|
Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums Over 3 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments. Over 100,000 members from around the world.
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!
|
|
67 members (BillS728, Burkhard, aphexdisklavier, bobrunyan, anotherscott, AaronSF, apianostudent, 19 invisible),
2,249
guests, and
373
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 243
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 243 |
Michael, do you know of any good resources in figuring out the best mic placement and environment for operatic singing? You really have a lot of good advice above from various people about things to try. I would set out to doing a lot of experiments based on what they've said. Also, I would consider putting the mic to the side of your voice path (still pointed at your mouth, though). You may ultimately want to upgrade your equipment, but I'd run the testing thing into the ground first so you have a really good idea about the precise problems you're trying to solve with equipment vs use. For instance, I don't think a ribbon mic will solve one particular problem you're having--the response profile of a ribbon is not too different from your mic (though the basic sound may be different), with a relatively strong high frequency drop. The same for large diaphram mics, which favor lower frequencies in a way that pop vocalists like--not something that you're after, I don't think. You might ultimately prefer a $20 radio shack lapel mic (which is more similar to some concert recording mics--the things you see hanging over the orchestra--than any of the above) relative to any of those. :-) In fact, it might not be a bad thing to try, just to see if that direction isn't a better one, before you buy the $1000 equivalent. :-) I just looked around at the various possible forums you could go to and they're very heavy on equipment, short on technique.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 154
Full Member
|
Full Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 154 |
Throwing money at problems is the uninformed approach. My business partners, who are into pretty shiny things that cost a lot, scoffed at the idea that I could make nice recordings of our in-shop concerts with the equipment I use (two $150 mics and a $250 recorder) until they heard one. Room and mic placement are way ahead of equipment cost in defining recording quality. After listening to so many horrible recordings on You Tube, it's become clear to me that I (we?) under-appreciate the talents of the recording engineer. It's really hard to get it right unless you know what you're doing. Good equipment is not enough. How true! You can have many thousands of dollars of recording equipment and still turn out a horrible recording. Someone else may have low to mid price range gear and do a much better recording because they know how to get the best results from the gear they have. Clyde
DX7IIFD, SY77, SY99, Hammond C3, Steinway L, CP300, etc.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,842
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,842 |
Michael, I appreciate what you're saying, however, I think recording operatic voices is different. I've seen operatic recording sessions on youtube where the mic is placed 4-5 feet away from the singer, or they step back when they go for the high notes. Anything non operatic is usually quite soft and so the singer can sing very close to the mic because there's very little dynamic range to worry about. The "normal" position for a mic is about 3 inches. Moving it back to 6 inches reduces the sound level at the mic by a factor of 4. 12 inches reduces the level by a factor of 16. But none of this maters. You simply can NOT overload an SM58 mic. Those mics can be used to record electric guitars, typically placed 12" away from the speaker with volume set to "11" and the guitar amp. Those mics have incredible dynamic range. If you are recording in 24-bit mode the dynamic range of the file is in the order of 120db. That covers jet airplane engines level to wipers. If you do pull the mic far away to capture the "room sound" then you want a room where the walls and ceiling height are quite far as on a stage. Many times they will use a mic at two or more feet distance as a second mic and then combine the room mic and close vocal mic when mixing. The two when combined make a kind of subtle reverb and add some space to the sound. The goal of recording is to get the best record of the sound, play with relative volumes later when you mix it. There are a lot of book on home recording.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,842
3000 Post Club Member
|
3000 Post Club Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,842 |
The vocal is outstanding but as stated by others, the thin, nasal sound is entirely due to the low-end performance of a cheap dynamic mic. To my ears when you open up on a higher note the sound bleeds across into a kind of chorus sound, ie, gets much wider. I think what you will need is a better mic. Dynamics are easier to deal with so perhaps you could treat yourself to a SM58 or better still a SM58A.
His mic and the SM58 have about the same frequency response. Look up the curve at theSure web site. they are so close you can't tell. The SM58 is however built to take serious physical abuse. But do look at the frequency curve. Notice that ALL good vocal mics seem to drop off at the bass end? Why? Because of the "proximity effect". The designers at Sure know that bass response increases greatly as you move the mic closer and they know how vocal mics are typically used so they drop the bass in such a way that the response is flat when the mic is place a few inches from the vocalist. If our new recording engineer really does insist on using a mic at 3 to 4 feet. Then what's needed is NOT an SM58 or other vocal mic. Have you seen the mics used in film and news gathering that or put on poles or booms? Those mics will have a different response and a different polar pick-up pattern. Really there are two ways to go, use the existing mic for it's intended purpose or by a mic designed for the way you'd like to use it. So you might see a u-tube video of a recording session but the engineer who set up the session had a quite impressive mic locker and I'd bet a lot he was not using an SM58 at 2 or 3 feet. He used some other mic. Also I bet a lot the wall in back of the mic was for reflective, there might have been a bunch of anechoic foam and maybe the engineer EQ'd out some of the room nodes or maybe the room was huge -- lots of subtleties that don't show in the camera Also in a pro studio like that they have to mic connected to some expensive preamps and a compressor. In the end, after the recording session there is much work to to in mixing. There is no way around the fact that someone will have to work some volume control sliders and do so in a way the listener can't notice.
Last edited by ChrisA; 01/01/10 06:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,391
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
|
OP
Yikes! 10000 Post Club Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 17,391 |
Thanks, Chris! Do you think that it is better then to get a vocal recording with room sound vs. dry and adding effects? I would think getting a good room sound would be better than effects and reverb added after the fact. And I don't think I'm as loud as a jet liner LOL! I think I'll try doing another recording of the voice with the mic at close range (at 3 inches) with one of those filters on it to eliminate breathing and popping noise, and with another mic to get the room sound. I'm currently fighting a bug, so singing isn't really possible, but as soon as I'm well again I'll give it a try and post it for more critique
private piano/voice teacher FT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:34 PM
|
Piano
by Gino2 - 04/17/24 02:23 PM
|
|
Forums43
Topics223,408
Posts3,349,457
Members111,637
|
Most Online15,252 Mar 21st, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|