7 ms·

The problem isn't the mic though, it's that in the earlier days of radio there was a trend towards boosting the bass artificially in the microphones to make the

by auiya 5y ago

The problem isn't the mic though, it's that in the earlier days of radio there was a trend towards boosting the bass artificially in the microphones to make the host sound more authoritative. Howard Stern is BIG time guilty of this. NPR doesn't do this, and cuts the bass picked up by the full-range mics using a channel EQ (or mic built-in) to eliminate plosives rather than employ lots of pop screens and boosting the bass. Using a full-range mic for vocals means ultra low-end is preserved, and that's not always desired for replicating the human voice accurately. This is also how most vocals in music are treated, there's no reason for all that low-end mud, so they're high-pass filtered heavily as a matter of course before the rest of the vocal effects chain is applied. Pop vocals in particular are way thinner than people realize. As far as mics go, if you don't want to pay thousands for a Neumann, the Austrian Audio OC18 is a fantastic mic with a similarly flat response and has a 3-way switch for different levels of high-pass filtering before the signal even leaves the mic. It's fast becoming my favorite mic to use in the studio.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jancsika 5y ago
> Pop vocals in particular are way thinner than people realize. Thanks to near constant use of auto-tune I think most people realize pop vocals are thin. Edit: clarification to remove accidental contradiction. I initially ended with "... I think most people realize that," which would have essentially translated to, "Most people realize that pop vocals are thinner than most people realize."
- auiya 5y ago
  Pitch correction doesn't thin vocals when used correctly.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  I read this in T-pain’s voice. Auto tune does get abused, doesn’t it?
  - swyx 5y ago
    for what its worth T-pain has pretty conclusively proved that he didn't need autotune, he just used it as a gimmick to stand out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc
    - ehnto 5y ago
      Quite relevantly, his NPR tiny desk concert was a fantastic example of his musical range and his vocal talent. He is an excellent musician.
    - wgd 5y ago
      Similarly, his performances on The Masked Singer were outstanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIZ23g9lsBk&t=359s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIZ23g9lsBk&t=359s
  - andrewzah 5y ago
    Autotune and melodyne are just standard now. Good usage is not really detectable. What people forget to note is that you still need to know how to sing in the first place. Autotune plugins can only do so much... These plugins really exist to save time for large studios, not make bad musicians better. Time is money for studios, so they don't want to waste it on multiple retakes when someone can be close enough to make small fixes with melodyne. For session work, market effects still pressure people to, well, not make mistakes like that. A great singer is still going to be in higher demand than a decent one, because then the studios don't have to spend much time at all fixing their vocals. Also, -noticeable- autotune can be desired. It's a musical choice. In that sense it's no different than using a vocoder, etc. I personally do not like it but that's the beauty of music; there's something for everyone.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      It is totally detectable, unless it truly is a one off tweak. But that is almost never what happens. Maybe a great vocal will get a tweak to save otherwise great take, and that is fine. Good thing. But then the whole production sees similar things all over the place and it gets cleaned right up technically. Time, levels, the works right? And the energy is diminished, could be lost. Like fashion, this will all cycle in and out. Young people hear the humanity in music made prior to these and other tools and it appeals. Little things, like a change in tempo, small vocal errors, inconsistency, all add up in a track. I bet some time from now, could be as little as a decade, maybe two, we will look back at all this and chuckle. Like you say, there is nothing technically wrong with any of this tech. And it could all be used very differently from how it is today too. Recently, I have been going back through great live shows. Fantastic! And I still get that tingle from the realization someone delivered it live, to a crowd. And yeah, not so perfect, but oh so very human too.
david422 5y ago
Any reason why this isn't just done in software rather than hardware? Is it just more setup when it's easier if it's a hardware switch. The article just said it's not left up to the studio.
- iamsomewalrus 5y ago
  Flippantly, because hardware is cool! Plugins - software for audio programs - are available but audio engineers are famously persnickety.
  - ycombobreaker 5y ago
    Disagree, because the issue here is where the filter is. As others have noted that a condenser mic has an internal preamp, it is most useful to filter inside the mic before amplification to preserve S/N ratio. I suppose you could do that with software in the mic, but that seems like a lot of effort for maybe a worse result. Further down the audio path it eventually makes sense to digitize, but if you didn't have the HPF in the mic your noise floor will be worse.
- bryzaguy 5y ago
  Low frequencies carry an awful lot of energy and you will get maximum dynamic range out of a mic by close-micing but HPF'ing off the lows early in the chain. Many condensers have little preamps inside them, and the HPF may be placed before this pre giving it effectively a lot more headroom.
  - klodolph 5y ago
    I don’t know how the U87 works, but some capsules can change response by adjusting polarization voltages.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  Software? Software pipelines only began to get into radio some 20/25 years ago. NPR started in 71 Also software can't do magic (and you aren't processing each microphone digitally), you want to be your signal to be as best as it can as close to the source as you can make it to be.
adrianmonk 5y ago
> boosting the bass artificially To clarify a bit, I think that, by "artificial", you mean the boost does not correspond to how the human voice actually sounds, which is true. But in another sense, it's not artificial. It's a natural side effect of the physics of how microphones work. In building microphones to be directional (favor sounds from, say, in front), they've also made it where the amount of bass picked up is heightened when the mic is very close. So NPR is artificially (with a high-pass filter) removing a natural side-effect (of directional mics) to avoid getting artificial-sounding boomy bass. Also, this is one of those accidental invention things where what was originally a side effect has turned into a valued, essential feature. Like guitar amp distortion is part of the electric guitar sound. Or like how resonator guitars (Dobro, National) were invented to be louder but now people like the tone.
- laurent92 5y ago
  There could also be a cultural aspect of this. In English, the lower you speak, the more respectable you are. It is borderline ridiculous when you listen as a foreigner (when voices are cutting off or rattling), until I learnt how to use it myself ;) Anyway, I speak with much higher pitch in French, and perhaps the bass mic is important for English speakers, but wouldn’t have had such an effect on European radios, where, maybe in Spanish, high frequencies would be important because the faster you speak, the more interesting you are? Consonants are much more important in latin languages.
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    I haven't noticed this so much in English, but it's egregious in Spain, where actors in shows speak an octave lower than their normal voice. It sounds very forced to me.
    - klodolph 5y ago
      The basic vocal technique for a deep voice requires relaxation. Different parts of your body resonate in different registers, and the “deep” voice is usually a chest resonance. Trying to force it creates tension in your chest that interferes with your voice.
CPLX 5y ago
You can also just go for the similar Neumann's that are lower down in their line. I have a TLM 103 and recommend it highly, although it doesn't have the high-pass switch so you'd want to do that via software or preamp.
jacquesm 5y ago
Also good: older AKGs, you can sometimes pick these up relatively cheap on ebay.
jgalentine007 5y ago
I always figured it had more to do with the kind of systems were using back in the days of old - flat and dull sounding by default. Most cars I remember being in, in the 80's and 90's maybe had quad 4" speakers with no tweeters, and a portable radio or walkman was pretty lo-fi sounding as well. So the bass and the highs would be hyped up to make it sound better for the average listener?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by auiya 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jancsika 5y ago

