JPF Home Page Forums Musician Gear and Techniques Recording Studio and Gear Forum Help with recording technique please

I always seem to get the same response from folks. Your recordings sound like you are in a tunnel or they are muffled.
I do all my recording on my PC. Creative Audigy2 platinum sound card.
Vocals are through a Shure sm57 mic.
Guitars are either plugged in directly or I sometime Mic them off the amp. I have been using a cheap radio shack mic for that although it seems to work pretty well.
The room where I record is 20 feet wide 30 feet long and 16 feet high ceiling. All with hard surface material, Paneling, Etc.
If you want to hear some of my recordings they are on soundclick.
www.soundclick.com/billrobinson
Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks


------------------
www.soundclick.com/billrobinson

Bill
Live with a song in your heart

Bill, the mic you're using for your vocals is generally used to mic amps and some instruments. It's not really used for vocals.

As far as your tunnel sound. Without hearing it first hand, it could be how you're using Reverb, or other effects. It could be that the recording program you're using doesn't translate a stereo image very well. It could be a large number of things.

Jody

Bill, the 57 is a solid mic for anything you want to record. I've used one for my lead vocal on recordings for years, although I do have a Shure KSM44 now. Even Micheal jackson used a 57 on Thriller. I still use them alot. My band prefers them live vocally to a 58. Reverb or sometype of delay would be my guess on the in a tunnel sound. Unless you are distant micing everything which would include the room heavily along with the things you are recording. I'll take a listen later this weekend and check it out. Check out some of my tracks "Ghost". I used a 57 for vocals.

Kris Karr

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/kriskarrmusic.htm

Bill,

I took a listen to a few tracks. The tunnel sound your getting comments on has to do with the effects you are using on your vocal. Try a simple reverb on your vocal. If you want your vocal to stand up front, avoid using too much. When it comes to country vocals, less is more. Hope that helps. Try listening to "The Death of my soul" to see what I mean. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/kriskarrmusic.htm

Kris Karr

My CD did very well, thank you ..plenty of airplay and over 5000 units sold...virtually ALL the vocals were done on a 57...it's my "lucky" mike and I still use it alot.

I've got a couple of medium priced large diaphragm condensers and sometimes the 57 is still my mike of choice...

Bob

Bill..

Went to your site..

You're processing the living [naughty word removed] out of your vocals..ease up...

that first recording on the list is less processed than the others and sounds like a good old rockabilly recording..you oughta go for more of that..

bob

Let me get this straight, you have a hard-panelled 20'x30'x16' room and you even consider using artificial reverb?!? What is wrong with this picture?
Beg, borrow, or rent a good omni condenser mic and use it for the "effects" on everything. Play around with placement until you find a spot which works.
Definately mic the amps at least 2' away (possibly combined with a 57 on the grill.)
Natural space is what separates great studio recordings from 'home' studio recordings. You have the space, please use it.
BTW There's nothing wrong with a 57 on vocals. They don't have quite the 'presence' of a 58, and you won't get the brilliance and detail of a top condenser mic. But, I know quite a few male blues singers who sound excellent with a 57.

Ok, just to re-phrase what I said, "It's not really used for vocals". I didn't say "It's not for vocals". There is a big difference in that verbage.

Yes, I'm well aware people use the 57 for vocals. But it is not considered a vocal mic. Heck neither is a PCM, but people use that one too.

The most famous user of the 57 for recording vocals: Bono.

Jody

Try this. Instead of using reverb on vocals use a simple delay. You will want the delay to be in time with the bpm of the recording so here is the formula. Take a calculator and punch in 60,000. Divide that by the beats per minute (bpm) of the song (lets say 120 bpm)and that will give you the proper in-time delay for a quarter note which in this case is 500ms for the delay. Depending on how much effect you want on the vocal you can now do a combination of two things.
1)set the wet setting for the delay low and slowly increase till you get what you want.This is going to give you a slap back delay which is probably more than you want for most vocals. Better for a pop or standard type recording.

2)divide 500 bpm by multiples of two until you get what you want sonically while still using the wet setting for amound of signal sent.

The result is that the delayed vocal will give presense to the recording, staying up front where it belongs without becoming lost into the background. The only problem is that if the decay is set too long you may experience sibilence problems, too many pronounced ess sounds. This again can be controlled by the amount of wet signal used and by de-essing a little if needed. But the vocals sound much better than merely adding reverb because reverb is by nature more random echoing than a simple delay. If you then find the vocal texture just a tad missing then add a simple and very short reverb. Works for me all the time and really dressed up my vocals.
Steve Biedeman



[This message has been edited by Little_stevie_b (edited 05-17-2004).]

Good advice Steve. When choosing reverb, as with all things recording, simple is always better. A simple delay with a bit of feedback creates a nice 'natural' reverb. 'Gated' reverbs work very well too (they cut off after the initial delay.)
I still say, if you have a real space, use it.

