What Kind of Mic Pre to use for a Sam Cooke voice?

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by bongo

Sam Cooke died in 1964, so I don' think they would have used a 1073.

Dude, this is GS... don't let a little thing like "historical accuracy" get in the way of 1073 love!!

No hit / great record has EVER been recorded without at least one 1073 being involved!!

Not ever.

Its common knowledge that Robert Johnson was recorded with a U-47 into 1073 into a Chandler TG-1 limiter [not to mention all of the Waves plug-ins that were used extensively by Eddie Kramer in mastering], the world has never looked back.

[imo]

i got a 610(reissue) early on for that exact reason, and unfortunately it doesn't do what its supposed to. I have found uses for it, but to be honest it isn't often used.
check out the soul stirrers mid period recordings. They are pretty primitive, but the combination of the way Sam sang at that point and the way it was captured is pretty powerful.
And come on now..A change is gonna come--have we topped that?
It is rare these days to hear a singer recorded the way they did then. Raphael Sadique(sp?) gets close at times, and he has some pretty good pipes, but its just hard to nail that vibe, even when the singer is spot on

[Steve G]

I'll ask Al Schmitt when I see him again later in the week. He recorded most of the songs you mentioned. As I recall, he told me he used a U47, most likely through the RCA console that was in the room. I never heard him talk about using compressors when he recorded back then, so I would guess just fader rides (or pot rides in this case). All live with the band, very few overdubs.

Steve

[imo]

terrific!
I don't imagine they used compressors, but for those of us not using tape, things like LA2A's overdrive pretty nicely. no substitute, but enjoyable to play towards
ian

[jaffa]

It has to be the mic more than the pre for me. Transparancy - the dirt is part of the sound! Get a U47, with the right voice a mic like this will sound great through any decent pre.

I did an ad for a UK sauce manufacturer who wanted a Sam Cooke 'sound' - most important ingredient (get it?) the voice...an old spring reverb and distortion on the high notes...

Steve

[area51recording]

Originally Posted by vincentvangogo

So how come they didn't all just use Radio Shack mics and save themselves a fortune?

That's not the point and you know it. I know that in a place like Gearslutz it's kind of like spitting in church to say it, but the magic ain't the gear...I could use Sam's mic, preamp, eq, studio, reverb chamber, mixer, producer, maybe even have the same breakfast as he had the day he cut some of that stuff, and I'm still gonna sound like me- and believe you me, NO ONE wants to hear that

[ejsongs]

so is there a mod for the ua 610 reissues to mkae them sound like the original?

ej

[Benjy King]

Originally Posted by Steve G

I'll ask Al Schmitt when I see him again later in the week. He recorded most of the songs you mentioned. As I recall, he told me he used a U47, most likely through the RCA console that was in the room. I never heard him talk about using compressors when he recorded back then, so I would guess just fader rides (or pot rides in this case). All live with the band, very few overdubs.

Steve

FWIW: Al was the Producer on the Sam Cooke records he worked on, including 'Live at the Copa'. He also had dinner with him the night he was killed.

Benjy

[vincentvangogo]

Originally Posted by area51recording

That's not the point and you know it. I know that in a place like Gearslutz it's kind of like spitting in church to say it, but the magic ain't the gear...I could use Sam's mic, preamp, eq, studio, reverb chamber, mixer, producer, maybe even have the same breakfast as he had the day he cut some of that stuff, and I'm still gonna sound like me- and believe you me, NO ONE wants to hear that

A talented artist might sound good through lesser gear, but they won't sound as good. Compare James Brown's (or any soul survivor's) 80's stuff to their 60's recordings and they sound as weak as piss. That's mostly gear.

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by vincentvangogo

A talented artist might sound good through lesser gear, but they won't sound as good. Compare James Brown's (or any soul survivor's) 80's stuff to their 60's recordings and they sound as weak as piss. That's mostly gear.

Ya mean it wouldn't have anything to do with being 20 yrs. older? [which is 36 more in drug years]... is it really only the gear?

