Do I really need an LDC?

[Tim Gillett]

Bob,

Of course it's easier to use quality mics to start with, so long as you know what you are doing.

I would love to be able to afford expensive mics which come with their own individualised test results, but I cant justify the expense. Often there's a cost/benefit issue, unless money is no object.

I'm sorry but one good quality mic such as the two you have suggested ( and I agree that the NT1a is definitely not at the top of the LDC tree) can be used to record perfectly well, any vocal on the planet.

Is the S/N ratio on our current preamps and recording rigs so dreadful that we have to "master" the feed from the mic to the pre, on the way in, by swapping mics beforehand, according to the spectral content of the vocalist? Of course it isnt, at least not these days. But that would be the only technically valid reason to select from a range of vocal mics as sort of Mastering EQ presets, as if we were cutting a vinyl record live and had no EQ facilities upstream of the recorder.
OTOH, as an artistic choice for effect of course, anything goes when it comes to mics.

Bob, you also insinuated I was saying that if someone has a cheaper mic such as the NT1a and a more expensive one such as the TLM193, that they should use the cheaper one. You know very well I didnt say that. And when we were discussing the issue, the OP hadnt bought that other mic.

Of course if the OP buys the better mic he should use it, at least for the technical reasons we discussed. But he hadnt bought it, was undecided even whether to buy a condenser or a dynamic, and obviously posted a sample for our opinions on the vocal in the mix, which is where the rubber hits the road.

In the case of the OP, is the real bottleck in his recordings and mixes the lack of a better quality vocal mic? You seem to think so. I am undecided because I dont feel I have enough information to make such a confident call.

[Bob Bickerton]

I'm sorry but one good quality mic such as the two you have suggested ( and I agree that the NT1a is definitely not at the top of the LDC tree) can be used to record perfectly well, any vocal on the planet.

Perfectly well? Have a listen to the variations in the mics used in this article and see if you still agree with your assertion above! There's a huge difference, which implies that even a good mic isn't a fix all.

Is the S/N ratio on our current preamps and recording rigs so dreadful that we have to "master" the feed from the mic to the pre, on the way in, by swapping mics beforehand, according to the spectral content of the vocalist? Of course it isnt, at least not these days. But that would be the only technically valid reason to select from a range of vocal mics as sort of Mastering EQ presets, as if we were cutting a vinyl record live and had no EQ facilities upstream of the recorder.

Nothing to do with mastering or S/N ratios I'm afraid. It's simply about good practice.......

In the case of the OP, is the real bottleck in his recordings and mixes the lack of a better quality vocal mic? You seem to think so. I am undecided because I dont feel I have enough information to make such a confident call.

The question to ask is, apart from performance, what are the main variables when recording the vocals and they most certainly will be microphone choice, position and room acoustics, with everything else coming quite a long way behind. Given the OP wants to improve his vocal sound, then the obvious response is to suggest a different microphone (and you can hear that there's a huge difference in possible microphones by listening to the samples in the article referred above). He notes his room acoustics are not perfect, so an obvious candidate would be the SM7 which can be worked close and effectively attenuates the sound of the room. Consequently I would have a great deal of confidence in recommending a mic such as the SM7.

This conversation is about recording 'best at source' versus 'fixing in the mix', if you truly believe you can fix everything in the mix, then I have nothing further to add, apart from sympathy

Bob

[Dynamic Mike]

But if the actual waveforms were identical then the sounds would also be identical.

This is only true for a pure sine wave.

How so?

Because frequency is a compound value. You don't have enough axes of information to recreate a sound.

However, if you could make two mics sound identical using Eq, then by inference you could apply the same principles of physics to speakers. So with a little Eq tweaking my Tannoys should sound like ATC's. I wish.

[Tim Gillett]

But if the actual waveforms were identical then the sounds would also be identical.

This is only true for a pure sine wave.

How so?

Because frequency is a compound value. You don't have enough axes of information to recreate a sound.

However, if you could make two mics sound identical using Eq, then by inference you could apply the same principles of physics to speakers. So with a little Eq tweaking my Tannoys should sound like ATC's. I wish.