------------------
We are professionals: do not attempt this at home.

That's odd. I followed the link to your Soundclick page. I was able to listen to one selection with Quicktime. From then on it told me that the file was not in a format which Quicktime understands (NOT a standard MP3 file.) I wish these PC people would quit 'inventing' permutations of standards. Standards exist for the purpose of cross-platform compatibilty. The morons in Redmond can't invent anything, so they screw up anyone else's abilty to enjoy the media experience. If Microslut were in the recording business, their machines would run at 14 ips just to screw up everybody else.
Please post to a standard MP3 site.

------------------
We are professionals: do not attempt this at home.

Thank you all for this information. You have given me enough to start getting better recordings. I will try what you have suggested. I have backed off on the reverb since I started getting this feedback and it is making a big difference.
Thanks
Cpt.Analog. All my songs were recorded and converted to mp3 format using Creative software that came with my soundcard. Never had a problem with it and this is the first time I have been told someone could not listen to a song. I burn CD's for folks in mp3 format and they always play just fine. So I am not sure why you would not be able to listen to the songs on soundclick. Have you tried the soundclick Mp3 player?

------------------
www.soundclick.com/billrobinson

Bill
Live with a song in your heart

My bad. I clicked on the streaming link which is some sort of Flash-enabled format. The straight MP3 link worked fine.
We may be on to something here. The song I heard does sound like you're listening from the back of a half-empty bar. I would cut back on any verb used on the instruments. The vocal is out front, but everything else sounds like it's in the next room.
Keep experimenting, you'll get it right.

Just a thought
Are you sure that you are getting both the direct and the verb return into the mix on this? I know that these computer recording gizmos can be confusing, even to professionals. That's one reason I still prefer to do all my processing before I get it into the computer.

Thanks for taking the time to try again Cpt.
I am not sure what you are asking(Are you sure that you are getting both the direct and the verb return into the mix on this?) But what I am doing is recording clean, no reverb or anything. Then I add effects on each track. Right now I am trying to add as little as possible. Like you said. Keep experimenting. I find I am getting cleaner sound now, using the suggestions posted here.
I am not sure if I can get much better sound on the guitar. I don't have a decent amp yet. that's my next purchace. And I am going to try just using the SM57 to mic everything.
Right now I can't do anything. The storms that rolled through here last week knocked out our power and I'm running on a generator. Still don't know when the power will be back on. Costing me $14 a day for gas to run the generator. OUCH!!

------------------
www.soundclick.com/billrobinson

Bill
Live with a song in your heart

[This message has been edited by bill robinson (edited 05-24-2004).]

here's what i like to do. keep a track with no verb at all. then clone it and set your verb wetter than you would normally. then in the mix you can get great results by keeping the presence of the non-verbed vocal and still have the verb coming in the backgound.
to open it up i usually have two wet tracks and pan them right and left. group them together and you only have one fader to worry about.
also i agree with cpt.analog's thinking. you might be overkilling the verb since chances are you have natural verb there already.
happy hunting
jt

this is all way better advice than what i have to give you. i just wanted to point out that sometimes vocal mic techniques cause problems like this... i've noticed that people who sing "off" the mic in order to eliminate pop's and hard "s" sounds sometimes sound a little more distant than people who really get right on top of the microphone. i have no scientific justification for why this is true.

i use a 58 with a pop filter i made out of a coat hanger and my girlfriend's old panyhose. this has the dual advantage of letting me get right on top of the mic while looking completely ridiculous.

------------------
kit malone
http://www.kitmalone.com

[This message has been edited by kit (edited 08-02-2004).]

Hi Kit.

I like your "guerilla" recording tactics, using anything on-hand to make a better recording.

I just wanted to comment on the distance from the mic. Proximity effect is a term used to describe what happens to the sound at various distances from the mic. The closer you get to the mic, the more bass your voice will have in the recording.

This is good for some things when you want a certain sound, but usually it is not good for vocals to be recorded in very close proximity of the mic. Getting too close can make your vox sound muddy and bass-heavy. It also increases your chances of overloading the mic and creating distortion. It's very hard to control peaks when you get right up on the mic.

One of the only times I will record someone closer than 8" is if the song is a very soft one and I want to get a very intimate vocal. Depending on the characteristics of the singer's voice, I will usually remove some of the "muddy" frequencies to minimize the proximity effect. Usually this would be in the area of -3dB with the center frequency being between 200-300 HZ.

