Usually I like to track one singer at a time or mic individually but this
group wants to sing together in the same room. Got a big beautiful sounding
room for them but could use some micing advice. My available mics a

2 - Rode NT 2's
1 - Neumann TLM 103
2 - Neumann KM-184's
1 - Oktava MKL 2500
1 - Sennheiser MD-421

For stereo I'll put them through a Peavey VMP2, mono an Avalon 737sp.

Any and all suggestion appreciated.

Thanks,

Neil R

Usually I like to track one singer at a time or mic individually but this
group wants to sing together in the same room. Got a big beautiful
sounding
room for them but could use some micing advice. My available mics a

2 - Rode NT 2's
1 - Neumann TLM 103
2 - Neumann KM-184's
1 - Oktava MKL 2500
1 - Sennheiser MD-421

For stereo I'll put them through a Peavey VMP2, mono an Avalon 737sp.

Are they insisting on singing into a mic pair, or can they each have their
own mic?

If I were you I'd insist on the latter. The odds of three voices working
well with one mic type is pretty slim. If possible have them face each
other in a triangle, at least 6' apart to get decent separation.

If you have to use a stereo pair, it's pretty much got to be the NT-2's in
an ORTF-ish format, and it wouldn't hurt to have the KM184's further back in
XY so you can play with the room sound. I suppose it's worth trying the
KM184's up front, but the NT-2's aren't nearly as good room mics IMO. The
ORTF pair will have to be done right on site, so play with mic positioning
until you get what you want.

Sugarite wrote:

Usually I like to track one singer at a time or mic individually but this
group wants to sing together in the same room. Got a big beautiful

sounding

room for them but could use some micing advice. My available mics a

2 - Rode NT 2's
1 - Neumann TLM 103

Use the 2 Rode's and the TLM103. Figure out who sounds better on what
mic and roll with it. Are these BGV's or a Cappella, or what? It could
make a difference. I would arrange them like this: Everyone on their own
mic. Two singers facing each other. The 3rd facing inward, perpendicular
to the other 2. Think of it like this, everyone is facing the center of
the circle. One is at 0 degrees, another at 90 degrees, the 3rd is at
270 degrees.

If you can check it out, I think the current issue of EQ magazine has an
article By Lynn Fuston that might offer some suggestions for this situation.

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com

Usually I like to track one singer at a time or mic individually but this
group wants to sing together in the same room. Got a big beautiful
sounding
room for them but could use some micing advice. My available mics a

2 - Rode NT 2's
1 - Neumann TLM 103
2 - Neumann KM-184's
1 - Oktava MKL 2500
1 - Sennheiser MD-421

For stereo I'll put them through a Peavey VMP2, mono an Avalon 737sp.

Are they insisting on singing into a mic pair, or can they each have their
own mic?

If I were you I'd insist on the latter. The odds of three voices working
well with one mic type is pretty slim. If possible have them face each
other in a triangle, at least 6' apart to get decent separation.

If you have to use a stereo pair, it's pretty much got to be the NT-2's
in
an ORTF-ish format, and it wouldn't hurt to have the KM184's further back
in
XY so you can play with the room sound. I suppose it's worth trying the
KM184's up front, but the NT-2's aren't nearly as good room mics IMO. The
ORTF pair will have to be done right on site, so play with mic positioning
until you get what you want.


IF they are decent singers, a stereo pair will work well.

if you can get the mics far enough back, an ORTF configuration will work. bit
if close, I would try XY.

Three mics will also work, but don't expect it to blend all that well.

Pros will sound great on one mic regardless of what it is.
Those that can't blend acoustically will require all the tricks that you can
use and still not sound great.

Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

"Sugarite" wrote in message

Usually I like to track one singer at a time or mic individually but
this group wants to sing together in the same room. Got a big
beautiful
sounding
room for them but could use some micing advice. My available mics
a

2 - Rode NT 2's
1 - Neumann TLM 103
2 - Neumann KM-184's
1 - Oktava MKL 2500
1 - Sennheiser MD-421

For stereo I'll put them through a Peavey VMP2, mono an Avalon 737sp.

