• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Microphone to "de-bassify" my voice?

craig.p

craig.p

Sep 28, 2008
2,456
108
New Hampshire
#1
I did a search on "microphone" and didn't find anything relevant to the following question.

Ever watch "Everybody Loves Raymond?" I have a voice like Robert Barone. Actually a cross between Robert Barone and Joey Ramone. When I sing C&W backup vocals, the harmonic structure doesn't really work. Now, I know that no microphone will transform my voice into something totally different, but still I'm looking for something that will de-emphasize my voice's lack of liveliness and add some upper-end energy. As a reference point, all my life I've been using SM57s and 58s, and I've always stayed away from the mic to avoid proximity effect.

My initial impulse is to go with a condenser, but I have no experience with those on vocals. I've seen shows where they're used for vocals, but they seem geared more toward providing a flat/authentic sound than toward response up-tilt. I don't want fidelity -- I want LACK of it.

Was considering something like an old Super 55 because I sang into one decades ago and remember it sounding thin, and peaky in the upper midrange (which is exactly what I need), but then I looked at the response chart of the new version and it turns out not to up-tilt in the midrange much more than, say, an SM58. (Only a couple dB difference.)

Any advice?

Thanks in advance.
 
#2
How about a Invalid Link Removed or a

Invalid Link Removed?

Both are professional broadcast interview type mics. They are dynamics, but omni-directional. They're not gonna hype the low end, nor cut it, but they will be reasonably flat and are not susceptible to proximity effect.
Since they're omni's you'll need to eat it and keep the gain out of it for on-stage - BUT with no proximity effect that shouldn't be an issue.
 
#3
Hmmm... broadcast mics. Interesting. I went out to those links you provided (thanks!), looked around, and found the Invalid Link Removed, too. It has a bass roll-off switch which looks like it might help, but only minimally (only 3-4 dB relative to the midrange). My main concern with those omnis would be bleed and feedback, not to mention their responses are flat and I'm looking for bass "shyness" coupled with a midrange kick/peak.

Hey, what about a [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]? It would definitely be an "off-label" use, but it might work. The response curve looks like an interesting antidote to a bassy voice. The FAQ for that model offers info on how to Link Removed.
 
#5
craig, I've used omni's live before with no issues. Again, you have to keep the gain in check and stay close but they'll work better than you think.
Yes, they're flat but you could always decrease the bass in the console's EQ section. I would favor the RE50 to the 635A, simply because the 635 is small. It's been said that the RE50 is a 635 in a larger housing and was done for aesthetics only - I dunno. I have both (one in my personal locker, the other is at work) and they do sound the same.

The RE16 is hyper-cardioid. That's good for eliminating feedback, but it would be susceptible to proximity effect. I'd still favor the RE50 for your application, I think.

The Shure, I'm not so sure I'd go that route unless you want lo-fi sound. I can't remember a green-bullet used for voice when it wasn't that distorted, telephone/mega-phone type effect - but then again it's usually run through a guitar amp for harmonica in that situation as well. So I can't say that I've heard it in a pure vocal application.
Maybe someone else can chime in on that.

[edit to add] the green bullet does look retro-cool in that shock mount though!
 
#6
Good to know, LB. If a mic with a flat response has cleaned up your voice, then a Super 55 ought to be just what I need. Response curve toward the end of Invalid Link Removed. The 520 is probably overkill in terms of bass rolloff.

TL: I looked at the response curve and it's flat, too. Interesting that both you and LB have recommended flat-response mics, as opposed to mics with an up-tilt. Thank you again.

That bullet, along with my Ric which looks like I yanked it out of a trash pile at the town dump, might convince people I'm broke. Maybe they'd throw some quarters on stage or something... :p
 
#7
craig, the only thing I'd say about the Super 55 is; keep in mind it is a hyper-cardioid so it will exhibit some proximity effect. Whether or not it's enough to be objectionable, you'd have to try and see.

I can say the RE50 would give you the perception that it rolls of the low end simply because there's no proximity effect at all. One of the "Key Features" in the engineering data sheet is "Consistent response with distance, no
muddy lows when used close to lips."
If you're accustomed to proximity effect, the lack of it would sound like a bass cut. IMHO, and of course your results may vary.
 
#9
> the only thing I'd say about the Super 55 is; keep in mind
> it is a hyper-cardioid so it will exhibit some proximity effect

Yeah, you're right, TL. It's probably a showstopper right there. And proximity doesn't really go away until maybe a foot or more distance, from my own experience. I see what you mean now about the ones you suggested: at reasonable working distances they'd be the thinnest-sounding of the lot. Thank you again.
 
#12
Consider the shure beta 57a. It rolls off lows and cuts through quite well. The sennheiser e835 also cuts fairly well, but tends to preserve lows. Check your mixing console, because many decent consoles have a high pass filter that removes excess bass frequencies from the signal. I would stay away from the shure 55. Yes it is thin sounding, but I have never heard that mic sound good. If your mixing desk has a selectable midrange eq, try boosting 2-5khz by about 3db on your vocal.
 
