Mics for recording everything (minimal preparation)

[emptyframe]

I'm interested in getting some new microphones for a project I'll be working on this summer. I've made lots of recordings, but am fairly clueless in the area of microphones. That's why I'm here, soliciting your expertise. Up until now, I've gotten by with a single SM57 (seen better days), several noisy electret mics(move the cable around until it stops making the hum), and the built-in stereo mic in my Zoom H2(sent away for repairs). As far as I can tell, just about anything will be a step upward.

I'm involved in a mostly improvisational, avant-garde project. We play for hours and hours, then edit and collage the results. We love abrasive editing flourishes and unusual effects processing. We'll be recording in several untreated rooms. Instruments: saxophone, glockenspiel, bucket drums, viola, amplified electric guitar, hand-held cassette-tape-players, finger-cymbals, voice, some piano maybe... pretty much anything that's lying around. Electronics and effects will be added "line-in" for the most part. I am interested in getting a stereo pair of microphones so that we can capture the actual space of the performance. I'd like to have a more-or-less fixed recording setup where we can play and move about the room, without having to re-adjust the microphones often. What microphone style would be best for this application? From my research, it sounds like a pair of small to medium diameter condenser mics might work.

My budget is approximately $200. Right now, I'm considering the following configurations:
1. Stereo pair of SDCs (MXL 603, SP1, CAD GXL1200, or Naiant X-Q) for live room recordings with mostly acoustic instruments. MXL V67g for over-dubbing solo instruments and voice.
-OR-
2. Stereo pair of Studio Projects B1s to use for live stereo recordings and solo recordings.

Please let me know if you think these setups sound appropriate. I'm not interested in spending $300+ on a microphone, so please don't try to upsell. We'll be using the stock preamps on my Echo AF8, so all that fanciness would just go to waste. It doesn't have to sound expensive. In fact, given the project's aesthetic, it shouldn't. We just need something that works, something that will accurately capture the sounds we're making with minimal hassle. I know that nowadays there are many options in the "cheap" price-range. I doubt I'll be able to tell the difference between them.

The B1s seem to get the most widespread approval, but would they work for the "stereo live-space" application? Would it be better to go with the first option for more variety? Am I way off? Do I need something entirely different?

 

[darrin_h2000]

Im sure that a stereo pair of the MXL 603s would make a nice choice...it might be even cheaper to get a couple of mxl990s and remove a couple of layers of screens.

 

[dgatwood]

I assume by SP1, you mean the Apex package with SDCs and LDCs, as opposed to the Nady SP1 (which is a total piece of crap) or the MCA SP1, which is a MDC.

If you're trying to do stereo recording, IMHO, Chinese SDCs (e.g. MXL 603, Apex SP1, Nady CM-90, etc.) really don't cut it. The bass response is insufficient, for one thing, and the polar pattern is too close to omni, for another. My experience with using them as overhead mics on drums was that they produced almost no stereo separation at all. Switched to Oktava MK-012 mics in the same spot and suddenly it sounded like my toms, cymbals, etc. were coming from different directions instead of all being dead center.... The Chinese SDCs are just horrible mics for stereo recording.

I would also tend not to go with the Naiant mics for this because I personally have never liked the sound of spaced pair stereo, and that's all you can really do with omni mics. Just my personal bias. Love the Naiant mics, just not for that.

I also would not suggest large diaphragm condensers like the B1 for stereo recording. You can do it, but it wouldn't be my first, second, or fiftieth choice. I would similarly not suggest the MCA SP1. It reportedly lacks somewhat in bass response. It has also been discontinued.

The GXL-1200, if CAD's specs are to be believed, should be decent in terms of polar pattern, but I can't say what it sounds like; I've never tried one personally. Out of that list, it would probably be my pick, just because it's the only one I haven't already concluded would be a bad choice. Even that one may be very similar to the Chinese SDCs, though. It looks like the same body, so it wouldn't surprise me if it were just as bad as the Nady CM-90 et al.

If you have some time, my advice would be to hunt around and see if you can find a couple of used Oktava MK-012 mics (being careful to avoid the Chinese fakes). You can typically find them used for $100-125 apiece if you hunt hard enough.

