• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass The physics of microphone placement

Another article from DPA on Omni Mics
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

If you're going to FOH - omni may be something to look at. No proximity effect.

Seamonkey: Thanks..I read that after checking out your links earlier today. I am familiar with proximity effect and as I mentioned to Mr PC, that's likely what has made my SM58 work well.
The problem I have with omnidirectional mics is that I play regularly in a restaurant where we are close to a back window/glass wall and also another wall that is close on the left side of where we play. There's also a lot of audience and other noise out front. In the summer, I play outdoor shows with another band. The wind can sometimes be a killer even with a windscreen. So I have kinda written off omninidirectional mic's for live settings.
I appreciate your posts....and especially the Austrian research and photos of bass sound waves.
 
What is the purpose of the mic? In the space where you are playing can your bass be heard without the mic? Will the amplified sound totally overwhelm the amplified sound or are you just enhancing the natural sound? If you are enchanting natural sound than mic placement should somewhat compensate for the deficiencies of the natural sound as heard in the space. Whereas if the amplified sound is the much more prominent then a more balanced sound is necessary.
 
:
Champagne: :D
Ah...but that would be cheating. Just like singers who use pitch control.
But if I could find one for 50 bucks that could make my SM58 sound like the Schoeps I tried one time....then OK.:hyper:

+1 I'll take two of them. Short of the Schoeps MK41/CMC6 combo, the DPA 4099B does a really nice job FOH. But sometimes "less is more" I think that's why the SM58 works.

Ric
 
What is the purpose of the mic? In the space where you are playing can your bass be heard without the mic? Will the amplified sound totally overwhelm the amplified sound or are you just enhancing the natural sound? If you are enchanting natural sound than mic placement should somewhat compensate for the deficiencies of the natural sound as heard in the space. Whereas if the amplified sound is the much more prominent then a more balanced sound is necessary.

brainburst: The purpose of the mic for me is to get away from using a pickup. I feel a bit disconnected using a pickup (I have a K&K, Rev Solo2 and a Schatten RB1) whereas the mic sounds less "electric". I feel the sound better and with my tube preamp, the bass has more "bloom" than a pickup. So far in the restaurant we play regularly, feedback has not been a problem despite the band's location. I also use a mic as much as possible at outdoor festivals.
If we all played unamplified in the restaurant, our instruments would probably be heard OK but the singers need the PA. We have an 8 channel board which we see as an enhancement. The room has some hard to reach areas so we use the speakers accordingly.
 
:

+1 I'll take two of them. Short of the Schoeps MK41/CMC6 combo, the DPA 4099B does a really nice job FOH. But sometimes "less is more" I think that's why the SM58 works.

Ric

Ric: If I find that $50.00 mic you'll be the first to know. After I buy it!:D


I must admit I have been surprised that the SM58 has performed as well as it does. I have used it steadily for about a year now. I went to a pickup at a couple of shows but the rest has been all mic.
 
I once tried thre capsules (omni, cardioid, hypercardioid) with an Oktava MC-012 small diaphragm microphone sticking through the afterlengths with the membrane 1 to 2 centimeters from the top between the bridge feet.

I used a small digital mixer (Korg Soundlink 168RC) with adjustable frequencies for bass and highs and parametric settings for mids, digitally recording to an ADAT and listening by headphones (AKG K240DF) to the recorded sound.

Even though the Oktava is weak on bass for acoustic far field recordings, I had to remove some bass for a clean nice sound (because of the near field, the bass frequencies which are raidated in all directions have a much higher relative level than in the far field).

I liked the sound of the omni capsule best, closely followed by the hypercarioid. The cardioid was not as good as the other two capsules, I would avoid it in a recording situation. I haven't tried my much better Elation small condeser microphones with the same kind of capsules, but I would expect similar (but better) results.

You don't need a good 20 Hz response, unless you get distortion feeding the mic with low frequencies. You need to attenuate the low frequencies anyway, since you won't use the mic in the far field.
 