> Pop vocals in particular are way thinner than people realize. Thanks to near constant use of auto-tune I think most people realize pop vocals are thin. Edit: clarification to remove accidental contradiction. I initially ended with "... I think most people realize that," which would have essentially translated to, "Most people realize that pop vocals are thinner than most people realize."

auiya 5y ago
Pitch correction doesn't thin vocals when used correctly.
imwillofficial 5y ago
I read this in T-pain’s voice. Auto tune does get abused, doesn’t it?
- swyx 5y ago
  for what its worth T-pain has pretty conclusively proved that he didn't need autotune, he just used it as a gimmick to stand out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIjXUg1s5gc
  - ehnto 5y ago
    Quite relevantly, his NPR tiny desk concert was a fantastic example of his musical range and his vocal talent. He is an excellent musician.
  - wgd 5y ago
    Similarly, his performances on The Masked Singer were outstanding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIZ23g9lsBk&t=359s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIZ23g9lsBk&t=359s
- andrewzah 5y ago
  Autotune and melodyne are just standard now. Good usage is not really detectable. What people forget to note is that you still need to know how to sing in the first place. Autotune plugins can only do so much... These plugins really exist to save time for large studios, not make bad musicians better. Time is money for studios, so they don't want to waste it on multiple retakes when someone can be close enough to make small fixes with melodyne. For session work, market effects still pressure people to, well, not make mistakes like that. A great singer is still going to be in higher demand than a decent one, because then the studios don't have to spend much time at all fixing their vocals. Also, -noticeable- autotune can be desired. It's a musical choice. In that sense it's no different than using a vocoder, etc. I personally do not like it but that's the beauty of music; there's something for everyone.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    It is totally detectable, unless it truly is a one off tweak. But that is almost never what happens. Maybe a great vocal will get a tweak to save otherwise great take, and that is fine. Good thing. But then the whole production sees similar things all over the place and it gets cleaned right up technically. Time, levels, the works right? And the energy is diminished, could be lost. Like fashion, this will all cycle in and out. Young people hear the humanity in music made prior to these and other tools and it appeals. Little things, like a change in tempo, small vocal errors, inconsistency, all add up in a track. I bet some time from now, could be as little as a decade, maybe two, we will look back at all this and chuckle. Like you say, there is nothing technically wrong with any of this tech. And it could all be used very differently from how it is today too. Recently, I have been going back through great live shows. Fantastic! And I still get that tingle from the realization someone delivered it live, to a crowd. And yeah, not so perfect, but oh so very human too.

