|
|
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 2246
Location: Yucaipa, California | .... no, I haven't "unplugged"! ;)
But I was wondering what are the best instrument mics for capturing the pure "out of the holes" acoustic sound.... opinions?
thanks, |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2002
Posts: 1900
| Tim, I use 2 sennheiser mic's to record my balladeer; one placed near the upper bout, the other placed low, behind the bridge....; (set the board eq flat, it sounded bright and full...)
steve |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7222
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Good technique Steve. If you have epulets that will work well and also the standard of one near where the body and neck meet about 6" to 1 foot away and the other up near the nut pointing at about a 45 degree angle toward down the neck. For any guitar a good large diaphram condensor is a good idea for the lower mic and something more gifted to high's like a pencil or even an sm57 at the nut. For a guitar with epulats, getting the condensor a little further away helps, but I think you are achieveing the same effect by using two mics on the body. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 2246
Location: Yucaipa, California | .... what does the mic near the nut (I assume your'e talking about the guitar and not the Nut playing it) pickup???
.... showing my ignorance..... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7222
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | The mic near the nut allows you to add some "sparkle" to the sound, it accentuates hammer-ons a little. It's one of those "adjust to taste" techniques. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 2246
Location: Yucaipa, California | hahahahahah! Sparkle! ME??? hooboy! :D
Thanks Miles, I needed that! Now I know what to call my "string buzzzzz"! :cool:
... and the mics cost how much??? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | I have used just about every microphone type & technique & for acoustic guitar I always go back to the coincident pair. It's totally predictable, foolproof and unlike most other dual/multi mike techniques is almost totally phase-coherent. Take 2 identical cardioid or hypercardiod condenser mikes and place them as close together as possible but pointing diagonally in opposing directions. Set them around 18 inches or more from the guitar aimed at the centre of the top. Play back with each channel panned hard left & right. This technique never fails to sound great, even with less than great mics. I usually use a pair of AKG414's but have had equally good results with relatively inexpensive Rode NT3's. Like any mic technique there are pay-offs, in the coincident pair technique the stereo image is created by the off-axis rejection characteristics of cardioid polar response, the down side being that frequency response deteriorates off-axis. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2003
Posts: 2177
Location: the BIG Metropolis of TR | Hey guys,
I just deleted my last post after re-reading it....I originally copy/pasted and edited some text on Quantum physics trying to be funny by posting some mumble jumble that everyone would be going......"What da hell iz he talkin' bout?" but after the re-read it "appeared" I was making fun or being critical of some of the knowledgeable and helpful replies which was NEVER my intention!!
****
So now that my attempt at being "funny"(shut up,Witko :D ) went over like a lead balloon I'm going to go lie down 'cause my head just exploded!!(just doesn't have the same effect! :rolleyes: )
****
Mike :o |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2003
Posts: 2177
Location: the BIG Metropolis of TR | I get the feeling everyone is STILL going...."What da hell iz he talkin' bout???" :D :D :D |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7222
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Well it's a lot easier to do, that to explain. I use that technique for recording groups (the mics actually about 1 foot apart), but never liked the results for recording guitars that way. It's a matter of taste, but I don't like the mic that far away from the guitar, but it is in fact a good technique, that as Paul stated is very reliable and due to the distance and gains involved tends to work even with cheapo microphones rather well.
For an easy "picture" of what he is saying.. put two microphones side by side, just hold them in your hand side by side. Point the one in your right hand to the left (about 45 degrees), and the one in your left hand to your right (also about 45 degrees). Like they are crossing paths... which they are... and in fact that is the point. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 2246
Location: Yucaipa, California | Thanks for the input, although some of it made my head hurt! :p
Any opinions on this type of mic?:
Sure KSM44
thanks |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2002
Posts: 1900
| So it seems to be more of a quality technique in regard to capturing the ideal acoustics of any particular instrument; there's a big difference between an sm57, an akg414, and a sennheiser...; and the high-end mic probably doesn't offer a substantial enough increase in acoustic quality to justify the costs...
steve |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2003
Posts: 2503
Location: Fayetteville, NC | Just my 2 cents worth..If you're looking for a Pretty Good Recording Mic for the Money The AKG c-3000B is pretty good. Also Studio Projects has some great mics for the money. Look at the B series or the c series. Both have real good sound. The AKG 414 has always been a great studio workhorse. Just depends on what your budget is.. The sure Mic you mentioned is being used at some of our Sister Stations in The production Studios. The people I've talked to like it as well.
