Vocal Ease

photo

How to get great-sounding, up-front vocals on your next demo

The fastest way to demonstrate your mastery of melody to the world at large is to understand the basics of vocal recording and mixing. In short, no songwriter should ever allow a good song to be undermined by a vocal that’s buried, badly recorded, badly performed or over-processed.

Which is not to say that a good song can’t make it on its own merits, of course. But particularly if the recipient of your demo is a finicky publisher, a snooty club manager or any other person (who probably doesn’t deserve to be) in a position of power, why not make the best presentation possible? If you’ve got a great song up your sleeve - and it isn’t an instrumental - read on.

Mic models. Needless to say, you’ll want to start with a good, sturdy vocal microphone. As one might expect, the more you pay for the mic, the better the quality of the sound. If your ship hasn’t yet come in, you can always settle for the all-purpose Shure SM-58 (or 57), or, for a few bucks more, the slightly spiffier Shure Beta 87A vocal mic. Though it’s pricer, the old-reliable EV RE-20 sounds great, can be used on a variety of instruments, and is built like a tank.

For the characteristic warmth that is the hallmark of most classic vocal recordings, nothing beats a large-diaphragm condenser mic. Unfortunately, most of us don’t have the wherewithal to shell out three grand for a vintage Neumann U-87. In that case, consider something in the order of a RODE NT-2, an Aussie-made U-87 knock-off that offers full-bodied sound, a three-position level switch, plus the option of recording straight on (cardioid) or omni (perfect for recording multiple vocals on a single mic).

Getting comfortable. Producer Niko Bolas recalled his sessions with Billy Joel during the making of Joel’s River of Dreams album. “When Billy started the record, he was singing into a big U-67, the typical studio vocal mic, and he was a little stiff at first,” notes Bolas. “Here’s a guy who’s used to sitting down in front of a piano and just singing from his gut. So I had this idea - I went out and put up a little SM-57 and said to him, “Billy, don’t worry about it, we’ll come back.” And he just sat down at the piano - and suddenly he just belted! You see, if he sings into one of those, he sings his heart out. You put back that big huge 67 with a pop screen, and suddenly he’s thinking, “Oh, this is the take.” I mean, if it feels good, does it really matter?”

Using effects. When singing, the natural tendency is to accentuate certain passages, and often that exuberance translates into extra volume. However, running the vocal signal through a compressor-limiter during the recording will help keep the level uniform. As an effect, increasing the amount of compression adds “bite,” particularly effective when an edgier, rock-based sound is desired.

The ‘90s reversed the long-held belief that all vocals should have some degree of added echo. If you’re bent on using a reverb, go ahead, but go easy - too much effect and your vocal will sound lost and muddy. One good way to avoid a hyper-wet vocal sound is to increase the amount of pre-delay on your reverb, which will add some degree of separation between the dry vocal and the reverb effect.
Double up. To fatten up your vocal passage (and smooth out any lumps), try manually double-tracking the same part on a separate track. When mixing, you can adjust the level of the second passage to taste (Simon & Garfunkel’s doubled bits, for example, were often just a fraction of the original’s). Add just a touch of reverb to the combined tracks for a bit of luster.

Do it together: If your song requires a harmony part, don’t automatically reach for a second microphone-many engineers swear by the natural blend and attack that occurs when two vocalists sing live into a single mic. When doing so, be sure to “self-balance” during the recording so as not to overpower your partner.

Mixing: Keep the vocals warm and prominent in the mix; consider adding a dollop of mid-range to taste. Do several different mixes; for accuracy, sample the work on low-fidelity reference monitors such as Auratones (otherwise known as “Horror-Tones); even boom-box or car-stereo speakers will do. As a final treatment, try processing the entire mix with an additional coat of compression - but easy does it.

Posted Aug 23, 2004

Member Comments

Posted by mark ryan on 2004-11-28 at 11:40:41 am

Dear Dave:
  I thought I knew a little about mics and u have shown me just how little! When I read about the U-87 and the Aussie knockoff’s capabilties I gasped. Then I laughed at myself because I don’t know anyone else who may have responded in this nerdy way I did. Still chuckling, thanks. Mark .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Posted by mark ryan on 2004-11-28 at 11:45:13 am

PS Isn’t the ‘double up’ section s’posed to read: ...just a fraction OFF the original’s? mpryan

Posted by mark ryan on 2004-11-28 at 11:46:54 am

Anyone have any input on a device that used to be called ‘vocal doubler’? M

Posted by Dave Simons on 2004-12-13 at 10:55:56 pm

Mark-

Fraction of/off: Meaning that the second vocal pass could be anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 the level of the original

Vocal doubler: Around the time of Revolver the Beatles’ engineers (who always had their thinking caps on) started with something they called “ADT” (for automatic double tracking), which was a manually operated flanger of sorts using a second tape machine…any flanger or delay will (sort of) do the same thing; or, on a digi recorder, you can just copy your vocal to an open track, delaying the start time by 50-100 ms or so (adjusting to taste).

IMO no simulator is as good as doing it again yourself (after all it’s the imperfections that make double-tracking work)

Hope this helps.
-DS

Posted by Mitchell Mason Parker on 2005-02-09 at 2:31:06 pm

Im having a good luck with both the ADK (vienna ver) and AT 3033 on vocals in my proj studio. These are not expensive mics, especially when compared with U87 etc…Different pres give them dif qualities, no eq going in with maybe a bit of low pass filtering/ Sonic treatment (Auralex—or home made boxes filled with fiberglass) work miracles at taming harsh frequencies. It’s simple stuff that makes a big difference.

Mason

Posted by Dave Simons on 2005-02-11 at 10:37:47 am

<It’s simple stuff that makes a big difference.>

You got that right. And very good point about not futzing with EQ—-adjusting the mic position, even trying a different part of the room (or a different room altogether), is always preferable.

—DS

You need to be logged in to post comments.