Why did these genius engineers use such great mics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter junplugged
  • Start date Start date
junplugged

junplugged

Taking the slow road
because they were there. how long do you think they took swapping mics before they used one? do you really think they had a plan for how the mic would work in a particular situation before they tried it? when they were mic'ing a large group and had one left for someone do you think they used that one or did they go out and rent a different one because they knew that it was going to sound better on the rented out mic, and they decided to spend the extra money and make everyone wait around for it?

did they do mic shootouts and use every mic for every situation first? they knew that two of the same model mics could sound different, so do you think that they decided to order 10 more of one mic because it sounded good and they wanted more of them? do you think they planned for that classic sound or did that sound later become a classic becuase it just happend to sound that way after they tried it?

do you think they made decisions like, oh that mic over there might sound better, wait, let's swap it - and then do that 5 times? or did they say, ok that one is good enough, keep it. Or if they did swap it out it, was it more like, that mic is broken, let's swap it out?

Motown was a recording studio in a house, they used a bunch of mics and then ordered up a bunch of new mics later on, was it from research on this site? or did they take the mics that were there, try them in some placements, then make adjustments to the placements as needed, lived with the results and then record with them?

I'm just asking these rhetorical questions because I have a feeling that a lot of good material has been produced using a mic, any mic that is available and dealing with it, adjusting it, putting up with it and somehow, in the end it was enough that it was just in working order, and the results then became the 'sound' of an artist out of chance that it was of some unique quality, not ultimate quality.
 
junplugged said:
because they were there. how long do you think they took swapping mics before they used one? do you really think they had a plan for how the mic would work in a particular situation before they tried it? when they were mic'ing a large group and had one left for someone do you think they used that one or did they go out and rent a different one because they knew that it was going to sound better on the rented out mic, and they decided to spend the extra money and make everyone wait around for it?

did they do mic shootouts and use every mic for every situation first? they knew that two of the same model mics could sound different, so do you think that they decided to order 10 more of one mic because it sounded good and they wanted more of them? do you think they planned for that classic sound or did that sound later become a classic becuase it just happend to sound that way after they tried it?

do you think they made decisions like, oh that mic over there might sound better, wait, let's swap it - and then do that 5 times? or did they say, ok that one is good enough, keep it. Or if they did swap it out it, was it more like, that mic is broken, let's swap it out?

Motown was a recording studio in a house, they used a bunch of mics and then ordered up a bunch of new mics later on, was it from research on this site? or did they take the mics that were there, try them in some placements, then make adjustments to the placements as needed, lived with the results and then record with them?

I'm just asking these rhetorical questions because I have a feeling that a lot of good material has been produced using a mic, any mic that is available and dealing with it, adjusting it, putting up with it and somehow, in the end it was enough that it was just in working order, and the results then became the 'sound' of an artist out of chance that it was of some unique quality, not ultimate quality.
Click to expand...

Maybe it has something to do with the classic engineers being real engineers rather than a bunch of hobbyists that use ready made generic gear. Maybe they spent alot of time experimenting. Maybe they built equipment as needed and engineered solutions to problems as they came up. Maybe they really knew their gear and it's limitations. Maybe they worked with what was available and learned to push those limitations. Maybe they maintained tight relationships with mic manufacturers to improve previous designs. Maybe all of this work, struggle, effort, whatever you want to call it shines thru in the classic recordings. Maybe recording truely talented and well developed musicians was very inspirational for the engineers.

Maybe I'm a jackass and have no clue.
 
This is an interesting topic - you all should go to the web site for Mix magazine. In their back issues archives, you will frequently find articles on how such and such classic recording was done, usually told by the artist, or producer, or engineer that was at the session. In a lot of cases, it was just a matter of using what they had on hand. In some cases, the producer or engineer had knowledge of the particular characteristics of a certain mic, or reverb unit, etc. But a lot of times, they just went with what was available.
 
In the early days there were tubes in the consoles which was a lot of the sound. Mic experimentation was relegated to a few tried and true mic brands. If you want a good timeline on the development of studios in the 40s and 50s you should read Bruce Swedian's "Make Mine Music". He covers the development of acoustic treatment and mic use during that period.

In the beginning there was Neumann and Telefunken which sounded really good. They were so good in fact they overshadowed most other mics from RCA and Shure not to mention a lot others. Mics at this time, say the the early 50s, were either American for US studios or primarily German in Europe.

Bruce talks about picking up a pair of Neumann U47s in the early 50s according to his book and talks about the first non-tube mics, Neumann M49, coming around the mid 50s. So this was the era of invasion from overseas.

These mics became instant hits in many of the large studios however were primarily used on vocals. The American mics usually were relegated to instrument duty but not always. The Shure SM57 comes to mind as an example of a classic, low cost mic that you might just reach for. Many of these mics came and went although if you find an old Bob Dylan picture of the Newport Folk Festival circa 1964 you can see some bizarre looking mics they used onstage.

I think early on they did a lot of experimenting with various mics however, remember there were very few preamps except those inside the console so at least 50% of what classic recordings sound like resides in the tube mixers or early non tube versions. Trident, Neve, Euphonix and a host of other brands many of which came and went by 1970 are the sound of classic. Many of these were custom built desks that were hand wired. Bill Putnam was an early engineering pioneer that created many of the modern concepts of what a mixing console should do.

