Correct Miking...

[Mindset]

Sorry for the mis understanding, but I was not trying to get the exact answers really. I was just seeing if I was going in the right direction with this, and not getting lost somewhere in a field so to say lol. I don't want to go and learn something that is totally wrong you know? I guess I'm heading in the right direction, but turning rapidly in circles doing so

Not necessarily, as you might end up exaggerating your highs. What the frequency chart is useful for is checking that, for example, if you have to record something with a lot of low or high end, the microphone is capable of recording the required frequency range relative to it's total coverage.

For acoustic instruments I would suggest getting as neutral a mic as possible (for the low end, the CAD M177 or M179 springs to mind) and make sure the source is sounding good, rather than trying to find a mic that 'improves' the source. You will still need to experiment a bit with placement - and bear in mind that your player hears things very differently from their audience.

Most engineers I have worked have spent considerable time either studying, practicing or both to develop their skills. They didn't simply post on a bbs and get the answers they want. I notice that Studio Buddy software contains the line 'A pro engineer will make a better recording with a 4-track Portastudio than an inexperienced engineer will make with the equipment found in a $2,000,000, world-class studio'.

 

[Marik]

For cellos, the most commonly used mics would be a large ribbon mic (like an RCA 77DX...

Harvey,

Don't mean to be a pedant, but despite its physical size, the RCA 77DX is rather a small ribbon mic (about 1"x0.09", IIRC--have somewhere in my notebooks exact size, but too lazy to start looking for it right now).

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Harvey,

Don't mean to be a pedant, but despite its physical size, the RCA 77DX is rather a small ribbon mic (about 1"x0.09", IIRC--have somewhere in my notebooks exact size, but too lazy to start looking for it right now).

You're right, of course. Don't suppose I could get away with claiming I was referring to the overall size of the ribbon mic, could I?

Didn't think so.


Busted!!

 

[ofajen]

That's true, I just started going to all these mic manufacturer's, and looking at the freq. range or whatever, and the spec's on the mic, and will be heading to the studio saturday, and testing out some of these mic's on different instruments. I looked at the spec's on my home mic (AKG Perception 200), and it has a high frequency bump on it, so I figure it could do well micing an instrument that also puts out more high's then lows. Is that correct?

I tend to look at it differently. Certainly you want to make sure that the range of the instrument will be covered to your satisfaction by the frequency response range of the mike. But when it comes to the shape of the curve, I prefer flatter response for most purposes, especially instruments, and I would watch out for using a mike with a high frequency bump (lots of low-priced mikes seem to have a high frequency bump that seems to be hard to avoid in a mass-produced capsule) on an instrument that also has a lot of high end. It can easily be too much of a good thing.

Give you an example. My AT 4050 (which is actually pretty good in the under $1000 range) has a bit of a peak in the high end in the omni setting. That's OK for miking a room or something distant where the extra high end makes for a natural sound. But close up, it can easily be too much for my taste. My only steel string acoustic is a low-end Yamaha with kind of a bright tone. It sounds OK miked with a flat mike like an RE-55, but with the 4050 in omni mode it's too much. On the other hand, my mother-in-law has this wonderful old Gibson J-50 with a really mellow tone. I can use the 4050 on that guitar and get away with it (though the RE-55 sounds great, too).

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Mindset]

So like, even the higher expensive mic's like a neumann U87 wouldn't be ideal? Like it doesn't really depend on what's high end, and whats not, it depends on how that mic acts, and it's response to that particular instrument being miked. Hmm insteresting... That's what what I'm interpereting. Thanks

I tend to look at it differently. Certainly you want to make sure that the range of the instrument will be covered to your satisfaction by the frequency response range of the mike. But when it comes to the shape of the curve, I prefer flatter response for most purposes, especially instruments, and I would watch out for using a mike with a high frequency bump (lots of low-priced mikes seem to have a high frequency bump that seems to be hard to avoid in a mass-produced capsule) on an instrument that also has a lot of high end. It can easily be too much of a good thing.

Give you an example. My AT 4050 (which is actually pretty good in the under $1000 range) has a bit of a peak in the high end in the omni setting. That's OK for miking a room or something distant where the extra high end makes for a natural sound. But close up, it can easily be too much for my taste. My only steel string acoustic is a low-end Yamaha with kind of a bright tone. It sounds OK miked with a flat mike like an RE-55, but with the 4050 in omni mode it's too much. On the other hand, my mother-in-law has this wonderful old Gibson J-50 with a really mellow tone. I can use the 4050 on that guitar and get away with it (though the RE-55 sounds great, too).

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Mindset]

By the way, Harvey, thanks! I'm only half way through the sticky threads lol. Fortunatly I knew a little bit to understand the concepts and information you gave out.

 

[Daniel Reichman]

So like, even the higher expensive mic's like a neumann U87 wouldn't be ideal? Like it doesn't really depend on what's high end, and whats not, it depends on how that mic acts, and it's response to that particular instrument being miked. Hmm insteresting... That's what what I'm interpereting. Thanks

Yup. That's what makes studio engineering both fun and frustrating. There are no right and wrong answers - only preferences.