|
Post by keymod on Oct 9, 2017 3:35:15 GMT -6
In the picture of Sinatra - that very large music stand must be adding some reflections, no??
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Oct 9, 2017 12:51:55 GMT -6
I tell them put their nose in the hole 😂😂😂😂😂
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Oct 9, 2017 13:40:30 GMT -6
I tried it with my 67. It works! 👏
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 9, 2017 14:31:03 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. I don't use cans. Can't sing with 'em as I can't hear my voice coming out of my mouth. But then I'm also influenced by a lot of old studio shots...
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 9, 2017 14:32:56 GMT -6
Live recording a la 1930. Still working, right? PS: This is already *close*. Er, that doesn't look much like a '30s style mic to me.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 9, 2017 14:43:39 GMT -6
In the picture of Sinatra - that very large music stand must be adding some reflections, no?? Probably not. If you look carefully at the picture, it looks like the upright shaft of the stand is offset significantly to Sinatra's right side. And you can get quite a bit of boom reach with those things.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Oct 9, 2017 18:45:43 GMT -6
The first guy I saw ever eat a mic was a traveling summer carnival barker, he ran a gambling game with packs of cigarettes as the prize, and the chips, after you buy in with cash. This was in the late '50's, and a pack of cigarettes cost a quarter. There was a wheel with colored dots, and dots all around the counter where you'd put down a bet on which color would come up.
Over a rock soundtrack, he'd cup that mic and eat it like his mouth was a bluesman's harmonica and the PA was one of those triangular enclosed 12" corner speakers hung from a tent pole. About 20% harmonic distortion. I can still remember the sound.
|
|
|
Post by porkyman on Oct 10, 2017 14:09:26 GMT -6
This is totally insane. I would never let anyone get that close to my baby.
|
|
|
Post by miscend on Oct 10, 2017 15:59:27 GMT -6
No cans for the photoshoot anyway. I don't use cans. Can't sing with 'em as I can't hear my voice coming out of my mouth. But then I'm also influenced by a lot of old studio shots... Trying going with one ear in a can. And the other one without. It’s the best of both worlds.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 10, 2017 21:24:18 GMT -6
I don't use cans. Can't sing with 'em as I can't hear my voice coming out of my mouth. But then I'm also influenced by a lot of old studio shots... Trying going with one ear in a can. And the other one without. It’s the best of both worlds. I have and it isn't. In fact, it's even worse. And then you have the problem of leakage from the uncovered can. I use monitors - just like nearly everybody did before the mid '70s. Monitors give a much better feel for the music and allow you to hear your own voice in a natural manner. It's harder to sing on pitch with cans - not just for me, for most people although most people never try it because everyone thinks that cans are "how it's done". If you're singing with a group cans make harmonizing harder and make it harder to sing in balance with others - which most people don't even bother trying to do anymore. People are afraid to use monitors because they're afraid of leakage - but if you set up right the leakage from monitors is far less odious than leakage from loud cans, which is horribly unbalanced in terms of frequency. There are several ways to do it with monitors - probably the best known is to set up the monitors in mono, forming an equilateral triangle with the mic, out of polarity with each other so that the signal cancels at the microphone. There's also using a single monitor placed exactly in the null point of the mic. Due to the layout that I'm dealing with I usually just set up the mic in an adjacent room behind the control room and listen through a partially open door - quick and dirty but it works. What you DON'T do is bring up the singer's voice in the monitor mix, or if you do, not much. If you're doing a double or harmonizing with a track you bring THAT up in the monitor enough to give the singer a reference, but not too loud. Drummers, OTOH, get cans. Sinatra did not use cans. None of those old guys did.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Oct 10, 2017 21:47:19 GMT -6
Trying going with one ear in a can. And the other one without. It’s the best of both worlds. I have and it isn't. In fact, it's even worse. And then you have the problem of leakage from the uncovered can. I use monitors - just like nearly everybody did before the mid '70s. Monitors give a much better feel for the music and allow you to hear your own voice in a natural manner. It's harder to sing on pitch with cans - not just for me, for most people although most people never try it because everyone thinks that cans are "how it's done". If you're singing with a group cans make harmonizing harder and make it harder to sing in balance with others - which most people don't even bother trying to do anymore. People are afraid to use monitors because they're afraid of leakage - but if you set up right the leakage from monitors is far less odious than leakage from loud cans, which is horribly unbalanced in terms of frequency. There are several ways to do it with monitors - probably the best known is to set up the monitors in mono, forming an equilateral triangle with the mic, out of polarity with each other so that the signal cancels at the microphone. There's also using a single monitor placed exactly in the null point of the mic. Due to the layout that I'm dealing with I usually just set up the mic in an adjacent room behind the control room and listen through a partially open door - quick and dirty but it works. What you DON'T do is bring up the singer's voice in the monitor mix, or if you do, not much. If you're doing a double or harmonizing with a track you bring THAT up in the monitor enough to give the singer a reference, but not too loud. Drummers, OTOH, get cans. Sinatra did not use cans. None of those old guys did. Yep if you know the actual polar pattern of mic & monitor it can be great! Might need to EQ the monitor a bit but it can work . Let's face it we as an industry are a bunch of lemmings!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2017 2:21:12 GMT -6
I've been recording myself with a lot of strummed and finger picked acoustic guitar recently. I want a click track at a known BPM so I can overdub at the same BPM later. I hate using cans for listening to the click track (a very simple drum loop), it totally throws me off. I've tried the "one can on, one can off" thing and it's slightly better, but I really prefer to be able to hear the full guitar in the room, as that's how I normally play and react, and I get a much more natural performance that way.
