How does diaphragm size/polar pattern relate to mic applications?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris F
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris,
I soon will record accoustic bass, would be great to hear what you found out!!

to Harvey:
what is the advantage/disadvantage of using a figuer 8 mic over a cardioid for single voice? Would you set up the figure of 8 differently (absorbing surface at the back?)?
Thank you
Harald
 
h kuhn said:
o Harvey:
what is the advantage/disadvantage of using a figuer 8 mic over a cardioid for single voice? Would you set up the figure of 8 differently (absorbing surface at the back?)?
Harald
I was primarily thinking of Figure 8 ribbon mics when I wrote that but some of it holds true for all figure 8 patterns. Figure 8 patterns have the most proximity effect possible, which can really enhance some vocals. Ribbons have a smooth, silky sound to them which compliments a great number of voices. Figure 8 patterns have the smoothest off-axis response of all gradient polar patterns.
 
Whoops, forgot this.

Forgot to add that yes, I use some form of absorbtion for the back side when using figure 8 mics for vocals.
 
Is it true that the "rudy van gelder sound" is mostly due to the use of ribbons?? As this is a sound I am absolutely looking for, what mics in the lower end could bring me a bit nearer (I certainly can't justify buying a RCA 77 or a Royer, bummer)?
 
forgot to mention: I don't like the idea of a hypercardioid ribbon like the m260, because it would be nice to have the option of using it for m+s!
 
h kuhn said:
Is it true that the "rudy van gelder sound" is mostly due to the use of ribbons?? As this is a sound I am absolutely looking for, what mics in the lower end could bring me a bit nearer (I certainly can't justify buying a RCA 77 or a Royer, bummer)?
Ribbons, and a few Neumanns, I believe. Actually nobody knows Rudy's exact methods of recording and that is still a jealously guarded secret. He would often move the mics into weird positions purposely to confuse people who were curious. The Beyer M260 would make a good M mic, while the Beyer 160? (or is it the 130) would be a good S mic for MS recording.
 
h kuhn said:
forgot to mention: I don't like the idea of a hypercardioid ribbon like the m260, because it would be nice to have the option of using it for m+s!
And I forgot to mention that if you use the Beyer ribbon mics, get them modified by Stephen Sank in Albuqueque who re-ribbons them to where they sound like RCA 77DX mics for about $125 per mic. Try to find the Beyers used and beat-up and cheap, then send them to Stephen. Stephen's father, Jon, designed many of the original RCA ribbon mics.
 
Re: Dynamic Mics

This first posting has been driving me crazy, so I thought I'd update it with a better graphic.

Harvey Gerst said:
By far, the most popular mic on the market today is the dynamic cardioid mic, so that's as good a place as any to start. "How does it work, what exactly is a cardioid, and how and where would you use it" will be our focus today. Let's look inside one and see what we find:

Well, it has a cone (like a small speaker), a voice coil (like a small speaker), and it sits in a magnetic gap (like a small speaker), so isn't it just a small speaker in reverse? Yes, and no. The operating principle is the same, but the execution is very different. When's the last time you saw a 3/4" speaker that went down to 30 or 40 Hz? Here's how it's done:

The system resonance is chosen for a mid band frequency. By itself, the capsule's response looks something like this (the black line):

dynamic.gif


...just one big resonant peak, with the response falling off rapidly on each side of the peak. Now you can tame that peak by putting in a resonant chamber that's tuned to that peak, which will give you two smaller peaks on either side, like this (the red line):

dynamic.gif


And if you add two more resonant chambers, tuned for each or those peaks, and, if you make the chambers a little more broad band, the response starts to really flatten out (the blue line, and finally the green line):

dynamic.gif


...but remember, it's still a lot like a bunch of tuned coca cola bottles inside there.

Now ya gotta do all of this stuff JUST to get the response usable - never mind about the mic pattern yet!

A lot more to come!! Everybody still with me at this point? Any questions?
 
Still with you? I'm in this till the bitter end...I do have some questions, but they'll wait until I have more info so I can make more informed questions. Keep it coming!

