Johnbee58
I don't use compressors.  I tried many of them.  I don't have much luck with them, especially on vocals, but that might be because I don't know what the hell I'm doing with them.  It doesn't seem to me that it should be as hard as it is to get a clean sound...

 
It's not that easy to use compression the right way before you learn how to listen properly what they should bring to the sound. Give yourself the right amount of time watching some video lessons on how to use compression, even the free ones on youtube. You should start hearing the effect with some time spent on it.

gswitz
You can get inexpensive ribbons.

What inexpensive ribbons do you mean?
I love the sound of ribbons, always believed they are rather on the expensive side.

Inexpensive Ribbon
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/642524-REG/MXL_R144_R144_Studio_Ribbon_Microphone.html/?c3ch=CSE&c3nid=98
 
DIY
https://www.diyrecordingequipment.com/products/rm5-ribbon-mic
 
 BTW, this was the first video I did thinking about the Shelford Channel and playing through the single ribbon mic.
 

 
 Sweetwater has 5 for under $300
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/search.php?s=ribbon&sb=score&params=eyJmYWNldCI6eyJQcmljZSBSYW5nZSI6eyIxIjoiMyIsIjIiOiI0IiwiMyI6IjUifX19
 
I own this one (AKG R77)
https://www.frontendaudio.com/MXL-R77-Ribbon-Microphone-p/9999-06238-2.htm?gclid=CjwKCAjwopTYBRAzEiwAnU4kb_Nzqs77AZOs0Sx4xkU4wM8AxMuF6IFYZwV7FOVbXB8PFzbSacnGfhoC6AYQAvD_BwE&click=18920
and a Royer 121 and it's hard to hear the difference in this video where I compare the two...

 
At around 1:35 I compare the R121 with the AKG R77. I mean they are different, just not $800 different. :-)
 
If you set youtube to highdef you can read the names of the tracks I'm soloing.

Cheeers gswitz. A ribbon MXL, maybe not excellent, but not bad either. One day I should try'em on overheads.
The RM-5 price range sounds more familiar. Thanks.

I always wanted to try a ribbon mic, but I always thought they were way out of my price range.  I'm considering that MXL, BTW.
 
I thank you guys for the kind words.  I was thinking that I may just be suffering "ear fatigue" after busting my a$$ in my studio for the better part of today on that project I linked you to.  Most of the time if I give my ears a few hours break from listening to the same thing over and over to perfect it, I'll go back later (like the next day) with fresh ears and my perception will be better and I'll enjoy it more.  Then I think "Hey, that's not so bad".  What was I beefin' about?
 
Lynn, Thank you so much for that!  What you said really made my day after what I've been through today.
BTW-I checked out your tune "The Pain of Love".  That song is sooooo cool!!!!  Especially love the sax work!

 
 

If I was handed that vocal track, my first thought would be "good, I don't have to do much to it". It's raw, but it's good.
 
Of course, you could effect it up but it's not that kind of vocal. Clean and natural is what I'd go for. Which doesn't mean no digital cheating. Just keep it gentle.
 
First up, some conservative pitch correction. Not across the board, just in a few places here and there where there are fast pitch changes that fall a little short. When it comes to pitch editing, less is better than more. Make all your corrections by hand, and don't touch any phrase just because it looks off in the graphic. If you're using Melodyne, also take advantage of its volume editing at this time to lower the loudest words, which will make step two easier. 
 
Next, apply compression. Cakewalk's CA2A is just what the doctor ordered. Don't be afraid to let it do 6-12 dB of compression. You might also consider two-stage compression, with the second stage running as a parallel compressor.
 
Beyond those two standard actions, it's all a matter of taste, and there are gobs of options to choose from. Double-tracking would be good, especially on the chorus. Mix the double -6 to -12 dB below the main vocal, for subtle thickening. Listen to David Gilmour's vocals on Dark Side of the Moon, which are all double-tracked but you'd never know it.
 
