We only have two ears...

Scrubucket7

New member
So why does it seem like such a weird idea for people to use only 2 mics to record drums? Is it just the idea that more is better now adays? Just the ideals of consumerism?
 
I have read in Mix magazine that a common practice to record drums is to place two very good tube mikes above and behind the drummer's ears and a mike in the kick. Supposedly you get what the drummer hears (assuming that the drummer is a good one) and mix the kick in with it. I haven't ever tried this though so take the advice with a grain of salt. Dave
 
Maybe its because a drum kit is about the least "directional" instrument there is?? Only way to catch all the stuff your ears miss is to put a couple more mics on it.
 
While drum micing isn't my fort'e, it's all about control.....how much the drummer has (or doesn't have), and how much the AE/Producer want's to have. You can get a decent, live kind of sounding drum track with two mics, which may suit a particular project, but it sure won't have that Phil Collins level of production to it, which many would argue is a good thing. If the drummer isn't hitting very consistantly though, you'll really want more ability to compress or edit individual drums without hearing the cymbols pumping because of it. Of course, there's the issue of tonality/timber also, be it by knob twisting, or mic selection/placement.

That's my take on it.

-RD
 
astoebe said:
because with only two overheads you can't eq individual drums? can't raise the level of any one thing?

That's the right answer, eq, pan etc.

This is no different than saying why don't we only have 2 tracks in the mix ? Use 2 mics for the whole band.

Tony
 
It depends on what your theories / philosophies are behind producing audio.

If you feel that the objective of producing music is to faithfully and accurately reproduce the sound of the instrument, as it is in the natural world, then the "two mic" theory becomes much more relevent.

However, if your idea is to capture music and present it in such a way that defies our natural sense's capabilities -- i.e. to make something sound better than reality (or at least something different than what could be achieved in the natural world), then obviously, you're going to want to use all of the tricks you might have at your disposal.

Both philosophies have their place, of course, depending on the genre of music and the goal behind the production. I, myself, rather like having the ability to make the snare drum sound like it's being played in a curved tunnel ... while simultaneously making the cymbals sound like they're being played in a medium-large sized room with wooden tiled floors, and the kick to sound like it's being played right in front of me in a small, dead room, with mounds of compression.

Not that I would necessarily mix it like that, but I at least like the idea of having those types of options available to me should I wish to use them.

.
 
Scrubucket7 said:
So why does it seem like such a weird idea for people to use only 2 mics to record drums? Is it just the idea that more is better now adays? Just the ideals of consumerism?

It's not that it's weird, it's just not the sound most people want, or are used to hearing.

If you want the sound that you would hear if you were the drummer, it works.

That is not the sound of "produced" drums, however, and because we are all used to hearing "produced" drums, to emulate that sound we have to use the same techniques as the pro-feshunuls.
 
Oh 2 mics is definitly acceptable (jumping in on reply train)


The 2 mic technique does work, but better done by a good and experienced engineer to work effectively. It's just so reduced and so basic that you would have to record such a solid image from the beginning for it to continue to sound great throughout the production.

However, how chessrock stated, those are reserved for special occasions.

Some of those occasions:

1) The engineer decides to be a prick and show off his ability to record great drums using only 2 very delicious mics. Of course he still could of used more, but he didn't just to prove a certain *cough* person wrong. Therefore, leaving me 20bucks and a pack of ciggeretes less wealthy (don't laugh, I'm still sore about it)

2) To save track space

3) You anticipate a complex production with many elements (example, big band styles)

4) Cause maybe considering the situation, you don't need any more than that.
 
HomeMadeHitShow said:
This is no different than saying why don't we only have 2 tracks in the mix ? Use 2 mics for the whole band.
Zactly.

More mics means more direct drum sounds to mess with later.

Sucks to make a recording and then realize that your two drum tracks only succeed in getting cymbals and a bit of snare into your rock mix.
 
chessrock said:
It depends on what your theories / philosophies are behind producing audio.

If you feel that the objective of producing music is to faithfully and accurately reproduce the sound of the instrument, as it is in the natural world, then the "two mic" theory becomes much more relevent.

However, if your idea is to capture music and present it in such a way that defies our natural sense's capabilities -- i.e. to make something sound better than reality (or at least something different than what could be achieved in the natural world), then obviously, you're going to want to use all of the tricks you might have at your disposal.

Both philosophies have their place, of course, depending on the genre of music and the goal behind the production. I, myself, rather like having the ability to make the snare drum sound like it's being played in a curved tunnel ... while simultaneously making the cymbals sound like they're being played in a medium-large sized room with wooden tiled floors, and the kick to sound like it's being played right in front of me in a small, dead room, with mounds of compression.

Not that I would necessarily mix it like that, but I at least like the idea of having those types of options available to me should I wish to use them.

.

WHAT HE SAID
 
Back
Top