Another part of the classic sound is rolled off bass allowing the midrange and upper end to shine through. Excessive bass caused records to skip which was why the Fairchild compressor was invented, to limit bass frequencies in the record cutting process. Because it sounded so good, it ended up being used on a per track basis for many of the Beatle albums. These are still used extensively for modern recordings.

So the classic sounds were a combination of tubes, early compression and mics. I would say by the 70s you start seeing some models come forward as classic standards that over the prior 25 years emerged as the best for specific applications. Some of these are Neumann U47, U67, U87 for vocals as well as the AKG C12, usually on female vocals. Sennheiser 421 on Toms, SM57 snare and overall utility mic. AKG D12 or 112 on kick. Other classic uses are a U47 about 4-6 feet out from the kick or as a pair of room mics on drums.

If you do some research these mics are used time and again for the same applications which results in a sonic earscape that people have gotten used to. This is perhaps a guarantee that your music will have some level of sonic acceptance but also laziness could eventually creep in. Worse yet, your style of sound could become the same as everyone else. This might work initially but you need to know your gear to allow creativity to shine through and to go beyond the pack.

You do read about a lot of modern engineers spending a day trying out various mics on the main vocalist before choosing the performance mic. I do this before every session because voices are never the same and even a cheap mic can outshine an expensive mic depending on the voice.

Can you reach for about any mic and make a record? Sure, if it sounds good to other people it may become a classic and that is the litmus test. Will any mic sound good for a given application? Not necessarily the case. I would even go so far as to say that someone who has grabbed any mic in the box and then brags about making a record that way got lucky and will probably not be around long.

For an interesting read, the recent Mix article on recording the Chili Peppers shows how much thought and interviewing the band put into assembling their recording team.
 
Last edited:
junplugged said:
I'm just asking these rhetorical questions because I have a feeling that a lot of good material has been produced using a mic, any mic that is available and dealing with it, adjusting it, putting up with it and somehow, in the end it was enough that it was just in working order, and the results then became the 'sound' of an artist out of chance that it was of some unique quality, not ultimate quality.
Click to expand...

Well, ya know, way back before MIDI sequencing, there were these things called musicians. It's rumored that the mics didn't actually perform anything back then. :D

Anyway, your post isn't making much of any sense to me.

Of course engineers have certain mics they like using ... studios, to my knowlege, didn't just stock "any old mic" in their arsenal. I would imagine the studio owner/manager(s) would have sat down at some point and thought out their mic purchases, based on what they were familiar with and what they knew would work in particular circumstances. I mean, if the mic was in the studio to begin with, one would think it was there because someone liked it, or thought others would like it and find it useful.

I mean, I doubt anyone sat there with a mic catalog and said: "Let's play pin the tail on the donkey and order whatever mics the pin lands on." If you have a good, well-rounded stock of time-tested tools on hand ... and you know that each tool is solid and can get the job done, then what else do you want? Contrary to what the mental masturbators on forums like this one will tell you ... microphones don't have magic fairy dust on them.

How much different is it from how it is today? I mean I freelance at a few different studios from time to time, and I don't bring my entire mic collection along with me. For the most part, I use what they have there ... but I know well in advance what they have, and I have a pretty good idea mapped out in my head of how they might best be utilized, because most of the time I've used them before in other situations and I know their sound. And if they don't have what I think I'll need, then guess what? I'm bringing along some of my own, or I might even consider going somewhere else if it's that bad.

Do you think this is somehow a new concept or radical way of thinking developed in the past 20 years? :D As much as I'd like to take credit for my ingenius methods, I would hope I wasn't the first to think of such a thing.


.
 
Last edited:
I remember in the mid 1980's when a friend of mine invited me to a recording session he was doing with Frankie Valie (4 seasons) that he tried a bunch of different mic's on him.

Ended up using an old rca ribbon mic (77dx? comes to mind) if memory serves me right.

Bottom line was my friend tried about 6 different mics before deciding on this one. It was basically what was in the studio and trying them out.

A few years later this studio went bust and I tried to buy their mic collection but a local porn producer came in and bought everything.

Always wondered what he did with those mics... :D
 
Back to the original question, one thing you have to remember is that by comparison to today there were not that many choices. Especially if you are looking at vocal mics, and narrowing the field to large diaphragm condensers. Even going back only 20 years, the AKG 414 was the closest thing to a "budget" mic except for a few things by CAD. And that was at around $1000.
 
Good thread.

This condition of an overabundance of choice is a result of reduced manufacturing costs and ease of distribution and marketing through a multitude of trade publications/internet and a growing trend to "do it yourself". You see this in almost all industries (except perhaps the do it your self aspect).

The thing that gets me is given the wide range of tools available today and the potential for them to be used in infinite variations, why does everything sound so similar? It almost seems as if there is an inverse relationship between the number of tools available to someone and the ability to use those tools creatively...
 
littledog said:
Back to the original question, one thing you have to remember is that by comparison to today there were not that many choices. Especially if you are looking at vocal mics, and narrowing the field to large diaphragm condensers. Even going back only 20 years, the AKG 414 was the closest thing to a "budget" mic except for a few things by CAD. And that was at around $1000.
Click to expand...
Right on. They weren't heros for choosing a mic. They were great at sufficiently recording good musicians and happen to have some decent gear available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top