I still owe h kuhn a post about the acoustic bass recording tests I've been doing - I'm especially interested in the latest installment of this thread, though, because to date my best results have been with dynamic mics (haven't gotten to try any LD condensers yet though)....I'll post the DB recording stuff when things lighten up a bit.
 
Harvey Gerst said:
And I forgot to mention that if you use the Beyer ribbon mics, get them modified by Stephen Sank in Albuqueque who re-ribbons them to where they sound like RCA 77DX mics for about $125 per mic. Try to find the Beyers used and beat-up and cheap, then send them to Stephen. Stephen's father, Jon, designed many of the original RCA ribbon mics.

I have read this suggestion of yours before, will try to get one when I am back in Germany in sept. and then send it to albuqueque! (btw the figure of eight is the m130)
 
Thanks, I knew it was a 100 something, just couldn't remember which one.
 
Just finished recording some duets tonight with an absolutely fantastic jazz guitarist, and was able to get an incredible stereo sound from his archtop in the following fashion:

1) (one) MXL 603s about 12" away from his amp ( he was running clean but with a slight delay effect, the same sound that he uses on gigs), flat EQ, panned to 9 o'clock on playback.

2) Another 603s about 6" away from the tailpiece end of the lower f-hole on his guitar (a Buscarino), flat EQ, panned to 3 o'clock.


When he heard the first playback, I offered to let him fart around with the board to customize his sound. He said he couldn't imagine it being any better but played around with it anyway, and came back to where we started. That makes two applications I've tried where a pair of the MXL's got a terrific sound: Grand piano (x/y configuration just inside the rim at the "crook"), and archtop guitar (as above). I don't know their other stuff, but I'm very tempted to try that V67 for the bass just on the strength of the positive results I've had with the 603s line.

To everyone who recommended these mics - thanks, and thanks again.
 
re: large diaphram dynamics for vocals

Thanks Harvey (& others) for all this useful information. Does anyone else besides me also think that large diaphram mikes like the Sennheiser 421 (I have one), Electro-Voice 520, and Shure SM-7 can work great for vocals?
I've read that Bonnie Raitt uses the EV 520 for her studio tracks, and that the Rolling Stones used an SM-7 for working
on Voodoo Lounge (& other albums possibly). Since these microphones seem to be suited for blues/r&b rock styles I'm
surprised not to see more interest at this bbs in them, especially for home recording where the lesser sensitivity to room acoustics can be a benefit.
 
Hi again Harvey! A more appropriate question from me as relates
to this thread would be how your experience has been using large diaphram dynamic microphones for vocals, and how to use them more effectively for us home recordists. I notice a lot of people recommend using EQ to cut the midrange frequencies even after proper mike placement (2000 to 3000 hertz) about 2 or 3 decibels. Does that seem typical to you also?
 
Re: re: large diaphram dynamics for vocals

chessparov said:
Thanks Harvey (& others) for all this useful information. Does anyone else besides me also think that large diaphram mikes like the Sennheiser 421 (I have one), Electro-Voice 520, and Shure SM-7 can work great for vocals? I've read that Bonnie Raitt uses the EV 520 for her studio tracks, and that the Rolling Stones used an SM-7 for working on Voodoo Lounge (& other albums possibly). Since these microphones seem to be suited for blues/r&b rock styles I'm surprised not to see more interest at this bbs in them, especially for home recording where the lesser sensitivity to room acoustics can be a benefit.
The largest selling record of all time (75 million albums) used a Shure SM-7 for the main vocals instead of the artist's usual large condenser mic. The SM-7 is a pretty standard vocal mic in Nashnille, and it sits very well next to a Neumann U47 or a Telefunken 251 for some voices. The Sennheiser 421 was designed primarily as a vocal mic when it first came out, and it's still a great mic for many vocals.
 
Last edited:
chessparov said:
Hi again Harvey! A more appropriate question from me as relates to this thread would be how your experience has been using large diaphram dynamic microphones for vocals, and how to use them more effectively for us home recordists. I notice a lot of people recommend using EQ to cut the midrange frequencies even after proper mike placement (2000 to 3000 hertz) about 2 or 3 decibels. Does that seem typical to you also?
No, it doesn't "seem typical" to me. If anything, I'll sometimes boost those frequencies slightly, then cut the same frequencies in other tracks to give the vocals more separation in a mix.