Are they insisting on singing into a mic pair, or can they each have
their own mic?

If I were you I'd insist on the latter. The odds of three voices
working well with one mic type is pretty slim. If possible have them
face each other in a triangle, at least 6' apart to get decent
separation.

Agreed.

Given that I record live performances with singers using individual mics all
the time, I am a little surprised that someone would have concerns about
doing this. Other than paying attention to the 3:1 rule, there are a wide
range of approaches that can work.

I often end up using identical mics for each singer, but having a closet
full of mics that could be used to optimize the sound quality of each singer
would be a lot of fun.

I like the sound of small groups singing with each other. There's a sense of
immediacy and interaction that IME is hard to get any other way.

Pros will sound great on one mic regardless of what it is. Those that
can't blend acoustically will require all the tricks that you can use and
still not sound great.

Ain't that the truth!!!!

I was a pro singer in NYC for around 20 years.
In the 1000's of dates, I've done, I have never done backs with more than 1
mic for group 3.
Let the guys sing the parts in unison, so they can think about blending
,with out having to worry about different notes.

Tom





"EricK" wrote in message
...
Sugarite wrote:

Usually I like to track one singer at a time or mic individually but
this
group wants to sing together in the same room. Got a big beautiful

sounding

room for them but could use some micing advice. My available mics a

2 - Rode NT 2's
1 - Neumann TLM 103

Use the 2 Rode's and the TLM103. Figure out who sounds better on what
mic and roll with it. Are these BGV's or a Cappella, or what? It could
make a difference. I would arrange them like this: Everyone on their own
mic. Two singers facing each other. The 3rd facing inward, perpendicular
to the other 2. Think of it like this, everyone is facing the center of
the circle. One is at 0 degrees, another at 90 degrees, the 3rd is at
270 degrees.

If you can check it out, I think the current issue of EQ magazine has an
article By Lynn Fuston that might offer some suggestions for this
situation.

--
Eric

www.Raw-Tracks.com

Thanks guys. Great input as usual.

Neil R

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sugarite" wrote in message

Usually I like to track one singer at a time or mic individually but
this group wants to sing together in the same room. Got a big
beautiful
sounding
room for them but could use some micing advice. My available mics
a

2 - Rode NT 2's
1 - Neumann TLM 103
2 - Neumann KM-184's
1 - Oktava MKL 2500
1 - Sennheiser MD-421

For stereo I'll put them through a Peavey VMP2, mono an Avalon 737sp.

Are they insisting on singing into a mic pair, or can they each have
their own mic?

If I were you I'd insist on the latter. The odds of three voices
working well with one mic type is pretty slim. If possible have them
face each other in a triangle, at least 6' apart to get decent
separation.

Agreed.

Given that I record live performances with singers using individual mics
all the time, I am a little surprised that someone would have concerns
about doing this. Other than paying attention to the 3:1 rule, there are a
wide range of approaches that can work.

I often end up using identical mics for each singer, but having a closet
full of mics that could be used to optimize the sound quality of each
singer would be a lot of fun.

I like the sound of small groups singing with each other. There's a sense
of immediacy and interaction that IME is hard to get any other way.

In an article by Lynn Fuston in the December issue of EQ, he describes
an interesting approach to recording a group of three background
singers who will be recording more than one pass. He sets up an M-S
pair (which requires a bi-directional mic that the origianal poster
doesn't have) and puts the singers at 9 o'clock, 3 o'clock and a
little off center (11:30 or so). When mixing successive passes,
switch the left/right matrixing so the one on the right moves to the
left, the one on the left moves to the right, and the one off-center
moves to the other side of center.

I know, that sounds like a political song I don't quite remember - and
the one in the back . . . . . burned his draft card.



--
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

Or the singers could move too. Very cool idea!
The thing about multi-mono tracks though is total panning control, if you
want it.
As always, it depends on the music.

Tom



"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1102689550k@trad...

In an article by Lynn Fuston in the December issue of EQ, he describes
an interesting approach to recording a group of three background
singers who will be recording more than one pass. He sets up an M-S
pair (which requires a bi-directional mic that the origianal poster
doesn't have) and puts the singers at 9 o'clock, 3 o'clock and a
little off center (11:30 or so). When mixing successive passes,
switch the left/right matrixing so the one on the right moves to the
left, the one on the left moves to the right, and the one off-center
moves to the other side of center.

