The Cheap-Ass Way to Get Some Room Sound Inna Yr Vox Thread

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Getting good vox seems like the most black-magic part of studio recording to me, and I've never really made any inroads into figuring out how the pros make it work.

I've done a reasonable amount of experimenting with simple combinations of input chains, from cheap-ass to mid-range condenser mics and from digi pres to joemeek 2Us; I've tried various postprocessing combinations, from outboard reverb to Altiverb to EQ to whatever.

The main thing missing from the results, no matter how much shiny crap I throw at the signal, is room. The vox always sound either like they're coming from an echo chamber or have this clinical, I'M RIGHT UP IN YR FACE NOW SINGING kind of quality.

When I'm in a real studio with a real engineer and a bunch of mics I could never afford and neve pres and so on, the result is magically wonderful, "warm", "roomy" and so on.

Now, the problem could be just that I haven't spent enough on mics or that I don't have a fantastic reverb or that I need a special pre or whatever. My guess, though, is that this ain't the issue. Black Flag, to name just one good example, I'm sure didn't have a chi-chi setup when they recorded their early singles, all of which have splendid vox, as far as I'm concerned. Or Minor Threat. Or Sonic Youth.

So, ah, I guess my question is this: How does one get "room" into vocals, on a budget? How goes one get rid of the in-your-face quality of vox without turning the matter into a cheesefest of reverb and echo? How does one get plain, simple-sounding vox that don't seem like the singer is sitting right next to you? Is it a matter of actually having a good sounding room? Multiple mics? Ambient mics? Is it proximity? Post-processing? Some combination of the above?

― libcrypt, Saturday, 28 April 2007 02:48 (eighteen years ago)

backing up from the mic and tracking with compression might help.

i'm not a strong singer, and i'm pretty sure i'm the weakest link in any signal chain i've tried.

i have to say though, that for the money, you absolutely must try those new chinese neve clones (chameleon). splendid.

― horrid bluegrass clicktrack, Saturday, 28 April 2007 15:13 (eighteen years ago)

oh i forgot to say for PRO VOX its almost ALWAYS a great sounding room, and pretty much never ever multiple mics or ambient mics. it's generally comps, and post processing to say the least though, especially in our auto-tune era.

― horrid bluegrass clicktrack, Saturday, 28 April 2007 15:14 (eighteen years ago)

You need the right mic for the voice. A mic can be great generally, but it might not be the right mic for the voice you're recording. I'm not sure why you're convinced it's the room - vocals are usually close miked in an iso booth. Then you need the right compression, EQ, and reverb for the voice and for the song. I don't think it's any one magic ingredient. You just have to have everything just so in tracking and in mixing. Compression is a big part of it though. Have you ever tried using two compressors in serial? That's often a good technique for vocals.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 28 April 2007 15:45 (eighteen years ago)

Of course, if you have a really nice-sounding room, that helps. But I don't think you need one.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 28 April 2007 15:51 (eighteen years ago)

Sorry, I should have been more clear about what I meant by "room". It's not the room, it's more like "roominess", as in "a natural sound that doesn't seem to put the singer right next to the listener".

― libcrypt, Saturday, 28 April 2007 15:54 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not 100% convinced that the room matters all that much, but I'm not willing to rule it out, either.

― libcrypt, Saturday, 28 April 2007 15:55 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not asking for a "magic ingredient", either. I'm just trying to figure out how to record vox.

― libcrypt, Saturday, 28 April 2007 15:56 (eighteen years ago)

Oh. Well maybe what you're looking for has more to do with the mix as a whole than with the vocal track itself? Sometimes a vocal takes on a great quality because it's sitting just so in the mix, but it's not something you'd hear on the soloed track. It has to have its own frequency space and not be competing with the other instruments.

And assuming this is a lead vocal in a pop/rock kind of song, the vocal needs to be compressed properly. Like I alluded to above, oftentimes multiple compressors will be setup serially with different attack/release and ratios to work on different parts of the signal. The right compression is going to be a big factor in the sound.

