Duncan Stitt

Expanding on my earlier comment, mics come in 3 basic flavors: Flat response, mid-scooped response, and mid-forward response. This is an oversimplification, but there's a technical explanation. Condensor mics either have a center-terminated capsule or an edge-terminated capsule. A center-terminated capsule pushes the mids, and edge-terminated capsule scoops the mids. Neumanns are center-terminated, 414s are edge-terminated. You can see the difference if you compare frequency response graphs, which you can find on the Recordinghacks.com mic database page. To generalize (again) a mid-scooped voice like Rod Stewart. (extreme example) would benefit from a mid-forward mic like a Neumann or Shure SM7b. A honky or nasal singer like the guy from Queen might benefit from a mid-scooped mic like a 414. That's why reputable recording studios have a collection of mics to choose from. They'll do a mic shootout at the beginning of the recording process to determine which mic sounds best on the singer. The thing is, the actual frequency response of the same mic model can vary from one mic to the next, with peaks and valleys that might be a couple of DB different than the published response graph. If one of these little peaks or valleys coincides with a peak or valley in response in the singers voice, it can sound magic - or terrible. That's why you hear about people complaining they got a bad copy of a U87, for example. Getting into the minutiae, the high frequency peak can vary from mic model to mic model. If the sibilance range of your singer is in the 7k range, a mic with a peak at 7k is going to magnify sibilance. An example from a few years ago was a lady singer who was getting too much sibilance on my Gefell MT71s (same capsule as the Gefell 930, but different electronics and housing.) She said, in another studio, she was using a Shure KSM44 with no sibilance issues. I looked up response graphs for both mics and saw a peak at 7k on the Gefell, and a dip at 7k on the Shure. I sold the Gefell , even though it sounded awesome on acoustic guitars. Musical context is important. Some singers might use a mid-scooped mic on one song and a mid-forward mic on another song, depending on how the voice is interacting with the musical accompaniment. For recording instruments, a bass roll off switch on the mic can be crucial. The other day, I wanted a sort of warm sound for a sloppily strummed acoustic guitar, where I wanted to increase the sound of the body and decrease the string sound. I put up a AT4047 which is known for its big low mids and reduced high end. No matter where I put it, I was getting too much low end. I changed to a 414ULS (the flatter response model of 414s) with a foam pop filter to reduce highs, and the 2-position bass roll off switch set to 150hz and got the sound I was looking for. In an ideal world, we EQ our tracks by choosing the right mic, since the EQ curve of the mic is baked into the recording. Of course we can fiddle with EQ to change the sound in the mix, but we can't replicate the sound of a different mic with EQ alone. On the other hand, some companies are promoting their mic modeling system where you buy a certain mic and then run it through their software to emulate the mic of your choice. I have no experience in that realm, I have a bunch of mics instead.

414s come in two basic flavors: the ULS models are flatter, the XLII/XLS models are brighter. All 414s have a bit of a dip in response in the 1k-2k range, which would contrast nicely with your other mics, which are all midrange-heavy, to different degrees. One big advantage of the 414s is their four-position multi-pattern switch, which can be helpful if you need more isolation. I often use one 414 on vocals and another on guitar for a live guitar/vocal recording, with both set to hypercardioid mode. If you aim the vocal mic up and the guitar mic down, you can get almost complete isolation on the vocal, and good isolation on the guitar. You might want to get a foam pop filter, so if the XLII is too bright, you can take the edge off.

T Boog - my fave piano + acoustic guitar track in a band setting is 'Time Flies Either Way' by DAWES, from the 'Passwords' album. My understanding is that they hired a new keyboard player for that album. He's very tasty, plus he puts pads under virtually every song, which sort of makes their music float on a pillow of sound. And the mix is very neutral, not all bright and tinnny. Notice in this mix, they put one acoustic guitar in the center and let the piano take the stereo spread. Works great on this song, but that doesn't mean it would work on yours. My go-to piano for a busy mix is the Session Piano in the Roland JV1010. it's very blah by itself, but fits into a mix better than any of my "better" piano VIs. I dread the day when that box finally dies.