[vincentvangogo]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

Ya mean it wouldn't have anything to do with being 20 yrs. older? [which is 36 more in drug years]... is it really only the gear?

Age might just about explain the voice, not the rest of the horror. Don't try and tell me those tinny productions are simply down to mic placement, pur-lease.

[phillysoulman]

Originally Posted by jpeele

I'm doing a little shopping for new gear and wanted to get a few opinions from the folks here at GS.

What is the advantage of having a clean pre or a more colored pre?

I know at the end of the day, it's about the performance. Given you have a legendary singer walk in your studio today, what kind of pre do you use?

1. What advantages would a clean pre have over a colored pre when recording vocals?

2. Do engineers use more than one type on one recording? Maybe a clean pre for the backgrounds and a more colored tone for the lead?

3. Is a more transparent pre better when stacking a lot of background vocals?

4. Is it that the clean pre has more clarity or does it's advantage come in capturing a more accurate source? Perhaps it's to not tamper with the character of the vocalist's tone by not adding any coloration? I don't know.

So, if you had Sam Cooke recording in your studio, would you want a colored sound like the Neve or would you want something transparent like the Grace? For those of you who are not familiar with who Sam Cooke is, some of his recordings are "You Send Me", " A Change is Gonna Come", "Chain Gang", "Cupid" etc.

Maybe you have a different suggestion as far as gear. The specific gear is not really the question. I'm really curious to know more about the method. Colored or Transparent or both? I'm talking vocals only.

Please forgive the the long post.

Sam Cooke died on December 11th,1964,so do your homework and find out what kind of gear was used at the old RCA Studios in L.A.
They more than likely had company designed gear and/or Altec consoles.

[mrbowes]

Sam Cooke...he makes singing seem sooo effortless. What a talent.

What gear for that kind of singer?

I'd start with a nice tube pre with a good amount of gain. Doesn't really matter what brand so much as it's high quality, low noise, and provides a good amount of gain.

I'd try to rent an old RCA Ribbon mic,44/77 and U47/clone.

Rent the most expensive one you can. If you get a chance with a singer like that, have the best gear you can get.

Time to put on some Sam Cooke on vinyl. Cheers

[shmasterer]

Originally Posted by camus

Why hasn't anyone tried to make a "genuine" 610 copy/clone? Too expensive?

FWIW UA had a video with a recording done with an original 610 console. Unfortunately the band was rather lame (sort of limpid easy listening fusion kinda crap) and the results sounded nothing like an old Capitol / United Western Studio 3 recording...

certainly 610 at UW, to my knowledge, not at Capitol. The early Melrose and Vine St. Studios were Langevin and Cinema Engineering.
Ribbons on vox went out shortly after WWII, once the German condenser mics started arriving. I'd bet SC was on something more like a U47 or ELA M251.

sh.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by vincentvangogo

Age might just about explain the voice, not the rest of the horror. Don't try and tell me those tinny productions are simply down to mic placement, pur-lease.

no. they're down to tastes of the day.

[walla]

Originally Posted by Fletcher

Universal Audio makes a unit called the "610" but that unit is MILES AWAY from what the original 610 sounded like [or how it behaved]. If you're happy with the unit under current manufacture, cool. If you think it is an "original" 610, you are WAY off the mark.

Thank you Fletcher, sometimes I think I'm the only one. I wish the UA folks would bump some money from their admittedly awesome marketing campaign back into the boxes they sell.

But back to Sam Cooke: It wouldn't be totally place-and-time accurate, but any external powered condenser (47, 67, et cetera) would work pretty nicely with an Ampex 351 to get you in the gain structure ballpark of those recordings. Using gain reduction sparingly (i.e. primarily as a precaution) was the rule of the day.

And kind of off-topic: Has anyone ever picked up on, or written about, Steve Perry's wish fantasy to be Sam Cooke? Think 'Wheel In The Sky'. Or 'Don't Stop Believin'': 'Hold on to that feeee-lay-ee-aying'; all those vocal ad-libs at the end. Did he ever mention Cooke in interviews or anything?

