Current trend in microphone placement and the effect on your sound

[DaveyF]

At the Newport Show, I had a very interesting conversation with several other members of my local a'phile group. The discussion centered around an interesting trend that seems to color our playback of more recent artists. The trend is wherein the artist/singer is singing directly into the mike with their mouth right on the mike. This has led to numerous recordings that we all felt were in some ways way too hot and not that conducive to pleasurable listening. I brought up the current Adele 21 CD, which while I like the music is in many ways unlistenable on a good system, due we all felt to Adele singing with her mouth on the mike.
Why do you think that this trend is so popular right now
Anyone else have an opinion as to the validity or lack thereof of this recording situation. Any recent releases that you have heard that don't suffer from this problem

 

[Bruce B]

It's called "proximity effect". It gives the voice talent a more "rounded, deeper, warm, heavier" texture. It doesn't necessarily mean it's louder. We can always turn down faders. It's also is used to give the talent a "reference" on mic distance. If the talent keeps moving closer or farther away from the mic, level adjustments are totally shot.
Also if the mic pattern is cardiod, the engineer doesn't have to use higher gain levels and fight with the ambient noise.

 

[DonH50]

Uh, singers have been "eating mics" since we sound guys first started handing them out. They like they effect... Of course, as a live sound guy (when I did that kind of stuff), I hated it -- not due to the proximity effect, but because of the sibilants. I hated watching my needles peg (and sometimes speakers bottom out) on every "p" until I dialed in the limiters...

 

[DaveyF]

Uh, singers have been "eating mics" since we sound guys first started handing them out. They like they effect... Of course, as a live sound guy (when I did that kind of stuff), I hated it -- not due to the proximity effect, but because of the sibilants. I hated watching my needles peg (and sometimes speakers bottom out) on every "p" until I dialed in the limiters...

Don we are all aware that this practice is nothing new, however, it appears to be almost universal today; far more prevalent than in the past.

What my fellow a'philes and I are objecting to is the problem that we feel this creates, namely an image of a singer who seems to be far larger in the soundfield than he or she should be. Additionally, it minimizes any ambience that could be portrayed and the impression of a 'live' person in the room is diminished.
If you listen to some of the older vocal recordings, wherein the singer wasn't 'eating' the mike, I think that they sound far more relaxed and realistic. Not so, shall we say..... 'designed for the ipod'

 

[DonH50]

Ah, misunderstood, sorry. I don't get to actually listen to my system often, and have far more instrumental than vocal music, so I hadn't really noticed it being worse now than years ago.

I used to set up a mic 2' - 3' from the singer to pick up a little ambiance and mix it in. Doesn't help the vocal timbre, however, which is changed by the close proximity. EQ can help, but I was never satisfied that EQ'ing really solved the problem, at least without creating others. Also, at least in a studio, a pop screen can create some distance/space, but some singers would object (of course).

In addition to trashing the timbre (singers prefer that timbre so will object to my wording, natch) and eliminating what little ambiance one might get from the vocal mic (I personally prefer the vocal mic focus on vocals and use other mics for ambiance, or use a different mic setup entirely), it accentuates sibilants (popping sounds) to distraction, ruins the silence between notes/phrases (with breathing, swallowing, rustling, drooling, whatever), and exaggerates the dynamics both direct (by the singer) and via distance (a little movement really changes levels when they are so close to the mic), leading to greater dynamic compression as the poor sound guy/gal tries to ride the line between overload and noise.

Don't get me started on the Aphex Aural Exciter, one of the worst inventions in the recording industry ever (IMO).

All IMO - Don

 

[Bruce B]

For our VO work we would put up a pop filter about 2" from the mic. If we got too much pop and sibilance, we would move the mic about 15-20 degrees off-axis. You can vary this by how far you you place the pop filter.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What my fellow a'philes and I are objecting to is the problem that we feel this creates, namely an image of a singer who seems to be far larger in the soundfield than he or she should be. Additionally, it minimizes any ambience that could be portrayed and the impression of a 'live' person in the room is diminished.

Your fellow audiophiles are wrong. There can be problems created by the mic being too close to the mouth, but the "size" of the singer in the mix is still controled in the mix. The singer could manage to get the mic inside his mouth and the engineer could still mix him deep into the background. What you hear may be a legitimate problem (more likely it is a creative choice), but your friends have guessed wrong about the cause.

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

Your fellow audiophiles are wrong. There can be problems created by the mic being too close to the mouth, but the "size" of the singer in the mix is still controled in the mix. The singer could manage to get the mic inside his mouth and the engineer could still mix him deep into the background. What you hear may be a legitimate problem (more likely it is a creative choice), but your friends have guessed wrong about the cause.

