Large or small diaphragm for guitar?

[Buckster]

I've heard two points of view on this, and am wondering what the consensus is.

I've noticed that the "Pro" mics are usually recommended as large diaphragm condensor mics, but an engineer said that a small diaphragm condensor is actually better for recording accoustic guitar because:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>will pick up shorter wavelength sound better, because the shorter wavelength sound has more opportunity to vibrate on a smaller diaphragm, where it has enough push to actually register on the diaphragm. This is why larger diaphragm mics get mushy sounding in the upper harmonics, because the higher frequencies don't have enough energy to push the larger (and, by necessity, heavier) diaphragm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhh...., Ok...

What do you think? Large or small, and most importantly, why?

[foo]

i think the quality of the performance is going to affect the outcome more than the size of the equipment.

(... said the actress to the bishop! )

Seriously tho, I know I sometimes get too focussed on the equipment, and I think once you get into the 'quality mic' arena, anything decent is going to give you good results.

My suggestion:
new strings + great performance =
smiling Buckster

foo

P.S. I always wondered what people did on a Home Page. Yours is great!

[Buckster]

Thanks FOO !
Glad you liked the site. I, uh, don't suppose you got a chance to listen to my new MP3 recording, "I Found You"?

Anyway, I'm very happy with the results I'm getting with my Rode NT1, and am certainly NOT disappointed with it.

I got blasted by an engineer though, who wanted to know, "Why the HELL would you use a large diaphragm mic on accoustic guitar?!"

I bought it specifically because everyone I talked to said that was the best I could do, based on my budget at the time. Even on the various mic manufacturer's web sites, the large diaphragm mics are the ones they recommend. Of course, they might be biased because they're selling them, but...

I was just wondering if anyone else had a technically oriented opinion on whether or not this guy's off the deep end by being so adamantly against using a large diaphragm mic for this application. Maybe he's just ragging on me? I sure can't HEAR a problem with it, but I'm no expert.

[Dragon]

It sounds plausible on first hearing, but there is also more sound energy hitting a large diaphragm in the first place. I wouldn't worry about it considering that the best mics are generally large diaphragm types anyway (not counting the ribbon mics or the ones made of candied butterfly wings or other exotica).

[BigKahuna]

I've heard that too. Large diaphragm condensers are more suited for vocals than small diaphragms. And smalls are better for 'instrument miking'.
The main difference between the two types. I think, is how fast the capsule can react to the transients in the signal. A large diaphragm capsule will move more slowly than a small diaphragm. That's why they're used for vocals, because they sound 'smooth'.

It sounds logical, anyway.


I don't think there's anything wrong with using a large diaphragm mic on guitar, though.
I use a large diapragm on acoustic guitar alot. Works real good. I also use small for drum overheads and a large for hi hat. It all sounds good to me.
That's the bottom line anyway, i guess. Use what sounds good. If your NT1 sounds good ... and it should then forget about any rule that says you should do it differently.

[SilentSound]

I use medium for overheads, extra large for vocals, and even larger for bass drum so nanny nanny poo poo

[SilentSound]

This whole topic is how multiple micing began, worked, and still is standard today.