A Strange Question

[Richard Monroe]

Just to clarify...I notice I said 609 one time instead of 604...but I always meant 604.

Too bad, I rather like the 609 on snare. Oh well.

 

[miroslav]

I actually have a pair of 609 mics...and while they ARE supposed to be good on toms and drums in general, not to mention guitar cabs...
...I've only tried them onm guitar cabs, and was totally unhappy with the results.
Very dark-n-dull sounding.

The reason I don't bother with them on drums, is mainly becuase I don't individually mic all my toms and other pieces.
I just have my M/S overhead pair (GT 52 mics - FET), and spot mics on the snare and kick (604 and 602).

 

[Seafroggys]

609 is the opposite of dark and dull. It always hypes up the high end, make things sparkly. Obviously good for specific purposes, not for others. But dark and dull is something I wouldn't give to an e609.

(which, btw, I love)

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I'll also give a "thumbs up" to 609 on snare. Especially if it is a snare I generally like aside from it being a bit too dark. 609s definately brighten things up.

 

[miroslav]

But dark and dull is something I wouldn't give to an e609.

It is on guitar cabs...if you just drop it off the top of the cab up against the grill like most people tend to do . (I have two 609 mics.)

Not sure what you are comparing it to...maybe we need to pick a reference that we agree on?
Whenever I tried it on guitar cabs I hated how it muted the upper harmonics (except for the annoying peak at about 4k)...and the low end was rather dull without any body and it just fell off.

I wouldn't call it "sparkly"...maybe spikey.

Maybe it's better for toms or other instruments...I'll have to try them on other things. I just never bothered once I couldn't get them to work on guitar cabs. They've been sitting in their boxes for the last 5 years...I just use my better mics for most things.
Same goes for the SM57 mics. I have a couple of them sitting in their boxes right next to the 609 mics...haven't used them either in 5 years. Too nasty souding on guitar cabs...but I liked it on snare, though now I use the 604, which I think sounds better for snare.
Maybe my memory about them has faded a bit in 5 years....

I'm just not a big dynamic mic user for recording...though I do use them on some things.
I have a bunch of nice condensers - tube, FET, large-di, small-di...they just work better for me, but I may bring out the dynamics now after talking about them here...just to change up the flavors a bit.

 

[noisewreck]

I appreciate that the e604 is producing the sound you want on snare. Is that the sound of the snare you like, or the sound of the e604? I want a mic to reproduce the actual sound of the instrument, and if the mic can't accurately reproduce the sound of a Djembe, or a zither, a crumhorn, whatever, how can it accurately reproduce the sound of a snare drum? If I wanted an *analogue* of the snare sound, instead of the real sound, I'd use a drum module and triggers.

Accuracy is not always a good thing. If that's what everyone was after, then most LDCs would be out the question, including some seriously sought after and expensive mics.

The point is, you choose whatever device to get whatever result you're after. Another thing is, a mic might sound like ass with one preamp, but great when using another preamp. Impedance alone can make a vast difference. So, one needs to evaluate the entire chain when making a decision.

Those that know me from my posts, know that I have an almost allergic reaction to all types of dogmatic statements.

Also, your "analogue of snare sound" comment alludes to your point of view that the e604 produces a "fake" snare sound. While that may or may not be the case, you can never get the type of nuanced sound from triggers and samples, that you will get from an actual live performance using an actual drumkit, with a real human performer using drumstics. So, even if you go for a rather fucked up snare (or anyting for that matter) sound, you might still want it to have that "live" feel

 

[grimtraveller]

I just never bothered once I couldn't get them to work on guitar cabs. They've been sitting in their boxes for the last 5 years...I just use my better mics for most things.
Same goes for the SM57 mics. I have a couple of them sitting in their boxes right next to the 609 mics...haven't used them either in 5 years. Too nasty souding on guitar cabs...but I liked it on snare, though now I use the 604, which I think sounds better for snare.
Maybe my memory about them has faded a bit in 5 years....

I'm just not a big dynamic mic user for recording...though I do use them on some things.

