Farview
Well-known member
If there is any stickiness on the head at all, it will be a problem. Maybe get some alcohol or something to make sue it's clean.
A
adam79
New member
Ya, definitely. I'm gonna replace it with one of those felt circle deals. They're the normal target to stick on there, right?
Farview
Well-known member
If you want any attack at all, felt isnt going to do it.
There are some kevlar dots that will stick on to protect the head from the beater.
Once again, what sort of kick sound are you after?
There are some kevlar dots that will stick on to protect the head from the beater.
Once again, what sort of kick sound are you after?
A
adam79
New member
Ya, a guy recommended a Remo pad, I think it's called Flam Slam or something close that's made of Kevlar. I'm gonna go with that. Off the top of my head, I like the drums on the Bleach LP (Nirvana), also on their single Dive. I like the drums on BadMotorFinger by Soundgarden too. Just want something heavy sounding without that Metal top-end click. I'm thinking of buying a used e602 (the original not the newer e602 II), but I have no way of listening to it first. Neither of the rental places by me have them. The 421 is just such a versatile mic, and I always like it best in those youtube shootouts, but it's too much of a crap shoot buying one without hearing it, and for all the reasons I mentioned earlier on this thread. You can tell on eBay that there are atleast two guys that have multiple vintage 421's and are selling like 5 at a time on there. It's probably a safe bet that they're the ones that didn't hold up. It seems like the e602 would be a safer bet. I think they might consistently sound the same from mic to mic too.
Farview
Well-known member
The falam slam is the one I was thinking about.
On Badmotorfinger, I'm pretty sure he was using a 57 on the beater and a D12 (not a D112) on the reso head. Using the hard side of the beater.
The trick to those sounds are going to be tuning the kick so that is doesn't ring. You should be able to get that sort of kick sound out of any mic, since it doesn't have extreme highs or lows. You will have to EQ it a decent amount no matter what you do.
On Badmotorfinger, I'm pretty sure he was using a 57 on the beater and a D12 (not a D112) on the reso head. Using the hard side of the beater.
The trick to those sounds are going to be tuning the kick so that is doesn't ring. You should be able to get that sort of kick sound out of any mic, since it doesn't have extreme highs or lows. You will have to EQ it a decent amount no matter what you do.
A
adam79
New member
The thing I like about the drums on badmotorfinger is that they aren't boomy at all. That whole mix is amazing. It seems like it was mixed so you could crank the shit out of it. Plus I love those Peavey VTM-120 amps; I wish I never sold mine. I didn't like how it didn't have a clean tone, but looking back I would have never sold it. I could have gotten a cheap combo with decent cleans and an A/B switch pedal. Best distortion of any amp I've owned, or atleast tied for the top spot. And I've had Dual Rectifiers (too sterile for my taste, and it was an earlier revision too), vintage Marshalls, Ampeg V4, Music Man HD 130 (the other Badmotorfinger amp), a bunch of cool amps. Kinda getting off topic with my VTM-120 nostalgia. I also like the Alice in Chains Dirt LP drum sound. Someone on another forum mentioned that they read an article with Dave Jerden from the '90s where he talked about some of the equipment used on that LP. The only kick mic mention was the D112, which surprised me, cuz I hate that thing. Too boxy, boomy, cardboardish. I guess if the drum tuning is there and you know what you're doing behing the mix desk you can get a good sound for almost any kick mic. Not to mention when you're using top of the line reel to reels, mixing boards, outboard gear, etc. Jerden also did the two Nirvana recordings I mentioned above. I think he did Badmotorfinger too. That guy had his hands in every early '90s Seattle recording. Those are the albums that came to mind without me even having to think just cuz I grew up on that crap and it's ingrained in my brain.
C
cafehonda
New member
Jerden also did the two Nirvana recordings I mentioned above. I think he did Badmotorfinger too. That guy had his hands in every early '90s Seattle recording. Those are the albums that came to mind without me even having to think just cuz I grew up on that crap and it's ingrained in my brain.[/QUOTE]
BADMOTORFINGER is Terry Date engineering and Ron St. Germain mixing. Date is great at getting killer drum tone. Brendan O'Brien is another that just seems to know how to track drums.
BADMOTORFINGER is Terry Date engineering and Ron St. Germain mixing. Date is great at getting killer drum tone. Brendan O'Brien is another that just seems to know how to track drums.
A
adam79
New member
Oh, right on. They definitely did a killer job on that one. When that guy mentioned the Jerden article about the Dirt sessions it had me confused, cuz I'm almost positive that he doesn't have the mixing credit on that album. Maybe he just tracked it, which would explain how he knew about the gear used.
Farview
Well-known member
From what I read, it was a D12, not a D112. But I could be wrong. The D12 was a mic from the 70's that was really dull sounding, but captured a great tight low end. By the mid 80's they were always paired up with another mic to grab the attack of a kick.
Here's the thing, no matter which kick mic you get, you will still have to EQ and compress the crap out of it to get the sound you want. But that Nirvana album you mentioned has the classic D112 inside a kick with a pillow in it sound.
