DrJosh
New member
This is a question just out of general interest. I have read that diaphragm size doesn't strongly affect low frequency response. Why then are SDCs almost never used in front of the kick?
T
tojo
New member
i don't know, but i was going to use a sdc on a kick, but decided to throw in an sm 58... unfortunately my new (used) pulsar doesn't take air flow very good. like it is really sensitive to air (like really easy to get pops with being to close to the mic.
mshilarious
Banned
They can be. Probably most people don't think about it. Earthworks has a special "kickpad", which is an inline pad and EQ that tailors the response of their mics for kick. Another example is the Shure Beta 91, which is a SDC in a boundary enclosure.
One advantage a SDC has is it will tend to have lower sensitivity than a LDC, and thus higher SPL handling, everything else being equal. But watch the SPL ratings; anything less than 1 ft from a kick ought to have a rating >140dBSPL. You can use a condenser >1ft back from a kick at more like 130dBSPL. I would avoid putting any condenser mic in the hole or inside the drum, unless it was designed for that (like the Beta 91)
One advantage a SDC has is it will tend to have lower sensitivity than a LDC, and thus higher SPL handling, everything else being equal. But watch the SPL ratings; anything less than 1 ft from a kick ought to have a rating >140dBSPL. You can use a condenser >1ft back from a kick at more like 130dBSPL. I would avoid putting any condenser mic in the hole or inside the drum, unless it was designed for that (like the Beta 91)
DrJosh
New member
Then why are LDCs preferred?
F
Freya
New member
Preferred fow what?
I guess LDC's are often preferred for being more sensitive which is also their downside. Sometimes you don't want every detail!
Intresting aside. Apparently Joe Meek used to use a ribbon mike inside the kick!
love
Freya
mshilarious
Banned
Preferred fow what?
I guess LDC's are often preferred for being more sensitive which is also their downside. Sometimes you don't want every detail!
Sensitivity is a term-of-art that merely refers to a mic's output level for a given input. It does not equate to transient response or frequency response at all. Detail is usually associated with good transient response and good high-frequency response; those are characteristics of SDCs more than LDCs.
Why do people like LDCs on kick? Perhaps because they want to lose some detail and high-frequency response, to help lessen bleed from cymbals. Or perhaps the LDC has certain other non-linearities that they enjoy. Or maybe they just heard that everyone else is doing it . . .
F
Freya
New member
Sorry, by details, I meant next doors dogs, passing cars outside that kind of thing. Detail was probably the wrong term tho I'm not sure what would be the thing really. I was suprised over Christmas by how little of the full on party next door made it into the dynamic microphone I was using. I suspect that wouldn't have been the case with the LDC's I have.
R
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
Yo Freya! Welcome to the board! The term you are looking for is ambient (commonly called background) noise, in this case the rejection of it, which is related to mic "bleed" like when your guitar mic is picking up your voice. It's a huge problem with drums, because you have so many mics so close together. I agree with MSHilarious that LD mics (usually dynamics, if "close" mic'ing) are favored because of good rejection of snare and cymbals. Toms are OK, they get through a bit. Many people put a condenser farther away, either as an ambient ("room") mic, or in a tunnel built out from the kick, or both.
Think of a small diaphragm mic like the little peephole in your motel door. It sees big because it is small. Its diaphragm is smaller, therefore lighter. But alas, not all diaphragms were created equal, and much of "sensitivity" is affected by the electronics of the mic as well.
MS is also right about SPL's (sound pressure levels), and the risks they present to mics. That old guy that used to put the ribbon on kick- was either rich as hell, had an old ribbon that would not die, or had the expertise to re-ribbon it himself. You can stick your Neumann in that hole if you want to, but I'll pass. I mostly use AKG D112, Audix D6, or Shure SM7b. In a pinch, I have used an AKG C2000B and an AKG D770. In other words, a multi-purpose small diaphragm mic in a larger housing (backed off 3 feet) and a cheap standard band mic, somewhat equivalent to a Shure SM57 (up close and personal). It rocked.
My best advice, Freya, is don't let it razz you when people call you out on your choice of words. It will help you to learn. I'm a hack with a lot of experience performing, but... I are not a engooneer. So...every time I type on this board, or any other, I ask myself 2 questions. One- is it the truth I am typing? Two- Am I trying to teach something I don't know anything about? If you *do* know stuff, teach it. If you don't know stuff, ask questions until you do. They'll really bust your ass for that, and direct you to search functions. But- if you have staying power, eventually the folks on this board can teach you a lot. There are several people on this board who have forgotten more about mics than I will ever know.. Best of luck. The recording world needs more Norse godesses-badly.-Richie
Think of a small diaphragm mic like the little peephole in your motel door. It sees big because it is small. Its diaphragm is smaller, therefore lighter. But alas, not all diaphragms were created equal, and much of "sensitivity" is affected by the electronics of the mic as well.
MS is also right about SPL's (sound pressure levels), and the risks they present to mics. That old guy that used to put the ribbon on kick- was either rich as hell, had an old ribbon that would not die, or had the expertise to re-ribbon it himself. You can stick your Neumann in that hole if you want to, but I'll pass. I mostly use AKG D112, Audix D6, or Shure SM7b. In a pinch, I have used an AKG C2000B and an AKG D770. In other words, a multi-purpose small diaphragm mic in a larger housing (backed off 3 feet) and a cheap standard band mic, somewhat equivalent to a Shure SM57 (up close and personal). It rocked.
