JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques Recording Studio and Gear Forum recording voice - better...

k. so i have this cd that i made really quickly at my school's studio but it just doesn't sound the way i want it to. it sounds allright but i'm not miced well. eg. i had a producer listen to the cd first and then to me live and he said i should never play that for anyone cuz it's sooo not representative. and the problem is, i agree. any advice on how to get optimum sound for voice? i have a couple people telling me i can use their studios but what i really want is to know more about the engineering side of music myself. i have a dat 4 track and i hang out in my closet and record but i want more power to come through... is it the mic? the equipment? the effects? i don't mean to blame it on the equipment but people consistenly tell me that the recording just doesn't do me justice. any advice? please! thanks, flo

You need to find a mic that compliments your voice. That's going to be the hardest part. Generally, the more you spend the better the mic will sound.

The next step is knowing what EQ to add and subtract from your voice.

But if you have no money, your best bet is to record, record, record with your current setup. Get to know how it sounds and how to manipulate that sound. Then listen, listen, listen to your mixes and make tweaks.

Jody

Hi flo,

I agree with Jody that a good mic can make a huge difference in the quality, but I won't necessarily agree that spending more gets you something better. There are amazingly good mics available now for under $500, whereas only a few years ago you would have had to spend at least $2000 for similar quality. You might even be surprised at what $300 can buy you today in a decent mic - it won't be world-class, but it will sound very good.

I've recently read of some well-known producers choosing a $500 mic over a $5000 mic because it DID fit the singer better - for that song. There are also several recent examples of final vocal tracks done using a simple SM58, although usually they used that mic not because it was the best for the singer, but because the singer liked to run around the room and bash things while singing .

The way I look at it is from the "weakest link" aspect. I'm confused as to what you're using. Technically, there is no such thing as a 4-track DAT as ALL DATs are 2-track stereo (or occasionally with a 3rd track for timecode only).

If you are using a 4-track cassette format, there are some inherent sound quality problems with that format that will always make it sound like a demo (although there are a handful of major label albums that have been made STARTING with that format - but nothing very recent). It just isn't punchy or full-sounding, it doesn't have much frequency range above about 12K and you will usually have DBX or Dolby C compression on it (or a lot of tape hiss if you don't). I know, I used a 4-track cassette for several years and it was always a struggle to get something punchy and full-sounding out of it. The mixes always just sounded "small".

If you have a 4-track digital "pocket recorder" or similar, then there are some things you can do there to improve the sound quality, but I'd have to know more info first.

Additionally, the sound quality of the samples or other sounds you use can make a big difference in the overall perceived quality - as well as (of course) your arrangement.

Another factor which makes a big difference on vocal tracks is the preamp you're using. I know of NO 4-track cassette-type recorder that has even a "decent" built-in preamp. It's ok if you just want quick demos or as a scratch pad, but when I had my 4-track and upgraded to an external preamp, it raised the quality tremendously.

Another factor is the room you're recording in. If you have a "boxy" room or an overly reflective room, you have some inherent difficulties to overcome right there. They CAN be overcome and usually you can minimize these problems very inexpensively.

Finally, Jody mentioned EQ and using it on a vocal. With an ideal mic and an ideal mix, you should have to use very minimal EQ (bass/treble, etc). Real world situations rarely provide that kind of ideal environment, so the practicalities are that you'll need to do some sort of EQ'ing to make the vocal "sit in the mix" properly.

Probably the least professional mixes I've heard are drenched in either too much reverb, or just the wrong kind of reverb. Cheap reverb units just sound cheap and there's not much you can do there. However, decent reverbs start at only around $200 now days and are better than $1000 reverbs of only a couple of years ago. Upgrading my reverb units also made a huge difference in the overall sound quality of the mix.

Well, that's my take on the various aspects of improving the sound quality. Obviously, musicianship and song craftsmanship are more important than any single piece of equipment, but having good recording TECHNIQUES also goes a long way to making your finished product a lot more professional sounding.

