How much difference does a quality mic really make?

Placement and room are the things you can adjust currently. If u get a good capture(which is most important), you can do a slight low pass filter with a gentle Q with an eq, and add some distortion to the warm freq. in your voice to help warm things up. The massey Tapehead plugin works well here. The demo is free and plugin is 69 bucks. But......this is not a solution. It's all in the capture. As Aaron mentioned( Go Bengals ), the SM-7 is usually money on male vocals, and also does a fantastic job of rejecting a bad recording environment. Is sounds really good on transparent press too.
 
The mic does make a difference. It's like the lens on your camera and you will get sharper results from a good lens on an 8 Mp camera than a crap lens on a 12 Mp camera. Where the photography analogy breaks down is because each type of mic has a different response both in EQ and dynamics, it not only has to be reasonably good quality but it also has to be a good match for the source. That's why studios have a bigger mic collection than the average lady's shoe collection. There's no point shelling out for a single super-duper mic because it won't work for everything but also don't buy a whole stack of crap mics. There are a lot of crappy condenser mics that sound bright but lack air and upper mids that you then have to do a bunch of EQ to try to rescue. But as others have said, you also have to look at the entire recording chain from the singer through to the ADC.
 
I
iqi616 said:
The mic does make a difference. It's like the lens on your camera and you will get sharper results from a good lens on an 8 Mp camera than a crap lens on a 12 Mp camera. Where the photography analogy breaks down is because each type of mic has a different response both in EQ and dynamics, it not only has to be reasonably good quality but it also has to be a good match for the source. That's why studios have a bigger mic collection than the average lady's shoe collection. There's no point shelling out for a single super-duper mic because it won't work for everything but also don't buy a whole stack of crap mics. There are a lot of crappy condenser mics that sound bright but lack air and upper mids that you then have to do a bunch of EQ to try to rescue. But as others have said, you also have to look at the entire recording chain from the singer through to the ADC.
Click to expand...

This is off topic, but this is why a home studio can't compete with a "real" studio. I see posts all the time, "I can get pro tracks from my 1,000 dollar home rig. Great ones "yes" but the rooms and selection of mics is the key. It's really night and day.
 
Elton123 said:
This is off topic, but this is why a home studio can't compete with a "real" studio.
Click to expand...
Come on, dude... That's still bullshit. What is your agenda in promoting that idea to the point of irrelevant, off-topic interjections like this anyway? Struggling studio owner? Frustration with subpar mixes? Both? What's the deal?

Elton123 said:
I see posts all the time, "I can get pro tracks from my 1,000 dollar home rig.
Click to expand...
:confused: On this forum? Whatchoo talkin bout willis? Aside from JordanD and BabyOJ and a few other delusional folks over the years, I've never seen a post like that... I wish I did. Assuming they actually could - I'd give them a high five before the elitist posse tried to run them off anyway.

Elton123 said:
rooms and selection of mics
Click to expand...
I whole-heartedly agree with this part! :D
 
So how do all you guys manage to get a good capture (obviously not a hard and fast rule because tis different for every song/voice/sound/etc)? Say I'm trying to just get a warm vocal tone, close up sounding (little reverb, but not much) and my voice is kind of chesty and lowish (awesome description right?). Any tips? Should I set the mic up in the corner of the room, or middle? Am I just aiming for the deadest possible sound and then I can add plugins/reverb.etc after, or should I get a bit of the influence of the room in the tracking stage?
 
TyphoidHippo said:
Come on, dude... That's still bullshit. What is your agenda in promoting that idea to the point of irrelevant, off-topic interjections like this anyway? Struggling studio owner? Frustration with subpar mixes? Both? What's the deal?


:confused: On this forum? Whatchoo talkin bout willis? Aside from JordanD and BabyOJ and a few other delusional folks over the years, I've never seen a post like that... I wish I did. Assuming they actually could - I'd give them a high five before the elitist posse tried to run them off anyway.

Oh, you again. No I have no agenda. The post I quoted reminded me of a discussion, or a post I saw somewhere. This quote "Where the photography analogy breaks down is because each type of mic has a different response both in EQ and dynamics, it not only has to be reasonably good quality but it also has to be a good match for the source. That's why studios have a bigger mic collection than the average lady's shoe collection. " reminded me of a point I was trying to make in that discussion. That's all. I should not have brought it up here.

"Struggling studio owner? Frustration with subpar mixes? Both? What's the deal?

No, I have none of these. I'm perfectly happy with what I get and part of that comes from realizing what it is, and realizing the gross short comings that are there are partly because I don't have a super room, or a mic for every situation. Thus the point I was trying to make in the wrong forum.

"Come on, dude... That's still bullshit."

I really don't believe it is. But differences of opinions are what makes that world go round.
Click to expand...
 
