Mic and preamp advice

[alfaholiq]

Hello everyone,

Many years have passed since I learned that even a basic gear today is so good that the quality of the recording mostly depends on the talent in front of the microphone (and the room). So I stopped being religious about my gear long time ago.

But now, out of boredom, and mostly because I am not such a talented signer I want to buy a few pieces of gear for my personal use, and as I listened again to my old recordings made with Rode NTK and dbx 376 I am thinking about getting the dbx 676 and Rode K2 to add some grit and coloration to my vocal recordings.
Also thinking about the 500 series launch box, but the internet is full of nonsense and fake reviews it is hard to distinguish.

So I have two questions, first is about what would you suggest as a preamp / mic combination, or just one of the two to get a lot of coloration and saturation, and my second question is about how sensible is spending the money just for the saturation with all the plugins available, how close the plugins are to emulate this at this point in time?

I personally tested this multiple times and every time my findings were the same, it is all the same sheet and this analog thing is mostly overblown as professional gear from 50 years ago was so transparent it almost never saturated as much as people believe today.
Not to mention that objectively my old recordings with the hated by majority dbx 376 were so smooth and had that famous tube character only because of the de-esser on that channel strip, so I am aware of how our brains play games with us all the time.

Your thoughts and suggestions?

 

[dasdoing]

In my opinion, the only reason gear is still rated so high is that it creates a certain sound people are used to. If you make your own sound you don't need any of this. many saturation plugins can give you literally unlimited options. it's only when you want to have a certain saturation profile that you actually need the hardware....and even then, there are emulations.

 

[tmtomh]

I don't have any specific advice to provide, but can make three general observations in the spirit of agreeing with and adding onto what @dasdoing has written above:

1. Lots of gear performs very well and you should go for something with good measurements unless you really want one particular kind of coloration "baked in" to your hardware chain - software makes much more sense as the place to experiment with coloration.
2. My observation has been that high measured performance in input gear is not as easy to find as in output gear - for example when Amir measures ADCs we seem to see overall worse and less predictable performance than when he measures DACs. So I would suggest taking a fairly close look at measurements.
3. As a music listener - and very much not a singer or musician - there's one aspect of most recordings that has more and more stuck out like a sore thumb as my playback system has improved over the years: vocals. With my current system I find vocals are the most varied and inconsistent aspect of most recordings, in terms of both tonal quality (which is cool) and sound quality (which is annoying). In particular, I am struck by how much audible distortion there is in a lot of vocal performances, from unnecessary/uncontrolled sibilance in close-mic'd vocals, to obvious mic or mic-preamp overload, to just a general level of grainy, midrange-heavy tonality that IMHO was obviously a product of using the recording engineer's or producer's "favorite mic" that they felt imparted "texture" or "presence" or whatevertheheck. So if you're looking for good sound and open to experimentation and creativity, I would again suggest going for a very clean and neutral equipment chain for vocals, and playing with distortion, saturation, overload, EQ, and so on using software. IMHO the method of using "special" mics and mic preamps produces a fair amount of bad along with the good, and the results are there for all the world to hear,

 

[alfaholiq]

Interesting how listener's and producer's views can be different while it is the producer's job to make things desirable for a listener.
But I agree about the sibilance, so often it is left untreated, however the saturation is something that I personally like however I must say that the best examples never have it "in your face" audible or audible at all.
When it comes to my singing I over do it because of lack of talent and abilities, however those who know what they are doing do not need expensive mics nor preamps as they bring everything with them, harmonics and emotions.
But I agree with everything you both said, I as well find hardware to be some kind of presets so it may suit you well sometimes, while some other times it will be totally wrong.
Just, trying to find an excuse to buy myself a new toy.

But when it comes to vocal recording quality being so different from one song to another, well it is not different with everything else really. Just listen to Jennifer Warnes - Bird On A Wire, the drums are so bad it is unexplainable how could someone make it and say: "this is it." The whole drum kit, but the hi hats have technical issues actually.
And many more examples.

 

[Geert]

what would you suggest as a preamp / mic combination, or just one of the two to get a lot of coloration and saturation

Warm audio wa-mpx

how sensible is spending the money just for the saturation with all the plugins available,

In my opinion, insensible. Saturation is no rocket science, and its sound not that critical.

 

[5ynth3t1k]

Hello!

I was considering how to broach this topic when I saw this thread pop up.

my situation is as budget as you can get,
Sm58 Mic ( new ) and focusrite sapphire 6 adc.

Plugins choice galore.

Essentially I am struggling with lack of gain, and vocal training.

I had this idea of using a hardware input stage ... But then you get baked in colour...

So I am interested in this thread.

Also I am wondering just how much saturation is an actual thing. Are there a/b tests ?

Have a nice day.

