Some Thoughts about "Better", "Best", and Mic Recommendations

Harvey Gerst · #1 06-02-2002

Since we see these questions asked over and over in this forum, I thought it might be helpful to clarify a couple of things. With the exception of using some mics in a few situations where you can damage them (inside a kick drum, outdoors, etc.), "A MICROPHONE DOESN'T KNOW, OR CARE, WHAT IT'S RECORDING".

Think about that for a minute; it's very important to remember. If the mic doesn't know or care what it's recording, then who's responsibility is it? (Tick...tick...tick...tick...take your time...tick...tick) That's right, it's YOUR responsibility to decide what mic to use for what purpose, where to set it up to get what you want, and it's your responsibility to try and pick the right mic for the right job.

I assume many of you play guitar. Suppose people constantly asked you:

What's the "best" guitar?
Which is "better", a 1956 Stratocaster, or a 1956 Martin D-18? Which guitar would you "recommend" I get?
When should I use a nylon string guitar and when should I use a steel string guitar?
What's the "best" guitar, if I only have $200 to spend?
I just played a $12,000 Martin D-28 and it didn't sound any different than my $200 Takamine - are these a rip off?
I want to get Jimmi Hendrix's "Foxey Lady" sound, so what settings should I use with my Ovation Balladeer?
What guitar should I get for playing classical and heavy metal?

See the problems with trying to answer questions like these? They're either unanswerable, or dependent on getting more information about the kind of music the person want to play, or answers that will be obvious when the person understands a little more about guitar.

It's the same thing with mics. "Better" and "best" often means "good enough for my needs" or "better than what I currently own", but unless you know what the questioner means by "better" and "best", there's no easy answer. For what purpose? What are they trying to do with it? What problems are they having with the stuff they already own?

Yes, "world class" recordings can be made using less than "world class" equipment, but if you don't know how to use what you have, you won't make a "world class" recording. And if you don't have a good grasp of "world class" recording techniques, your recordings will never be "world class" no matter what you use.

And yes, rules are often "bent" and "broken" with great results, but it helps to understand why the rule is there, and when and how to break it.

I do make mic recommendations here, but it is important to understand that any mic I recommend may, or may not, work for your particular application, or with your particular combination of equipment.

In most cases, I try to recommend great values in general purpose "Swiss Army Knife" type mics that will work on a lot of things well. But there are times when a "One Trick Pony" comes along that may not work on everything, but what it does do, it does very well, at an incredible price point for that trick.

If people read the "Big Thread" and understand it, it will make life a little easier, since I don't really talk about specific brands and models there. It's all about how to get the most out of any mic you have, and how to pick the right mic for a specific job.

Every guitar is different; every voice is different. Knowing which mic to use and where to place it to get specific results is the most important thing you can learn. If you put it in the right place, a $50 used Shure SM-57 can sometimes sound better than a $15,000 Telefunken ELA M251. (And there's also a good reason why a Telefunken ELA M251 costs $15,000.)

But only you can decide what mic works best for a particular application. Just remember that "a mic doesn't know, or care, what it's recording." It's up to you to make the right decisions.

TexRoadkill · #2 06-02-2002

It's unfortunate how many mic purchases need to be made 'blind'. The policy of most stores is that returning mics is a health code violation which I'm pretty sure is an outright lie since you can rent microphones. Some of the more high end shops in major cities will let you try them out at home but you will usually pay closer to retail prices for the privilege.

At some point you do just have to bite the bullet and get a mic(s) and start using it. I think it's pretty safe to say that most of the mics recomended here will work for 90% of the people 90% of the time.

With my ECM's, 57's, V93 and C1 I feel pretty confident that I could record just about anything and get very satisfying results. I should probably add a good kick mic but there is always one more thing to add

remco · #3 06-03-2002

great thread Harvey !

BTW the last time i tracked a drummer he liked a pair of emc 's more then a pair of km184 on OH ?

remco

Fed · #4 06-03-2002

Good explanation Harvey.
I have coupple of comments/questions if you don't mind.

