How does diaphragm size/polar pattern relate to mic applications?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok, for the most part, Im taking my mothers advice to "sit down and shut up" but I gotta say it....

THIS IS AN AWESOME FRICKIN THREAD!.........
 
Re: Chapter 8 - Fortress Of Doom

Harvey Gerst said:

Sorry this has turned into a rambling diatribe, but these are things that people tend to overlook in their haste to record stuff. But it's exactly this stuff that determines what mic, polar pattern, and placement you should be using - before you even plug in the first mic. We'll cover exactly that part next - I promise.


"Rambling diatribe" my *ss......this is exactly what I'm here for. That last post was very elucidating. The one part I'm not sure I understand is the "near-far" or "depth" part - is this aspect actually created by micing certain layers closer in the "near field" than others, or is this some kind of illusion produced by mechanical means?

Great stuff, Harvey. (See, that was only ONE question. I told you I could do it! :cool: )
 
Re: Chapter 8 - Fortress Of Doom

Harvey Gerst said:
Sorry this has turned into a rambling diatribe, but these are things that people tend to overlook in their haste to record stuff. But it's exactly this stuff that determines what mic, polar pattern, and placement you should be using - before you even plug in the first mic.

I've learned more from this thread in three days than I have learned in 6 months of scouring the web trying to figure out how and what I need to record my music.

You have a knack for explaining technical concepts in a straightforward and easy to assimilate manner, and that, along with your knowledge, experience and willingness to help is gratefully apreciated.

Please sir, ramble on.
 
Re: Re: Chapter 8 - Fortress Of Doom

Chris F said:
"Rambling diatribe" my *ss......this is exactly what I'm here for. That last post was very elucidating. The one part I'm not sure I understand is the "near-far" or "depth" part - is this aspect actually created by micing certain layers closer in the "near field" than others, or is this some kind of illusion produced by mechanical means?
Near-far "depth" is achieved by using a combination of close and distant miking techniques AND the judicious use of reverb to place instruments at different distances in the mix.

For example, you may wanna record the vocals at "point blank" range and add just a touch of a catherdal reverb, so that the vocal is still up close, but you get a sense of a larger room. Strings might require that you mic from further away, roll off a little bit of the top end and add more reverb to simulate how they would sound if they were in a large room.

You control depth of field by careful use of mic placement, final mx level, and reverb when planning the mix. Just remember that heavy reverb tends to blur the sound of the instrument, so don't overdo. I know of one engineer who worked for two weeks just on the fine tuning of the eq on the reverb for the snare.
 
I've been ignoring the mic forum recently, and just came up here tonight and stumbled into this thread. Now I'm into my fourth whiskey in honor of the occasion, but I still don't understand anything about the relationship between mic type (cardioid, omni, dynamic, ribbon) and mic selection and placement for a particular task. I'm still at the "omni for nice rooms, cardioid for close-miking" stage of thinking. And that's not because of the whiskey, you understand. :) Cheers, Harvey.
 
Dobro, I just became a total dickweed and typed out all the things he's covered, 'cuz it sounded like you were dissing the thread. Then I erased all 15 minutes of it when I realized that's prolly not what you were communicating. Sorry for the presumption (didn't think y'all were allowed to possess alcohol there! won't you get caned? :D).
 
Harvey:

Great, wonderful, _marvelous_ stuff. Please count me in as another vote to keep it coming. A little education can go a long, long way in making recording more pleasurable and successful. IMHO, this thread should become a site FAQ here directly.

Bravo!
 
skippy said:
Harvey:

IMHO, this thread should become a site FAQ here directly.

Bravo!



I'll second that motion.

Also, I can't tell if anyone was actually dissing the thread or not, but just in case they were, I'd like to pass along this small tidbit of information: you are greatly outnumbered by those who are extremely grateful to be learning all of this stuff for the first time. Dissing this thread would not be a very effective way to make new friends. ;)
 
dobro said:
I've been ignoring the mic forum recently, and just came up here tonight and stumbled into this thread. Now I'm into my fourth whiskey in honor of the occasion, but I still don't understand anything about the relationship between mic type (cardioid, omni, dynamic, ribbon) and mic selection and placement for a particular task. I'm still at the "omni for nice rooms, cardioid for close-miking" stage of thinking. And that's not because of the whiskey, you understand. :) Cheers, Harvey.
Dobro, ya kinda gotta go thru and read the whole thread very carefully. I wish it were as easy as "paint by numbers", but it isn't. I hadta start with giving you a basic idea of how all this stuff works before we get in to choices and placements. As far as tyour question about "cardioid, omni, dynamic, ribbon", I covered that in some detail early on. Cardioid and omni are 2 of many polar patterns, while dynamic and ribbon are 2 types of microphone design.

