Pick Your Mic

[tkingen]

Say you already have a nice mic cabinet that pretty much covers most of the recording situations you may have. How do you decide which mic would be a good choice for a given job?
I'm not talking about the hit or miss method of just throwing a bunch of different mics up to see which one sounds the best. What I mean is what's your thought process in narrowing down the choices to begin with? If you own 15 mics and you are recording a silky soprano voice which mic qualities are you looking for to record that voice? A chesty baritone? A mahogany parlor guitar with light gauge strings? A rosewood dreadnaught with heavy strings? A snare with brushes? A full kit?
I'm not specifically looking for an answer to the above examples, but more of the personal philosophy or science that helps to make the decision.

[Brackish]

Well, this may not be the answer you're
looking for, and I'm rather new myself ... but
one thing I look at now is to avoid
mic's that have not worked out in a
similar situation in the past, and to
consider first the mic's that have worked
in a similar situation.
For example, I recently used a mic/preamp
combo on my own vocals, just testing out proper
recording levels for that mic, and upon listening
back I noticed that the combo seemed
to give a full sound to vocals and
seemed to really minimize sibilance.
Well, one of my bigger problems with
clients is sibilance, so I'm looking forward
to putting this mic/pre combo up on the
next young, female singer I have to record,
because this is the type of singer who
has given me the most sibilance, generally.

[Ironklad Audio]

since my mic collection is fairly limited, i usually know exactly what i want to use on a given source depending on the desired sound, especially in terms of instrumental mic'ing

vocals are a totally different beast, of course...but again, i only have a couple of options there as well, so i throw up mic A and B, give both a quick shot, and see which works better

[Brackish]

Another recent example comes to mind.
I had to record a cello. I threw up a new
mic on it to see how it would do.
Upon listening the recording I
heard that the mic was picking up
too much of the sound of the
bow on the strings so now I'll
remember the next time
I have to record a cello not to grab
that particular mic. So basically I just
tried the mic out ... and now I
know. The mic I recorded the cello
with was one that I know from
past experience not to have a harsh
edge, which seemed to be a
quality to look for to couterbalance
what-sounded-to-me as harshness
as the bow was drawn over the strings.

[scrubs]

Read the F-ing sticky at the top of the forum!!!

But, seriously, a lot of it is just familiarizing yourself with the characteristics of mics in your collection by experimenting and seeing/reading/hearing what others have done.

Some of my general guidelines:

If I want a big, forward, larger-than-life sound, I'm probably going for an LDC of some type. The choice of a particular LDC will be chosen based on the source and my experience with the mic. Lots of LDC's have a high frequency bump that can either be flattering or unflattering on a given source, so I try to take that into account. For a little extra flattery, I might go with a tube LDC.

If I want a very accurate, in-the-room sound, I'm more apt to go with an SDC. A small omni is my choice if I'm trying to minimize proximity effect on a close-miked acoustic instrument.

If I want a more mellow, old-school sound, I'll probably try a ribbon first.

If I want some punch and midrange, or am recording a particularly loud source, I'm more apt to go with a dynamic.

And then there are different patterns...ummm...read the f-ing sticky!

[Big Kenny]

Yup, what he said, and I usually set up 3-5 mics for a new client and run through 'em cuz it is more impotant he likes the sound than whatever I like.

[punkin]

Usually, when I make a mic purchase, I have an application in mind and test it out first. That kinda sets the stage but after that, it's just a matter of trying a lot of cominations and really taking the time to get to know your equipment.

I do a lot of instrumental work and what I used to do was put up several mics (as reasonable) and as many tracks then go back an listen to them. You can get a feel for the different flavors each of the mics brings. I often record while practicing and make it a dual purpose activity but trying different placements and mic combos. It take awhile longer but instead of just practicing, you get a bonus with an opportunity for critical listening and gear play time.

Unfortunately, there's no formula for this...it's still an art and it takes time.