First: I was thinking about a mic almost like a tool (well it is a tool

), say a wrench. I have a wrench set that's like $20 for bunch of them. A profesional mechanic also has wrenches but his maybe $20 for each. Well, we both can tighten the nut (may I even say equaly tight). So what is the difference.... ? eeeeeh...
not sure beyond the obvious, he is making money with his wrenches and his are "better" brand, metal, etc.

Second: I'm really curious what are some good reasons why a Telefunken ELA M251 costs $15,000. I'm not sarcastic, I realy want to know.

Thanks Harvey for your contributions and help
cheers

littledog · #5 06-03-2002

The basic reason why you pay any amount for any object is the same: supply and demand.

The original ELAM is no longer in production and has a particular sound that is considered by many to be desireable. Since there is a limited amount of these units existing in the universe, and most people who have them aren't interested in selling them, that means that at any given moment you may only be able to find a few for sale. This makes for a seller's market.

But this is not uncommon. Try pricing a Fairchild compressor (added benefit: you can heat your house with it in the winter). How about a Stradivarius violin?

Many might say the price of these units gets out of proportion to their "real" value (compared to modern replications or more commonly available "equivalents"). This may be because in their rarity they develop something of a "collectable" cachet. Kind of like a DeLorean.

Personally, for anything like that kind of money I'd just buy a really good mic in the $3000-5000 range and then send it to Stephen Paul for modification - and end up with a mic as "good" as anything in the world for less money.

chessrock · #6 06-03-2002

So are you saying that it's all about economics?

Or are there any particular electronics or manufacturing methods that tend to jack up the cost?

Speeddemon · #7 06-03-2002

Actually, I believe that in the 60's and 70's products were manufactured more durable than in the 90's.
I still have an old Akai tapedeck from around '77/'78, and the mofo still works like a charm and beats my '91 JVC in terms of soundquality, rewind-speed, and wow&flutter.
My grandma had a washing machine from the early 80's. Now my aunt is still using it.
I think, because of an increase in welfare, most manufacturers will think somethink like:"Why should we use better parts for more durability? Lesser parts = less costs = more profit, and besides, the dumb fools have enough money to buy a new one in 2 or 3 years"
If everyone was still poor as hell, people would probably only buy
a few quality products, instead of tons of mediocre stuff.
So, the Fairchild may not be REALLY worth $15000, it probably IS way better built than a present-day Avalon or something...

zbert · #8 06-03-2002

A lot of what's being said comes down to the concept of "quality" I got most of this from my wife who taught a class about this a number of years ago. Quality is not the high cost of an item so it must be of good quality, but, does it do what you need, for the amount of time you need it. Is the cost within your budget. For example is a Honda Civic a quality car compared to say a Mecedes 520? Well, my civic got me back and forth to work. The ride was pretty smooth. It had a stereo that sounded good. The seats were comfortable. It was running good when I sold it 7 years later with 140K on it. So, I would say it was of very good quality. OK, the 520 would be a real cool car to have but I was able to do what I needed with my Honda. I guess what Harvey is saying is the same. Quality is not price. It's what you need and how you use it. That being said I'll now be happy to trade anyone's M251 for my V67. (it's a joke folks)

chessparov · #9 06-03-2002

Great news guys-Telefunken is going to make the 251 again!!
For a measly $7500 list let's all get one-brand new...

Chris

Harvey Gerst · #10 06-03-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Fed
Good explanation Harvey.
I have coupple of comments/questions if you don't mind.

First: I was thinking about a mic almost like a tool (well it is a tool ), say a wrench. I have a wrench set that's like $20 for bunch of them. A profesional mechanic also has wrenches but his maybe $20 for each. Well, we both can tighten the nut (may I even say equaly tight). So what is the difference.... ? eeeeeh...
not sure beyond the obvious, he is making money with his wrenches and his are "better" brand, metal, etc.