Or maybe you just haven't found a reverb you like. That would be the simplest conclusion. There's a whole lot of variation in reverb quality. And lots of people use reverb units to get small room sounds - they aren't just good for big cathedrals. There are all kinds of things to consider with your reverb, like pre-delay, EQing the return, and panning. Oftentimes, depending on what type of track it is, you want to use a delay on the lead vocal but no reverb at all. Delays timed to the tempo of the track (a 16th note or a 32nd note or something) are good for giving a lead vocal some size without sounding too noticeable.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 28 April 2007 16:20 (eighteen years ago)

One more thing - sometimes reverbs can be used in serial, too. I'll often sometimes use a fair amount of a small room sound on a vocal and follow that with a tiny bit of a really big verb with a predelay. There are all sorts of cool ways to combine reverbs, so you might want to give that a try.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 28 April 2007 16:27 (eighteen years ago)

~~often~~

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 28 April 2007 16:27 (eighteen years ago)

Long before compression, I'd take a look at the mix as a whole, and the EQing of the individual channel. People achieved great vocal sounds long before the advent of compression in studios.

Lots of people also confuse vocal "presence" with vocal volume. Simplifying your process will probably help. I'd recommend going back to your dry, unprocessed vocal mix and tweaking the Eq settings until it sounds accurate, warm, etc. on it's own. Then, drop it into the overall mix and work with it in the context of the song as a whole, but (and this is key), do not apply global mix changes to fix the sound of the vocal. Part of the problem people run into is that they don't spend enough time in premix, and fix everything by applying overall EQ settings, verbs, and comp/limit which is sort of like changing your oil by putting a new engine in your car.

What you seem to be looking for is a "natural" vocal sound. The last thing that'll get you there is over-processing.

― John Justen, Saturday, 28 April 2007 18:01 (eighteen years ago)

I'd just warn you to be careful about spending too much time in solo mode. You're trying to make a mix, not an awesome sounding a cappella vocal.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 28 April 2007 18:19 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, completely agreed. Once you like the initial vocal sound, listen to the mix while adjusting the vocal channel, and resist the urge to go and solo the channel, because it doesn't matter if it sounds "weird" now, as long as it works as a whole.

― John Justen, Saturday, 28 April 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

Also, w/r/t compression: no it's not essential, but it's either compression, good mic technique (as in leaning back/looking slightly away on loud notes or big plosives), or fastidious level automation. Or some combination thereof. It's generally important that the vocal be consistently audible/intelligible but still attacky enough to cut through (but not too essy). Some very gentle compression during tracking combined with good mic technique can go a really long way.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 28 April 2007 18:32 (eighteen years ago)

And there's always parallel compression - copy the vocal to another track which you compress hard, then mix the compressed track in a little bit with the uncompressed one. I do this a lot on snare, too.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Saturday, 28 April 2007 18:33 (eighteen years ago)

If you are recording at home have a bunch of tile in your bathroom, that is generally not a bad place to get a bit more of a live room echo.

― earlnash, Saturday, 28 April 2007 20:39 (eighteen years ago)

and additional brightness.

― horrid bluegrass clicktrack, Monday, 30 April 2007 03:51 (eighteen years ago)

Also the odd hard shaped things like sinks, baths and toilets help to break up reflection and stop too much resonance.

― Ed, Monday, 30 April 2007 08:42 (eighteen years ago)

Also if you need the bathroom between takes, you're already there.

― nabisco, Monday, 30 April 2007 20:51 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not so entirely convinced that compression is going to solve this particular problem. No doubt, it can solve many other problems, but I just don't see how compression is going to fundamentally affect timbre, and my question is all about timbre. Feel free to explain how this thinking is wrong, if it is.

I was struggling to put this into words earlier, but now I think it's crystallized what I feel is wrong with vox as I've recorded them so far: There's TOO MUCH to 'em: It's as if mic = microscope, and every tiny facet of the sound is available to the listener. That's not a natural sound. Not only are human ears not as sensitive as microphones, but ears pick up colorings added along the path from voice to ear that microphones don't.

Maybe I'm recording the voice too close to the mic. Maybe I should be using a screen. Maybe I should point the sensitive side of the mic away, rather than toward, the voice, and catch the reflections off of a wall. Maybe I should use 2 mics, with one positioned thus and the other normally. How do y'all do it?

I'd also like to hear more about EQ "intuitions", even if it just means hearing yr individual thoughts on the matter (I'm not asking for universals, to be sure).

