Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    I'd get two Beyer M69's or two AT813's and mike each background
    vocalist seperately. The best mikes that are designed for vocals
    are almost exclusively cardioid of some sort or another.
    
    The Beyer ribbons are great vocal mikes, with crisp definition and
    very good transient response. The AT813 is the next best thing to
    a studio condenser. Also, the Sennheiser MD441 is a step above these
    in price and is also a very nice mike.
    
    CdH
    

    I get those carbon microphone elements and mount them on
    empty toilet paper roles.
    Tom

>    < Note 1139.2 by ANGORA::JANZEN "to cogitate and to solve" >
>    I get those carbon microphone elements and mount them on
>    empty toilet paper roles.     Tom

    thanks !

    Check out Electro Voice ND Series.
    
    My preferred mike is an 'Electro Voice ND 757'.
    For me it sounds great.
    Price here in Germany about 700.-DM
    
    Regards
    		Wolfgang

    I use an AKG D-330mnice mike but better for live work (thesse things
    resist feedback!) they still record very well...
    
    dave

    
    Ralph,
    
    Check this week's WantAd. There's a couple of studios going out
    of business that are selling off some top shelf mikes.
    
    CdH
    

    
    
    re .6
    
    Wish I had checked that sooner, but that money was burning a hole
    in my pocket and my impatience wore through.  I had checked the
    last couple weeks of the want ads and hadn't seen anything.  Isn't
    that always the way?
    
    Anyway, I broke down, went out to Wurlybirds, and checked out
    several different mics.  The Beyer M69 and M88 and a Sennheiser
    MD421.  The 421 looks like a good mic for lead vocals (among
    other things) but doesn't lend itself too well to micing two or
    more singers at once.  Its not a very hot mic.  I would definately
    like to have one sooner or later though. 
    
    Comparing the M69 and the M88 was a different story.  Both mics
    are REAL hot.  Lots of handling noise just picking up the things.
    According to the Beyer literature I have, the M69 is a lower cost
    version of the M88.  Its also a little hotter.  And alot less money.
    But in comparing the two, the 88 didn't seem to clip so quick
    (not that the 69 clipped all that quick) and it had a warmer sound
    of the two.   So I swallowed my wallet and went with the 88.  Between
    the mic and a shock mount, it was more than I had planned on spending,
    but I think it'll be worth it in the long run.  Thanks for all your
    input.
    
    ralph
    
    

Any opinions on higher-end ($500-$2000) lead and background vocal mics?
Used for recording applications, not live.

    	                                    
    				Neumann		(very musical)
    		
    		KMF4mt	(micro-mike, tiny capsule on an articulated
    			arm to amplifier, 40Hz to 20KHz, 69dB s/n,
    			cardioid pattern)-$850 MLP
    		KMR81	(hand-held vocalist super-cardioid, small
    				diaphragm, 75dB s/n,21mm diax226mm long)
    					-$885 MLP
    		TLM170  (large (2.4x6") stand-mount only, switchable
    				from omni, wide cardioid, cardioid,
    				hypercardioid, figure-8, max SPL 150
    				[email protected]% THD, dynamic range 126 dB,
    				72dB S/N, switchable 100Hz rolloff
    				to roll off near-wall interference)
    					-$1500 MLP
    			All are phantom powered. 
    
    
    		
    
    			      Bruel & Kjaer	(clinically accurate)
                
    
    		Type 4004 (low-level (solo/ensemble)) $1013 MLP
    		
    		Type 4007 (high-level (percussion)) $1013 MLP
    			Both are omni mikes, phantom-powered, ultra-small
    			diaphragm types, with frequency response
    			from 20Hz to 40KHz+-2dB.
    
    			Both types can be had in a 4-pack - $3372 MLP
    
    
    I've used the older-model Neumann handheld mike, as well as a similar
    mike to the large-diaphragm Nueumann.  I've never used the B&K's
    in a recording situation; but I've used their other equipment. 
    Both companies produce incredible stuff!
    
    All of the above are available from Lake (they're in Natick).  Lake sells
    mostly to TV and recording studios, but they aren't averse to selling
    to Joe Average on occasion (they really wanted to move a $4300 DAT
    deck onto me :-)  ).                                             
    
    	Lake Systems
    	287 Grove St.
    	Newton MA 02166
    	(617) 244-6881
    
    

    re: *.9
    -< Two _VERY_ high quality microphone corporations >

Thanks  for  the  pointers.  Add them to my list of things to check.

What are the "defacto" standard high-end vocal recording mikes found in most
high-end (24-48+ track) studios?

The next  set of questions are orthogonal to the discussion on mics, but are
also  some  the  means  to  the  same end. Perhaps they should be a separate
topic; I will leave this to you or the moderator. 

