Anyone willing to take a crack at this?

[Ben Berman]

Sorry for the length of this post, but I'd appreciate any help you can
offer.

I have heard often enough that matching a mic and mic pre to a
particular voice is the key to presenting that voice at its best. Or at
least that the mic/pre combo can have a definite effect on the sound of
the voice.

You know, something like - "That voice is dark/husky/breathy/midrangey
and would benefit from X mic and/or Y mic pre due to its
brightness/throaty/harsh/air-y". Do you match a 'dark' mic or a 'bright'
mic with a 'dark' voice, or vice versa?

Problem is, my ears are not (yet) good enough to always hear significant
differences between mic/pre combinations, and I'm not always sure what
I'm listening to when I _can_ hear differences.

I also don't have a deep locker filled with such toys, nor do I have
experience with them - though, again, I'm not sure my ears would make
sense of the distinctions.

I'm solely concerned with my own voice, and would like to present it in
its most straightforward quality - not that its a great voice, but I'd
like to record it as flattering-ly as skill and budget will permit.

I also know this is all quite subjective, and that how my voice appears
depends on what effect I want to present for the program material, and
also on my engineering skills.

Still . . .

I'm wondering whether any of you with deeper experience would be willing
to take a moment or two to listen to the tone of my voice, and then make
a suggestion regarding mic/pre combinations that might improve over the
status quo, which BTW is a StudioProjects C1/VTB1 combination, going
into Sonar 4P via MAudio Delta66. My personal opinion, FWIW, is that I
sound too 'thick' but not 'round', like I'm hearing it through a head
cold, not enough detail. I'm trying to record with clarity, forward, and
a bit of mid-range emphasis, but also with more detail and a bit of
'air'. I'm not blaming my tools . . . 8-)

I'm in a new room, chock full of Ethan Winer's minitraps, and with less
oddball resonances, so the sound is, I think, a good bit better than
when these songs were recorded. I'd like to upgrade my signal path with
perhaps a $2000 budget for mic and pre. I've been thinking perhaps an
API 500 series pre, but what do I know? No thoughts on a mic . . .

Any comments will be most welcome, and I appreciate anyone's time. The
link is:

http://www.broadjam.com/bzb

Click on "songs" on the left side of the page, and listen to as much or
as little as you like. A few seconds is all it should take . . . .

Thanks!

bzb
--
THE SONG FACTORY
Words and Music, made to order(TM)

WWW: http://www.thesongfactory.com

[Steve Karl]

You're definately in the ball park.
I suspect from hearing these 3 that you can get it there with anything you by.
I also suspect that any final vocal tones you end up with are going to be about what you
"want to hear" in the final mix.

Just taking the vocal by itself and also by my taste ...
"Sounds" is a bit brite in the crunch tones shhhhh tones and a bit weak in the bottom.
But still, it's not way out there.

"What cha..." ... the snare is brutally bright ( ouch hurt me bright! )
but the vocal is a bit flatter in this one than in "Sounds."
Smoother is the top end at least.

Steve



"Ben Berman" > wrote in message ...
> Sorry for the length of this post, but I'd appreciate any help you can offer.
>
> I have heard often enough that matching a mic and mic pre to a particular voice is the key to presenting that voice at its best.
> Or at least that the mic/pre combo can have a definite effect on the sound of the voice.
>
> You know, something like - "That voice is dark/husky/breathy/midrangey and would benefit from X mic and/or Y mic pre due to its
> brightness/throaty/harsh/air-y". Do you match a 'dark' mic or a 'bright' mic with a 'dark' voice, or vice versa?
>
> Problem is, my ears are not (yet) good enough to always hear significant differences between mic/pre combinations, and I'm not
> always sure what I'm listening to when I _can_ hear differences.
>
> I also don't have a deep locker filled with such toys, nor do I have experience with them - though, again, I'm not sure my ears
> would make sense of the distinctions.
>
> I'm solely concerned with my own voice, and would like to present it in its most straightforward quality - not that its a great
> voice, but I'd like to record it as flattering-ly as skill and budget will permit.
>
> I also know this is all quite subjective, and that how my voice appears depends on what effect I want to present for the program
> material, and also on my engineering skills.
>
> Still . . .
>
> I'm wondering whether any of you with deeper experience would be willing to take a moment or two to listen to the tone of my
> voice, and then make a suggestion regarding mic/pre combinations that might improve over the status quo, which BTW is a
> StudioProjects C1/VTB1 combination, going into Sonar 4P via MAudio Delta66. My personal opinion, FWIW, is that I sound too 'thick'
> but not 'round', like I'm hearing it through a head cold, not enough detail. I'm trying to record with clarity, forward, and a bit
> of mid-range emphasis, but also with more detail and a bit of 'air'. I'm not blaming my tools . . . 8-)
>
> I'm in a new room, chock full of Ethan Winer's minitraps, and with less oddball resonances, so the sound is, I think, a good bit
> better than when these songs were recorded. I'd like to upgrade my signal path with perhaps a $2000 budget for mic and pre. I've
> been thinking perhaps an API 500 series pre, but what do I know? No thoughts on a mic . . .
>
> Any comments will be most welcome, and I appreciate anyone's time. The link is:
>
> http://www.broadjam.com/bzb
>
> Click on "songs" on the left side of the page, and listen to as much or as little as you like. A few seconds is all it should take
> . . . .
>
> Thanks!
>
> bzb
> --
> THE SONG FACTORY
> Words and Music, made to order(TM)
>
> WWW: http://www.thesongfactory.com