For those of you using monitors with phase tricks, or mono in the null of the polar pattern etc., instead of cans, does it really work for getting rid of spill from a click track that has no intention of ending up in the final mix? I guess I should try it and see. I would certainly relish not having to wear cans.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Oct 11, 2017 9:31:58 GMT -6
I've been recording myself with a lot of strummed and finger picked acoustic guitar recently. I want a click track at a known BPM so I can overdub at the same BPM later. I hate using cans for listening to the click track (a very simple drum loop), it totally throws me off. I've tried the "one can on, one can off" thing and it's slightly better, but I really prefer to be able to hear the full guitar in the room, as that's how I normally play and react, and I get a much more natural performance that way. For those of you using monitors with phase tricks, or mono in the null of the polar pattern etc., instead of cans, does it really work for getting rid of spill from a click track that has no intention of ending up in the final mix? I guess I should try it and see. I would certainly relish not having to wear cans. I've had similar trouble with click bleed recording singer songwriters playing guitar and singing at the same time. My only suggestion is for your click, make sure your using a sound that will blend nicely in the track in the event that the bleed is too much. I started using a shaker sample. That way if, down the line, the click is too obvious it's at least a musical sound and won't ruin everything. Nothing worse than them robotic "tick, tick, tick" that is the default click for most DAWs.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 11, 2017 10:36:47 GMT -6
Completely depends on what sound I want. My U47 has the best balance of top detail and bottom fullness somewhere around 7-9" away.
Closer than that and it gets strange peaks and much more proximity effect. Further than that and it starts sounding dull, midrange heavy, and ultimately lifeless.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Oct 11, 2017 11:00:23 GMT -6
I think it's all about the style of music and the vocals. I recorded my album in the hall of the National Opera Center in NYC. We use a U87ai as the spot mic about 2 ft from me. In my own room for operatic vocals I find the 2 ft is a good distance, but may move closer to 18" to avoid that sound of my treated, but imperfect room. If it's a bit more Bocelli/Groban crossover style, I'll move into 12"-15" range. When I croon, as you guys have seen in my videos I often stay in the 12"-15" range unless I need to get softer and more intimate and can move as close as 6" from the mic. When I do pop vocals in the studio I've always done them 6" or so away, only backing up to maybe 12" when I let it rip. Also, this is in my room. I recorded an Easter church service a few years ago and because we were in such a large ambient catholic church my U87ai was about 3 ft from the soloists. You can hear a clip from that below. static1.squarespace.com/static/53f8c455e4b046b3a20ca0e9/t/54554d5ce4b0da153a283ab5/1414876508362/Pater+in+Manus+Tuas.mp3/original/Pater+in+Manus+Tuas.mp3
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Oct 11, 2017 12:40:30 GMT -6
Another thing to consider is the microphone being used. The U47 has a huge proximity effect and doesn't need to be worked closely. The U67 and U87 are made for closer vocals and sound good when you work them closely.