Jody had a very good tip on just doing it in a lot of different situations and types of songs - and trying to improve it each time. It's NOT easy creating a professional-sounding mix. It takes good equipment PLUS experience in knowing how to capture or select sounds and mix them. It's a combination that can't be learned in a few weeks or even months. The best mixers and producers have spent years honing their skills and they make it look easy - just like that figure skater who effortlessly glides around, spins, and does acrobatic tricks that would probably maim me if I tried. <g>

If you want to email me with a link to the song (or even just email me an mp3 of it), I'll give it a listen. You've been a great contributor to the forum and I'd be willing to give you some tips on your song. If you just want to post a link to it here, that would also be ok.

------------------
Larry
www.audibleresponse.com


[This message has been edited by Lwilliam (edited 04-16-2003).]

wow thanks for the quick replies larry, i have a zoom mrs-4 so what i've recorded on my own is on mini-disc and i'm usually doing my vocals in a coat closet... but i also have a couple offers to use some studios with some apparently accredited producers/engineers and a cd that i made at my school's studio that drives me crazy. so... i don't know where to go from here. try these studio dudes out and see how the demo comes out? buy a new mic? or cringe when people ask if i have cds and secretly wish i had a better one. errr... as far as mp3's i haven't changed any of my mini-disc stuff over cuz i'm not particularly pleased with the sound. i just don't know what to do! thanks, flo

Actually Larry, there is a 4-track Mini-disc recorder. The discs are more expensive and you have to have a machine that does 4-track to mini-disc. I know they exist as a band I know uses it to mix their samples live from mini-disc.

Also, I did say "generally" the more you spend the better the mic.

Jody

I guess I just must be a little anal-retentive tonight...sorry if I seemed like I was nit-picking, Jody. You did say "generally".

The DAT format is specified as 2 track stereo (with an optional 3rd center track for timecode).

Mini-Disc is a format that I'm a little familiar with, although I've never used it. It's primarily a Sony product (although a few other companies also use the format) and it uses a compression system in it's files called ATRAC (Adaptive Transform Acoustic Coding) to squeeze more onto the little discs. Supposedly, the sound quality is very near 16-bit CD quality.

The Zoom that Flo mentions actually saves it's data to a CompactFlash card. It's a compact digital recorder. I remember now, Flo. I think I even gave you the url for where to buy the CompactFlash cards pretty cheap.

First of all, you shouldn't be using the built-in mic for the Zoom. That little mic was designed only so you could quickly sing an idea into it and not lose the idea, not for really doing a demo.

Also, there should be several quality settings that you can use with the Zoom. The best quality will take up the most card space, so look through the manual on how to switch it to the "highest quality" setting. The lower quality settings allow you to store more on a single card, but lower the quality. At least you have the option to do it either way.

The Zoom has a bunch of built-in effects that will probably take some tweaking in order for them to sound decent. All of the "all-in-one" recorders I've tried (Roland, Korg) have "presets" for their effects like reverb and compression (sometimes even EQ presets). I didn't think any of the default settings sounded good on the songs I was mixing. I had to do some major tweaking to get a good sound.

What microphone are you currently using with the Zoom? If it's the built-in mic, then THERE'S a likely candidate for your problem.

One more thing, Flo. If you don't have a lot of studio experience, it may be worth it for you to spend a bit of money to go to one - you can pick the brains of the guys doing the work! That is an invaluable learning tool: watch someone who's better than you and ask them questions about what they did and why they did it. After you have a little studio experience and see how effects and eq are used, as well as how they approach mixing and recording, then you'll know much better how to get good sounds yourself.

If you're into self-study reading, I know of a lot of books on recording engineering, production, etc (I have 3 or 4 bookshelves just filled with that kind of stuff). I even know of a CD training course that can help budding recording engineers.

However, there's no substitute for just doing it a lot - but you have to know the basics of how to use the tools.

So let me know about the mic, and also whether this is a vocal demo for you to get session work, or a songwriter/publisher demo - or something else.


------------------
Larry
www.audibleresponse.com


[This message has been edited by Lwilliam (edited 04-17-2003).]

Ok, here's a cheap way to get a great vocal... Buy a Studio Projects B-1 ($79 shipped) or a Studio Projects C-1 (around $175).. These mics have been compared to some of the best vocal mics in the biz. I own both and could not believe the sound when I first tried them. I've recorded at home and in the studio with mics in the $2000+ range and the C-1 sounds as good or better than any mic I've used, the B-1 is "almost" as good and for $79 bucks there is not a mic on the planet that compares for vocals. That being said a 57 is a great all around mic, even for some voices.