[Warhead]

Originally Posted by Big Kenny

Yup, what he said, and I usually set up 3-5 mics for a new client and run through 'em cuz it is more impotant he likes the sound than whatever I like.

Kenny, I disagree with this statement in a way.

It is our job to make things work in the mix. If a client picks mic "A" because it sounds big and huge on its own and is brighter than the other ones (or for whatever reason he/she likes it) but mic "B" works in context with the song then...we need to explain to them why mic B rocks in this application. We must always think ahead, forward to the mix, when tracking.

Sometimes a hand held dynamic mic will kick the poo out of a high end condensor for a song. Given the choice though 99% of all artists would gravitate towards the big bright sound of the condensor.

It's sometimes tough, but I would start picking mics by setting up a few and rather outline it as "I need to hear which mic is going to work for this song / record" rather than presenting it as a choice to the guy / girl who doesn't have to fit all this stuff into context later (yet will expect you to).

Just my $.02 -

War

[tkingen]

Thanks for your responses guys. I just posed this question later last night after a long day at the office and trying to divert my attention from the problems at work.
I've been browsing through Michael Stavrou's Mixing With Your Mind and like his method of rating a mic or source with a "hardness" rating of 1 thru 10. He suggests trying to balance out the source with an appropriate mic choice that would be opposites of each other.
For example, if you have a source with a hardness rating of 9 or 10, like maybe a glockenspiel, you may choose a mic with a rating of 1 or 2 to soften the blow, so to speak. Or if you are recording a softly fingerpicked acoustic guitar with a low hardness rating you may want to choose a mic with a higher hardness rating to help highlight the nuances of flesh on string.
Of course, the hardness ratings are a decision you have to make for yourself, but I find his approach intriguing. It's helping me to realize that my humble mic collection covers too much of the same territory!

[Innovations]

I don't have a big mic locker (I just do voiceovers and radio production) but my usual starting point isn't the voice, it is the quality of the end product that I am looking for. Do I want a ton of proximity effect, a smooth classic sound, really precise detail, and so forth.

[Big Kenny]

Originally Posted by Warhead

Kenny, I disagree with this statement in a way.

It is our job to make things work in the mix. If a client picks mic "A" because it sounds big and huge on its own and is brighter than the other ones (or for whatever reason he/she likes it) but mic "B" works in context with the song then...we need to explain to them why mic B rocks in this application. We must always think ahead, forward to the mix, when tracking.

Sometimes a hand held dynamic mic will kick the poo out of a high end condensor for a song. Given the choice though 99% of all artists would gravitate towards the big bright sound of the condensor.

It's sometimes tough, but I would start picking mics by setting up a few and rather outline it as "I need to hear which mic is going to work for this song / record" rather than presenting it as a choice to the guy / girl who doesn't have to fit all this stuff into context later (yet will expect you to).

Just my $.02 -

War

Yeah but, I can make any of my mics work! (No I can't, I just felt I had to say something to defend my weak position)

[BigRay]

since I do orchestral/symphony work, 95% of the time, I am using small diaphragm condensers, for the clarity, greater dynamic range, greater frequency ranges, SPL handling, and "invisibility" ie less influence on the overall sound..these are advantages (although general) over LDCs. I do use LDCs as vocal mics or spots, but if I had to choose one type...it would be SDC, without question.

[Brackish]

Originally Posted by tkingen

I've been browsing through Michael Stavrou's Mixing With Your Mind

Is that a book from the book store?

[chessrock]

You use the freakin' mics and you learn what they sound like. Then you pick the one you think will work best. If it doesn't work, then you try another one. Jeezus, dude. How do you pick a tie or a pair of shoes?


.

