ashcat_lt
Well-known member
Transient response maybe? Not sure this is a function of price either, but it's what I thought he was talking about.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
I was just throwing stuff out there to see if anything stuck. I could swear some dynamic mics sound different at different SPLs, but it's not like I did a scientific test or anything.
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
No, there really is such a thing as transient response. It can be noticeable, and can have an impact on the character of a microphone. It's basically the 0-60 time of the mic. There wasn't much difference between the time it took to go from 55MPH to 65MPH in my MR2 compared to my Freightliner semi, but try to go from 0 to 60 and back... Mic diaphragms have differences like that too, but it's to do more with the particular design of the mic, not price.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
I've never done any serious testing but suspect you're right. A dynamic mic is, in effect, a backwards loudspeaker. Speakers do sound different when you get right to the bottom of the sound level range or the very highest levels. Without any scientific evidence at all, it makes sense that, at the extremes of levels, the movement of the diaphragm will be a bit different.
R
radi0j0hn
New member
This is pretty "sound" advice. You can always get another mic later, but the investment in the room acoustics starts paying off now and forever. Question: what are you recording? For example, I do voice-work, etc., and I have what amounts to a booth. If you are recording music, then you need a lot more room and that means more acoustic work for you!
R
radi0j0hn
New member
Each voice has its own characteristics
"Each voice has its own characteristics and one mic will benefit a voice but some others will make it sound worse."
Ain't that the truth!
One place I do work for has the standard ElectroVoice mics that have been around for years, and I sound OK on them. But my recordings at home with some knock-off mics sound warmer -with my voice- than the better mics.
I bought a second (same) knock-off mic "that liked me" and it failed shortly after I got it. So that is another reason why mics with better quality control are often a good idea.
"Each voice has its own characteristics and one mic will benefit a voice but some others will make it sound worse."
Ain't that the truth!
One place I do work for has the standard ElectroVoice mics that have been around for years, and I sound OK on them. But my recordings at home with some knock-off mics sound warmer -with my voice- than the better mics.
I bought a second (same) knock-off mic "that liked me" and it failed shortly after I got it. So that is another reason why mics with better quality control are often a good idea.
J
jpb123
New member
I always find that the microphone is only a small factor in the recording of quality sound I think just as critical is, signal path , mic placement , and most important of all is room treatment.
I think Ethan is completely right the difference between expensive and budget mics is very very narrow these days and the majority of budget mics are more than capable of fantastic results.
I think Ethan is completely right the difference between expensive and budget mics is very very narrow these days and the majority of budget mics are more than capable of fantastic results.
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
This is kind of a rough statement that seems to say that there's no point in using any decent gear cause it's just gonna get fucked up later anyway. I'm not really gonna touch that...
...but it does kind of touch on something that I've had in my mind for quite a while. Not sure it really fits in this thread, but I'll try to squeeze it in.
It occurred to me back around the turn of the century that a lot of the things that we like about all the fancy vintage and boutique $$$ equipment is the way that it fails to perform it's intended function. Why do we prefer tape over digital? Because digital reproduces exactly what we put into it and we miss the sound of tape's limited and uneven frequency response and it's compression and distortion. That is, tape fails to be flat and linear over any usable range, and we like that.
Likewise with all the other gear. Preamps, compressors, and yes microphones. Why don't we all record through reference quality microphones? Because they don't have any "character". And what is character? Failure to provide flat, linear response.
To bring it back to the topic at hand, is it possible to say that more expensive microphones are more likely to fail more gracefully, or in a more pleasing way, than their cheaper equivalents? IDK if I believe that myself, but perhaps something to consider?
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
It's also possible that the more expensive/pro gear DOESN'T really fail at all within it's normal operating range....and yet still adds its own character.
IOW....I wouldn't always say that the character of better/pro gear is all in how it fails at some point....gracefully or otherwise, but yeah, better/pro gear will do it more gracefully in most cases, if it fails at all.
AFA Beck's statement that you quoted....I'm reading it as him saying that it's all about the complete signal chain/process, that having an expensive/pro product can be diminished by one or more crappy things in the chain/process...so you never really benefit from that expensive/pro item....and I would agree with all that...
....but he can elaborate on what he was really saying.