Your inference, not mine. For a start the design of a mic and a speaker with power are very different exercises. It's that much harder to make a good loudspeaker than a good mic because of those nasty things called the principles of physics. How many quality mics need to have two diaphragms? How many good quality speakers can use a single full range driver and have any useable power? And isofar as they do work reasonably well, how many of them can do so without serious corrective EQ applied?

[Tim Gillett]

I'm sorry but one good quality mic such as the two you have suggested ( and I agree that the NT1a is definitely not at the top of the LDC tree) can be used to record perfectly well, any vocal on the planet.

Perfectly well? Have a listen to the variations in the mics used in this article and see if you still agree with your assertion above! There's a huge difference, which implies that even a good mic isn't a fix all.

Is the S/N ratio on our current preamps and recording rigs so dreadful that we have to "master" the feed from the mic to the pre, on the way in, by swapping mics beforehand, according to the spectral content of the vocalist? Of course it isnt, at least not these days. But that would be the only technically valid reason to select from a range of vocal mics as sort of Mastering EQ presets, as if we were cutting a vinyl record live and had no EQ facilities upstream of the recorder.

Nothing to do with mastering or S/N ratios I'm afraid. It's simply about good practice.......

In the case of the OP, is the real bottleck in his recordings and mixes the lack of a better quality vocal mic? You seem to think so. I am undecided because I dont feel I have enough information to make such a confident call.

The question to ask is, apart from performance, what are the main variables when recording the vocals and they most certainly will be microphone choice, position and room acoustics, with everything else coming quite a long way behind. Given the OP wants to improve his vocal sound, then the obvious response is to suggest a different microphone (and you can hear that there's a huge difference in possible microphones by listening to the samples in the article referred above). He notes his room acoustics are not perfect, so an obvious candidate would be the SM7 which can be worked close and effectively attenuates the sound of the room. Consequently I would have a great deal of confidence in recommending a mic such as the SM7.

This conversation is about recording 'best at source' versus 'fixing in the mix', if you truly believe you can fix everything in the mix, then I have nothing further to add, apart from sympathy

Bob

Bob, I'm glad you referred me to the 2010 SOS "mic shootout" article. Shall we make the article a topic for another thread? IMO lots of things in it to talk about. I suspect the discussion has barely begun...

Tim

[Dynamic Mike]

It's that much harder to make a good loudspeaker than a good mic because of those nasty things called the principles of physics. How many quality mics need to have two diaphragms? How many good quality speakers can use a single full range driver and have any useable power?

The principles of physics are identical, you convert sound to a signal, you convert a signal back to sound. It's just a question of scale. Compromises in speaker design are due to material properties not physics. It's entirely possible that once consumer grade graphene becomes affordable single driver speakers will become the norm.

[Tim Gillett]

It's that much harder to make a good loudspeaker than a good mic because of those nasty things called the principles of physics. How many quality mics need to have two diaphragms? How many good quality speakers can use a single full range driver and have any useable power?

The principles of physics are identical, you convert sound to a signal, you convert a signal back to sound. It's just a question of scale. Compromises in speaker design are due to material properties not physics. It's entirely possible that once consumer grade graphene becomes affordable single driver speakers will become the norm.

You are right. The compromises are due to "material properties". I think the correct term is "mass". Does the mass of materials have nothing to do with physics?

Strange that only now do you admit by implication that getting a speaker to sound as good as a mic is a much harder exercise, my point all along, whereas in your earlier post you implied that there was no difference, such that since EQing a speaker was so hard it would be equally hard with a mic.
You were also talking about present day product reality, not about possible developments in graphene or whatever. Now the mention of graphene. OK, lets assume the graphene single driver speaker becomes a reality one day. Then EQing it would start to approach the facility we have right now to effectively EQ a mic which has only ever needed one diaphragm for its good fidelity.

Graphene or no graphene, it will always be harder to make a speaker with comparable fidelity to a mic. At least so long as we live in a world where materials have mass...

[Dynamic Mike]

You are right.

I usually am. It's a curse I've learned to live with.

