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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Take the ball off the 1000 and put it in a closet somewhere.

That's my first plan as soon as it arrives. ;)


I think the 1000 should be the main sound for your guitar with the NT2 as kind of a fill-in mic.
That is also what I was thinking...

I like the idea of the "over the shoulder technique." I am hoping between the two mic's I will be able to get a good, interesting sound. I can always pick up another Marshall to do stereo micing with too.

I'll let you know what I think of the combination when I get to try it out.
 
The mic placement ideas for acoustic guitar make a lot of sense. I guess the part I didn't realize was the "wild-card" factor of the large diaphragm mics. I understand that they "color" the sound, but from what you seem to be saying, there's no way to predict in just what way they will color it....which is kind of a bummer. I notice when people are using them for voice that there is a certain "depth" added to the spoken sound that the smaller condensers don't seem to add, but I have no idea how this would translate to instruments.

I'm happy to wait for the installment on grand piano, but even with my own NEWBIE mic placement I notice that the mxl 603s gets a much better sound than anything I've used before (including AT Pro 37). The "xy" thing is going to require a special mounting device, and it probably means I need to order at least 1 or 2 new mics for the other instruments since I want to do 90% live recording.

What about acoustic bass? The biggest problem I have noticed with trying to record this instrument is that there is one note (the open "D") string which seems to record way hotter than the rest of the range of the instrument, so that when the rest of the range is in balance and sounds great, that D comes in and bottoms the whole track out. How should I deal with this? Bass roll of on the board while recording? Moving the mics further away? This may be an EQ question rather than a mic question...

I know a lot depends on the instrument, the player, and the mic, BUT....when recording acoustic bass, do you often use a large diaphragm mic? If so, have you ever used the V67G for this purpose? Over at my bass site, there is a lot of heated discussion about the issue, but it's coming from players - most of whom (like myself) don't know much about recording - rather than engineers. I'd love to hear your input, even though I realize that there is no definitive answer for all situations.

I'm in no hurry, take care of that pinched nerve!

Thanks.
 
You know, there must be 49 issues that are gonna get addressed here, and this is gonna turn into the mother of all microphone forum threads, but just before it tops a thousand, I want to get my own particular question in.

"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..."

How low? Below the guitar and pointing up? Under the guitar basically? This is the first time I've heard about this. How far out? Doesn't it have to be close in to maximize the guitar and reduce the vocal? I'm gonna find out eventually, but you can help the process along if you like. :)

Damn. Things open up sometimes.
 
Harvey, sorry to add to the barrage of questions, but...

...as far as acoustic guitar is concerned, as long as that's the example we're working with, would it be a good idea to mic the guitar from a couple of feet away, as you suggest, and add a near-feild mic focusing on the freq's you wish to enhance in the mix? Provided, of course, that the whole mess goes mono. (?)


BTW... If kissing yer butt could make sciatica go away, we'd have cured you by now...;) How you doing?
 
Chris F said:
The mic placement ideas for acoustic guitar make a lot of sense. I guess the part I didn't realize was the "wild-card" factor of the large diaphragm mics. I understand that they "color" the sound, but from what you seem to be saying, there's no way to predict in just what way they will color it....which is kind of a bummer. I notice when people are using them for voice that there is a certain "depth" added to the spoken sound that the smaller condensers don't seem to add, but I have no idea how this would translate to instruments.

It's a major problem, Chris, especially when talking about this new crop of low cost, condenser microphones from Russia and China. The Quality Control from many of the distributors leaves a lot to be desired. Some capsules have a very ragged and peaky top end, while others either have a diminished bottom end or they're bloated in close. The depth you hear on vocals is usually from the "proximity effect" when singing in the microphone's near field, boosting the bass at around 250 to 400 Hz to produce a fullness that's usually very desirable.

I'm happy to wait for the installment on grand piano, but even with my own NEWBIE mic placement I notice that the mxl 603s gets a much better sound than anything I've used before (including AT Pro 37). The "xy" thing is going to require a special mounting device, and it probably means I need to order at least 1 or 2 new mics for the other instruments since I want to do 90% live recording.

Yes, the 603S mics are an amazing buy right now for x/y use and many other applications. Acoustic bass, cello, flute, and fiddle are other uses for the 603S, which I'll try to cover in further installments.

What about acoustic bass? The biggest problem I have noticed with trying to record this instrument is that there is one note (the open "D") string which seems to record way hotter than the rest of the range of the instrument, so that when the rest of the range is in balance and sounds great, that D comes in and bottoms the whole track out. How should I deal with this? Bass roll of on the board while recording? Moving the mics further away? This may be an EQ question rather than a mic question...

