Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Please, support PV!
It allows to keep PV going, with more focus towards AI, but keeping be one of the few truly independent places.
Choosing mikes for vocal and voiceovers
  • 117 Replies sorted by
  • @svart "Mix engineers have applied psychoacoustics by cutting the low frequencies but using devices to generate the 2nd/3rd harmonics of the frequencies they cut..."

    Your post is intriguing because I've never heard of it being applied to mixing before - and not sure exactly how you'd do it - but it makes perfect sense in principle. Sounds similar to what musicians do sometimes. For example, I'm working on an Einaudi piece that requires some bass notes that go lower than my harp can play, so where the notes get too low I modify what I'm doing and play some upper parts of the harmonic series which effectively creates low notes beyond what's physically possible on the harp. Organists have done this trick for generations to create pseudo-32 foot pitches in an instrument that doesn't have 32-foot stops.
  • @Mark_the_Harp: The trick you are using is creating those harmonics that lead people to "hear" the low frequencies that aren't there. The 80-20 rule is pretty much the same as the law of diminishing returns.

    @Johnnym: I've gone back to using analog EQs for most EQ work. I've tried all kinds of plugs for EQ but I still can't seem to get a better sound than real analog EQ. I try very hard to get the right sound without EQ at all but then use the parametric console EQs to blend and carve. I'll then use an outboard stereo EQ for overall adjustments. I'm building a specialized inductor/tube based EQ specifically for vocals right now as well.

    @VK: Yes, chinese mics have come a long way indeed. Look at Telefunken a couple years ago.. They rebranded a chinese mic and sold it as a Telefunken mic! People were very upset when they found out. Not because the mic didn't sound great, but because they paid a lot of money and could get the same mic for 1/10th the cost if they bought a cheap brand.. http://recordinghacks.com/articles/telefunken-m16-and-apex-460-comparison/

    I took an Apex 460 mic, did a few mods and now it beats pretty much everything else I have for vocals.

  • @svart Mic looks tasty! I guess analogue EQ is different as it will have different phase shifts than you get with digital EQ - apart from anything else. Is that why you prefer it?
  • I'm not really good with electronics so i'm looking at this one :
    http://www.oktavamodshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=2_52&products_id=173
  • I like the 460 because it's a cheap mic and the circuit is actually close to the original C12 design. It's pretty easy to mod: replace 2 capacitors, remove 2 capacitors, replace the tube and replace the capsule.

    This is the mod I prefer but I elected to get a C12 edge-terminated capsule instead because I wanted a different frequency response:

    http://www.foxaudioresearch.ca/The460secret.htm

    Which seems fairly close to the Oktavamod one.


    @Mark_the_Harp: Digital EQ always seems to get harsh when you use a lot of it. I'm not exactly sure why though. I find that plug-ins, no matter how awesomely designed, also tend to lose detail in the audio. I've never really investigated but I believe it to be related to word multiplication in the algorithm. Eventually if you multiply enough, you have to truncate back to your bit width (16/24/32 bit), etc. So every time you truncate, you lose more and more original data. This is also why people who mix "in the box" will avoid digital bussing and elect to mix down through an analog mix bus. In any case, I found that I would need a lot more plug EQ to make things sound OK. When I finally got back to my roots with a proper console, I found that a whole lot less EQ was needed and that fidelity was increased. I even asked a number of my friend/associates to take a listen and the decision was rather unanimous that the console just had more life to it.

  • While there is a lot I can post here when I have more time (though it has been difficult to find it for several months now), I will say a few things in terms of resources for finding out more. Also, my list of mics I like at the end run in price from 400 to 10,000 dollars MSRP in the U.S.

    Find a good listening environment and get some CDs (or the digital downloads) from the 3daudioinc.com comparisons before you buy ANY mic, unless you have a friend (or personally are) an engineer with access to lots of mics in person in a studio setting (not just a store or trade show). Here is a link to the comparisons I am talking about, current as of the time of writing. They were conducted a few years ago but several of the mics tested are still VERY popular.

    http://www.3daudioinc.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/21?osCsid=9fa04f64c5a19bd802558aa2c0dacede

    The two to focus on there are the "Ribbon Mic Roundup" and the "3D Mic CD".

    If you use listen to those on a good system, you will know EXACTLY what you are getting into, instead of relying on the biases that others have.

    But in terms of biases, here are a few microphones I have loved using on sessions.

    Small Diaphragm Condenser:
    Neumann KM184D (which I used to record a Grammy winning classical vocalist because she preferred it to her usual vocal mics)

    That microphone has some killer other features in terms of the signal path so read up on it.

    Ribbon:
    AEA R92
    Royer R122V

    These two mics really have a different sound from most of the others, though I would enjoy a chance to try the Tannoys one day as well.