Hey, send them to me ! I'll give them regular employment ! Five years out of work....man, the economic situation !! I'm sure I saw their ad in the papers - "willing to do almost anything"....

 

[Richard Monroe]

I agree with you Noisewreck, especially about triggers and samples. My earlier statement is not dogma, but more an expression of philosophy. I understand that many, perhaps even the vast majority of modern AE's, are trying to create a recorded sound that they like, and which sits well in the mix. And yes, I believe that the e604 creates a "false" sound, which may or may not be useful to any given finished product.
It is my personal mission to "capture" real acoustic sound in real acoustic space, not to create it. This requires careful mic selection and placement, and almost nonexistent post production processing. I am fully aware that that philosophy is more appropriate to an ethnomusicologist than a modern pop/rock producer. In that sense, I am doing what many recording people did years ago, to the extent that their skills and equipment allowed. The techniques that we use are always impacted by our goals. If the snare sounds like shit, then I'm going to create a recording of it that sounds like shit, or at least, that is what I will try to do.
It is not my opinion that my goals represent the "one true way", and that every other goal is somehow invalid. *My* mission is to record sound that sounds as close to the original source as possible, hopefully as it sounded in a good room. My experience is that when that is your goal, you're much better off starting with a good room, and a good performance of good music on a good instrument. Otherwise, the truth will hurt. It's not religion. It's just my intent. But then again, that's why I have a degree in Anthropology. I *am* an ethnomusiciologist, not a modern pop-rock producer. On the commercial side, that philosophy works a lot better for recording classical ensembles than the latest Hip-Hop CD.-Richie

 

[LDS]

If absolute accuracy is the goal, then why not just use calibrated measurement mics for everything?

 

[miroslav]

And yes, I believe that the e604 creates a "false" sound, which may or may not be useful to any given finished product.
It is my personal mission to "capture" real acoustic sound in real acoustic space, not to create it. This requires careful mic selection and placement, and almost nonexistent post production processing. I am fully aware that that philosophy is more appropriate to an ethnomusicologist than a modern pop/rock producer.

Yeah...that's where we differ...somewhat.
I'm not necessarily trying to create a "false" sound...BUT...I don't get as hung up on having things sound exactly as they would in a perfect acoustic space.
And that's really the key...are you recording in a *perfect acoustic space*?
If your space is already adding something to the sound of the instruments (which it often is)...then I don't sweat the rest of the gear influence on the sound...as long as a LIKE the end result.

There is never going to be anyone that will come up and tell you, "Hey, the Snare on your recordings doesn't sound *exactly* like a real XYZ snare."
IOW....IHMO…it's about the overall music effect on the listener, and not so much about "documentation accuracy".
That said...I can understand how/why some folks would prefer not to introduce a lot of "color" as they record, while others just go with the flow and focus on the end result.
I just try to get sounds I like…and not so much sounds that are accurate relative to some perfect reference…which doesn’t really exist. Even “transparent” gear colors your sound somewhat, and then there’s that room thing again.

Oh...AFA my use of the 604...I was checking some drum tracks I did this weekend, and the fact that I combine the 604 with the snare sound captured by the M/S overheads, might have a lot to do with why it works for me....though even when I solo just the 604 track, I don't really hear any harshness from the 604.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

It is my personal mission to "capture" real acoustic sound in real acoustic space, not to create it. This requires careful mic selection and placement, and almost nonexistent post production processing.

This is gonna' open a can of worms, but...

I would imagine that no matter what mic you used, any close micing at all would be a no-no if you were shooting for the real acoustic sound. Especially on a snare.

I'm sure I'm taking you way too literally.