IOW....I wouldn't always say that the character of better/pro gear is all in how it fails at some point....gracefully or otherwise, but yeah, better/pro gear will do it more gracefully in most cases, if it fails at all.
AFA Beck's statement that you quoted....I'm reading it as him saying that it's all about the complete signal chain/process, that having an expensive/pro product can be diminished by one or more crappy things in the chain/process...so you never really benefit from that expensive/pro item....and I would agree with all that...
....but he can elaborate on what he was really saying.
R
radi0j0hn
New member
Here's a comparison of what you are getting at...
"It occurred to me back around the turn of the century that a lot of the things that we like about all the fancy vintage and boutique $$$ equipment is the way that it fails to perform it's intended function."
Somewhere in the 1970's, makers of lenses used computers to plot out the light paths of new lenses. Prior to that, they used slide-rules, written formulas, etc. The older lenses sometimes has what amounted to mistakes that gave them a certain "character." Some became famous for this and were (and are) still sought after.
I suspect it is similar with older mics. "Happy mistakes" happened.
I do see a lot of the new mics that litter the catalogs and it seems they spend a lot of time just trying to look cool.
"It occurred to me back around the turn of the century that a lot of the things that we like about all the fancy vintage and boutique $$$ equipment is the way that it fails to perform it's intended function."
Somewhere in the 1970's, makers of lenses used computers to plot out the light paths of new lenses. Prior to that, they used slide-rules, written formulas, etc. The older lenses sometimes has what amounted to mistakes that gave them a certain "character." Some became famous for this and were (and are) still sought after.
I suspect it is similar with older mics. "Happy mistakes" happened.
I do see a lot of the new mics that litter the catalogs and it seems they spend a lot of time just trying to look cool.
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
I got something different from Beck, but...
If the device's frequency response graph is not perfectly flat across the range in which it's meant to function, and/or its amplitude response is not perfectly linear within it's normal operating range*, then - by the very narrow definition I'm using here - it has failed. It could be argued that if it is designed to have a restricted or "bumpy" frequency response or whatever because that's how it's meant to sound, then it's not really "failing", and that's a valid point, but it's not really what I was getting at.
Back when digital was really starting to hit us, there was a pretty serious backlash about how "harsh" and "sterile" it sounded. I believe that a large part of the reason for that is that the other gear in the studios of the time (mid/late 90s) was just too good. People had been working so hard for so long to design and develop technologies that would get us as close to clean and flat as possible mostly in order to minimize the failure through the system. The goal was to maintain as pristine a signal as possible along the way because we knew we were eventually going to run into the funky failings of the tape, and we wanted to keep from compounding errors.
Then the digital came along and showed us exactly what clean and flat meant, and we hated it! Yes, the digital gear at the time wasn't exactly up to the standards we've got now, and there was a bit of a learning curve, but I still think that's part of it. I'm not really trying to make any judgements or statements as to what is best, just observating.
* Obviously a compressor isn't meant to be linear, and a filter isn't supposed to be flat, but if the compressor isn't flat, or the filter not linear... You get the point!
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
ashcat_it said:
There are a couple of assumptions there that may or may not be factors in the difference between tape and digital. Are we comparing an A800 to a Sound Blaster? 3 3/4 IPS 4 track cassette to a Radar? It's been a long debate over the past 20 years or so. Not sure if I want to go there - lol.
ashcat_it said:
I'm not sure I believe that either. As far as a mic imparting its mojo to whatever source, there are a lot of different design considerations that can be found at all price points. Headbasket design, capsule porting and tuning, transformer or not, circuit design, component quality. I'm inclined to think that more expensive mics place more attention to detail in these areas. It's hard to generalize everything, but I'm inclined to think that in a professional enviornment an engineer might be able to use a cheap mic and placed in a certain way on a specific source get things to sound around 70 or 80 percent "there" at mix time. After the mix, it might sound almost identical to what would result from using a more expensive mic. But the better mic might get you better than 90 percent there at mix. Sometimes the result is less time post processing. At the hobbyist/demo level, a decent but relatively inexpensive mic (and/or insert other piece of gear here) might not be the biggest thing holding you back. At least initially.