Second: I'm really curious what are some good reasons why a Telefunken ELA M251 costs $15,000. I'm not sarcastic, I realy want to know.

Thanks Harvey for your contributions and help
cheers

There's a nice history of the Telefunken ELA M250 and M251 at: 12 Historic Mics

Mark H. · #11 06-04-2002

Perceptions and expectations play a role as well. I don't read of too many people romanticizing the Sony C800 G, for instance.

The analogy of the Mercedes Benz is a good one. Anyone who researches safety, handling, performance and repair history might choose a Lexus or Acura instead. Nevertheless, and despite ready availability of data from Consumer Reports, Edmunds.com and others, people still buy expensive, dangerous clunkers all the time. There's no evidence that Cadillac or Jaguar is going to go out of business in the near future, or that sales of Suburbans, Corvettes or M-Class SUVs will drop off despite dismal repair records.

There are mics that can be compared to musical instruments, and perhaps that's the best way to understand the cache they acquire. However, as a newcomer to recording, I'm more than a little surprised at times at how reluctant more experienced recordists are to criticize certain mics made by a well-known German firm. Is it brand loyalty? Courtesy to colleagues? Or is it like Mercedes Benz -- they make some very, very fine cars, so let's pretend their lemons aren't really lemons?

Just curious....

Best wishes,

Mark H.

strmkr · #12 06-04-2002

Quote:

First: I was thinking about a mic almost like a tool (well it is a tool ), say a wrench. I have a wrench set that's like $20 for bunch of them. A profesional mechanic also has wrenches but his maybe $20 for each. Well, we both can tighten the nut (may I even say equaly tight). So what is the difference.... ? eeeeeh...

As someone who worked as a field service mechanic on construction rental equipment for 9 years,I feel qualified to answer that one.Is a Snap-On wrench that much better than a Wal-Mart wrench?........You better believe it is.The difference is how much skin you get to keep on your knuckles with a wrench that ACTUALLY fits the nut or bolt as opposed to one that half ass fits.

How does that relate to microphones? I am not sure that it does,necessarily.While wrenches are used in a very specific manner,to loosen or tighten nuts and bolts etc,microphones are used in the creation of art. A nut or bolt threads up in a specific manner,and if you get it cross threaded,you did it wrong.

However,with things like mic selection,placement etc.,it is a lot more subjective.What sounds good to YOU on YOUR song.If you like a RS ball mic on a cardboard box for your kick drum sound,I can't tell you it's wrong.I may not like it,but hey it's your art.

Peace

Harvey Gerst · #13 06-04-2002

Well, if you wanna use the mechanic and his tools, consider this:

The guy who tinkers with his car on weekends only need the tools necessary to work on that particular make and model. If he doesn't have the world's greatest tools, it's no big deal, since he can take his time and find a "work-around" for a problem, or buy another cheap tool that'll get the job done. Since he only works on weekends, those tools will probably last a long time, and "do the job".

Now consider the "pro" mechanic's situation; he doesn't know what's gonna come thru the door next, so he better have a wide range of tools available. And, since he's using those tools every day for 8 to 10 hours a day, six days a week, they better be decent tools.

Now suppose you have a friend who's a "pro" and you talk him into coming over and working on your weekend car, using your tools. Can he do a better job than you can, on your car, using your tools, in your garage?

Probably yes, since he does this stuff for a living, 48 to 60 hours a week. He knows all the little tricks to get around things that are driving you crazy.

("Can't adjust the doofus, cuz the thingy's in the way? Loosen this one screw on the thingy a little bit, and it swings out of the way, so you can get to the doofus.")

D'oh!!

Pinky · #14 06-04-2002

Nicely put.

I ask vague questions but try to at least give ballpark dollar figures and explain my upgrade reasoning (as in the other thread).

