Recording - December 2015 - 8

  
    
Getting intimate with a vocal mic
Here's a little dialogue I had with reader Vic Varney
last month on the topic of choosing a mic for that lush
romantic vocal sound.
I'm interested in your opinions on what the best mics are for
really intimate vocal recordings. If you can direct my attention to an article on that (if you've done one), or, if you've got
the time, any opinions on that, I'd great appreciate it.
Thanks,
Vic Varney
Athens, GA

Hi Vic! Thanks for writing.
A lot of what goes into a good vocal recording depends
on the particular vocalist; there are a lot of mics that
sound great on one voice and terrible on others. As a general rule, though, for intimate recordings you will want a
mic that has relatively low self-noise and a significant but
not overwhelming proximity effect, so you can work the
mic to get more or less bass response. Find the best position for the vocalist, then place a pop filter there so the
vocalist can "kiss" the filter and be at the right distance.
Almost any large-diaphragm side-address condenser mic
will work on at least some voices, but there are a couple of
really good dynamic mics out there too (the Shure SM7B is
the famed radio broadcast "voice of God" mic). Ribbons,
once a mainstay for recording artists, are making a huge
comeback as well, but require significant care in setup.
You might want to take a look at our February 2014 and
February 2015 back issues for more detailed articles on
the topic of vocal recording, and keep an eye open for our
February 2016 issue, where we'll return to this popular
topic in depth.
Thanks for the response. Yes, mics are funny that way-
what is best for the artist doesn't necessarily follow what's
best for another, and it sure doesn't follow the money. The
one you mentioned, in particular-the SM7B, with which I
have a good bit of experience-is the one used by Michael
Jackson, who could have afforded anything.
Could you give me some more details on ribbons? What is
there in setup that I have to be careful of?
When you buy a ribbon these days, you need to ask what
kind of ribbon it is. In the 1990s a revolution in ribbon
design was launched with the Royer R-121, which was
notable for its unique tonality but also for its relative sturdiness. In the wake of the R-121's popularity, a lot of other
ribbons have come out using new materials for greater
sturdiness: Shure's KSM313/NE and KSM353/ED, originally developed by Crowley & Tripp, use a material called
Roswellite® that's very hard to damage, and the special
composite used in Sandhill Audio's 6011A is so tough that

they actually test the mics by strapping them to the hood of
a speeding car! These mics recall the relatively unknown
Fostex ribbons of years past, which used metal film printed
on plastic to make their ribbons, but in a modern form.
On the other hand, traditional RCA-style ribbons, which
are available in modern versions from several makers, are
delicate and very easily damaged by rushing air. (Coles
Electroacoustics even recommends storing its mics upright
so the ribbons don't sag under their own weight!) They
require good pop filtering and wind screening to keep them
safe from breaths and plosives... I recommend the louvred
metal pop filters that actually direct air blasts away from
the mic, rather than foam ones which only mitigate them.
That having been said, ribbons can sound fantastic on
the right voice in the context of the right song. Just ask
Frank Sinatra, who made them famous! Frank used RCA
mics, mainly the 44. If you want that sound, you'll want a
mic from AEA, proud repairers of original RCAs and
designers of new ribbon mics with that distinctive sound,
or Cloud Microphones, whose modern designs are an
unabashed homage to precisely that microphone.
I asked Paul Vnuk Jr. and he confirmed that choice, but
added an important extra element: the Teletronix/Universal
Audio LA-2A compressor. Hardware or plug-in, it's essential to
get that lush intimate sound. Have fun and good luck!-MM
Comparing apples to... dragonflies?
Hello Sven-Erik: Thank you for writing a super article on
microphones for Recording Magazine! ("Build Your Mic
Locker", October 2015) Can you please answer a quick question?
I am intrigued by what you wrote regarding the RODE NT1
large-diaphragm condenser microphone. I am thinking about
getting one! I already have the Blue Dragonfly microphone
with its custom shockmount and pop filter. It is still selling for
$1000. How does the RODE NT1 compare to the Blue
Dragonfly? Thank you in advance,
Steven Bruce
www.pianoguitarvocal.com

Sven-Erik Seaholm replies:
Hi Steven: Thanks for writing and thanks for the compliments on my article. The Blue Dragonfly is a great sounding
mic with a pretty and balanced sound, but I prefer the NT1
on many sources because of its aggressive and forwardsounding upper midrange. It just seems to be able to get to
the essence of a source, in a more immediate way, for me.
Many people describe the beauty of early Blue mic
designs (like the Dragonfly) as being ideally suited to certain sources but not as universally usable as other mics.
The Dragonfly absolutely kills on guitar cabinets, and I am
sure that you've other places where it excels, but I think
you will find the NT1 a solid and very affordable addition
to your mic locker. I hope this advice will help somewhat!-SES

   
   




http://www.pianoguitarvocal.com

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Recording - December 2015