Equipment needed to record opera vocals on Macbook

[AudioAaron]

I am looking for recommended equipment to record soprano opera vocals (loud!) on an M1-equipped MacBook, and have no idea where to start. Would like to spend no more than $500, if possible.

Microphone - Looks to be some nice Shures for a couple hundred $.

ADC - Do I need a motu or focusrite interface?

Some sort of USB to Lightning connector?

Any help appreciated!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Motu, Focusrite, Apogee, Apollo any of those would serve you well. I would pick a USB3 or Thunderbolt connected version. Some will do both. You'll need two mics if doing stereo.

For opera, I might go with a good condensor or electrec mic. These Lewitts are pretty nice at $149 each.
https://www.lewitt-audio.com/microphones/lct-recording/lct-240-pro

That leaves $200 for the interface. The $240 Motu M4 puts you barely over budget, but would be a nice package. You'd be able to get good recordings with these few pieces. You would being going over USB C type 3, but that isn't much of an impediment.

 

[DVDdoug]

Yes, you need an audio interface and a good microphone. $500 is reasonable. Stage/studio microphones are not compatible with the "computer mic" input on a computer.

The standard type of microphone pro studios use for vocals (and almost everything else) is a cardioid (directional) "large diaphragm condenser". Studio condenser mics have a built-in "head amp" which requires 48V "phantom power", which is supplied by the interface.

Dynamic mics don't require power and they typically put-out about 10dB less than a condenser so you need more preamp gain. That's an issue with some interfaces and it means the interface should have a low-noise preamp.

Other than sensitivity, with microphones the main difference in sound character is frequency response and that can be tweaked with EQ. A lot of people obsess over using the "perfect" mic for every situation and if you're in a pro studio you have plenty to choose from, but usually you can just EQ.

You also need a nice quiet "studio". That's the biggest issue for home recording.

"Loud" is good!!! A loud sound helps to overcome any room noise and preamp noise. Note that you don't need a "hot" digital signal and you can turn-down the knob on your interface. It's most important that you don't "try" to go over 0dB and clip (distort). Leave plenty of headroom.

It's also helpful to have a pop-filter between the singer and the mic. Not only does it help to block breath noises, but it helps to keep the "proper distance" from the mic.

 

[garbulky]

The good news I s that there are some great microphones at those prices. I use dual mxl v67g. My m audio Luna is also no slouch.

Something you’ll have to figure out is what kind of recordings do you want to make? Do you only want close microphones mono takes? If so you’re on the right track. I mainly do stereo field recordings. My Rhodes nt4 is not bad for that but doesn’t sound as good as two mono mics together. Also do you want to only do recordings in a place near your laptop and a power outlet? or do you want portability options? My Tascam dr70d with batteries gives me the flexibility to do standalone stereo (or quad) recordings with phantom power albeit with no live editing/effects. The recordings save onto an sd card that gets later transferred to my pc.


Do you want to do stereo channel music videos on your iPhone live? You can do that with the right equipment chain. This way I don’t have to edit the video and audio together. The key for making this work is a usb analog to digital converter, the Apple camera connection kit and something like those audio interfaces mentioned or the tascam i mentioned. So lots of options. Depends on how you want to go about it

 

[Trell]

I'll add a little to the above responses you got.

I'm using the M2 myself on Windows but then primarily for video calls along with some measurements now and then.

The Motu M2 or M4 are very nice for the money and are "class compliant" on OSX which means that you can use it without installing thirdparty drivers, and I believe your MacBook has USB-C so you just need a cable. Part of the package include licenses for DAW software for both Windows and Mac as well, which is useful as you won't need to buy it yourself.

https://motu.com/en-us/products/m-series/m2/software/

 

[JohnYang1997]

Focusrite Solo + Rode NT1(2014)
Or get a digital recorder like TASCAM DR07X.

 

[Trell]

Focusrite Solo + Rode NT1(2014)
Or get a digital recorder like TASCAM DR07X.