If you wanna skip all the technical junk, I'll be covering the last part (choosing a mic, placement, and polar pattern) in the next segment. But there are going to be a lot of options, and unless you understand what each mic type and polar pattern's strengths and weaknesses are, you'll just be "painting by numbers". It's not just simply "put this mic here to record this kind of instrument". Every instrument, and every singer, is different.

You hafta understand how the microphone and the instrument interact. You don't go grocery shopping in a Formula One car, and you don't race a bicycle on a NASCAR track. The reasons why are pretty obvious. Once you understand how instruments and mics really work, the choices are also very obvious.

I can "give" you a fish, and you can enjoy one meal, but I'd prefer to teach you "how to fish" for yourself.
 
I have just read through this information and can only say - Harvey thank you for your time and knowledge - I actually understand mics better than I have ever understood, and I've been a musician for a long time.
 
Harvey - yup, and that's why I was registering my enthusiasm for the next segment. That's the bit I don't understand so well. I've read the whole thread, honest. :)

Kelly - don't be silly. This is a great thread. Inhouse education from someone who knows what they're talking about. :)
 
Re: Chapter 8 - Fortress Of Doom

Harvey Gerst said:

1. Small mics generally tend to be more accurate than large mics. Large mics are generally more flattering than small mics.

Now that I see WHY this is true (smaller diaphrams move more quickly in response to the details of a sound) it gets me thinking.

1) "Accurate" doesn't always mean "Sounds better" and "Flattering" doesn't mean "Accurate." I know that seems like a 'duh!' statement but it seems important.

2) I wonder what it is about human hearing that makes certain kinds of "less accurate" sound better to us. It reminds me of the difference between consumer stereo speakers (flattering) and monitors (accurate.)

3) I also notice that there doesn't seem to be any measurement that quantifies the accuracy or speed of responsiveness of a mike- frequency response isn't really the same thing. Also, no measurement that I know of for that elusive term "color." Is there more to the "color" of a mike (or amp, or, speaker, or...) than the frequency response?

and finally....

4) 1-3 above seem like clear proof to me that choosing a mike and placement that sounds the "best" for a given source is going to involve knowledge of mike and sound source characteristics (which we seem to have covered *really* well), some ideas of where to start with placing those mikes, creativity, perseverance, and luck. I suppose that experience can make up for the lack of luck. ;)

It makes me want to take REALLY good notes about how I get the sounds I like- as well as the sounds I don't like. This seems like an art and science that deserves a lot of attention. I'm beginning to see every mike/sound source/placement experiement as time well spent even if it fails. Good stuff to have it one's head.

Thanks, everyone. I do believe we are creating a really valuable bundle of information here. And thanks, Harvey, for fueling this fire so well. (How's your back, by the way? I'm sure I speak for all in that I hope you're feeling better.)

take care,
Chris Shaeffer
 
Re: Re: Chapter 8 - Fortress Of Doom

Chris Shaeffer said:
Now that I see WHY this is true (smaller diaphrams move more quickly in response to the details of a sound) it gets me thinking.

1) "Accurate" doesn't always mean "Sounds better" and "Flattering" doesn't mean "Accurate." I know that seems like a 'duh!' statement but it seems important.

You've got it!! That's also why no one mic can do it all.

2) I wonder what it is about human hearing that makes certain kinds of "less accurate" sound better to us. It reminds me of the difference between consumer stereo speakers (flattering) and monitors (accurate.)

Don't think of it as "less accurate"; think of it as "more flattering".

3) I also notice that there doesn't seem to be any measurement that quantifies the accuracy or speed of responsiveness of a mike- frequency response isn't really the same thing. Also, no measurement that I know of for that elusive term "color." Is there more to the "color" of a mike (or amp, or, speaker, or...) than the frequency response?

