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.
Harvey (or anyone else who might want to help),

I'm pretty new to the whole recording thing, and I've got to say, having read this entire thread last night, I feel like I'm starting out on the right foot. I just won an auction for an AT 3035, which I've seen some of you say nice things about. And i'm about to pick up a pair of 603Ss to go along with the one 57 I already had.

After reading everything, though, I've got one concern that wasn't really mentioned in the thread: how helpful will this knowledge of mics and mic placement be without using preamps? This is another thing I've gotten mixed responses about in the past, and I'm not sure if the preamps in the crappy little behringer mixer I'm going to buy will be enough.

I'm really not able to spend money on standalone pres at the moment, so I'm just wondering if I'll be able to get any quality recordings without them.

Thanks for everything.
 
I cant speak for anyone else . But Ive got a roland MMP-2 mic modeler which can be used as a great preamp as well the myriad of other functions it has including tone shaping ,compression ,expansion, mic modeling,equalizer, de esser, as well as a clean input for any instrument. I paid big bucks ,but right now they are selling an ebay BRAND NEW for as little as $169. Thats a steal, there selling for over $400 even at the online stores. This is the best investment I made in the whole mic area IMHO, I can make a cheap dynamic sound much more like a good condensor if I desired and a condensor ... well I can tweak it to just what I want. This is a no brainer at this price. I even picked up a second for my other system:D :D Oh yeah. did I mention the high quality analog to digital conversion which is also built in;)

How about the adjustment for mic proximity and distance.Great for slight chorus sound or fattening that guitar up

If You Put all your inputs, (Sorry but 1 at a time works best):( through it you can further shape and tweak them before doing the digital conversion.

Peace
Bill
 
Mike BL said:
Harvey (or anyone else who might want to help),

I'm pretty new to the whole recording thing, and I've got to say, having read this entire thread last night, I feel like I'm starting out on the right foot. I just won an auction for an AT 3035, which I've seen some of you say nice things about. And i'm about to pick up a pair of 603Ss to go along with the one 57 I already had.

After reading everything, though, I've got one concern that wasn't really mentioned in the thread: how helpful will this knowledge of mics and mic placement be without using preamps? This is another thing I've gotten mixed responses about in the past, and I'm not sure if the preamps in the crappy little behringer mixer I'm going to buy will be enough.

I'm really not able to spend money on standalone pres at the moment, so I'm just wondering if I'll be able to get any quality recordings without them.

Thanks for everything.
Click to expand...
The Behringer mixer or your microphones won't be a problem in getting good quality recordings. The music, the talent, mic placements, the room, and "how" a person uses the equipment they have, are usually the biggest problems in getting a good recording.
 
Thanks for the response, Harvey. That's exactly what I was looking to hear.
 
Harvey Gerst said:
The Behringer mixer or your microphones won't be a problem in getting good quality recordings. The music, the talent, mic placements, the room, and "how" a person uses the equipment they have, are usually the biggest problems in getting a good recording.
Click to expand...

Harvey,

In your honest opinion, how important is the room you record in in the overall scheme of things?

Thanks,

Rich

www.richbischoff.com
 
Telefunken said:
Harvey,

In your honest opinion, how important is the room you record in in the overall scheme of things?

Thanks,

Rich

www.richbischoff.com
Click to expand...

All I can ever give you is my honest opinion. The answer is: It depends. It depends on what you're recording, and how you're recording it. For example, with close miking (within a few inches of the sound source), the room usually doesn't mean squat.

But, if you're recording an operatic singer, a flute, harp, cello, acoustic guitar, or a violin (where you need a little distance between the mic and the source to capture all the dynamics or the full instrument), then the room comes into play. As the mic to source distance increases, the room becomes VERY important.

If you're limited by the room size (i.e., a very small room), your only choices are to make the room as dead as possible, or to at least make one part of the room as dead as possible, with baffles, blankets, pillows, whatever. You can then add some electronic reverberation to simulate a better room.
 
Telefunken said:
Harvey,

In your honest opinion, how important is the room you record in in the overall scheme of things?

Thanks,

Rich

www.richbischoff.com
Click to expand...

The room will break you . I've been working with certain choir that I can not get anywhere but in their space. Their space is plagued by the wrong timing etc. of reflections and that place has driven me nuts. I've worked and worked at micing that group and still no success.