The analogies (I've seen many of them in other arenas as well) are true. Typically, the more you pay the better it plays. I have a 5-6 year old Washburn acoustic, most who have played her drool over it, and I recently tried to trade her in for new hardware but the music shop laughed and said the condition was marginal... in the same breathe they said to "keep it, it's a beautiful guitar, but not fit for resale

". That said a lot to me about "looks" as opposed to "functionality."

strmkr · #15 06-04-2002

Damn good analogy,Harvey.

Sounds like you might have "turned a wrench or two" somewhere along the way.Most people don't realize that in the mechanic biz,there is no such thing as a 40 hour week.

One thing I often had to do,especially to work on Bobcats(wretched things to wrench on!)was to modify and invent tools to do specific things and reach places that the standard stuff in the old tool box wouldn't do.I guess that could be analogous to mic mods etc.I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has "customized their toolkit".I think it might make some good reading.

Well,off to work for me.It's not so bad though,punching buttons in an air conditioned t.v. station beats the hell out of knucklebusting for sure!

Have a great day everyone!

Fed · #16 06-04-2002

strmkr, Harvey,
excelent points there. I would think that any analogy would come short at certaint point.

Just like Harveys guitar analogy, though very good one, didn't make it all the way for me, my wrench one didn't realy do it for strmkr.

I guess my point is eeeeehh..... ????
Well, I guess I am just trying to convince myself that with my one and only mxl2003 and some 57s. I can record the things I want in the way that I won't have to make excuses for. (wishfull thinking???

)

I am still not sure about that and just recently I recorded my wife with it and though it sounded good it didn't sit in the mix well.

It was so obvious. I think it's firs time I actualy could say now I know what it means "does not sit in a mix". Now it could be ofcorse the rest of the mix that is bad.

Anyway I'm getting off topic here. In the end it's about music and making it sound good whatever "good" means to you

cheers

Harvey Gerst · #17 06-04-2002

Fed,

Mixing is harder than it seems. Try this:

First of all, get away from the track for at least two days if you can. Avoid listening to anything you've done; listen to stuff you like by other people.

Ok, once you're ready to start mixing, try this method: Bring up just your wife's vocal track till it's at a comfortable loudness level. Now, slowly start bringing up the other tracks, one at a time. As you bring up each track, stay focused on the sound of her vocal track. If you bring up a track that seems to make her voice sound a little softer, shut the fader off for that track and go on to the next track, always listening to the vocal track as your reference, killing any track that makes her voice sound softer.

After you've gone thru all the tracks, you'll probably have 3 to 5 tracks shut off. Those are your problem tracks. You'll hafta eq, pan, compress, or reverb them, or leave them off altogether.

But listen closely to what you currently have going. Do you "REALLY" need "all" of those 5 missing tracks in the mix? Does the mix sound stronger without them? On the tracks you absolutely hafta have, put them where they don't cover the vocals, using any of the tools mentioned above. Then take about an hour break, get out of the studio, and come back later and listen to what you have. If you're satisfied, shut everything down, leaving all your settings in place.

Come back tomorrow and listen to it again. Tweak till you're happy, shut down, and repeat again the next day. The day you walk in and you're happy with what you did last night, is the day you have a finished mix.

Fed · #18 06-04-2002

wow,
am I glad I stock around on this thread

Thanks Harvey. I wish I had someone with your expirience to sit with and whatch or whatever. Or better yet to record with.

My biggest (well maybe biggest) problem right now is that I am trying to have 3 or 4 hats on my head - musician, producer, arranger, and recording ingeneer. So it's very daughnting. But I love the music my wife writes. It's world class (if I may say that). She is well trained pianist and gifted musician. I want to record it and share it. The album I'm working on right now is not in english and as such probably not commercialy viable. So it's a labor of love if you will. But I also have my standards high. (Like I said no excuses

)

What you said about keeping comming back to the mix is great.
I'm trying to do that. I'm in no hurry. Though it would be good to finish it this summer.

The good thing about your point about comming back to the mix as that I hope I can do a "good" (againg whatever it is) production and don't spend years of trial and error.

I was thinking after I have all tracks down to where I at least am happy with the arrangement, I could hire someone from local studios to take a listen. Do yo ever do that kind of stuff or get enquiries for that??? Is that even an option?