To make things more interesting, if you're on a session with a huge budget in a facility armed to the teeth and cutting vocals to the analog or digital medium of choice and you have access to a U47, a U67, C12, ELA-M251, 87i, KM 86, RCA 44, RE 20 and an SM57, which mic sounds best and will get used for the final production? To me, the first answer will be the one that captured the best performance. Beyond that, finding the mic most appropriate to the source is key. The 57 isn't likely to win over the big guns every time but it does happen.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
There's nothing like the sound of a good photo shoot.
citizen77
New member
OK... Sorry for posting without reading the middle 5 pages, but many of the responses were completely inaccurate on the first page so far. I think it's from lack of practical field use and ownership. This question keeps coming up and there is so much misinformation being passed around.
I own and use 6 stereo sets of Schoeps and have and use many "cheaper" mics. Yes, Schoeps are amazing, but only on sources/musicians that are worthy of that quality. These mics pic up everything - so if a musician puts out more garbage than beauty, these mics will make the musician sound bad. A cheaper mic, like my Oktava's, may put more self-noise into the recording, but they also are much more forgiving on the source.
Other info:
Mic modders know that some "cheaper" mics are based on the circuits of higher quality mics, but leave out EQ stages (so they don't violate copyrights), but that leaves them with a high frequency boost. That could be a good attribute if the source is lacking in that range, but it could be a detriment if it is a bright source. Again, this all depends on how you want the source to sit in the mix. The recording engineer has to think of the end product when choosing what mics to record with. I suggest using multiple mics of different "quality" to avoid excessive EQing in post (which also avoids phase problems).
Having a huge mic locker is not in everyone's budget, so do the best with what you have. A lack of resources can help the creative side of engineering - you might come up with something amazing.
Also, if your room has mode problems, then you have a whole new set a variables to contend with.
Remember your signal chain:
Source(instrument or voice) and Room, Mic, Pre, Converter
It is NOT Mic, Pre, Converter.
I own and use 6 stereo sets of Schoeps and have and use many "cheaper" mics. Yes, Schoeps are amazing, but only on sources/musicians that are worthy of that quality. These mics pic up everything - so if a musician puts out more garbage than beauty, these mics will make the musician sound bad. A cheaper mic, like my Oktava's, may put more self-noise into the recording, but they also are much more forgiving on the source.
Other info:
Mic modders know that some "cheaper" mics are based on the circuits of higher quality mics, but leave out EQ stages (so they don't violate copyrights), but that leaves them with a high frequency boost. That could be a good attribute if the source is lacking in that range, but it could be a detriment if it is a bright source. Again, this all depends on how you want the source to sit in the mix. The recording engineer has to think of the end product when choosing what mics to record with. I suggest using multiple mics of different "quality" to avoid excessive EQing in post (which also avoids phase problems).
Having a huge mic locker is not in everyone's budget, so do the best with what you have. A lack of resources can help the creative side of engineering - you might come up with something amazing.
Also, if your room has mode problems, then you have a whole new set a variables to contend with.
Remember your signal chain:
Source(instrument or voice) and Room, Mic, Pre, Converter
It is NOT Mic, Pre, Converter.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Then it sounds that what you were getting at with your very narrow definition....is that "flat" is or should be the goal and a better option than anything that deviates from it..?
To tie that into the digital audio you brought up....that would also assume then that you can add all that "non-flat stuff" later on, and I know a lot of digital-only proponents argue that....which IMO is a false argument and it's often why/what really fails much worse than the little "failures" inherent in some sought after analog audio.
Much of good audio gear is design to be "musical"....which is rarely interpreted as needing to be flat. Music is never flat.
It's kinda like cooking an entire stew, then serving it with a tray of spices to be added after it's done.
This is may sound old and boring....but I would say that at least 75% of the recording/mix happens during tracking.
If you leave it all bland and neutral, flat and transparent and waiting for the fix-it-in-the-mix stage....it's already lost, IMO.
So, talking about great gear that doesn't have perfectly flat specs as though it's already in some "failed" state, isn't accurate, if that's what you are saying....though I do get what you mean about pushing said gear into the outer limits where YOU are consciously making it start to fail in order to capture that character...and that is something different.