Hope it helps. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | Originally posted by Steve:
there's a big difference between an sm57, an akg414,and the high-end mic probably doesn't offer a substantial enough increase in acoustic quality to justify the costs...
steve
Yes it does, If you can't hear a significant difference between an OK dynamic such as a 57 & a benchmark 414 I suggest you consult an audiologist, you probably have serious hearing damage. There is a MASSIVE difference between the two and their relative cost reflects that. I'm not about to quote specs but it's like comparing an Applause to an Adamas. As far as inexpensive mikes go I'd agree with Steve Chapman about the AKG C3000 & also the 1000, they don't cost a whole lot more than a good dynamic microphone but for acoustic guitar or vocals are far superior. The Rode range offers exceptional performance for sensible dough. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
April 2003
Posts: 2503
Location: Fayetteville, NC | Thanks Paul,
I hope this is helping out Cousin Tim, in his veture to find a good recording Mic.
You are right about about the audio difference between the Cardoid SM57/58 etc. and the condensor.I can speak from experience about both the akg c3000B and The 1000 as well. I owned both mics for my home studio that I had set up in the house that my 1st wife and i shared. I started out with an SM58 and i just could not get the vocals right.Upon recomendation I Invested into the AKG c3000 and I never looked back. I was on a budget for my audio gear so I always tried to get the best bang for the buck. I eventually invested in the C1000 and used them quite often. I found they worked great
The SM58's while Work Horses onthe Stage and for Live Applications are great Mics. I just Don't think I'd use one in the studio again.
Paul,I always love to read your Posts, I always end up learning something I didn't know.
Your contribution and enthusiasm certainly adds to this group. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2002
Posts: 1900
| Paul, so i imagine what we are considering here are the applied frequency response of any individual microphone, correct? If I record with a high-end unit, placed in the optimum position, it will provide the studio soundboard the best chance for eq dynamics, right?...
steve |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10582
Location: NJ | neumann |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2002
Posts: 1900
| al, are neumann and sennheiser comparable for superior performance? i have seen them both mentioned as state of the art by audiophiles...
steve |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 7222
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest | Steve, (yeah I know I'm not Paul)... It's not just "any high-end" mic. I know that's probably obvious, but as example I wouldn't use my Nuemann or Studio Projects tube mic's to record acoustic guitar. They just don't sound right for the job although they can be made to sound right with a little filtering and EQ, but that's the point. Right mic for the job means NO eq when you get to the soundboard. The only thing between mic's and the initial media in my studio is occastionally a tube pre-amp.
FYI... and just MHO, but the artist should not be worrying about microphones in the studio. That's the studio tech's job. If they don't have the right ones, go to another studio. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2002
Posts: 1900
| Mr O, i agree, sounds like common sense to me; i am not current on what the studio techs are doing these days, but it wouldn't hurt to have a healthy knowledge of the ideal mic setup for our specific instruments; some guy's i know use their own tech at the board anyway, it doesn't get much more personal than that...
steve |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10582
Location: NJ | sennheiser 421 or 441 are also great mics. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | With microphones were almost back to the ice-cream analogy again. Frequency response is only one of a number of factors in microphone design, and mikes with the same quoted frequency response can sound very different. For example An AKG414 & Neumann TLM103 are both highly respected pro mikes which cost about the same, have very similar specs, but have very different characters. My point was that there are vast diferrences between a dynamic mike such as an SM57/58 and a condenser mike. Condensers not only have superior frequency response. Their higher sensitivity & output mean they are more suited to relatively quiet instruments such as acoustic guitars and can be used at a distance which will avoid the proximity effect (bass boom) without sounding weak. The bottom line is if you record at home and can ony afford or need 1 or 2 mikes then for most applications condensers will do a better job than dynamics. Now that the Chinese have learned how to gold-plate mylar there are countless very inexpensive condenser mikes on the market but it's better to go for the budget range of name brands such as AKG, Beyer, Sennheisser, Rode or if you're rich Neumann. Cheap condensers with cheap Chinese diapragms sound cheap. And Miles is right, put a good mike on a good instrument in a good-sounding room & you shouldn't need EQ. I'd also aggree about mic preamps. If you're serious about recording a couple of mic pre's are the next best investment you'll make to decent mikes. I use Joe Meek and Symetrix preamps but they cost about the same as a good mike. ART make a fantastic-sounding little Tube preamp which is not expensive (it can aslo double as a tube DI box on-stage). Their matching "Levelar" tube compressor is very good also.
http://www.artroch.com/products.asp?id=35&cat=1&type=79 |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2001
Posts: 10582
Location: NJ | I own both cheap and expensive mics.
you get what you pay for. |
|
| |
Instrument Mics?