My best advice, Freya, is don't let it razz you when people call you out on your choice of words. It will help you to learn. I'm a hack with a lot of experience performing, but... I are not a engooneer. So...every time I type on this board, or any other, I ask myself 2 questions. One- is it the truth I am typing? Two- Am I trying to teach something I don't know anything about? If you *do* know stuff, teach it. If you don't know stuff, ask questions until you do. They'll really bust your ass for that, and direct you to search functions. But- if you have staying power, eventually the folks on this board can teach you a lot. There are several people on this board who have forgotten more about mics than I will ever know.. Best of luck. The recording world needs more Norse godesses-badly.-Richie
F
Freya
New member
Thanks Richard, been around a long time tho! Just posting a lot more right now as I'm trying to sort my studio/life out!
Wasn't disagree-ing!
Not rich sadly! He never got to be old really either!
Probably the other two tho! Also it may well have been that ribbon mikes were a lot cheaper way back then.
The big trick however was that he had amazing microphone technique.
He placed the ribbon microphone flat so that the air would flow over the ribbon instead of into it! Thus the force of the air was not against the ribbon.
Wouldn't suprise me if he replaced the ribbon every so often all the same!!
It's just an amusing anecdote about a very talented engineer!
No worries, not at all "razzed"!
I make no claim to know the right words for all technical details. Ms Hillarious is dead knowledable with that sort of thing, and I leave it to the experts.
They can interpret for me I'm sure!
I like to think so too! Thankyou!
love
Freya
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
LDD's are generally used.
drossfile
nope
that's what i was thinking, but felt like i must be missing something.
as for capsule size, a larger diaphragm is simply going to reproduce lower freqs better (just like a woofer is always larger than its corresponding tweeter), right? that's where accuracy gets sacrificed--a larger surface area will accomodate a longer sound wave, but transient response suffers, yes?
idk, i wanted to post on this yesterday but felt like i must be missing some vital point and would sound like a buffoon if i chimed in with this when msh had already spoken...
i'm certainly curious and open to a beating if it's warranted.
mshilarious
Banned
No, I quite agree that dynamics are most typically used. The LDC on kick is kind of faddish; you know, somebody reads that some famous engineer loved a U47 on kick so they go looking for an LDC they can afford that does the same thing, whatever that is. I think that was behind the LDC comment; it was a comparison of condensers on kick, not dynamics. That was my presumption anyway.
Once you account for all the Beta 91s out there, I am not sure it is true that LDCs are more common than SDCs on kick, but both are much less common than dynamics.
LDCs are faddish in general. LDC on everything these days! Or a ribbon, right? Or both!
Let's burn all the moving coil dynamics and SDCs! Crystal mics too, just in case!
Sorry, back on the meds now
No. You'd think transducers would be symmetrical in that way, but they aren't. Has to do with moving lots of air vs. being moved by air. Read Harvey's big thread on the mic board for more details.
On the other hand, you can create an apparently bassy mic by tossing out high frequency response. See the SubKick for example. Yamaha doesn't even publish a frequency response chart for that mic, but let's assume it's similar to the frequency response as if it was used as a speaker--essentially nothing above 4kHz. That, plus really poor transient response and ringing from its resonant head will give you the impression of a mic that picks up a lot of bass. That's not true; it just doesn't pick up any treble. You could take any flat-response omni SDC, toss out the treble with EQ, use a transient designer plug, plus maybe some gated ringing at the resonant head frequency
, and you'd have a virtual SubKick. Yeah, that's a lot of work. The point is, the SubKick doesn't magically pick up extra bass due to its size.
Once you account for all the Beta 91s out there, I am not sure it is true that LDCs are more common than SDCs on kick, but both are much less common than dynamics.
LDCs are faddish in general. LDC on everything these days! Or a ribbon, right? Or both!
Let's burn all the moving coil dynamics and SDCs! Crystal mics too, just in case!
Sorry, back on the meds now
No. You'd think transducers would be symmetrical in that way, but they aren't. Has to do with moving lots of air vs. being moved by air. Read Harvey's big thread on the mic board for more details.
On the other hand, you can create an apparently bassy mic by tossing out high frequency response. See the SubKick for example. Yamaha doesn't even publish a frequency response chart for that mic, but let's assume it's similar to the frequency response as if it was used as a speaker--essentially nothing above 4kHz. That, plus really poor transient response and ringing from its resonant head will give you the impression of a mic that picks up a lot of bass. That's not true; it just doesn't pick up any treble. You could take any flat-response omni SDC, toss out the treble with EQ, use a transient designer plug, plus maybe some gated ringing at the resonant head frequency
, and you'd have a virtual SubKick. Yeah, that's a lot of work. The point is, the SubKick doesn't magically pick up extra bass due to its size.
drossfile
nope
No. You'd think transducers would be symmetrical in that way, but they aren't. Has to do with moving lots of air vs. being moved by air. Read Harvey's big thread on the mic board for more details.
On the other hand, you can create an apparently bassy mic by tossing out high frequency response. See the SubKick for example. Yamaha doesn't even publish a frequency response chart for that mic, but let's assume it's similar to the frequency response as if it was used as a speaker--essentially nothing above 4kHz. That, plus really poor transient response and ringing from its resonant head will give you the impression of a mic that picks up a lot of bass. That's not true; it just doesn't pick up any treble. You could take any flat-response omni SDC, toss out the treble with EQ, use a transient designer plug, plus maybe some gated ringing at the resonant head frequency
thanks for the reponse, ms. good info. i did read harvey's big thread awhile back, but who can remember all that stuff forever???
i should revisit it every now and then. see, i KNEW i was missing something!