#13
Thanks, PB.

I agree about the sound of the 55. Every one I've ever used sounded uneven and "barky" (for lack of a better word) up in the midrange. Could actually be a good thing in light of what I need a mic to do. BUT... those were seriously beat up 55s from decades ago. Unfortunately it seems like today's 55 isn't yesterday's 55. And there appear to be only minor differences between today's two variants of the 55.

Thanks for the tip on where to apply the boost.
 
#14
Also, in relation to what phsycobass said, you could try a shallow cut around 250Hz to remove excess boominess. You could try a condenser mic, too, at least one suited for vocal work. Those can have high pass filters as well; the MXL 4000 is a great low-cost option that I've used in recording applications with my band. MF sells it for $200.

Edit: Keep in mind that any microphone with selectable filters (particularly high-pass, which is what you want) would be preferable over mics that naturally shelve frequencies out. When I record, I'd much rather have as much to work with as I can with the option to remove things as I need, rather than start off with too little.
 
#15
chiming in to ditto this post. i have similar vocal issues to the OP; a mic won't quite give you the result you're looking for.

better to use e.q. to cut around 180-250 hz. also, roll off the bass ( or use a mic with bass roll-off). solo'ed, it'll sound pretty ugly; when blending into an ensemble setting with background vocals, it's gonna really help out. A LOT! cheers, ron


Muaguana said:
Also, in relation to what phsycobass said, you could try a shallow cut around 250Hz to remove excess boominess. You could try a condenser mic, too, at least one suited for vocal work. Those can have high pass filters as well; the MXL 4000 is a great low-cost option that I've used in recording applications with my band. MF sells it for $200.
Click to expand...
 
#16
there are a bunch of opinions without notes if this is really recording or live.

I own a ton of mikes (clueless why -- they multiply when good deals are out there).

Condensers are cool --- issue commonly becomes if XLR phantom power is around.. as a rule, unless you own and control the PA I'd avoid (yes I own some)

Like much of my stuff, I'm a fan of durable under the radar gear... You may be discussing a PVM22.. or PVM80.. both can be found for around $30 on ebay

What you may be seeking isn't an alteration to lows but a definition in the prence range...

That said if it's haromony.. many times presnece does not pad well under the primary vocalist. You'll see this periodically in bands that have the front person swapping to a diffeernt mike for background.
 
#18
I've worked in radio and TV for 30+ years and I never use an omni handheld mike when there is an alternative. They pick up too much noise from your surroundings and in a stage application, are much more prone to feedback.

In fact, I dislike general purpose microphones like the classic EV 635A for that reason - they may be nearly indestructible, but they are a pain in the butt to use in situations where you have ambient noise...and there's plenty of it on stage.

You are doing the right thing to back off the mike and avoid proximity effect. Most people want to augment the low end of their voice, so your situation is unusual.

I have some experience with Sennheiser, and I'd suggest you see if you can test drive them. The two I have in mind are:

The Sennheiser MD 421-II has a 5-position bass rolloff and a slightly directional cardioid pattern.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

The Sennheiser MD 441U is more of a studio mike, but has a 5-position bass rolloff and is a super-cardioid pattern, which is very directional.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

I think you need a mike with a combination of directionality and bass rolloff. Both the Sennheisers are dynamic mikes, so you don't need phantom power. You might see if there's a pro audio house in the area where you can rent them for a week to try them out before buying.
 
#19
First of all, I wanted to thank everyone for all the advice. I didn't expect such support on this type of oddball problem.

Funny about those 421s -- I've always seen them in front of kick drums and bass cabs, but I never knew they had bass roll-off capability.

They sure do get a nice chunk o' change for those, don't they?

BTW, this is for a live setting only, and it's for backup vocals.
 
#20
craig.p said:
Funny about those 421s -- I've always seen them in front of kick drums and bass cabs, but I never knew they had bass roll-off capability.

They sure do get a nice chunk o' change for those, don't they?

BTW, this is for a live setting only, and it's for backup vocals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 421s are pretty expensive, but they're extremely versatile and durable mics; they're like an SM57 on steroids (wider frequency response, brighter highs, multiple bass rolloff settings.) If you foresee yourself miking a variety of instruments in the future, it would probably be a good investment.

I still think, however, the best solution in terms of cost-effectiveness and simplicity is just to make a couple minor adjustments to the EQ (assuming the console has at least a semi-parametric unit.) Put a low shelving filter on and set the frequency maybe 10Hz below the lowest note you'll sing, then cut some of the low-mid frequencies to get rid of the boom/boxiness. If that doesn't do it for you, then add a broad but shallow boost in the 1k-5k range (but watch out for sibilance; if the "S's" are popping out, either back up on the Q or add a notch filter.)

Attached is a chart showing the fundamental frequencies of notes from A0 to C8, just for reference.
 

Attachments

  • Frequency-Chart-Web.jpg
    Frequency-Chart-Web.jpg
    53.9 KB · Views: 129

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back