― libcrypt, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 04:01 (eighteen years ago)

Use a notch filter instead of EQ

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 13:34 (eighteen years ago)

or even a lowpass/bandpass filter if you like

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 13:37 (eighteen years ago)

and throw out all your high-end crap and just get an SM58, then hold it about an inch from your mouth

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 13:40 (eighteen years ago)

the reasons for my advice are

1. you're thinking too hard about this
2. 75% of the time EQ is applied to a "natural" sound source the spectrum painted winds up resembling what you get out of a mild reso filter, and filters don't encourage the same degree of ridiculous over-twiddling
3. over-twiddling (mic placement, mic selection, eq adjusting, compression tuning, etc.) is the enemy of music, if you spend more than an hour on any of this shit you should stop and have a drink, it'll sound better instantly and your listeners won't ever know the difference.

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 13:49 (eighteen years ago)

libcrypt, maybe you're going to get the sound you're looking for by pointing the mic in the wrong direction and recording from 10 feet away, so I'd encourage you to try it and see. But it seems doubtful to me, and that's not how vocals tend to be recorded. Windscreens are generally good, and if you're getting pops in the track then you need one. But I'm having trouble understanding the problem as you describe it - I think of clear, detailed vocals as the ideal to shoot for. Even if you want the vocals to end up distorted or otherwise effected, you often want to start with a nice clear balanced track. I'm not sure about ears not being as sensitive as microphones - I don't have any data on hand, but ears are extremely sensitive.

Anyway, it sounds like you're just not happy with the reverb you've got. What kind is it? Have you experimented with different pre-delays, EQs, and room sizes?

EQing a vocal totally depends on the track and the contents of the mix. Using a high-pass is often helpful. Putting it around 50 will get rid of unwanted rumbles; putting it higher (100-150) will start to lose some of the bass in the track, particularly in a male voice, but oftentimes it's not noticeable except for making things sit better. Sometimes dipping 250-300 can clear up a muddy track. Sometimes you want to boost or cut something between 1-4k for definition - you should sweep some bands around and see what jumps out. Cut before you boost and try to keep it as minimal as you can.

Also, compression does indeed affect the timbre of a track, sometimes pleasantly and sometimes not, although that's obviously a side effect. It doesn't sound like compression is your problem, but I just think of consistent level as a big part of what makes listeners subconsciously think "professionally recorded vocal."

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 14:57 (eighteen years ago)

sometimes we run vocals split through the board and then into a little tiny transistor amp that's mic'd and in the room w/our singer. then you mix in a touch of the transistor in w/the clean vocals to rough it up a bit.

― M@tt He1ges0n, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 16:17 (eighteen years ago)

I use the built-in mic on the top of my iMac and delete as much of the room tone as possible with the noise reduction thingamabob built into Audacity.

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

not seriously though, just as a scratchpad. worth a shot!

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 16:37 (eighteen years ago)

I was surprised to find that a decent preamp solved a lot of my problems with recording non-amplified instruments, voice included. a preamp allows you to back up off the mic (so you don't get "every tiny facet of the sound is available to the listener") while still providing a strong signal to record. you'll also pick up more acoustics of the room. m-audio makes some decent low cost ones like the audiobuddy (which I have) and the dmp3 (which is suppposed to be quite good).

― Edward III, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 18:27 (eighteen years ago)

Well yeah, the mic and the preamp are probably the most vital parts of the signal chain.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 19:19 (eighteen years ago)

NO THEY AREN'T THE MOST VITAL PART OF THE SIGNAL CHAIN IS THE MUSICIAN IN FRONT OF THE MICROPHONE

</Gzeus>

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 20:02 (eighteen years ago)

Haha, well that, too.

― St3ve Go1db3rg, Tuesday, 1 May 2007 21:11 (eighteen years ago)

by comps in my second response above, i meant comps in the 'best elements of multiple takes' sense, not strictly tracking with compression. didn't want to imply that compression is the be-all, end-all solution, HOWEVER relying on EQ to 'get' your vocal sound definitely reveals a deficiency in talent, mic, pre, or room... hence, the multiple suggestions of eq/filters here seem to not really address the problem. i was dismayed with the joemeek/shure dynamic thing, personally. i was very pleased with the chinese condenser, chinese neve setup.

― horrid bluegrass clicktrack, Friday, 4 May 2007 17:54 (eighteen years ago)

one month passes...

I was recording at Hyde St. Studios this weekend, and the engineer had me singing through an SM58 that went thru some pulled A/B Neve pres. It was just a scratch track and I wasn't using the "good" hardware, but the sound was so much warmer than anything I've gotten from my shitty hobbyist-grade gear that by comparison, my home recordings seemed as if they'd been done with an inverse notch filter.

― libcrypt, Monday, 11 June 2007 17:11 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.