|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 22, 2016 18:20:39 GMT -6
So - why do we stand so close? Or maybe I should say me...I mean, I do the hand length away thing, but anyway...I'm mixing a demo for stevefreeman and he sent a vocal that he did on a Rode Classic...he just got it and instead of padding the hot mic, he just backed up about 4 feet. No sibilance, no proximity issues. Sounds freaking awesome. Why the hell haven't I done this before??
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 22, 2016 18:42:48 GMT -6
Not sure why. Because everyone close mic's so you thought you had to? A little distance almost always works better IMO - as long as you're in a good room. I think close micing instruments and vocals started to come into vogue as home studios grew in number. Also because "bleed" became an enemy instead of a friend at some point. Both of which (bleed and lack of proximity) are used to great effect on classic recordings. That said, proximity effect is often your friend with thin vocals or instruments, but when everything is close mic'd there's definitely a LMF buildup.... No doubt. And as you mentioned, it really helps out with the esshiness.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 22, 2016 19:31:53 GMT -6
Room effects....particularly with heavy compression is the technical answer why you get closer on an overdub. If you've got a dead enough space, LDCs that most modern mics copy were all intended to mic things from a distance measured in FEET and yards....
We close mic'd EVERYTHING in the late 80s. I don't think it had to do with the rise of home studios. I actually think the late 70s/early 80s--24 track recorders....SSLs with gates on every channel....that was where the era of isolation started. to mostly great ends (IMO) at first....but, then....
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Mar 22, 2016 19:37:26 GMT -6
JMO, It's all about what image you're wanting to create, if you want super intimate, then get up on the mic, but intimacy rarely comes with loud talking/singing, so equate things to real life when getting your mic position, just back off the mic until you hear what a person sounds like to you when you're in a room with them normally, there isn't any Whoomph, there isn't any SSSsLLLIshhhhh, there isn't any puhhhs, there isn't any exaggerated tuhs, or lip smacking, it's really important to NOT capture too much of that stuff as it will become hyper exaggerated once you start processing, which lead down the rabbit hole of too much processing to rid the problems.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Mar 23, 2016 0:51:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by jayson on Mar 23, 2016 6:15:58 GMT -6
I think that's also maybe an unintended result of digital effects processing. For a while I think the ideal became to acoustically isolate sound sources with the intention of creating the acoustic environment electronically. An idea that I think has more negatives than positives as I get older. These days I really consider placement to be context dependent. I don't think the "Vocal Booth" approach is going anywhere, but by all means if you have a great sounding space you shouldn't be afraid to use it. Remember all those images of Sinatra at Capitol - that's gotta be 3 or 4 feet - you know a lot of the sound of the room is getting into that mic - that's the whole point. But then again you probably wouldn't want to mic somebody rapping or doing a funk tune that way.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Mar 23, 2016 6:39:48 GMT -6
I think that's also maybe an unintended result of digital effects processing. For a while I think the ideal became to acoustically isolate sound sources with the intention of creating the acoustic environment electronically. An idea that I think has more negatives than positives as I get older. These days I really consider placement to be context dependent. I don't think the "Vocal Booth" approach is going anywhere, but by all means if you have a great sounding space you shouldn't be afraid to use it. Remember all those images of Sinatra at Capitol - that's gotta be 3 or 4 feet - you know a lot of the sound of the room is getting into that mic - that's the whole point. But then again you probably wouldn't want to mic somebody rapping or doing a funk tune that way. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the sound of some of the rooms in those recordings. Even the masters embrace the new..
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,952
|
Post by ericn on Mar 23, 2016 7:18:00 GMT -6
A couple of reasons. 1 Monkey see Monkey do. So many have learned from what they see in videos and photographs. There is this belief that this footage is real documentary footage not composed for a look.
2 so many came up with crappy monitor mixes they ate the mic live so there was some gain before feedback and this translated into the studio.
3. The phone booth sized vocal booth, there was no distance to begin with.
4. The bedroom in a cheap apt studio, the only room sound is background noise !
5 engineer/ producers who don't have the guts to say " your singing into it not trying to French the thing!
When all else fails put up 2 mics one close and one at a distance, just tell the vocalist the real mic is still there from the last session!
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 23, 2016 7:24:44 GMT -6
I've always found the best balance between voice, mic and room is the mouth being around 8-12" back from the mic. You can baffle or un-baffle around the mic and person to get more or less room tone at this point.
Getting a little closer gives you more proximity, more grit and sometimes a bit more honk in the midrange.
Going further back makes frequencies more even, but the top end roll-off makes the vocals very dull sounding.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Mar 23, 2016 7:31:22 GMT -6
Some condensers beg for close distances to achieve proper bass, Gefell UMT70's come to mind. Other end of the spectrum is your typical ribbon, which can be 3-4' away for correct balance.