[Mike Rivers]

Ben Berman wrote:

> I have heard often enough that matching a mic and mic pre to a
> particular voice is the key to presenting that voice at its best. Or at
> least that the mic/pre combo can have a definite effect on the sound of
> the voice.

This is true. But it's a view expressed primarily by two groups of
people:

(a) Those with plenty of mics, preamps, and experience, who get to
record singers who have a voice worth exploiting rather than just
"making it sound its best."

(b) Those who have read what Group A says and passes along the good
advice.

The rest of us are like you. We have a few mics, a few preamps, a
modest budget, projects that don't pay for the gear, and voices (our
own or those of singers who can't afford to go to a studio with lots
of facilities) that are just so-so. What you have to do to make
anything other than an accurate or mediocre but boring recording in a
situation like that is to make the voice sound like something else,
and you have to be creative with what you have available. Don't worry
about making the singer sound like Tony Bennett or Ella Fitzgerald for
every song, consider the song and treat the voice like one more
instrument in the arrangement. You might dream of rich, full, warm
vocals, but if it's a wispy song, that may not be the vocal sound you
should use. This takes some attaitude adjustment, particularly if it's
not your song or your voice. But experiment.

> Problem is, my ears are not (yet) good enough to always hear significant
> differences between mic/pre combinations, and I'm not always sure what
> I'm listening to when I _can_ hear differences.

This is a common thing with beginners, and it's a common fear that
someone will discover your error in judgement, so you ask what the
pros would do. You simply have to work with what you have, and when
it's time to spend some money, get something different than what you
have, not just a better version, at least for a while. Don't worry
about making distinctions of bright or dark, listen for whether the
sound of the voice fits the mood and arrangement of the song. That's
not a technical thing, it's an artistic thing, and it may be easier
for you to relate. If you get that as right as you can, you won't be
wrong about your choice of mic (though someone else might interpret
the song song differently).

> I'm solely concerned with my own voice, and would like to present it in
> its most straightforward quality - not that its a great voice, but I'd
> like to record it as flattering-ly as skill and budget will permit.

What's your goal here? Do you just want to record? Do you want to sell
songs? Do you perform and want CDs to sell off stage? Are you looking
for a record deal? How good are your monitors and your room?

> I also know this is all quite subjective, and that how my voice appears
> depends on what effect I want to present for the program material, and
> also on my engineering skills.

You're most of the way there if you recognize that. You can't put
something in that's not there in front of the microphone, but there
are few microphones that won't capture what's there. The difference is
what frequency ranges they emphasize, but you can trim that by using
equalization. Have you tried that? And you can add effects such as
reverb, compression, doubling and pitch manipulation to make other
changes in the sound of your voice. You can probably come closer than
you think as long as you aren't afraid to experiment with your
recorded tracks.

There are some technical limitations that you'll eventually run into.
For instance, if you want a really wispy, airy voice and discover that
you can get that sound you're aimingfor by boosting 10 dB above 8 kHz,
with a crummy preamp or mic you might find that you also boost hiss up
to an unacceptable level when you shape the voice that way. That's
where you need a better preamp, or maybe you need to work closer to
the mic so you can use less gain on the preamp and hence get less
noise from it. But these are things that you learn by doing, not by
asking.