Another mic that AFAICT should be decent (apart from the self noise being somewhat higher than ideal) is the AT822.

 

[Richard Monroe]

Here's an odd alternative- SONY ECM-MS957. It's about $250 new. You can find them used for about $175-200. Plug it right into that H2 and go. You can plug it into an XLR input, but it will take a couple of adaptors. It's an electret mic that doesn't make a bunch of noise, as long as the 2 stereo inputs are set for the same gain. It's mid-side pickup pattern is almost a hemisphere, so you can move around all you want. My brother and I have used them extensively for live rock, alternative, and Reggae recording. It's what the cheap stereo mics wish they were, but not in the league of the multi-thousand dollar badass stereo mics.-Richie

 

[mshilarious]

I've done and love improvisational avant-garde, except back in the day it was a boombox and not an H2. Now ANYTHING is a step up from boombox . . .

Anyway, I don't want to change your method of recording for no reason, but I'd question whether you really want a stereo recording, for two reasons: small untreated rooms and lots of edits. I think you can get closer to what you want with spot mics on each instrument. That will facilitate edits and effects in mixing.

That also can make editing and mixing a giant sinkhole of time, though . . .

 

[Shadow_7]

I tend to favor stereo recording because it makes editing much simpler. Resample, EQ, Normalize / Amplify, Trim, Resample, Deliver. Given that instrumentation though, you would probably be better off recording each instrument separately. Walls can make things like drums sound twice as loud as they actually are. Proximity can make anything louder, and if the performers are not aware of that on a conscious level, you could get strange balance issues with just a stereo image of the event. And no means to level the playing field with just a stereo image. But a lot of that depends on what you want to get from the recordings? A longer term memory so you can transcribe the parts to sheet music? An honest sample of the event for posterity. Or something more commercial?

 

[darrin_h2000]

you would probably be better off recording each instrument separately.

Actually you get much better results by working off each others energy...thats why I allways record the whole rythem section at once to get that groove...but I have means of recording the drums in thier own room with rythem guitar in another room with an isolation cabnet and bass direct in so there is perfect separation.

 

[jeffree]

I'm definitely no expert, with a cheap home studio that barely has room for two people to sit. But I do like my mics, especially for acoustic guit and other stringed instruments. I picked up a pair of SP B1s a few years ago after numerous recommendations here and via colleagues elsewhere, and I have nothing but praise for these low-end workhorse mics. Here are some related thoughts by Paul White, editor of SOS: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun05/articles/studioprojectsb1.htm I have no idea of what's better out there; I just find the SP B1s very workable although I rarely use them for voice.

By the way, you can request a somewhat matched set (color coded on box) for stereo use.

 

[emptyframe]

Thanks for all the suggestions! I too am beginning to wonder if stereo recording is necessary (or practical), especially since we'll be recording in spaces with mostly awful acoustics. Right now, it seems the best solution would be to acquire several different types of (relatively cheap) single microphones to experiment with. At least one will be an omni mic to record the room. What do you think? What is an omni mic that would respond well to poor placement, poor acoustics, and sudden very loud noises? Only sort of kidding. Someone from the TapeOp forum recommended the Shure KSM137 for this purpose.

 

[oretez]

There is a mic that was an industry standard 'workhorse' for the very type of projects you are describing. Single mic, Performers in constant motion, poor, on whole, acoustic venue(s): AKG C414. In 'industry' to which I'm referring percussion was not a significant element and frequently Bass was DI'd or mic'd separately.

414 is a little over your price point. While multiple mics can certainly help I don't, from your description (instruments, venue, approach, tech focus, etc.) see pursuing a 'stereo' recording as being particularly profitable. At very least way fussier concerning room and placement.

But at any price point room is going to be more important (with regard to what you capture . . . Room functions as a comb filter and more instruments you pile into the space the more impact the room has on the interactions) and placement is going to be at least as important as specific brand of mic.

Positive recommendations on any mic are specific to 'how' people work, specific goals, content rooms in which they work. I haven't used an H2 but own both an H4 and Edirol R09 and @ your price point, in the conditions you describe there is little to choose from that is going to be a significant improvement over mics at least in the two handhelds I own. Get the H2 on a mic stand, at least at ear level and move it around. In all likelihood you'll find bucket drums to be problematic and looking into mechanically buffering them (i.e. Gobos) might help. But all room modes are going to interfere with you capturing what it is you think you hear so ability to move 'a' mic (or mic pair) around easily can be quite helpful . . . And can make mic, recorder, placement a dynamic part of performance

And you might find that project becomes amenable to multitracking . . . Room omni, plus some 'spot' mics on specific instruments . . . DI'ng amplified instruments as well as capturing 'room' sound.

Modern approaches to mic'ng & recording percussion, not unusual to use nine mic's in isolated environment (even the guy who posts that he wants to capture the rhythm section (what ever in the hell that might mean) 'live' for the 'grove' doesn't seem to perceive the irony in that he sonically & physically isolates the elements of that 'grove' (it's pretty common for even experienced live performers to need a song or two to get adjusted to lag between what they hear between main's and monitors (among all the various direct and reverberant waves) . . . So parallel 'isolation' imposes different set of compromises then serial isolation (tracking one instrument at a time) but they are still compromises) I think I understand what he's saying and it is certainly not a concept to which I'm opposed (for various projects it is appropriate to record every performer in same room at same time, for others serial isolation is appropriate, yet others parallel isolation (physical isolation of performers can be as detrimental to the 'grove' as temporal isolation) . . . But everything in this business is content dependent, venue dependent and almost always (above 90% probability) entails compromise among less then stellar options . . . And I constantly reassure myself that I never compromise (I might 'negotiate' but don't compromise!)) . . . But main point was we didn't evolve the muli-mic, close mic approaches merely because we like the extra work (it is very unusual for it to take me, with assistant, less then 3 hr. To set up (even if the drummer has taken gear out of cases) a standard recording trap kit . . . If that is done night before a session some of that work is replicated when drummer comes in and we re-tune the kit. How obsessive we get is content (not just material, arrangement and 'goal' but also room and personnel) dependent . . . And has little to do with my internal theories concerning recording.

As a general rule, if you can find a reasonable cross section of people who have actually used a mic, in which you are interested, for purposes somewhat similar (unfortunately this is nearly an impossibility) and they all agree on the general characteristics of the mic, that mic will fall towards the bottom of the barrel with regard to quality. Bad mics, very generally, will tend to have a very consistent response, across genres, venues, ambient conditions. While I don't have $100k locker, nor 'a' desert island mic I have spent the money on mics I have not primarily out of 'quality' creep but because different situations frequently require different mics. I think a U47 makes a pretty good overhead on percussion, not bad as a snare mic . . . For most 'pop' situations it's a bit of overkill , , , bit with regard to 'absolute' quality because 'quality' is always part of a dynamic mix of elements . . . Always guessing if I do 'x', use 'y' gear how will that effect the finished (toss up between calling it) art or product, i.e. What characteristic can 'x' deliver to finished goal? As I don't actually own a vintage U47 (and more then a few owners tend to be leery about getting one snare close to drummers) I frequently find that something else has equivalent response, with regard to final production.

While I actually think you might, ultimately, (if you keep doing this for a bit) spend less (on mics) by starting with a C414 (and the rest of the bits in the signal path (API 3124 for example) needed to support it effectively) the up front cost for that approach is a bit steep.

Not exactly at the opposite end of the spectrum (C414 being comfortably in the middle) I've been very pleased with the performance of all the Naiant mics I've used. Standard disclaimer, no involvement beyond being a customer, YMWV and I don't have any of the models currently available (but have been pleased enough with what I have to keep thinking I'm going pick up some current ones 'just 'cause') So? A couple of Naiant omni's, couple of cardioid by pretty much any of the entry level vendors. If you can afford it sdc oktava 012 is not a bad place to start. Can't whole heartedly endorse any of the entry LDC's but CAD equitek used to be better then they were priced. I have an AT2020 which I am not sure I've ever used on anything (other then for review sessions, I didn't go out of my way to buy it but people who sent it to me to review decided that they didn't want the review and apparently that they didn't need it back) is more a medium condenser but if you can find it, new for under $100 is OK value at that price point.

