Microphone GAS

[bassybill]

Up until this week the only mics I had were some really old and only semi-functional ones that I inherited from my Dad a while back. A discussion about recording levels with a Presonus Firebox got me experimenting with these and I actually enjoyed laying down some vocals for a change, although my singing is not something I'm really proud of.

Anyway, the inevitable happened - I got microphone GAS. I know very little about mics, so I did a bit of online research and decided for what I do I really should have at least one half-decent budget dynamic mic and one condenser.

Shopping around, I nearly got a Shure PG58 for the dynamic (cheapo alternative to SM58), but eventually settled on the AKG D88S. This sounds pretty good to me and I've been having some fun recording all sorts of stuff with it - miles better than what I had before, anyway. I haven't got the condenser yet, but I've ordered a Samsom CO3 that seems to be well-liked by many people considering the very reasonable price. Mainly I just wanted these to experiment as part of a learning process and I'm having fun, so why not?

http://www.akg.com/site/products/pow...nguage,EN.html

http://www.samsontech.com/products/p...1663&brandID=2

[kraigo]

EV RE-20 is GASolicious. I get a lot of utility out of my EV N/D468's.

Be careful, I get mic GAS more severely than I get bass GAS.

KO

[santucci218]

billyb, let me know what kind of sounds you are getting with these after you try them out, beings we both now have the firebox and what not

[bassybill]

Paul, the AKG sounds great to me. I'm not going to be recording any million sellers anytime soon, but for "demo quality" vocals in a mix it's just fine.

I think us home recordists sometimes lose sight of how lucky we are. George Martin and the Beatles would have killed to get the sort of flexibility back in '67 that we can get now in our homes. But they recorded "Sgt Pepper", and we didn't.

That said, I'm expecting to get a much better sound on vocals with the Samson than I'm getting with the AKG (I bought that one more for recording with the mic in front of my cab).

[R. Laevinus]

Actually... I'd reccomend that instead of getting 1 dynamic and 1 condensor, get 2 dynamics or 2 condensors - ideally the same, or very similar, models.

The reason I say this is so that you can do stereo tracking - using two mikes on a cab, or a voice, can help you get a much livier, fuller-sounding track. Place the two in symmetrical positions/angles in relation to the source, or mike the source close and place the second further back.
Then record the two feeds into one stereo track on your DAW, and pan the whole thing into your mix as though it were a mono track.

Of course, you can stereo track with different mikes, but I find that that is a technique best reserved for specific applications, like vocals. My microphone complement consists of two SM57's (the cartridge is exactly the same as the 58, but the windscreen interferes less, making the mic more versatile), 1 EV Raven (large-diaphragm dynamic, great bass response, can overdrive a channel strip if pushed - I use this for my vocals live and in the studio), and 1 EV Cardinal - the condensor version of the Raven, which I use for recording acoustic instruments and vocalists. I'm also looking into a clip-on condensor for my saxophone.

...re-reading your OP, I see that you already got the mikes... oh well, I hope this may be of some use to you anyway. FYI, I was recording and mixing live sound before I ever picked up a bass.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by R. Laevinus

Actually... I'd reccomend that instead of getting 1 dynamic and 1 condensor, get 2 dynamics or 2 condensors - ideally the same, or very similar, models.

The reason I say this is so that you can do stereo tracking - using two mikes on a cab, or a voice, can help you get a much livier, fuller-sounding track. Place the two in symmetrical positions/angles in relation to the source, or mike the source close and place the second further back.
Then record the two feeds into one stereo track on your DAW, and pan the whole thing into your mix as though it were a mono track.

Of course, you can stereo track with different mikes, but I find that that is a technique best reserved for specific applications, like vocals. My microphone complement consists of two SM57's (the cartridge is exactly the same as the 58, but the windscreen interferes less, making the mic more versatile), 1 EV Raven (large-diaphragm dynamic, great bass response, can overdrive a channel strip if pushed - I use this for my vocals live and in the studio), and 1 EV Cardinal - the condensor version of the Raven, which I use for recording acoustic instruments and vocalists. I'm also looking into a clip-on condensor for my saxophone.