My OBJECTIVE  is  to  learn  how  to  PROCESS VOCALS and to achieve the same
"sound  quality" that the current pop-oriented or contemporary producers and
engineers  sell.  This  should  be  possible by studying their recording and
mixdown  techniques,  choice  of effects, and EQ'ing as well as those of the
pop  industry in general. I realize this is a highly subjective and personal
issue.  For  the forms of music I enjoy writing and recording, vocals/lyrics
shape most of the impressions an "average" listener has of the song.

For discussion, let's not constrain ourselves to what we have or don't have,
but define what we need in this hypothetical studio. Also decouple the music
and  the  vocals,  where  possible,  when discussing vocal processing. Doing
justice  to  the music is out of the scope of the vocal discussion, but does
come out in the mix.  

VOCAL PROCESSING and FXs:

What rules  for  vocal  processing  can  be generalized and what methods are
there  for  specific stylizations or applications? ie, what processing gives
specific results/effects (eg, for the following generic vocal styles/sounds:
crossover  R&B  pop,  English  pop, mushy ballads/lovesongs, pop/rock vocals
with   a   hard   edge).  Perhaps  it's  easier  to  illustrate  by  picking
representative artists and songs and disassembling their vocal processing?

One way  of  analyzing  this  is  to  relate  the  "perceived effect" to the
mechanism or processor(s) achieving it

* thickening  a vocal (overall, emphasizing specific bandwidths) 
* enhancing  a  grainy/breathy  feel  to  soft  to  med-loud  spoken or sung
  passages
* bringing out a "hard edge" in a voice (mid to highs)
* bringing  out  the  upper  or high-end overtones in a voice to make 
  it sound more treblish, less bassy, without losing a powerful	presence
* giving a voice more depth
* giving a voice more presence.

RELATED TO BASIC TRACKS:

How much vocal EQ'ing should be printing onto the tape? Flat when recording,
EQ  during  mixdown? Should vocals be recorded with FXs on the basic tracks?
If  so,  why? which FXs? If FXs are printed onto basics, what FXs processing
will/can/should  be  done  at  mixdown?  When  should  basic vocal tracks be
recorded dry? When should vocals and FXs be recorded on the same track or on
separate tracks? Which FXs? What effect do specific FXs have on the vocal?

RELATED TO MIXDOWN:

How should  the  lead  and  backup  vocals  be  related or integrated w.r.t.
effects  processing?  Should  all vocal tracks be treated separately? Should
the lead and backup tracks be treated as two separate objects?

Where should  the lead and backup vocals be in the mix? What are the methods
for  blending/integrating  the  music  and vocals during mixdown to give the
song a sense of wholeness/balance - where one doesn't overwhelm or take away
from  the  other.  When  should  the  overall  overall mix (music+vocals) be
processed as a unit?

    Wow!  A lot of questions.  I'll try to answer some of them from
    my personal experience.  Most of this is obviously opinion, not
    fact.
    
    Most of the major studios I have recorded in use Neuman U47 or U87
    mics.  There is usually also a selection of other mics too: Bruel and
    Kjar (sp?), Electro Voice RE20, Shure SM57/58, classic RCA ribbon mics,
    etc.  Most engineers start with the Neumans and if they can't get the
    sound they are looking for will change to another mic.
    
    This is obviously subjective, but in the studio I would first use
    a different microphone or reposition the singer rather than start
    heavily EQing a particular mic.  Small tweaks in EQ are fine, but
    usually if you have to do something major in EQ there is a problem
    elsewhere.  Printing EQed vocals to the master tape, in my opinion,
    is fine.  It makes the mix easier since, in theory, you should not
    have to re-EQ the vocals during mixdown.  In practice, you will
    probably have to EQ them slightly.
    
    Unless I was in a situation where I was very limited in terms of
    either effects or number of tracks, I would never record a lead
    vocal with effects.  Doing this severely limits your ability to
    make changes later.  Once you have reverb on a vocal, there is no
    way to get rid of it.
    
    Some of the vocal tricks used in rock and pop formats:
    
         Reverb - obviously.  Plate settings usually sound nice on vocals
         since they are not terribly long (concert hall settings can be
         used for a specific effect but tend to get a little mushy). 
    
         Delayed reverb - just insert a short delay before the actual
         reverb to simulate the time it takes in a hall for the ambient
         effect to start. 
    
         Regenerated delay or stereo delay - often used to fatten up a
         singer whose voice is rather thin.  You can play games with stereo
         placement of the delayed sound versus the dry sound. 
    
         Doubling - as in real doubling where the singer does the part
         twice.  This can be interesting but takes a real good singer who
         can match the phrasing several times in a row. 
    
    	Any combination of the above.  Most pop/rock songs use several
    	effects simultaneously.  
    