I've got that microphone and it's quite nice as a studio microphone and think it could suit the OP well, but sadly Rode now sells it with an inferior shockmount instead of the premium SMR one that I got with it.

 

[AudioAaron]

Thank you so much for the thoughtful replies. I will do some further research based on your suggestions and update with what I end up with.

 

[Trell]

I'm not a vocalist/singer so my "advice" on microphones for your purpose you should take with a huge grain of salt

Here is one reviewer (Anton Browne) of microphones that is a singer as well as a teacher: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuFXQBgnbil-kLkdirWjx8A

 

[AnalogSteph]

Dynamic mics don't require power and they typically put-out about 10dB less than a condenser so you need more preamp gain. That's an issue with some interfaces and it means the interface should have a low-noise preamp.

Make that more like 15-20 dB less - a hot condenser might output like -32 dBV/Pa, I don't think I've seen any dynamic go over -48 dBV/Pa yet (-54 dBV/Pa being more typical, some can be even quieter). With a condenser, input noise is generally a non-issue. Otherwise, agreed.

You really don't need a fancy audio interface for this, the common Focusrite Scarlett Solo would be plenty (though I might consider the 2i2 which does include a headphone volume control but will also cost you about $50 more). If you are really strapped for cash, I would rather downgrade to a Behringer UMC202HD than compromise on anything else. Even with a condenser with -32 dBV/Pa worth of output, that would still be good for at least 120 dB SPL.

Mic wise, some candidates I might look at would be AT2035, Rode NT1, and Sennheiser MK4 perhaps (the shock mount pushes it to $399 though). AT4040, Shure PGA27 and AKG P420 may be other suitable candidates if you like it a bit brighter. Perhaps a Lewitt LCT 440 Pure if you can get that. Realistically you don't really need to spend any more for a cardioid LDC, the available midrange options are already excellent. And as stated above, you can always tweak the frequency response with a bit of EQ when recording.

Since opera singers are generally heard on stage, I would aim for a more traditional mic distance of about 10" to reduce proximity effect, perhaps even more... a low-cut filter may prove handy but you can also do that in the DAW, of course. Having a pop screen on hand is always good but realistically having the mic maybe 30° up (or sideways) and pointing down at your mouth works fine, too. It was good enough for ABBA...

That brings us to the last important topic, acoustic treatment. First of all, if you can plop down the mic stand in a decently-sized room well away from any walls, do that. There are two fundamental considerations to this for mid/high frequencies - first of all, where is the sound from your mouth aimed at, and second, what does the mic pickup pattern "see"? Obviously if you are facing an absorber the amplitude of sound bouncing around the room will be substantially reduced, and then you can turn your attention to the area behind your back that the mic is looking at. Make sure you are using materials with fairly even broadband absorption (e.g. foam wedges beat plain ol' blankets in this regard) - making a decent vocal booth is fairly easy, one that doesn't sound stuffy is another matter. Perhaps you'll even want to keep some room reverb if that's nice and diffuse.

 

[AurekV]

Opera singers generally sound much better recorded in a large room (HOW, auditorium, perhaps lecture hall, etc.) at a significant distance (a couple feet or more), in stereo. It can work to record them with a single mic studio style, but as was previously mentioned use a mic as far away as you can without picking up so much room ambience that it interferes with your artificial reverb. A dead room helps a lot. Outside in a low noise area can also work.

Apply reverb carefully to get a natural sound, people in the classical music world tend to be very perceptive of it and suspicious of artificial reverb. You want it to sound real.

Do not use a dynamic mic, they are wrong for the "HiFi" application of opera vocals. Generally opera singers have been trained to have very "bright" voices (extended and loud harmonics) so mics with a boost in the upper midrange, say anything below 8 kHz are not likely to work well. Either small diaphragm condensers or large diaphragm condensers will work, opera vocals are not like other vocals and a LDC isn't necessarily an asset. Some large or even cheap small diaphragm condensers which have significant resonances defining their sound (for better or worse) will also tend to sound bad.