...re-reading your OP, I see that you already got the mikes... oh well, I hope this may be of some use to you anyway. FYI, I was recording and mixing live sound before I ever picked up a bass.

Thanks for the tips - I think I may be adding some mics to my collection, so the info is useful. I seem to have got the bug.

[bassybill]

To clarify - in the past at home, I've recorded mainly just with my bass and VSTi stuff for fun. But one of the bands I play with recorded quite a successful CD in a friend's home studio three years or so ago, and now there's enough material floating around to maybe do the next one. If we can do it in my house, that would be great, and with a few upgrades my gear will be at least up to the stuff we used for the last one. Hence the optimism...

[R. Laevinus]

Originally Posted by bassybill

To clarify - in the past at home, I've recorded mainly just with my bass and VSTi stuff for fun. But one of the bands I play with recorded quite a successful CD in a friend's home studio three years or so ago, and now there's enough material floating around to maybe do the next one. If we can do it in my house, that would be great, and with a few upgrades my gear will be at least up to the stuff we used for the last one. Hence the optimism...

Oooooh, do it! It's all kinds of fun. And if you like, I can hook you up with all sorts of fun tips... like miking a singer with a 57 and a 421 (small/large diaphragm for subtly different sounds) with the mikes at chin level, approx. 2-6 inches from the corners of the mouth depending on the singer, angling up and in - I've found a lot of rock singers tend to have poor breathing discipline, and can't remember to breathe away from the mikes - by centering the mouth between two mikes and spacing them apart, you can get a gorgeous stereo sound, and minimize their breath on the track. Added bonus: minimized, not eliminated - so it's easy on the singer and you don't sound overproduced!

[santucci218]

now i want 2 sm 57's and 2 blue ribbon mics =[

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by santucci218

now i want 2 sm 57's and 2 blue ribbon mics =[

Quoted for emphasis:

Originally Posted by me

I think us home recordists sometimes lose sight of how lucky we are. George Martin and the Beatles would have killed to get the sort of flexibility back in '67 that we can get now in our homes. But they recorded "Sgt Pepper", and we didn't.

Come to think of it, I think Quincy Jones and MJ recorded "Thriller" with inferior gear to what most of us have at home nowadays.

[abarson]

Quite a number of the inexpensive Chinese mics are worth using. I've used the CAD GXL2200 for vocals, drum overheads and on guitar amps with great results, and they are usually less than $100 on ebay. MXL's are pretty decent for the price as well.
There are also quite a number of handheld condenser mics that beat the snot out of the Shure SM57 and 58, such as the CAD C195, EV RE410, and Shure Beta 87A, and only cost a bit more. They are great live or for recording.

[santucci218]

you would take the shure beta 87a over the sm57?

[projectMalamute]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Quoted for emphasis:



Come to think of it, I think Quincy Jones and MJ recorded "Thriller" with inferior gear to what most of us have at home nowadays.

I think you put waaay too much stock in track counts, because that is literally the only thing you have which is 'better' than the examples you have cited.

The micamps, EQ, compressors, microphones, tape machines, mixers, insturments, etc, etc, etc, available at Abbey Road circa 1967 absolutely smoke anything you have talked about in this thread. Not to mention the acoustics of the multiple rooms, and a staff of engineers that had actually studied engineering.

Home recording is fun, and I'm a huge advocate of making music with whatever tools are available, but lets not fool ourselves.

[Kipaste]

My recommendations of what I've tried:

Utterly low budget chinese condensers: Studio projects B1/ C1 which can be sibilant and harsh but IMO they both sound good for their priceclass. B1 is less than 100 usd/euro. They're far from ideal, but really good for the price.

MXL m67 series with jolymod. The mod makes it a really decent mic that sounds a lot more expensive than it is. Will be around 300 though with the mod.