I know, that sounds like a political song I don't quite remember - and
the one in the back . . . . . burned his draft card.



--
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 in message
news:znr1102689550k@trad...

In an article by Lynn Fuston in the December issue of EQ, he describes
an interesting approach to recording a group of three background
singers who will be recording more than one pass. He sets up an M-S
pair (which requires a bi-directional mic that the origianal poster
doesn't have) and puts the singers at 9 o'clock, 3 o'clock and a
little off center (11:30 or so). When mixing successive passes,
switch the left/right matrixing so the one on the right moves to the
left, the one on the left moves to the right, and the one off-center
moves to the other side of center.


I've done tripple tracking of three part harmonies similar to this (well,
not quite similar, but...) where three singers each sing a different part,
and swap parts for each pass...all singing into one mic. Extremely full
sound.

Mike

Arny Krueger wrote:

Other than paying attention to the 3:1 rule, there are a wide
range of approaches that can work.

Including what is often the most sensible and effective at getting good
vocal _blends_: using a single or a pair of mics to track the singers en
masse.

--
ha

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1102689550k@trad...

In an article by Lynn Fuston in the December issue of EQ, he describes
an interesting approach to recording a group of three background
singers who will be recording more than one pass. He sets up an M-S
pair (which requires a bi-directional mic that the origianal poster
doesn't have) and puts the singers at 9 o'clock, 3 o'clock and a
little off center (11:30 or so). When mixing successive passes,
switch the left/right matrixing so the one on the right moves to the
left, the one on the left moves to the right, and the one off-center
moves to the other side of center.

I know, that sounds like a political song I don't quite remember - and
the one in the back . . . . . burned his draft card.

Johnny Cash.

Peace,
Paul

In article ,
(hank alrich) wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Other than paying attention to the 3:1 rule, there are a wide
range of approaches that can work.

Including what is often the most sensible and effective at getting good
vocal _blends_: using a single or a pair of mics to track the singers en
masse.

--
ha


I heard a songwriter on NPR yesterday talking about her CD of Latin hymns. It
was done in the studio and I'm sorry, but it just didn't sound right. That kind
of vocal music sounds right in a church or similar environment where the voices
blend in the air and meld into the ambience of the structure. They didn't get
near that blend multi-miking in the studio.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

For what its worth, in a Mamas & Papas video biography some years
back they talked about a "ghost voice" they heard when they
all sang together (Denny said they had a name for the voice, but
I forget: Larry?). And I recall reading about the Hollies saying
something similaqr, and they all sang into a single mic (at least in
the early days).

You probably don't get that with separate vocal tracks.

Henry Salvia.

hank alrich wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Other than paying attention to the 3:1 rule, there are a wide
range of approaches that can work.

Including what is often the most sensible and effective at getting good
vocal _blends_: using a single or a pair of mics to track the singers en
masse.

--
ha

Henry Salvia wrote:

For what its worth, in a Mamas & Papas video biography some years
back they talked about a "ghost voice" they heard when they
all sang together (Denny said they had a name for the voice, but
I forget: Larry?). And I recall reading about the Hollies saying
something similaqr, and they all sang into a single mic (at least in
the early days).

You probably don't get that with separate vocal tracks.

Right, that has to happen in the air. And good air plug-ins are in short
supply.

--
ha

"Henry Salvia" wrote in message
...
For what its worth, in a Mamas & Papas video biography some years
back they talked about a "ghost voice" they heard when they
all sang together (Denny said they had a name for the voice, but
I forget: Larry?). And I recall reading about the Hollies saying
something similaqr, and they all sang into a single mic (at least in
the early days).

You probably don't get that with separate vocal tracks.

Some friends of mine in a band featuring close harmonies describe a "ball of
sound" that forms in the air when the three of them are singing just right.

Back in the middle ages, when instrumentalists did this, the extra voices
would come out of the cathedral ceiling. The musicians called them "angels".