Tim

Tim, I don't think that my 'phile friends and I are wrong. The current trend of 'proximity effect' is causing the problem. The engineer's are NOT pushing the singer back in the mix and therefore the "size" is a problem. You may have misunderstood my prior post to mean that we felt that the only cause of the problem was the fact that the singer is 'eating the mike', but I think we are actually talking of the same thing.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, I don't think that my 'phile friends and I are wrong. The current trend of 'proximity effect' is causing the problem. The engineer's are NOT pushing the singer back in the mix and therefore the "size" is a problem. You may have misunderstood my prior post to mean that we felt that the only cause of the problem was the fact that the singer is 'eating the mike', but I think we are actually talking of the same thing.

Davey, you're right. I took you to mean that the problem was caused by the singer's proximity to the mic, not the engineer's placement of the vocals in the mix.

At the Newport Show, I had a very interesting conversation with several other members of my local a'phile group. The discussion centered around an interesting trend that seems to color our playback of more recent artists. The trend is wherein the artist/singer is singing directly into the mike with their mouth right on the mike

Tim

 

[arnyk]

Tim, I don't think that my 'phile friends and I are wrong. The current trend of 'proximity effect' is causing the problem. The engineer's are NOT pushing the singer back in the mix and therefore the "size" is a problem. You may have misunderstood my prior post to mean that we felt that the only cause of the problem was the fact that the singer is 'eating the mike', but I think we are actually talking of the same thing.

I've done far, far more live sound and recording gigs than your average audiophile, and my experience says that proximity effect has almost nothing to do with your negative perceptions.

Proximity effect adds bass boost, pure and simple. It is well documented and well understood. It is a consequence of a mic being directional as opposed to being omni directional. The bass boost can be readily simulated or compensated for with a good parametric equalizer. I seriously doubt that something this simple is what you are objecting to.

The *other* thing that close micing does is impart a very hot, low reverberation quality to vocal sounds. The voice sounds naked and stripped of a lot of its inner beauty and naturalness. I think this is what you are objecting to. This problem can be largely mitigated by mixing in some artificial or real reverb. The problem comes from having so much direct sound and almost no indirect or reverberant sound.

Omni mics are inherently resistant to proximity effect, but they still give you that hot dry sound if you use them close.

As far as imaging goes, singers are almost always miced with just one mic. IOW mono. There are a lot of people who will tell you that mono has no imaging. I won't go that far, but it is true that with mono your options for creating the perception of a performance that is happening in a real space are limited.

A traditional way to mic singers used to be to use mics that were a few feet away, generally in a fairly acoustically dead studio. This helps avoid that hot dry sound that one always gets from a single close mic.

 

[Robh3606]

This thread got me thinking. In the live shows I have on DVD I see several of the singers using the microphone distance to effect while they are singing. I don't see too many just keeping it at a fixed distance. The two people that come to my mind where I have noticed this are Peter Gabriel and Jon Anderson. You can tell they are using the distance in a very deliberate way to get the sound they want for a particular phrase. I would assume that in the studio they would do the same?? Your thoughts??

Rob

 

[arnyk]

This thread got me thinking. In the live shows I have on DVD I see several of the singers using the microphone distance to effect while they are singing.

What you see for sure is vocalists using the mic as a dramatic prop. Whether or not their fiddling causes audible changes is a different question.

Changes in distance and angle can cause audible differences with wideband sounds, but the human voice often puts most of its energy into a rather narrow band.

I don't see too many just keeping it at a fixed distance.

That takes work and violates any mumber of rules about creating a dramatic visual presentation. ;-)

The two people that come to my mind where I have noticed this are Peter Gabriel and Jon Anderson. You can tell they are using the distance in a very deliberate way to get the sound they want for a particular phrase. I would assume that in the studio they would do the same?? Your thoughts??

Artists who vary distance and angle during a performance are named legion because there are so many of them., It is a testimonial to the non-critical behavior of mics that many vocalist's goofing around doesn't actually make things sound bad.

Yes there are some audible changes, but compared to the visuals, they are often very subtle.

Yet another testimonial to the effects of sighted evaluation on human perception... ;-)

 

[Robh3606]

What you see for sure is vocalists using the mic as a dramatic prop. Whether or not their fiddling causes audible changes is a different question.

Any singers/live preformers here?? I wouldn't be to sure about that. What I am talking about are very deliberate movements that are repeated and obviously done as part of their technique. Not any wild movements actually more subtle but deliberate. I not talking about Roger Dawltry trying to decapitate someone with the microphone.

Rob

 

[arnyk]

Any singers/live preformers here?? I wouldn't be to sure about that. What I am talking about are very deliberate movements that are repeated and obviously done as part of their technique. Not any wild movements actually more subtle but deliberate. I not talking about Roger Dawltry trying to decapitate someone with the microphone.

Rob

You're asking the wong people. Singlers don't lhear themselves sing like the rest of us do. There is considerable bone conduction.

