|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 19, 2015 7:57:28 GMT -6
The general consensus or common knowledge on the subject is that there are two formulae:
1. microphone 90% plus preamp 10% = 100% of the sound capture.
2. microphone 80% + preamp 10% plus comp/limiter 10% = 100% of the sound capture
Naturally there are other things that factor into this such as EQ, converters, tape or not, but overall we know that the VAST MAJORITY of the sound we get is due to the microphone. There is no one best mic (not even a 251, M49, M269, C12, U47 etc) but each microphone may react differently to each preamp and therefore the sound we get could be enhanced or compromised.
So here's my querrie:
Why don't microphone manufacturers recommend good preamp pairings for their microphones, post reasons and samples of each and an analysis... so that we can all make better choices?
Or perhaps I dream of too perfect an environment.
Maybe we could post our favorite pairings here?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 19, 2015 8:10:11 GMT -6
It's one of those situations where I believe you can't put a percentage on it. Personal tastes and opinions aside, it's a situation where a mic and a preamp pair might be a subjective 90/10, but another preamp might make it 50/50, or in a worst case something like a U47 and an MBOX preamp might make it 0/0 because even the best mic in the world can't overcome the worst preamp.
There are plenty of times where I've put good mics up and thought they sounded great, until mix time and then I had wished I had used something different, not necessarily for better quality, but for a different tone. I would then start carving with EQ to the point where it sounds good, only to find that a 57 into an mixer preamp would have fit the mix better than 6K$ worth of mic and preamp did.. Live and learn I suppose.
I think that's why you can't necessarily do a pairing thing, like you do wine and cheese, because the flavors of mics and preamps in a mix don't fit neatly into your ears as flavors do in your tastebuds.
Than and mics are kinda metallic tasting and too hard to chew.
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Jan 19, 2015 8:34:03 GMT -6
I think it absolutely matters to have a preamp that compliments the mic for the source. For example, I have a MK-47 that sounds incredible paired with a Pheonix Audio DRS preamp but with an API style preamp it falls a little short on my voice. Now pair the SM7 with the API and it is perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jan 19, 2015 9:30:35 GMT -6
I'm in the hunt for a personal mic just for my voice, but I'm realizing that it's not as simple as the "pairing." The instrument, genre, acoustic environment, density of the track mix, relative humidity, emotional stability of the engineer, alignment of stars, etc. all factor into the choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 19, 2015 10:29:41 GMT -6
I'm in the hunt for a personal mic just for my voice, but I'm realizing that it's not as simple as the "pairing." The instrument, genre, acoustic environment, density of the track mix, relative humidity, emotional stability of the engineer, alignment of stars, etc. all factor into the choice. And I can't stress enough that possibility that one perfect mic would sound like a chorus of angels pushing your voice to the heavens, but as soon as you put it in the mix you'll be like WTF. I'm struggling with that right now. The singer had a very middy voice, so we used the C12 for a little scoop. Now in the mix I can't get the mids to "poke out" enough without them turning nasal. Should have used a different mic that wasn't so good/flattering when we were auditioning them. Again, more live and learn moments. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 19, 2015 10:57:09 GMT -6
And I can't stress enough that possibility that one perfect mic would sound like a chorus of angels pushing your voice to the heavens, but as soon as you put it in the mix you'll be like WTF. I'm struggling with that right now. The singer had a very middy voice, so we used the C12 for a little scoop. Now in the mix I can't get the mids to "poke out" enough without them turning nasal. Should have used a different mic that wasn't so good/flattering when we were auditioning them. Again, more live and learn moments. Have you tried to build the mix around the vocal? I'd do that if the vocal is the center of the song. If the vocal isn't the center of the song, then perhaps you could recut the vocal (if possible) with a different microphone to help it fit better in your mix. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 19, 2015 11:07:23 GMT -6
And I can't stress enough that possibility that one perfect mic would sound like a chorus of angels pushing your voice to the heavens, but as soon as you put it in the mix you'll be like WTF. I'm struggling with that right now. The singer had a very middy voice, so we used the C12 for a little scoop. Now in the mix I can't get the mids to "poke out" enough without them turning nasal. Should have used a different mic that wasn't so good/flattering when we were auditioning them. Again, more live and learn moments. Have you tried to build the mix around the vocal? I'd do that if the vocal is the center of the song. If the vocal isn't the center of the song, then perhaps you could recut the vocal (if possible) with a different microphone to help it fit better in your mix. I would, but the singer doesn't want it front and center like a pop vocal. It's shoegaze type music and they want the vocals to seem like part of the music rather than the music supporting the vocals. Recutting won't happen either. it took us a month of weekends and a night a week to get the vocals because the singer gets too jittery in the studio, and we essentially built the vocals out of words and phrases. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 19, 2015 11:12:39 GMT -6
Have you tried to build the mix around the vocal? I'd do that if the vocal is the center of the song. If the vocal isn't the center of the song, then perhaps you could recut the vocal (if possible) with a different microphone to help it fit better in your mix. I would, but the singer doesn't want it front and center like a pop vocal. It's shoegaze type music and they want the vocals to seem like part of the music rather than the music supporting the vocals. Recutting won't happen either. it took us a month of weekends and a night a week to get the vocals because the singer gets too jittery in the studio, and we essentially built the vocals out of words and phrases. Sounds like the band should get a new singer. I kid....sorta. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 19, 2015 12:20:24 GMT -6
