get
past the whole proximity effect thing.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com


"Trevor de Clercq" wrote in message news:1109439581.6d89c2e6b3b2257f18361cafd20db58e@t eranews...
They do a LOT of processing to get that Beta 58 to sound good after the
fact. It also helps when you are a really good singer and can basically
sound amazing singing through a tin can. 58s sound good live usually
because they are EQ'd and compressed and the music is REALLY LOUD so you
don't (or can't) notice. Live recordings with 58s usually do sound
inherently inferioir to my ears.

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Ben Hanson wrote:
Is this primarily a singing technique issue or a post-recording EQ issue, or
both? The reason I am asking is because I have found that in some of my live
recordings the singer sounds like they are right up on the mic. I can EQ the
boomy-ness out but it still never sounds like a good commercial studio
recording. Something too "present" in it still as compared to the lightness
and "close but not too close" sound of a good commercial vocal recording.

At the same time though, I watch live concerts and see the vocalist almost
swallowing the mic, yet the recordings sound clean and light instead of
heavy and boomy due to proximity. This is with a good live peformance mic
like a Beta 58 even, not a dedicated "recording" mic or LDC.

Any tips appreciated.

-Ben

No, it's French.


Trevor de Clercq wrote:
And by the way, "inferioir" I'm guessing is even worse than "inferior"!

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

Trevor de Clercq wrote:

Live recordings with 58s
usually do sound inherently inferioir to my ears.

David, I believe you. I bet a high pass and some EQ can basically fix a
58 to sound pretty good. Doesn't Mick Jagger sing through a 57 even on
studio recordings or something like that? Maybe that's Steven
Tyler.....I usually don't confuse the two (big difference).

On an unrelated note, most of the time the main problem with live vocals
is that they are horrendously out of tune and there are no other takes
to work from. I guess that's really not a proximity effect problem,
though. The out-of-tune-ness of the vocal is not always due to the
singer being "bad", I think, but mostly due to the high SPL level (which
makes people sing flat usually), plus perhaps an imperfect monitoring
situation. Cheap Trick Live at Budokan sounds awesome, but I've heard
other live stuff of theirs from the same era and same songs that let's
just say doesn't sound awesome (both vocals and instruments).

Anyway, proximity effect is just an EQ response change, so theoretically
it can be offset by a mere corrective EQ. Other facets of a 58 might be
harder, though....

Recording the FOH versus recording to a secondary source (like a bunch
of DA-88s) is not something I know much about. I just have studio
experience and the experience of sessions being brought in for mixing
after having been multi-tracked in concert. I do believe a careful and
experienced engineer could get the FOH to sound good both in the room
and on tape (although I think some of that depends on the type of music
being performed).

Cheers,
Trevor de Clercq

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
Trevor...

Send me your snail-mail address and I'll forward you a couple of *real*
live recordings (direct clones of the house mix - live to DAT) using all
57's and 58's where nothing at all could be done in post but to throw
away what we didn't want. Sure... they aren't studio recordings, and
they aren't all _that_ great, but they are representative of modest tools
getting the job done in a commercially acceptable manner. Recording
off of the FOH house mix has been quite the debate at times, and the
majority of people believe that it cannot be done, but I can offer proof to
the contrary. A little high-pass filtering and some judicious EQ can get
past the whole proximity effect thing.

In a live situation is hard to control the singer (although he/she
should know to pull the mic away some when signing loud). However, you
can record live and then as you pass through the second time to 'clean'
you can as you said remove most of the BASS with EQ usually around the
80 to 100 Hz range. As for the in your face sound there are many
'plug-ins' and you can set where the singer will sit in the music.

In article 1109451599.53696041e2be3a11d6714c31ebcafebb@teran ews writes:

On an unrelated note, most of the time the main problem with live vocals
is that they are horrendously out of tune

Why do we put up with this? If they're out of tune on the recording,
they must be out of tune in the show. Perhaps it doesn't bother us as
much when we're in the room with the musicians as it does when we're
listening at a reasonable volume in our living room or studio without
all the other distractions. Since Autotune, we've become obsessed with
accurate intonation, but if singers are really worse than ever live,
then we'd best do something about that.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

Since Autotune, we've become obsessed with
accurate intonation, but if singers are really worse than ever live,
then we'd best do something about that.

It could be that technology puts the spotlight on what technology can
rather than an actual need. Pitch problem is a consequence of a poor
performance, not the cause. If you're tired or uninspired or have poor
technique then you sing bad. More often than not intonation is one of
those several things bad. If you fix intonation using technology you
still have all the other and much more important parts of bad left... If
someone sings good and occasionally is slightly off, does that really
matter? I don't understand the obsession with intonation. There's much
more to music and a good performance than that.

Lars

--
lars farm // http://www.farm.se
lars is also a mail-account on the server farm.se
aim: