Raw vs Recorded Vocals

[Slugworth]

Has anyone encountered a situation in which a singer sounds significantly better when recorded compared to their natural singing voice without a mic? If so, what where the differences?

 

[shredd]

Talk about a a can 'o worms. VERY broad subject.
Bottom line - YES: most voices can sound better when recorded well...from a little better, to a LOOOT.
I'd argue that MOST singers sound better recorded than 'natural'.

There's a few people who sing so beautifully that, heard 'live'/un-mic'd, is still beautiful.

But even those...and especially the ones who don't sound so great (yeah, I'm in that bunch) can be made to sound a lot better, when properly recorded.
A decent mic; a good room; proper use of EQ and/or comps'n; judicious use of FX; and even a light touch of auto-tune/pitch correction can all make a big difference.

"What's the difference"? Lotsa things (see above)...I guess I'd venture to say that when listening to someone 'natural' (no mic, recording, processing, etc) is going to give you a better sense of what they actually sound like - the tone, inflection, breathing, pitch control, dynamics. But recording gives you a lot of control over a lot of things.
And I don't haveta tell you that MOST vocal recordings - pretty much everything in the last couple decades - bear practically no resemblance to the singers' natural voice. I was watching a vid someone here posted about doing vocal production in the studio, and it featured a guy who'd engineered a big country-music (I use the term loosely) hit for some woman singer. It was re-DONK-yoo-luss...he took the vocal she sang, copied it about 5 times, treated each one with a dizzying array of eq'g, various FX, etc etc, and mixed them all together...it sounded great when done, but sounded NOT ONE BIT like the woman's voice as it was recorded.

There's my $0.02...

 

[Slugworth]

shredd. Thanks for the reply. I fall in "the ones who don't sound so great" camp too. I can usually keep in key, but my voice isn't going to attract any excitement or interest. I finally finished a song in which I used a click track to help with bass, guitar and drum parts. I feel very good about it's syncopated timing and I intend to have it mastered at a local recording studio. After several attempts it now has a vocal track that sounds as good as I think I can get with the very limited recording gear I have. In saying that I am also considering recording just vocals at that studio for 1) the first time experience of recording anything at a professional studio 2) Hoping that their equipment may add some life to my voice.

If I go that route I have in my mind that I wouldn't want any auto tuning for the integrity of the song. However, it may be what my voice needs to keep it in shape (literally). I've watched a few vids in which vocals get worked over on an editing program. I hear it in a lot of modern pop music too and it sounds like four or five singers synced into one singer. Sounds very artificial, breathy and I would rather sound like crap raw and distinguish my own voice compared to that.

Speaking of programming Randy is Lorde!

 

[shredd]

Pretty kewl!
I'm not one to comment - I have NEVER worked in a pro studio. You would surely get a fine-quality track from a studio's better gear and process...but how well it'll fit in with your existing trx. I'll leave it to the real pro's here to weigh in on how well that will go...

 

[-mjk-]

Has anyone encountered a situation in which a singer sounds significantly better when recorded compared to their natural singing voice without a mic?

No, I haven't. I've heard tracks that were edited where the end result sounded better than what was recorded of course.

If I go that route I have in my mind that I wouldn't want any auto tuning for the integrity of the song.

I hear people say things similar to this but I don't understand the meaning. How would auto-tuning affect the integrity of the song? Are you referring to the continuity or something else?

I've watched a few vids in which vocals get worked over on an editing program. I hear it in a lot of modern pop music too and it sounds like four or five singers synced into one singer. Sounds very artificial, breathy and I would rather sound like crap raw and distinguish my own voice compared to that.

YouTube University is full of videos of people who don't know what they're doing, making how-to videos. You don't have to have a full-on hardtune going on with auto-tuning, any more than you have to have multiple software generated harmonies. It works in degrees.

One of my studio clients is a folk singer and I use Melodyne to very gently touch up his pitch when necessary. It is impossible to detect because it is not a hardtune type correction. All the nuances and glissando style techniques are still there. The end result is very good and perfectly natural (or else I wouldn't use that tool).

The outcome depends upon the competence of the engineer doing the work as much as the quality of the performance. There are far too many incompetent engineers using sophisticated software and hardware solutions to polish turd performances. That being said, if you get stuck, I can most likely touch up a vocal track for you in about an hour or so. It's not that difficult.

 

[Slugworth]

I think I equate auto-tuning with cheating. However, I've watched vids that demonstrate minor use of auto-tune for pitch correction in songs that I would not be aware of otherwise.

