Vintage vocal sound, what makes the consonants "pop"?

[ToneRanger]

Been listening to some of my favourite records and wondering about the vocal sounds, 'cause there seems to be a certain quality about the consonants with certain records. I'm talking about Simon & Garfunkel, some CSN (namely the song 4+20), Colin Blunstone solo albums (the Zombies singer), some Pink Floyd..

They all have this very very cool delicate thing happening with consonants. What could this be? Mic, preamp, compressor, tape? All different singers.. Could it eq, boosted in the high/high mids, 'cause there's also quite often some sibilance too..

I remember seeing a thread about this some time ago, but couldn't find it no matter how hard I tried. Please, someone help me.. If it's the mic, what mic would do this "trick"?

Ok, chime in!

[Kiwiburger]

Is it the gorgeous plate and real echo chambers that you are picking up on? Classic Simon and Garfunkle and Pink Floyd had amazing reverb. That was before the Lexicon digital overdose days, which has more of a fake flavour, and then after that people pretty much got really shy about using reverb so obviously.

Also, the studios were those records were made were the cream of the golden era of recording - the stuff of legends.

[Empire Prod]

Originally Posted by ToneRanger

They all have this very very cool delicate thing happening with consonants.

Can you be little more specific? I would tend to think it's tape you are hearing, but compression emphasises consonants as well, so that is also a possibility.

[ToneRanger]

Kiwiburger,
yes I've been thinking it could be the echo chambers/plates.. But still, I think there might be something going on before that reacts to those consonants.

Empire Prod,
I don't know how to be more specific I think you'll know the sound when you hear it.. The consonants just somehow "pop".. Might be tape, but then again I almost exclusively listen to old records (ie always tape involved) and only certian ones pop. Anybody know what mices S&G used for the most part? The console, signal chain etc?

Some obvious examples of the "popping":
Simon & Garfunkel:
Bridge Over Troubled Water
Frank Lloyd Wright

Crosby, Stills & Nash:
4+20

Anyway, I really love this vocal quality and would love to have it.. Just don't know if it's possible working with a DAW.

[vernier]

I'm not hearing what you're describing, at least on those songs, but anyway:

Simon & Garfunkel and CSN&Y recorded on different gear:

Columbia's console was tube
Heider's was transistor, but it was the better sounding board, before API version

As for limiters, Columbia had UA tube ..Heider had 1176

Both studios used Pultec eq, Ampex multitrack, and Neuman mics (Simon & Garfunkel sang thru 47).

[vintagelove]

Better diction? from better singers?

[Sigma]

Originally Posted by charlesaustin

Better diction? from better singers?

most likely..they had better mic technique back then too..singers knew how to "work " the mic..a lost art today

[r0ck1r0ck2]

indeed, Paul Simon was a professional threw and threw.

[RichS]

Originally Posted by charlesaustin

Better diction? from better singers?

Yup!

[Stiff]

Don't know about those particular artists or songs. How old are the songs? I often skip the compression on vocals which gives me a more vintage vibe. But then again, I like it old and gritty...

[johnbohn]

I have a singer that I work with and she has exactly what you're talking about. Her consonants pop. I'd like to say it's me but I'm convinced it's all her. It's just how she sings. The chain I typically use for her is a Korby Kat-4 with the C12 capsule into an API 3124+ into a CL1B into a Millenia NSEQ-2, but like I said, I think it's her.

[ToneRanger]

Originally Posted by charlesaustin

Better diction? from better singers?

Well, that might be a factor, but I wouldn't jump into conclusions..

You know, hell of a lot singers from exactly the same era that don't have the "effect" I'm describing, who really can't be outsung. David Crosby, Paul McCartney, John Lennon, etc etc. And Stephen Stills sounds only like that on 4+20 as far as I can remember.. Just listened to Stills first solo album, and the "diction" doesn't sound like that on any of the tracks.

I know, I know, it's always the singer in the first place, but there is obviously something happening in the recording chain here IMO.

And I think I'm not the only one who hears this. We were listening to some old stuff with my bands bass player the other day, who isn't technically minded at all, actually some S&G stuff.. Well, the first thing the guy says "isn't it really cool how on some of these old records the consonants sound so wet and they "pop" in a really cool way".. Just saying...

Vernier, you know what mics CSN used? I've heard U47 and U67...
Maybe the Pultec EQ could be the ticket? Hi-boost with the Pultec? I know I can't make myself or anyone I know sound like Art G with these tricks, but am just wondering about the cool vocal quality on some of my favourite records...

[ToneRanger]

Originally Posted by r0ck1r0ck2

indeed, Paul Simon was a professional threw and threw.

Well, the songs I referred to are actually mainly sung by Art But then again, when Paul sings, there is the same quality with the popping I hear.. I guess it must be the eq, 'cause they are pretty sizzly.

Stiff,
most of the stuff I'm referring to is recorded in '69.

[r0ck1r0ck2]

fine, those two played together since they were 14 or so.

and if Art did the singing and wasn't involved in the brill building, Paul was and, no doubt influenced the recording none the less.

again.. think of the 60's recording Industry.
think of the Professionals.

then realize that Simon+Garfunkel were deeply entrenched in that scene.

that said.. they recorded at Capitol ****ing Records.