Sorry to hijack the thread. As you were, everyone.

- Chris

[foldback]

Not to over simplify or start a flame war but a mic pre does not need a tube in it to sound meaty or big.

My API preamps have a very full sound and I like them on vocals. My Grace preamps have a very open and airy sound that is right for natural organic sounds.

A good quality large diaphragm condenser mic, 4 to 12 inches out in front of the singer, into a mic pre along the lines of an API 312 (transformer in, discrete opamp, transformer out), then into a decent fast compressor (1176ish), then direct into the recorder should do it. All the rest is the talent!

This is GS so we can debate the subtleties of different shades of red but the talent is the most important of any of these variables.

[Fletcher]

Originally Posted by foldback

Not to over simplify or start a flame war but a mic pre does not need a tube in it to sound meaty or big.

You'll get no war from me... 100% agreement

My API preamps have a very full sound and I like them on vocals.

Absolutely!!

My Grace preamps have a very open and airy sound that is right for natural organic sounds.

Wow has our mileage varied!!! You should try an NPNG or a Martech or a Hardy or a GML or an AEA sometime.

Peace.

[wxyz]

12AY7A

[RMJAZZ]

Originally Posted by bongo

Sam Cooke died in 1964, so I don' think they would have used a 1073.

In true gearslutz fashion I was being a smart ass......

The fact is, any gear used in that time period is, IMHO, not EVER going to sound similar in 2009. And therefore, who cares what exact pre was used! You aren't going to find one anyway. Especially the Bill Putnam stuff.......

The ONLY thing to do, and yes this is IMHO, is find what works for you and your client. With the Sam Cooke style, a U47 (it worked for Ray and Frank) personality mic would be cool, but so might one of the 251 flavors. But the only way to find out is to rent/borrow a trunk of mics and shoot em out.

I wish more folks would......wait for it.....Listen, what a concept!

I'm not saying it isn't cool to research historical data, but more folks should be saying that it is just that....data.

Much luck,
Rob

[lbruun]

Originally Posted by Steve G

I'll ask Al Schmitt when I see him again later in the week. He recorded most of the songs you mentioned. As I recall, he told me he used a U47, most likely through the RCA console that was in the room. I never heard him talk about using compressors when he recorded back then, so I would guess just fader rides (or pot rides in this case). All live with the band, very few overdubs.

Steve

You could ask him also which r2r model and tape formulation was used while tracking/mixing. How many generations of overdubs and mixdowns?

I'm pretty sure tube pres combined with world class signals hitting to the analog tape machine affect Cooke's vocal sound more than the possible compressors used.

[wwittman]

other than as an exercise or for a period film or similar... why would you WANT to make a recording that sounded like it was made in 1960?, even if you could


do you imagine Sam Cooke today would want that?

Would Al Schmidt bring in the RCA desk?
I doubt it

[lbruun]

Originally Posted by wwittman

other than as an exercise or for a period film or similar... why would you WANT to make a recording that sounded like it was made in 1960?, even if you could

Because all the tones are equally 'legit' when it comes to paint your canvas in a desired way.

Why is it that quite a many professionals photographers still use black and white film with vintage cameras, when we've had color film technology and digital realm around us for a quite a long time..?

And why is the fashion industry continuously re-creating the vogues of different eras?

That's insane, right?

[chuck anderson]

Originally Posted by shmasterer

certainly 610 at UW, to my knowledge, not at Capitol. The early Melrose and Vine St. Studios were Langevin and Cinema Engineering.
Ribbons on vox went out shortly after WWII, once the German condenser mics started arriving. I'd bet SC was on something more like a U47 or ELA M251.

sh.

Ribbons on vocals continued long after. Nearly all of Al Green's hits were recorded with an RCA 77.
On page 142 of Michael Och's Rock Archives there's a photo of Sam Cooke singing into a RCA 77.