 

[shredd]

I think I equate auto-tuning with cheating. However, I've watched vids that demonstrate minor use of auto-tune for pitch correction in songs that I would not be aware of otherwise.

I'd have to agree - as a decidedly "old-school" musician, I always considered a/tune stoopid...not exactly "cheating", but a glaringly cheezy affectation that served as a substitute for actual vocal ability/talent.

That said: among my professional-musician friends is a very talented fellow who's self-produced, a terrific songwriter, very solid git'rist, and has a pretty unusual voice...he mostly concentrates on live performance and "unplugged"/live videos, very low-tech and organic. A REAL musician!
YET: he recently revealed that when he makes "real" recordings (like for an album) he uses a/tune in that very tasteful, minimalist manner that @-mjk- references - just enough to fix variations in dynamics, tiny pitch warbles, etc, that are natural to the human singing voice (unless you're in freekin' Whitney Houston-talent territory). So - his album tracks are near-perfect - but not in a way where th e vox sound fake/processed/overporduced.

BOTTOM LINE: just like MJ says - it's up to the user/engineer using the tools available in a tasteful, effective manner. Which is why the producer and engineer for Cher's "Do You Believe" are now sharing an AirBnB in hell w/Harvey Weinstien, hyttler, and Ted Bundy.

 

[-mjk-]

I think I equate auto-tuning with cheating. However, I've watched vids that demonstrate minor use of auto-tune for pitch correction in songs that I would not be aware of otherwise.

What about chorus on guitar? EQ? Compression? Why draw the line at tuning? Do you crop photos? Do you make adjustments to the color saturation?

It's food for thought.

Basically I agree with you. The field is rife with talentless schmucks that couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. But the vocal processing on a Peter Cetera tune sounds astonishing. Where I have an issue is when people start taking about integrity as if a song with little or no prosessing is considered morally superior somehow (yet sounds like crap). It's all nothing more than art. For me personally, it's business. As you can imagine, as a producer I've had this talk hundreds of times with clients.

In the end, make records and have fun!

 

[-mjk-]

In a few weeks that song I referenced will be released and you can hear it for yourself on all the major outlets. I just enhanced what he sang. I didn't replace it with tones.

 

[Slugworth]

Here's some Cher/T-Pain level of Auto-tune

 

[shredd]

Here's some Cher/T-Pain level of Auto-tune

Freekin' hilarious. Sad thing is: unless used in the aforementioned judicious/tasteful manner, that's what a/tune actually sounds like to me!!!

 

[-mjk-]

The Cher tune was groundbreaking. Anything after that is just pitiful.

 

[Slugworth]

I would imagine every popular pop and rap song these days includes some form of auto-tune in them. I'm not into country music so I can't opine on that. I wouldn't rule it out for myself, and if I did and was asked (by relative or friend) I would feel a bit embarrassed that I did use it. Of course, the person asking would likely have in their mind that I cheated by using auto-tune. lol

 

[shredd]

I would imagine every popular pop and rap song these days includes some form of auto-tune in them

Very likely. As any pro will attest: music in this era is produced with an extraordinarily high-percentage component of technological capabilities (as opposed to the more "organic" methods of yore).
Like with most things, it's impossible to directly compare eras...can you imagine some of today's big stars having to produce what they do now on 1960's or 70's technology?
I think the 'snobbery' comes with the fact that some of those 60's/70's artists managed to put out utterly spectacular, ground-breaking, and timeless music on technology that compares to today's methods like comparing a dial phone to a current-day iPhone.

 

[Arjan P]

Has anyone encountered a situation in which a singer sounds significantly better when recorded compared to their natural singing voice without a mic? If so, what where the differences?

Yes, in my experience a microphone (+preamp) can do real magic on a voice - to a certain degree ofcourse. The right selection of mic can make a harsh sounding voice sound smoother, or another mic could give a more bland voice a little more edge. But it can also work the other way: a really physical singer might profit from using a handmike that is less pleasing to his/her voice than a large condenser would be - just because the performance would suffer from forcing them to stand still behind a fixed mic stand.

Then ofcourse anything that is done after recording the raw voice can make a huge difference, but that is beyond your question. How many singers do we actually encounter without a mic? That would be pretty much exclusive to the personal sphere; singing to a child at home or at the most around a campfire with a guitar.

