Some things to think about when choosing mics.

First if I may, we're they tracking live in the studio Tom Petty, Stevie? That could be why the 441s. Directional and forgiving. And maybe secondly it was just what was needed. The 441 was Linda Rondstats fav mic at one time I read. But it was big and in the way she said on stage in the end. I have all the Neumann greats and also have a pair of 441s. Sm7 Shure is also a great loud singer mic.

Regarding your question Michael. What mics are they and what is the frequncy plot? Do you leave the mics in the same position? Or do you move them at all? And it's not your monitors for certain?
 
Horrible explanation and littered with opinions, he even contradicts himself at points. Yes, Small mics better at highs, big mics better at lows. Hello, Surface areas to accept the waveform? Size has nothing to do with accuracy. Its what the diaphragm is made of is what affects sensitivity, a neo is better than a standard mag?, gold plate is better than silver plate?, you don't know and the manufacturer tells you that THEY don't know.... Its subjective, you wanna do low get big, you wanna do high get small. I have never heard a TC30 on a kick, and that's what the OP says SHOULD WORK???? Mic are similar to the instrument they where designed for... 58 had windscreen for vocals, 57 had no screen for instruments, no breath noises. The damn beta 52 is a b57 with an acoustically designed shell, doubt it, open yours. Thats a big chassis for what is in it...Its humbling the first time you see a B52 diaphragm, but then you realize, I really have to make it work! Its not a LF mic. THAT PG52 is a pg57 in a big shell. You cannot pin down his philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Well a lot of small condensers I have are certainly not accurate in my opinion. Even my KM 84 Neumanns are a sound and not accurate as say my Schoeps or even SM81s. The transformer affects the source in a pleasant way. A small versus large condenser's main purpose is speed. They are faster then a large condensers so if transients are important such as the nuances of string materials or attacks on stringed keys like an acoustic piano, or room sound leakage, then small can be more the answer. Large condensers have to disperse or share the real estate when receiving signal over a larger area of the capsule therefore they are slower and less sensitive for such things as say vocal, horns, the bloom character portion of standup basses, and other big sounds who's attacks are not as much the issue. Just my take. Thats the guide but all rules can be broken or sacrificed for tone.
 
Hello everybody,
thanks so much to Harvey for the microphone explanations. I am currently shopping for a microphone and, like so many on this forum, am on a budget. under $500 to be specific.

I should mention that I am really new to recording. Before posting this message, I actually went through a bunch of the previous posts but couldn't find what I was looking for. Hence my post now.

I plan to record teen pop and am looking for a microphone that handles mids and highs well without sounding too bright or tinny on top. I only own an SM57 at the moment and plan on using it coupled with a large diaphragm condenser to record acoustic guitar. i would like the condenser to be able to handle vocals AND guitar well. basically to avoid buying a third microphone like a small condenser for instruments.

like i said before, i'm trying to find a mic that will allow me to get a great sound on the mids and the high's without adding a lot of additional processing. the mics I have looked at so far include the Blue Spark and the AKG C214 (little brother of the C414). personally I like how the AKG C214 sounds on vocals but dislike how it sounds on acoustic guitars. the spark sounds good un ukelele's, but is still missing that slightly brighter soft high end that i'm looking for on vocals like the AKG has. both mics sounds good enough to meet my needs, but i'm willing to spend a bit more to get that sound I have in my head, the NOT tinny kind of thin but still filled out warm mid to high range vocal sound.

what's a microphone that you guys can recommend that can provide that sound i'm looking for under $500?

btw- I have every intention of buying a stand-alone pre amp in the future. it's just out of budget right now, and I am getting by with the pre's in my Komplete Audio 6 interface.

please write back when you have a chance.

Thanks in advance!

BudgetBeast
 
Well I wrote out a bible and then the site kicked it out and erased it.

In a nutshell it sounds like the sound you are after is like an ELAM 251 Telefunken. This is pretty much a benchmark of that sound and a very expensive microphone.
If you describe that to a knowledgable mic guy at your best pro audio dealer that is what category he should be looking at. Think of Rod Stewart, Bryan Adams, Sting...with those high mid textures that they have in their vocal yet you still want to have some bottom end when you need it. That is why I suggested this.
There are so many mic manufacturers now in the price range you seek. I can't begin to know them anymore but I thought it would be of help to give you the category. I hope that is in the ballpark for a suggestion.
If you can find one second hand ...the Rode K2 is a contender in that price range. I own both of these mics above and I think the Rode K2 at least emulates the ELAM.
Lou.
 
