Looks like the new piezo-style microphone technologies are coming of age. We might see high quality microphones rivaling the Neumanns, Shures and Rodes of today at the size of what your phones microphone is now very soon.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/15/vespe ... echnology/
Ditch the Neumänner?
If they are tiny and properly sensitive, that with a durable build, then maybe they could build some housing for it that could take care of incoming air without the need of pop filters. I'm not too fond of using pop filters - neither of the 'record from the side' method; since both have their own effect.
Pop filters are fine if you use good ones, but I’d not heard of the “record from the side” since that’s not where the best sound is.RobC wrote:If they are tiny and properly sensitive, that with a durable build, then maybe they could build some housing for it that could take care of incoming air without the need of pop filters. I'm not too fond of using pop filters - neither of the 'record from the side' method; since both have their own effect.
What most do instead is to sing “across” the microphone, so that the mic is still aimed directly at the mouth but the mouth (and thus the plosives) are aimed to the right or left (or above/below) the mic. Maybe that’s what you were thinking of?
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 16 Apr 2018
I’ve always placed the mic at their nose or forehead and aimed down to the mouth. It also has the side effect of causing them to stretch their neck a little and that tends to give more effortless high notes.selig wrote: ↑21 May 2018Pop filters are fine if you use good ones, but I’d not heard of the “record from the side” since that’s not where the best sound is.RobC wrote:If they are tiny and properly sensitive, that with a durable build, then maybe they could build some housing for it that could take care of incoming air without the need of pop filters. I'm not too fond of using pop filters - neither of the 'record from the side' method; since both have their own effect.
What most do instead is to sing “across” the microphone, so that the mic is still aimed directly at the mouth but the mouth (and thus the plosives) are aimed to the right or left (or above/below) the mic. Maybe that’s what you were thinking of?
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
DAW: Reason 12
SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine
SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!
www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane
SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine
SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!
www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane
Well, are there such pop filters, that don't filter the sound a bit, too?selig wrote: ↑21 May 2018Pop filters are fine if you use good ones, but I’d not heard of the “record from the side” since that’s not where the best sound is.RobC wrote:If they are tiny and properly sensitive, that with a durable build, then maybe they could build some housing for it that could take care of incoming air without the need of pop filters. I'm not too fond of using pop filters - neither of the 'record from the side' method; since both have their own effect.
What most do instead is to sing “across” the microphone, so that the mic is still aimed directly at the mouth but the mouth (and thus the plosives) are aimed to the right or left (or above/below) the mic. Maybe that’s what you were thinking of?
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
I think that's about what I meant, too but I think pop filters are better than that.
I once tried watching to breathe as little air towards the microphone as possible. While it worked, I noticed that I talked in a weird compressed way, hours afterwards. xD It's cool though, but you need to be able to control practically every muscle between your mouth and your stomach area.
That can work fine - the only down side is you are placing the mic closer to the nasal cavities. Proximity to the source is more important than which direction the mic is facing, even for directional mics (possibly exception being a figure 8 because of it's extreme off-axis rejection).jimmyklane wrote: ↑21 May 2018I’ve always placed the mic at their nose or forehead and aimed down to the mouth. It also has the side effect of causing them to stretch their neck a little and that tends to give more effortless high notes.selig wrote: ↑21 May 2018
Pop filters are fine if you use good ones, but I’d not heard of the “record from the side” since that’s not where the best sound is.
What most do instead is to sing “across” the microphone, so that the mic is still aimed directly at the mouth but the mouth (and thus the plosives) are aimed to the right or left (or above/below) the mic. Maybe that’s what you were thinking of?
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Also, though you can find every opinion online you want, most will warn against stretching their neck or tilting the head up while singing, as it can add tension to the throat. Some say a VERY slight tilt up for high notes MAY be OK, other say never do this.
As it's clearly worse to look down, many may get taught to look up (not head tilt, but use only the eyes) as a way to keep from looking (and then tilting) down rather than an attempt to actually tilt the head up. Looking straight ahead seems to be the most common technique I've run across.
Selig Audio, LLC
I found that when the singer has no special experience or preference with mics it‘s best to get them as far away as possible without going into the far field of the mic. Getting close, using the proximity effect or even deliberate ratios between nose and mouth - all that is only possible with a really experienced singer in my experience.