Yeah, I get triggered by "free music", as if Napster just happened. My fault. Ha ha. After resisting streaming services for years, I finally signed up for Apple Music because they pay more per-listen to the creators than the other streaming services. Even then, if I find an artist I like, I buy their CD or download, ideally through their website or Bandcamp page so the grifters who run the music business get less of a cut. Also, I want to see the credits. It amazes me that songwriters are so often left anonymous on streaming sites. Curious what the instrumentation is on your cello/piano track. The Branden & James duo might have something similar, although I'm not a fan of the mix of the song I linked. I figured, if their music was similar to yours, you could delve into their catalogue to find something better. Lyle Lovett has used cello in his productions, including with his 'Large Band' that has a piano player. They've also done some duo tracks on YouTube with guitar/vocal/cello. I just finished a folky project with guitars, vocals, cello and bass, although in a couple of songs, we turned off the bass to let the cello take it. It all depends on the arrangement. If the cello is playing distinct lines and the bass is more of a mushy pulse under the track, they can coexist. It also depends on how you mic'd the cello. If it's really thick, with a lot of low end, of course the bass is going to fight with it. If it's bright and airy ala the B&J track, it's easier to include a bass track. Mixing is all about compromises. i'll solo the bass and piano tracks together and then sweep a parametric EQ in boost mode to find a frequency range the "blooms". I'll then cut that range in either the piano or bass so they're not competing. I'll also alter the piano part to leave room for another instrument, but I generally record midi piano so it's easy to edit parts while mixing. With midi piano, you can reduce the velocity of problem notes so they're softer but still there, or you can delete them entirely. With a real piano, you can automate volume, but ducking individual notes in a chord is not going to work. Many mix engineers will tell you the key is volume automation. They use it everywhere. Keep in mind, mixing is highly subjective. John Mayer went through three A-list mixers before he found the sound he wanted for the Continuum album, and these were all top tier mixing engineers.

"Time to lighten up a bit Duncan. The material he is looking for can be found for free anyway. This is not the 'piracy' that is causing the losses. Better to concentrate on other major offenses." Free music on the internet is exactly why the music business collapsed. Prior to Napster, musicians and songwriters could make a good living from mechanical royalties. Today, they have to drive for Uber. I agree that streaming services are only adding to the problem, but the problem originated with free music on the internet, and as long as stealing music remains acceptable in the public eye, the creators will continue to suffer. As creators ourselves, it's in our best interests to discourage music piracy, not condone it. For the OP: here's a national act based on piano, cello and voice: https://www.brandenjames.com/music?pgid=ktq4ifr3-c08ea239-dd22-4d4a-aa72-1b89d2bda23a

To clarify, you want to use someone else's work as a learning tool to make your own work sound better, but you don't want to pay for it? This is the attitude that's killing the music business - the very same business we aspire to be a part of. A couple of other music-related forums I've frequented over the years would have flagged this thread for advocating for music piracy, but I'm old and, obviously, times have changed.

When we're children, everything is free. Then we grow up.

Some say avoiding food from the nightshade family helps to minimize inflammation. (Potatoes, tomatoes, peppers.) Top tier athletes like Tom Brady avoid that food group entirely - as do I. Unfortunately, I didn't become aware of the link between nightshades and arthritis until after I turned 65, but I can still work my hands just fine, unlike my Mom, who could no longer play piano when she got to my age due to arthritis.

Not a solution but a possible workaround. Create a new CbB project with the midi file for the piano, set to the tempo he used. Import the piano audio track and then mess around with the tempo till the audio track lines up with the midi track. (I've found, with midi, sometimes if one person's DAW was set at 120, I have to set mine at 199.96 or 120.03 to get everything aligned.) After you've got your audio and midi aligned, import your rough mix audio track, adjust your new piano sound to fit into that mix, and then render a new piano audio track and import it into your original project.

More on proofing the mix - I try to set the balance between vocal and drums/bass first, and then bring in the other instruments. At the end of the process, when I think I'm finished, I turn off all the instruments except bass/drums and vocal to make sure the balance between vocal and bass/drums hasn't gotten skewed. Virtually every time I get to that stage, I have to bring the vocal down a touch, along with the instruments that are competing with it, so I don't lose the power of the rhythm section. Another trick is to listen to the mix from a different room. This can reveal volume balance relationships that are disguised when you're right in front of the speakers hearing the highs that give everything more presence.