Great insights, Harvey,

Picking up the right microphone is definitely a crucial task. It is not only about how you will sound with them but also how it will help you easily do it? Thanks for going into the specifics of condenser microphones and diaphragms, along with other details for vocal mics. To add more to this thread, I would like to add some specifics for podcasting microphones, as you are going to have a more conversational application of such kinds.

Here is what I think one should be looking at when picking a podcast microphone in specific:

1. Type of Microphone
2. USB or XLR
3. Polar Patterns
4. Budget
5. Compatibility with other setups

This thread is not exactly the place where I would want to discuss these factors in detail. So I have listed them here - Factors when Picking a Podcast Microphone.

Podcasting is now trending more than ever, and mid-range podcast microphones can go anywhere from $150 to $300. So, doing research is most crucial.

Harvey's insights are great, and my suggestions are only slightly specific to podcasting. Hopefully, this information helps you pick the right microphone without any hassle.
 
I'm not really sure where this fits in(maybe in the big thread), but maybe it deserves its own thread:

Each mic design has trade-offs, usually accuracy for noise. The most accurate mics are small omnis, but as the size decreases, the noise goes up. Ya don't hafta be a rocket scientist to figure out why; the smaller diaphragm doesn't put out as much signal as a bigger diaphragm, so you hafta crank it more and you amplify the noise along with the signal.

Condenser mics can only do certain things very well, especially when you get into different patterns. Large diaphragm mics get wonky off axis (which means they can be shitty on sounds coming from a lot of different directions at once). That's why large diaphragm condensers are best as a vocal mic; the mouth is a pretty small source, and ocassionally very quiet. Large condensers are great for picking up quiet sources. Trade offs.

Small diaphragm condenser mics have better off-axis response, so they're "usually" better for miking bigger stuff (guitars, drum kits, choirs, etc.), in other words, anything where the sound is coming at you from a lot of different places. But, because they're smaller, they won't be assensitive as large condenser mics. Trade offs, again.

So what's the best vocal mic? Usually a large diaphragm mic is the first thing the pros reach for.

What's the best mic for larger instruments? Unless you own a very well designed large diaphragm condenser mic, usually a small diaphragm will work better (unless it's a very quiet source and you're willing to give up some accuracy for extra low noise output).

Finally, most mics aren't truely flat - most have little spikes and dips that occur all over the place. The frequency response charts that you see are smoothed to eliminate those short peaks and dips, but they're still there. And they're different for every mic - even two that are exactly the same brand and model.

Now here's the important part: When you happen to sing or play a note that corresponds to a peak or dip, the sound is gonna change. So, what does that mean? It means that a mic that sounds great on one voice, one guitar, or even in one key, may sound very different on another voice, another guitar, or even in a different key.

And that's where the problem lies when people try to compare a mic to other mics, and especially when you hear people say things like "this Chinese mic sounds identical to a U87", or whatever. For that singer, that guitar, or in that key, that may be true. It just means that the peaks and dips in the two mics didn't get pushed so hard that you could hear the differences between the two mics. On something else, the differences can be night and day.

The other factor is that, unless you've been doing this stuff for a long time, you're ear isn't trained to hear some of the differences, and you'll think only in terms of louder and brighter, or more bottom. It's really easy to miss hearing the small peaks and dips, which only comes with longer listening sessions and some ear training. When you compare mics, if a mic sounds "brighter", or "more detailed", make sure you're not confusing high frequency peaks and/or treble boost for those qualities.

While it's not cut and dried, be suspicous of louder mics - it usually means that accuracy has been sacrificed, and try to figure out where that "extra loudness" is coming from. Remember, "bigger" means "louder", but it also means "less accurate". "Less accurate" is not in itself a bad thing, if it's more flattering, but just be aware that it is less "accurate".

There are always trade offs in choosing equipment; try to make those trade offs work for you over the long haul, and you'll be fine when choosing a mic for a particular task.

The "big thread" covers a lot more detail about those trade offs, but remebering these points (that we've just discussed) may just help you hear "better", faster.
Al Schmidt was the master at mics and mic placement. His book is great too. He started in the days of mono and engineered the first stereo record to win a Grammy. He recorded George Benson, Jefferson Airplane, Neil Young and everyone else. Sadly he passed away a couple of years ago, but had a long prolific career. This interview with him is well worth watching!
 