Keep in mind that it also depends on mic choice, since some mics do have an artificial boost (or peakyness) in the 2000 to 8000 Hz region. High, narrow high frequency peaks in microphone response drive me crazy, since they can't be tamed with general eq without dulling down the whole top end, and it takes forever to track them down using surgical parametric eqs.

As I mentioned many times in this thead, mic selection and placement are everything. Use distance to adjust your low frequency response, and use angle to adjust your high frequency response.


By the way, the record that sold 75 million copies and used a Shure SM-7 as the main vocal mic was.....











.....Michael Jackson's "Thriller".
 
Hey Harvey,

Don't you have that actual SM-7 used on Thriller? I think I remember reading that on r.a.p.
 
Dolemite said:
Hey Harvey,
Don't you have that actual SM-7 used on Thriller? I think I remember reading that on r.a.p.
When I first got it, I thought it was the SM-7 that Bruce Swedien used on Michael, but I'm not sure any more. This is one of Bruce Swedien's SM-7 mics that he had around the time "Thriller" was cut. It still has his name on it in blue Dymo labeler tape that he puts on all his mics. When I bought it, I didn't know it originally belonged to Bruce Swedien - I bought it because it was a great mic.

The SM-7 stays on a stand in the studio 24 hours a day, wired up and ready to go. It's one of 5 mics that are ready to be used at all times (the other 4 are the Audix TR-40 omni, the Neumann TLM-103, the Marshall MXL-V67G, and a Shure SM-57).

The Audix TR-40 omni is used for misc. acoustic guitars, flute, violin, and various percussion instruments.

The Shure 57 is ready for adding electric guitar solos and overdubs.

The other 3 (the SM-7, the TLM-103, and the V67G) are first grabs for vocals, with the LOMO/MC012, and the ribbon mics standing by for other flavors. I'll also try these mics for horns, if a Sennheiser 421 doesn't give me what I want.
 
Hey Harvey.

Hey Harvey,

I'm very new microphones and recording.
6 months.

What is different about a valve microphone? How do these
compare to a FET type mic?

Is the rant about Rode mics, NTK and NT1000, mostly hype?
 
Re: Hey Harvey.

Originally posted by JerryD Hey Harvey, I'm very new microphones and recording. 6 months.

What is different about a valve microphone? How do these
compare to a FET type mic?

Is the rant about Rode mics, NTK and NT1000, mostly hype?
Well, lemme see if I can dispel some myths here. There are many reasons why a tube is used in some many condenser mics and is prefered to transistors (like FETs); some reasons make sense, while others are just hype and nonsense:

A condenser mic capsule requires seeing a high impedence source to keep the signal from being loaded down, usually in the multi-megohm to gigohm range. These can get pretty expensive. A tube, on the other hand, loves to see that kind of load, so it's a good match up.

Tubes, when used in a class A configuration, can be made to clip softly and symetrically, producing a more musical tone, rather than the sharp clipping characteristic of transistors.

Also, the heat (from the tube inside the mic housing) can serve as a built-in heater to drive humidity and moisture out of the case. All of the above traits are very good things. But there are some bad things as well.

You have to supple 12V DC heater and 250V plate voltages for the tube inside the mic, which require a separate power supply and a special cable running between the power supply and the mic. Tubes also tend to be a tad noisy. Different tubes can have different sonic properties which are either desirable, or not, depending on the manufacturer, or even the conditions on a particular manufacturing date.

All mics are a combination of hype and reality, mixed up and served by the manufacturer or the distributor, served up to fit their marketing plan. If you've been following this thread, you know there is no one microphone that will work best for everything. Large diaphragm vocal mics are the prime example - a mic might be perfect for one voice and sound like crap with another voice.

As far as tubes vs FET mic designs go, a good tube mic will beat the shit out of a bad FET mic, but a good FET mic will beat the shit out of a bad tube design. Tubes tend to smooth out the sound a little bit, hiding some of the things that might be harsh in other designs.

As far as the Rode mics are concerned, I haven't heard those two models. My main concern with the Rode mics is consistancy of sound from unit to unit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top