Harvey has already advised me on this one but as of yet I've not been back to try his ideas.

Just thought I'd post to let you know that there are spaces that should be passed. I would have passed this one but the group has been good to me and most of them are friends so I have to much of a personal commitment with this one to say no.
 
as yet another homereccer who avoided this thread for a long time because it was so long.....oh my good god.....

I have been so unproductive at work for the last two days as I have read this, promising myself, okay...just one more page, and I will get some work done.

Last night I was twiddling at home with some real basics I have gleaned from this thread and I can see already how it will make a MASSIVE difference in my recordings.

Thanks, Harvey, this is phenomenal.
 
The effects of age

Wonderful thread. Perhaps the most interesting messageboard thread I've ever read.

I have a question for Harvey if he's still active here...

I am curious about the effects of age on microphones. Do different types of mics decay in quality over time? If so, in what way and which mics are most vulnerable? Can you offer any suggestions for people who may be shopping around for used mics? What to look for and what to avoid?
 
Questions and kudos to Harvey

Harvey, this information is awesome.

I wish someone had explained the facts of microphone life to me years ago.

I've learned things the hard way, by trial and error and also by not paying any attention when somebody says "you can't do that" or "that microphone position is not covered in the manual or the warranty"

the information you are sharing is gold

pure gold

my questions are two fold.


Q1: It seems the possibilities are pretty much open-ended. But are there a couple of things you should never do with a microphone?

Q2: What are your thoughts and comments on Decca Tree type arrangements - or other simliar minimal microphone arrangements. Say for example miking a drum-set with three microphones?

Thank you so much, and hope your good health continues
 
Hey Harvey - I just had a read through the PDF of this thread and I've gotta say thanks so much for providing us with your insight, esp about how the manufacturers fiddle their numbers. Most interesting.

I have a question for you though - do you know of any mics that have crap transient response that I could use for close micing drums (for the purpose of recording to digital)?
 
Re: The effects of age

Geaux said:
I am curious about the effects of age on microphones. Do different types of mics decay in quality over time? If so, in what way and which mics are most vulnerable? Can you offer any suggestions for people who may be shopping around for used mics? What to look for and what to avoid?
Click to expand...
Yes, all microphones decay in some way over time.

Electret condenser microphones lose their charge, although the newer electret materials tend to hold their charge longer than the older materials. Because of the lower costs to produce an electret mic, often the tensioning, manufacturing techniques, and long term stability suffer, resulting in everything from poor initial performance to very peaky response at higher frequencies.

Condensor mic diaphragms in general suffer from stretching, arcing, and dirt buildup, due to electrostatic attraction. Older condensor mics (which used PVC instead of mylar as the base material) suffer from hardening and cracking of the PVC base material.

Ribbons sag over time, stretch, and can rub when they do, decreasing the output greatly.

Dynamic microphones can come loose at the outer surround due to continuous flexing, or deform so that the coil rubs against the pole piece, causing buzzes and shorts.
 
Last edited:
Re: Questions to Harvey

DrainDamage said:
Q1: It seems the possibilities are pretty much open-ended. But are there a couple of things you should never do with a microphone?

Q2: What are your thoughts and comments on Decca Tree type arrangements - or other simliar minimal microphone arrangements. Say for example miking a drum-set with three microphones?
Click to expand...

A1: Avoid subjecting any microphone to large blasts of air, and extremely humid conditions.

A2: The Decca Tree was a unique solution to the problem of stereo imaging, using the unusual directional properties of the Neumann M50 microphone. It basically consisted of 3 mics (all M50s), with the L/R mics about 6 feet apart, and a center mic about 4 feet in front of the l/r pair. It maintained great stereo imaging, since the omni M50s became almost hypercardioid at high frequencies, and the center M50 kept the stereo image from wandering too far.

You can achieve similar results today, using a "wide cardioid" set of 3 mics, and even 3 cardioids (and 3 figure 8s) have been used with Decca Trees, with varying good results.

The Decca Tree was primarily designed to record symphony orchestras; it wouldn't be a good choice for miking a set of drums. It needs distance to work properly. The normal placement was 3 to 4 feet behind the conductor and about 10 feet above the conductor's head.
 