Great insights, Harvey,

Picking up the right microphone is definitely a crucial task. It is not only about how you will sound with them but also how it will help you easily do it? Thanks for going into the specifics of condenser microphones and diaphragms, along with other details for vocal mics. To add more to this thread, I would like to add some specifics for podcasting microphones, as you are going to have a more conversational application of such kinds.

Here is what I think one should be looking at when picking a podcast microphone in specific:

1. Type of Microphone
2. USB or XLR
3. Polar Patterns
4. Budget
5. Compatibility with other setups

This thread is not exactly the place where I would want to discuss these factors in detail. So I have listed them here - Factors when Picking a Podcast Microphone.

Podcasting is now trending more than ever, and mid-range podcast microphones can go anywhere from $150 to $300. So, doing research is most crucial.

Harvey's insights are great, and my suggestions are only slightly specific to podcasting. Hopefully, this information helps you pick the right microphone without any hassle.
Even in podcasting the SM7B is the clear winner.
 
I’ve had one for years and I hated it till I started using it at a distance. I use it all the time now. I still hate it close by in
 
I'm not really sure where this fits in(maybe in the big thread), but maybe it deserves its own thread:

Each mic design has trade-offs, usually accuracy for noise. The most accurate mics are small omnis, but as the size decreases, the noise goes up. Ya don't hafta be a rocket scientist to figure out why; the smaller diaphragm doesn't put out as much signal as a bigger diaphragm, so you hafta crank it more and you amplify the noise along with the signal.

Condenser mics can only do certain things very well, especially when you get into different patterns. Large diaphragm mics get wonky off axis (which means they can be shitty on sounds coming from a lot of different directions at once). That's why large diaphragm condensers are best as a vocal mic; the mouth is a pretty small source, and ocassionally very quiet. Large condensers are great for picking up quiet sources. Trade offs.

Small diaphragm condenser mics have better off-axis response, so they're "usually" better for miking bigger stuff (guitars, drum kits, choirs, etc.), in other words, anything where the sound is coming at you from a lot of different places. But, because they're smaller, they won't be assensitive as large condenser mics. Trade offs, again.

So what's the best vocal mic? Usually a large diaphragm mic is the first thing the pros reach for.

What's the best mic for larger instruments? Unless you own a very well designed large diaphragm condenser mic, usually a small diaphragm will work better (unless it's a very quiet source and you're willing to give up some accuracy for extra low noise output).

Finally, most mics aren't truely flat - most have little spikes and dips that occur all over the place. The frequency response charts that you see are smoothed to eliminate those short peaks and dips, but they're still there. And they're different for every mic - even two that are exactly the same brand and model.

Now here's the important part: When you happen to sing or play a note that corresponds to a peak or dip, the sound is gonna change. So, what does that mean? It means that a mic that sounds great on one voice, one guitar, or even in one key, may sound very different on another voice, another guitar, or even in a different key.

And that's where the problem lies when people try to compare a mic to other mics, and especially when you hear people say things like "this Chinese mic sounds identical to a U87", or whatever. For that singer, that guitar, or in that key, that may be true. It just means that the peaks and dips in the two mics didn't get pushed so hard that you could hear the differences between the two mics. On something else, the differences can be night and day.

The other factor is that, unless you've been doing this stuff for a long time, you're ear isn't trained to hear some of the differences, and you'll think only in terms of louder and brighter, or more bottom. It's really easy to miss hearing the small peaks and dips, which only comes with longer listening sessions and some ear training. When you compare mics, if a mic sounds "brighter", or "more detailed", make sure you're not confusing high frequency peaks and/or treble boost for those qualities.

While it's not cut and dried, be suspicous of louder mics - it usually means that accuracy has been sacrificed, and try to figure out where that "extra loudness" is coming from. Remember, "bigger" means "louder", but it also means "less accurate". "Less accurate" is not in itself a bad thing, if it's more flattering, but just be aware that it is less "accurate".

There are always trade offs in choosing equipment; try to make those trade offs work for you over the long haul, and you'll be fine when choosing a mic for a particular task.

The "big thread" covers a lot more detail about those trade offs, but remebering these points (that we've just discussed) may just help you hear "better", faster.
Excellent!
 
I wonder what ol' Harvey is doing these days. He was a gem, with a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience. Unfortunately he hasn't been around here on HR for almost 10 years. He's got to be in his 80s. From what I have seen, his studio, Indian Trail, appears to have been closed for about 5 years.

His son Alex has Empire Sound Studio.
 
