what do you reference against when you characterize mics

  • Thread starter Thread starter CyanJaguar
  • Start date Start date
C

CyanJaguar

New member
when I first started, I was impressed with the big name mics, simply because that's what everybody was talking about, and because they sounded good when compared to the rode nt1 reference I had.

When I heard the u87, suddenly mics started sounding not-so-good. I know the u87 is not the be all and end all of mics, but its my current favorite reference.

Compared to it, on vox.

the tlm103 sounds harsh, edgy and unuseable

the akg c414 sounds strident on the top, with a slightly anemic grating quality that renders it unuseable

the 4033, sounds real, but unexciting in the mids and can be very sibilant

the blueberry sounds wooly in the low mids when close miked and metallic when far miked and just idiotic all around. This renders it mostly unuseable without precise positoning.

The c1. I'll reserve comments out of respect for Alan.

The ntk has the same harshness as the tlm103 but in a different way. Unuseable

the u67 sounds lifeless and annoying.

the u47 sound AWESOME but I cant afford it. DANG

Dang. Its almost impossible to find a good mic anywhere.

Anyhow, I rest assured in the fact that if its a good song, nobody is listening to the mic and I can basically use any mic that produces sound. Thats exhilarating.

The search continues.
 
My ears, pending the particular goal that I'm trying to accomplish sonically.


Bowisc
 
I think the main problem is twofold:

1) Many people, maybe even yourself included (not sure), might be searching for their holy grail of mics in the form of a large-diaphragm condenser.

It isn't a bad idea to think outside the box once in a while try different things. Experiment a little with positioning, and you might find just that magical spot where an Octava mc012 sounds like a u87. Maybe, maybe not. :)

Hell, grab whatever mic you might be using on your kick drum and see how that sounds on other things. There are no rules.

I can tell you right now, if you're not familiar with an electrovoice re20 or some of the Senheisers or even an sm7, you'll be in for a treat. In your comments about some of those mics you mentioned, I'm noticing comments like: harsh, grating, annoying, sibilant, unusable, etc.

Believe me, an re20 close-miced sounds anything but the above adjectives . . . and on the right voice can sound just as exciting, crisp, and accurate as a good condenser but with so much more lushness, richness, and warmth.

In fact, I'll have to say this is a major point of reference for me when auditioning a condenser mic - how much does it's sound remind me of a large-diaphragm dynamic mic?

2) Perhaps what makes something like a u87 so special is the fact that it is forgiving of so many voices, regardless of it's positioning, type of preamp used, eq, etc.

If you keep enough different-sounding mics in your locker, you might find that the NT1 sounds even better on Joe Blow's voice than the u87. Maybe Joe Blow has got a particulary unexciting, unsibilant type of voice that the high-end spikes bring to life on his particular voice.

Of course, Jane Doe's voice may be completely different and might suck on the NT1, untill you put it slightly off-axis and find just the right sweet-spot to where it sounds more usable. Or maybe it just needs a wide cut around 12-khz or a good de-esser.

But the point is that a u87 will probably sound good on both of their voices with minimal eq, tweaking, and without as much regard to where it is positioned. The benefit we have as home recordists that we often don't take advantage of is Time. We have more of it to experiment.

So now I realize I've rambled and haven't answered your question. :) My reference is as follows:

Female reference: The sound of Fiona Apple's vocal mic on "When the Pawn."

Male reference: The sound of Elton John's vocal mic on "I Want a Love."

Everything else: Whatever mic sound was achieved on Radiohead's Okay Computer or RHCP Bloodsugarsexmagic. Most of the time.
 
chessrock,

your ramble made me more educated and increased my state of audio consciousness, and thats a good thing.

I agree with you on all points. I do think that some dynamic mics and small diaphragm condensers are often overlooked in favor of ldcs, sometimes to the detriment of sound quality.

I did hear an oktava mc012 that sounded glorious.
 
I liked the older U87s but I haven't been that interested in the newer models. I'm not interested enough to buy one for the studio. On the other hand, if a good deal came along, I would jump on the chance to own a Neumann U67 (which you characterize as "lifeless"), or a good U47 or U48, or an M49 or M50.

Since I don't record me anymore, I'm more concerned with having different choices for different voices, hence my reasons for maintaining a fairly good sized mic collection.