Pro mixers work at a very low volume with nearfield monitors most of the time, turning it up now and then to check bass. They do this to keep their ears fresh. At higher volumes, it doesn't take long for our hearing to shift, so that, by the end of the day, we're adding way too much high end to everything. Pro mixers can't afford to do that. I would use the headphones to check for details - occasionally - but not to mix for extended periods of time. Just because they're headphones doesn't mean you're going to avoid hearing damage by using them. Quite the contrary. I don't recall the exact numbers, but they say a significant percentage of young people these days already have permanent hearing damage due to listening. to loud music on headphones or airpods. To get used to working at a lower volume, try comparing your mix to a mix from a commercial CD you like the sound of. You'd want to import the CD mix into your project so you could do an A/B. comparison while you're working. It's just a matter of retraining yourself so you can work at lower volumes. Higher volumes cause hearing damage, and hearing damage is permanent.

I have Synthfont working, but I have to assign each track to it, rather than opening a file and having all midi channels going to Synthfont. How do I change the default midi player from TTS-1 to Synthfont VST? In preferences, the MIDI Devices window is empty, except for 'friendly name'. (I'm not inputing midi, just playing midi files.) In the Instruments window, I see a list on the right, including "SynthFont device", but the output box on the left is blank with no way to assign channels to SynthFont device on the right.

Thanks for the heads up. Sounds promising, or at least it did till your update at the end. Anytime a piece of software is too good to be true, it's highly likely it is too good to be true. Ha ha So... I downloaded VST Synthfont and chose the default installation folder 'VST instruments,' I believe. Cakewalk can't find it, even after a restart, and then going into the utilities-cakewalk plug in manager and rescanning for VSTs. Did the default downloader put it in the wrong place? I'm not a Windows guy, and I'm old, which makes this a headache-inducing experience. I'm on Windows 11. I think I have the latest version of cakewalk, which I had to download last week in order for the program to run. (I hadn't turned it on in a month or so.) TTS-1 is still there, but I prefer the snare sound of the VST Synthfont instruments in your YT video. ETA: putting Synthfont in the right folder worked.

I've got three in my studio. They're comfy and sound flat-ish, as in no hyped lows and highs.

I was imagining a scenario similar to my old system where Cakewalk was sending midi to an external sound module. I even bought a Sonority V3 hardware midi sound module for that purpose, but discovered it doesn't respond to GM patch changes. I was thinking that avoiding a VST instrument loading with every song might increase stability, but if Synthology Standalone doesn't work that way, I'll give the VST a try. I'll definitely be rendering all my songs to audio at some point, but there's going to be a transition period where I'll be tweaking my sequences to accommodate the correct tempos for dancers, and the correct keys to match the voices of the singers. Thanks for your expertise. Your videos are great.

After watching your TTS1 alternatives video, I'm wondering how does workflow differ between using Synthfont VST versus Synthfont Standalone? Would one or the other be better when using the Playlist?

I may end up using wav files. 20-some years ago I was running the Cakewalk playlist into a Korg 05RW for a 30 minute can can show, two shows a night, with listening and dance music in between. After each song ended in the can can show, a vamp would play automatically, with me waiting for the spoken cue from the singer to hit the 'N' button to jump to the the next song. In some cases, she'd change the song selection (I could tell by her spoken intro) and I'd have to scroll down the playlist to find the song, cue it up in the list, play it, and then, while it's playing, scroll back up to where I was before in the playlist. It was all very seamless. These days I'm just looking to get a dance band duo back together, but I like the playlist function because I can choose songs on the fly, rather than being stuck with a song order in a list. As a keyboard player, I can scroll to pick the next song while the current one is playing, using the 'up' or 'down' arrows and the 'enter' key on the laptop. The main reason to use midi files is the ability to change keys. I sing everything one or two steps below the original key. If I have a guest singer or guest duo partner, I need the capability to transpose songs into their key, and I need to be able to turn off a guitar in the sequence if the guest is a guitar player. For my assisted living solo gigs, I have mp3s in Set List Maker on an iPad. I suspect I'll back up all my duo songs as mp3s in the iPad, but I prefer working from the Cakewalk playlist. In all my years using a laptop on the gig - mid-90s through early 2000s - I never had a glitch in Cakewalk, but that was then and this is now. We didn't have to reauthorize software back then, we paid for it and used it indefinitely. I miss those days. (BTW, my Toshiba Win 98 laptop that I hadn't turned on since the early 2000s started up no problem last month, and I was able to take it to a local shop and have them transfer all my old midi files and wrk files to a usb stick. That was awesome!) I was thinking of getting a GM VI from the Roland Cloud, but their JV1080 VI is $125 and overkill for me. I'd get the $69 Roland Sound Canvas, but you mentioned it's DX based, which sounded like it could be a problem? Plus, I don't see a panning option in their GUI. It appears to be hidden behind an 'edit' button. I found several GM VIs from Vee Keys for either $75 or $25. I might try one of those. Thanks again for your responses.