    In my opinion, subtlty is key.  You should have to really pay attention
    to be able to pick out which effects have been used.
    
    Lead and backup vocals shouuld definitely be on separate tracks.
    If you can get the backup vocalists to blend naturally (rather than
    using a separate track for each backup singer), that is easier at
    mixdown.  One way to really fatten background vocals is to have
    the part sung many times on separate tracks.  For example, in my
    band's most recent tape, we overdubbed the same vocal part six times,
    giving the illusion of having 18 people singing on the chorus rather
    than 3.
    
    I would use the same major effect on lead and backing vocals.  For
    example, a reverb being used for ambience on the overall mix should
    be the same on both.  As far as other effects, play with it to see
    what's best.  Use stereo to your benefit (it will thicken things
    up), but always check it in mono to make sure things aren't cancelling
    each other out.
    
    Lead vocals should typically be louder in the mix than backups.
    This is not always true, but I hate hearing backups overpowering
    the lead vocal.  The lead vocal is usually the focal point; the
    backups are there to suport the lead.  I HATE songs where the lead
    vocal is buried in the mix.
    
    My suggestion is to listen closely (headphones are good for this)
    to some songs you like and get some ideas from them.
    
    Since the human voice is probably the most personal of all
    instruments, be kind to the lead singer and encourage them to do
    their best.  No matter how much gear you have, if the basic vocal
    track stinks, it will never sound right.  
    
    In my experience, the first track vocalists do is often the best.  As you
    keep working, the voice gets tired and the vocalist looses enthusiasm.
    If you work with a singer who is also an instrumentalist, it is often
    useful to have them play as well as sing if they are used to doing it
    that way (even if you don't record the instrument at the same time). 
    Often major pieces of scratch vocals wind up on the final mix.
    
    Headphone mixes are real important to vocalists.  Make sure they
    are very happy with the mix in the cans before you record anything.
    Make sure they can hear whatever it is they want to hear, which
    varies between vocalists.

    Hope this helps.  Vocals are very challenging and require a lot
    of experience to do right.  I have worked with some engineers who
    can do it very well and others whose vocals always sound like garbage.
         
    			Good luck,
    			Derek

    > My OBJECTIVE  is  to  learn  how  to  PROCESS VOCALS and to achieve the
    > same "sound  quality" that the current pop-oriented or contemporary
    > producers and engineers  sell. 
    
    That's an easy one.  To sound like the Pet Shop Boys, all you have
    to do is run the vocal through a two-second large room reverb, and
    record wet-only.
    
    It's not hard to make the artists sound like they're under water.
    
    > ... as well as those of the pop industry in general. 
    
    I didn't know that there were any other industrial pop freaks in
    this file!
    
     :-)
    
    Steph
   

    
    There are so many questions I'm just gonna pick one.
    
    To get that 'breathy' vocal sound, you have to be able to sing that
    way. Effects can only enhance the sound, not create it. After you've
    mastered that, try:
    
    1) use a crisp mic, like a good condenser, and close mike with a
       screen

    2) give the board eq a lift around 4KHz
    
    3) add some soft reverb, and optionally,
    
    4) a little chorus or flanging
    
    and you're guaranteed to sound like Goerge Michael...8^)
    
    CdH
    
    
    

    
    re: .11
    
    Derek, you make some good points.  First, the method of doubling
    up on the vocals is one I depend on primarily because I can *afford*
    that effect--and it *does* work!  It's especially effective for high
    background vocals that sound really thin without it.
    
    I also agree that no matter how many effects you have, it's important
    that you don't forget what's important.  Seems to me most major
    artists are successful because they have a unique sound.  In a majorify
    of cases, the vocals are the one thing that makes their "sound" most
    recognizable and unique.  What would 10,000 Maniacs be without the lead
    vocalist's style of singing?  
    
    I say take it easy on the vocal effects and try to maintain the
    personality of the vocals whenever possible.  I've noticed on two
    recent ablums, Bruce Springsteen's "Tunnel of Love," and Suzanne Vega's
    "Solitude Standing," the albums open up with a' capella singing by the
    artist.  Obviously, the vocal style of these artists is the one most
    important element of their music.
    
    Springsteen albums also demonstrate another one of Derek's points.
    Springsteen tends to use a lot of reverb on his vocals--too much in my
    mind because it's so obvious.  Derek's right to point out that vocal
    effects shouldn't be noticable to the listener.  If they are, it
    defeats the whole purpose of adding effects.  People want to hear the
    vocalist, not the effects machine.
    
    Peter
    

    
    FYI,
    
    Neumann just came out with a new mike, I believe it's a FET condenser,
    and it's under $500. I sent for the info, will post.
    
    CdH