B
bdemenil
New member
I gather large diaphram mics do better on vocals. Is there any situation where you'd be better off with a small diaphram?
C
Cooperman
New member
It largely depends on the mics you are comparing but usually for drum overheads it's best to use small diagphragm condensors.
Shailat
New member
Small dia's get the most detail and are very usefull for strummed instrument (guitar - banjo etc....) as wel as hand percussion ( shakers, Tambourrine, conga) As said cymbls (overheads) and commen with symphony orchestra recording.
Only "problem" with them can be they can sound to glassy on some things.
They also give a more uniform "off axis" response.
A bigger dia tends to give you a warmer and softer sound
This all said ... it's best to try them both out and choose the better one for the job. I have heard vocals as well as a snare sound much better using a small dia.
Only "problem" with them can be they can sound to glassy on some things.
They also give a more uniform "off axis" response.
A bigger dia tends to give you a warmer and softer sound
This all said ... it's best to try them both out and choose the better one for the job. I have heard vocals as well as a snare sound much better using a small dia.
B
bdemenil
New member
good small diaphram
Shailat, you mentioned small diaphrams are good for hand percusion. I record alot of that (using NT1), and have been a bit dissatisfied with the sound. Can you recomend a good small diaphram mic for this kind of thing. (conga,shaker).
Shailat, you mentioned small diaphrams are good for hand percusion. I record alot of that (using NT1), and have been a bit dissatisfied with the sound. Can you recomend a good small diaphram mic for this kind of thing. (conga,shaker).
bvaleria
New member
Audio-Technica 4041 (cheaper) or 4051 (more expensive).
Bruce
Blue Bear Sound
Bruce
Blue Bear Sound
Shailat
New member
First of all the reason a small is preferred, is that the larger the dia,
the more low freq's it will capture. Since in some hand percus we want the bright high mid -high freq's (and not low muddy accent to clutter the mix) of a percus, better to use a small dia.
You didn't write budget.?
Here are some good choices:
The Audio Technica's AT4041
" " " AT 3525 and AT 3528
Neumann's KM184
Eartworks TC30K
AKG C 460 B comb-ULS/61
For a punchier and rounder sound you might try the SM57 but for more attack go with the condensor.
the more low freq's it will capture. Since in some hand percus we want the bright high mid -high freq's (and not low muddy accent to clutter the mix) of a percus, better to use a small dia.
You didn't write budget.?
Here are some good choices:
The Audio Technica's AT4041
" " " AT 3525 and AT 3528
Neumann's KM184
Eartworks TC30K
AKG C 460 B comb-ULS/61
For a punchier and rounder sound you might try the SM57 but for more attack go with the condensor.
B
bdemenil
New member
mics
thanks, I'm gonna look into some of those, but what if you just record with a larger diaphram and take out some of the bass with an equalizer?
thanks, I'm gonna look into some of those, but what if you just record with a larger diaphram and take out some of the bass with an equalizer?
bvaleria
New member
The idea is to capture the sound you want "going to tape" WITHOUT having to EQ unnecessarily, unless you absolutely have no choice.
Bruce
Bruce
Shailat
New member
As said with percussion, a good mic is all you need.
But if you cant get what you want try this....
Roll off from 150Hz (you dont need under that).
Try a boost between 7-15kHz if you feel it's needed.
It could also be your Recording technique that is hamparing your sound. What are you doing?
But if you cant get what you want try this....
Roll off from 150Hz (you dont need under that).
Try a boost between 7-15kHz if you feel it's needed.
It could also be your Recording technique that is hamparing your sound. What are you doing?
B
bdemenil
New member
my technique
for bongos, I use 2 mics. Each is about 1' - 1.5' away from the drum head. They come in at angle from each side and above like this :
\ /
o-O
if the sticks are mics and the Os are drum heads.
For maracas or scraper, i have the mic about a foot away (maracas tend to move alot) facing right at it. My room has a bit of echo, so I like to mic close. What do you think?
I haven't tried cutting the low frequencies on maracas- I'm sure that will benefit the overall mix. The bongos, I'm less sure of because the bass drum is tuned quite low.
for bongos, I use 2 mics. Each is about 1' - 1.5' away from the drum head. They come in at angle from each side and above like this :
\ /
o-O
if the sticks are mics and the Os are drum heads.
For maracas or scraper, i have the mic about a foot away (maracas tend to move alot) facing right at it. My room has a bit of echo, so I like to mic close. What do you think?
I haven't tried cutting the low frequencies on maracas- I'm sure that will benefit the overall mix. The bongos, I'm less sure of because the bass drum is tuned quite low.
