Ryan Moore wrote on Sun, 06 February 2005 05:34 |
Hmm, not much different than anyone else? Can't say I've heard of too many ocean splash or bat vibe sessions... Whatever it takes - classic! I am <loving> all the info and anecdotes in this forum - thanks Terry! RM
|
Hi Ryan,
I feel a little strange here...this idea was Bj
Logged
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2005, 03:20:36 PM »
Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 10 February 2005 11:04 | ...To my surprise the pitch was best by far with both phones on and no vocal mike in the phones!... I've never been able to talk anybody experienced into trying it but it's been great food for thought.
|
Hey Bob, I tried this on myself overdubbing last night, and I guess I've done it one way so long, I couldn't seem to get the feel for it. Maybe it takes some practice, or one should start out this way...
Logged
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2005, 12:29:29 AM »
It makes sense that it would be a drastic change.
As I said, it completely took me by surprise and was the only method I had never seen done previously. The vocal coach had sung on Broadway during the early '60s and told us about never being able to hear himself on stage yet some recordings made from he audience had shown him to be perfectly in tune.
Logged
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2005, 05:35:42 AM »
maybe I'm crazy, but I find that a bandwidth-limited sound in the headphones (cheap headphones with no high end) can help the singer sing more naturally. this doesn't apply to someone who specifically needs the full-range sound to feel at ease.
Sometimes a real hi-fi sound in the cans can exaggerate the already exaggerated high end of condenser mics (especially my u47) to the point that the singer backs off on the body and fundamental of the tone of the voice, and concentrates his/her vocal consciousness on the high frequency lip/nose sounds. in other words the voice is not as full and more restrained if the singer hears themselves in hi-fi cans.
if you think about it the vocal recordings done in the days before cans and proper monitoring have a fuller voice overall.
in fact, I think that the evolution of monitor systems for both studio and live work, have spoiled singers.
the beatles, just like most of their rock peers, grew up singing at full voice for hours in clubs where the pa was probably less than 100w and was used only for the vocals.
cab callaway could sing over the orchestra with no mic if he needed to.
really makes you sing when you have to shout, be in tune, and not sound harsh and thin over a band without the help of a full monitor system.
Logged
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2005, 04:28:13 PM »
They also had to have their microphone technique almost perfect just to communicate with the audience. Prior to the mid '50s the PA often consisted of no more than a guitar amp with a mike plugged into it.
Logged
« Reply #23 on: February 17, 2005, 04:05:06 PM »
Quote: | title=compasspnt wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 19:23 The only pre I have found that does the vocal distortion I like is the API 512 (at least of the ones I have, or have tried). I always said I would never give away any 'trade secrets,' but anyway, if I want max voc overdrive, I will run the mic into the first API pre, then actually go line-out into mic-in of a second one, which sends it into orbit (be careful!), then do the overdriving slightly of each subsequent piece as mentioned before.
|
Terry, Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! You are a gentleman and a scholar! I've used API 312s in the past for Vocals, Bass, and Drums but didn't really care for them on vocals. So I never bothered to try any APIs on vocals since then. I'll have to try and get my hands on some 512s and play around with them. Oh, and no worries about giving out trade secrets. One thing I've noticed over the years about giving out trade secrets/signature sounds...just because someone knows what they are, doesn't mean they have the ears to know when and how to use them. I think your secrets are still safe with you. Thanks again and take care, -Derek
Logged
Derek Jones Audio Engineer
"I always say I can teach anyone HOW to get a great snare sound, I just can't teach WHAT a great snare sound is.” -Dave Pensado
« Reply #24 on: February 17, 2005, 07:42:07 PM »
The best vocal production lesson I've ever heard was from Bob Olhsson - breathe with the singer. I do it live, and it's such a difference - while I love crushing vocals with compression in the studio, I like a very light touch live, and just use the fader and this idea to compensate. A world of difference it makes. Edited to spell Bob's name right
Logged
« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2005, 09:14:08 AM »
Hey Terry... I have question regarding getting a Thick vocal sound... the kind of sound that you can put up in the mix and it can support the entire record. I have a pretty good chain a Tracy Korby KAT2 system with Elam251 capsule.. going into UA 6176 (610 pre & 1176 comp) into a Apogee Rosetta 800... While I get a good sonic sound from this setup... I can't seem to get the kind of sound where it feels like the singer is right in the middle of speaker "talking to you" where you can reach out an touch them. Not all recordings I hear seem to have that quality... my recordings much like many still seem to be lacking some "pin point focus". how do you achive that? is my room too live? is it that I'm not compressing enough to make my vocal recording thick enough thus sounding more present? or is it some other trade secret BTW your comment about using multiple microphones for a single recording really opened my eyes to different possibilities... any suggestions are greatly appreciated... r.