John Vere - Thanks for your reply to the other thread today... I watched your video about GM synth alternatives a while back, but none of the other options seemed to match the capabilities and user-friendly GUI of TTS1. I want the capability to pan instruments via the GUI, rather than via midi commands embedded in the midi file (assuming it would remember the panning for the next time I open the file.) This would save me a lot of busy work getting the midi files ready on my Mac before moving them to the PC. (I'm using my old Roland JV1010 for GM midi on the Mac, but don't plan on bringing it to the gig.) Any suggestions? All I need is basic instruments. - bass/drums/acoustic guitar/strings for cover band gigs in the C&W and classic rock genres. I keep my backing tracks stripped down so they don't sound like karaoke.

I'm new to CbB, after using it for years in the late 90s-early 2000s for one-man-band gigs. To clarify, will I get a deadline warning to reauthorize, rather than a sudden refusal to open? I've been concerned about getting to the gig, turning on the laptop, and being unable to open CbB. I'd be happy to do an outright purchase of Sonar so I can avoid such headaches, (assuming it has the same playlist function, and can use the current version of TTS ) but I'm wary of using a beta version on the gig.

Could you elaborate on the "borrowed time" thing? I just got CbB maybe a month ago in order to use their playlist function on live gigs. (I used to use it in the 90s-early 2000s.) Since I'm still tweaking midi files on the Mac and haven't yet moved them to CbB, would I be better off buying the new Sonar, assuming it also has the playlist function? I'd hate to spend hours and hours setting up files in CbB with TT1, only to have to set them up over again with a different midi sound engine when Cakewalk no longer opens.

Alan Bachman - the OP mentioned his favorite mic was the Stellar CM5, which is a C12 style of mic. And he said he doesn't like his 87 clone, which leads me to believe any mic with a lot of low mids - like a 47 or 67 - might not be what he's looking for. I agree Tony Joe White might use a beefy mic, but I think the OP was using those artists as examples of his repertoire, not the sound he was looking for. For harsh singers in rock music, I keep going back to my SM7b, but I cheat a little, using the Cathedral Pipes phantom powered booster and running it through a Tonelux MP5a 500 series preamp with the "tilt EQ" boosting the highs by 1 db. I used to use a Phoenix Audio preamp, which was a truly magical combination with the SM7b, but it's cutting out on me, even after replacing the stepped gain pot. The unit is so old, no one in Phoenix Audio's tech department has even seen one. If I wasn't so near retirement (past retirement, actually) I'd get their 500 series version.

Good info PF. If you favor C12 style, the Lewitt frequency response graph is virtually flat till about 10k, where there is a lift through about 15k. The lift on a C12 starts at 5k and tapers off after 12k or so. That would make the Lewitt darker than a C12 style mic, (theoretically) but the Lewitt would have more air. If you could EQ in the 5k you need to emulate the C12 sound, the Lewitt might work, but ideally, we get our sound without having to EQ the mic. If Lewitt is like other boutique mic companies, they may make a C12 style tube mic. ADK makes a nice C12 style mic, the Vienna, but I don't know the cost of their tube version. Their FET version gets rave reviews. I've had a Vienna IIau FET mic for years now. It sounds much better than the C12 style Peluso capsule I put in my modded Apex 460 tube mic. Sibilance issues on the Peluso C12 inspired me to send the mic back for a RK7 capsule swap. These days, I use the Apex on bright sources that need less highs. I'm not surprised you don't like the Warm audio 87 style mic. 87s are just too thick sounding for me. When I was researching affordable tube mics recently, I saw a comment about the Warm Audio 251 style tube mic sounding darker than an ADK Cremona fet, which is another 251 style mic. Perhaps they're taking "warm" too far? Ha ha.

