How to Audition a mic for a singer.

DeafMute · Post by **DeafMute** » Fri May 18, 2007 1:38 pm

One things that I've always been fast with has been auditioning mics for singers. I always feel it's a cumbersome process and most singers start feeling coy singing over and over with different mics or mic setups.

Does anybody have any good tips on trying out different mics with singers, and maybe what to listen for in the mic and the singer.

Thanks.

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Fri May 18, 2007 2:56 pm

While it's true that not all mics work on all voices, it also depends on WHICH mics you're using. When you starting getting into more higher end, professional mics--this scenario doesn't hold as much truth as it does with your cheaper mics. For example, it's pretty hard to put a Blue KIWI on a female or male vocal and not like it, but get a TLM103 and it certainly can sound thin on the wrong voice. Your choice of pre will make a difference, as well.

With that said, what mics and pres do you have?

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Sat May 19, 2007 8:29 am

Best advice I ever heard on this matter:

Hard voice - Soft mic.
Soft voice - Hard mic.

Now, seeing as my only mic's a TLM-103, I'd better get stuck into the straight Scotch, as my voice ain't nearly hard enough.

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Sat May 19, 2007 8:41 am

Well I wouldn't exactly say that, Monkey. For example, I had a session a few years ago with a powerful alto gospel singer. I put a Soundelux U99 up on her through a Focusrite ISA430mkII and it sounded amazing. I later put a Neuman U87 on here through a Manley VoxBox, it sounded amazing. I then tried the U87 through the ISA430mkII....yuck! I settled on the U99 through the ISA430mkII. A week later I recorded a very soft female vocalist, I first tried the Bluebird from Blue through the ISA430mkII, it was nice--but I wasn't in love with it. I used the same microphone through the VoxBox, oh yeah! BUT still, something was missing. I ran the U99 through the ISA430mkII, there it was! The next night I had another vocliast in who had an edgy voice...the U87 no matter what pre was decent, but the U99 (again) was the ticket and I went through severl pre's, it didn't matter. A month later, I had a male vocalist come in who was a strong tenor.....the U87 sounded amazing on him through the VoxBox, the U99 sounded even better.

My point is, well--if you have one GREAT tube or solid state microphone that has good texture to it, chances are you'll be able to use that on just about any voice. I firmly believe good tubes make for good tone, it takes the edge off when highs are important. This is why I use tube mics on vocals or if not, I am using a good solid state mic through a tube pre. This is why I use a tube pre for my drum overheads with my Earthworks mics, etc.

When choosing a mic, you best take into account not only the voice...but what pre you're using as well. An AKG C414 through a GML8302 could sound nasty while that same C414 through a Universal Audio 6176 might sound awesome--likewise where a Mojave Audio MA200 through that same 6176 might be too rich where that same MA200 through the GML8302 could be just the ticket. It's not about having the best mic OR the best pre, but the best match-up for the pair. I'm a firm believer that the Mojave MA200 with a Focusrite ISA220 will provide anyone with an amazing quality channel with great analog tone and warmth, clean and clear highs with quite a bit of features for $2500. You could spend $6k on a mic and pre but if they don't mesh together, neither will the track.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Sat May 19, 2007 9:17 am

Good points, Brad, but the "blanket" advice I gave is with respect to the mic only.
This assumes a completely transparent pre.
DeafMute's question related to microphone choice only.

I still think the advice is sound.
If you pop a "harsh" sounding singer through a "hard" or "edgy" mic, it'll likely sound too brash, unless that's what you're after.
Conversely, if you pop a "smooth" sounding singer through a "silky" or "mellow" mic, it'll likely sound too dull and lifeless, unless that's what you're after.

Adding a choice of pres into the mix means you can counter these effects somewhat, and compensate for a lack of choice in the mic cupboard.
This makes sense, doesn't it?

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Sat May 19, 2007 11:07 am

Yeah, I know... but I'm just reminding those that the mic is only half the story, how it sounds varies greatly on the pre it's going through. One mic through one pre may sound drastically different through another pre. I guess the reason I went on this "mini rant" is I get MANY phone calls from clients wanting a better microphone because they aren't getting "that sound"..... after talking with them, most of the time the answer isn't their mic--but their pre. And some cases, it's both.

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:28 am

I agree, Brad.

It's probably because pre's are greatly variable both in terms of their general colouration and their individual adjustability, that they offer greater potential for tweaking your signal into the "zone" you want.