A
adam79
New member
Are you talking about Badmotorfinger or Dirt that used the D12? The Jerden article I referenced that mentioned the D112 was about Dirt. It seems like the D112 was WAY more popular in the 90s than today. I used to have one in the late 90s and never was that into it. I was really green when it came to recording and just had a crappy cassette 4track with no outboard gear. I'm pretty sure I just placed it and hit record. I'm most likely gonna go with the original e602.
Farview
Well-known member
The D112 was really big in the 80's and 90's. The beta 52, 609 and audix (the company) didn't exist yet. Those all came out in the early to mid 90's, but the people who were making records at the time were probably just using what they were used to.
I was talking about badmotorfinger with the D12 and the 57. Sorry, I got lost. It would be easier to read your posts if you used paragraphs.
I was talking about badmotorfinger with the D12 and the 57. Sorry, I got lost. It would be easier to read your posts if you used paragraphs.
JG96
Active member
I have a 421 U5, I have used the E602 outside and inside the kick. I prefer it inside, outside is a bit one dimensional but it would be fine on its own live. Outside I like to use a Cad M179.
A
adam79
New member
That D12 / SM57 combo sounds awesome. How does the D12 compare to the D112? Are you familiar with the AKG D12 ECHOLETTE ED12? Is it an earlier model? The D12 VR is the new model, right? How does the VR and Echolette compare to the straight D12? I remember the D12 being in some of the shootout videos I watched on YouTube and it never really caught my attention.
It's pricey when compared to an original e602, or even a vintage MD-421. The e602 never really caught my ear either, but it gets such good reviews and is in my price range. I almost bought one the other day.
Do you know if the D12's are pretty consistent sounding from mic to mic? I'm still a bit bummed out about how the vintage MD-421's are so inconsistent in this way; I really had my heart set out for one of those. I was hoping to find a MD-421 for sale at a local store, but haven't had any luck. It seems like a horrible idea to go in blind on a vintage 421, w/o hearing it first.
Thanks.
Steenamaroo
...
The d12, d112, and d12vr are all completely different animals.
I don't have hands on experience with the VR but the other two aren't really comparable.
The d112 is known for its attack and presence - A pretty modern sound, whereas the d12 is known for its warm wooly thud.
Although there's crossover and mixing techiniques come into play a lot, I think it's fair to say they represent totally different generations or genres.
Consistency? I think forget it. The d12 mics are all so old now and the were manufactured for so long.
There was a re-run of replacement capsules at one point but even those have completely dried up now.
The echolette, I'm almost certain, is pretty much a rebranding or a different outer casing but the capsule inside is the same.
D12s famously lose their low end if the diaphragm moves, and the diaphragms are know to move because they are clamped in place rather than glued.
The plus side is that bass-loss d12s are repairable simply by slackening, realigning, and tightening, but the downside is that the coil wires are generally so brittle that a repair always runs the risk of breaking them.
If you break the coil wires close to the coil, consider it dead.
I've heard a lot of guys saying they just moved on to other microphones because d12s are on their way to extinction.
I have a perfect one but if it breaks, I don't. End of.
These days, in the UK, it looks like you'd be parting with about £400 for a good one and it's still pretty much a time bomb.
That's not to say that someone who cared for their d12 and kept it in optimal conditions won't still have it working perfectly in 50 years, but if you buy one now you don't know its history.
It wasn't uncommon to see them as live stage mics at one time (a looong time ago) so, in that respect, it could be like buying a used 58 with 20 years of spit and cigarette tar on it.
Farview
Well-known member
Like Steen said, the D12's never caught your ear because they are essentially half a good kick sound. That is why they are paired with other mics to capture the attack. All of the original ones are going on 50 years old and will be in various states of repair. It will not be a good workhorse kick mic for you.
The D112 is more midrangey than most newer kick mics. It does capture the sub low end, but you have to shape the midrange to bring it out. The cool thing about it is that you can put the attack of the kick anywhere you want it. 1k, for that late 1970's sound, 3-4k for that late 80's sound, or high shelf at 8k for that more modern heavy metal kick sound. With some other mics, they have already sucked out some midrange and added the highs and lows, so you will need to EQ around that in order to make the kick sound different.
You're overthinking this. You can get the kick sound you want from just about any kick mic. There is no need to get too fancy.
Also, don't fall for the idea that the only legitimate 421's are the vintage ones. No, the new ones don't sound exactly the same. But the old ones don't sound like they did anymore either. And it isn't 1972 anymore, time, tech and audience expectations have changed. A lot of people love old led zeppelin albums, but if you came out with an album that had the exact same sonics as their first album, people would think it sounded like crap and was too quiet.
Hell, the drums on Master of Puppets were miced with nothing but SM57's. It didn't affect sales or popularity. Don't overthink this, or get stuck in the mentality that you need a specific version of anything.
Also, don't rule out the Audix kick mic, it is pretty good too.