Some mics without pads or high SPL rating (say in excess of 140 dB) may actually distort in this application if used close and distortion on vocals tends to be pretty audible and undesirable.

If you raise or lower the mic, it will change the sound. This may be desireable or undesirable on a certain singer, experimenting is necessary.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Apply reverb carefully to get a natural sound, people in the classical music world tend to be very perceptive of it and suspicious of artificial reverb. You want it to sound real.

Good point. I would check what's available in terms of plugins that would allow convolution with the impulse response of an actual performance space. There must be something out there, I mean the Foobar2000 convolver has been around for ages, and I won't be surprised if there are actual libraries of recorded impulse responses out there that you can buy. Not sure whether any old wideband impuse source would project the same as the body of an opera singer, but it's definitely a start.

 

[AurekV]

Good point. I would check what's available in terms of plugins that would allow convolution with the impulse response of an actual performance space. There must be something out there, I mean the Foobar2000 convolver has been around for ages, and I won't be surprised if there are actual libraries of recorded impulse responses out there that you can buy. Not sure whether any old wideband impuse source would project the same as the body of an opera singer, but it's definitely a start.

There are quite a few convolution reverb plugins for DAWs, I think some of them free. I think many DAWs actually come with convolution reverb plugins which have impulse responses built in and allow for loading in more seperately. I know Cubase does for example. IRs of different rooms can be found online, many for free.

There are also some more advanced algorithmic reverbs that are popular for this kind of work. Bricasti is probably the most popular, I'm sure way out of budget but there are IRs of it online and I'm sure other more affordable reverbs that provide good results too.

 

[MRC01]

I second @JohnYang1997 's advice. I use a matched pair of Rode NT1A mics. They can handle very high SPL, with very low noise and smooth response curve perfect for acoustic music & vocals. I've recorded all kinds of acoustic music with them with excellent results. They are large diaphragm condensers with a cardiod response, which is both a curse and a blessing since you "EQ with your feet". That is, move them around to different distances & positions and the sound changes quite a bit. They need a mic preamp with 48V phantom power. A Tascam or Zoom portable recorder works nicely. The mics and the preamp/recorder can just barely be found at your budget, if you shop around.

 

[AurekV]

I second @JohnYang1997 's advice. I use a matched pair of Rode NT1A mics. They can handle very high SPL, with very low noise and smooth response curve perfect for acoustic music & vocals. I've recorded all kinds of acoustic music with them with excellent results. They need a mic preamp with 48V phantom power. A Tascam or Zoom portable recorder works nicely. The mics and the preamp/recorder can just barely be found at your budget, if you shop around.

I wouldn't buy a pair of LDCs for use in stereo arrays, especially on a budget. They have inconsistent polar patterns which are fine for some kinds of stereo miking in the direct field, like drum overheads or pianos, but tend to break down when used as a "main pair" in classical music recording (like in this context). The biggest problem is beaming in the high frequencies which alters (muffles) the frequency response of sounds centered on the array, because the mics are typically going to be 45 degrees or more off axis from the source if using a conicident or near-coincident array like would be appropriate for a cardioid like the NT1A. It is possible to use LDCs in a MS (mid side) array, but that requires multi pattern mics. I have done this with TLM107s and it seems to work in some cases, but of course the reverberant character of the room is altered by the directionality of the mics so it will be inconsistent depending on the room.

LDCs are also more expensive per mic than SDCs for the same level of quality (being larger and more complex to manufacture). They are also harder to EQ because they often have resonances and cancellations from their headbaskets (especially cheaper ones) which can't really be dealt with. Cheap SDC pairs can be found used from SE electronics, Rode, Audio technica and others, they are often quite good, better after EQ by ear, and even better if they can be compared to a measurement mic and have their frequency response variations in the high end corrected that way.

Now people do like LDCs for close miking more universally due to proximity effect characteristics and some (perhaps real) sense of transient softening that recordist seem to think they provide due to their larger diaphragm.