Microphones respond differently, depending on the voice, and what the mic is plugged into. On one female singer's voice, the sound of my RCA 77DX was magical, while it sucked with another female singer (and I wound up using the Marshall V77). So how do I characterize the sound of my RCA; does it suck, or sound dull, lifeless, strident, edgy, harsh, mushy?

It depends on the particular use I'm putting it to. It can be any of those things, or magical. Most of my mics don't seem to care what they're recording, so I guess it's up to me to care, and try to choose the best tool for the particular job.

I guess my main concerns are comparing the mic to other mics and listening for the colorations that every mic produces and then deciding where that particular coloration may be effective.

Kinda like painting; is brown better than burnt umber? I just try to pick an appropriate color. Which is best? Depends on a lot more than just saying brown sucks, burnt umber rules.
 
So what is your take on the C-1?
Click to expand...
I was about to ask the same question. I find it hard to believe that you won't comment on one mic made by someone you really don't know, but you can castigate the entire Neumann line (except the U47, which we all know is great). I'm sure the Neumann line was created by someone with just as much pride of ownership as Mr. Hyatt.
 
Not to mention that "out of respect for Alan" pretty much reads like "it sucks, but I won't say it here".

To be sure, there are mics that just plain suck, but I find it meaningless to try to assign a reference designation to any mic, other than in the context of ruler flatness, which doesn't sound too good in most cases. The history of music recording is full of stories about using the wrong, at least by any standard way of thinking, microphone, and producing the golden track that lands the performer in the hall of fame, and the engineer or producer in the genious catagory.

Besides, you just dissed the NTK, which I just bought, so now I'm all disillusioned and confused, and I'll never be able to enjoy it now. wahhh!
RD :)
 
Harvey Gerst said:
Most of my mics don't seem to care what they're recording
Click to expand...

I think that's one of my all-time favorite Harvey Quotes.

It's definitely worthy of the Vince Lombardi Quotes on the locker-room wall sort of thing. Good stuff and so true and stated in so few words.
 
Robert D said:

Besides, you just dissed the NTK, which I just bought, so now I'm all disillusioned and confused, and I'll never be able to enjoy it now. wahhh!
RD :)
Click to expand...

Well, I just "dissed" a u67 , a tlm 103 a c414 and a blueberry.
Those are VERY well respected mics. Charger did a great job on his recording of drivebreaker with the ntk. Listen to it.

by the way, I specifically mentioned the c1 because it has a very noticeable characteristic on vocals that one can pick out in a lineup. I reserve my comments because many homereccers rely on word of mouth to make purchase decisions.
 
the u67 sounds lifeless and annoying.[/B]
Click to expand...


Well, that says that the U67 you tried wasn`t working properly.
The U67 has the same fat midrange as the 47,but adds clearer highs. My prediction: U67`s will be a LOT more expensive pretty
soon,as people are starting to catch up. U47 is a great mic, but the 67`is just as good!!

Amund
 
I think some of you guys are missing the point.

He's saying what these mics sound like WHEN COMPARED TO the U87.

Just because Sandra Bullock looks chunky when compared to, say, Britney Spears . . . does not mean that Sandra Bollock looks chunky. Similarly, if someone says that Brooke Burke makes Catherine Zeta Jones look like chopped liver does not mean that Ms. Jones looks like chopped liver.

Learn to read in context.

Thank you.
 
Well, when comparing a U87 to a U67, the U87 is the boring, useless one.......


Amund
 
Just out of curiousity, what pre amp are you using when you listen to these mics?

Seems if they all have such failings it may be some other link in the chain.
 
what kinda moron compares a u87 to the c1 anyway.....my cheapskate ass will guess that the u87 is at least 10 times more $$$ than the C1....i bet it doesnt sound 10 times better.....

out of respect for Alan, i will say the C1 stands up fairly decent to it.....

i guess im missing the point of the post......
 
Basically, I think I could find a use for ANY of those mics you mentioned, and I would probably own 1 of each if I had the money. Also, toss in an SM57, which is probably the mic I am most familiar with the sound of...
 
Hey Cyan.... if all you get from them wonderful mics is a bad sound, you're clearly doing just about everything wrong. Please mail me for adress where you can send them (in your ears) ugly sounding mics. I could use them.
 
30+ years of stage experience with a 57 tells me it's my reference point. My center that other mics compare to for better or worse. Same thing for a Fender twin, a strat, or a D-28.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top