Logged
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2005, 05:30:05 PM »
rush909 wrote on Fri, 18 February 2005 09:14 | ... I have question regarding getting a Thick vocal sound... I have a pretty good chain a Tracy Korby KAT2 system with Elam251 capsule.. going into UA 6176 ... While I get a good sonic sound from this setup... I can't seem to get the kind of sound where it feels like the singer is right in the middle of the speaker "talking to you" where you can reach out an touch them. Not all recordings I hear seem to have that quality... my recordings much like many still seem to be lacking some "pin point focus". how do you achieve that? is my room too live? is it that I'm not compressing enough to make my vocal recording thick enough thus sounding more present? or is it some other trade secret...
|
Interesting question... I think this quality absolutely emanates from the singer first and foremost. There are obviously mics better suited to a particular vocalist than others, with a more usable proximity effect, as well as limiters better for the purpose at hand, and so on, but if the singer doesn't have that "pin-point focus," coupled with an immediacy in the delivery, it will be harder to achieve this. First, I always try to narrow down the singer's mental outlook, to get them to explain what they are singing about. This is not only so that I can help in getting that meaning translated "to tape" (as if, ha ha), but also so that the vocalist will thusly be examining the issues for themself at that critical moment. Technically, I haven't used the KAT2, so I can't comment on it in specifics. But I certainly know Tracy and his proclivities for excellent microphone knowledge, so I imagine it is quite good. Likewise, I have not used the new UA series. I do know that I would not reach first for an 1176 as vocal limiter, however. As mentioned in other posts, I always used to use the old tube/valve UA 176 compressor, which is quite a different animal than the 1176 type. The method of achieving gain reduction is totally different in the two. Today, I almost always use my custom Lucas Limiting Amplifier, which is tube, and loosly based on the 176 concept. The gain reduction here occurs inside the tube itself (somewhat like the old Fairchild method also), so it is sonically different than other types. The smoothness, I believe, allows for use of greater compression amounts, without degrading the sonics, or sounding over-compressed. This can force the vocal out front a bit more. Another factor is of course what else in the track is around the vocal. George Martin used to say that he would carefully tailor the instrumentation in The Beatles' recordings so that there weren't too many instruments in any one frequency range; thus the vocals didn't have to "fight" too much to be heard. I think this is true. In some cases, equalisation of the things in a mix OTHER than the vocal will affect its apparent immediacy as much, if not more, than equalisation of the vocal itself. You mention the liveness of the room; of course I don't know how live your room is, but I do think that the room should not be terribly live. I will "wall off" part of my room with soft-sided baffles around three sides of the singer, and put some tall ASC tubetraps (with the 30 ms reflective side facing towards the mic) within a few feet of the front of the vocal performance. 30 ms or less of relection or repeat is perceived by the human ear as being part of the original performance, so this can just so slightly "beef up" the performance. However, as seen in myriad photographs of said Beatles, as well as Sinatra, Dean Martin, and many others, many great vocals were done right in the middle of a large studio room, with no baffling, no pop screen, no headphones; just a U47 and a singer! But these, I notice, almost always were in quite large rooms, with no walls close to the singer, so that there weren't any short-to-medium, early reflections. I don't know if any of this is helpful; again, it's probably the same things most people are doing. But I would reiterate that I believe it starts with the vocalist! Thanks for the question! Terry
Logged
« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2005, 05:58:03 PM »
wow! thanks for the quick repsonse... thanks for the answer... I will take some of your ideas/suggestions and experiment and report back... more than it looks like from your answer that I am missing some "industry strength" vocal limiting as well as vocal booth tuning to avoid reflects smearing the vocal sound..
thanks again!
rachid.
Logged
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2005, 09:13:01 AM »
Hi Terry! I would really like to know - when you record those great vocalists, how many takes does it usually take to get the "right one"? Do you stack up lots of takes, and then spend hours choosing the best parts? or do you only keep 1-2 (or 3-4) takes that you think would be good? Also - do you deal with a lot of bad takes (pitch\rhythm\other problems), or does the vocalist get it right from the first time, and just try to get better takes? [first post here... Hi all... ]
Logged
« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2005, 12:16:43 PM »
I've run into singers who do outstanding performances ..but only when singing to monitor speakers. They can't nail it with headphones no matter what I try. Which doesn't work most of the time because of the leakage. Have you ever run into this? How do you handle it?
Logged
|