I also have some experience with the NT1A and have listened to comparative samples of it to the NT1 and I would say that the (new black version of the) NT1 is smoother from around 2-8kHz and would provide a more reliable good result for soprano vocals. The FR graph that Rode provides for the NT1 is deceptively smoothed vs the NT1A, but it does seem to indicate similar to what I have heard myself.

 

[MRC01]

I wouldn't buy a pair of LDCs for use in stereo arrays, especially on a budget. They have inconsistent polar patterns which are fine for some kinds of stereo miking in the direct field, like drum overheads or pianos, but tend to break down when used as a "main pair" in classical music recording (like in this context).
...
Now people do like LDCs for close miking more universally due to proximity effect characteristics and some (perhaps real) sense of transient softening that recordist seem to think they provide due to their larger diaphragm.
...

Appreciate the tips. The OP mentions recording opera vocals, which sounds like a close-miced situation, which as you suggest is ideal for LDC. He also emphasized "loud", and the NT1A can handle very high SPLs. I forget the spec but IIRC it's north of 130 dB. I've recorded brass ensembles up close and it handles it fine without a hint of overloading or distortion.

 

[AurekV]

Appreciate the tips. The OP mentions recording opera vocals, which sounds like a close-miced situation, which as you suggest is ideal for LDC. He also emphasized "loud", and the NT1A can handle very high SPLs. I forget the spec but IIRC it's north of 130 dB. I've recorded brass ensembles up close and it handles it fine without a hint of overloading or distortion.

If you're going to close mic with 1 LDC, then yeah, LDCs are good. I find that stereo pairs don't work well up close with classical singers because they tend to move a lot and that isn't really acceptable to hear in a recording. Because of that and how you were talking about a pair I thought you were talking about using LDCs at more of a distance in a large room.

I'm also not saying that cardioid LDCs or NT1As won't work well, just that they are likely to give less consistent results for any kind of stereo miking of a vocalist whether far or near due to the high frequency beaming. So harder to use well. A wider source of multiple instruments or something like a piano always seems to fare better for me with LDC stereo pairs.

 

[AurekV]

Regarding the Max SPL specs of mics. They almost always only include the the distortion of the circuit, not the capsule. And if they aren't specified with a percentage, like 1% THD then it can be reasonably assumed that they are at some rediculous and very audible (and ugly sounding) level of distortion, like 5 or 10% THD. I'm assuming the input they use to test is at 1 kHz but I don't know if that is standardized or not. Perhaps some manufacturers manipulate that too. They also could manipulate this by reporting as peak rather than RMS without specifying, which ends up being 3 dB higher for a sine wave that would be used for testing.

This all means that a mic with a Max SPL of 137 dBSPL (like I think the NT1A is quoted at) may actually have a 1% THD point of like 120 dBSPL

The way that DPA define it's 1% distortion point on their 4011A https://www.dpamicrophones.com/pencil/4011-cardioid-microphone indicates how detailed the specs need to be to actually be accurate. They also have a Max SPL on the page that is similar to the single number many other manufacturers quote.

 

[AnalogSteph]

I second @JohnYang1997 's advice. I use a matched pair of Rode NT1A mics. They can handle very high SPL, with very low noise and smooth response curve perfect for acoustic music & vocals.

I must admit I'm not the biggest fan of the NT1-A highs peak, but it might work better on singing than spoken voice. If OP needs to squeeze in two mics, I'd probably look at some AT2035s instead ($149 a pop)... purists may turn up their nose at them saying they're "just" an electret, but they sound good, their level handling is insane at 148 dB SPL (1% THD), and 12 dB SPL(A) worth of EIN still is more than good enough in real life. (I read one review where the guy put both AT2035 and an NT2-A next to each other and couldn't hear a difference in noise after compensating for levels. Both swamped by ambient noise.)

I wouldn't buy a pair of LDCs for use in stereo arrays, especially on a budget. They have inconsistent polar patterns which are fine for some kinds of stereo miking in the direct field, like drum overheads or pianos, but tend to break down when used as a "main pair" in classical music recording (like in this context). The biggest problem is beaming in the high frequencies which alters (muffles) the frequency response of sounds centered on the array, because the mics are typically going to be 45 degrees or more off axis from the source if using a conicident or near-coincident array like would be appropriate for a cardioid like the NT1A.

