different (not better) mics

[dobro]

Tonight I tested some mics. I recorded the same guitar piece three times using three different mics (Shure SM-57, AKG C-1000, Rode NT-1), and then the same vocal piece three times with the same mics. Then I sat back with a beer and listened to the tracks a few times.

As you'd expect, there was greater detail as I went through the series of mics. However, I'm thinking the sensitivity of the mic you use is a bit like an effect - you pick and choose which one you want for the job, you don't automatically reach for the most expensive (most sensitive) one every time.

Also, the best performance I put in tonight happened to be with the AKG, not the Rode. The track *sounds* better, although recorded on a less sensitive mic, because the playing and singing was better. Performance supersedes technique/technology every time.

This post contains two different issues.

 

[BigKahuna]

Another reason why the AKG may sound better may be the fact that it uses a small diaphragm capsule as opposed to the large diaphragm in the Rode. This captures better transient response, especially with acoustic guitar. My guess is the AKG recording probably sounds a little clearer because of this?

 

[dobro]

Hey, Big K - no, I actually prefer the sound of the Rode (it's fuller, there's more there) on the acoustic, but the track recorded with the AKG was better musically. That's what I meant by it 'sounding' better - the performance takes precedence over recording quality.

Last night I did some double micing. Overall, double micing produces a fuller, more real sound than single micing. Rode plus AKG was way more interesting than AKG plus Shure (gawsh!). Also, I liked Rode plus AKG close up better than at 2-3 feet. I had the mics a little less than a foot apart, a taste above the center of the soundhole.

I'm on a roll here. This is great.

 

[dobro]

Here's a micing configuration for voice I found useful and good-sounding. Two mics about six inches apart, pointed toward you. Get up close, maybe six inches from them, and sing between them. No popper stopper required, since you're not singing into the mic. If you're singing really softly move in right between the mics. If the singing gets loud, lean back. In playback, the sound's right up front and full of detail.

You could adapt this according to the way the mic(s) picks up sound (I forget the technical term for this).

 

[GT]

Hey Dobro

If you are using the two mikes in left, right channells, less than one foot appart, you are recording binaurally. This to many is the purist form of recording there is. I like to record my acoustic and sing at the same time and use this mike setup, with one mike stand, with a double mike holder. Try making a binaurall recording, and listen back through headphones, this is as real as it gets. You are now a purist!!!

 

[dobro]

Hey, thanks for the new word. I'll impress my friends: "I record binaurally."

I'll take your word for it that recording this way is the purist approach - I just tried different mic positions, and this is the one I liked best, and the one I could work best. For instance, I didn't like working with a popper stopper because it's difficult reading lyrics with a disc in front of your face. Now, I can sing the way I like, get the sound I like best, and be a binaural purist all in one go.

 

[GT]

Hey Dobro,

I put a post in Recording Techniques (Headphone Intonation), where I talk about binaural recording. Give it a response.

 

[manylow]

for creepy realism they make these mic capsules imebedded in silicone and styrafoam heads called kuntskopfs (German for aritificial head) the capsule record soun biauraly. The effect is only perfect in the sweet listening spot. The inertia is worth it.

 

[GT]

Hi,

Yea I think Sennheiser used to make a binaural dummy head, I don't know if they still do. I don't think having the mics facing away from each other in the dummy head would be very good for our purposes. I still think using two mics less than a foot appart, similar to your ears is a great way to record.