ThaArtist said:
So tight cardoid pattern mic huh...
All I was under the impression that I should get a condensor mic, does that change with the "cardiod tight pattern" stuff...
Depends on the condenser. Some are very tight, meaning they only collect sound from near the mic, others are in my opinion too sensistive and collect loads of ambient noise. Great if you're recording vocals in a huge room with lots of natural substances (like wood) about, however it's my preference to record vocals, and acoustical instruments like flute, sax, and so forth, dead as possible for treatment later. You can add the "big room" sound by borrowing a church or auditorium, playing the track at one end, and micing various spots within the structure with sensitive mics. Or, use one of the 8 zillion digital reverb, delay, and other such boxes if you prefer. The latter is easier, the former sounds better.
ThaArtist said:
Got any examples of mics like that in the $300-$500 range?
$600 ish would give you
a Beyerdynamic M160. One of the rode condensors is fairly tight. I think I have one in the attic. I'll check tomorrow and see if I still have it, and what model number it is. I might have sold it earlier this past summer. AKG 3300 is also very tight and dirt cheap. Though it's not as refined as the brandname usually suggests.
ThaArtist said:
So pack to the wall is better huh....
Right against it, no. Lets say your room is 5'x5'. Standing a foot to one side, and a foot towards the back wall, singing at a 10 degree angle is better than facing the corner, or singing dead center. Minor adjustments here, and experiment. Dispite perfect 5'x5' dimensions in this example, different walls reflect and absorb differently, as one wall might be denser, thicker, anchored better, a structural wall or a fake wall, or have more plaster on it, etc. All these things effect how the recording will come out.
ThaArtist said:
Well my problem is... if you move out of a corner then your in the center of the room... its really quiet tricky recording in a small space plus not having a seperate booth for recording...
If your house has a walk in closet, run wires to that, even temporarily down the stairs and around, and give that a try. Densely packed clothing actually is an okay broadband absorber.
ThaArtist said:
Still looking for options and answers to previously posted questions...
To your first post, I would recommend just using the rigid fiberglass and forgetting the acoustical foam. Foam tends to absorb higher frequencies but pass the lower frequencies, which results in more of a boomy sound. YOu can EQ some of that out but then you lose natural resonance that the singer, or instrument might have.
Another option is to have the singer not face the corner, but instead face you, and sing across the room. Turn off your audio monitors, record the singer dry, and use headphones to make sure the singer isn't clipping, and watch the VU meters. Then once the track(s) are laid down, you can chuck the headphones and use the monitors and the EQ to tweak it a little bit to get a better sound.
Another option is to build a 4'x8' open frame, like a picture frame, out of 1"x4" pine boards, nailing, screwing or stapling them together. Then cover one side with a dense cloth like burlap, then cover that with cotton fabric. Then stuff with rigid fiberglass, then cover the other side with cotton fabric. I've made these in the past with a friend for his studio - we made two, one behind the singer, and one in front of the singer and the microphone. Two such panels significantly reduced room artifacts if my pal used his headphones to record the singer dry. And because they are big and flat, he shoves them against the back wall when not in use. He has 9' ceilings, so a 4x8' panel is fine. If your ceilings are lower, make the panels shorter so they don't hit the ceiling.
TWO in one day...wow, thats a record lately. Now I know you did some kind of "honeydo" for the Mrs that she couldn't refuse giving you a vacation. 