There are a lot of options and spaces t use and you just have to try and see what works for you. As far as capture goes i prefer a bit of air and openness over a dead claustrophobic sound so generally record vox in the center of a largish room*. I prefer to use an old school up high mic position a foot back and 4-6" above the mouth. Then make gain or position adjustments as needed. If a close mic is needed then adding a pop screen and pencil may be added. I often like to mix my LDC with a vocalists preferred hand held with interesting results.
*Other options include a corner of a room with book cases on each wall usually 3-4' from corner, bath room or walk in closet for a really dead space. I once had a vocalist that insisted on smoking so I put him out side on the patio and got some really good tracks that way.
 
Elton123 said:
This is off topic, but this is why a home studio can't compete with a "real" studio. I see posts all the time, "I can get pro tracks from my 1,000 dollar home rig. Great ones "yes" but the rooms and selection of mics is the key. It's really night and day.
Click to expand...
The definition of a "real" studio is...
 
Last edited:
bassbrad said:
There are a lot of options and spaces t use and you just have to try and see what works for you. As far as capture goes i prefer a bit of air and openness over a dead claustrophobic sound so generally record vox in the center of a largish room*. I prefer to use an old school up high mic position a foot back and 4-6" above the mouth. Then make gain or position adjustments as needed. If a close mic is needed then adding a pop screen and pencil may be added. I often like to mix my LDC with a vocalists preferred hand held with interesting results.
*Other options include a corner of a room with book cases on each wall usually 3-4' from corner, bath room or walk in closet for a really dead space. I once had a vocalist that insisted on smoking so I put him out side on the patio and got some really good tracks that way.
Click to expand...

+1. But as demonstrated here, there are no rules. Move yourself and the mic around until you hear what you are after. Getting as close to the sound u are after as u can would be a good capture.
 
Not a dumb question - probably a bigger one than you realize. You can find lots mics that *can* give you perfectly fine results without spending big bucks.

Part of the challenge is effectively using the mic - there are numerous good mics that will give very different results - for that matter the same mic will give different results depending on how it's used. You also need an understanding of what to do with the results to fit into the bigger picture. The more kinds of things you're recording that you have to piece together the more complicated the process becomes and this changes depending on many factors.

If you've said what you're looking to do at this moment, I missed it. Are you close-mic'ing yourself singing and playing guitar? Do you want the guitar in stereo? Looking to get an ambient sound like you're in a concert hall? Coffee house? Recording a rock band? A symphony? Solo trumpet and pipe organ? A barbershop quartet? Big band?

Assuming you're recording digitally you have to understand the software and how to use or not use it - EQ, compression, various FX, which requires an understanding of the various considerations - including awareness of what *can* be done to the sound and you have to be able to analyze it effectively - i.e. have useful monitoring *and* be aware of what to listen for.
 
I may have mentioned what I wanted on my other post. I was originally going to do vocals and an electric guitar together, but they were saying to isolate the signals to make for a cleaner mix. So I guess at the moment I'm just trying to capture vocals that will fit in well with a mix of 2-3 guitars, bass, drums, and ambient stuff on keyboard/piano. I want the vocals to be close sounding (not concert hall) but still have some thickness to them (i.e. a little reverb and some bottom end). Style of music is kind of a jazz/gypsy rock sound for a couple songs, and a more atmospheric jam style (kind of aiming for a Brian Jonestown Massacre thing) to others. I definitely don't want the vocals so wet with effects that its incomprehensible, but I don't want it to be squeaky clean either. Wow, after writing all that I realized I'm a picky mofo.
 
Jon Stoppable said:
Tube circuits are not necessarily noisier than solid state, especially in a preamp design where there is going to be an input transformer in front of the tube. The transistor designs are a lot more efficient though.
Click to expand...



Yes - Ever since they reverse engineered that crashed UFO at Roswell we have had great leaps in technology!





Goodbye Jon. :(
 
Elton123 said:
This is off topic, but this is why a home studio can't compete with a "real" studio. I see posts all the time, "I can get pro tracks from my 1,000 dollar home rig. Great ones "yes" but the rooms and selection of mics is the key. It's really night and day.
Click to expand...
Another thought on this - I see people in audio forums constantly bitching about "pro" major-label radio-release recordings made in cost-no-object facilities. Many clearly don't think they're all that.
 
brassplyer said:
Another thought on this - I see people in audio forums constantly bitching about "pro" major-label radio-release recordings made in cost-no-object facilities. Many clearly don't think they're all that.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to factor in producers and label execs wanting things loud. Which we all know the detrimental effects that has had on the quality of audio dynamics. You also have to consider the recording engineer, mixing engineer. I don't think any of these things have anything to do with capability of the facility.
 
Here's an example of a fool-around done under decidedly non-hifalutin' circumstances - the focus here are the harmony vocals and horns, both recorded with the same inexpensive mic. I'm of the opinion that it came out pretty well.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top