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Mar 23, 2016 7:32:24 GMT -6
I think that's also maybe an unintended result of digital effects processing. For a while I think the ideal became to acoustically isolate sound sources with the intention of creating the acoustic environment electronically. An idea that I think has more negatives than positives as I get older. These days I really consider placement to be context dependent. I don't think the "Vocal Booth" approach is going anywhere, but by all means if you have a great sounding space you shouldn't be afraid to use it. Remember all those images of Sinatra at Capitol - that's gotta be 3 or 4 feet - you know a lot of the sound of the room is getting into that mic - that's the whole point. But then again you probably wouldn't want to mic somebody rapping or doing a funk tune that way. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the sound of some of the rooms in those recordings. Even the masters embrace the new.. You are kidding, right? The sound of Sinatra's voice at Capital and Capital recorded Merle Haggard cuts are the epitome of perfection to me.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 23, 2016 7:46:16 GMT -6
I bet Sinatra was a fairly loud singer to be heard over the big bands. I wonder how much of him belting it out caused him to back off the mic so he wouldn't be overloading anything on the way in.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Mar 23, 2016 7:46:59 GMT -6
I said 'some' of the rooms.. Getting a perfect recording in a perfect space is optimal - depending on the genre. Some of those older recordings are spectacular, and nothing comes close to a good recording of an orchestra in a good space. But there are some iconic (pop and jazz) performances where the space just doesn't do it for me.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Mar 23, 2016 7:50:29 GMT -6
Sinatra's not using cans. He has no idea what the mic sounds like until playback. Maybe being your own engineer is an artistic limitation and liability.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 23, 2016 7:57:02 GMT -6
Sinatra's not using cans. He has no idea what the mic sounds like until playback. Maybe being your own engineer is an artistic limitation and liability. No cans for the photoshoot anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 17:11:16 GMT -6
Live recording a la 1930. Still working, right?
PS: This is already *close*.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 23, 2016 17:21:43 GMT -6
Man...really great quality for 1930...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 17:39:41 GMT -6
:-D Btw, although he would be a perfect candidate IMHO, AFAIK he never got an endorsement by Neumann. I heard they upgraded the microphone collection step-by-step over the years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 17:48:45 GMT -6
I like voice thru LDC best with 50-80cm distance. But if the room is right, it sounds probably better in much more distance. A friend of mine said, asked, how he would use an LDC with voice: "Finding a good place for the mic. Going 4 meters away from it and draw a line with chork on the floor. Instructing the singer not to cross the line. If the singer complains, say 'You are the singer. Maybe you should just sing louder.'"
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Mar 23, 2016 18:18:23 GMT -6
So - why do we stand so close? Or maybe I should say me...I mean, I do the hand length away thing, but anyway...I'm mixing a demo for stevefreeman and he sent a vocal that he did on a Rode Classic...he just got it and instead of padding the hot mic, he just backed up about 4 feet. No sibilance, no proximity issues. Sounds freaking awesome. Why the hell haven't I done this before?? I always do this. If I get within a foot of a mic I have to cut the hell out of the low end. Which in turn sounds unnatural because of phasey eq issues. But I'm a baritone. Different strokes for different folks. Girls can get closer without issue and probably should. Men, not so much. Proximity amounts to natural eq. If it sounds too boomy on play back, simply back up instead of reaching for a knob. I get a much better result this way. I've talked to MJB extensively on this subject. His voice is boomy as well. JK, your room is treated to the point it shouldn't matter if you scoot back 5 feet. The TRICK is, in my experience, make sure you get a good signal level in the phones to account for the lack of proximity. I find this is why most people "eat" a mic. They are simply trying to hear better in the phones. Back up and crank the the phone level instead of scooting up, you know?
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Mar 23, 2016 18:37:19 GMT -6
Here's an MJB tune that I recorded. I was about 4 feet off the mic on this one. And leaned way back on louder passes. Best I remember, I used little to no eq on this in the mix. Probably needed to cut a little more on the bottom actually but didn't. But the point is, it's as present as any vocal. Proximity doesn't always equate to presence. A good room does in my estimation.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/herb-music/other-side-of-town
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2016 19:08:19 GMT -6
Sounds great.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Mar 25, 2016 5:41:47 GMT -6
Did a vocal session with a metal singer last night. Had him about 6 inchs off for most things, and I got him to stand at the wall at the back of the room for the DT's. My current mix room isn't great at all, but it gave it the sense of urgency it needed.
Next release for my band is a 4 track EP, will probably try to track the vocals in the same live room we do the band in, just vary his position from where the original room mics were.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 25, 2016 10:01:55 GMT -6
Tried this last night...Didn't seem to make that big of a difference in the sibilance. Oh well lol
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Oct 8, 2017 22:23:37 GMT -6
|
|