I'm not really sure where this fits in(maybe in the big thread), but maybe it deserves its own thread:

Each mic design has trade-offs, usually accuracy for noise. The most accurate mics are small omnis, but as the size decreases, the noise goes up. Ya don't hafta be a rocket scientist to figure out why; the smaller diaphragm doesn't put out as much signal as a bigger diaphragm, so you hafta crank it more and you amplify the noise along with the signal.

Condenser mics can only do certain things very well, especially when you get into different patterns. Large diaphragm mics get wonky off axis (which means they can be shitty on sounds coming from a lot of different directions at once). That's why large diaphragm condensers are best as a vocal mic; the mouth is a pretty small source, and ocassionally very quiet. Large condensers are great for picking up quiet sources. Trade offs.

Small diaphragm condenser mics have better off-axis response, so they're "usually" better for miking bigger stuff (guitars, drum kits, choirs, etc.), in other words, anything where the sound is coming at you from a lot of different places. But, because they're smaller, they won't be assensitive as large condenser mics. Trade offs, again.

So what's the best vocal mic? Usually a large diaphragm mic is the first thing the pros reach for.

What's the best mic for larger instruments? Unless you own a very well designed large diaphragm condenser mic, usually a small diaphragm will work better (unless it's a very quiet source and you're willing to give up some accuracy for extra low noise output).

Finally, most mics aren't truely flat - most have little spikes and dips that occur all over the place. The frequency response charts that you see are smoothed to eliminate those short peaks and dips, but they're still there. And they're different for every mic - even two that are exactly the same brand and model.

Now here's the important part: When you happen to sing or play a note that corresponds to a peak or dip, the sound is gonna change. So, what does that mean? It means that a mic that sounds great on one voice, one guitar, or even in one key, may sound very different on another voice, another guitar, or even in a different key.

And that's where the problem lies when people try to compare a mic to other mics, and especially when you hear people say things like "this Chinese mic sounds identical to a U87", or whatever. For that singer, that guitar, or in that key, that may be true. It just means that the peaks and dips in the two mics didn't get pushed so hard that you could hear the differences between the two mics. On something else, the differences can be night and day.

The other factor is that, unless you've been doing this stuff for a long time, you're ear isn't trained to hear some of the differences, and you'll think only in terms of louder and brighter, or more bottom. It's really easy to miss hearing the small peaks and dips, which only comes with longer listening sessions and some ear training. When you compare mics, if a mic sounds "brighter", or "more detailed", make sure you're not confusing high frequency peaks and/or treble boost for those qualities.

While it's not cut and dried, be suspicous of louder mics - it usually means that accuracy has been sacrificed, and try to figure out where that "extra loudness" is coming from. Remember, "bigger" means "louder", but it also means "less accurate". "Less accurate" is not in itself a bad thing, if it's more flattering, but just be aware that it is less "accurate".

There are always trade offs in choosing equipment; try to make those trade offs work for you over the long haul, and you'll be fine when choosing a mic for a particular task.

The "big thread" covers a lot more detail about those trade offs, but remebering these points (that we've just discussed) may just help you hear "better", faster.
Can I put one large diaphragm cupsle on C3 Beringer microphone?
 
First, you need a dual sided capsule, or you will lose the multipattern functionality. The C3 uses a two sided capsule (which is really a 16mm MD capsule) to change the polar patterns. and they are actually electret capsules. I don't know if the effort and expense of changing the capsule would be worth it. From what I have read, you'll need to replace the electronics as well as the IC amps in the circuit are lousy. It's a very noisy mic overall. The few comments that I've seen ended up only using the body and headbacket. Everything else was changed. I tried to find the thread that had pics, etc but it's not showing up in my search right now. The C3 is apparently not a good candidate for "upgrades".

I generally don't know if DIY upgrades are all that productive. Unless you have the proper analytical tools, how can you tell whether you have anything close to a properly spec'd microphone. I read about people changing parts and it's always the same result... "it sounds amazing now". I suspect that it's often confimation bias. Nobody wants to admit that they just spend $200 buying a new capsule and other parts, spent hours replacing stuff, and now it sounds awful. Instead, my $300 project always sounds "way better than the $5000 Neumann that I used 5 years ago in a pro studio!"

There are lots of decent mics for decent prices. MXL V67G for cardioid, AKG P420 for multipattern. The Studio Projects B3 actually sounds pretty darn good. The Miktek 300 is very good sounding.
 
Back
Top