Shailat
New member
You didn't describe what was the problem with your sound.
The bongos - Try working with a single condensor mic instead of two.
If I was to use two mics I would choose two dynamic mics pointing from above towards the top of the heads as a starting point.
You will have to experiment moving the mic around.
Better to record dry and add reverb later in hand percussion.
The maracas it sounds like your doing the right thing. Make sure they face the mic as you have been doing.
True if your room is a bit Echoey it would be better to close in but!...
Percussion naturaly doesn't sound close to the ear in a mix. Give it some room to breath and resonate. You also don't want to put to much focus on the shaking/striking of the perc. You want more sound then noise.
Another problem with hand perc is the amount of energy they tend to give.
If the mic is to close, you will overload the mic.
Last - Proximity effect will cause a "Thump" rather then a clear attack, so keep the mic at a bit of a distance but don't lose the intimacy of the sound.
I would start with a 1-2 feet for the Bongos and 10 inchs from the maracas and then move futher as needed.
As for cutting the lows on the bongos - It would depend somewhat on the mix.
Does your mix need more lows? Is there a solid foundation of lows supplied by other instruments? Kick drum? Bass ? etc...
If you have a freq clash with the Bongos with other loew freq instruments you might be surprised when you can hardly even hear the bongos any more due to masking.
Good Luck
The bongos - Try working with a single condensor mic instead of two.
If I was to use two mics I would choose two dynamic mics pointing from above towards the top of the heads as a starting point.
You will have to experiment moving the mic around.
Better to record dry and add reverb later in hand percussion.
The maracas it sounds like your doing the right thing. Make sure they face the mic as you have been doing.
True if your room is a bit Echoey it would be better to close in but!...
Percussion naturaly doesn't sound close to the ear in a mix. Give it some room to breath and resonate. You also don't want to put to much focus on the shaking/striking of the perc. You want more sound then noise.
Another problem with hand perc is the amount of energy they tend to give.
If the mic is to close, you will overload the mic.
Last - Proximity effect will cause a "Thump" rather then a clear attack, so keep the mic at a bit of a distance but don't lose the intimacy of the sound.
I would start with a 1-2 feet for the Bongos and 10 inchs from the maracas and then move futher as needed.
As for cutting the lows on the bongos - It would depend somewhat on the mix.
Does your mix need more lows? Is there a solid foundation of lows supplied by other instruments? Kick drum? Bass ? etc...
If you have a freq clash with the Bongos with other loew freq instruments you might be surprised when you can hardly even hear the bongos any more due to masking.
Good Luck
B
bdemenil
New member
good advice
Thanks for the advice. I'll work with that. Why 1 mic instead of 2?
Thanks for the advice. I'll work with that. Why 1 mic instead of 2?
B
bdemenil
New member
dynamic
and why use 2 dynamic mics, but only 1 condensor?
and why use 2 dynamic mics, but only 1 condensor?
Shailat
New member
You can use 2 condensors if your looking for a stereo sound.
However I don't feel it's needed unless I have a song built around the precussion. If any recording can be done with 1 mic and you can capture the sound you want, Due to phase problems (as well as mix's translated to mono),
I would stick with a single condensor.
With a dynamic mic, you won't pick up the details of both drums with a single mic.
However I don't feel it's needed unless I have a song built around the precussion. If any recording can be done with 1 mic and you can capture the sound you want, Due to phase problems (as well as mix's translated to mono),
I would stick with a single condensor.
With a dynamic mic, you won't pick up the details of both drums with a single mic.
C
chuchosay
New member
I'm going to have to go the other way on this matter. Although it is always good to record the signal with the intentions of keeping outboard effects (like EQ) to a minimum once it has been recorded, there are a lot of advantages to recording things like cymbals and acoustic guitar with a large diapghragm mic. Now this isn't always true, but for the most part large diaphragm condensers are more sensitive than small diaphragms.
When you are recording this like cymbals, acoustic guitar, etc, the higher frequencies are obviously what you are focusing on. Higher frequencies tend to "hide" more. In order to capture them as best as you possibly can, the mic you are using must be highly sensitive. This is because high frequencies "move less air" and are much more subtle. So when you are looking for your mic, compare the open circuit sensitivities of them.
For instance, Shailat recommended a few by Audio Technica--as far as the AT3525 and AT3528 go concerning sensitivity, they are quite poor (nothing against them, I own one too). They're both around 4 mV output (you can check these stats at http://www.americanmusical.com). The average DYNAMIC Mic is around 2 mV. So they're not that big of improvement (although their frequency response makes up for it somewhat).
The AT4041 is a much better mic, upping the output to about 15 mV. Personally, I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a large diaphragm mic and then EQing it later as long as you have a high quality EQ. For example, if you look at the large diaphragm AT4033, the sensitivity is 25 mV. That's a huge difference and you will capture the subtleties of the cymbals' high frequencies much better.
That's my two cents.
When you are recording this like cymbals, acoustic guitar, etc, the higher frequencies are obviously what you are focusing on. Higher frequencies tend to "hide" more. In order to capture them as best as you possibly can, the mic you are using must be highly sensitive. This is because high frequencies "move less air" and are much more subtle. So when you are looking for your mic, compare the open circuit sensitivities of them.
For instance, Shailat recommended a few by Audio Technica--as far as the AT3525 and AT3528 go concerning sensitivity, they are quite poor (nothing against them, I own one too). They're both around 4 mV output (you can check these stats at http://www.americanmusical.com). The average DYNAMIC Mic is around 2 mV. So they're not that big of improvement (although their frequency response makes up for it somewhat).
The AT4041 is a much better mic, upping the output to about 15 mV. Personally, I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a large diaphragm mic and then EQing it later as long as you have a high quality EQ. For example, if you look at the large diaphragm AT4033, the sensitivity is 25 mV. That's a huge difference and you will capture the subtleties of the cymbals' high frequencies much better.
That's my two cents.
Shailat
New member
Every mic is different with a different reaction, sensativity, etc...
But as a general rule a Small dia captures MORE details (when angled correctly). The Theroy is that their dia's being 1/2" or less in diameter, they are much lighter then the 1" typically found on large large dia condensers and therfore respond more quickly.
This is not to say that a large one is not responsive. is is bit less detailed
(Again emphesis on theroy). Of course you can find better large ones then smaller one's. Every mic had a different "soul".
AS well as the larger the mic's dia, the worse it's off-axis response.
On overhaeds, many times they will respond better due to the uniform response.
On a larger dia, you might have a dull sounding cymble (or even to bright)coming from the side, as well as the "ping" of the stick hitting the cymble will sound better with a small dia (IMO).
Even more so with other instruments playing in the room and the bleeding into your condensor might change the color of distant intstruments when combined with their personal mic's.
This is not to say that you can't find a large dia that might sound better in some cases. Some engineers prefer the large to a small on percussion -piano -acoustic guitar. It would depend what you have in your arsenal but many will use a small dia.Another benefit from a large would be if your looking for a softer sound or more ambience then a larger is recomended but dont expect a even response across the whole sound or the attack to be better.
The angle plays an important part when positioning a small dia. In a bad angle they can be less responsive then a large dia.
Now please explain YOUR Theroy on why larger are more senstive.
As for the AT3525 -2528. I wrote several recemondations on differnt budget condensors and your remark on the AT4033 was a good one. But the high freq stuff you wrote is not.
But as a general rule a Small dia captures MORE details (when angled correctly). The Theroy is that their dia's being 1/2" or less in diameter, they are much lighter then the 1" typically found on large large dia condensers and therfore respond more quickly.
This is not to say that a large one is not responsive. is is bit less detailed
(Again emphesis on theroy). Of course you can find better large ones then smaller one's. Every mic had a different "soul".
AS well as the larger the mic's dia, the worse it's off-axis response.
On overhaeds, many times they will respond better due to the uniform response.
On a larger dia, you might have a dull sounding cymble (or even to bright)coming from the side, as well as the "ping" of the stick hitting the cymble will sound better with a small dia (IMO).
Even more so with other instruments playing in the room and the bleeding into your condensor might change the color of distant intstruments when combined with their personal mic's.
This is not to say that you can't find a large dia that might sound better in some cases. Some engineers prefer the large to a small on percussion -piano -acoustic guitar. It would depend what you have in your arsenal but many will use a small dia.Another benefit from a large would be if your looking for a softer sound or more ambience then a larger is recomended but dont expect a even response across the whole sound or the attack to be better.
The angle plays an important part when positioning a small dia. In a bad angle they can be less responsive then a large dia.
Now please explain YOUR Theroy on why larger are more senstive.
As for the AT3525 -2528. I wrote several recemondations on differnt budget condensors and your remark on the AT4033 was a good one. But the high freq stuff you wrote is not.
bvaleria
New member
Shailat's completely correct...
chuchosay, I'm not sure where you're getting your info but you need to rethink your theory....
Bruce
chuchosay, I'm not sure where you're getting your info but you need to rethink your theory....
Bruce
C
chuchosay
New member
Couldn't agree with you more! Yes, theoretically response time should be faster for a small diaphragm condenser mic. Are large diaphragms "slower?" Theoretically, yes. But when it comes down to every individual mic, who really knows? So I agree with both your theory and the fact that every mic has its own characteristics. I wasn't saying that large diaphragms would do the job better hands down, I was just suggesting another approach to look at the situation. People seemed to be making a big deal about their low frequency response, which for almost every large diaphragm mic can be alleviated by simply using the low frequency roll off switch. I also agree with your views on off-axis response. That can make things a little tricky. But I'm still going to disagree with you when you say that "[large diaphragms are a] bit less detailed." I know you were talking in theory again, so I will delve into the theoretical world with you. I think a mics detail consists of 3 major (major, not the only three) things: Frequency response, response time, and the ability to pick up subtleties. We can toss frequency response out the window for this discussion and we'll assume their somewhat equal (if not we'll just use the ol EQ later). Now, as I agreed with you earlier, the small diaphragm should have a quicker response time. But that doesn't mean it picks up sublteties any better. If we look at the sensitivity of the mic, the mic w/ a greater sensitivity will better reproduce low dB noises. There's a lot of material out there about mic sensitivity, here's a quick link to one site that explains it reasonably well: http://www.tape.com/Bartlett_Articles/db_or_not_db.html
If we want to keep talking theory and physics, that's fine. Sound waves are longitudinal waves, which means that the particles of the medium in which they travel vibrate parallel to the direction of wave motion. This is obvious of course because a mic diaphragm moves in the same manner. Lower frequencies have a much longer wavelength as you know and the particles vibrate in a wider motion. High frequencies require the particles to vibrate very little (they move back and forth an amazingly small amount, yet very quickly). So if we now look at low dB noises in high frequencies, the particles are not moving much at all. This is where mic sensitivity comes in. The higher the sensitivity (in voltage) of the microphone means that it will better replicate these small noises.
So there we have it, that's my theory--small condensers respond more quickly, but once both mics ARE responding, the large diaphragm captures more subtleties in the cymbals. Of course these qualities are both extremely important and I myself have a hard time choosing between them. Another thing to remember is the off-axis response of large diaphragms like you pointed out.
I guess we have different approaches, I'm not sure one of us is right and the other isn't. I don't think it works that way. I was just giving an alternative idea for the situation.
If we want to keep talking theory and physics, that's fine. Sound waves are longitudinal waves, which means that the particles of the medium in which they travel vibrate parallel to the direction of wave motion. This is obvious of course because a mic diaphragm moves in the same manner. Lower frequencies have a much longer wavelength as you know and the particles vibrate in a wider motion. High frequencies require the particles to vibrate very little (they move back and forth an amazingly small amount, yet very quickly). So if we now look at low dB noises in high frequencies, the particles are not moving much at all. This is where mic sensitivity comes in. The higher the sensitivity (in voltage) of the microphone means that it will better replicate these small noises.
So there we have it, that's my theory--small condensers respond more quickly, but once both mics ARE responding, the large diaphragm captures more subtleties in the cymbals. Of course these qualities are both extremely important and I myself have a hard time choosing between them. Another thing to remember is the off-axis response of large diaphragms like you pointed out.
I guess we have different approaches, I'm not sure one of us is right and the other isn't. I don't think it works that way. I was just giving an alternative idea for the situation.
C
chuchosay
New member
I'm sorry, I have to correct myself! I said towards the end their that large diaphragms pick up subtleties better. I should have said that the more sensitive mic does this better, not necessarily a large diaphragm. But, (and this is no longer theoretical) for the most part (most...not all cases) a good large diaphragm mic IS more sensitive.
Sorry about that!
Sorry about that!
B
bdemenil
New member
bottom line
So I've been hearing alot of theory, which is good, but in the end, if I want to have a specialized mic for small percussion and acoutic guitar, what would be the way to go? Keep in mind off-axis sound, because i'd often be recording vocals simultaneously.
Seems like the better response time on the small diaphram would be important in giving the percussion a crisp sound. A large diaphram, on the other hand, might capture more fully the resonating release of something like a cymbal.
I'm speaking from no experience, just interpretting what I've been reading.
So I've been hearing alot of theory, which is good, but in the end, if I want to have a specialized mic for small percussion and acoutic guitar, what would be the way to go? Keep in mind off-axis sound, because i'd often be recording vocals simultaneously.
Seems like the better response time on the small diaphram would be important in giving the percussion a crisp sound. A large diaphram, on the other hand, might capture more fully the resonating release of something like a cymbal.
I'm speaking from no experience, just interpretting what I've been reading.