Actually, there ARE measurements that will measure the accuracy, but it's a lot more technical, and doesn't really help this discussion. But in answer to that question, yes, there's more to it than just frequency response. Remember the pictures of the guitar top vibrating at different places with different frequencies? Well, mic capsules do that too. Capsule tensioning, damping, thickness, mass, stiffness, and excursion all affect the sound of the mic.

and finally....

4) 1-3 above seem like clear proof to me that choosing a mike and placement that sounds the "best" for a given source is going to involve knowledge of mike and sound source characteristics (which we seem to have covered *really* well), some ideas of where to start with placing those mikes, creativity, perseverance, and luck. I suppose that experience can make up for the lack of luck. ;)

Yup, and that's exactly what the next section of this overly long diatribe is going to get into. Some of you (like Chris) are beginning to see why all the stuff we covered early on in this thread is going to be more important than you first realised.

It makes me want to take REALLY good notes about how I get the sounds I like- as well as the sounds I don't like. This seems like an art and science that deserves a lot of attention. I'm beginning to see every mike/sound source/placement experiement as time well spent even if it fails. Good stuff to have it one's head.

It's 50% art, 50% science, and 50% luck.

Thanks, everyone. I do believe we are creating a really valuable bundle of information here. And thanks, Harvey, for fueling this fire so well. (How's your back, by the way? I'm sure I speak for all in that I hope you're feeling better.)

3 visits to the chiropractor, and my right leg is still killing me (and he's closed today). :( As soon as the pain goes down a little, I'll try to write this next section about mic choices, patterns, and placements for as many instruments as I can think of.

take care,
Chris Shaeffer
Some great insights, Chris (and from the rest of you as well). Just hang in there gang, we're almost thru. This last part will be a series of multiple posts, since we'll be covering so many techniques and instruments (in as much detail as possible).
 
mic frequency response

Harvey,

is it true that mic frequency plays apart of the source that you are recording? and that you are much better off using a mic that is as close to the frequency of the soruce you are trying to
record? ie. piano, singing voice, drums, guitar, flute,etc,etc.....:cool:
 
Re: mic frequency response

manchild said:
Harvey,

is it true that mic frequency plays apart of the source that you are recording? and that you are much better off using a mic that is as close to the frequency of the soruce you are trying to record? ie. piano, singing voice, drums, guitar, flute,etc,etc.....:cool:
Yes, and no!! The mic's frequency characteristics are of course a vital part of deciding which mic to use where, but it's often a choice of complimenting instead of capturing. In other words, sometimes you use a mic to flatter and enhance the sound, not because it has a similar range or is the most accurate choice.
 
The guitar - Mic choices, patterns, and placements

Ok, here we go, pinched sciatic nerve be damned!!

Miking an acoustic guitar

Many acoustic guitars today have built in pickups, and it's gonna hafta be your choice whether you add that to the mix or not - that's a whole 'nother subject. Before you reach for a mic, you hafta decide a few things:

Is it a solo guitar, strictly as a backdrop for vocal, or is it one part of a group mix (where there'll be other instruments like drums and bass and electric guitars going on)? Does it need to be recorded in stereo or is mono ok? Is it gonna wind up being in your face, or buried in the mix?

Solo Guitar or Background For Vocal?

If it's a great sounding guitar, and you have a good room, you want to use the best mics you have and record in stereo. You can use omnis, or a pair of good cardioids in an X/Y configuration (capsules almost touching, angle of about 110 degrees between the two mics) and about two feet out from the instrument.

A dynamic or condenser mic will work fine as long as the mic has a fairly smooth response. Smaller condenser mics are usually more accurate, but if it's not a killer instrument, don't be afraid to try large diaphragm mics to get a more flattering sound. The mics should be pretty closly matched otherwise the stereo image can shift as you play different notes.

If the sound ain't working for you, that's the time to move in closer and see if you can find spots nearer the guiitar that produce a better tone (even if it's just for that song). Try to get as close as possible to the final sound you want BEFORE you reach for eq and/or effects.

After you get the tone damn near perfect from placement and selection, then do a little touchup with the eq to nail it. (If you hafta boost or cut more than 4 dB in any frequency range, you either haven't got the placement right yet, or it's a really crappy guitar.)