 

[tmtomh]

Interesting how listener's and producer's views can be different while it is the producer's job to make things desirable for a listener.
But I agree about the sibilance, so often it is left untreated, however the saturation is something that I personally like however I must say that the best examples never have it "in your face" audible or audible at all.
When it comes to my singing I over do it because of lack of talent and abilities, however those who know what they are doing do not need expensive mics nor preamps as they bring everything with them, harmonics and emotions.
But I agree with everything you both said, I as well find hardware to be some kind of presets so it may suit you well sometimes, while some other times it will be totally wrong.
Just, trying to find an excuse to buy myself a new toy.

But when it comes to vocal recording quality being so different from one song to another, well it is not different with everything else really. Just listen to Jennifer Warnes - Bird On A Wire, the drums are so bad it is unexplainable how could someone make it and say: "this is it." The whole drum kit, but the hi hats have technical issues actually.
And many more examples.

Good point about tonal quality being all over the place beyond vocals. I'm sure I overstated the case when I wrote about vocals being unique in this regard!

As for saturation, I'm sure you're correct there too - I'm probably hearing and enjoying saturation on the vocals in a lot of my favorite recordings (not to mention tons of compression applied in various ways to the vocals and other individual tracks in the multitrack), but I don't notice it as such because as you say it usually doesn't smack you in the face when it's applied properly.

RE the Warnes album drums, vocal sibilance in other recordings, and other things, it does kind of shock me how much is just allowed to pass through the process like that and no one says anything or cleans it up. There's dirt and grit for artistic purposes, and then there's just shoddy recording and mixing.

 

[5ynth3t1k]

Hello everyone...

Fethead.

FetHead - Triton Audio

FetHead preamp boosts ribbon and dynamic mics by 27dB, improving response and extending range. Eliminate preamp noise. Trusted since 2008, unmatched in quality. Boost your microphone!

www.tritonaudio.com

Im seriously considering it.

Then im going to deshell my sm58 and just see how much difference i can make ( no i dont need the polar response etc its never going out live ). I suspect a bit of tweaking could really open it up... (soz pun).

I know people will roll their eyes but... you never know until you go. So yeah, chocks away.

Have a nice day!

 

[alfaholiq]

I owned and worked with so many great pieces of gear, from U87, U67, 1073, 737sp, SSL, also recorded with the 58, some cheap Behringer mics, and used also the cheapest and most hated gear out there. One of the worst vocal recordings of mine was with the U67 through a 1073, and one of the best was with the all time hated dbx 376 and also not very popular Rode NTK, and the only reason is the talent in front of the microphone.
I never heard that expensive gear as irreplaceable or magical in any way, my colleagues on Gearslutz or other similar places would say that you need to train your ears to hear all those nuances, and they are right to the point, however I really do not want to spend 10 or 20 times as much if it can not be heard right away.

With that being said, I do not think that SM58 is all that special either as for 100 more there is the Rode NT1, and this microphone is magical in a sense of how much it brings for this amount of money.
I created the EQ and saturation presets for the NT1 to match the U87, it is very funny when my friends can not hear where are the cuts in a blind test, and where I used the NT1 plus processing, and where the real U87 plays.
Jokes aside, I really like U87 on other people‘s voices, however not on my voice.

As for recordings being all over the place, I can understand this if this to a point as ehe ears get used to those mistakes playing over and over for a few days or weeks.
Or simply there is a technical problem, I was in a few expensive studios with a bad listening curve, and few without any digital correction, who knows what is happening behind the scene in those popular recordings.

 

[5ynth3t1k]

I owned and worked with so many great pieces of gear, from U87

PLUGINS4FREE

PLUGINS 4 FREE - Free Audio Plug-ins and Archives

plugins4free.com

i wonder if its any good.... a u87 is about 15 k nzd new....

have a nice day!

 

[alfaholiq]

Realistically, it is ok. Frequency response is somewhat flat so it sounds boring to anyone who wants a baked in sound, but it is versatile for anyone who knows how to process it further. Because of that flat-ish curve it takes the EQ relatively well.
For my voice too much at 6khz, this is the region where the transformer saturation gets pronounced, however on some cleaner voices without too much harmonics it will sound good.
It is what many call warm, but not boomy, and detailed but not harsh, so those two attributes together with the mild transformer saturation really gives it a somewhat unique sound, however only if you do not process it further, if you do then it does not matter really.
In an untreated room it sounds horrible as any other mic no matter the price, many resonant frequencies to deal with, room reverberation as well, not very good to use in the environment like this, but which microphone is.
The old U87 is better to my ears, the new AI model is a bit more sibilant. I did not measure them, this is all anecdotal from my own experience.

Is it worth the money? In the eighties probably as it is a good piece of gear. Today, I doubt it. Low SPL, relatively high noise, extremely high price, questionable build quality perception.
It is a good microphone, the problem is that the rest of the market is extremely competitive for much less money.

 

[EERecordist]

You have a lot of professional experience. If it were me, I would get a clean preamp+ADC and do the rest with plugins. But you have to consider, especially with vocals, your real time monitoring through headphones.

I have recorded opera soloists straight, no processing. Today, recorded vocal processing chains are complex, and people take enough hardware and software on concert tours to build complex vocal chain processing. I think Digico tour consoles have plug in capability. Particularly today, I'm hearing a very common sweet mush on female vocals. You probably know other vocalists with similar voices to you, and know how you want your voice to sound in your monitoring environment.