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
I pretty specifically said that I wasn't trying to pass judgement. I guess I've always had the sense that the folks who were designing the funky vintage stuff with all the mojo weren't actually trying to make it funky and warm and fat and whatever, but were rather attempting to get as close to clean and flat as they could given the limitations of the technology at the time. In the 90s the tech had just about caught up to where it was actually achievable, and then people figured out that sounded like ass and everybody started scrambling to jam toobs and trafos into everything.
I happen to believe that a filter is a filter and distortion is distortion and if I need one or the other for something I'll get it where I can, though I prefer to be able to control or at least choose where and when I put it, but I'm not precious about it and I certainly don't get caught up in any of magical mystical mumbo jumbo bullshit that people attach to specific pieces of gear, but that wasn't really where I was trying to go.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Then where?
There IS a bit of "judgmental" in your comments, so like I said, "if that's what you were trying to say"....as I'm not sure WHAT you were trying to say.
I think having control over every little spec, is overrated AFA being the better way or giving some guarantee that your end product will be that much better.
I'm not saying you should be at the mercy of shoddy gear and have to then suffer with the results because of it, but again, that total "control" thing is another digital proponent false argument, IMO.
It doesn't yield better anything. You may prefer working that way, but that's something else.
I'm not against having some control, and when I am in the DAW, it's an obvious strength that DAWs provide, and I'll use it as much as I need to. That said, I've already tracked all my stuff to tape, with analog gear, and I also know that I will be mixing down OTB from the DAW out through more analog gear....so I'm not ever really trying to "add" anything in the DAW for the most part, it's more about cleaning things up, comping, spot edits, etc.
I'll say it again...the life of the tracks and the overall production happens at least 75% during tracking.
If you think that you're building a better beast by "neutralizing" things at the tracking stage, to include those gear "fail" zones that can add all kinds of "organic" flavor...and then you're going to bring the tracks to life in the DAW after the fact by digitally applying "fails" and "character"....mmmmmm.....YMMV, but I find that not to be a very enjoyable way to do a production, and whatever magic/mojo might have been there at the tracking sage, will never be the same when added after the fact.
Some of that may depend on the style of music being recorded, and maybe in the Classical/Jazz arena the "transparent" "neutral" approach to tracking is desirable, but I don't think so for most other types of music, and certainly not for anything Rock/Pop/Country, though R&B/Pop and "Modern Country" have turned more to that "after the fact" production approach, and frankly, it's clean, and transparent and generally sounds lifeless and boring.
I'll take the sound of most any old school Motown R&B or classic Country over that shit.
AFA the technology.....you kinda seem to jump from the late '50s - early '60s when audio/recording gear was limited and just starting to evolve, all the way to the '90s (I guess when digital kicked in)....but some of the great analog audio gear, the stuff that today is highly worshiped and sought after, not for "mystical mumbo jumbo", but becuase it's just great sounding analog gear....was made and/or designed during the '70s-'80s, and they certainly HAD the ability to make stuff very linear, but again, many of the designs for recording gear were also shooting for musicality, not just perfect functionality and specs.
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
Honestly, I've pretty much said all I had to say about it a while ago. Just maybe throw that perspective, kinda maybe get some gears turning on the idea that the reasons we like one piece of gear over another - the reason that there are differences between different pieces of gear - is the way that said gear falls short of the theoretical ideal.
It's kind of interesting that I seem to have derailed this thread in such a way that it almost parallels that other one about the new Slate system. It seems that old Steve, at least, is banking that there are some folks out there interested in that sort of thing.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
That may be part of some gear differences/comparisons....but like I said, I don't think that's the main thing that makes great analog gear....great analog gear.
Also.....if you are going to utilize the fails of analog gear as a tool, then why use the digital simulation of that, when you can have the real thing....and no, they aren't 100% equal/same, unless you buy into the sales hype....but there some usable digital plugs, I just still feel that applying that only/always after the fact isn't the same as having it during tracking, and from analog gear.
Haven't bothered with the Slate thread. I don't use any Slate products, so it had no interest for me.
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
Well he's got this new thing where you buy two specialy calibrated mics and a special preamp and a plugin and...
There are all kinds of things recorded all kinds of different ways using all kinds of different stuff. One mans something is another mans whatever. The right tool for one job may not be the right one for something else. That's most of what I got from this thread when other people were posting.