| Microphone for PC? [2] |
|---|
From: RPM <rpmhlmnospam@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Microphone for PC?
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 01:07:26 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
I found this somewhere a while ago regarding microphone placement, which may
be helpful:
Recording the Acoustic Guitar:
How to Get Great Sounds From Your Home Studio
By Michael Laskow
While the acoustic guitar remains one of the most simple instruments by
design, it also remains one of the hardest to get a great sound on in the
studio. It's really not brain surgery, but knowing some of the basic laws of
physics doesn't hurt. Unfortunately, I skipped school that day and didn't
learn my physics, so I had to learn how to get a great acoustic guitar sound
one mistake at a time. After making those mistakes, I sat down and
formulated these laws which are considered to be the Ten Commandments of
recording the acoustic guitar (by me anyway).
For the sake of argument I'm going to assume that if you're reading this,
you own a 4 track, or an 8 track recorder, a fairly small console, some
basic outboard equipment, and you don't own any $2,000 microphones. If you
own 13 foot long console and a 48 track digital machine, you can skip this
article because you probably know what I'm about to tell you.
· Rule #1--A condensor mic will almost always sound better than a dynamic
mic for acoustic guitars. There are several condensor mics that are
currently on the market in the $350 price range that sound great on
acoustics.
· Rule #2--New strings will always sound better for recording than old.
· Rule #3--Skinny strings sound brighter than fat ones (can you believe I
get paid to write crap like this?!)
· Rule #4--The sound you get has a great deal to do with the dynamics of the
player.
· Rule #5--Get down on your knees and position your ear as if it were the
microphone while somebody else is playing the guitar. Move your ear around
to find "sweet spots." You'll learn more from that than you will by reading
this article. Don't try it with an electric guitar!
· Rule #6--If you have somebody that is assisting you on the session, have
them move the mic around what you think will be the sweet spot while the
player is practicing the part he or she is about to lay down. Have your
assistant wear headphones so you can communicate with him while the moving
of the mic is taking place.
· Rule #7--A limiter/compressor will almost always help you get a better
sound.
· Rule #8--Don't believe everything you read. I only have seven
commandments, not ten.
Let's get right to it. If the sound you want to get is a country/pop,
strummed sound similar to the Eagles "Lyin' Eyes," here's the formula: Place
the microphone about 6 to 8 inches from the guitar's sound hole, but angle
the mic toward the area where the fretboard and the sound hole meet. If you
point the mic directly into the sound hole, it will be very full--probably
much too full, and very boomy. Use a compressor/limiter to knock down any
peaks (3:1 ratio), and set the threshold a little lower to give it a
slightly "squashed" or tighter sound. Set the threshold higher to just limit
the peaks and give a more open sound. You may need to EQ out some boominess.
If so, try rolling off some bottom (100Hz), or cutting a couple of db at
300Hz. To add some "silk" on the top end, try something in the 8-10K range,
but be careful, to much will add noise to the track. Positioning the mic so
it angles toward the pick will give more attack-less sweetness.
For that John Cougar Mellenkamp sound, try medium gauge strings, a little
more compression, and try adding a little EQ around the mids--lets say
700Hz-1.2K. That will give you a sound that is a little more "woodsy" (a
highly technical term).
"Ya, well what about Melissa Ethridge," you say. Try this on for size. Use a
guitar with a built-in pick up and a microphone to boot. You will
undoubtedly get some phase anomalies, but that's part of the sound.
Experiment with moving the mic closer and farther. That will affect the
phase relationship of the two sound sources. Sooner or later, you'll hit on
something that will put a smile on your face. You can pan the two signals
left and right to get a broad stereo sound, but make sure that if you check
the sound in mono, that there's still some signal left. Keep an eagle ear on
Mr. Phase, he can be a tricky bugger.
And now ladies and gentlemen, for the most often heard acoustic guitar sound
at the 1993 Grammys...it's that Eric Clapton classical/gut string guitar!