I once tried thre capsules (omni, cardioid, hypercardioid) with an Oktava MC-012 small diaphragm microphone sticking through the afterlengths with the membrane 1 to 2 centimeters from the top between the bridge feet.

I used a small digital mixer (Korg Soundlink 168RC) with adjustable frequencies for bass and highs and parametric settings for mids, digitally recording to an ADAT and listening by headphones (AKG K240DF) to the recorded sound.

Even though the Oktava is weak on bass for acoustic far field recordings, I had to remove some bass for a clean nice sound (because of the near field, the bass frequencies which are raidated in all directions have a much higher relative level than in the far field).

I liked the sound of the omni capsule best, closely followed by the hypercarioid. The cardioid was not as good as the other two capsules, I would avoid it in a recording situation. I haven't tried my much better Elation small condeser microphones with the same kind of capsules, but I would expect similar (but better) results.

You don't need a good 20 Hz response, unless you get distortion feeding the mic with low frequencies. You need to attenuate the low frequencies anyway, since you won't use the mic in the far field.


DoubleMidi: Thanks for the information.
The main thing I would like from a microphone's bottom end is for it to be strong in the 41-80HZ range without the need for proximity effect. I don't mind rolling off frequencies below that. I have used an Electrovoice RE 20 (45hz -18,000Hz) and other mics that ranged from 50HZ to 60 Hz on the bottom end. There is a difference...the RE 20 gets the bottom end better.
That's why I want to see what I can do with a regular dynamic mic with a 20Hz response before it tapers off.
 
The holy grail of upright bass omni microphones is the old vintage altec lipstick or cokebottle tube mic often wrapped in a bit of foam and stuck with capsule just under the edge of the fingerboard. I've had great success with mine. Bruce Swedien name drops these mics everytime someone asks him about his upright bass sounds, he certainly knows what he's talking about.

I also have used just about every other classic microphone ever made in this application and other standout favorites are Gefell CMV563 with omni, figure 8, or cardioid (M7) capsules (they all give really different flavors), Neumann U67, AKG C12, Neumann U47, Chameleon Labs TS1 and TS2 models, Sennheiser 441, Shinybox ribbon (figure 8 as all ribbons are), etc. I do not like the AKG D12 or D112 (both very different from each other) in this application, nor do I like the Sennheiser 421, all 3 mics often used by others. All studio mics at various price points.

Figure 8 is often a great choice for upright also as it will diminish some of the room sound and there is some real magic in the deep lows of many figure 8 ribbons that just matches well with bass. Also it has the most pronounced proximity effect which can help (or hinder) depending on placement and playing.

If you like the SM58 (I hated it when I've tried it on my upright) then what you might be liking is the focused mids. With such a personal instrument as the upright it is very much like recording vocals in the studio, results will vary from person to person so hearing about other's particular setups will only get you in the ballpark but may not be perfect for you. For example, it is well known that Bono from U2 uses an SM58 as his vocal mic in the studio, a practice that would make most other artists and engineers cringe, but it is the perfect match for the tonal qualities of his voice.

Generally the more distance you can get from the upright the better it will sound if you have a really good (or really really really dead) room. As you move the mic away you start getting a lot less of the direct sound and more of the room sound, in the studio we often talk about "playing the room" and how the room is just as important (or more) to the sound as the instrument and the recording equipment.

A very good starting point for mic placement is to put a mic where your ears are and see how close it gets to what you are actually hearing yourself. Then you have a basis to make adjustments. Many times movements of inches make huge differences.

Here's figure 8 pattern with gut strings and some decent distance, about 4 or 5 feet, in a not-so-good room...


Here's omni pattern with guts, placement a couple feet out, slightly higher than the finger contact toward the fingerboard, you can still hear a lot of the room...


Here's cardioid, steel strings, up relatively close (about a foot or foot and a half up and back from the treble F hole but pointed to the left of the hole, not at it)...