Very good point. Off-axis is not necessarily the strength of LDCs due to plain capsule size (18-32 mm vs. 16 mm, typ), and even a type that's decidedly good in terms of off-axis coloration like a Sennheiser MK4 (or Rode NT2-A, NT-1000, Shure PGA32) will have its limits under 45°. How'd they record orchestras with a bunch of Neumann LDCs back in the day then? I know the very first stereo trials still were A-B, and their stereo imaging is pretty wonky especially on headphones, but by the 1960s or so things apparently were pretty much figured out.

In return, inexpensive (cardioid) pencil mics often have a distinctive kind of "small condenser" midrange coloration, weak low end and highs peaking that tend to drive me nuts. (Even some of the cheapest plastic-fantastic side address jobs like the t.bone SC300 and whatever other names it may be sold under elsewhere manage to at least get inoffensive pleasing results on voice.) Mind you, I have never had a KM184 to play with, or even an Oktava or Rode NT5 or M3. It seems the most practical approach for SDCs may be getting ones that are well-behaved in terms of pattern and narrow-band colorations and then EQing them software side to compensate for the low end dropoff if need be.

Regarding the Max SPL specs of mics. They almost always only include the the distortion of the circuit, not the capsule.

That would be a bummer. I would hope that any reputable manufacturer would not be taking such shortcuts unless plainly justified.

This all means that a mic with a Max SPL of 137 dBSPL (like I think the NT1A is quoted at) may actually have a 1% THD point of like 120 dBSPL

Rode's spec is "@ 1kHz, 1% THD into 1KΩ load" (a 1k load is pretty severe, actually - many inputs are 2-3 kOhm). 1 kHz / 1% seems to be pretty much the standard, Neumann even specifies 0.5% (which, depending on whether 2nd or 3rd harmonic is dominant, would give 3-6 dB less, so the TLM103 would be hitting 1% between 141 and 144 dB SPL), but with a footnote saying "measured as equivalent el. input signal". Hmm. If even they are using this "shortcut", I would be inclined to believe that getting the microphone capsule itself to distort has to be extremely hard.

If that is correct, I would rather be willing to believe that audible distortion encountered well below rated SPL is more likely the result of accidentally overdriving the mic preamp. Said TLM103 at 138 dB SPL would be dishing out a whopping +13 dBu, that's not what you normally consider mic level! The AT2035 at 148 dB SPL would even output +23 dBu (~32.5 Vpp).
For comparison: A Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 input will handle +9 dBu tops, a Behringer UMC204HD will call it quits at +3 dBu (and I think even that may be a bit of a stretch, given that the ADC in the thing will clip around -3 dBFS or something, so let's say more like 0 dBu). And that's with the gain all the way down, of course. A Mackie 402VLZ4 mixer will in fact handle up to +21 dBu in, my old Behringer Q1002USB up to +12 dBu. Not sure what you'd need to make it to +23 dBu, an Earthworks ZDT preamp?

 

[AurekV]

I must admit I'm not the biggest fan of the NT1-A highs peak, but it might work better on singing than spoken voice. If OP needs to squeeze in two mics, I'd probably look at some AT2035s instead ($149 a pop)... purists may turn up their nose at them saying they're "just" an electret, but they sound good, their level handling is insane at 148 dB SPL (1% THD), and 12 dB SPL(A) worth of EIN still is more than good enough in real life. (I read one review where the guy put both AT2035 and an NT2-A next to each other and couldn't hear a difference in noise after compensating for levels. Both swamped by ambient noise.)


Very good point. Off-axis is not necessarily the strength of LDCs due to plain capsule size (18-32 mm vs. 16 mm, typ), and even a type that's decidedly good in terms of off-axis coloration like a Sennheiser MK4 (or Rode NT2-A, NT-1000, Shure PGA32) will have its limits under 45°. How'd they record orchestras with a bunch of Neumann LDCs back in the day then? I know the very first stereo trials still were A-B, and their stereo imaging is pretty wonky especially on headphones, but by the 1960s or so things apparently were pretty much figured out.