In live sound situations, they are usually as far out of the sound field of the house speakers as possible. Stage monitors are often set up for system stability, not fidelity.

In genral musican's don't listen to recordings to hear sound quality in the same sense as the rest of us. Their concerns are primarly musical, not sound quality.

 

[Bruce B]

What you also have to take into consideration is that mics used for live situations are totally different that mics used in the studio. "Most" people that sing live use a Shure SM58/57. This is the "standard" live mic used for vocals, guitar cabs and snare drums. While these are also used in the studio for snare drums and guitar cabs (along with a ribbon or 2), vocalist are more often recorded with a large diameter condenser, which has totally different properties than the dynamic Shure mics.

 

[Robh3606]

You're asking the wong people. Singlers don't lhear themselves sing like the rest of us do. There is considerable bone conduction.

Hello Arny

Why is that?? Almost all the DVD's I have clearly show them with custom made in ear phones. I would assume that is what they are using to hear their own vocal feeds. I understand that they don't hear themselves the way we do but all said in done they certainly hear the results of any techniques they chose to use in the playback of their studio work. Looking at things from that perspective who else should I be asking?? Is it all just a little added drama or is it deliberate for their sound. I am not talking strictly sound quality here.

Rob

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm a singer and an audiophile and I've spent a good bit of time in studios behind the mic and at the producer's desk. If I vary the distance between my mouth and my mic on stage (and yes, an SM58 is my vocal mic of choice) it is because I'm really belting out a passage and I don't want to overdrive the mic. If I lean in particularly close, it's because I'm singing a particularly soft passage and I don't want it to get lost. What I hear in the monitors typically doesn't vary that much from the mains, except, perhaps that my own guitar and voice are a bit louder. I can absolutely hear the effect of the proximity of my mouth to the mic in the monitors and understand the effect it is having in the mains.

In the studio, none of the above applies. I keep the distance between mouth and mic relatively stable if I'm the singer; I expect the singer to do the same if I'm producing. And if I didn't expect that, a good engineer would expect it for me. The speculation of audiophiles regarding recording and performance is often pretty amusing.

Tim

 

[Robh3606]

Thanks Tim you just answered my question

Rob

 

[DonH50]

This thread got me thinking. In the live shows I have on DVD I see several of the singers using the microphone distance to effect while they are singing. I don't see too many just keeping it at a fixed distance. The two people that come to my mind where I have noticed this are Peter Gabriel and Jon Anderson. You can tell they are using the distance in a very deliberate way to get the sound they want for a particular phrase. I would assume that in the studio they would do the same?? Your thoughts??

Rob

I think others have already said this, but IME some singers do it for effect (varying dynamics, mostly, and some feel it gives them a more "distance" or "up-front" sound as they move to and fro -- something that we as sound engineers genreally have to fix, naturally). Some singers, many though I hesitate to say "most", tend to lean back when they are really belting it out, and lean closer when they bring the volume down and croon into the mic. And, some have indeed learned to avoid overloading the mic on loud passages, and get above the noise floor on quiet, as was stated above.

In the studio, some singers stick to their "stage presence" and move all over, but most sit/stand where we tell them and sing into the mic without (or less) movement. their audience is the mic in that scenario...

Although I still piddle now and then, it has been years since I did any pro/pro-am recording, live or studio, so take with a block of salt. - Don

 

[DaveyF]

I'm a singer and an audiophile and I've spent a good bit of time in studios behind the mic and at the producer's desk. If I vary the distance between my mouth and my mic on stage (and yes, an SM58 is my vocal mic of choice) it is because I'm really belting out a passage and I don't want to overdrive the mic. If I lean in particularly close, it's because I'm singing a particularly soft passage and I don't want it to get lost. What I hear in the monitors typically doesn't vary that much from the mains, except, perhaps that my own guitar and voice are a bit louder. I can absolutely hear the effect of the proximity of my mouth to the mic in the monitors and understand the effect it is having in the mains.

In the studio, none of the above applies. I keep the distance between mouth and mic relatively stable if I'm the singer; I expect the singer to do the same if I'm producing. And if I didn't expect that, a good engineer would expect it for me. The speculation of audiophiles regarding recording and performance is often pretty amusing.

Tim

Tim, I think that you may be in the minority today with your mike placement. It would appear that most of the current crop of singers seem to prefer the 'mouth on mike--proximity effect' technique.

The problem associated with that and with engineers not pushing the singer back in the mix, is seemingly evident in contemporary vocal albums like 'Adele 21'. I'm fairly certain that this type of sound is what the artist and the engineer is looking for. While it may be impressive on a lower fidelity set up like an ipod or the typical home system, it is, IMHO, fairly unpleasant and unrealistic when you listen on most any high-end system