[sweetnubs]

Originally Posted by BigRay

since I do orchestral/symphony work, 95% of the time, I am using small diaphragm condensers, for the clarity, greater dynamic range, greater frequency ranges, SPL handling, and "invisibility" ie less influence on the overall sound..these are advantages (although general) over LDCs. I do use LDCs as vocal mics or spots, but if I had to choose one type...it would be SDC, without question.

yeah I'd hate to do a decca tree with some neumann m50's . . .

[punkin]

Originally Posted by chessrock

You use the freakin' mics and you learn what they sound like. Then you pick the one you think will work best. If it doesn't work, then you try another one. Jeezus, dude. How do you pick a tie or a pair of shoes?


.

What's with the sugar coating? Come on...tell us what you think and stop beatin' 'round the busch man!

[tkingen]

Originally Posted by chessrock

You use the freakin' mics and you learn what they sound like. Then you pick the one you think will work best. If it doesn't work, then you try another one. Jeezus, dude. How do you pick a tie or a pair of shoes?


.

There you go bringing Jeezus into this
Actually Chess, you're smarter than me and don't need to concern yourself with this sort of stuff.

Btw, have you checked out Michael Paul Stavrou? His clients include Joan Baez, Art Garfunkel, Paul McCartney, Cat Stevens, London Symphony Orchestra, John Williams, etc, etc, etc. He was an engineer at George Martin's Air Studios and gained Sir George's ultimate respect. Mr. Martin also wrote the Forward in the book.
I like Mr. Stavrou's credentials, I like his techniques and I like talking about his book. I think your post is stupid

[tkingen]

Originally Posted by Brackish

Is that a book from the book store?

Brackish,

http://www.mixingwithyourmind.com/index.htm

It's a bit expensive but it's the best book I've read on engineering techniques. The chapter on using compressors is unlike anything else I've read on the subject. That chapter alone is worth the price IMHO.
Btw, I have no connection whatsoever to Michael Stavrou except for purchasing his book and he used one of my quotes in an advertisement. I'm just impressed with his recording philosophy and am learning a great deal from it.

[travelin travis]

Here's one to check out too: http://www.chooseamicwithyourmindyousillydildo.com

[Warhead]

Originally Posted by chessrock

You use the freakin' mics and you learn what they sound like. Then you pick the one you think will work best. If it doesn't work, then you try another one. Jeezus, dude. How do you pick a tie or a pair of shoes?


.

Stop making sense.

War

[tkingen]

Originally Posted by Warhead

Stop making sense.

War

War,

Of course the message was right on the money. But to hell with the punk condescending tone.
Btw, have you seen the book?

[tkingen]

Originally Posted by TravisinFlorida

Here's one to check out too: http://www.chooseamicwithyourmindyousillydildo.com

Hey Travis,

I've been called a dildo before. And in the context that it was used it was quite a compliment!

[undergroundtoon]

Originally Posted by chessrock

You use the freakin' mics and you learn what they sound like. Then you pick the one you think will work best. If it doesn't work, then you try another one. Jeezus, dude. How do you pick a tie or a pair of shoes?


.

Good old chessrock tells it like it is. I have not seen you around the forum in a while. Where have you been? Hopefuly business has been good and your too busy recording.

[ofajen]

Originally Posted by tkingen

Say you already have a nice mic cabinet that pretty much covers most of the recording situations you may have. How do you decide which mic would be a good choice for a given job?
I'm not talking about the hit or miss method of just throwing a bunch of different mics up to see which one sounds the best. What I mean is what's your thought process in narrowing down the choices to begin with? If you own 15 mics and you are recording a silky soprano voice which mic qualities are you looking for to record that voice? A chesty baritone? A mahogany parlor guitar with light gauge strings? A rosewood dreadnaught with heavy strings? A snare with brushes? A full kit?
I'm not specifically looking for an answer to the above examples, but more of the personal philosophy or science that helps to make the decision.