Peace,
Paul

For what its worth, in a Mamas & Papas video biography some years
back they talked about a "ghost voice" they heard when they
all sang together (Denny said they had a name for the voice, but
I forget: Larry?). And I recall reading about the Hollies saying
something similaqr, and they all sang into a single mic (at least in
the early days).

You probably don't get that with separate vocal tracks.

Some friends of mine in a band featuring close harmonies describe a "ball
of
sound" that forms in the air when the three of them are singing just
right.

Back in the middle ages, when instrumentalists did this, the extra voices
would come out of the cathedral ceiling. The musicians called them
"angels".

Last I checked, evoking supernatural voices wasn't part of the job
description... stick to what works.

what's the style, etc?

i would track them twice, all gathered around the 103 into the 737.
then blend/pan the two tracks in the mix.

but that's just me.

gathered "in front" of the 103 to be specific.

if you can get the mics far enough back, an ORTF configuration will work.
bit
if close, I would try XY.

Three mics will also work, but don't expect it to blend all that well.

If the sort of blending you can only get from a stereo pair is what you're
after, the time differentials of an ORTF pattern are the reason you're doing
it. If that isn't going to work, you gotta get a mic on each of them.

No, it depends on how far i have the microphones from the singers. if i have
them 10 feet from the singers, I might use ORTF for the spatial cues. If I have
the mics three feet from them, I still want stereo, but I don't want a hole in
the middle which I would probably get from ORTF that close.

Pros will sound great on one mic regardless of what it is.

Yeah right, put the MD421 up and see how it works out. All joking aside,

And what is wrong with the MD 421? Not my first choice, but with the right
preamp and a little EQ and proper placement it will work just fine.

LDC's up close have very delicate interactions with voices, and from a
distance they have poor off-axis response. Either way you've got
complications that call for the right mic(s).

Those that can't blend acoustically will require all the tricks that you
can
use and still not sound great.

...which is why putting a mic on each of them is the first necessary step.

But it will still not sound great.


Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

Sugarite wrote:

Last I checked, evoking supernatural voices wasn't part of the job
description... stick to what works.

In this lifetime I have found that BGV's work out much better when _not_
tracked individually, but recorded ensemble. Nothing the computer will
do can replace what happens _in the air_ when voices are allowed to
blend in a natural way. This happens to be the _natural_ activity, and
the poster was wanting advice on recording vocals. Some folks have their
heads so far up their computers they don't have their ears in the room
where the people are _singing_.

--
ha

Sugarite wrote:

...which is why putting a mic on each of them is the first necessary step.

Not until you've _heard the singers_.

--
ha

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 07:15:00 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

In this lifetime I have found that BGV's work out much better when _not_
tracked individually, but recorded ensemble. Nothing the computer will
do can replace what happens _in the air_ when voices are allowed to
blend in a natural way. This happens to be the _natural_ activity, and
the poster was wanting advice on recording vocals. Some folks have their
heads so far up their computers they don't have their ears in the room
where the people are _singing_.


What do the singers say? Do they prefer to have a mic each, monitor
the mix through cans? Or do they prefer to make an "acoustic" mix,
monitoring just the backing track with "one ear off"? Or a
combination of the two? Your prime consideration is getting the
optimum performance out of them. Then think where you want to stick
the microphones to capture it.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Laurence Payne wrote:

What do the singers say?

If they knew this question wouldn't have come up. And in many
professional situations the producer will determine how this will be
done so that the final effect fits nicely into somebody's vision of the
final product. Singers I work with are happy to approach it anyway I ask
them to.

A problem often in less experienced situations is that nobody has a
vision of a final product. Another problem can be having the session
player direct the engineering. If it's Ry Cooder then it could make
sense to hear out his idea of tarcking himself. If it's one of my local
yokels that could lead to disaster.

--
ha

Harmonics, I think

Tom
"Henry Salvia" wrote in message
...
For what its worth, in a Mamas & Papas video biography some years
back they talked about a "ghost voice" they heard when they
all sang together (Denny said they had a name for the voice, but
I forget: Larry?). And I recall reading about the Hollies saying
something similaqr, and they all sang into a single mic (at least in
the early days).