david422 5y ago

Any reason why this isn't just done in software rather than hardware? Is it just more setup when it's easier if it's a hardware switch. The article just said it's not left up to the studio.

iamsomewalrus 5y ago
Flippantly, because hardware is cool! Plugins - software for audio programs - are available but audio engineers are famously persnickety.
- ycombobreaker 5y ago
  Disagree, because the issue here is where the filter is. As others have noted that a condenser mic has an internal preamp, it is most useful to filter inside the mic before amplification to preserve S/N ratio. I suppose you could do that with software in the mic, but that seems like a lot of effort for maybe a worse result. Further down the audio path it eventually makes sense to digitize, but if you didn't have the HPF in the mic your noise floor will be worse.
bryzaguy 5y ago
Low frequencies carry an awful lot of energy and you will get maximum dynamic range out of a mic by close-micing but HPF'ing off the lows early in the chain. Many condensers have little preamps inside them, and the HPF may be placed before this pre giving it effectively a lot more headroom.
- klodolph 5y ago
  I don’t know how the U87 works, but some capsules can change response by adjusting polarization voltages.
raverbashing 5y ago
Software? Software pipelines only began to get into radio some 20/25 years ago. NPR started in 71 Also software can't do magic (and you aren't processing each microphone digitally), you want to be your signal to be as best as it can as close to the source as you can make it to be.

adrianmonk 5y ago

> boosting the bass artificially To clarify a bit, I think that, by "artificial", you mean the boost does not correspond to how the human voice actually sounds, which is true. But in another sense, it's not artificial. It's a natural side effect of the physics of how microphones work. In building microphones to be directional (favor sounds from, say, in front), they've also made it where the amount of bass picked up is heightened when the mic is very close. So NPR is artificially (with a high-pass filter) removing a natural side-effect (of directional mics) to avoid getting artificial-sounding boomy bass. Also, this is one of those accidental invention things where what was originally a side effect has turned into a valued, essential feature. Like guitar amp distortion is part of the electric guitar sound. Or like how resonator guitars (Dobro, National) were invented to be louder but now people like the tone.

laurent92 5y ago
There could also be a cultural aspect of this. In English, the lower you speak, the more respectable you are. It is borderline ridiculous when you listen as a foreigner (when voices are cutting off or rattling), until I learnt how to use it myself ;) Anyway, I speak with much higher pitch in French, and perhaps the bass mic is important for English speakers, but wouldn’t have had such an effect on European radios, where, maybe in Spanish, high frequencies would be important because the faster you speak, the more interesting you are? Consonants are much more important in latin languages.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  I haven't noticed this so much in English, but it's egregious in Spain, where actors in shows speak an octave lower than their normal voice. It sounds very forced to me.
  - klodolph 5y ago
    The basic vocal technique for a deep voice requires relaxation. Different parts of your body resonate in different registers, and the “deep” voice is usually a chest resonance. Trying to force it creates tension in your chest that interferes with your voice.

CPLX 5y ago

You can also just go for the similar Neumann's that are lower down in their line. I have a TLM 103 and recommend it highly, although it doesn't have the high-pass switch so you'd want to do that via software or preamp.

jacquesm 5y ago

Also good: older AKGs, you can sometimes pick these up relatively cheap on ebay.

jgalentine007 5y ago

I always figured it had more to do with the kind of systems were using back in the days of old - flat and dull sounding by default. Most cars I remember being in, in the 80's and 90's maybe had quad 4" speakers with no tweeters, and a portable radio or walkman was pretty lo-fi sounding as well. So the bass and the highs would be hyped up to make it sound better for the average listener?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]