Pathfinder - what sort of music are you doing? Do you need a bright mic to cut through a busy mix, or a beefy mic to feature a big, warm vocal in a sparse mix? What sort of voice to you have? Bassy, midrangey, dull, bright, thin, thick, issues with sibilance? What vocal mics have you used in the past, and what sort of EQ tweaks did you need to do to get them to sound good? Do you want a mic with a lot of air on top (10k-15k) or do you want a more natural sound? Do you sing loud? If you do, that could limit which mics would work for you, since some LDC (tube or non-tube) mics can't handle singers who project across the room like an opera singer or broadway singer or a rock music screamer. These are all factors that will help determine what sort of mic might sound good on your voice. If random people on the internet tell you they like the mic, that tells you nothing about whether or not it will work for your recording scenarios. The only way to find that out is to plug it in and record with it. Alternatively, if you could find a mic shootout on YouTube featuring a mic you've used before next to the Lewitt, that would at least give you more information about whether or not the Lewitt might be a good candidate for you. Keep in mind, tube mics should be turned on a half hour before recording to let the tube stabilize. 5 minutes would do in a pinch, but the sound could still fluctuate, meaning if you punch in 20 minutes later, it might not match the earlier take. Also, tube mics are fragile. They recommend not jarring the mic when the tube is hot, since it could break the filament. And lastly, be aware of confirmation bias. If you pay $1200 for the Lewitt, you're automatically going to like it. That feeling might change over time, so put it through its paces before the return window expires. Have fun!

Expanding on my earlier comment, here is a "learning experience" situation I went through a while back. A lady singer came in my studio and I put up a Gefell MT71, which is a highly regarded LDC mic (not tube) descendent from the Neumann line. I had just purchased it used and had high hopes, since it was known to be a substitute for the industry standard Neumann U87. Unfortunately, the Gefell was giving us serious sibilance issues. She had some tracks from a previous recording done in another studio. Her vocal sounded great. No sibilance whatsoever. She said the mic they used was a Shure KSM44 LDC (not tube.) I googled both mics and looked at the frequency response curves. The Geffell had a peak at around 7k. The Shure had a dip in that range. The Gefell was maybe twice the price of the Shure, but it was a bad choice for that particular singer. The general rule is to use a dark mic on a bright source, and a bright mic on a dark source, but it's subjective. You won't know until you record with it and see how it sits in a mix. It might sound fabulous soloed, but disappear in a mix, or it might sound tinny soloed but cut through a mix perfectly. It also might depend on the context. For a more exposed vocal, a warmer mic might sound better than the brighter mic that cuts through a busy mix. As long as you have a return policy with whatever mic you get, you should be okay. I have three budget tube mics at the moment, the Lauten 320, a Stellar CM6, and a modded Apex 460 with a RK7 capsule. They all sound different. The Apex is dark and beefy, the Steller is more like a U87 but with less low end, and the Lauten is more of a flat response, but with a crispy high end. I can get sibilance from the latter two, so it's tricky. Originally, the Apex 460 had a Peluso C12 style capsule, but dealing with sibilance was never ending. I ended up sending it back for the RK7 capsule replacement. If you're into soldering, you can get DIY kits from microphone parts dot com, with parts tailored to whatever sort of sound you're looking for.

See if you can find some "shootout" videos on Youtube. Just like all mics, tube mics come in many flavors. Some are brighter than others. Depending on your voice, the "shape" of the response curve can flatter a voice, or the opposite. RecordingHacks dot com has a microphone database with short reviews on mics, and in most cases, a frequency response curve. If you find yourself boosting - or cutting - a certain frequency range when EQing your vocal, you'd look for a mic with a frequency response curve would accomplish your EQ corrections without having to reach for the EQ controls in the mixer. I just got a used Lauten 320 tube mic. It has a fairly flat (natural) response curve until you get to the high end, where a crisp edge is added. This can be a problem when running the mic through a compressor, resulting in hashy Ss. Tube mics do have some built in compression due to the tube circuit. That's part of why singers like them so much, but if you get hashy Ss before you use your compressor plugin (or hardware compressor) you're SOL. In an untreated room, a dynamic mic would be a better choice. Running an SM7b through a $100 Cathedral Pipes phantom powered booster can be a nice combination. Plus, dynamic mics can handle a loud singer where a tube mic might break up due to being overloaded.