These "silk" controls on microphone preamps, tubes, transformers, etc. are popular for newer equipment buyers. But once you choose one, you are stuck with it. I would certainly audition equipment like that before buying. If you go the plug-in route, most makers have 30 day free trials. If you are in a larger city, the pro audio equipment dealers would be good for hardware trials, and booking an hour or 2 in a studio to try their hardware gear with your mic is a possibility.

 

[alfaholiq]

This is what I use at the moment, clean preamp, NT1 and a lot of plugins.
As for monitoring, actually I listen the music through my open back headphones very softly and listen to my singing from the room, this gives me the best pitch and control over my voice, but even with plugins monitoring is not an issue, 64 samples over thunderbolt does not create high latency.

I have another question regarding plugins and simulations. There is a difference in how the transients are captured with the fet and tube mic, with the valve mic being softer and slower in general. At least, this is how it seems to my ears.
Harmonics are easy to emulate, compression as well, but how about the envelopes? Does any plugin emulates this aspect as well, or is this just how our brains perceive a bit different frequency response of a tube microphone?

 

[5ynth3t1k]

Good morning.
I sat up all night with my sm58 the u87 plugin and sang myself stupid. This is what i decided: the u87 vst plug does do something... ( it even has echoes... why, i am not sure but they are there...) and that something is nice. Also i decided to not do any fancy Eq, i did put a bass cut in to chop out low lows. In a hot mess of sound you will never notice it. I added reverb fir atmosphere and done. 1176 compressor 1:4 , just a liitle off the top cheers.
What i really take notice of now is distance to mic and how i sing. I think the 58 proximity effect is a huge deal. Too close and the low end is insane. I have to really breath notes in this regime, say 300mm away i can belt it out but the bass has left the building. Where and How.

So i guess for me right now its the "in mic" control first and signal/effects chain second. With "less is more" .

Being a rank newbie i am breaking things and then sifting through the wreakage

I wonder if the older sm58s sound better than the new ones. And are there upgrades that are proven to work?
I have a small AKG dynamic capsule that looks about 58 size... i should have a fiddle with that... i found it in a skip!

I had a CD once of female gregorian singers... it was amazing. A DJ pinched it at a festival. I did play it through a huge JBL + QSC PA... glorius !!!

Have a great day!

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

I had a pair of Mojave Audio MA 300 for years in my studio and absolutely loved them for many sources, especially male vocals. I ran it through a Langevin solid state preamp and the combo was gold. But there are many options for a good signal chain. You mentioned a bad experience with a U67, but I've never heard anything better than a U67 through a Neve 1073 and 1176 Comp. But to each their own. I will say, for harmonic distortion there are some great plug-ins that accomplish this now. I used the Rode NTK many years ago and I liked it, but the Mojave was miles better and much more three dimensional sounding. But you get what you pay for.

 

[Eric Natural]

...What i really take notice of now is distance to mic and how i sing. I think the 58 proximity effect is a huge deal. Too close and the low end is insane. I have to really breath notes in this regime, say 300mm away i can belt it out but the bass has left the building...

Mic technique is a big, big component of getting a great vocal take.
Practice, practice, practice

 

[5ynth3t1k]

Mic technique is a big, big component of getting a great vocal take.
Practice, practice, practice

Yes Sir!

I am trying to smooth out my delivery. I recorded a four bar take last night that came over very convingly for my genre.
So much that I was absent mindedelyeyey still singing it much later on. That I think is a good sign of
a vocal "hook". The voice is definitely an instrument and learning the ropes is a thing. I scoffed at a chap
once who was studying the Vocal arts at Uni. I am now not. I should have knowed better.

Singing in the car with the window down is great. Go large and loud.
I can do a rather loud rendition of "The ride of the Valkyries"
complete with Col Kilgore explaining how "Charlie don't surf"
and espousing his olfactory fondness for volatile air fuel explosives during the
early part of the day. Sometimes I crash mix in "Toccata in D minor" for kicks.
It's all a bit Gonzo. But it opens up the lungs no end. Chin up, mouth open wide, let it OUT !

Actually this:
I had to roar at the owner of kenneled dogs that were unhappy and very noisy.
What I had no idea of was the loudness of my roar that was hiding in my lungs.
What came out was an utter utter bellow roar ( a few four letter words and a stern directive)
that was MILES louder than what I was expecting. I literally affected the local magnetosphere.
I thought to my self as the shock wave spread out, if I can do this I surely can sing ?
Can't I ?

So. Here we all are.

We should start a singing club... sing some really random songs.
The Muppet show theme is one of my all time faves...for kicks we could try the
theme to the Tomorrow People....

Voice technique. I'm all in.
I even tried to pay a tutor to take me on but they were busy.. ( or ageist... )
Will go to the cool music store in town and ask them. They know a thing or two.

oh, sorry I am writing a lot in one go again. Oops.
Never mind, we like reading here!

Have a nice day! : - )