The D112 is more midrangey than most newer kick mics. It does capture the sub low end, but you have to shape the midrange to bring it out. The cool thing about it is that you can put the attack of the kick anywhere you want it. 1k, for that late 1970's sound, 3-4k for that late 80's sound, or high shelf at 8k for that more modern heavy metal kick sound. With some other mics, they have already sucked out some midrange and added the highs and lows, so you will need to EQ around that in order to make the kick sound different.
You're overthinking this. You can get the kick sound you want from just about any kick mic. There is no need to get too fancy.
Also, don't fall for the idea that the only legitimate 421's are the vintage ones. No, the new ones don't sound exactly the same. But the old ones don't sound like they did anymore either. And it isn't 1972 anymore, time, tech and audience expectations have changed. A lot of people love old led zeppelin albums, but if you came out with an album that had the exact same sonics as their first album, people would think it sounded like crap and was too quiet.
Hell, the drums on Master of Puppets were miced with nothing but SM57's. It didn't affect sales or popularity. Don't overthink this, or get stuck in the mentality that you need a specific version of anything.
Also, don't rule out the Audix kick mic, it is pretty good too.
A
adam79
New member
The d12, d112, and d12vr are all completely different animals.
I don't have hands on experience with the VR but the other two aren't really comparable.
The d112 is known for its attack and presence - A pretty modern sound, whereas the d12 is known for its warm wooly thud.
Although there's crossover and mixing techiniques come into play a lot, I think it's fair to say they represent totally different generations or genres.
Consistency? I think forget it. The d12 mics are all so old now and the were manufactured for so long.
There was a re-run of replacement capsules at one point but even those have completely dried up now.
The echolette, I'm almost certain, is pretty much a rebranding or a different outer casing but the capsule inside is the same.
D12s famously lose their low end if the diaphragm moves, and the diaphragms are know to move because they are clamped in place rather than glued.
The plus side is that bass-loss d12s are repairable simply by slackening, realigning, and tightening, but the downside is that the coil wires are generally so brittle that a repair always runs the risk of breaking them.
If you break the coil wires close to the coil, consider it dead.
I've heard a lot of guys saying they just moved on to other microphones because d12s are on their way to extinction.
I have a perfect one but if it breaks, I don't. End of.
These days, in the UK, it looks like you'd be parting with about £400 for a good one and it's still pretty much a time bomb.
That's not to say that someone who cared for their d12 and kept it in optimal conditions won't still have it working perfectly in 50 years, but if you buy one now you don't know its history.
It wasn't uncommon to see them as live stage mics at one time (a looong time ago) so, in that respect, it could be like buying a used 58 with 20 years of spit and cigarette tar on it.
There's a thread on gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/412335-echolette-d12-same-akg-d12.html) about the Echolette and it was apparently just a distribution brand. Definitely inconstant from mic to mic as far a materials. They did have the same capsule, but have different pickup patters, some have transformers, others don't, plus other things that I could quote from that thread, but don't know what it really means...like elastic suspension, membrane thickness, etc. Think I'm gonna pass on this one.
It's always risky to buy a mic without hearing it, but after doing a good amount of research, I feel most comfortable taking a chance with an e602. It's not super pricey and sounds pretty decent. Plus the originals are only around 10 years old, compared to 30+ with the D12 and MD-421.
Steenamaroo
...
Yeah, I think that sounds like a good idea.
I had forgotten there were various flavours of Echolette d12 and possibly even AKG d12.
Some had transformers (in the plastic chamber?) and some did not, as you say. I've seen echolettes with two potentiometers on the back - No idea what those were for.
All told, I agree with Farview. More or less any modern, reliable, and replaceable kick drum mic is likely to do the job well.
You might take advice from people recording the same kit or genre as you but, broadly speaking, any of the common reputatable mics is going to put you roughly in the right place.
There's so much scope in terms of mic position and 2-kick-mic combinations, too!
Farview
Well-known member
I had a 421 U5 and a 421 II. On kick, I couldn't tell the difference. On electric guitar I could, but I still used them interchangeably. They both do the same type of thing. They both have smooth highs and lows, and scooped mids in roughly the same place. On electric guitar, I always paired it with a 57, because a 57 has the opposite (ish) response. Both mics 'fill in' what the other is missing.
Steenamaroo
...
I though the opposite was true. Is the D112 not boosted in treble and bass? To be fair I don't have much experience with newer kick mics. Maybe they're boosted more so?
It always sounded like a smiley face mic to me, whereas my d12 is strong in bass and mids.
The latter sounds lovely on my voice (IMO), but compared to a 7b or something it has a muddier/muffled sound.
Farview
Well-known member
It has a much older version of smiley face curve. It was designed for upright bass, so there is plenty of the sort of midrange that makes sense for that instrument. It's just brighter than the traditional kick mics from before.
The beta 52 has a boost around 50hz and upwards of 5k and seems to be a dip between 400 and 1k.
The beta 52 has a boost around 50hz and upwards of 5k and seems to be a dip between 400 and 1k.