Vocal sounds across a record. . .

[justinf]

How does everyone feel philosophically about using the same vocal across a record? I'm not really talking about effects or dynamic processing, but rather mic and preamp choices. I had a big discussion this weekend about this and was surprised at the different opinions

I've personally never really stayed with one sound for an entire record, and many recordings that I love do the same. But, a few friends that I would consider free-thinking and musically creative, and respect quite a bit all, prefer to find the "right" mic and stick with it.

Does it bother you guys to clearly hear different colors from track to track when you listen to a new record? Have you ever cared a bit? Just curious.

[midiot]

I think some people find what works and stick to it. However, I think different mics sound better with some vocals than with others. So it's good to experiment. Even for certain songs, it might be good to experiment. Instead of using that tubed LDC with the Tube Tech, try an SM58 with a V76. It all depends.

[Dr. Sausage]

Whatever works for you. An album can be great with vocals being the same, and some with vocals being completely different.

[pedrohead]

for me it's a lot like when i'm recording guitars...it just depends on the type of music.

if it's hardcore/punk, i may plug the SG into the rectifier and not move a knob the whole record. same way, the singer's on the sm7 and the GR MP2NV

but if it's a more varied style of music, i really like to mix and match, not only with mics, but pres, panning, reverb, echo, effects.

[French Movie Theme]

Well, generally I don't use the same stuff for vocals on every track of a record, but sometimes I will with other instruments. I'm working on an album right now where there are about 7 songs where piano is the main instrument, and on 6 of them we didn't touch the mics. On 7 I added another mic. two times with the same mic. Different mics on every acoustic, etc. Having said that, almost everything else on the record didn't get tracked with the same stuff. I think using the same stuff can help the album have a certain flow, but EVERY instrument shouldn't be tracked the same way across a record, I don't think.

[GLEA]

The same of anything across a record is a big complaint I have about lots of modern records. Every song should be considered a different creation. I got so many cds from hopeful bands that are just monolithic, and I mean in the worst way. Same tempo, same drum sound, same guitar tone, same snare reverb, same vocal sound.

You have to make the album flow and keep offering up subtle or dramatic surprises.

So many things I hear these days are just tiring to the ears.

If you have more than one mic and one pre, set them up and just stick a different one in front of the singer to see what happens.

The other day, I got tired of always singing into the 4033, so I put up a 58 and did my vocal double through that.

[RebSeth]

The same of anything across a record is a big complaint I have about lots of modern records. Every song should be considered a different creation. I got so many cds from hopeful bands that are just monolithic, and I mean in the worst way. Same tempo, same drum sound, same guitar tone, same snare reverb, same vocal sound.

You have to make the album flow and keep offering up subtle or dramatic surprises.

So many things I hear these days are just tiring to the ears.

I agree that repetition is boring, but- don't we master an album so that all
the songs sound "the same" ? Aren't we striving for some sort of cohesiveness between the songs so it sounds like an "album"?
My favorite records are all records that sound like one vision- one peice of art. To me Dylan's 'Blood On The Tracks' is a great example of that.

I think it is a delicate balance- you don't want to be boring but you also want the record to sound like a "record," not some compilation.

[midiot]

The same of anything across a record is a big complaint I have about lots of modern records. Every song should be considered a different creation. I got so many cds from hopeful bands that are just monolithic, and I mean in the worst way. Same tempo, same drum sound, same guitar tone, same snare reverb, same vocal sound.

You have to make the album flow and keep offering up subtle or dramatic surprises.

So many things I hear these days are just tiring to the ears.

I agree that repetition is boring, but- don't we master an album so that all
the songs sound "the same" ? Aren't we striving for some sort of cohesiveness between the songs so it sounds like an "album"?
My favorite records are all records that sound like one vision- one peice of art. To me Dylan's 'Blood On The Tracks' is a great example of that.

I think it is a delicate balance- you don't want to be boring but you also want the record to sound like a "record," not some compilation.

I dont think mastering is actually making it all "sound the same". It's more of a balance of the recordings, volume wise, eq wise, etc...

How would you feel if you put in a brand new disc and when the second track came up, it had a considerable increase in dB? To the point of leaving a ringing in your ears. To me, thats one instance where mastering comes into play.

[justinf]

I really enjoy diverse sounds across one record, not limited to vocals by any means. It just seems like I have a lot of clients/friends/etc who want the "one best" approach.

Anyone prefer the "one chain" approach for aesthetic reasons?

[thethingwiththestuff]

one of the most important parts of mastering is making all the songs sound more alike, such as applying one EQ curve to every song. or whatever.

[cgarges]

I like the one-chain approach when the client is on a tight budget and/or has to work quickly. In those cases, I'll usually try out a few mics during the beginning of the first vocal session and take notes. Then for the rest of the vocal sessions, that's my starting point. If something is blatantly wrong for a particular song or on a particular day, I'll change it, but otherwise, I try to give the tracks a bit of individuality in the mix rather than during the tracking. I'm assuming you mean traditional lead vocals. Background vocals or "effect" vocals usually get a totally different approach.

Two albums I'm working on now have used a variety of lead vocal mics on the same guys.

This wasn't Jay, was it? Oh, no, I figured it out...

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[RebSeth]

How would you feel if you put in a brand new disc and when the second track came up, it had a considerable increase in dB? To the point of leaving a ringing in your ears. To me, thats one instance where mastering comes into play.

Mastering is much more than dB level. A smooth transition from one track to the next is more than just volume. You're looking at the global EQ.

Careful attention to mastering is especially important if you have diff. drummers on the same record for instance.

You want the songs to "match."

[midiot]

How would you feel if you put in a brand new disc and when the second track came up, it had a considerable increase in dB? To the point of leaving a ringing in your ears. To me, thats one instance where mastering comes into play.

Mastering is much more than dB level. A smooth transition from one track to the next is more than just volume. You're looking at the global EQ.

Careful attention to mastering is especially important if you have diff. drummers on the same record for instance.

You want the songs to "match."

right. I thought i made it clear I was giving one example. sorry.

[cgarges]

Hey RebSeth, check this out:

http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=112

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

[Telecastr]

you have to take everthing a song at a time, but still tie it all together somehow. as far as vocals go. on the last album i recorded, i tried 8 different vocal mics on the singer. we ended up using a 57 for about 70% of the album and a Peluso 22 251 for the other 30%. th mics don't really sound anything alike. for me, it just depended on what was needed for that song. same thing with the elec guitars. i had so many different combos going between different amps, pedals, mics, and pres, i couldn't remember what i used on what had i not written it down. one thing that was the same on those tracks, however, was the guitar. i tried to get him to use some different guitars too but he refused. it wasn't a bad thing though. it helped bring some cohesiveness to the sounds. they didn't all sound the same but they shared some common characteristics. then there was piano...one song i used a mono setup, the other was a larger than life M/S setup. 95% of the acoustic guitars were the same thing. drums and bass were all the same. that's what worked for this album, who knows about the next one. i think you just have to balance it out between changing too much or too little.