I would not apply a lot of reverb to this particular vocal, which would make it sound more distant and less intimate. You could, however, automate the reverb to just add a little sparkle to the end of certain phrases.
 
Another option is delay, again very subtle. If you can hear the delay, there's too much.
 
Getting a bit further out and a little less natural, consider a very light touch of chorus effect. This can be applied very, very subtly. So much so that nobody would ever guess that's what you're doing. 
 
Another neat trick with vocals is distortion. You want to be conservative, of course, but adding a little grit and/or sheen can be very effective. Even on a soft vocal like this. 
 
Oh, and don't worry about your microphone. It's plenty good enough. I love ribbons, but cheap ones can sound awful and they only worsen over time. If you want to experiment, I'd suggest instead picking up an SM-58 for a hundred bucks, or borrow one to try. Sometimes, a cheap mic is just the ticket - it's about matching the device to the voice. But again, your current mic is fine.

Thanks Bitt!  Clean & natural.  My thoughts exactly.  I could use doubling and other fancy effects but I don't want to.  I want it natural.  (I do have a bit of delay and verb on it.  Very little). Can the CA2A still be had?  Isn't that a Cakewalk product that hasn't been re-introduced yet?  I don't currently have it so I'm wondering if it's available at the moment.
 

The CA2A isn't available at present. I get the feeling Bandlab is planning to introduce it when they reveal their new marketing model. Thus far they haven't been selling anything. But when they open the doors for business, I believe that CA2A will be there. They could do that now, but I think they have something special in the works and they want it to happen at the same time.

I recently signed up to an online recording and mixing course - previously I had picked things up as I went along (starting in Sonar 4 way back when). This made a big difference to me. Whilst there are many "How To..." videos and articles on the internet,  the most important thing for me was learning to do things in the right order. The course I did emphasised that there are much bigger benefits to the correct approach than buying expensive gear or plugins, and for me it was the best $ investment I have made in my musical career.
 
For Vocals and for me (others may disagree) the steps are 1) Record 2) Comp 3) pitch correction if neccesary 4) edit the levels to reduce the variance between loud and soft sylables/words/phrases: using clip gain in Sonar - only then do I reach for EQ and Compression.  Personally I find that compression and EQ work far more prectably and controllably when presented with an edited vocal track, and that makes it much easier to place it in the mix where you want it.

Clean & natural would be my words as well. Most vocal tracks are not "au naturelle", and that's the "problem". 
As mentioned in the posts above, things like compression and doubling, among others, are the secret behind most "professional" sounding vocal tracks. Maybe there's also a conflict between the reality and your own perception of how your voice sounds.

You're getting some good advice here, John.
 
You have a well-regarded mic going into a well-regarded interface especially known for its good preamps, so don't worry about hardware. None of my mics cost me more than $50 (before modding) and I go straight into the preamps of my Presonus Firepods and my tracks sound great.
 
Going out and buying a different mic or external preamp or whatever is not going to suddenly cure your dissatisfaction. You've already spent your way past doubt about the quality of your gear.
 
The only thing I might suggest regarding the capture is that it sounds a bit thin, so if you are singing more than about 10" from the mic, you may try moving closer and see if you get some more body. It sounded to me like getting closer to the mic might help. If you get plosives (pops), try singing across it at more of an angle, and of course use a pop screen.
 
Now as far as processing, in my book, vocal tracks always need some compression and EQ, because those are what help our ears "cozy up" to recorded and reproduced sound. This is in my opinion.
 
It struck me while reading the helpful replies in this thread that this might be just the kind of thing that BandLab would be great for.
 
You could, if you wanted help with your processing, post stems of your song on BandLab, of course being careful to only grant access to people you wanted to help you with processing ideas so that you didn't wind up sampled into a hip hop ditty about weed or something. Then those of us who wanted to demonstrate the effect of a touch of EQ and compression and chorus and so forth could take your vocal track, throw some of those on there, and upload it back to BandLab. I haven't tried the BandLab DAW, but it might be possible to do it in that for demonstration purposes.