Unlike some of the others, I don't think this is entirely a waste of a question. Basically, I'm lazy. I have too much else going on and too little time in the studio to want to spend a lot of time auditioning mikes. Also, I want to make mixing simple, too. If it's an instrument, I reach for a small capsule omni mike and get the track recorded as it sounds. Clean tracks like that play well together in the mix. I even use those mikes on voice sometimes, but on voice, I have several other mikes I'll try, and pick the mike based on the character of sound I'm recording and what I know about the mike: examples, the SM57 has a thick mid-rangy sound, while my AKG D12s have more of a scooped, hi-fi sound with more highs and lows.

Do bear in mind, you need a really quiet room to use omni mikes or you will hear ambient noises in your tracks!

Now of course, that's just me, and, as I said, I'm lazy!

Otto

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by tkingen

But to hell with the punk condescending tone.

Me? ? Condescending tone? ? NEVER !



Alright, I'll throw you a bone. When considering the mic'ing of a given source, first ask yourself ... are you trying to pick up the totality of the instrument? Or are you trying to pick up a narrow part of the instrument / source?

Take drums as an example ... are you trying to mic the whole kit or just the tom-tom? Do you want to pick up what the entire guitar sounds like ... or do you want to focus / emphasize what it sounds like at the 12th fret? Maybe you feel that what is happening, specifically, at the 12th fret will help the guitar track fit better in the context of your mix, or that it will help you achieve a particular sound that you're striving for? On the other hand, perhaps there are subtle nuances happening all over the body of the guitar that can only be captured from a wider vantage point.

The reason this is important is because certain mics will snap in to focus more at certain distances. An SM57, for example, is really more of a close-up mic (Have you ever noticed how it's always jammed up against something?) It's not generally the best distant mic; most dynamics aren't, with some exceptions, obviously. The farther back you move a particular mic, the more important off-axis response becomes. Something with a wider pattern will obviously be more at home picking a slightly bigger picture of the source; sort of like a wider-angle lense. Smaller diaphragms will tend to sound more natural in that role, as they will usually report off-axis information much more accurately than their larger-diaphragm counterparts (and this is another over-generalized statement).

The next thing I like to take in to consideration is accuracy and transient response. Think about it like this: If my ear were to be placed right up against this source being struck or played at extreme volumes, is it going to be a painful/ unpleasant experience? If the answer to that question is "Yes," then you might consider using a softer, slower, less accurate mic. Like a dynamic or a ribbon, maybe a more vintage style tube mic, etc. For example; a screaming death metal singer might be unpleasant at full volume with the singer's mouth right up against your ear. A harsh, cheap cymbal crash might have the same unpleasant effect.

On the other hand, if your answer to that question is "NO" as in the case of a softly strummed harp, a smooth jazz bass, or a classical guitar ... then in these cases you might choose a more accurate microphone; like a transformerless condenser with a thinner or smaller, more responsive diaphragm. Another question along the same lines: How important is the sound of the fingers picking the strings, versus the sound of the notes those strings are playing? How important is the impact of the stick hitting the drum skin versus the tone / boddy of the drum it's hitting? Very very generally speaking, the more important the notes, tone and body of the instrument are in relation to the "detail" things like the impact of the picking/strumming/slappping, the less important the speed and accuracy of the mic becomes. And vice-versa.

(Example: a dynamic will pick up more of a snare's tone, while a condenser might pick up more of the "thwack" of the stick hitting the skin. A dynamic will pick up / emphasize more of the notes and tone of a singer's voice, while a condenser will tend pick up more of their mouth noises, lip smacking, swallowing, etc.)

Lastly, you're always going to want to consider the frequency response curve of the mic, and how that might interact with the source. In a very overly-simplified explanation .. when mic'ing a very bright and strident source, you might consider using a darker mic ... or with a dull / dark sounding source, you might want to use a brighter mic. But more generally speaking ... ask yourself what, if anything, do you want to emphasize about the source, and what do you want to de-emphasize? And what mics in my collection will be likely to emphasize that which I want more of, and de-emphasize that which I want less of?

.