
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
Ok, for the most part, Im taking my mothers advice to "sit down and shut up" but I gotta say it....
THIS IS AN AWESOME FRICKIN THREAD!.........
THIS IS AN AWESOME FRICKIN THREAD!.........
Harvey Gerst said:
Sorry this has turned into a rambling diatribe, but these are things that people tend to overlook in their haste to record stuff. But it's exactly this stuff that determines what mic, polar pattern, and placement you should be using - before you even plug in the first mic. We'll cover exactly that part next - I promise.
Harvey Gerst said:Sorry this has turned into a rambling diatribe, but these are things that people tend to overlook in their haste to record stuff. But it's exactly this stuff that determines what mic, polar pattern, and placement you should be using - before you even plug in the first mic.
Near-far "depth" is achieved by using a combination of close and distant miking techniques AND the judicious use of reverb to place instruments at different distances in the mix.Chris F said:"Rambling diatribe" my *ss......this is exactly what I'm here for. That last post was very elucidating. The one part I'm not sure I understand is the "near-far" or "depth" part - is this aspect actually created by micing certain layers closer in the "near field" than others, or is this some kind of illusion produced by mechanical means?
skippy said:Harvey:
IMHO, this thread should become a site FAQ here directly.
Bravo!
Dobro, ya kinda gotta go thru and read the whole thread very carefully. I wish it were as easy as "paint by numbers", but it isn't. I hadta start with giving you a basic idea of how all this stuff works before we get in to choices and placements. As far as tyour question about "cardioid, omni, dynamic, ribbon", I covered that in some detail early on. Cardioid and omni are 2 of many polar patterns, while dynamic and ribbon are 2 types of microphone design.dobro said:I've been ignoring the mic forum recently, and just came up here tonight and stumbled into this thread. Now I'm into my fourth whiskey in honor of the occasion, but I still don't understand anything about the relationship between mic type (cardioid, omni, dynamic, ribbon) and mic selection and placement for a particular task. I'm still at the "omni for nice rooms, cardioid for close-miking" stage of thinking. And that's not because of the whiskey, you understand.Cheers, Harvey.
Harvey Gerst said:
1. Small mics generally tend to be more accurate than large mics. Large mics are generally more flattering than small mics.
Some great insights, Chris (and from the rest of you as well). Just hang in there gang, we're almost thru. This last part will be a series of multiple posts, since we'll be covering so many techniques and instruments (in as much detail as possible).Chris Shaeffer said:Now that I see WHY this is true (smaller diaphrams move more quickly in response to the details of a sound) it gets me thinking.
1) "Accurate" doesn't always mean "Sounds better" and "Flattering" doesn't mean "Accurate." I know that seems like a 'duh!' statement but it seems important.
You've got it!! That's also why no one mic can do it all.
2) I wonder what it is about human hearing that makes certain kinds of "less accurate" sound better to us. It reminds me of the difference between consumer stereo speakers (flattering) and monitors (accurate.)
Don't think of it as "less accurate"; think of it as "more flattering".
3) I also notice that there doesn't seem to be any measurement that quantifies the accuracy or speed of responsiveness of a mike- frequency response isn't really the same thing. Also, no measurement that I know of for that elusive term "color." Is there more to the "color" of a mike (or amp, or, speaker, or...) than the frequency response?
Actually, there ARE measurements that will measure the accuracy, but it's a lot more technical, and doesn't really help this discussion. But in answer to that question, yes, there's more to it than just frequency response. Remember the pictures of the guitar top vibrating at different places with different frequencies? Well, mic capsules do that too. Capsule tensioning, damping, thickness, mass, stiffness, and excursion all affect the sound of the mic.
and finally....
4) 1-3 above seem like clear proof to me that choosing a mike and placement that sounds the "best" for a given source is going to involve knowledge of mike and sound source characteristics (which we seem to have covered *really* well), some ideas of where to start with placing those mikes, creativity, perseverance, and luck. I suppose that experience can make up for the lack of luck.
Yup, and that's exactly what the next section of this overly long diatribe is going to get into. Some of you (like Chris) are beginning to see why all the stuff we covered early on in this thread is going to be more important than you first realised.
It makes me want to take REALLY good notes about how I get the sounds I like- as well as the sounds I don't like. This seems like an art and science that deserves a lot of attention. I'm beginning to see every mike/sound source/placement experiement as time well spent even if it fails. Good stuff to have it one's head.
It's 50% art, 50% science, and 50% luck.
Thanks, everyone. I do believe we are creating a really valuable bundle of information here. And thanks, Harvey, for fueling this fire so well. (How's your back, by the way? I'm sure I speak for all in that I hope you're feeling better.)
3 visits to the chiropractor, and my right leg is still killing me (and he's closed today).As soon as the pain goes down a little, I'll try to write this next section about mic choices, patterns, and placements for as many instruments as I can think of.
take care,
Chris Shaeffer
Yes, and no!! The mic's frequency characteristics are of course a vital part of deciding which mic to use where, but it's often a choice of complimenting instead of capturing. In other words, sometimes you use a mic to flatter and enhance the sound, not because it has a similar range or is the most accurate choice.manchild said:Harvey,
is it true that mic frequency plays apart of the source that you are recording? and that you are much better off using a mic that is as close to the frequency of the soruce you are trying to record? ie. piano, singing voice, drums, guitar, flute,etc,etc.....![]()
My pleasureKaBudokan said:Harvey, what kind of placement strategies (or starting points) would you suggest for mixing large and small diaphraghm condensor mics for micing acoustic guitar?
Start around 2 feet out with the two mics set up in an X/Y array and see if you luck out. If not, try the Marshall 1000 by itself over your shoulder, figure out what's missing and then try to get that from NT2. Take the ball off the 1000 and put it in a closet somewhere.
I have an NT2 that I've been using to mic my acoustic with mixed results. I picked up one of the Marshall MXL1000's from ebay the other day ($50, I figured even a poor grad student like me couldn't go wrong), and I am wondering what may be the best approach if I am going for a stereo mix using those two mics.
I think the 1000 should be the main sound for your guitar with the NT2 as kind of a fill-in mic.
I'll experiment, of course, just wondergin what good starting points may be. I'm thinking try to find a solid sound I am happy with using the MXL, and then compliment with the NT2... (Knowing the NT2 is a bit harsh on guitar, I'll probably try to find a spot which mellows that shrillness.)
Read my whole description of guitar miking techniques a few posts above this one - I tried to get pretty detailed
Thanks.![]()