I don't know why I tell you all that. I guess I think if you have some background info on someone you are trying to help to, it helps you help them better.

Your suggestions are greatly appriciated. and again, thanks
cheers

Harvey Gerst · #19 06-04-2002

Yes, I often get requests to listen to a mix and make suggestions, and I try to do that whenever I have the time and I think I can offer some intelligent suggestions.

It's always a good idea to make friends with your local studio, help out occasionally, or just hang out, when you have times. It often pays off with tips that you can use, or they'll loan you equipment once they know you, or who knows what else?

The biggest problem most new people have when they wear too many hats is understanding and accepting what's really important to the song.

Stripping the song down to the bare essentials and building up from there is not easy when you've invested a lot of time in arranging a particular part. But sometimes you just hafta stand back far enough to look at the song objectively and honestly decide whether that part is really helping the song, or is it just your ego talking?

JMarcomb · #20 06-04-2002

harvey, you have much wisdom.

when I first saw your picture/avator ... I thought of the Luke skywalkers father

You seem to come through like that character too. A man of much knowledge!

I have a quick question after reading your excellent posts.

This doesnt pertain to mics... but you seem to be the man to talk to.

I have a mix im working on and it contains 18 different tracks. Some tracks are just edits of cloned tracks.
Now.... ive been listening to alot of music and I get a sense all the instruments I hear are equally in the left and right channels, but some instruments are quieter or louder. When I pan a channel just 8% it seems to almost disappear on that channel. My whole Idea is my mix sounds cluttered.. I want to get good separation of all instruments... but I keep getting lost. Im starting to read about Haas and how instruments in the distance seem to loose there high end. Do I eq to get better separation of instuments? If you could please help, I would really appreciate it!

Thanks for listening

Newest User · #21 06-04-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Harvey Gerst
Well, if you wanna use the mechanic and his tools, consider this:

Ive been using the Box of Crayons analogy. Its good to have as many colors as possible, to be able to create the art as needed by the artist. There are so many colors to choose from, and not every color works on everything. There are harsh colors and smooth colors, and there are just plain ugly colors... I saw the list of Joe Chicarelli mic selection for artists he has worked with...Big old box of colors!

Peace,
Dennis

JMarcomb · #22 06-04-2002

oh harvey ..Oops I thought you resemble Obi wan kanbie

I forgot sky walkers father is darth vader..

darrin_h2000 · #23 06-04-2002

So Harvey, does it pay better to record music for the darkside?

I actually dont see the resemblence between you picture and Obiwan.

So you recorded Linda ronstadt. She was a real Looker Back then.

Harvey Gerst · #24 06-04-2002

Darrin,

No, I didn't record Linda Ronstadt, but I did hang out with her and the band a lot. That recording was done by Peter Asher with Dave Hassinger doing the engineering in Dave's studio in Hollywood, behind Cahuanga.

ozraves · #25 06-04-2002

Quote:

Originally posted by Harvey Gerst
The biggest problem most new people have when they wear too many hats is understanding and accepting what's really important to the song.

Stripping the song down to the bare essentials and building up from there is not easy when you've invested a lot of time in arranging a particular part. But sometimes you just hafta stand back far enough to look at the song objectively and honestly decide whether that part is really helping the song, or is it just your ego talking?

Harvey, you speak through experience and wisdom. In the last six months or so, I've started mixing other indie artists. This is a new experience for me as I didn't know I had a knack for mixing as I never got to park my butt in front of a set of nearfields for unbearably long periods of time.

Anyhow, the comment I always get after sending out a mix is: "Why did you take out...?" My answer is always the same: I loved that part by itself but it just didn't add anything to the song.

So far, after awhile, everyone is happy and they refer more people to me for mixing. But, there is that initial period when you can tell the artist is very uncomfortable with the whole thing b/c she didn't envision you'd be cutting out any part of her song.

Steve
www.piemusic.com