In return, inexpensive (cardioid) pencil mics often have a distinctive kind of "small condenser" midrange coloration, weak low end and highs peaking that tend to drive me nuts. (Even some of the cheapest plastic-fantastic side address jobs like the t.bone SC300 and whatever other names it may be sold under elsewhere manage to at least get inoffensive pleasing results on voice.) Mind you, I have never had a KM184 to play with, or even an Oktava or Rode NT5 or M3. It seems the most practical approach for SDCs may be getting ones that are well-behaved in terms of pattern and narrow-band colorations and then EQing them software side to compensate for the low end dropoff if need be.


That would be a bummer. I would hope that any reputable manufacturer would not be taking such shortcuts unless plainly justified.

Rode's spec is "@ 1kHz, 1% THD into 1KΩ load" (a 1k load is pretty severe, actually - many inputs are 2-3 kOhm). 1 kHz / 1% seems to be pretty much the standard, Neumann even specifies 0.5% (which, depending on whether 2nd or 3rd harmonic is dominant, would give 3-6 dB less, so the TLM103 would be hitting 1% between 141 and 144 dB SPL), but with a footnote saying "measured as equivalent el. input signal". Hmm. If even they are using this "shortcut", I would be inclined to believe that getting the microphone capsule itself to distort has to be extremely hard.

If that is correct, I would rather be willing to believe that audible distortion encountered well below rated SPL is more likely the result of accidentally overdriving the mic preamp. Said TLM103 at 138 dB SPL would be dishing out a whopping +13 dBu, that's not what you normally consider mic level! The AT2035 at 148 dB SPL would even output +23 dBu (~32.5 Vpp).
For comparison: A Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 input will handle +9 dBu tops, a Behringer UMC204HD will call it quits at +3 dBu (and I think even that may be a bit of a stretch, given that the ADC in the thing will clip around -3 dBFS or something, so let's say more like 0 dBu). And that's with the gain all the way down, of course. A Mackie 402VLZ4 mixer will in fact handle up to +21 dBu in, my old Behringer Q1002USB up to +12 dBu. Not sure what you'd need to make it to +23 dBu, an Earthworks ZDT preamp?

I believe that my MOTU 8pre-ES can handle +24 dBU with pad engaged

I see where you got that from the Rode, I missed that the max output level is properly specified but the Max SPL isn't and they are effectively the same. It is also good to see that Audio Technica specified their Max SPL reasonably well too. Perhaps things are better than I thought I remembered.

I imagine that it is difficult to generate the SPL neccessary at the appropriate level of distortion in order to measure the capsule and circuit combined, so most manufacturers don't bother.

Around the time when stereo became popular, the first SDCs came out. I believe the M50 was one of the first. I think they didn't need the additional sensitivity of the large diaphragm anymore because their amplifiers had improved S/N ratio.

I think I know what you mean by the weak low end and midrange coloration with SDCs. I recall reading an article about the proximity effect of SDCs indicating it reaches much higher in frequency than with LDCs. The increased muddiness and even sort of honkiness when I have used SDCs not optimised for vocals up close agrees with that. However I have with careful work been able to use 12 and 6 dB/oct high pass and variable Q shelving filters to help that.

As far as the characteristics in cheaper cardioid SDCs above 3 kHz, I'm pretty sure they are fairly broadband and therefore correctable if compared against a measurement mic. But I don't have much experience with cardioid SDCs priced below $200 each. The only one I own is the Line Audio CM3. It doesn't sound harsh at all. I have heard that the Rode M5 and Audio Technica 2021 are also better than the older Schoeps knockoff sort of mics. All 3 of those use back-electret capsules which helps keep cost down I'm sure. There is nothing wrong with back-electret, they can be just as good as an externally polarized condenser for less money.