Last edited:
knightsy said:
Do you know of any mics that have crap transient response that I could use for close micing drums (for the purpose of recording to digital)?
Click to expand...
You really want mics that have good transient response for close miking drums.

For kick, there's the ATM25, the D112, the 421, the Beta 52, the ATPro25, and a host of others that work well. The Sennheiser 504 and 604 work well for toms as does the Shure 57. The 421 works great for most floor toms. The 57 and Beyer M201 work well for snare.

For higher budgets, the U87 is often used for overheads and the U47fet for kick, with a 414 for snare. Other overheads range from the Coles 4038s and the new AEA R84s down to the Behringer ECM8000s.

It really depends on the type of music you're recording, the drummer and the kit, and the sound of the room.

Most engineers will make microphone choices based on two possible scenarios: Do they want absolute accuracy, or do they want to emphasis certain elements of the instrument being miked? The choice of mics determines which goal is achieved.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply, Harvey. I had the idea of using mics with crap response suggested to me by a friend as a way of getting around the massive transient spike coming off the drum, so that the signal I would be getting would be mainly the tone rather than the crack of the drum - the idea was to us the overheads to capture the transients, which would theoretically "spread out" the energy from the transients.

Remember this is for digital recording, I'd definitely agree that recording to tape I would use mics that would capture the transient in detail, but this is just something different that I'd like to try.
 
knightsy said:
Thanks for your reply, Harvey. I had the idea of using mics with crap response suggested to me by a friend as a way of getting around the massive transient spike coming off the drum, so that the signal I would be getting would be mainly the tone rather than the crack of the drum - the idea was to us the overheads to capture the transients, which would theoretically "spread out" the energy from the transients.

Remember this is for digital recording, I'd definitely agree that recording to tape I would use mics that would capture the transient in detail, but this is just something different that I'd like to try.
Click to expand...
A compressor (set to a fast attack and release) will eliminate the transient, if that's what you want.

A "blurry" mic would simply produce a lot of boom that won't reproduce the detail of the percussion. You can also roll off the high end of the mic, since transient response is a function of rise time and high end response.
 
Last edited:
Harvey Gerst said:
Nope, believe it or not, I really like the idea of making all of this information available free to anybody that wants to learn it. When I first started, a lot of great engineers freely shared their knowledge with me - this is my way of paying them all back, by passing on what they taught me.
Click to expand...

I really appreciate your time here Harvey. This is quite an opportunity for all of us.

I'm just suprised that I've been lucky enough to hit this forum at this thread:) Now if could just win the lottery . . .

- Doug
 
Harvey

Regarding the Decca Tree, or any 3-microphone setup, I was hoping to learn of your own personal experiences.

Harvey, how do you like to mic things?

That is, have you done some cool, weird (to us) microphone setups that have yielded something beautiful or unexpected?

I stumbled into that method by accident and found it worked in a number of settings - - when nothing else would work. You know, when you have tried the close micing and the distant micing.

Setting up three microphones can sometimes give me the sound I am after and I don't even have to EQ the tracks.

That kind of thing. Got any stories? As in practical applications?

What was your first official session like? What was the one big boo-boo you made on your first major session?

Just looking for stories and anecdotes.

Cool - and thanks very much again for your patience.

- DD
 
As far as the personal stories, they aren't appropriate for this forum. I don't have any set mic techniques to speak of. I try to listen first to anything I'm going to record, and then figure out what mics and placements might be best to capture, or enhance the music.

I'm also concerned with staying out of the musicians' way, so they're not as aware of the recording process, letting them concentrate on establishing a groove and communicating with each other. Every engineer has his/her own style of doing things. What I do will depend on what the musicians need to feel comfortable.

I haven't worked with large sources in a long time. By large sources, I mean big bands, orchestras, choirs, and pipe organs, but I would still approach those tasks the same way. What do I need and (where do I need it) to capture the excitement of this music? Can I do it without disturbing the "flow" of the music? Does the music call for intimacy, or a sense of space?

My only rule is "Honor The Music". Kinda like the medical professions' rule, "First, do no harm".

On the studio wall, I do have a list of stuff to think about (and for the band to think about), but they're not rules exactly, just a few things to think about while recording.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top