Here's some bowing with omni, pretty close in, same setup as the cardioid example above, you can still hear a bit of the room, but not nearly as much as the other omni example that has more distance...



Pic of CMV563 with the omni capsule in one of the sweet spots for me and my bass that seems to work well...
8558772663_5166f54e41_c.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bkburge:

Thanks for the suggestions and the sound samples. Very revealing re the placement.
The only place I use the SM58 is in a live situation...mostly indoors. I have tried 4 other mics (Sennheiser 609, SM57, Audix D2 and D4). Small and inexpensive samples for sure, and with the exception of the Sennheiser, they all have good qualities. But perhaps my Eberle (with Spiro Weichs) needs a bit of midrange to cut through the live mix. Maybe thats why the 58 works so well. My tube pre helps with the low gain from the other mics but still the 58 (through the tube pre) and its proximity effect seems to do the job better.
I have recorded quite a bit and found the the EV RE20 reproduced the best. I borrowed it from a radio station I worked at at the time as an experiment and it worked! Can't remember all the studio condenser mic's I tried.
With so many mics available and with how each bass reacts to them, it's a crapshoot finding that perfect combination. I appreciate the thought you have put into your response.
 
The holy grail of upright bass omni microphones is the old vintage altec lipstick or cokebottle tube mic often wrapped in a bit of foam and stuck with capsule just under the edge of the fingerboard. I've had great success with mine. Bruce Swedien name drops these mics everytime someone asks him about his upright bass sounds, he certainly knows what he's talking about.

I've heard about this, I was told about it back in the '70's but never knew what mic it was...so the mic is placed with foam between the bridge feet, and extends to the area of the top just under the fingerboard?

It sounds pretty easy, but stuffing it under the fingerboard seems like more of a chore, and a bit risky. That always stumped me.

BTW, I've talked to an older than me gentleman who did a lot of recording in Nashville in the '50-60's-70's...he's told me all kinds of interesting and sometimes amusing stories of the techniques used to record bass. That goal being to get a great bass sound, because a great bass sound sells records.
 
MrPC: Not just for selling records. The era of strong bass on commercial recordings, especially country, was done with radio play in mind. People like to crank up their car/truck radios when they hear something they like. But when the bass is buried in a recording, it sounds cheap and amateurish in comparison.
Good bass is a big factor for producers to get radio play....which in turn can sell lots of recordings.
Nowadays it's a given.
 
....umm..what was I missing when I said that.....doesn't the record need to be heard before anyone can consider broadcasting or a purchase? Sure, without airplay, there isn't much if any way for folks to know they'd like a repeat performance in private whenever they desire. What came first, the chicken or the egg? OK I guess the producers make and shape the record good for broadcast so that radio stations will play it...but don't you think what they really want even more than aitplay is record sales? Besides, in our era now, traditional radio broadcast has sadly become less of a force than it used to be for record sales.
 
Here is a sound example of the mic I use for recording and live performance: a Schoeps CMC6 with mk41 capsule. This mic is mounted on my bass via an H-clamp, about an inch from the top of the bass, pointing very slightly upwards to the G-string side bridge foot, like this:

E2461AB2_zps15f38c03.jpg


The recording is a duo improvisation (keyboards and bass) and is done directly from the mic into my RME Octamic XTC. No eq or compression is added, just a tiny bit of reverb. Keyboards also went directly into the RME, so there is no bleed from the keys in the Schoeps. To the keys, too, a bit of reverb was added.



Oh, throughout the improvisation I alternate between pizz and arco, but if you want to clearly hear how the arco sounds, listen around the 5:00 mark. And no, I do not need to change gain or volume when switching from pizz to arco, either live through my amp or recording.

Edit 2: the bass is a 1988 Pawlowski, strung with Thomastik Spirocore Mittel (5ths tuning).

Cheers,
Vincent
 
Last edited by a moderator: