Mics: more of an obsession than a real difference?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lockesilver
  • Start date Start date
L

lockesilver

New member
So there's this guy who talked to a pretty famous pro voice over artist who's been working for various national TV stations for many years (long long before freelancing was cool :) ).
He asked the VO guy what was his favorite microphone... the answer was "What's the difference? I go to a studio, record, go home. Why would I care about a microphone? As long as it records sound it's good to go."

It got me thinking.

Some of us (me included) spend long hours researching microphones, then perhaps develop an "ear" for tiny nuances in their sound, obsess about one or another model etc. etc. and yet in any blind shootout most guesses are all over the place. Moreover, usually in a blind shootout many people will describe the sound of a $300 microphone as way better than a U87 (MKH 416, Blue Bottle, you name it). So perhaps the real differences between (decent) microphones are not that game-changing?

I'm starting to suspect that there's a moment in a (home)recording career when one has to stop trying to upgrade equipment to get better sound, and take a long, cold look at the skills of the performer (or the fact that you record in a small untreated room with lots of flat surfaces or a $20 preamp).

Any thoughts?
 
I've always felt like knowing mics is important, and the subtle differences between mics can really make a session a lot easier.

That said, (almost) any decent mic should be able to do the job in most situations.
If I was stuck with one vocal mic forever, I'm sure I'd get by as long as it was reasonable.


Of course, there are other characteristics that influence mic choice too.

You might want omnis as room mics, or the reduced proximity effect from the re20, for example.


Taking voice over as an example, if you take a very well known voice, I don't think it'll matter if you use re20 or sm7b or a 58.
You'll always be able to make it sound great (or it just will), in one way or other.
 
i'll go first and say the vo artist probably didnt care about the gear but i'm willing to bet the recording engineer did and i'd go so far as saying the thought carefully about the mic/pre/room treatment and everything else in the chain to capture the sound he needed.
It all matters to me. I have many mics and some are better than others at capturing the differant instruments and sounds i record.
Maybe the guesses are all over the place in a blind shoot out but that depends on the conditions of the shoot out. Differant takes etc.
 
If you don't have over 400 microphones than it's game over. :D
 
I think it's a bit like wines.

Some people can tell which vineyard a wine came from. Others just drink it, and it does its job just fine.

Others, though, collect wines.
 
I was going to start a thread similar to this about VO artist and radio host.

If you hear them at other times not at their studio set up - they sound weak and thin and at first I was going with the thought of it being attributed to not having their microphone of choice ..... but I think that it goes deeper than that and I think/know that it has to do equally with the lack of their personal processing, compression etc.
 
moresound said:
If you don't have over 400 microphones than it's game over. :D
Click to expand...

:D

I'm at about 40.......I guess I need to try harder.

Oh....they all sound different, except for that models I have more than one of each.
 
the answer was "What's the difference? I go to a studio, record, go home. Why would I care about a microphone? As long as it records sound it's good to go."
Click to expand...

That's why he's a voice over artist and not an engineer. someone else made all of the recording chain decisions before he got there.

Racing drivers don't have to know the chemistry behind tire compounds but it doesn't mean good tires aren't important in racing and millions of dollars aren't spent in developing tires. I don't understand how a blue ray player is better than a DVD player but the picture quality is better on the blue ray despite my lack of knowledge. And a guy who reads lines off a sheet of paper doesn't understand how mics work. But they do make a difference
 
moresound said:
If you hear them at other times not at their studio set up - they sound weak and thin and at first I was going with the thought of it being attributed to not having their microphone of choice ..... but I think that it goes deeper than that and I think/know that it has to do equally with the lack of their personal processing, compression etc.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. i was watching a BBC 4 radio show the other day ("the Bottom line", they now also air on on tv a couple of days after the radio show). The interviewers voice sounded awesome; clear and warm with plenty of body, whereas all the guests sounded thin and airy by comparison. the interviewer works in that space with that gear day in day out and i'm pretty sure that the engineers have had plenty of time to play around and get his voice just right, whereas the guest were in for that one show so the engineers probably just grabbed what they knew would work in general terms (in this case some C414's) and just got levels and went with it. infact, the female guest sounded awfully sibilant but, for a one off 20 minute interview in which she probably only spoke for about 5 minutes of real time i'm sure they weren't that fussed
 
miroslav said:
:D

I'm at about 40.......I guess I need to try harder.

Oh....they all sound different, except for that models I have more than one of each.
Click to expand...

I'll stop purchasing for a while and let you catch up, Miro. :listeningmusic:
 
Justsomeguy said:
I couldn't agree more. i was watching a BBC 4 radio show the other day ("the Bottom line", they now also air on on tv a couple of days after the radio show). The interviewers voice sounded awesome; clear and warm with plenty of body, whereas all the guests sounded thin and airy by comparison. the interviewer works in that space with that gear day in day out and i'm pretty sure that the engineers have had plenty of time to play around and get his voice just right, whereas the guest were in for that one show so the engineers probably just grabbed what they knew would work in general terms (in this case some C414's) and just got levels and went with it. infact, the female guest sounded awfully sibilant but, for a one off 20 minute interview in which she probably only spoke for about 5 minutes of real time i'm sure they weren't that fussed
Click to expand...


Exactly. Then on top of it all there is a multi-band compressor/limiter set on the output of every TV/Radio station's broadcast.
 
Justsomeguy said:
I couldn't agree more. i was watching a BBC 4 radio show the other day ("the Bottom line", they now also air on on tv a couple of days after the radio show). The interviewers voice sounded awesome; clear and warm with plenty of body, whereas all the guests sounded thin and airy by comparison. the interviewer works in that space with that gear day in day out and i'm pretty sure that the engineers have had plenty of time to play around and get his voice just right, whereas the guest were in for that one show so the engineers probably just grabbed what they knew would work in general terms (in this case some C414's) and just got levels and went with it. infact, the female guest sounded awfully sibilant but, for a one off 20 minute interview in which she probably only spoke for about 5 minutes of real time i'm sure they weren't that fussed
Click to expand...

Compared to a recording studio or radio, TV is very difficult for good sound. The visual tends to take priority. Mics and mic stands are a necessary evil. TV talk show hosts might be fine with a big mic plonked on their desk, almost as a status symbol, but for guests, nobody wants a mic shoved up their nose.

TV, mics themselves tend to be chose for their slim, low profile look, even if they give a huge pop when someone dares to speak closely into them. TV soundies make extensive use of body worn mics which are a huge compromise from ideal but at least the mic stays with a moving person.

Generally I think it's not the mics but how they are used that's the critical factor. We're spoilt with x number of excellent mics these days.

Tim
 
Last edited:
I think there are very, very large differences between mics--not dis-similar to the differences you hear when trying different monitor speakers. It makes sense...mics and speakers are the two transducers in the system. Matching the mic to the sound source can make a huge difference to the recording--and, as discussed in another thread, it's not simply a matter of using any old microphone and adjusting the EQ later.
 
Tim Gillett said:
Compared to a recording studio or radio, TV is very difficult for good sound.
Click to expand...

Although i agree with everything you said, the show i'm on about is a radio show. the TV edit is on at 4.00am on the BBC news channel and, i assure you, it would not pass for mainstream TV because of the all the points you made re: visuals over sound. half the time peoples faces were blocked from view by the mic+over sized wind shield + pop filter. Even my other half was appalled (she's a media lecturer and overly sensitive about bad shots etc)
 
Bobbsy said:
I think there are very, very large differences between mics--not dis-similar to the differences you hear when trying different monitor speakers. It makes sense...mics and speakers are the two transducers in the system. Matching the mic to the sound source can make a huge difference to the recording--and, as discussed in another thread, it's not simply a matter of using any old microphone and adjusting the EQ later.
Click to expand...


You're quite right that matching the mic to the sound source can make a huge difference but in the other thread we were talking about mics of a similar class, type and quality and discussing the benefits/necessity of going looking for a mic which essentially does your production EQing for you on a particular vocalist.

That is a question which most skilled experienced audio recordists wouldnt even ask. A top studio engineer has his mics. He might have a U87 which he uses for all sorts of instruments including vocalists. Does he go changing the U87 for something else every time a different vocalist walks into the studio? Of course not. And if he does he's mad, or perhaps just bored and just wants a change of mic scenery.

Basically, the U87 or similar mic in that class captures everything. Everything gets onto the recording and nothing is left out. That should answer the question, I would have thought.

Tim
 
Tim Gillett said:
A top studio engineer has his mics. He might have a U87 which he uses for all sorts of instruments including vocalists. Does he go changing the U87 for something else every time a different vocalist walks into the studio? Of course not. And if he does he's mad, or perhaps just bored and just wants a change of mic scenery.
Click to expand...


Some folks simply don't like the U87 (or similar) for certain stuff.
Just like the AKG C414....lots of folks see it as one of the "must have" mics, but it's only good for some things, and sucks on others.
I'm sorry Tim....while I don't have anything "bad" to say about a U87 (or similar)...it is certainly not the mic of choice for everything, or for every vocalist, and yes, most engineers do "zero" their studio and then setup for each session from scratch unless they are lazy, or it's a continuing session from the previous day.
I'm not trying to pick on you...but where on earth do you come up with the notion that they should put up one mic and leave it, and that changing it from session to session is "madness", and only "done out boredom"??? :D

Sure....they might use mics they are familiar with over and over, but if they have more than just a single U87 in their locker, good engineers will try different mics, ESPECIALLY on the vocalist.
For a more "known quantity"...like say, a saxophone, they might have some go-to mic choice that always works well...but they certainly don't have them up and just waiting....from session to session.

Really...from some of your very broad blanket comments in this thread and the other mic thread, it sounds like you think recording is the same as making cookies...and I don't say that because I am misunderstanding you. I'm just reading what you are saying.
 
miroslav said:
Just like the AKG C414....lots of folks see it as one of the "must have" mics, but it's only good for some things, and sucks on others.
Click to expand...

As a matter of curiosity, what would you say a 414 sucks at?
 
I've been getting into VO work lately (new here btw so hi!) and a lot of those guys seem to not care to know about the engineering side of things. They come in, do their thing, get paid, and leave. That or scream for a U87!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top