MXL have way too many models, some are more or less OK, some are amenable to future mod's some are target practice, theatrical props . . . I have an MXL V67i that in addition to being pretty has actually been useful.

In addition to room omni you might look at some boundary mics (I was fortunately enough to pick up some of the Radio Shack branded crown PZM's that were priced wrong so don't have any current recommendations at your price point) but omni and boundary can be less fussy approach in pursuit of stated goals. Naiant omni and a pair of Shure SM57's (spot mics for bucket drums & bass or DI bass, and 57 on amplified guitar cab.) Comes close to your price point (unfortunately there are apparently a butt load of counterfeit 57's roiling the market)

Main point is that every mic is wrong for some situation. At your price point and experience level I wouldn't spend a lot of time agonizing over relatively minor differences (in performance) . . . Pick the ones that appeal and hope Mr. Murphy is in a good mood. Generally speaking by the time you are half way through the project you will have gained experience to be comfortable with selecting what you needed in the first place (only very occasionally the choice you actually made no matter how much research you did)

Good luck

 

[oretez]

Have a lot more experience with SM81, then the KSM137, (similar footprints but not same mic . . . but since I had the 81's and found them useful in room ensemble and on a number of upright piano's I spent money on 'more different' then the KSM137) and while I think KSM137 (certainly in conjunction with KSM 32 (or multi pattern breathren 44 and 141) is a decent SDC workhorse starting point for a mic locker I don't think I specifically recomend it for what I understand from your description of your initial project

I might well be wrong but initial reaction was if I were going in that general route I'd probably tend to audition a pair of SM81's first . . . with the k47 capsule form factor I tend to lean towards AKG 451's, AT4051's before any Shure but purely subjectively I've found the SM81's to be more . . . forgiving? in room ensemble recording then the KSM137. It could easily be that I have more experience with that mic and find them easier to position effectively (deliberately do not use 'correctly' because mic placement is effected dynamically by a lot of variables (some, overwhich, you have no control), is in constant dynamic flux with final goal. In any case I've found the 81's to be a bit friendlier to place on projects I'm interpreting as being similar to your description

and for that matter since Audio Technica modified manufacturing on the AT4051 (the 'b' being the current low lead design) the AT4051'a's are being offered at prices equivalent to KSM137 and I find the AT4051 to 'edge', nose or what ever the KSM137 (or SM81) slightly . . . I find it valuable to have both but think I'd select AT4051 (and all I have are the earlier, before they were called 'a's, 'a' version) if I had to choose one

 

[RRuskin]

My favorite "for everything" mic is the Electro Voice CS15E Condenser. Not made anymore but sounds excellent on all sources.

 

[RRuskin]

Electro Voice CS15E condenser. Sounds great on everything.

 

[mshilarious]

I would be a little wary of over-condenserizing your setup, especially with bad acoustics. The room mic might just end up being a reference for edits. If you decide to cut 'n' paste a part you really like over a different part, the room mic could be useless.

I would think about a stable of cheap dynamics as close mics, like 635a, SM58, etc. and couple of condensers, but no more to start with anyway.

 

[emptyframe]

The more I read, the less significant (or rationally decidable) this decision seems. Almost every mic is loved and hated by an equal number of people. Every mic is great for voice, great for guitar cabinets, great for: snare, cymbal, "overheads", strings, live, studio, melodica, chainsaws, chickens, newscasting, baby-monitoring, underwater. Surely every and any microphone will work for what I'm doing. Microphone hunt ends in nihilism.

Meanwhile: Anyone tried the CAD M179? The variable pattern thing seems useful.

 

[hairylarry]

Dynamic omnis

Hi,

When recording a band in a room I always like to try a pair of dynamic omnis. They are also my first choice for recording outside because they pick up wind noise the least. This is basically your safest choice. Most likely to reproduce what you are hearing when you play.

If I'm in a venue like a restaurant or coffeehouse I'll often use cardiod mics to minimize the restaurant noises.

Stereo recording is cool. Spaced omnis work great. And you also end up with two mono tracks each with a different mix. Often I mix these two mono mixes into a single mono mix kind of like two track multi tracking. If I have a voice or other solo instrument I want to be able to control in the mix I'll make sure one mic is on that source. Then I can mix it up and down using the other mic as a band track.