SE electronics 2200a. A bit warmer but still pretty sibilant chinese condenser. It's a bit hard to process though as sound seems to lose "body" very easily, but one of the nicest sounds out of the box for the female vocalist I work with in this price class.

+300 e/usd:

For rock/rap/heavy male vocals: Shure sm7b. It's fat, it's warm and it's dynamic, so the space where it's used doesn't have to be treated like when using a condenser. Sort of like a hifi 57/58. Needs a lot of gain though.

A great and cheap alternative is Kel audio hm2d. It's sort of like a condenser version of sm7b. Not quite as thick sounding but it sounds nothing like most budget condensers. All in all, I think kel audio mics are great value as the hm2d is only 200 and it doesn't sound cheap at all. Plus the price includes shipping to Europe too. There's still taxes and customs depending on the country, but it's really hard to beat the value and build quality when it comes to Kels.

Condensers for vocal use in the 300-500 e/usd class:

AT 4047. A great single pattern mic for vocals. Doesn't sound as harsh as lower price condensers as it has highs that are more glossy instead of ear pearcing.

Kel audio hm7u. Pretty close the 4047 but cheaper. The way i'm funded (not that well) I'd be torn between these two for my first go to vocal mic when using a condenser. In most cases, I'd probably end up with 47 though. But saving some money justifies this mic very well and I really believe that like the hm2-d it's really hard to beat for the price.

Studio projects cs5. A pretty decent sounding mic that works well on some vocalists, but not as often as the 47 or hm7u. I wouldn't buy one unless I knew it to be a good fit. But it can be great.

AT 4050. Sort of like a multi-pattern 47 that can be used as a room mic and works decently as an overhead too. But still, I find the 47 to be nicer when it comes just to vocals. Very close though.

Shure ksm44. It's very articulate and revealing. Works great if the singer is really good, but it's not a particularly flattering mic.

AKG 414 . I'm not a huge fan of it when it comes to vocals but generally I think it's a nice all rounder. A bit too bright for my taste, but good for getting definition for instruments.

After these it's mostly mics I can't afford. And even if I could, I'd probably go with the lower budget ones anyhow since I don't think there would be a whole lot more benefit from more expensive ones with the analog/digital conversion I have and even more with my mixing and micing skills.

Also a decent dynamic is always worth having (the classic 57/58 territory). When it comes to live situations , they will be needed. There are better ones too, but I have no experience with the akg d88s so I don't know if it happens to be just perfect. Anyhow, a cabinet with a 57 in front of it is a great companion for the basic DI bass. Just use a DI/splitter and run one line straight to the interface and the other to the stack/combo with a 57 in front of it and mix to your liking.

And of course after finding the models that work for you, getting a stereo pair is not a bad idea.

If using a condenser, I think it's really worth the little time and effort it takes to build a "portable mic booth" something along the lines of the se electronics reflection filter . One can be built from 2x4's, plywood and mineral wool/ foam and they make the sound a lot easier to work with. Another way is to create a a standard "near dead space" microphone booth into a closet and then add reverb when processing. Or European people could order the thomann micscreen for 100 e, but it's really flimsy and still about 50% more expensive than a home build one. It really helps when it comes to processing the recorded stuff. Of course, a all round treatment is better.

Ps. If the interface pres leave something to desire, the golden age pre73 is a great inexpensive preamp. It's a neve copy running for around 250 e/usd. A bit vintageish, but works great for vocals and bass guitar. Of course there are a plenty of more expensive and better options, but I think the sound/price ratio is pretty incredible on this one. Also, it has 80dB gain of which atleast 60 is usable which I think is pretty good for this price and sound quality. It's solid state too which to me is a great thing at this price class.

[Charling]

Originally Posted by projectMalamute

I think you put waaay too much stock in track counts, because that is literally the only thing you have which is 'better' than the examples you have cited.

The micamps, EQ, compressors, microphones, tape machines, mixers, insturments, etc, etc, etc, available at Abbey Road circa 1967 absolutely smoke anything you have talked about in this thread. Not to mention the acoustics of the multiple rooms, and a staff of engineers that had actually studied engineering.