[Tim Gillett]

You are right.

I usually am. It's a curse I've learned to live with.

On this rare occasion it seems the curse was temporarily lifted.

[Tim Gillett]

[quote="Bob BickertonThis conversation is about recording 'best at source' versus 'fixing in the mix', if you truly believe you can fix everything in the mix, then I have nothing further to add, apart from sympathy

Bob [/quote]

Bob, you have come down hard on me, a relative newcomer to this forum. I think it's reasonable to expect you to give more than generalised answers but rather give detailed reasons in the light of such a strong stand.

Let's say I have recorded a vocal track. For whatever reason, for personal taste or something else, I decide to boost or cut a portion of the vocal's spectrum by 6db. For the benefit of all on this forum, explain exactly what this will do to the sound, how it will compromise the sound and why.

I'm not saying it's a compromise or that it isnt. Naturally, a vocal that has been recorded with exactly the right EQ is easier as it's already done and dusted EQ wise at the tracking stage. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Please dont resort to generalised truisms such as "it's best practice" or "you cant fix it in the mix". You've already said that. Back yourself. Explain what actually happens and why.

Over to you.

Tim

[Jack Ruston]

I think the SM7 is extremely useful for snares, and rock vocals where you want the vocal to be quite contained, and especially when the vocal is loud. It will probably require some eq as part of the equation in a way that many good condensors don't. If you're sibilant you will still be sibilant if you want the vocal to be bright. There are various ways to deal with it. As much as possible, try to reduce it at source.

I'd demo the DAV BG1 and the ISA1 and pick one of the two.

J

[Bob Bickerton]

Bob, you have come down hard on me, a relative newcomer to this forum. I think it's reasonable to expect you to give more than generalised answers but rather give detailed reasons in the light of such a strong stand.

Let's say I have recorded a vocal track. For whatever reason, for personal taste or something else, I decide to boost or cut a portion of the vocal's spectrum by 6db. For the benefit of all on this forum, explain exactly what this will do to the sound, how it will compromise the sound and why.

I'm not saying it's a compromise or that it isnt. Naturally, a vocal that has been recorded with exactly the right EQ is easier as it's already done and dusted EQ wise at the tracking stage. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Please dont resort to generalised truisms such as "it's best practice" or "you cant fix it in the mix". You've already said that. Back yourself. Explain what actually happens and why.

Over to you.

Tim

I have nothing further to add. You can choose to accept the above advice or not.

Bob

[Tim Gillett]

Bob, you have come down hard on me, a relative newcomer to this forum. I think it's reasonable to expect you to give more than generalised answers but rather give detailed reasons in the light of such a strong stand.

Let's say I have recorded a vocal track. For whatever reason, for personal taste or something else, I decide to boost or cut a portion of the vocal's spectrum by 6db. For the benefit of all on this forum, explain exactly what this will do to the sound, how it will compromise the sound and why.

I'm not saying it's a compromise or that it isnt. Naturally, a vocal that has been recorded with exactly the right EQ is easier as it's already done and dusted EQ wise at the tracking stage. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Please dont resort to generalised truisms such as "it's best practice" or "you cant fix it in the mix". You've already said that. Back yourself. Explain what actually happens and why.

Over to you.

Tim

I have nothing further to add. You can choose to accept the above advice or not.

Bob

Bob, I offered you a free kick and you wouldnt take it. From that, people can draw their own conclusions...

Tim

[Mike Stranks]

Bob Bickerton is a long-standing member of this forum who is a professional performer and owns a studio and live-sound business. He does know what he's talking about....

On the other hand Tim - and not intending to insinuate anything - you have just appeared on the forum. The regulars here know nothing about you - where you are, what you do and, particularly, your credentials for making the assertions that you have.

Given that you are making suggestions which those of us who've responded to believe not only are flawed, but could lead those with comparative little experience to make wrong purchasing decisions, you've been challenged. You have been robust in your assertions and defence of your position. You are clearly not going to yield from your position which some us believe is simply wrong. Sorry to be blunt on that, but that's the way it is. Given that, there's little point in pursuing a 'discussion' which is going nowhere.