    Large Diaphragm Condenser:
    Neumann U87
    Neumann TLM103
    Telefunken ELAM 251-E
    Rode NT2A

    I also have lots of colleagues that love the Rode NT1A, favoring the lower noise floor over the flexibility and features of the NT2A.
  • +1 on the KM184 and NT1a - I have a few of both (well, KM100 but similar but with swappable capsules - great mics). Love 'em.
  • Yeah, the nice thing about a good small diaphragm mic like the KM184D is just how clear and natural it sounds. I think that's part of the reason why some of the strongest vocalists I work with are so intrigued by them - they don't color and flatter (which is often good) but rather give that really direct sense of what's there.
  • @thepalalias

    Some things require scientific approach.
    And mikes are one of them.
    I not only mean frequency responce measuring, and all other things you can get from impulse response.
    But also double blind tests.
    Otherwise, usually most good looking, best known brend costing a fortune always wins :-)
  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev Great links to the SOS articles for production and marketing tips - thanks.
  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev Believe me, I know. :) That's part of the reason why the comparison CDs I mentioned use a 2 part legend that makes it easier to blind test yourself.

    I've been working for years with an artist that has repeatable preferences in blind testing with a large array of gear, as long as their hearing has not been fatigued by too much work that day. They prefer the sound of an Avalon channel strip to ones costing several times more for their vocals, but they are just as consistent in preferring it to the cheaper ones.

    I'll try to avoid going on into another mega post because I talk about these things all the time when I do consulting for boutique audio equipment companies and with an impulse response soundware company, but what I would add is: it takes a scientific approach but it's tremendously personal.

    Several of the greatest audio engineers I know don't prefer the same sound. :)
  • @Vitaliy_Kiselev Also, the ABX comparator plug-in for Foobar2000 is a great tool I've been using the last year or two for blind test comparisons.
  • Oh, and one of my least favorite mics on vocals would be the omnipresent Shure SM57. Such a harsh sound. Works better on some other sources, though.
  • Also, every time I have had a vocalist pick their microphone, it's been by listening back to playback of themselves from different mics (typically with the files identified only after their performance choice have been made).

    I'm not a microphone snob, but I know there is a BIG difference between "pretty good" and "really great", and that difference isn't just from source to source or performer to performer, but also from song to song.

    On the album "Stream" by Joanna St. Claire we switched between at least 5 different microphones for her vocals alone depending on the song. On "Listen to the Sound" we preferred the sound of one of the less expensive ones to the ones costing two to seven times as much. On the next song we worked on, the situation reversed. Nothing on that album was done based on reputation alone. :)
  • I like that the article actually picks a wide range of favorite vocal mics and not just the ones that usually show up in articles (read: paid to advertise in the form of a review..).

    For example the Gefell mic. I have a couple Gefell mics and some day I plan on getting more. I simply can't state how underestimated these mics are. They don't get a lot of publicity even though they were actually part of Neumann back before WW2 and actually continue on with designs that are more authentic to Neumann than modern Neumann mics are today.
  • @Svart Going back a few comments, but as far as digital EQs, what's your take on the Algorithmix range (Red, Blue, Orange and the licensed algorithims from Blue in SSL's X-EQ) and some of the gear emulated with Nebula?

    Also, what are some of the digital EQs you dislike so far?

    I'm not one to prefer the sound of digital EQs to analog ones (though sometimes I like it as much) but I do greatly prefer the workflow on a lot of projects as well as portability and replicability.
  • I can honestly say that although I enjoy reading SOS, I would never rely on their gear reviews. I rely on them for a quick explanation of features. I would not place those mics there, and so the results have no use for me.
  • @thepalalias Samplitude comes with just about every plug in you would ever need, including room simulation and spectral noise reduction The EQ is totally fine, and the quad band limiter is unique.
    The big difference I hear in pro audio for video is the physical modelling. A person walks from a hall or an elevator into a large room. Object editing in Samplitude/Sequoia provides a very easy way to change the room size gradually or quickly, so you don't hear an effect stuck on, a problem which even high budget films have. Combine the same engine with SirPro and you can make all these effects, plus you have spectral noise reduction, which is the tool I use the most in post for noisy backgrounds.
  • @Mark_theHarp IMHO the KM140 is better than subsequent designs including the 184--Hang on to it.
    I'm surprised to hear a vocalist wanted the 184, I would never use that mic for voice. But that's taste, of course. I guess Beyer MCD100 is a mic that rocks on vocals that you never see anymore. Anyone has one let me know.
  • @DrDave

    Yep. Samplitude, especially suite have huge number of things. Including effects, 70Gb sample library, physical modelling synths.
  • @DrDave

    Mics and loudspeakers are like religion.
    Some guys settle early and live happily.
    Some search perfection whole life...
  • @DrDave The important thing to keep in mind is that we aren't just talking about the KM184, we are talking about the KM184D. The other mics were going from an Avalon 737 into a mid-range audio interface, while the KM184D just fed into the digital input of that same digital interface. The built-in converters and pre-amp for the D range are low-noise, clear and quite neutral. The signal paths that you'll sometimes hear it compared to cost 3 times as much for the converters alone as the KM184D does for the microphone/ADC/pre-amp functionality.

    In addition, Hila's a soprano with a beautifully clear timbre. She preferred a more neutral high end to the filtering that has been inherent to a large diaphragm cardoid design thus far.

    If we were comparing the non D versions, it's entirely possible I might have preferred the KM140 to the KM184 (non-D) but that's not what was going on at the time. :)
  • @DrDave Also, you lumped ALL the solution Ds together, but there are several D range mics. :) You can pick the KM184D with a starter kit up for under $2k, not the $8k you mentioned earlier.