Microphone for recording Steel drums/ Congo's

[Harvey Gerst]

The problem with using a small diaphram mic, is that they sound thin - without much body. You might get away with this if the steel drums where part of a larger ensemble which included bass, and other intruments with bottom end, but for such a sparse arrangement, it is definitely not a good idea.

Also, although I admit I have never heard the ecm8000, cheap condensor mics tend to be harsh in the upper ranges - also a bad thing for this application.

Steel pan creates a complex sound with a wide range of frequencies. For this it is best to use a large diaphram condensor. If you would rather buy than rent, get a Rhode NT1, or if you have a little money, get the AKG C3000, or if you have a little more, the Neumann TLM103.

The mic setup you describe - 2 mics 6 feet apart, each 6 feet from the pan - this might not be so good. There is a general rule that 2 mics should be 3X as far from each other as they are from each other's sound source. You might want to try an XY set-up - have the 2 mics so close they almost touch, but each facing at a different angle (by about 45deg) like the letter 'Y'.

I believe you've been misled on several points.

Small omni condenser mics have more low end and are flatter in response than almost any other type of microphone.

The ECM8000 is a microphone similar to the Audix TR-40 and is capable of very flat response over a wide range, without low end drop off, or harsh highs, unlike the AKG C3000 (which is far from flat, with a very peaky and harsh high end).

That's why the ECM8000 is called a "calibration" mic; it has extended fflat frequency response and is free from major peaks or dips across its usable range.

Oddly enough, the peaks are coming from the lower large capsule in the C3000 - the small 1/4" omni upper capsule in the C3000 is actually a very nice sounding unit, if you could just use it by itself.

The big trade off in using small capsule omnis is that you pick up more of the room, and noise is a function of diaphragm output - smaller diaphragms have more noise. But if you're miking steel drums or congas, self-noise won't be a problem.

Finally, the 3:1 rule doesn't apply when miking a stereo source, using two mics equadistant from the source. It's called "AB" miking, and it typically uses a pair of spaced omnis or cardioids.

 

[bdemenil]

Finally, the 3:1 rule doesn't apply when miking a stereo source, using two mics equadistant from the source. It's called "AB" miking, and it typically uses a pair of spaced omnis or cardioids.

Fine in theory, but as soon as you're not in a perfect stereo environment - which you won't be unless you're wearing headphones or are carefully positioned between 2 speakers - you're going to run into phase problems. This is well documented.
I wouldn't recomend any miking technique which wouldn't sound decent in mono.

I never said the C3000 was a good mic - only that for a mic of its pricerange, it sounds OK.

Flat frequency response does not tell the whole story. A mic can have flat frequency response, and still sound harsh. Conversely, a mic can have a high frequency boost, but still sound smooth in the highs. While omni mics generaly capture a truer sound, I have to express doubt over whether a small diaphram mic is the mic of choice for capturing low-frequencies. Neither do I think that OMNI mics are good for ordinary studio applications. But, like you said, for that price, you can't go so wrong.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Omni mics are "pure pressure" microphones and can easily go down to just a few cycles, whereas "pressure gradient" types (cardioid, figure 8, hyper, etc.) cannot. It's basic physics.

If a microphone has a slightly rising response in the high end, it can sound smooth yet bright. The C3000 has several harsh peaks, and that's one of the reasons you won't find any in use in most major studios. I've never heard an omni with flat response sound harsh - boring at times (because of its lack of coloration), yes, but never harsh, and that includes most of the B&K mics.

But for this application (congas and steel drums), an omni would be the best choice, followed by a wide cardiod, like the Marshall MXL603S.

Since ambi also seems to be concerned about price, the ECM8000 or the 603S would be his best two choices, at least in my opinion. YMMV

 

[ambi]

oK, well the rental price roose up pretty quick but heres what i ended up with.

i got an Apex 410 (comparable to the neuman, just a lot cheaper with a little less information), a shure beta 52 kick drum mic, and a mackie 1204 mixing board. I put the 410 large condensor about 6-8 feel away , and had my shure sm58 about 6 inches away, and panned one far left, and the other far right. It actually sounds really good, the difference in mic sounds actually adds to it, giving each channel a slightly different sound. And in one song, i just use the apex 410 about 30 feet away, down a hall around the corner, and put that quietly in the middle for extra body. Im very impressed with the way it turned out, i can get 2 seperate tracks recorded at one time, so im doing 2 mics at a time. I may try and find a behringer mic to add and try that in the future.

My choices were made largely on availability of the local store i rented from, and price. what is a mic that would have a very different sound than the 410, or the shuresm58. The 410 is very similar to the neuman, so something different than that.
So i can have a wide range of sounds.

maybe something with more body?

 

[jeap]

this is really very funny.


keep up the good work bambi!!!

 

[littledog]

I'll have to agree with harvey - while the idea that a small diaphragm mic is actually better at capturing low frequencies may seem counter-intuitive to some, (probably because you are thinking about speaker diaphragms, where larger means lower), it is a fact of physics and really not debateable.