[shufflebeat]

It's been said so there's nothing sensible to add except:

Let's say I have recorded a vocal track. For whatever reason, for personal taste or something else, I decide to boost or cut a portion of the vocal's spectrum by 6db. For the benefit of all on this forum, explain exactly what this will do to the sound, how it will compromise the sound and why.

Should this question be bothering any future newcomer to recording the truth is this discussion has been a bit paper-bound. When you hear a voice recorded by the mic that is best matched to that voice in that particular scenario (need not be the most expensive and may in fact turn out to be the nt1a) it's bloody obvious. It just sounds right. Tweaking of EQ will be a useful tool for matching into a composite "picture" with other instruments but will not make a silk purse out of a pig's arse.

If it were the case that a decent recording could be made with any mic then people would only buy one mic.

[Tim Gillett]

Bob Bickerton is a long-standing member of this forum who is a professional performer and owns a studio and live-sound business. He does know what he's talking about....

On the other hand Tim - and not intending to insinuate anything - you have just appeared on the forum. The regulars here know nothing about you - where you are, what you do and, particularly, your credentials for making the assertions that you have.

Given that you are making suggestions which those of us who've responded to believe not only are flawed, but could lead those with comparative little experience to make wrong purchasing decisions, you've been challenged. You have been robust in your assertions and defence of your position. You are clearly not going to yield from your position which some us believe is simply wrong. Sorry to be blunt on that, but that's the way it is. Given that, there's little point in pursuing a 'discussion' which is going nowhere.

I'm sorry Mike but I find your post a concern. i would have thought our statements on a forum should be judged on their validity , independently of how long we have been a member here, whether we have a business or not, and other questionable "appeals to authority" etc.

If what I have said is so potentially damaging, all the more reason to explain in detail exactly WHY it is incorrect. It can only benefit us all. Once again, I am inviting rational critique of what I actually said, and in detail. How can I be fairer than that?

Regards, Tim

[Tim Gillett]

It's been said so there's nothing sensible to add except:

Let's say I have recorded a vocal track. For whatever reason, for personal taste or something else, I decide to boost or cut a portion of the vocal's spectrum by 6db. For the benefit of all on this forum, explain exactly what this will do to the sound, how it will compromise the sound and why.

Should this question be bothering any future newcomer to recording the truth is this discussion has been a bit paper-bound. When you hear a voice recorded by the mic that is best matched to that voice in that particular scenario (need not be the most expensive and may in fact turn out to be the nt1a) it's bloody obvious. It just sounds right. Tweaking of EQ will be a useful tool for matching into a composite "picture" with other instruments but will not make a silk purse out of a pig's arse.

If it were the case that a decent recording could be made with any mic then people would only buy one mic.

Are you saying that 6db of software EQ adds its own very audible colouration in such a context? Exactly where does the distortion enter and why? Please be specific.

You say "it just sounds right". Would you be prepared to bank on that? Subject yourself to a double blind listening test? They are not "paper bound".

Best wishes,
Tim

[Tim Gillett]

If it were the case that a decent recording could be made with any mic then people would only buy one mic.

To respond to the above point of yours, I did not say that a decent recording could be made with any mic. That would be a ridiculous statement. I said a decent vocal recording could be made with the one good mic regardless of the voice. That assumes EQ for taste and colour in production.

Tim

[Sam Inglis]

I've always found that if you have, say, a sibilant singer recorded on a bright mic, it's more difficult than you'd expect to deal with the problem acceptably using EQ.

My suspicion is that the reason for this is that published microphone frequency response graphs are often 'smoothed' to make them look nicer. What looks on paper like a nice even rise in the 5kHz region, which would respond easily to EQ, might in reality be a much more complex response with several narrower peaks, so even when you lower the whole 5kHz region, some of those nasty resonances might still be apparent.

[shufflebeat]

I'm sorry Mike but I find your post a concern. i would have thought our statements on a forum should be judged on their validity

They usually are, as in this case

Are you saying that 6db of software EQ adds its own very audible colouration in such a context?

