A Audio, hi-fi and car audio  forum. Audio Banter

Go Back   Home » Audio Banter forum » UK Audio Newsgroups » uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi) (uk.rec.audio) Discussion and exchange of hi-fi audio equipment.

Better PC voice recording?



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd 11, 01:35 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Dave Plowman (News)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,872
Default Better PC voice recording?

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
When volume is not an issue, of course, mic technique as you describe
it is still the answer. Probably 80% of the solution is provided by
the sound engineer who sets the mic up properly in the first place. If
the speaker is unused to using a mic, go for an omni every time; there
is very little they can do by way of bad technique to screw that up.


I remember being involved many years ago in some tests on all the commonly
used vocal mics in TV. Most pop singers wanted an SM58 etc as that's what
they used on the road. But they are ugly and large compared to some - as
well as pretty poor quality. (You'll not see them used as a vocal mic in a
recording studio)

Basically we had two session singers (male and female) performing a
variety of material to backing tracks played through a BBC LS3/1 - the
common foldback speaker used then. High quality - but not capable of the
sort of SPLs a rock band would demand today. However, it was normally
tracked around by an operator, so positioned as close to the vocalist as
the cameras allowed. So usually less than 6 feet away.

Although the noise cancelling designs like the '58 picked up less spill
from the speaker, what they did pick up was of dreadful quality. Unlike
the better omni hand mics.

The choice - near unanimous - was the Neumann KM85 with omni capsule
incorpororating a built in windgag. Very neat looking - so didn't obscure
the face of the vocalist as much as many others. And sounded superb - very
nearly as good as a U87, etc. It was the standard for many a year.

Sadly, of course, a star might still demand their favourite mic -
regardless of just how bad it actually sounded to the audience at home.
More interested in being 'comfortable' in the studio.

--
*Why is it considered necessary to screw down the lid of a coffin?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #22 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd 11, 01:47 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Don Pearce[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,358
Default Better PC voice recording?

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:35:13 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
When volume is not an issue, of course, mic technique as you describe
it is still the answer. Probably 80% of the solution is provided by
the sound engineer who sets the mic up properly in the first place. If
the speaker is unused to using a mic, go for an omni every time; there
is very little they can do by way of bad technique to screw that up.


I remember being involved many years ago in some tests on all the commonly
used vocal mics in TV. Most pop singers wanted an SM58 etc as that's what
they used on the road. But they are ugly and large compared to some - as
well as pretty poor quality. (You'll not see them used as a vocal mic in a
recording studio)

Basically we had two session singers (male and female) performing a
variety of material to backing tracks played through a BBC LS3/1 - the
common foldback speaker used then. High quality - but not capable of the
sort of SPLs a rock band would demand today. However, it was normally
tracked around by an operator, so positioned as close to the vocalist as
the cameras allowed. So usually less than 6 feet away.

Although the noise cancelling designs like the '58 picked up less spill
from the speaker, what they did pick up was of dreadful quality. Unlike
the better omni hand mics.

The choice - near unanimous - was the Neumann KM85 with omni capsule
incorpororating a built in windgag. Very neat looking - so didn't obscure
the face of the vocalist as much as many others. And sounded superb - very
nearly as good as a U87, etc. It was the standard for many a year.

Sadly, of course, a star might still demand their favourite mic -
regardless of just how bad it actually sounded to the audience at home.
More interested in being 'comfortable' in the studio.


The U87 is a sound I'm very familiar with, and I reckon I can get one
"right" with eq inside a minute.

Sometimes, though the performance mike doesn't matter. A few years ago
I caught a few minutes of a Kylie concert on the telly (just long
enough for me to finish what I was doing and go over to turn it off).
She had a head-worn mic that I thought was badly positioned right in
front of her mouth. Sure enough it was spitting and popping with every
word she said; very nasty. Strangely, though, as soon as she started
singing I could hear the familiar smooth of a U87. I wonder how she
did that? ;-)

d
  #23 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd 11, 01:57 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Dave Plowman (News)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,872
Default Better PC voice recording?

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Sometimes, though the performance mike doesn't matter. A few years ago
I caught a few minutes of a Kylie concert on the telly (just long
enough for me to finish what I was doing and go over to turn it off).
She had a head-worn mic that I thought was badly positioned right in
front of her mouth. Sure enough it was spitting and popping with every
word she said; very nasty. Strangely, though, as soon as she started
singing I could hear the familiar smooth of a U87. I wonder how she
did that? ;-)


I caught a bit of a Barry Manilow 'evening' on ITV the other day. He
hardly even attempted to mime properly or even hold the mic like he was
singing. ;-)

To be fair his speaking voice was rather croaky, so it may have been a
last minute decision.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
  #24 (permalink)  
Old November 3rd 11, 02:05 PM posted to uk.rec.audio
Don Pearce[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,358
Default Better PC voice recording?

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:57:41 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Don Pearce wrote:
Sometimes, though the performance mike doesn't matter. A few years ago
I caught a few minutes of a Kylie concert on the telly (just long
enough for me to finish what I was doing and go over to turn it off).
She had a head-worn mic that I thought was badly positioned right in
front of her mouth. Sure enough it was spitting and popping with every
word she said; very nasty. Strangely, though, as soon as she started
singing I could hear the familiar smooth of a U87. I wonder how she
did that? ;-)


I caught a bit of a Barry Manilow 'evening' on ITV the other day. He
hardly even attempted to mime properly or even hold the mic like he was
singing. ;-)

To be fair his speaking voice was rather croaky, so it may have been a
last minute decision.


I'm not sure his face can move far enough to allow him to mime any
more.

d
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 01:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2025 Audio Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.