I've used Earthworks QTC's on all kinds of percussion as well as steel drums, because of their amazing accuracy and extended response. If the percussionist is pleased with the sound, that is the ultimate test - and by those standards I've had great results. The QTC's cost a lot more, but they are also extremely quiet - which is worth it to me so that I can use them in situations that have a large dynamic range. as Harvey said, with steel pans, "quiet" is not usually an issue!

Meanwhile, I'm glad you were successful, ambi. I'm not familiar with the Apex mics, but I'm curious - you keep repeating this "mantra" about "comparable to the Neumann". Would you mind explaining, comparable to which Neumann?

 

[ambi]

jeap., whats so funny?
im getting good results with the equipment i could get, and afford.

lack of equipment forces creativity.

 

[ambi]

yea, sorry, im just trying to say that the sound of them is comparable to a neuman, i don't remember which modle it was, it was about 1000 canadian, a large diaphram condensor mic i think. The reason why is, because i went to a home recording session at my local long and mcquade, and they did two recordsings, one with the apex 410, and one with then neuman i was talking about. And although the neuman is noticably better, the difference is subtle, and the apex is really an incredible mic for the price. The sound is very similar with the two mics, almost like the apex 410 is modled off that neuman, but just not quite as good. its fairly new, and all the guys who used it there couldn't stop raving about it, and how its such a great, multipurpose mic, at such a low cost. after today i agree its a great mic. But i think i may just go down and try to pick up this behringer ecm8000 and try it out as well.

Im using an sm58 close up, and the 410 far away, and panning hard left and hard right, and im getting results i consider to be very good, and im very pleased. I could most certainly do better with a pair of 1000 dollar earthworm mics, avalon pre's, and high end A/D D/a Converters, but im stuck with my POS setup, and its doing me just fine.

Sorry, im not trying to sound ignorant like what i have is perfect and i don't care what you have to say cause im not gonna listen, cause im not. just saying im working with what i can, and just becuase im not using the exact setup you'd use, it doesn't mean its wrong. But yea, im listening and open to any suggestions!

 

[chessrock]

But yea, im listening and open to any suggestions!

Uh . . . yea. Like maybe your own?

 

[jeap]

yeah the earthworms mics would be great.

i would love to have some of the earthworms mics.

funny thing about those earthworms mics though...

they are very small diaphram condensers just like the behringer ecm8000 and the audix that was previously mentioned.


whats so funny? well i think it has something to do with misspelling and a comical earnestness with a little greenhorn enthusiasm thrown in.


hey why dont you post your recording so we can hear the very good results?

 

[bdemenil]

ambi, the only thing that seems strange about your setup is the way you are panning.

 

[ambi]

alright well i'll post some results as soon as i figure out how to.
where do i post stuff, mp3.com?

and yea, i'll see about picking up an ecm8000 to test out.

as i said, very good results to me, are probably total crap to you.
but im happy with them so far.

for my sblive setup, i consider them decent.

 

[jeap]

post at nowhereradio.com like most of us here do.

you sign up for free and upload your recordings.

then go to the mp3 clinic and supply a link.

youll get the hang of it.

IT'S FUN!

FUN!!!

 

[ambi]

well, just for the record, im not trying to prove anything here.
the way you asked to post up and "prove" these great recordings. They sound good to me and im happy, but im sure they arne't anything compared to you guys, but i want to get better.
just so you don't feel like im trying to act all pro or something, i want my head to be as small as possible so i can learn

 

[ambi]

ok im mp3ing and getting ready to upload to knowwhere radio
i signed up,
remember i just slapped these together for you guys to hear, haven't really done the full mixing/mastering thing, etc.. Still need some more effects and fine tuning, but any suggestions or constructive critisism are welcome.

 

[ambi]

Ok, i put those songs up on nowhere radio .com, not finished, just rough mixes, somethign for you to hear. the adress is in the mp3 clinic

Track 3 has everything recorded accept for vocals. Still needs a lot of work and fine tuning. Besides a little bit of compression the Steel drums are pretty much raw, i was waiting for some input before i messed with them

Track 4 is bare bones, steel drums, and a make shift beat i need to fix up. I'll be recording percussion, basslines, and possible vocals in the near future.

 

[littledog]

And although the neuman is noticably better, the difference is subtle...

You have an interesting command of the English language, ambi!

 

[ambi]

haha
ok, yea i realized that its kind of an oxymoron now that i look at it
what i was trying to say is that, there is a difference between the neuman and the apex, but the difference is subtle and definatly not worth 800 dollars to me. Also, my signal chain couldn't take advantage of the addition information coming from the neuman, it would be lost in my poor converters.

The sound is similar, just not as good...
make any sense?
im sure this must make sense. Its just a large diaphram condensor mic, they both look the same, they both are made to do the same things, just one is better.

 

[bdemenil]

Also, my signal chain couldn't take advantage of the addition information coming from the neuman, it would be lost in my poor converters.

Probably not true. I'm sure even with your cheap pre-amp and converters you would notice a difference between the 2 mics.

by the same logic, you could say its not worth having a good pre-amp if your mic and convers are bad, and not worth having good converters if your mic and preamp are bad. The truth is, every little bit helps.