On the other end of the spectrum, when I first started doing studio sessions for people I did a lot of work with my friend and mentor Jack. We used a medium diaphragm Audio Technica AT3525. That mic sounded really good if you worked it very closely. If you were too far it had more of a FET SDC vibe, but close up it could sound really nice, albeit as though it already had a bit of EQ on it. It really cut well through a dense mix too. The work I did with Jack was often used in his pro projects for TV, etc. When I built my studio I started with a Shure KSM44, which is a little bright and very neutral, but it had a huge proximity effect that at 6" could make for a really big solid pop vocal. For operatic takes I would often stand about a foot from the mic to get a slightly beefier sound, since the mic is on the bright side and seems to loose it's low end after about a foot. The response charts even point that out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2017 6:31:43 GMT -6
I've been recording myself with a lot of strummed and finger picked acoustic guitar recently. I want a click track at a known BPM so I can overdub at the same BPM later. I hate using cans for listening to the click track (a very simple drum loop), it totally throws me off. I've tried the "one can on, one can off" thing and it's slightly better, but I really prefer to be able to hear the full guitar in the room, as that's how I normally play and react, and I get a much more natural performance that way. For those of you using monitors with phase tricks, or mono in the null of the polar pattern etc., instead of cans, does it really work for getting rid of spill from a click track that has no intention of ending up in the final mix? I guess I should try it and see. I would certainly relish not having to wear cans. I've had similar trouble with click bleed recording singer songwriters playing guitar and singing at the same time. My only suggestion is for your click, make sure your using a sound that will blend nicely in the track in the event that the bleed is too much. I started using a shaker sample. That way if, down the line, the click is too obvious it's at least a musical sound and won't ruin everything. Nothing worse than them robotic "tick, tick, tick" that is the default click for most DAWs. Thanks for the tip, and sorry for the thread derail. Another thing I thought of was using an 808 style kick with all the highs and mids removed, for the click, which might hopefully be easy to remove later with a HPF (I genreally HPF acoustic guitar tracks around 125Hz and up anyway).
|
|
|
Post by maq3396 on Oct 12, 2017 14:00:24 GMT -6
Vincent...thanks for the posts Beautiful music and vocals to lose yourself in.
Cheers Mac
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Oct 15, 2017 22:23:57 GMT -6
Thanks Mac.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Oct 15, 2017 23:06:32 GMT -6
I can't imagine standing in front of speakers that were out of phase for more than 10 seconds without wanting to blow my brains out. How can anybody do that to cut vocals? Is it not a huge distraction?
I'd imagine Frank was singing live on the floor with the band, hence no cans... I could be wrong but it makes logical sense for the time period. Same with Elvis at rca studio B etc.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Oct 16, 2017 7:53:20 GMT -6
I can't imagine standing in front of speakers that were out of phase for more than 10 seconds without wanting to blow my brains out. How can anybody do that to cut vocals? Is it not a huge distraction? I'd imagine Frank was singing live on the floor with the band, hence no cans... I could be wrong but it makes logical sense for the time period. Same with Elvis at rca studio B etc. Phase is flipped on both monitors so not as noticeable, if you think you can tell absolute phase I dare you to use a phase checker on every piece of gear in your rack, the results might surprise you!
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Oct 16, 2017 8:27:01 GMT -6
The description made it seem like the monitors were flipped out of phase with each other, not the microphone. I understand phase, all the gear in our rooms has been checked and every time I work in a new room that I generally don't use, first thing I do is check phase of gear and mic cables (I'm definitely NOT surprised when I run into out of phase gear with most of the yahoos running around the industry these days).
So, lets say I set up monitors in a room, there is still no way to get everything to cancel perfectly. What happens if I need to tune that vocal now? 95% of vocals are tuned these days, modern country being the worst offender IMO (meaning they don't even TRY to make it sound natural)...
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 16, 2017 13:14:11 GMT -6
I can't imagine standing in front of speakers that were out of phase for more than 10 seconds without wanting to blow my brains out. How can anybody do that to cut vocals? Is it not a huge distraction? I'd imagine Frank was singing live on the floor with the band, hence no cans... I could be wrong but it makes logical sense for the time period. Same with Elvis at rca studio B etc. Phase is flipped on both monitors so not as noticeable, if you think you can tell absolute phase I dare you to use a phase checker on every piece of gear in your rack, the results might surprise you! Traditional way was polarity flip on only one monitor so the signals cancel at the mic. Remember this is with MONO source.
|
|
|
Post by donr on Oct 16, 2017 13:58:21 GMT -6
I can't imagine standing in front of speakers that were out of phase for more than 10 seconds without wanting to blow my brains out. How can anybody do that to cut vocals? Is it not a huge distraction? Drives me nuts too. If I go into a store with a stereo system for music or somebody's house and one of the speakers is out of phase I immediately offer to fix it for them.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Oct 16, 2017 21:20:57 GMT -6
People didn't use cans before the mid to late '60s. Overdubs were done to the studio playback speakers. Most of the vocals at Motown were 3 to 5 feet back. The RCA studio design helped a lot.
|
|