Have you tried to build the mix around the vocal? I'd do that if the vocal is the center of the song. If the vocal isn't the center of the song, then perhaps you could recut the vocal (if possible) with a different microphone to help it fit better in your mix. I would, but the singer doesn't want it front and center like a pop vocal. It's shoegaze type music and they want the vocals to seem like part of the music rather than the music supporting the vocals. Recutting won't happen either. it took us a month of weekends and a night a week to get the vocals because the singer gets too jittery in the studio, and we essentially built the vocals out of words and phrases. try slamming it through a VP28 hard on the input, it will add a bunch of presence to that track I'd bet. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 19, 2015 12:34:51 GMT -6
I would, but the singer doesn't want it front and center like a pop vocal. It's shoegaze type music and they want the vocals to seem like part of the music rather than the music supporting the vocals. Recutting won't happen either. it took us a month of weekends and a night a week to get the vocals because the singer gets too jittery in the studio, and we essentially built the vocals out of words and phrases. try slamming it through a VP28 hard on the input, it will add a bunch of presence to that track I'd bet. I don't have a VP28.. yet.. But I'll give it a try through a 312(or maybe two in series!) and see how that works. Good idea! |
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Jan 19, 2015 17:01:33 GMT -6
I hate to say this but truthfully I find that the vintage Neve 1073/1084 is the one preamp for me that contributes almost as much as the mic. Primarily the level of detail. It can make an Sm57 sound fantastic. But any decent vocalist should know what types of microphones recreate their register accurately. Certainly just about any professional singer will know. Any noobs or "live artists" who have little recording experience will have to learn the hard way. Cycle them through the mics until "they" recognize the mic that doesn't alter their register in an artificial way. A lot of inexperienced artists are often looking for some sort of magic or special effect on their voice from a high end mic - no such thing. Don't let them go down that path. The right mic is the mic that makes their voice sound the way it naturally does, no register shift, no pinching, no voice of god. Almost every hit record in the 70s was made with a Neumann U87 or U67, I can never understand why people waste so much time buying every new budget mic that comes out when an 87 will be all they ever need 99% of the time. Turn on the radio today and regardless of genre you will hear everyone from Bruno Mars to Ed Sheeran singing through an 87. I like singing through 47s but I gladly substitute 87s without a second thought. They have a similar frequency response and sound like "the radio"  |
|
|
|
Post by baquin on Jan 19, 2015 18:14:13 GMT -6
Have you tried to build the mix around the vocal? I'd do that if the vocal is the center of the song. If the vocal isn't the center of the song, then perhaps you could recut the vocal (if possible) with a different microphone to help it fit better in your mix. I would, but the singer doesn't want it front and center like a pop vocal. It's shoegaze type music and they want the vocals to seem like part of the music rather than the music supporting the vocals. Recutting won't happen either. it took us a month of weekends and a night a week to get the vocals because the singer gets too jittery in the studio, and we essentially built the vocals out of words and phrases. I used to be on a band that had a singer just as you mentioned...we recorded those vocals with words and sometimes phrases. It had that shoegaze vibe on vocals. Then, I remember the suffering from the poor mixing guy. Anyway, the vocal was recorded through a R84 into a Focusrite ISA 428 and sometimes a Langevin Dual Vocal Combo. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jan 19, 2015 20:49:20 GMT -6
This is a great idea for a thread. Although pairings are a moving target from song to song/ source to source, I see where Ward is going with this. There are some combos that will pretty much work with anything. Such as a 1073 and a U 87. Boom, you know what your going to get, and it's always pleasurable.
My magic pairing at the moment is this APP Studio Germanium and U 47. It's really pinning my ears back on everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2015 13:58:45 GMT -6
I generally would say, if you like the sound of a tube mic, you should use a fairly neutral, clean, uncolored pre. It does not need much of gain at all.
I once built a very clean 1 opamp chip pre (OP275) with no features at all, just enough gain to get it into the ADC, exactly for this purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jan 21, 2015 15:05:05 GMT -6
I'm in the hunt for a personal mic just for my voice, but I'm realizing that it's not as simple as the "pairing." The instrument, genre, acoustic environment, density of the track mix, relative humidity, emotional stability of the engineer, alignment of stars, etc. all factor into the choice. Lol, well I'm not sure SoundCity had a humidor as a vocal booth, but Stevie vocals sure sounded good recorded there So what if you could send in a sample of your vox that was tracked through whatever mic, as long as the curves could be factored in, and then a custom circuit and capsule were created, would you bite on that idea? How much would you be willing to spend for such a thing? Assuming that were an option in the world of microphones of course  |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jan 21, 2015 20:04:33 GMT -6
I feel like if you're going through the trouble of comparing mics and preamps, it's a gross mistake to ignore the Digital to Audio Converter, or tape machine, in this formula. An equally important contributor to total tonality, on the front end of things.
To me the best solution is obviously, the best possible version of all three things. Well dependent on the source. I feel like mics are source dependent, but preamps and ADC are more of a universal choice. Mic preamps are right in the middle, though, and some are slightly better on this or that. But most of the good ones are good on anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 20:41:46 GMT -6
There have been times when I ran a hot mic straight to a powerful compressor and not even compress,(just using it as a line amplifier device) just to hit the transformers and into the DAW it goes for the color and tone I was looking for. So, that said, I really don't think of it in a percentage. It is chasing a sound I hear in my head and whatever gets me there. I live to experiment and try to as much as time permits.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jan 23, 2015 10:28:31 GMT -6
90% is what happens on the outside of the mic. The rest is window dressing.
Great artists translate through crappy gear, like Robert Johnson.
Crappy artists are turd polished through great gear, like modern pop.
I'd give up all my technology to find another Robert Johnson.
|
|
