I'm not an expert on the vocal thing, but having read and watched a lot of people who are, I have the impression that vocal technique is very much done in the studio and desirable. It may not be moving away always, it may be turning to the side a bit a well. Some of the 'toniest' singers like Sinatr were, AFAIK, well known for excellent mic technique in the studio. I would think that the extra air output would compensate for the slight change in proximity since it's to do with the amount of air pressure on the diaphragm, right?
Of course those folks were not recording in a bedroom with sheetrock walls either.

In my experience (which I'll admit is limited), the extra air doesn't do it. Proximity effect just drops off too quickly. That's what I notice with my voice anyway. But to be fair, I'll usually be about a foot away anyway which already has very limited proximity effect engaged. But I can still hear the difference if I use 'traditional' live vocal technique vs a more 'studio' type technique.

But like you say, there is still technique, but it might work differently to live work. Randy didn't actually mention specifically backing away, I jumped to a conclusion on this being the 'mic technique' he was referring to, when in reality it is a lot more complex than that. So I guess I stand by my statements, but retract the 'disagree' part!

So to summarise, I think there is live vocal technique, and studio vocal technique. Two different beasts with studio being the most difficult one to master.

In my case it is recording in a room that has horse hair plaster on lath walls...real fun that...

I've been wondering about this...two SM57 mics being used in tandem for singing..I've seen it being done but is that useful?

Also, when recording an instrument..say a sax in this case...what procedure to use? 

Matt, I made the assumption that it would be understood I was talking solely about studio mic technique. It's been discussed here in various threads, throughout the years. There are more than a couple of facets to it. Certain tricks can help reduce sibilance, quiet hard t's and harsh s's during the take itself, thus reducing the need to try and fix the track later. All of them along with position go to making a good track. When a singer can do all the things I mentioned earlier and all the above, getting the keeper track gets much easier, with less need for punch ins and after take surgury.

Randy

Yep, you're 100% right, Randy. I just read your post wrong and jumped to conclusions!

To me, a good track is one you're happy with that works in a mix of other instruments. Not to go against the grain of what everyone else has mentioned, but I've heard some terrible performances actually turn out to be acceptable once the sounds were tweaked.

I don't think Neil Young or Kurt Cobain are/were good guitar players from a performance or technical aspect. However, both have achieved some pretty good tones that exceeded their actual performance.

Though I'm in the camp of the best performance you can get, there definitely are instances where someone that may not have played very good got away with it due to a solid tone being created.

Good gear vs bad gear? All in the ears of the person creating the sound. I've seen some really bad stuff come through that surprised me once we printed it.

Knowing what a good sound and what isn't is just something that takes time. The more you do this stuff the more you know what will work and what won't the instant you hear it. Until a person gets to that point...my rule of thumb is, if you spend an hour tweaking something, chances are it's not a good sound. That said, it may take you 2 hours to mic something the right way while experimenting. That's a different animal than tweaking tones that were already recorded.

The reason for a good tone is so you don't spend loads of time making it work within a mix. You'll just about always have to make little tweaks here and there, but with good tones they should always be minimal. :)

-Danny