Tell me why this is a bad idea......

[surfmaster]

but you cant stick a perfectly flat omni condenser in front of a stack and get the sound of a dynamic. its just not possible the capsules of condensers and dynamics interact so differently.

 

[guhlenn]

no. what you can do is step aaway form all the 'rules'and stick that omni in a place where the sound is exactly what you want it to be. you can hear it, it will be there... right?

 

[orksnork]

not necessarily...

and what about mic'ing a bass cabinet...with an SDC?? i dunno

 

[Big Kenny]

Geez, why do you think they make all those wonderful toys!!!!! I doubt if an sdc would work on a variety of voices, one maybe not a bunch. drums... nah, not snare or kick...... Ya need a variety.

 

[tnjazz]

not necessarily...

and what about mic'ing a bass cabinet...with an SDC?? i dunno

Are you saying you wouldn't mic a bass cabinet with an SDC?

I've done it in live recording situations a couple of times with Schoeps CMC64. In conjunction with the DI, I got an excellent sounding bass track out of it.

 

[scrubs]

Thanks again everyone!
I guess I was looking for something a little more in depth... Sorry..
What I mean is, Does using say, a large diaphragm condenser do something like smear the transients, boost certain frequencies, and introduce mild distortion? What does a different capsule DO to the sound? What do the electronics and their qualities DO to the sound? How do they change it?
Thanks again! I appreciate it!
-Gabe

I think you should just do it. Get one of those Nady omni reference mics and record everything with it. It is an inexpensive option and you will learn a lot in the process. There is no substitute for experience.

But, maybe, read this entire thread first.

 

[gabereding]

Thanks alot everyone!
I already read that thread. Thanks!
Basically, yeah. I've tried the standard approach to things, and it just doesn't seem to get the sound right. I've put an SM57 on a snare drum. I thought it sounded like crap. Even with good compression, EQ, etc. I like the way my snare sounds. But through an SM57 it sounded nothing like it, and not like I wanted it to.
Miking a snare with an SM57 is supposedly some "industry standard" whatever that means. Another example. Guitar cabinet miking. I've never liked the miked cabinet sound. It always sounds empty, no matter how the mics placed, and no matter how it's processed. So much detail is lost.
Also, someone was saying stuff like "I wouldn't use a dark mic on a low voice, or a bright mic on a female" but isn't that just tonal characteristics? Can't that be changed after recording? I mean, say you record it perfectly flat, just as it actually sounds, and then impart the tonality you desire? No one has shown me any difference in microphones other than frequency response, and telling me that "they're just different, okay?" I understand the physical differences in microphones, such as dynamic versus condenser versus ribbon. Large D versus small, internal electronics, etc. But what difference does it make other than FR and transient response? I know about the different sounds, I've used tons of mics. Is there something I can read somewhere that compares what each mic actually does to the wave? I've read a lot about mics, but they never get technical enough for me I guess. Sorry.
Anyways, I do appreciate everyone who piped in! I'm not actually trying to be a pain in the butt.
Thanks again!
-Gabe

 

[grn]

Just compress everything until it sounds great...

 

[riffy]

I've read a lot about mics, but they never get technical enough for me I guess. -Gabe

That might actually be the problem. You're over-thinking something that requires mostly just listening. Recording, while can be broken down into gobs of mathematical data, really boils down to what sounds good. I don't think you should approach recording like a mathematician - you probably could though. Just use your ears and make adjustments until it sounds good. Trust me, I'm also a Gabe

 

[gabereding]

Hmmm....

Once again thank you one and all!
I guess the reason all this is under my attention is that I've never gotten a mic to sound what I would consider "Great". I hear all these great sounds, but when I try to record them, it's changed completely. Thats what brings up the issue of accuracy. I haven't had time to worry about painting different colors with mic selection, I've been too preoccupied with trying to get something that sounds anything like I want it to.
Anyways, basically what I'm getting is that I should try it and see if I like it.
Thanks everyone! And especially those with unbiased responses!
I guess I got what I wanted.
Thanks!
-Gabe

 

[dgatwood]

Thanks alot everyone!
I already read that thread. Thanks!
Basically, yeah. I've tried the standard approach to things, and it just doesn't seem to get the sound right. I've put an SM57 on a snare drum. I thought it sounded like crap. Even with good compression, EQ, etc. I like the way my snare sounds. But through an SM57 it sounded nothing like it, and not like I wanted it to.
Miking a snare with an SM57 is supposedly some "industry standard" whatever that means.

For snare, I'd start with a mic that's a little less dull. AKG D190E, for example. That said, personally, I think SM57s and SM58s sound universally half-assed on whatever I use them on.