> status quo, which BTW is a StudioProjects C1/VTB1 combination, going
> into Sonar 4P via MAudio Delta66.

I didn't listen, but that certainly should give you a lot to work
with. Twiddle the knobs in Sonar. It's no sin, and that's what they're
there for. Don't be afraid to cut frequencies (around 400 Hz is the
"head cold" range). If you've already twiddled and this is the best
you can do, perhaps knowing what tweaks get you closer but not quite
there will help guide you toward a different mic. The API is a fine
preamp but you might want to try for something roughly similar but
half the price like an FMR Audio RNP, and leave yourself a little more
money for mics. You might like an Audio Technica 4040 or Neumann
TLM103 and and you'll probably have enough money left over for a nice,
flexible EV RE-20.

[Ian Bell]

Ben Berman wrote:
>
> I'm solely concerned with my own voice, and would like to present it in
> its most straightforward quality - not that its a great voice, but I'd
> like to record it as flattering-ly as skill and budget will permit.
>

And I think that is the nub of the problem. I think your time and money
would be better spent on voice training than on an expensive mic and pre.

Ian

[Sue Morton]

FWIW, I agree with Mike, Ian and Steve, they all present a different point
of view on the same problem.

A really GOOD voice sounds good even with a scratchy old tape recorder.
Sure, that recording doesn't sound like it came from a studio, but it still
sounds great. That's because the character of the voice is what comes
through, no matter what the equipment, and that is utimately what our ears
hear and like, not whether it sounds like a tin can or a boomy auditorium.

If you don't feel your voice has that type of character, Ian's suggestion to
take some lessons is on the mark. Finding the right teacher can be
difficult but it's key. If you do you won't have to take that many lessons
to hear improvement in your presentation (assuming you work hard between
lessons). Its a committment, the same as learning a new instrument, because
your voice IS an instrument and you're relearning how to play it.

If you do this, or if you feel that your voice already has sufficient
'presence', IMO the only way to find out what pre and mic combo is best for
your voice, is to try them. This also can be difficult, depending on where
you live...

You mentioned a VTB-1 and C1, again JMO but that combo has produced the best
quality overall, of most of the singers I've recorded. There were a couple
of singers that did better with a different combo. You could be one of
them. But I always try the Studio Projects pairing first, usually it's
terrific.

My $0.02 USD...
--
Sue Morton

"Ben Berman" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry for the length of this post, but I'd appreciate any help you can
> offer.

[Ben Berman]

Sue Morton wrote:
> FWIW, I agree with Mike, Ian and Steve,

To all -

Thanks Steve, Mike, Ian and Sue for the generosity of your thoughts.
Food for thought, for sure. A couple specifics:

Steve - Thanks for your comments. Sorry about the snare on Whatcha Gonna
Do - I went back and listened to it after reading your comment, and I
hear what you're saying. I probably just didn't hear it on tracking or
mixing, or perhaps something happened during mp3 conversion, but
whatever, I'll try to correct it at the source. Thanks for the pointer.

Mike - Again, thanks for your thoughts. In response to your specific
questions: My room is probably about average, about 12x18, loaded with
Ethan Winer's mini-traps. The walls are not parallel, and the ceiling
and floor are only partially parallel, though with lots of diffusion
(desk, shelves, equipment, amps). As to the purpose of recording, I
would hope eventually to sell some music, but for now I'd simply like to
learn how to reproduce the songs in my head within the limits of my
guitars, my keyboards, my voice, and musicianly and engineering skills.
I'm not trying to make a silk purse out of my voice, but I'd simply like
to be able to reproduce it to it's own best credit, so that when I do
submit a song for someone's consideration, I don't get back a comment
like "The vocal doesn't help sell this song!"

In that regard, and this goes to the comments of Ian and Sue as well, I
know that voice lessons would likely improve my palette of tools. For
that matter, so would guitar lessons, and that's after years of 'em. But
it's been years since, and not likely anytime soon in this life. What
I'd like to accomplish though is not to get the vocals sounding like
Fitzgerald or Sinatra or Tony Bennet, or Lennon or Bono or Dylan for
that matter. Just like me, only more so. I can hear the limitations of
my voice, but I also know that with a bit of work, I should be able to
make it sound better than I did in these recordings.

Again, thanks for the generosity of your time and comments.

bzb
--
THE SONG FACTORY
Words and Music, made to order(TM)

WWW: http://www.thesongfactory.com