Yes, I'm suggesting it'll add 6db of whatever you've recorded and if that's poo then you've got 6db more/less of it. You cannot cut/boost what you haven't recorded and no amount of tweakery will change that.

You say "it just sounds right". Would you be prepared to bank on that? Subject yourself to a double blind listening test? They are not "paper bound".

Life's too short.

[Tim Gillett]

I've always found that if you have, say, a sibilant singer recorded on a bright mic, it's more difficult than you'd expect to deal with the problem acceptably using EQ.

My suspicion is that the reason for this is that published microphone frequency response graphs are often 'smoothed' to make them look nicer. What looks on paper like a nice even rise in the 5kHz region, which would respond easily to EQ, might in reality be a much more complex response with several narrower peaks, so even when you lower the whole 5kHz region, some of those nasty resonances might still be apparent.

Sam,

Thanks for the input. If a mic is not performing to its published specs, or the manufacturers have deliberately fudged the specs to flatter the mic's performance, I would have thought that's worth exploring in its own right, seeking out objective, verifiable data.

My main point here relates to the question whether one good vocal mic, not a poor mic, can be used for all ranges of vocals, be it female or male, and different music genres. I sense that the view that one mic will do may be somewhat out of favour at the present moment in some quarters.

Regards Tim

[Sam Inglis]

As I understand it, smoothing is necessary to create any frequency response chart, and to compensate for irregularities in the measuring equipment and environment, so it's not necessarily a case of manufacturers being shifty (though some may choose to). It's more that there is much more to the 'sound' of a mic than can be measured in this way. For instance, the published graph for a U87 in cardioid is ruler flat up to about 5kHz, but I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that it's a mic that tends to emphasise mid-range frequencies in the 2-2.5kHz region.

I do agree that the differences between mics are sometimes exaggerated. If you can't get a reasonably decent vocal sound out of most singers with, say, a U87, then the problem doesn't lie with the microphone. But since the voice is usually the most important instrument in the mix, and since our ears are uniquely attuned to picking up even minor changes in its timbre, I think mic choice is more significant on vocals than some other sources.

[Tim Gillett]

Are you saying that 6db of software EQ adds its own very audible colouration in such a context?

Yes, I'm suggesting it'll add 6db of whatever you've recorded and if that's poo then you've got 6db more/less of it. You cannot cut/boost what you haven't recorded and no amount of tweakery will change that.

Of course you cannot cut/boost what you havent recorded. Did I say you could?

Of course boosting a certain band by 6db will also boost whatever is in that band at all levels that were recorded. Again, did I say it wouldnt? Whatever made you think I thought otherwise?

You seem to be of the view that even with a good LDC vocal mic, pre and recorder we are constantly running at the absolute limit of acceptable background noise vs distortion. It's just not true these days. The idea of today having to hand select a mic for a particular vocalist's frequency energy distribution, to optimise signal to noise on the recording seems bizarre.
It wouldnt have been many years ago but today it does.

Cheers Tim

[James Perrett]

My main point here relates to the question whether one good vocal mic, not a poor mic, can be used for all ranges of vocals, be it female or male, and different music genres. I sense that the view that one mic will do may be somewhat out of favour at the present moment in some quarters.

When I started running a studio, we used C1000's on just about every vocal because it was the best mic we had. After that, I was persuaded to buy an LDC and went for a Chinese mic because it sounded more impressive than a U87 in the showroom. After a few more years I bit the bullet and bought a U87 and finally ended up with 'that' sound - you know, the vocal sound that just about every hit record through the 70's and 80's had.

Nowadays, if I don't have the time to experiment, I'll still go for the U87 as a first choice because I know how it will work in a mix. I suspect that many recording engineers did the same in the past although nowadays there seems to be a much wider choice of well respected LDC's to confuse the issue.

[Sam Inglis]

I was struck by the same thing when I bought a U87: suddenly the vocal sounds like vocals from records. The difference was a lot bigger then I expected, at least on some singers. Have you ever managed to EQ one of your cheaper Chinese mics so it sounded like a U87?