Just as you can't EQ it to get the sound you want, you similarly can't just take a flat condenser with fast transient response and turn it into what you want. Basically, you can't create what isn't there. For example you'll never match the fast transient response of a ribbon by using an LDC. You'll never get good high end out of an SM57 because it is rolled off so badly in the first place. About the best thing you can do with an SM57 is a wide cut a few dB to get rid of the lower midrange boominess. Even then, though, it will never be a great mic unless your source is naturally too bright (or unless you're using it for PA work and feedback rejection is a requirement).

Oh, and remember that it doesn't matter what it sounds like in isolation. What counts is how it sits in the mix. If your overheads pick up a lot of the HF snare sound, you probably don't want too terribly much of it from your snare mic. If the snare sounds bad in the mix, the first thing I'd do is adjust the overheads and see if you can improve things. If not, try a less muddy snare mic.

 

[dgatwood]

Once again thank you one and all!
I guess the reason all this is under my attention is that I've never gotten a mic to sound what I would consider "Great". I hear all these great sounds, but when I try to record them, it's changed completely.

Sounds like you need headphones with higher isolation (or, ideally, wireless headphones in another room).

 

[msly]

Well, using that reasoning ... why not just have sex with the same woman for the rest of your life?

Oh, yea. Some of us are actually doing that. Sorry.

.

LOL Made me laugh..... thanks...

 

[littledog]

Just a few parameters that will vary from mic to mic:

How much proximity effect

Which frequencies are hyped or cut

How susceptible to handling noise and mechanical transmission of stand vibration

How well it deals with plosives

Off axis frequency response

Self-noise

Specifics or the polar pattern

Ability to handle extremely high or low SPL's

Ruggedness of the mic to withstand potential abuse


All of the above are slightly different from one mic to another, and different sound sources and recording situations may require different mic'ing solutions. And, again, you might just find yourself recording more than one instrument at a time, or want to record in stereo - which itself is the biggest reason for owning more than one mic.

I think that pretty well spells it out. Do you need more than that?

(Edit: that should have read - "specifics OF the polar pattern")

 

[Ironklad Audio]

and what about mic'ing a bass cabinet...with an SDC?? i dunno

this is fairly commin practice amongst many engineers - use an SDC to get the thump and nuances of the speakers moving, and maybe it mix it with a DI for the clean low end

 

[ofajen]

Hello!
I was just wondering. According to stuff that I've read small diaphragm condenser mics are the most accurate kind of mic. Is this true?
Also, if this is the case, why can't I just buy one, use it to record everything, and then if I want "coloration" add it with a mic and/or preamp modeler plugin or something?
I'm probably over simplifying, but I'm just honestly wondering.
Anyways, thanks a lot!
-Gabe

Good condenser omnis probably have the least off-axis coloration of any mike (though good ribbon mikes can also sound accurate and natural, but with strong proximity effect.) They generally give the most accurate representation of the sound in the room at that spot.

Some people hold mike selection almost as a matter of religious faith, and I'm sure I'll be burned at the stake for heresy, but I will venture my point of view and experience on the question. You CAN do this (record with just accurate mikes, that is). I don't monkey with mike or preamp modelers, so I won't dispute the comments about how those things sound and work.

But, you could buy, say, a pair of very accurate mikes and record everything with them. The disadvantage is that you won't be able to spend lots of time second-guessing your mike choice and piddling around comparing the differences between different mikes and making subtle judgements about which mike sounds "best". The advantage is that you won't be able to spend lots of time second-guessing your mike choice and piddling around comparing the differences between mikes and making subtle judgements about which mike sounds "best".

I have 14 mikes and just bought 4 more. I use them all, but some much, much more than others. My personal preference is almost always to reach first for an accurate mike and try it out. If that doesn't make me smile, I'll usually try to make changes to the sound in the room first and then the mike location and orientation. Of course, if I already think I have another mike that offers a significant benefit in sound, I will try that mike.

Bear in mind that I have limited time to record my music and would rather be recording than testing mikes. If you have the time, then it might be worthwhile to spend a lot more time testing mikes. Then again, it might be worthwhile to spend that time making more music.

Another advantage to using accurate mikes, in my experience, is that those tracks mix nicely. My suspicion is that the lower off-axis coloration means that bleed from other sounds is less offensive-sounding. Plus, accurately-recorded tracks, IMHO, present a more accurate and engaging sound image.

Of course, YMMV a lot, especially if you have other ears to satisfy (or if this is a matter of religious faith)! I get to make the call in my projects.