FWIW, the hard/soft advice's source was Michael Stavrou.
He recommended rating all the mics in one's cupboard on a "hardness" scale of 1 to 10, with "5" being neutral.
The idea is that you then rate your sources on this same scale, matching a given hardness with its polar opposite.
The result is therefore that the harder a mic is, the softer the source it'd be employed for.

Imagine a drumkit mic'd with this methodology:
The snare is bright and strident, so we use... an SM57.
If your bass drum is too clicky and sharp... soften it.
Cymbals shouldn't need mics with ridiculous high-end responses, 'cause... they already have tonnes of high end!
Sure, it's nice to be able to capture it in all it's glory with a set of Earthworks overheads if cold, hard reality is what you're after.
However, seeing as much mid and LF signal will be captured in the overhead position anyway, pleasing colouration offered by a softer mic could prove beneficial.
A simpler way of looking at it (and what I should have said in the first place), is that cymbals are/can be harsh, so a sensibly-rated "softness factor" mic pair would theoretically suit.

In these times when we crave the warmth and fullness of "analog", this matching strategy can offer a way out of "harsh digital" that tackles the problem at or near source.
Chasing the ultimate HF-responsed mic for those shakers, hats or overheads, or conversely the biggest bottomed mic for capturing the bass drum from Hell or a bass rig bristling with 18" subs, will by definition render more extreme results in terms of warmth and frequency response.

Brad brought to light the possibility of simply using your pre as a means of attaining the character you're after, DeafMute.
I suppose the ultimate solution here would be a multi-modelling unit, but if you've got HP filtering, compression and possibly even EQ, you should be able to coax the tone you need from it.
Even if it only got you halfway there, there'd still be DP's MWEQ, Preamp 1 and MWCompressor to play with.

This thread, and indeed your question, have helped me get some perspective on this too, DeafMute.
I was going to buy a "hard", possibly small-diaphragmed mic for backup vocal work later in the year (or later), and an SM58 or similar for rap-style use (well, you never know!).
The idea was to achieve a sufficiently different/distinct character of BVs from main vox so as to simplify their separation in the mix, especially spacially.
This should in theory be quite possible using my mic pre; it's just that I'd have preferred to swap mics over changing settings and messing with my source signal, something that doesn't appeal to my "keep your options open" working mentality.

Phew! Carry on. Great thread, DeafMute!
Ka-tching!... a lump of metal lands in the coffer...

Phil O · Post by **Phil O** » Sun May 20, 2007 8:23 am

I get the feeling that one thing DeafMute was asking but hasn't been addressed yet is how to make the singer comfortable, and how to get through the process quickly. One trick I use for speed is to hang two mics next to each other. All the singer needs to do is turn her/his head slightly and they're facing the second mic. They turn their head back and forth and you can quickly A/B two mics. Some will tell you this is bad technique. The proximity of the second mic alters the pickup pattern of the first and vice versa. They are right, but I've found that for the audition process, the time it saves is worth it.

Also, I'll sometimes ask them to do their vocal warm-ups on mic, thus killing two birds with one stone. Then when you ask them to sing, they're not doing the same thing over and over. Also it doesn't hurt to check out their speaking voice while auditioning. Just have a conversation with them over the mic, again trying to avoid the monotony.

As far as what to listen for, I tend to be a purist. I'll listen to their voice with just my ears in the room, then shoot for that sound. I'm trying to capture THEIR voice, not alter it. (unless of course their voice really sucks

)

Brad, do you have a favorite that you will usually reach for first? Or perhaps a favorite for male and a favorite for female, etc.?

Phil

DeafMute · Post by **DeafMute** » Sun May 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Thank you, Phil. I was reading through this going, yes that is really nice, but...
I think we have all experienced the difference a nice preamp and mic combination will make on a singer, the question lies in how do you get to that sound without having to interrupt the singer every 3 minutes to change a setup.
With that said, the vocal warm-ups and the close mics setup advice is pretty neat. I'll keep that in mind

Cheers

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Sun May 27, 2007 10:43 pm

What I didn't see mentioned was making sure to audition the mics in the track. A solo voice may sound great by itself, but put it in the track and you might realize you need more presence, presence that would sound bad solo'd.
You can put up 2 mics side by side and have the singer aim for the space in between. Label your tracks before you record, but then after tracking, try to scramble them and unlabel them, so you won't know what you're listening to on playback. The label will still be in the soundfile in the edit window, so when you choose the one that sounds the best, you can find out which one it was by looking there. (Unfortunately, your mind will tell you the best sounding one is the newest, or most expensive mic in your collection, which is why a blind listening test is so important.) If you have a lot of mics, have another pair set up, so all you have to do is swap cables. (If you have that many mics, you should also have plenty of stands, and hopefully, preamp channels.) If you have the singer just sing one verse/chorus, you should be able to audition 4 mics in 2 passes, (about 4 minutes.) If you need more choices than that, try to narrow them down before you start the process, using the hard/soft technique. Or, if it's a CD project, have a mic audition session (on your dime, not your client's.) Better to make the right choice before you start, so you don't end up fighting with sucky sounding tracks through the whole project.