-
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 16 Apr 2018
My statement should come with a caveat: the technique outlined was for use when you can’t use (or make from nylons!) a pop filter. I use this setup (in figure 8 as you figured out) for my videos as I simply use a boom to hang it near me.selig wrote: ↑22 May 2018That can work fine - the only down side is you are placing the mic closer to the nasal cavities. Proximity to the source is more important than which direction the mic is facing, even for directional mics (possibly exception being a figure 8 because of it's extreme off-axis rejection).jimmyklane wrote: ↑21 May 2018
I’ve always placed the mic at their nose or forehead and aimed down to the mouth. It also has the side effect of causing them to stretch their neck a little and that tends to give more effortless high notes.
Also, though you can find every opinion online you want, most will warn against stretching their neck or tilting the head up while singing, as it can add tension to the throat. Some say a VERY slight tilt up for high notes MAY be OK, other say never do this.
As it's clearly worse to look down, many may get taught to look up (not head tilt, but use only the eyes) as a way to keep from looking (and then tilting) down rather than an attempt to actually tilt the head up. Looking straight ahead seems to be the most common technique I've run across.
When I engineer a SINGER, I keep the mic 4-18” away with a pop filter depending on the vocal booth, the voice, the polar pattern, whether I actually want proximity defect, and the input processing. The preamp can inform this choice as well, as (for example) Neve preamps tend to “bloom” a little when you use proximity effect to good effect. For spoken word, I generally experiment for a few minutes to get what the client needs as much at the source as I can manage.
Placing the mic 1-2” above and pointing it down to avoid plosives is really a kludge....but I’ve found it to be effective in a pinch, and you can get away with dipping a little 1kHz to rectify the more nasal sound. You can also choose differing patterns and sometimes I’ll find Omni to sound more natural in this position, if the room isn’t too live.
DAW: Reason 12
SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine
SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!
www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane
SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine
SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!
www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane
The genius mind starts working again... xD
So, what if we use two microphones? One that is in front and picks up all those air noises, and one out of the way from the air. Then doing a little side-chaining where those airy overshoots would be loud enough to trigger some gating that would silence the frontal microphone and let the tilted one pass through.
So, what if we use two microphones? One that is in front and picks up all those air noises, and one out of the way from the air. Then doing a little side-chaining where those airy overshoots would be loud enough to trigger some gating that would silence the frontal microphone and let the tilted one pass through.
Two mics on one source cause more worries than good most of the time (thats why drums are so hard to mix and record). You get phase cancellations due to the distance and resulting timing differences.RobC wrote: ↑22 May 2018The genius mind starts working again... xD
So, what if we use two microphones? One that is in front and picks up all those air noises, and one out of the way from the air. Then doing a little side-chaining where those airy overshoots would be loud enough to trigger some gating that would silence the frontal microphone and let the tilted one pass through.
That could be a problem with crossfading, unless we'd do a hard gating (yep, comes with click artifacts). But yeah, I wouldn't play both sources at the same time, I meant an A/B gating. Clean sound A, when air comes in, A closes, B opens.normen wrote: ↑22 May 2018Two mics on one source cause more worries than good most of the time (thats why drums are so hard to mix and record). You get phase cancellations due to the distance and resulting timing differences.RobC wrote: ↑22 May 2018The genius mind starts working again... xD
So, what if we use two microphones? One that is in front and picks up all those air noises, and one out of the way from the air. Then doing a little side-chaining where those airy overshoots would be loud enough to trigger some gating that would silence the frontal microphone and let the tilted one pass through.
I’d venture a guess you’ve heard that “sock effect” on more vocals than you may realize - so maybe you DO like the “sock effect” (not saying it exists, just that pop filters are used a LOT)?RobC wrote:I guess; it's just I don't like that sock effect. xD
Or is there a pop filter that doesn't filter the sound, not one bit?
I’ve recorded a lot of vocals over the years, and been on as many sessions watching other engineers record vocals, and the “sock” pop filter (and some variations like the Royer metal filter) has been used on a vast majority of the vocals.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC
I understand ~ the listener won't care anyway... (Yeah, yeah those who have an audience to begin with... xP)selig wrote: ↑23 May 2018I’d venture a guess you’ve heard that “sock effect” on more vocals than you may realize - so maybe you DO like the “sock effect” (not saying it exists, just that pop filters are used a LOT)?RobC wrote:
I guess; it's just I don't like that sock effect. xD
Or is there a pop filter that doesn't filter the sound, not one bit?
I’ve recorded a lot of vocals over the years, and been on as many sessions watching other engineers record vocals, and the “sock” pop filter (and some variations like the Royer metal filter) has been used on a vast majority of the vocals.
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests