Mic choice for disotorted guitars

  • Thread starter Thread starter ecktronic
  • Start date Start date
Blue Groove said:
Don't forget that the sm57 alone won't do it. Those "pro" recordings have killer pres, eqs and awesome compressors.
Click to expand...

A very fair point. It is my understanding that a 57 benefits enormously from a decent pre.
 
Transformerless SM57. You CAN tell the difference. I can. It's niiiice, not gross. Don't do it if you're going to use it for snare though. Unless you don't like how SM57s sound on snares. It's cheeeeap!
 
e609 works for my havy big muff sounding stuff. I like the e609 condensor combo aswell the condensor could be anything from an AT 4033, Pro37 or whatever. I like using my 57 on clean guitars more though.

But to each his own.
 
I would like to throw in a few things here.

For a stoner rock sound via neck pickup I have had good results with a Senn 421. It handles the nastyness pretty well.

I also think a neve clone type mic pre is important. Like a Vintech 1272 or Brent A for any type of distorted guitar recordings.
 
Heavy guitars need mics that dont blur the low mids. You seem to be thinking that the upper mids will give you clarity, but this only works if the low mids remain under control. A fine pre will get ya there. API if ya need a name or a design type.

Mics can be anything that behaves as described. ATM25 is a great heavy guitar mic. 421 Senn.=excellent as is a 441. For a condenser, try a Kel HM-1. Its an honest representation of the amp/cabinet sound. I still use the SM57 though it is an older one. Some say this makes a difference. Maybe its just this particular mic, though I have two that are very similar.

I also like mics that are a bit sensitivity deprived if you're going to be cranked up a lot. Something with a pad or that can put up with 140db's.

Last but not least.....Room mic in conjunction with the amp. If its a multispeaker cab, damp it a bit with a packing blanket over a couple of the drivers.....It'll cut down on stray frequencies and damp the time delay of the unmic'd speaks hitting the mic diaphram. I like my U87 as the room mic but always put up the StudioProjects B3 for a slightly different yet viable color. AT4033's also work for this quite well.
 
cavedog101 said:
Heavy guitars need mics that dont blur the low mids. You seem to be thinking that the upper mids will give you clarity, but this only works if the low mids remain under control.
Click to expand...


I think what he's getting at is that the 57 is really anything but flat in the upper mids from a frequency response perspective -- it's rather jagged and bumpy. At least that's my interperatation, and he's looking for something smoother and with less peaks in the upper mids -- correct me if I'm wrong.
.
 
ecktronic said:
Anyone got any suggestions for mics that work real good for recording distorted guitars?
Im looking to achieve a nice thick controlled low end, Nice clear high and high mids, but also Im looking for a mic that is good with getting very smooth high mids.

Cheers,
Eck
Click to expand...


Well I can't say too much. The best recordings I have got, have been done with a 57. I don't get real fancy at the moment with dual mic'ing. I did buy a e609 a while back. Tried it out and it seems to have decidedly more hi end. I think it's a good thing to have around for guitar players that come in with thier amps set to rumble maybe, but I as of yet have not had tons of luck with it. On the other hand I have all our amps tweeked to record with a 57.....

I plan to try my I5 out next time it's not busy on the snare. I think I will hook them all up and record three tracks for comparison.''

Good Luck.

F.S.
 
chessrock said:
I think what he's getting at is that the 57 is really anything but flat in the upper mids from a frequency response perspective -- it's rather jagged and bumpy. At least that's my interperatation, and he's looking for something smoother and with less peaks in the upper mids -- correct me if I'm wrong.
.
Click to expand...

I think you're right on this interpretation. It may be exactly why the 57 has been a go-to for so many years for this usage. All the bumps and valleys being rather guitar frequency friendly....so to speak. I would never classify a 57 as 'smooth'....Its one reason I have switched to the Kel HM-1 for this purpose and also why I always use a room mic. I too have an i5 Audix and while it does a great job on a lot of things, I dont really like it as a 'heavy distorted' guitar mic. Its a little too honest. Clean funk and soul/R&B and blues its a no-brainer. I've never really liked the 609. I thought it was too one-dimensional. Unlike its father-figure the MD409 which is one of the BEST mics ever made. Another good heavy sound mic is the Audix D4/D2 ..Again, very honest and I list both as each has a particular tone which may or maynot work for ya.

I see the original poster has a Beta52....Try that. I have one and it sometimes saves the day when you least expect it.

Again, its all about frequency control in parts of the spectrum where guitars tend to get mushy in the studio.
 
AKG 414 in omni about 4 - 5 ft back and a heil pr40 on the grill.
 
rory said:
Anything? I've used 57s, 58s, 91s, 609s, 421s, 121s, I5s, Cheap $50 condensers, CX112s, omnis, just about anything and have gotten a good sound.

I bet if I put a regular 57 and a transformerless 57 against the same amp in the same mix, your buddy hotapples couldn't tell the difference. Use what you have. If you want something new, get a 57 or an i5. If you can't get a good sound after that, something is wrong with you.
Click to expand...

I like this guy.

To the point, you can try just about any mic, and futzing with the positioning and the settings on the amp and the guitar should yield good results.

I have had good luck with the Senny e609 on gain-heavy blues tones - maintained the low end while getting excellent clarity from the guitar. I don't know about crazy metal tapping Vai solos, but I would imagine you could do a lot worse for an all-purpose amp mic than the 609. How different is it from the 57 though? Im not sure, I've never used one, but I wouldn't guess its gonna be night and day. I like to mix the 609 with a condenser to get as many options as possible, so perhaps you could get your hands on a condenser of some kind to try before you buy.
 
Somnium7 said:
If it helps here is what it sounds like using an AKG D890 with a TubePre.
http://www.somnium7.com/samples/SOMNIUM7_vw-crazed_take-01.wav (2.9M)

That was raw take with no EQ or other processing. The guitar was a very old Gibson. Distortion from a Boss heavy metal pedal. The amp is some no-name piece of crap we found in a thrift shop for $20. I'm not liking the sound of the amp at all. The mic does a good enough job IMO.
Click to expand...

Sounds cool.
A bit harsh but good sound since it has no EQ on it.
A bit think sounding but that could be the cheap amp you were using.
Not as much upfront sounding as Im looking for. Thats the hard part, getting smooth mids but also nice and present upfront sound.

Eck
 
cavedog101 said:
If its a multispeaker cab, damp it a bit with a packing blanket over a couple of the drivers.....It'll cut down on stray frequencies and damp the time delay of the unmic'd speaks hitting the mic diaphram.
Click to expand...
Cheers everyone for the great responses.
I have a big list of mics to choose from now. :)

Cavedog, BY drivers do you mean speakers?
So Id cover up the speakers that I wasnt micing?

Im thinking of using a duvet to conceal the mics and speakers to avoid room reflections, but im no sure if this will dull the tone.

Cheers,
Eck
 
chessrock said:
I think what he's getting at is that the 57 is really anything but flat in the upper mids from a frequency response perspective -- it's rather jagged and bumpy. At least that's my interperatation, and he's looking for something smoother and with less peaks in the upper mids -- correct me if I'm wrong.
.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats why I dont like the SM57 becuase of its unnatural perception of the high mids. If my amp sounds a bit harsh in the high mids then the SM57 will accentuate these problems even more. So yeah Im looking for a smooth yet present high mid range for my heavy guitars. (if that even makes any sense!)

Cheers Chessrock,
Eck
 
Freudian Slip said:
I plan to try my I5 out next time it's not busy on the snare. I think I will hook them all up and record three tracks for comparison.''

Good Luck.

F.S.
Click to expand...
Would be cool if you could post the 3 mic recordings. :)

Cheers,
Eck
 
Yup.....Drivers=speakers in this case. And cutting down on the amount of speakers will usually result in a clarity increase. It all has to do with the time (another speaker off-axis from the source will also present signal in a slightly delayed and somewhat skewed ,frequency-wise, way.) and the angle the other speakers are effecting the original source at the mic capsule. Even close-mic'd this will occur, though not as obviously as a mic a couple of inches or so off the speaker. Its one reason to use a room mic with a multi-speaker source. I will sometimes use two room mics...one out in the room proper(the secret hot-spot if ya will) and one centered on the cabinet with the distance set at the cabinets' natural focus....they all do this and searching this point out is very important to getting that huge and clear sound.

Using the packing blankets to dampen the unmiked speakers cuts down on the side-fill to the mic and tends to focus the sound in a better way. Using a 'tent' will not really decrease your frequency response but will help in cutting down the rooms nodes especially if you're recording in an untreated space. At high volumes, these nodes are the death of many attempts at a 'big' guitar sound and the reason for serious frustration on many recordists parts.


Its a good idea to have a couple of different cabinet configurations available. I personally like the single speaker box. Something thats deep in its design so the essence of a full-range of sound is available naturally. The Avatar speaker company makes just such a cabinet as do others. It allows you to 'drive' the cabinet and the speaker as you would your stage rig only without a lot of the inherent phasing that occurs with a 4-12 or similar....

A lot of folks think that processing and EQ is the way to that huge guitar sound. I firmly believe that the SOURCE must sound huge before there can be a recorded HUGE sound.

When it gets down to it, mics are only a small part of the equation as well as pres, compression and other toys. Guitars make a huge difference. Not just for the player, but also for what the amp 'sees' and amplifys in the room.


In an order of importance for this, and this is only my experiences, it goes....Source: the rig right down to the strings...........Room: treatments etc.....Mic: Choice is what sounds right to you........Process: Pre/mixer/converter/compressor/whatever.........and then theres.........................


you.
 
Thanks again Cavedog.

Here is a sample of my guitar recordings.
The 1st one was using a Les Paul through a Mesa Boogie Dual rectifier.
http://download.yousendit.com/9ADF62D56ACD092B

The 2nd one was using a PRS McCarty Soapbar into a Boss GT6 into a Marshall JCM2000 DSL50 into 1960 cab.
http://download.yousendit.com/36397D2A422116AD

The only processing I did was to the 2nd guitar. I scooped some low mids out since it was making it hard to judge the rest of the frequencies.

I used a pishy live mixing desk as the pre amps but could only have 1 input going from it into my soundcard.
So I used a Beta 52A and a Shure MKIII close miced going into the 1 channel of my soundcard.

These are my best heavy guitar recordings by the way. :(

PLease dont laugh,
Eck
 
I dunno, sounds pretty good to me. I would want to hear it in a mix to make a final judgment, but soloed, sounds pretty swell.
 
Well, i actually tried out my MXL990 on this new song im working on..with a minor plugin adjustment in adobe audition, it sounded pretty damn good..better than stuff ive done with my dynamic mics..warmer/clearer...if anyone wants the sample, id be glad to send it to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top