Acoustic Guitar as a Rock Track With a Band

You need a tone that's gonna cut thru the other instruments and if there's gonna be drums, bass, electric guitars going at the same time, record the guitar on the thin side (some bass cut and treble boost). Make it brighter than you normally like it, and don't worry about how it sounds soloed - it's how it sounds when it's all mixed that will count. I usually mic in close (about 6 to 8"), from slightly below, looking up directly at the bridge. Roll off the bass below 100 Hz, and boost around 2 to 4 kHz (move the frequency around to where it sounds bright, but not shrill).

The Singer/Songwriter Syndrome

The singer also want to play guitar at the same time, and you want some decent separations between the vocals and the guitar. One trick is to use a X/Y stereo pair of small cardioids down low, aimed at the guitar, hile you position a large diaphragm mic at the singers forehead, tilted just slightly forward, toward his/her nose.

Some Points To Ponder

These techniques should work for banjo, mandolin, 12 string, uke, and other small stringed instruments. But sometimes they don't always work as planned. If you're not hearing the sound you want, try moving the mic around, even to the point of miking the side of the instrument instead of the front. Violins, cellos, and upright basses are a whole special category which will be discussed later.

A good trick is to stick your finger in one ear and move around till you find a spot that sounds good, then put the mic there for starters. Remember that each guitar is different, each mic is different, each room is different, and sometimes just going up or down a 1/2 step will change everything. Starting from the outside edge of the "nearfield" is a great starting point.

Some Mics To Try First:

Dynamics: Shure SM57 - Sennheiser 421 - Beyer M201

Ribbons: Beyers, RCA, any ribbon mic.

Small Condensers: Oktava MC012, Marshall 603S, AT 4041, Neumann KM184, any small cardioid or omni condenser mic.

Large Condensers: These mics add a great deal of color to the sound, so "try" anything you happen to own. It may work great or shitty - you never know.

End of the first part - more to come!
 
I, for one, am in no hurry to see this thread end, Harvey. You take as long as you need. Chris is asking excellent questions, and others have contributed also. From the views this thread is receiving, I doubt you'll tire us with your wisdom.
 
Well tdukex, I hope it's all starting to come together for some of the people here and they're beginning to see how all this stuff fits together. As I said in the my answer to Chris Fitzgerald's request at the very start of this thread, "Be careful what you wish for..."
 
Harvey, what kind of placement strategies (or starting points) would you suggest for mixing large and small diaphraghm condensor mics for micing acoustic guitar?

I have an NT2 that I've been using to mic my acoustic with mixed results. I picked up one of the Marshall MXL1000's from ebay the other day ($50, I figured even a poor grad student like me couldn't go wrong), and I am wondering what may be the best approach if I am going for a stereo mix using those two mics.

I'll experiment, of course, just wondergin what good starting points may be. I'm thinking try to find a solid sound I am happy with using the MXL, and then compliment with the NT2... (Knowing the NT2 is a bit harsh on guitar, I'll probably try to find a spot which mellows that shrillness.)

Thanks. :)
 
KaBudokan said:
Harvey, what kind of placement strategies (or starting points) would you suggest for mixing large and small diaphraghm condensor mics for micing acoustic guitar?

Start around 2 feet out with the two mics set up in an X/Y array and see if you luck out. If not, try the Marshall 1000 by itself over your shoulder, figure out what's missing and then try to get that from NT2. Take the ball off the 1000 and put it in a closet somewhere.

I have an NT2 that I've been using to mic my acoustic with mixed results. I picked up one of the Marshall MXL1000's from ebay the other day ($50, I figured even a poor grad student like me couldn't go wrong), and I am wondering what may be the best approach if I am going for a stereo mix using those two mics.

I think the 1000 should be the main sound for your guitar with the NT2 as kind of a fill-in mic.

I'll experiment, of course, just wondergin what good starting points may be. I'm thinking try to find a solid sound I am happy with using the MXL, and then compliment with the NT2... (Knowing the NT2 is a bit harsh on guitar, I'll probably try to find a spot which mellows that shrillness.)

Read my whole description of guitar miking techniques a few posts above this one - I tried to get pretty detailed

Thanks. :)
My pleasure
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top