There are several mic positions that can lessen that "hyped D" effect, like miking on the bass side of the bridge, and even with a mic stuffed part way inside the "f" hole. You can also use a parametric equalizer to lessen the effect. I'll get into all that in another posting later in the series.

I know a lot depends on the instrument, the player, and the mic, BUT....when recording acoustic bass, do you often use a large diaphragm mic? If so, have you ever used the V67G for this purpose? Over at my bass site, there is a lot of heated discussion about the issue, but it's coming from players - most of whom (like myself) don't know much about recording - rather than engineers. I'd love to hear your input, even though I realize that there is no definitive answer for all situations.

There are times when a large diaphragm mic can sound very good on upright bass, but it's usually from the middle of the nearfield (about 2 feet)to the far edge of the nearfield (about 42")where it sounds best. Any closer and the proximity effect will produce a boomy upper bass tone that destroys any definition and detail in the tone.

I'm in no hurry, take care of that pinched nerve!

Thanks.
It hurts like a son of a bitch right now, but I'm hoping it will die down over the next week
 
dobro said:
You know, there must be 49 issues that are gonna get addressed here, and this is gonna turn into the mother of all microphone forum threads, but just before it tops a thousand, I want to get my own particular question in.

"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..."

How low? Below the guitar and pointing up? Under the guitar basically? This is the first time I've heard about this. How far out? Doesn't it have to be close in to maximize the guitar and reduce the vocal? I'm gonna find out eventually, but you can help the process along if you like. :)

As usual, it will depend on the guitar, but right near the bottom of the lower bout is a good place to start. Getting in close WILL reduce the vocal, but, as you now know, that can create other problems. Start at about 18" away with the mics slightly below and aiming JUST SLIGHTLY up toward the body. The trick is to get the vocal mic up high and close to the singer without using a windscreen.

Damn. Things open up sometimes.
Yup, sometimes this stuff really stirs up the creative juices.
 
c7sus said:
I have read about guys using music stands to isolate the instrument mics from the vocal mic in these situations. But I wonder if the added baffle of the music stand doesn't start causing it's own problems in this.
That can sometimes create more problems that it will fix. In essence, you're creating a mechanical comb filter. Adding some padding can oftem minimize the combing effect, but you can also position the mics close to the stand and create a Blumlien pair which will give you very good separation. You can build a Blumlien stand by using a piece of plastic about 12"x 12" and gluing a mouse pad on each side.
 
Re: Harvey, sorry to add to the barrage of questions, but...

rjbutchko said:
...as far as acoustic guitar is concerned, as long as that's the example we're working with, would it be a good idea to mic the guitar from a couple of feet away, as you suggest, and add a near-feild mic focusing on the freq's you wish to enhance in the mix? Provided, of course, that the whole mess goes mono. (?)

As long as you observe the 3:1 rule (the second mic must be at least 3 times further away than the first mic, it might work well. It depends on moving that mic in the near field till you find the perfect spot.

BTW... If kissing yer butt could make sciatica go away, we'd have cured you by now...;) How you doing?

If I thought that would really help, you'd be looking at the world's greatest contortionist right now. It hurts like hell.
 
Harvey,

One more quick question and I'll shut up for a while (I promise!)

You mentioned the "Hyped D" effect regarding acoustic bass in your last response. Did you do that only because I mentioned it first, or is the open D a problem on many acoustic basses?

I'm asking because both my carved bass and my plywood do this when I record, though neither does it at the fingered unison, octave, or double octave. My carved bass used to pop out a pretty ugly open "G" as well, but I tempered it by putting in some velvet padding at the nut on that string. Maybe I should try this for the D string as well, even though the "hyped" effect isn't all that noticable to the human ear when heard live. Hmmm....

BTW, I know we should all make out our checks payable to you, but where do we send them?
 
Chris F said:
Harvey,

One more quick question and I'll shut up for a while (I promise!)

You mentioned the "Hyped D" effect regarding acoustic bass in your last response. Did you do that only because I mentioned it first, or is the open D a problem on many acoustic basses?

Most basses, upright and electric usually have one, sometimes two, predominent strings. The old Fenders were very notable in that the bottom two strings sounded completely different from the two high strings. With upright basses, it's also a function of the resonant chamber, the porting, and the woods used. It's usually the two upper strings that create the most problems for recording.

I'm asking because both my carved bass and my plywood do this when I record, though neither does it at the fingered unison, octave, or double octave. My carved bass used to pop out a pretty ugly open "G" as well, but I tempered it by putting in some velvet padding at the nut on that string. Maybe I should try this for the D string as well, even though the "hyped" effect isn't all that noticable to the human ear when heard live. Hmmm....

You're in the near field when you're playing, so it may not be accurate, plus the G and D may be really booming off the upper bout.

BTW, I know we should all make out our checks payable to you, but where do we send them?