You probably don't get that with separate vocal tracks.

Henry Salvia.

hank alrich wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Other than paying attention to the 3:1 rule, there are a wide
range of approaches that can work.

Including what is often the most sensible and effective at getting good
vocal _blends_: using a single or a pair of mics to track the singers en
masse.

--
ha

This is what one singer says:
After doing 1000's of sessions, I can't remember more than 1 mic for group
3.
I find when doing backs, keep one can off, so you can HEAR the other
singers, and blend.
With solos I keep both cans on.

Tom


"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 07:15:00 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

In this lifetime I have found that BGV's work out much better when _not_
tracked individually, but recorded ensemble. Nothing the computer will
do can replace what happens _in the air_ when voices are allowed to
blend in a natural way. This happens to be the _natural_ activity, and
the poster was wanting advice on recording vocals. Some folks have their
heads so far up their computers they don't have their ears in the room
where the people are _singing_.


What do the singers say? Do they prefer to have a mic each, monitor
the mix through cans? Or do they prefer to make an "acoustic" mix,
monitoring just the backing track with "one ear off"? Or a
combination of the two? Your prime consideration is getting the
optimum performance out of them. Then think where you want to stick
the microphones to capture it.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:52:52 -0500, Henry Salvia wrote
(in article ):

For what its worth, in a Mamas & Papas video biography some years
back they talked about a "ghost voice" they heard when they
all sang together (Denny said they had a name for the voice, but
I forget: Larry?). And I recall reading about the Hollies saying
something similaqr, and they all sang into a single mic (at least in
the early days).

You probably don't get that with separate vocal tracks.

Henry Salvia.

hank alrich wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Other than paying attention to the 3:1 rule, there are a wide
range of approaches that can work.

Including what is often the most sensible and effective at getting good
vocal _blends_: using a single or a pair of mics to track the singers en
masse.

--
ha

Harvey (as in the rabbit). I think they were referring to what happens when
close harmonies produce over and undertones. That's a performance thing. Does
anyone know what they really did in the studio?

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:52:52 -0500, Henry Salvia wrote
(in article ):


For what its worth, in a Mamas & Papas video biography some years
back they talked about a "ghost voice" they heard when they
all sang together (Denny said they had a name for the voice, but
I forget: Larry?).


Harvey (as in the rabbit). I think they were referring to what happens when
close harmonies produce over and undertones. That's a performance thing. Does
anyone know what they really did in the studio?

Maybe Harvey (as in the Pope)?

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:27:29 GMT, (hank alrich)
wrote:

What do the singers say?

If they knew this question wouldn't have come up. And in many
professional situations the producer will determine how this will be
done so that the final effect fits nicely into somebody's vision of the
final product. Singers I work with are happy to approach it anyway I ask
them to.

A problem often in less experienced situations is that nobody has a
vision of a final product. Another problem can be having the session
player direct the engineering. If it's Ry Cooder then it could make
sense to hear out his idea of tarcking himself. If it's one of my local
yokels that could lead to disaster.


"Usually I like to track one singer at a time or mic individually but
this group wants to sing together in the same room"

Sounds like they have at least some idea of what they want to do
artistically.

I often wonder, was it a musician or a recording engineer who first
thought it would be better to track voices or instruments separately?
Good musicians can develop techniques that make music from this highly
un-musical situation. Lesser ones get into terrible problems.
Needing rescue by the bloody engineers who suggested working this way
in the first place ;-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

I was at the big sing-along at the Record Plant!
It was pretty amazing when every one broke into a spontanious rendition of
"Califonia Dreaming"!

Tom


"Kurt Albershardt" wrote in message
...
Ty Ford wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:52:52 -0500, Henry Salvia wrote
(in article ):


For what its worth, in a Mamas & Papas video biography some years
back they talked about a "ghost voice" they heard when they
all sang together (Denny said they had a name for the voice, but
I forget: Larry?).


Harvey (as in the rabbit). I think they were referring to what happens
when
close harmonies produce over and undertones. That's a performance thing.
Does
anyone know what they really did in the studio?

Maybe Harvey (as in the Pope)?