Home recording is fun, and I'm a huge advocate of making music with whatever tools are available, but lets not fool ourselves.

YES!

the gear used to record thriller and sgt peppers was OUT OF THIS WORLD. we are talking top of the top and it still sounds great today. (we are talking racks of fairchilds and pultech's ) there are many real world reasons for this, not just vintage nostalgia, to do with the parts that component companies made then and the simple but very inneffecient design aesthetic. you can make that gear these days but it is SO un economical, cost wise, thats why it is still the luxury of big studios and rich people only! a few companies do it, for example tube tech copy the pultech stuff, chiswick reach makes old valve compressors etc this gear is high end and is still based on a lot of the old ciruit designs, tweked a little bit. the newer high end companies like api are using the same design aesthetic but incorperating a little technology to get a cleaner brighter sound but its not any better or worse than the old stuff, apart from in reliability!

also, even a very very good A/D converter is not as 'high quality' as a top tape machine, those things are, by modern stats, pretty much infinite quality! however you do have to deal with the way they colour the sound, ie a high freq rolloff and compression at high volumes. a characteristic many want.

Some of the earliest records were recorded with very SIMPLE gear, but it was still very high qualtiy.

The top end gear of yesteryear had a different sound, but was/is very much the same quality of the top end gear today! and we are talking BIG money. we have a little 60's neve at the studio which was a bargain at £18'000, a LOT more if broken up and sold as eq modules etc. it sounds incredible! and this is the sort of desk George Martin may have turned his nose up for not being high-end enough!

Its a misconception I hear a lot, the technology has moved on a lot but the sound has not, it has just changed a bit.

@ santucci218, the beta range of sure mics are very similar to the classics but with a bit of a hi fi addition, ie a bit more top, a bit more bottom. for this reason I do not use them in the studio, unless it is for a guide track that theres no time to eq etc, it adds a little bit of niceness (though not necessarily the RIGHT niceness) straight away. Live, might be very useful, but i'm not sure as I'm not much of a live engineer!

@ R. Laevinus - getting two of the same is indeed a good idea for stereo micing drums etc, but you don't generally want two of the same mic for multi micing guitar cabs etc. you want two DIFFERENT complimentary mics. for example a 57 and a 421, one mid'y one brighter. or a nice ribbon and a 57, one smooth, one aggresive etc. the point is you capture all the areas you need by multi micing with different sounding mics. with careful attention to the mics position and there phase as well as a few panning ideas in the mix you can make things sound huge! You CAN multi mic guitars with the same mic but it can lead to a smaller sounding instrument as the HUGE frequency range of a guitar cab on 'drive' mode is hard to grab accurately with one type of mic. you can go some way with having one off center and one center to get the two flavours but it still might be harder to get a accurate representation of the amp in the room!

back on topic, a sure sm7 is one of the mics often mentioned when asked 'if you could have just two mics....' it really is great, maybe at the top end of a home studio budget but mics really are super important. also cheaper ribbons are a bit fiddly (just like the expensive ones) but are VERY smooth and natural sounding, maybe not a workhorse but a very useful addition to a mic locker for very little money, and they have none of the fizzy highs cheaper condensers can have. the AKG solidtube, now discontinued but still around can be grabbed for VERY cheap and its a GREAT warm flattering mic. the AT stuff kipaste mentioned is great too. octavia make some very cheap cool mics which can be modded to sound good.

also there are a few companies copying the REALLY great mic's for a lot less money, the peluso stuff, for example, gets very close to a u47 for a fraction of the price (its not QUITE the same, but its hard to call it worse, just different). we are still talking quite a lot of money but the same company makes a copy of the schoepps SDC pencil mics (very expensive, VERY good) that sound great and you can get one for $340! thats the rrp too, I'm sure they are cheaper in other places.

mics are an odd one, they are sometimes so flexible but sometime just don't work for a sound full stop. luckily price doesn't = greatness once you get past the budget stuff (and even some of the budget stuff, ie a 57, is great) and some really great mics can be had for very little these days!

