Transparent mics?

[sonusman]

ola, if we were to trust the spec sheets of every mic made, all of them would offer a flat frequency response. Or at least close to it.

The better large diaphram mics offer flatter response, but in reality, it is impossible to build a perfect mic. In reality, I doubt tha you would want this.

The most interesting idea that I have ever seen for micing is those mics that sit on a manaquin head on both ears. I don't remember their name, but have read that they deliver very accurate reproduction. The problem though is that your speakers are stereo (I hope... ) and you are losing the 3D effect anyway.

Recording is an art my friend. The art is gaining the skills to manipulate the equipment into doing what you want it to do. The better the equipment the better the chance of getting what you want out of the sound from a pure sonic standpoint.

Give up your search and get some decent mics and go to work. The money or experience you could get from just having a pair of AT 4033's or what not is worth the experiment. In time, you will see what your needs are.

A lot of live recordings where done with PZM mics mounted on 2X2 ft. plexiglass sheets and set up in the back of the room. This kind of setup can offer an amazing sound.

Ed

 

[jnorman]

take a look at the earthworks mics - they have several models that are made for such applications, and are easily the best bang for the buck in this arena. the B&K mics are among the best in the world for this kind of stuff, so also investigate those. another more standard configuration is a pair of neumann km140s (cards). also the sennheiser mkh20s (omnis). the shoeps ORTF stereo mic is also very highly recommended.

 

[ola]

Hello,

I'm looking for a pair of mics that are as transparent as possible (i.e. flat frequence response line across the spectrum). The AKG C480B with the CK62-ULS omnidirectional capsule is the best I've seen so far, and it's been recommended to me, but it's a bit pricey (around US$600 a piece). What other mics should I be looking at if I want mics that don't sound "good" but rather sound "true"? I'm planning to record acoustic music in a "live" room with natural reverb instead of fabricated.

Also, if anyone has a place in Europe where the AKG setup can be found (or have a pair to sell) at a resonable price, let me know.

Cheers

/Ola

 

[ola]

Sonusman- If you look again at the specs for various microphones, you'll find that they don't have very flat frequence response lines, I've checked a lot of them and most have a -6dB drop in the upmost range, +2 to 4dB around the middle range and a big drop in the lower frequences. What gives? Why would they show these poor results.

I do of course not trust all the specs I read (heck, I write specs for a living but the AKG setup has been tested by a buch of guys here in Sweden, who have access to state of the art equipment and rooms, and proved to be as transparent as mics get today. They tried a whole bunch of mics to fin the most transparent ones (they're a bit too much on the purist sid though). I think there was two other that "passed" their tests but they costed around a zillion bobs a piece.

I agree that one shouldn't search for the perfect setup instead of making music but why not get what you think is best for your needs, as I know my needs pretty well; Live room, stereo recording with as little colouring and off-directional colouring as possible.

jnorman- The two more standard mics you suggested are aobut as pricey as the AKG setup. I presume that the Earthworks and B&K mics you talk about are fo PZM setup, right?

Both- Thanks a lot for your advices. I really appreciate it. I'm quite interested in the PZM setup as I've heard people talk about it but never tried it. Where can I find more info on the setup and what mics to use?

Also, how about the Rode NT-2? Any comments.

Thanks again

/Ola

 

[Recording Engineer]

ola:

Why do you think if a microphone's frequency response is significantly boosts and/or cuts, its a sign of "poor results" according to your definition of poor results? Remember most of the mics a lot of people consider as "legendary" don't have even close to a flat frequency response.

For the most transparent, I'd go with Earthworks (these are not PZMs) www.earthwks.com or PZMs. I'd go for the Crown PZMs www.crownaudio.com/crownaudio if you're going to go that route. If you're daring enough, you could go for the HOPPROD PZMs; a company from the Netherlands (Holland). www.people.a2000.nl/ehhopman/hopprod.htm I gave them a chance and like them better than Crown's PZMs because they have a better high-end frequency response.

 

[ola]

I just don't think that the micriphones should be "instruments" of their own. If a mic sounds "good", it might be great for one or a few applications for some people and not even useful for other. I'm into folk music (Irish and Swedish mostly) and simply think that acoustic instruments sounds best with as little moderartion as possible. If the mic adds or takes away a bit here and there, it would have to be compensated by and EQ and I don't see how that could be as good as just "leaving it as it is". It's a bit like studio monitors, you don't want them to colour the sound, right?

It's just my ideal of recording.

/Ola

 

[Recording Engineer]

A lot of times, the instrument or room is not the most or not much at all ideal, "real", or natural to record. There for, we must compensate with our microphone selection(s), polar pattern selection(s), microphone position(s), selected number of microphones, peamp(s), compressor(s), gate(s), EQ(s), FX(s), etc.

Ribbon mics aren't known for their transparentcy at all. But yet, they're still used on the most "natural" of instruments in recording orchestras, symphonys, classical music, etc. Then, they're tracked to analog tape; full of color. Go figure.

Go for the Earthworks, B&Ks, PZMs, etc. because you want to make-use of their flat-response. Not because acoustic instruments for certain styles are suppose to sound "natural". Most likely, that's not what you'll get anyway.

In fact, the other day, I miked a trumpet using two HOPPROD PZMs mounted on plexi-glass at about 12-15' away (no real sane listener's gonna be putting their ear nearly inside the bell) in my fairly good sized, 10-14' vaulted ceiling living room for this very short, 2 songs w/piano keyboard and a few trumpet scales audition demo for this guy. I decided to go for this set-up after all his non-stop emphasise on "natural".

So after the first "it's a keeper" take, he came in the control room to listen. He told me that "the trumpet does not sound like a trumpet at all. It sounds like a toy!" My response was "I know. But that's what it sounds like when I stand where the mics are. At least it sounds natural."

 

[dobro]

LOL - Rec Eng - I know, I've come up against that... the difference between the way the instrument (or voice) sounds when you're playing/singing and the way it sounds when it's recorded. Do I want it to sound like I hear it when I play it, or do I make it sound like a listener would hear it? There *is* no one single 'natural' sound. It depends where you are in the room - playing the instrument, standing close by or at the end of the room near an open window - all of these are natural, and all different.

In the end, you get to choose.

 

[ola]

Point(s) well taken I've just been comparing a bunch of recordings ranging from dead room, added reverb, good sounding card mics" to "live room, no added reverb (or other effects, transparent omni mics". The latter setup is the only one that, in my opinion of course, produces recordings that does not sound recorded but rather, ehm well "natural".

However, I'll step down from my high horses of ideal recording setups until I;

1.Have a lifetime of recording experience
2.Can afford, and justify, the setup I want

Meanwhile, I'll probably get a pair of multi-pattern as_transparent_as_my_budget_allows mics (Rod NT2?) and start fooling around for a couple of more years I'm still interested in how to set up the PZM mics though.

Thanks

/Ola