Otto

 

[chessrock]

Just a few parameters that will vary from mic to mic:

How much proximity effect

Which frequencies are hyped or cut

How susceptible to handling noise and mechanical transmission of stand vibration

How well it deals with plosives

Off axis frequency response

Self-noise

Specifics or the polar pattern

Ability to handle extremely high or low SPL's

Ruggedness of the mic to withstand potential abuse


All of the above are slightly different from one mic to another, and different sound sources and recording situations may require different mic'ing solutions. And, again, you might just find yourself recording more than one instrument at a time, or want to record in stereo - which itself is the biggest reason for owning more than one mic.

I think that pretty well spells it out. Do you need more than that?

I really don't think he should need more than that. If he does, then I think he needs to take more initiative to read up on and try to comprehend this stuff better.

I'll also add another important element; distortion characteristics. Some mics will distort or will impart harmonics in certain frequency ranges. That should also be taken in to account.

And no, these aren't all just things you can add later with EQ or whatever. It's just not very practical, and won't sound as good. Frankly, you probably can't afford the kind of EQ and post processing that would take the place of good mic selection.

You keep on talking about how you're having trouble getting your mics to translate things as well as they sound at the source. All I can say to that is that ... in most instances, the mic doesn't lie. If your source "really" does sound right, then it will record that way. Part of the problem is that you probably don't "truly" understand what a good-sounding source "really" sounds like. You probably think you do, but I'm guessing you don't. Most people on this board don't, and most people I know, personally, don't have a clue. And I'm not immune to that myself all the time, either. It's the hardest thing to learn, if you don't have it naturally.

My homework for you would be to go back and listen to that snare of yours again. But this time, REALLY listen to it. I would bet really good money that your snare sounds like dog crap. And similarly, I'd bet that guitar sounds really offensive. If we (you and I) were in a session, sound-checking it, I would probably hear it right away, and would be very quick to point it out: "Hey spankmeister. Do something about that dog-shit sounding snare of yours before I chuck it out the window."

In time, you too might develop that innate sense, where you listen to something and say ... "Oh boy. We've got a real turd on our hands, here." That's the point that we're all striving to get to.
.

 

[orksnork]

ehh i stand corrected on the sdc thing...but that was more of a matter of what ive been able to put together with the gear ive had in the past...

with the varying options i had....putting an sdc on a bass cab never sounded good alone or as a helpful track to bring in some frequencies...but ive never had a lot of options as far as sdcs and pres to get that right...

but thanks to this thread...im not so resolved to disregarding the idea forever

 

[ofajen]

No one has shown me any difference in microphones other than frequency response, and telling me that "they're just different, okay?" I understand the physical differences in microphones, such as dynamic versus condenser versus ribbon. Large D versus small, internal electronics, etc. But what difference does it make other than FR and transient response? I know about the different sounds, I've used tons of mics. Is there something I can read somewhere that compares what each mic actually does to the wave? I've read a lot about mics, but they never get technical enough for me I guess.

There are several classic texts on mikes. Leo Beranek has a book on microphones. I can probably find some of the others. And then there is the AES mike anthology, which is basically just a collection of interesting (and some non-interesting) articles.

As far as knowing more than on-axis frequency response at 24 inches, mike makers are not good about reporting meaningful data about off-axis response and there are currently no standards for doing that, nor are there likely to be any time soon.

Otto

 

[roadwarrior]

In case you haven't noticed.....just about every recording ever done was done with an "intended" sound. The engineer (that would be us) decides on what sound he or she is going for, then finds the tool to get them there. It's not always about getting "THE" sound. This is far too interpretive. What one engineer is going for is different from another. I like acoustic guitar recorded differently than some, as is the case with vocals. For example I absolutely abhore the sound Christine Aguilera is recorded with. That thin, distant, ultra compressed character. It is the opposite end of the universe for how "I" like vocals recorded. Just about the same for many of the pop vocals I hear these days. Give me that "present" in your face....lush rich and vibrant sound every time. It's just ME and I admit it. Some of you don't like this and that's just fine. It's YOUR right to do as you please, and it's the public's right to reject it or like it. It's just a good thing I do what I do for enjoyment and not a paycheck I guess. I know what I like and I suspect you all feel much the same. Determine what tool you need to get you there and USE it!

Just as some will stand here and stomp their feet insisting there is no other mic but a Neumann U87.......hogwash.....I've used more than my share of esoteric mics, and frankly I don't feel that they get any better a result than a typical Rode NT2-A.......a not so expensive mic that really delivers in all regards. Are there others that bring some things to the sonic table?......absolutely.....are they essential to getting the job done.... not necessarily is my take......just do your things.......get it done. If it drains your bank account don't say I didn't warn ya.....