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Wed May 30, 2007 5:11 am

Phil,

When it comes to tracking vocals, yes I do have a few favorites I reach for. I'm a firm believer in a vocal chain that gives the voice saturation and color, yet retains the quality of that voice. I'm a big of the KIWI from BLUE, it's a solid state microphone that is VERY open on the top-end with a rounded sound, while the bottom is smooth and semi-transparent yet lush if that makes sense. When using this microphone, I'll go through my Presonus ADL600 for some warmth, but most of the time I use my Liquid Channel as it allows me to keep the mic I like and use the different pre and compressor emulations to dial in my tone. If one were to go this direction and want to save $$$, getting a Universal Audio LA610 would make more sense as it's a single-channel pre with a killer.

On an affordable scale, I must say the Mojave Audio MA200 is about the best microphone I've heard for the money in years. I was a huge fan of the Soundelux U99 but they went away... The U99 was based off the classic U67 sound, so when the MA200 came out--I was quite interested in it. I was told the MA200 was based off a U47, I took it into the studio and immediately thought it was a U67 sound--sure enough, it was based off the U67 afterall....then I thought "WOW", that's pretty spot-on. So I compared to the U99 and if I had my choice, I'd still prefer the U99. BUT.... for those wanting a $3k microphone but either can't or never would spend that kind of money, the MA200 will work just as good. The U99 was one of those mics that if you spend way more money to get 20% improvement, it's worth it if you are comfortable doing it. But the MA200 is one of those mics that if you can't, it's still a highly pro-sounding mic--and one that pro's have no problem using as well. For $995, the MA200 will blow you away. You can put this on male or female vocals with top-notch results....guaranteed! Tubes are wonderful when used appropriately, David Royer is thought of as a "ribbon guy" when in reality he started off doing tube mics. Oh yeah, David Royer founded Mojave--it was his original company.

Phil O · Post by **Phil O** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:13 am

Thanks Brad. Very informative. Business is a little slow right now. When it picks up, I gotta get more gear. Yeah, I know, I'm a gear slut.

And I LOVE microphones.

Phil

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:28 am

Phil O wrote:...Yeah, I know, I'm a gear slut... And I LOVE microphones.
Phil

This revelation should come with an under-age visualisation warning, Phil.

Dang, now I'm getting a soundtrack. Hang on... here it comes...
"O, Phil... O, Phil... O, Phil... O, Phil... O, Phil... OOOOHHH..."
For some inexplicable reason it ends there.

BradLyons · Post by **BradLyons** » Wed May 30, 2007 6:36 am

Or a flash-back to NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK..... oooh here it comes.... "OH OH OH OOOOH, OH OH OH OH.....OH OH OH OOOOH...the MIC STUFF" LOL or how about VANILLA ICE... "Mic Mic Baby, Mic Mic Baby" or even better yet GEORGE HARRISON.... (to the vocalist) "I've got my mic set on you, I've got my mic set on you, I've got my mic set on you, I've got my mic set on you..... This time I'm going to record, the vocal that you sing forth, this time it's going to be a hit record that you'll see....I'm gonna charge you money, yes, I'm gonna make a whole lotta money yes, I'm going to make lots of money...just sing it right child". hahahahahahaha

monkey man · Post by **monkey man** » Wed May 30, 2007 7:25 am

BradLyons wrote:Or a flash-back to NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK..... oooh here it comes.... "OH OH OH OOOOH, OH OH OH OH.....OH OH OH OOOOH...the MIC STUFF" LOL or how about VANILLA ICE... "Mic Mic Baby, Mic Mic Baby" or even better yet GEORGE HARRISON.... (to the vocalist) "I've got my mic set on you, I've got my mic set on you, I've got my mic set on you, I've got my mic set on you..... This time I'm going to record, the vocal that you sing forth, this time it's going to be a hit record that you'll see....I'm gonna charge you money, yes, I'm gonna make a whole lotta money yes, I'm going to make lots of money...just sing it right child". hahahahahahaha

LOL!

Waiter, I'll have two of whatever Brad's having.