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by projectMalamute

I think you put waaay too much stock in track counts, because that is literally the only thing you have which is 'better' than the examples you have cited.

The micamps, EQ, compressors, microphones, tape machines, mixers, insturments, etc, etc, etc, available at Abbey Road circa 1967 absolutely smoke anything you have talked about in this thread. Not to mention the acoustics of the multiple rooms, and a staff of engineers that had actually studied engineering.

Home recording is fun, and I'm a huge advocate of making music with whatever tools are available, but lets not fool ourselves.

I take your point (especially the bit about the rooms and the people who actually know what they're doing ). As someone whose early studio experiences were far back enough to predate anything digital, you're absolutely right about the quality of the sort of gear you mention when it comes to laying down tracks. I guess I should have said "flexibility" rather than "quality" - post edited accordingly.

We shouldn't underestimate the importance of modern track count capabilities, though. My own home recording started on a Fostex 4 track. Bouncing down stuff over and over to create some wiggle room on tape got frustrating pretty fast. Even the very, very best recorded analogue tracks start sounding a bit tired when they've been bounced down twenty times.

Most of my own recording nowadays is done with virtual instruments, so I''ve been pretty lucky in not having to fork out too much on outboard gear or worry about my room acoustics.

I agree totally that we shouldn't fool ourselves about what a home setup can do, but my point was that for recording demo material (as I mentioned) or just for fun, it's a great time to be into this hobby, and this is all about the modern capabilities of some very reasonably priced gear, compared to what we had to make do with in the past.

[sonic assassin]

bruce swedien recorded thriller.. quincy jones produced it. ive met bruce and hes a real gear snob. swell guy.. but LOVES to talk about microphones that a commoner couldnt afford in 3 lifetimes.

and beware of mic GAS.. they pile up quickly.

im using:

blue bluebird (vocals, acoustic instruments)
sennheiser 421 (guitar, bass, kick)
m audio pulsar II pair (overheads)
shinybox ribbon (guitar, room)
sennheiser 906 (guitar, bass, snare)

normally have to borrow tom mics

gassing for a shure beta91, sennheiser 902, 3 more 421's, a darker LDC for vocals and i could use a 57 for smaller snare drums

as well as another firepod and i nice 2-4 channel "color" preamp.

[kraigo]

Originally Posted by sonic assassin

normally have to borrow tom mics

gassing for a shure beta91, sennheiser 902, 3 more 421's, a darker LDC for vocals and i could use a 57 for smaller snare drums

as well as another firepod and i nice 2-4 channel "color" preamp.

If you get a chance, do check out the EV N/D468 for tom mics. They aren't Senn 421's, nor are they trying to be. They're still a great mic, about half the cost of a 421 and one heckuva lot easier to position (that pivoting capsule is a Godsend). I've got six of them. I really like them.

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com...ELAID=26020446

KO

[MrTAteMyBalls]

i've got the octava mentioned above. its an mk-319. i bought it new for 199.99 from GC years ago. they can be had cheap if you can find them used, and sound plenty good enough for home recording. i've never had anyone say that my vocal sound sucks....to your average non musician it sounds good, so thats good enough for me i guess. my local music go round has a pair of mk-219's for 200.00....i'd like to get them, but need a new bass amp first.

[JimmyM]

I love real expensive stuff and good studios. But nobody's going to pay me to record my songs in one, so I record at home with my crappy little Audiophile 2496, my crappy and old ART Tube MP mic preamp, a handful of 58's and 57's, and a handful of outdated software I'm too cheap to update. The one thing that's killing me is not being able to do drums live, but I play drums and understand how to program them to make them sound natural so it's not too awful bad. It's important to try and get great sounds, but at some point you have to let it go and just let your raw talent take over. You can make extremely high quality stuff recording on a computer with a handful of cheap stuff. It's all in the performance. And Bill's got that end covered, so I expect to hear great things from this setup once he settles into it.