I used to always use the EV 635a omnis but now I use the Realistic 1070b mics manufactured by Shure. I have also used the Shure SM61 mics and I have one EV PL9. I wish I could get a couple of EV RE55s but they are too steep for my blood. (Or I'm too cheap for something that good.(See, I even rhyme my parenthetical notes.))

The other advantage of dynamic omnis is they are inexpensive.

For condenser omnis that are inexpensive I recommend the Naiant's. They are great for acoustic instruments including guitar and piano so if your session is centering around that kind of sound the condensers might deliver a better sound than the dynamics. I used my Naiant's on a Jecklin disc through my DMP2 preamp and into my Zoom H4 recording a Steinway baby grand and the sound was fantastic.

Thanks,

Hairy Larry

 

[Shadow_7]

Actually you get much better results by working off each others energy...thats why I allways record the whole rythem section at once to get that groove...but I have means of recording the drums in thier own room with rythem guitar in another room with an isolation cabnet and bass direct in so there is perfect separation.

That was meant to be interpreted as mic each instrument on a separate channel with a dedicated mic or two on each. Not to be confused with separate venues and/or time slots.

-----

SM81's are nice and cardioid, more like hyper cardioid IMO. Great for some things, but not all. I was able to get mine to clip at the mic as a lone trombone player. A 20 man or more brass ensemble would not be desirable with those mics. And I shudder at the thought of them as drum overheads. But for piano, guitar, or other more tame instruments they're nice. Albeit, very directional.

-----

Omni's pick up the room. Outside of loud sources that are close mic'd, there's really no way around that. Okay, jecklin disc, plexiglass plates and other ways, but still. The plus side is it's really hard to point them wrong. But they have their flaws as well as their plusses.

Like I said, it really depends on the goal. And what compromises you consider acceptable.

 

[mshilarious]

Microphone hunt ends in nihilism.

There's a lot of truth in that. One reality is that most people have way more mics than they need, which is because they don't really know how to get the most out of the mics they have and also they are trying to compete with Abbey Road's mic locker or something.

For example, if you have a cardioid microphone, chances are its off-axis response is different from its on-axis response. That is, not only will sensitivity change with axis, frequency response will too. So if you turn the mic 90 degrees off axis, you just got another mic for free. Or 45 degrees, etc.

I have, roughly speaking, six microphones. I can get any sound I want out of those six:

- large diaphragm condenser, cardioid
- pair of small diaphragm condensers, omni
- dynamic, cardioid
- ribbon, figure 8
- dynamic, omni

The last one is a Shure Green Bullet, that is extremely optional but I dig it. But I would recommend an EV635a instead.

If you have a multipattern LDC like the M179, then you probably only need two condensers and not three--you can use the second condenser as a mid mic for mid-side. That second condenser could be another M179, could be something different. Or you can use the ribbon's fig-8 as a side mic. Or a mid mic. See, tons of possible combinations with a very small number of mics.

 

[emptyframe]

Thanks again for the suggestions, especially the last one from mshilarious. You've confirmed some things I was already beginning to believe. I really prefer to "travel light" when it comes to gear, so it was extremely refreshing to hear that one could get by with a minimal setup.

A couple of additional questions:

From recommendations here and elsewhere, it seems I'll have to try the EV 635a. Aside from typical risks of buying used gear, is there any disadvantage to getting one of those "vintage" EV 635As that are so plentiful on ebay (rather than a new one)?

I'm seriously considering the CAD M179 for its versatility, but I may be able to get a Shure KSM137 for a good price. I realize they're very different microphones. Which one do you think would best complement the H2 stereo mic and EV 635a?

 

[mshilarious]

Well, if you already have an SM57 and you're going to pick up an 635a (very bulletproof, so used from a reputable seller is fine), hmm . . . multipattern vs. KSM137. I had a pair of KSM141s, which are seriously good microphones. KSM137 is the cardioid-only version. I'd probably be tempted to take the good deal on that and pick up an M179 when you get more money. But if you plan on more vocals than instruments, I'd go M179 first.

Either way, with those four mics plus H2 as a room mic I would think you should be happy for quite a while.