Recommendations for a darker, smoother dynamic vocal mic.

[CarlWonderful]

A Senn 421 might be interesting, its different than the SM7b but not a LDC.....I don't have many mics, Id say the KSM32(MDC) is darker, as in flat than my KSM44.(LDC)..I liked a few tube mics but they were kind of a hassle with power supply, cables, a bit of noise too...I tend to prefer XLR, slap it in, Dynamics keep it easier too...but sometimes don't have that little sparkle a LDC does.

theses are all in the $200-400 used.

I just grabbed a used United Twin87 ....@ $435 shipped/taxes, it does the darker less sensitive "vintage" mode or the "modern" mode higher sensitivity brighter mode. Kind of interested to hear it.

I think of darker as less sensitive, less treble, flat freq....

smooth... I think of opto-cell compressors..

Thanks for the interesting reply. The Senn 421's seem to have a lot of boost starting around 2k, right?

I agree with you on... "I think of darker as less sensitive, less treble, flat freq." Right on. whys that so hard to find though i wonder...

 

[CarlWonderful]

Carl, I'm curious as to the end destination for your vocals. Are they recordings for yourself, something that you plan to sell, or live situations.

The reason I ask is your comment about "I always EQ my stereos to cut treble and boost lows when listening to anything". If your recording reflects that tonal quality already, will you still EQ your playback system (giving it a double dose, as it will)? When you do a recording, do you dip the highs and boost the lows with your current mics?

Taking the approach to an extreme would be the situation that you get with folks in their cars, having 1000 watt woofers, the kind of one note bass that can rattle the rust from the fenders and make the rearview mirror shake in the car 2 lanes over. It you made the recording sound like that on a "normal system" I would think a lot of people listening to the music would probably pass, unless they like one note bass and nothing else.

If you record with relatively few highs and lots of low, vocals can tend to get pretty muddy.

As for mics that do that "style", I don't have anything really to offer. I tend to prefer things that sound pretty natural, my mic selections have been in that direction. Your comment about the Beta52 is interesting as it has a good sized peak at 4K, after which falls off massively and is pretty much done by 10kHz.

So I've been mainly recording myself playing (acoustic and vocals mainly. Singer songwriter indie/folk/psychadelic stuff) with a live setup I've been working on/ building. Its the Nevestyle preamp to Strymon Deco, Delay and reverb to the RNLA. Pretty cool. So I'm always listening to the tone and the final product of what I am getting out of this live setup . I dont like to work in the box really at all, so I try to get it all right as it happens and on its way into the recording. I record into a H6 when Im traveling mostly and just do tons of practice and recordings and listen back , then tweak my hardware,, tweak more, get new gear, switch out gear...and so on.... I'm trying to get it spot on without any work later. Also then when I want to record demos or even studio stuff It'll be mainly where I want it and I wont have to sit on my computer and screw around. Just dont like wokring on the ocmputer with music. Plus when I get this setup right It'll be a killer live setup/portable studio really. So thats where I'm at. I dont alter my headphone or monitor speakers when I listen back but I might push the 3db boost on my monitors just to hear a little moer of the bass.

Yeah I did notice the peak on the beta 52, but I htink casue I was right up on it the highs didnt come through as harsh becasue the lows and lowmids were so strong. It sounded good to me. Maybe Im cnuts or have super sensitive hearing in the higher range.

I'm wondering if I should be looking at ribbon mics? What do you think?

 

[CarlWonderful]

Velvet is the word that comes to mind. I am eq'ing out a bit of proximity -- the "wooly" part -- but the top end is just really smooth. I'm guessing falsetto is perhaps not what you have in mind, but I could post a clip of what I currently have recorded if you'd like.

I'd love to hear it. I was looking into them and it seemd that have a limited low range which made me think they were weak in the lows and had weak proximity effect? no? I do like the idea of the velvety highs and the rest of the F.R. looked nice and even just worried about the limited lows but I could have got some bad info.

 

[CarlWonderful]

I think i might need to start looking for a ribbon mic.
I hear that will "impart a “velvety” texture to a vocalist. Due to their significant high-end rolloff, slow transient response, and low gains, they’re perfect for that vintage tone."

Sounds perfect. Seems exactly what I'm looking for. I've never sang into one though but sounds just right.

Anyone have a recommendation for under $500.
A Ribbon mic thats durable would be nice, I dont want to have to baby it too much and I will be traveling with it quite a bit.