------------------
Chris

Bumping some useful older posts

There may be another problem here and that is instrument seperation, what little backing instruments you can hear in the mix. What you put in is what you get out in most cases, unless you know how to mix. If you are using the standard settings on the EQ and just adjusting the general EQ of each instrument without changing the individual frequency band for each instrument, you are going to get a flat, tunnel and muddy mix. This is because each instruments is trying to occupy the same band width in terms of frequencies. They are all competing with one another. This is like combining all colors together and getting brown. To get seperation and distinction between each instrument, you need to find the frequency spectrum that uniquely defines that instrument. An example would be say a guitar that starts at 20k as the very most high and 800hz as the very lowest low (not saying that this is accurate, but for the sake of explanation), then say the bass at say 5k as the highest and 300hz as the lowest. Of course there are your inbetweens settings for each. This example will get the bass off the guitar spectrum and vise versa giving a natural seperation that adds a fuller and more distinctive sound to the overall mix. Not every instrument is between 10k and 200hz as is the presets in my software for a new project.
Of course, I agree with all the above as well as far as reverb, but after listening to the tracks, there is some definite mixing boo boos. I am not saying that the above examples are accurate as far as settings go, because each instrument is radically different. However, if you use the same positioning and recording methods, the settings can be soewhat predictable between different songs.
Additionally, What you put in is for the most part what you get out! You have to capture not just a tone, but ambience qualitites as well. Some software lets you add some of this later.
My .02 cents
Tommy

Wow, resurrected from while back. My how things have changed. From a $25 radio shack mic to a $300 shure.
Lots of good advice in this thread.

Tommy
Thanks for looking at this old one.
I have been curious about using EQ to separate the instruments and have been experimenting a bit with that. I did not do much, if any, on my latest tracks but I am looking at them and trying different things.
You state; To get separation and distinction between each instrument, you need to find the frequency spectrum that uniquely defines that instrument.
How do you do this? I try to do it by ear. Is there another way?
If I understand you correctly I would use EQ on each track. For instance one of my latest songs has 4 guitar tracks. If I apply EQ to each track would I be increasing the frequency range that defines that instrument and lowering it in the range that does not. So one guitar may be increased at say; 1000 to 5000 hz and decreased above 5000, another at say; 6000 to 10000 and decreased below 6000. Not straight across of course.
I know everyone mixes differently, to each his own I guess. I am trying to get the best mix I can. And I do want instrument separation.

Bill,
Yeah, you have the right idea.
You would be actually defining the frequency spectrum for each instrument. Its a blend of 4 control knobs that get the most flavor out of the instrument. You wouldn't necessarily be worried about taking away or lowering the range that doesn't matter. Its more about finding and setting the ranges that do matter or that does bring out or accentuate the best flavors from high highs, to low lows. Once you get comfortable with the basic idea, then you may start to work with getting bad stuff out of a recording by de-emphasizing bad frequencies.
There are three components, the range controller in terms of hz to khz, the control volume (pushes and pulls each range) kind of adds and takes away flavor if you will. SO with that being said, if you add a bad flavor or ingredient, in this case an undesriable frequecy, the tone control volume will accentuate that bad flavor. If you add a good ingredient or flavor or frequency, and accentuate it, it will bring out the desirable flavor in the instrument. The third component is the fader or overall mix volume of the instrument. That is what people usually are messing with when they say they are mixing. I am not talking about fader volume at all at this point.
The (frequency) ranges should differ from instrument to instrument. You should never have a guitar as low as 30hz, but a kick drum or lower end of a bass guitar maybe. That same kick may have a high high control settng of 10kHz. So the range of the kick may be from low low control at 30hz pushed to +6 and inbetween settings in the low mid to high mid, then the high high setting at 10kHz pushed to +4 or something. That gives me a sub kick punch, nice high click definition and the middle settings I keep to myself:) You get the idea.
How do you know. Mostly by experimenting. Sometimes you can go online and search for appropriate bass guitar, guitar or drum frequency settings and get some ideas, but the best way is to find them yourself. Due to mic placement changes, or addition of an odd instrument to a recording, it can change a little from one recording to another. I went online to find bass frequency ideas. I was having a hard time getting the bass from stepping over everything else. I tracked down a site and the person said they like to push the 300 hz on bass guitar. That gave me a start. I knew that at least commonly pleasant bass frequencies should be accentuated in that range. Say I get a nice full round bass sound at 300hz on the low mid control setting and push it a little say +6 on the volume (not fader). I decide I want some ping as well to the low to bottom roundness, so I go to the high mid control knob and set the range at 5K and play with the volume. This wont get me the high definitiion but is starts to pull out the frequencies that will get me there, Then say I add in the high high 10kHz and push it a little until I hear the nice ping I want.
Bill, hope this is not too confusing. It hits me a little at home though. I would post the mics I use, the pre-amps, software, input devices etc... etc..., but giving away mixing secrets is harder. Mixing is what seperates the boys from the men as far as I am concerned. There are many ways to approach it and different philosophies, but its kind of hard to just give away your common settings. Hope you understand. Plus, I am learing more everyday about mixing.
Talk to ya later,
Tommy

Hi Tommy
Thanks for the info.
I guess I had a pretty good understanding of it after all.
Given the multitude of configurations available I understand you not wanting to give away to much.
we all need to have our own little secrets that set us apart.
Thanks.