 

[Richard Monroe]

For everyone above, yes, there are always compromises. Do I have a "perfect" acoustic space? Hell no. Nor do I think I would get an accurate representation of the sound of anything in a multi-million dollar anechoid chamber. Two of the words I used above have to be taken into account- "possible" and "real" acoustic space. Real acoustic spaces are not perfect. Aside from that, I have to do a lot of recording in the field, where I don't even get a good room. I am fortunate enough to have a "good" room, but it is miles away from a perfect acoustic space.
Why don't I use only calibrated measurement mics? First, because they are generally noisy as hell, and wicked small diaphragm omnis. This is a problem in the field. Moreover, good ones cost an arm and a leg. Yeah, I have a pair of ECM8000's, and occasionally they do see some use. Send me a pair of DPA's, Schoeps, or Earthworks mics, and I assure you, they'll see a ton of use. I try to have goals, which are achieved by getting closer to dreams as you go. Perfectly accurate sound in perfect acoustic space? That's a dream, not a goal.
My point is that your goals, and the essential underpinning of philosophy that you have affects not only your choice of gear, but how you use it. The things I record, how those recordings are intended to be used, and the gear I can afford affect my decisions. For instance, I'm working on a series of recordings of North American songbirds. Would I use calibarated reference mics for that? I doubt it. I need something more directional. I'm trying to record a bird, not ambient traffic noise. In the real world, that bird won't sit still for me and sing in my theoretical perfect acoustic space. I'm sorry- he lives in a tree. On the other hand, I doubt I'm going to record him with an e604, either.
All I'm saying is that I record different things than a lot of folks on this board, and trying to get a punchy snare drum sound that sits well in a rock mix is *way* down on my list of needs. On the other hand, I may be trying to record a fife and drum corps, or a series of Revolutionary War drum signals. (been there, done that) When we've gone to the trouble to refurb an 18th century drum to try and hear the sound that a drum had *then* (starting with the fucking goat, no kidding), I care a whole lot about whether the recording sounds like the real thing. And- I have to record it outdoors, because a war is not a perfect acoustic space. Y'all have your problems, and I have mine. All I was saying is that an e604 is not a tool that solves any problem *I* have, or am likely to have. I'm not saying I've achieved perfect accuracy (yeah, sure). I'm saying that the stuff I do causes me to reject most stuff that is obviously innacurate. On the other hand, I suppose we could compress the hell out of that Rev War drum...Maybe not.-Richie

 

[noisewreck]

I agree with you Noisewreck, especially about triggers and samples. My earlier statement is not dogma, but more an expression of philosophy. I understand that many, perhaps even the vast majority of modern AE's, are trying to create a recorded sound that they like, and which sits well in the mix. And yes, I believe that the e604 creates a "false" sound, which may or may not be useful to any given finished product.
It is my personal mission to "capture" real acoustic sound in real acoustic space, not to create it. This requires careful mic selection and placement, and almost nonexistent post production processing. I am fully aware that that philosophy is more appropriate to an ethnomusicologist than a modern pop/rock producer. In that sense, I am doing what many recording people did years ago, to the extent that their skills and equipment allowed. The techniques that we use are always impacted by our goals. If the snare sounds like shit, then I'm going to create a recording of it that sounds like shit, or at least, that is what I will try to do.
It is not my opinion that my goals represent the "one true way", and that every other goal is somehow invalid. *My* mission is to record sound that sounds as close to the original source as possible, hopefully as it sounded in a good room. My experience is that when that is your goal, you're much better off starting with a good room, and a good performance of good music on a good instrument. Otherwise, the truth will hurt. It's not religion. It's just my intent. But then again, that's why I have a degree in Anthropology. I *am* an ethnomusiciologist, not a modern pop-rock producer. On the commercial side, that philosophy works a lot better for recording classical ensembles than the latest Hip-Hop CD.-Richie

Fair enough, and I agree with you 100% that given your premise and goal, your approach is pretty much the only approach, especially when like you stated you're recording classical music, or even jazz for that matter.

Although I am a classical pianist by training, my audio/recording endeavors are 180° opposite of yours, where I completely don't care to document the source but rather deconstruct/reshape and create something new. So, given that, I also understand the other point of view.

Most people fall somewhere between the extremes that you and I respresent

 

[miroslav]

All I'm saying is that I record different things than a lot of folks on this board, and trying to get a punchy snare drum sound that sits well in a rock mix is *way* down on my list of needs.

......

Y'all have your problems, and I have mine.

That explains then why you're looking at mics and their uses differently than some of us.