BTW, I think Autotune or equivalents make vocals either terrible to listen to (I'm thinking about the sometimes extreme and uninspired use in hip-hop for example) or it can be a creative tool. And this not only because one 'doesn't hear it'. Also when it is very well noticeable it can be a great asset to a production - Cher's Believe is such an example IMO, but there are more - also in hip-hop and other electronic music (James Blake for example). Personally, I use VariAudio in Cubase sparingly, not only for tuning BTW, a lot can also be done in the timing department..

 

[Slugworth]

I purchased Shure SM57 and SM58 mics when I purchased the DP008-EX. I didn't have any prior knowledge of mics and mostly went off reviews and history. The SM57 I use mostly for bass and guitar amps and it's a solid mic so far for that purpose. The recorder itself has pretty decent mics and I find myself using them as much or more than the SM58 for vocals. Looking back I should have asked questions at the music store, here or other similar forums prior to purchasing. I might have been better off with a condenser mic for vocals. In part I did buy the 58 due to less or no need for a preamp. I figured I could use my small mixer in place of a preamp if needed.

Even one my favorite singer/songwriters James Petralli is not above using copious amounts of auto-tune. Though thankfully on only a couple songs that I know of.

Hot Thoughts (about internet trolls) https://soundcloud.com/whitedenim/h...d&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing

 

[-mjk-]

There have been articles and videos from producers lamenting the absolute "perfection" of most modern musical productions. Everything is edited so it lines up with the grid. Each note is individually tuned and editing for timing, etc.. It depends on one's definition of perfect.

@Slugworth although there are hardware units, Autotune is typically a DAW plugin and can be adjusted or turned off completely. I consider it just another effect like a chorus on guitar. The cheating mindset (in general) stops people from exploring things that might do good in the end. There was a time when people thought that using digital reverb was cheating too because the DDL created a room that didn't literally exist. Electronic drums were disliked because they were not "real" even though the samples were from real acoustic drums.

At the end of the day, just make a good sounding record. If you know someone is asking a loaded question about the production you can tell them that your productions techniques are a trade secret. All producers have their favorite effects chains and we keep them to ourselves.

Lastly I want to say that on the Forum, you're among friends so if you want to see how something sounds, any one of us would be more than happy to help you out. If you have some tracks that you are curious to see what Autotune would do for them, that can easily be arranged.

 

[shredd]

I purchased Shure SM57 and SM58 mics when I purchased the DP008-EX. I didn't have any prior knowledge of mics and mostly went off reviews and history. The SM57 I use mostly for bass and guitar amps and it's a solid mic so far for that purpose. The recorder itself has pretty decent mics and I find myself using them as much or more than the SM58 for vocals

I'm 100% onboard with this - I can't beLEEV how good the little built-in mic's in my '008 sound!
That said: you an hardly go wrong w/Shure SM's...the '57 is an especially excellent mic. I personally feel the '58 is better for live/handheld use. I sing live with a Sennheiser e865 condenser on a stand, which I think offers the most improvement for my 'meh' singing voice. The e835 dynamic is also excellent.
I typically record vox that I want to sound good w/a stand-mounted LDC. I have my trustly ol' "first real mic" MXL990 (which sounds great but has EQ'ing challenges) and an sE7, which kix but. I've even occasionally used my SDC sE7 for vox, which makes for an interesting sound. I need options to enhance/maximize vox, since my singing voice is akin to a hungover Gilbert Gottfried after a 72-hour substance binge.

There have been articles and videos from producers lamenting the absolute "perfection" of most modern musical productions. Everything is edited so it lines up with the grid. Each note is individually tuned and editing for timing, etc.. It depends on one's definition of perfect.

THIS!!!
"Perfect" is (IMHO) what's WRONG with mewzyk nowadays. It's too "perfect", bland. Even my pro friend uses it to "clean up" his very organic, human style (particularly as it comes to timing, dynamics, even pitch stability, as @-mjk- points out).

By way of example (I'll keep it short):

• The marvelous Rick Beato has pointed out in several of his terrific "What Makes This Song Great" videos how it's the imperfections in timeless/epic recordings - a result of the limitations of early recording technology and human imperfection - is what makes those songs so incredible.
• And in the other corner: there's a great y/tube out there somewhere where the creator made this mashup of sections of a dozen or so of the really huge 'modern-country' hit songs, piecing together sections of them, bouncing from one to the next. They all sound IDENTICAL - same key, same dynamics, same melodies, same inflections, same timing, same EVERYTHING. You literally couldn't tell when you'd gone from one artist to another. Pretty sickening.