All checks should be made payable to:
The Harvey Gerst Rest Home For The Permanently Senile
8676 Travis Road
Sanger, TX 76266
Attn: Drug Procurement Dept.
 
Okay, I've been trying miking the gitbox from down under (no, I haven't booked a studio in Melbourne), and I'm getting good results. Close works better than 18-24" out, probably because of the room, I think.

I tried the 'forehead level, point it at your nose' approach for the vocal mic too, and that's good too, but because of the room I'm in, I actually get a slightly better sound by having the mic at nose level and pointing it at my forehead! LOL

Lots to explore here. Thanks, Harvey.
 
Sorry I wasn't able to post yesterday. The siatica thimg was pretty rough, and it's not much better today, but I'll try a little later, if I can sit up long enough to go on to the next section.

An interesting, easy experiment:

Put your hand out about one hand's width from your face, even with your mouth, and try to blow straight ahead. Feel where the air blast is actually hitting your hand. Surprise!!!!

If you're like most people, the blast will actually hit the bottom two fingers of your hand. We all tend to blow slightly downward, so putting a vocal mic at nose height (or higher) actually misses the bulk of the air blast that causes popping on words that have a "p", "f", "b", or "v" in them.

Tell the singer NOT to aim into the mic - just have them sing straight ahead, or set up another mic in the standard vocal mic position (the "dummy mic" trick), and have them sing into that one. Or put the lyrics in the standard vocal mic position, so that they hafta keep facing straight ahead to read the words.

X/Y miking setup

For some of you that may not know what "X/Y miking" is, here's a diagram of two cardioids set up for X/Y miking:

110xy.gif


Notice the capsules are almost touching and the angle between them is 110 degrees. This can also work with two omni mics, but with lower stereo separation.

More on all this stuff later.
 
>Notice the capsules are almost touching and the angle between >them is 110 degrees. This can also work with two omni mics, but >with lower stereo separation.

Hello Harvey,
in the book from the schoeps-site they mention that an xy-pair should be angled 90° (also visible in the williams-diagram). What would be the advantage of the wider angle you recomend?
Harald
 
Thanks. This is great.

Thanks a bunch.

It makes sense to me. Please continue.

I appreciate all of this. THanks.
 
Tekker is right. You use the angle to adjust the level of the center signal and the amount of left/right seperation. And for any angle greater than 90º. you usually place the capsules one above the other, at their centerlines.

I'm sorry for being absent yesterday and today, but the pain is/was kinda intense. As soon as the pain dies down a bit, I'll get back on track with the last chapters.

Everybody's really been paying attention and asking great questions. This has turned into a wonderful, acrimony-free thread.

We'll be going deeper into stereo pair miking, talking about coincedence, near coincidence, and wide spaced mics - the 3 possible basic stereo methods. These 3 basic methods cover the Jecklin Disc, X/Y, Dual Figure 8s, Decca Tree, Blumlein Pair, ORTF, M/S, and wide spaced omnis, and cardioids.

Explaining (and visualizations) of each type will make it easier to understand how a method works and when to use it.

Again, I apologize for being out of it for the last couple of days.
 
Harvey Gerst said:
I'm sorry for being absent the last couple of days, but the pain is/was kind of intense. As soon as the pain dies down a bit, I'll get back on track with the last couple of chapters....

Again, I apologize for being out of it for the last couple of days.


Like, whatEVER.....

Damn, man.....get with the program! We all paid good money for this thread, and you're letting us all down. What's the matter with you? You think we've got all day to learn this sh*t? C'mon, we're generation "whatever" - we want all of our information fast, free, and broken into tiny little soundbytes so we won't have to pay attention for very long. Oh, and it should also be spoon-fed to us in such a way that we don't have to work for it at all, or like sweat comprehension or anything, Mkay?

Uh, wait....I think my cell phone's vibrating. Hang on, it might be the president.....(yaddayaddayadda...I'm not there yet...blablabla...I'll be there soon....yaddayadda.....I'll have my people call your people....yaddayadda....yeah, let's do lunch.....blablablabla). Now, let's see, where was I? Oh, yeah.....

Geez Harv, try to get it right next time.We don't have like ALL DAY, you know.... :rolleyes:
 
Harvey,
you recorded Ornette Coleman??? I just checked some of your old threads on the gm forum. Do you remember what year it was? Is the record still available? And, most important, the question is burning on my nails: Did you use individual mics for each musician or did you put up room mics (or a combination)?

to the "110° issue": wouldn't at this angle something that is actually behind the mics appear far left and right in the stereo image and thus corrupt the fidelity of the recording (suposing cardioid mics)?

thanks for beeing back with us, hope the nerve is better (my mom was almost paralysed because of sciatic...but the docs were able to help here and now she's kicking again)
Harald
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top