 

[rob aylestone]

What microphones have you actually used. It will give is a base line. Words are rubbish at describing audio, especially when chasing the holy grail. One persons velvet could be anothers mud. Ribbons sound different, in the same way condensers do, but apart from the broad strokes, they’re personal. Many well known performers were tied to brands through maybe insecurity, or their beliefthey were they one that suited their voice, but lots eventually swapped. In truth, its just favourites. Alan Parsons went through an Audio Technica phase with a sponsorship deal. Didn't impact his work at all, and when it finished, some like the 4033 stayed with him, others went.

You have read about ribbons. Much is hyperbole. You WILL have to baby it, and travel will mean always having a replacement for it when you drop it, which you will. They allow a singer with a velvety voice to shine through. They also reveal gaps in teeth, poor sibilance control and breath noises. Find a dealer who does no quibble returns, and buy three, return two. I bought many mics on other peoples recommendations that sit on a shelf mostly unused. I dont hate them, but i like others better.

PS
They do not have significant high end roll off. Its less than half an octave at worst. They do have lower gain, but so do lots of dynamics, that’s irrelevant, and ribbons are not a vintage tone. Shure 55 is probably vintage tone, as in a bit dull. The orchestral folk, who love ribbons would hardly consider them as not being good at transient capturers.

Some of your research is getting a bit mangled. Often, reviewers who know what they are on about make comments but history changes the meaning of the words. Matching mics to sound sources is the key thing. A few years back a british singer called Rumer with a great voice used an SM58 on her recordings in the studio. For her, the best mic. I bet the same studio had all sorts of classic mics sitting there, discounted …….. for her voice.

 

[Papanate]

So basically I always EQ my stereos to cut treble and boost lows when listening to anything. Its just what sounds good to me.

You should retrain your ears - EQing is what’s wrecking your Mic tone - BTW your Stereos? You mean you Mains/NearFields?

So when I make music its the same thing. A lot of frequencies in the highs (especially around 3k in my voice) just cut into me and I cant take it, lol. I have a few sm57's and 58s and they all sound the same... harsh highs to my ears. You dont think sm57/58 has harsh highs? I can get a decent proximity effect on them when my lips are touching but its not quite doing it for me. I end up eq'ing the hell out of em. So I'm looking for a mic that will be what I want so I can put my eq to better use in sculpting instead of using it up on cutting these highs and boosting the lows.

Have you had your ears checked lately? De-Waxing? A SM57/SM58 both don’t have harsh highs - I suspect it is the EQ you apply to your System.

I play a lot of stuff that just me and my acoustic so I guess I like to push things because I have a lot of frequencies to fill without all the other usual unstruments in a mix, ya know an I like my music to still sound full even if its just me and a guitar.

IMO You should record as Flat as possible - then make decisions about the sonics.

The kick mic beta 52 was just an experiemtn becasue I dont like my other mics on vocals. I was surprized by it but I did like it. Got some real low lows with proximity and it felt and sounded smoother than anyhting else I've tried. But theres got to be a perfect mic out there for under $500. I dont need much really but for whatever reason it seems hard to find what I'm looking for for my voice and preferences.

You aren’t going to find a Mic that works with your EQ - it is the opposite of what is used - so you need a really whacky Mic with an odd sonic print.

I have been looking at the RE20 but dont they have the "vairable D"... that claims to cut out the proximity effect .

Yes it does have that - there is no proximity effect when moving closer -IMO that’s good - and generally I’m not adding bass to a vocal anyway.

 

[Serendipity Records]

I'd love to hear it. I was looking into them and it seemd that have a limited low range which made me think they were weak in the lows and had weak proximity effect? no? I do like the idea of the velvety highs and the rest of the F.R. looked nice and even just worried about the limited lows but I could have got some bad info.

Sorry for the delay, here is a sample of the AKG D125.

These are from a quick preliminary take. I added a foam windscreen (affecting some consonants a bit) but I'm thinking that when I do final takes for this project I'll take it off.

Dry:
View attachment Dreams vox - dry.mp3

Processed:
View attachment Dreams vox - processed.mp3

 

[JAPOV]

For what it's worth, I have an old Shure Prologue and an SM58. The 58 cuts through a loud mix quite well, but the Prologue is good for acoustic stuff and female singers.