Piece of cake. Once again, use a condensor mic, but place it about ten
inches away from the guitar. As a matter of fact, try placing it about 3 to
4 inches up the neck, but aim it at the players picking fingers. This angle
will reduce boominess by virtue of the mic's cardioid polar pattern
producing a natural roll off when it's aimed off-axis, while simultaneously
delivering the attack of the fingers. Try and say that three times in a row!
The added distance will pick up some of the guitar body's resonance. A
compressor/limiter is a must for this case because of unexpected peaks. A
4:1 ratio is a good place to start, but set the threshold fairly high so
that the most of the guitar's natural dynamics are left in tact.
When mixing acoustics guitars for rock or alternative tracks, you will
usually have an electric guitar or two in the track as well. My personal
preference is to pan the acoustic and electric across from each other. Send
one full left, and the other full right. You'll quickly discover that the
electric will overpower the acoustic and the most effective way to even them
out is to compress the acoustic a little bit more than what you may have
already done going to tape so you can bring the acoustic's level up high
enough to compete with the electric.
Another simple but effective trick is to have the acoustic and electric
guitars play parts that counter each other rhythmically (giving them each
their own space), and have them each play in a different octave. That will
give you a full sounding track that remains open and airy at the same time.
You can also make an acoustic guitar sound bigger or more rock-like by
panning the original to one side and a delayed signal (short delays are
best) of the same guitar to the other side. That effect can be taken one
step further by using the pitch change option on your delay to "de-tune" one
of the guitars just a pinch (one cent is a good place to start). The delay
will provide the brain with the psychoacoustic information it needs to
perceive the guitar as bigger, while the pitch change will make it appear
"fatter."
Funny how fatter is always better in the world of recording, but not in the
case of the human body. Just a tangential observation... must be time to go.
See you later.
From: Chuck Boyer <chuck@caboyer...>
Subject: Re: Microphone for PC?
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 01:24:23 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - MGFairfax
RPM wrote ...
> I found this somewhere a while ago regarding microphone placement, which may
> be helpful:
Thanks for the info.
---- snippage----
> · Rule #5--Get down on your knees and position your ear as if it were the
> microphone while somebody else is playing the guitar. Move your ear around
> to find "sweet spots." You'll learn more from that than you will by reading
> this article. Don't try it with an electric guitar!
I don't have anyone to help me like that, so I find it helps to wear
headphones while recording. To find the "sweet spots", I'll listen
to one mike at a time while moving the guitar around it to find the
relative positions I need for the sound I want. I'll then reposition
the mike to achieve that relative position while I'm sitting in a
recording position.
Cheers,
Chuck Boyer
| Mic'ing an acoustic or classical [14] |
|---|
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 17:05:50 -0600
They sound remarkably like $175 microphones.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Music
Composer, Producer, Arranger
"Orsino" <<ellswoodspruce@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:85o7m9$2ft$<1@supernews...>...
> > I use an AKG C1000S, which you can get for $175, a little higher
> > than your price. I don't know if it is the best one, though.
> >
> I also use one of those mics and the good thing is that they also record
the
> voice pretty well. They are more durable than most other condenser mics.
>
>
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 02:52:22 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:43:10 -0500, Jud McCranie
<<jud.mccranie@mindspring...>> wrote:
>"Lyle Caldwell" <<caldwell@bellsouth...>> wrote:
>
>>They sound remarkably like $175 microphones.
>
>Is there anything better than the AKG C1000S in the < US$200
>range?
>
>Jud McCranie
Electrovoice CS-15. Not made anymore but still supported by EVI.
They show up used @ $200 or less.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
From: Caruso <Caruso_51@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:33:37 -0600
Organization: Singer Songwriter
The SM94 by Shure is good one for $180.It also has a battery back-up.Save
your money and go for the Shure SM81 they really sound good!,they go for
$280.
"Rick Ruskin" <<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote in message
news:<387fd353.11826011@news...>...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 18:43:10 -0500, Jud McCranie
> <<jud.mccranie@mindspring...>> wrote:
>
> >"Lyle Caldwell" <<caldwell@bellsouth...>> wrote:
> >
> >>They sound remarkably like $175 microphones.
> >
> >Is there anything better than the AKG C1000S in the < US$200
> >range?
> >
> >Jud McCranie
>
> Electrovoice CS-15. Not made anymore but still supported by EVI.
> They show up used @ $200 or less.
>
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
> http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
> http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
> http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
> http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:53:43 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Caruso <<Caruso_51@yahoo...>> wrote:
> The SM94 by Shure is good one for $180.It also has a battery back-up.Save
> your money and go for the Shure SM81 they really sound good!,they go for
> $280.
The SM81 has a spittiness to its high end, a resonance around 12 KHz, at
least on the pair that belong to some bandmates o' mine. Directly
compared to the Crown CM700 they are both more expensive and less
smooth.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: Steve <ss@randomc...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:18:13 GMT
Organization: Nortel
In article <<1e4hzpt.fd1w9z15xkz7rN@alm-ts1-h1-27-42...>>, <walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich) wrote:
>Caruso <<Caruso_51@yahoo...>> wrote:
>
>> I have a pair of SM94's and SM81's.I have not noticed any flaw!or spittiness
>> in either pair. It could be your preamp your overloading it.
>I am not saying one cannot like the SM81. I am saying there are more
>linear mics around and for the same or less money. Certainly there are
>situations where I would choose an SM81 if I wanted the specific
>coloration it offers.
I'm pretty confused here. If any mic has coloration, its the Crown. Not that
this is bad, but you may need to look into your own mic preamp. I run mine
through a Grace 201 and there's no spittiness. Shure SM81 and KSM32 are both
somewhat dull in fact.
Steve
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:57:30 -0600
See Hank Alrich's and Rick Ruskin's advice, and also try the Oktava MC012
from www.sound-room.com. It's $269, but much nicer than the C1000S, which is
a step up from an SM57 (on acoustic guitar). It's your sound, so it's not
hard to budget another $69 or so.
Here's the trick to mics- for under $500, you can get a top-end dynamic or a
low-end condenser. There are some nice condensers in this range (as noted
above) but brittle, tinny budget jobs are the majority.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Music
Composer, Producer, Arranger
"Jud McCranie" <<jud.mccranie@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:<83dv7ss73hb1hnotn3qs9o7kmk02n65209@4ax...>...
> "Lyle Caldwell" <<caldwell@bellsouth...>> wrote:
>
> >They sound remarkably like $175 microphones.
>
> Is there anything better than the AKG C1000S in the < US$200
> range?
>
> Jud McCranie
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:53:42 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Lyle Caldwell <<caldwell@bellsouth...>> wrote:
> They sound remarkably like $175 microphones.
I think folks owe it to themselves to compare the C1000S to the Crown
CM700, avaialable for not much more money but delivering a much nicer
and much better balanced sound, IMO.
> "Orsino" <<ellswoodspruce@yahoo...>> wrote in message
> news:85o7m9$2ft$<1@supernews...>...
> > > I use an AKG C1000S, which you can get for $175, a little higher
> > > than your price. I don't know if it is the best one, though.
> > >
> > I also use one of those mics and the good thing is that they also record
> the
> > voice pretty well. They are more durable than most other condenser mics.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: Steve <ss@randomc...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 05:25:30 GMT
Organization: Nortel
In article <<1e4g8ed.1rryev10d4hw4N@alm-ts1-h1-27-37...>>, <walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich) wrote:
>Lyle Caldwell <<caldwell@bellsouth...>> wrote:
>
>> They sound remarkably like $175 microphones.
>
>I think folks owe it to themselves to compare the C1000S to the Crown
>CM700, avaialable for not much more money but delivering a much nicer
>and much better balanced sound, IMO.
It depends on the user's budget - I forget that price point. The CM700 would
require a phantom power source. Furthermore, for not much more money, you get
- not much more mic. Its noisy and I don't recommend anything noisy for
guitars. The C1000 is noisy enough, but its cheap and servicable. THE mic
for guitars is either a Neumann KM184 or a TLM 103. If you can't afford that,
there are a lot of increments on the way down to the C1000. If you're going
to get a CM700, you might as well go with a Shure SM81. At least its fairly
quiet and quite accurate.
Steve
>
>> "Orsino" <<ellswoodspruce@yahoo...>> wrote in message
>> news:85o7m9$2ft$<1@supernews...>...
>> > > I use an AKG C1000S, which you can get for $175, a little higher
>> > > than your price. I don't know if it is the best one, though.
>> > >
>> > I also use one of those mics and the good thing is that they also record
>> the
>> > voice pretty well. They are more durable than most other condenser mics.
>
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:37:13 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Steve <<ss@randomc...>> wrote:
> In article <<1e4g8ed.1rryev10d4hw4N@alm-ts1-h1-27-37...>>,
> <walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich) wrote: >Lyle Caldwell
> <<caldwell@bellsouth...>> wrote: > >> They sound remarkably like $175
> microphones. > >I think folks owe it to themselves to compare the C1000S
> to the Crown >CM700, avaialable for not much more money but delivering a
> much nicer >and much better balanced sound, IMO.
>
> It depends on the user's budget - I forget that price point. The CM700
> would require a phantom power source.
In my view, any preamp worth its name offers phantom power. One will not
get from a nine volt battery the same performance offered by P48.
> Furthermore, for not much more money, you get
> - not much more mic. Its noisy and I don't recommend anything noisy for
> guitars.
I would have to suspect unfortunate preamp to mic match there, because
the CM700s I've heard were no more noisy than SM81s I've used. However,
the preamps employed were not inexpensive. Most often I prefer the Beyer
M160 dual-ribbon mic to condensors for acoustic instruments, including
guitars, banjos, fiddles, mandolins, violas, etc., but this can be a
religious issue. Rick Ruskin prefers condensors and he gets lovely
sounds with them. With the ribbon Beyers one absolutely needs a good
preamp with plenty of gain and little noise, such as the Great River,
the Millennia with ribbon mic option, the Phoenix GTQ2, API, Hardy and
so forth, and such preamps are relatively costly.
> The C1000 is noisy enough, but its cheap and servicable. THE mic
> for guitars is either a Neumann KM184 or a TLM 103. If you can't afford that,
> there are a lot of increments on the way down to the C1000. If you're going
> to get a CM700, you might as well go with a Shure SM81. At least its fairly
> quiet and quite accurate.
Quiet, okay; accurate, perhaps not, though their _clarity_ can impress.
Once upon a time the SM81 could be said to offer accuracy for the
dollar, but I don't think that still holds vis a vis the current
offerings. The SM81 has a rather nasty peakiness around 12 KHz that I
find unpleasant. In some situations this may _nicely_ tailor the sound
of a dull acoustic guitar, while in others it may represent an icepick
into the ears.
In perspective, all those Neumanns are very nice and not cheap. Many
recordists prefer the older KM84 to the modern KM184. I find that lots
of folks with whom I work have purchased several inexpensive mics
looking for 'their sound' and in the long run spend more than they would
have for a pair of good mics in the first place. And then when that
becomes clear to them, they go ahead and spend for better mics.
Other small diapraghm condensors touted for acoustic guitar include
MicroTech-Gefell M300 and Elation KM201. I have an AKG C451 that I
bought circa 1974 that seems smoother than later C451s and their
evolutionary brethern, but since Steve Albini expressed his love of
these the price for used ones has escalated.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: Matt-the-Hoople <mlindi@gis...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 11:00:45 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
hank alrich wrote:
> In perspective, all those Neumanns are very nice and not cheap. Many
> recordists prefer the older KM84 to the modern KM184. I find that lots
> of folks with whom I work have purchased several inexpensive mics
> looking for 'their sound' and in the long run spend more than they would
> have for a pair of good mics in the first place. And then when that
> becomes clear to them, they go ahead and spend for better mics.
>
> Other small diapraghm condensors touted for acoustic guitar include
> MicroTech-Gefell M300 and Elation KM201. I have an AKG C451 that I
> bought circa 1974 that seems smoother than later C451s and their
> evolutionary brethern, but since Steve Albini expressed his love of
> these the price for used ones has escalated.
My favorite mic for doing that sort of thing is the Earthworks OM-1
<http://www.earthworks.com>. Good bang-for-the-buck, and usable across a wide range
of applications. They are VERY flat, and therefore do not color the sound at all.
They sell for ~$700 US per pair, though you can find them used for less. They do
require phantom power, however. Granted, this is more than the <$200 price we're
discussing here, but as I said, they are not limited in their application.
........mrl
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:28:14 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
<snip>>
I have an AKG C451 that I>bought circa 1974 that seems smoother than later C451s and their
>evolutionary brethern, but since Steve Albini expressed his love of
>these the price for used ones has escalated.
>
The qc on 451 capsules is very loose. I have 5 of those caps and no
two sound alike. The differences are not subtle.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
From: George Reiswig <george.reiswig@intel...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:38:23 -0800
Organization: Intel Corporation
Let's see...we tried the Neumanns through a Peavey VMP-2, a Great River, my
Mackie. The Oktava went through a Presonus MP-2.
Early on, I think we did try a TLM-103, but I'm not sure. We definitely
tried a TLM-170, and an AT-4060, and both sounded fairly nice (the 4060
seems to add a compressor to the signal stream, though), but none was nearly
as good as the Oktava tone.
To be sure, perhaps we just lucked out on that one try with the Oktava. But
I was sufficiently impressed that I contacted Taylor Johnson and ordered a
second as soon as the opportunity arose.
GR
Steve wrote in message <860gcs$5r7$<1@bcarh8ab...>>...
>In article <8605vq$<3uk@news...>>, "George Reiswig"
<<george.reiswig@intel...>> wrote:
>>Steve,
>> I never said it blew everything away...I was only saying that it
blew
>>away the Neumanns and other mics on acoustic guitar. That was the context
>>of the message to which I replied.
>> When we put both these mics in the "standard" position (above the 12th
>>fret, pointed slightly away from the soundhole), the 184 sounded stringy,
>>brittle, boomy, and not very pleasant. The Oktava seems to have less
>>high-end response, less low-end response, and so it avoids the squeekiness
>>and boominess that a flatter mic seems to bring out.
>
>Now that's the kind of description I was hoping for instead of "it blows
such
>and such away". And by the way, did you try TLM 103s? What was your
preamp?
>
>There are ways to control that - but I find the brittle/boomy and
>unpleasantness a bit surprising. That's not what I've heard coming from
>Neumanns - there's not another mic I'd rather have in front of my Kohno
than
>a KM184 or a TLM103. I do think that the Oktavas sound a little bit more
"old
>fashioned" and warm than many mics today. I just can't get past the rough
>construction - I'd always be wondering if it was going to work tomorrow.
>
>> Vituperate elsewhere, please.
>
>
>
>Steve
>
From: Karl Winkler <k_winkler@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 14:42:02 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
In article <862eq1$<hiu@news...>>,
"George Reiswig" <george.reiswig@intel.com> wrote:> You're probably right, Rick...probably just another unsubstantiated
rumor.
> GR
>
> Rick Ruskin wrote in message <<3884b4b3.283852@news...>>...
> >On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:40:52 -0800, "George Reiswig"
> ><<george.reiswig@intel...>> wrote:
> >
> >>Hmm...you know, I've heard that the KM184s use Chinese capsules,
and that
> >>the QC on them may not be very high. <snip>
> >
> >I doubt that very much.
> >
There's no "probably" about it. I can assure you that every part of
every KM 184 is made in Germany. The QC is EXTREMELY high on these
mics, proven by the fact that 1) we've sold many, many thousands of
them in the US and very very few have needed any work; 2) our "stereo
sets" are not (and don't need to be) "matched", because any two mics
(as long as both are approximately the same age and have been taken
care of in a similar manner) can be used as a stereo pair.
And in the few cases where there have been problems with the KM 184,
they've been taken care of very quickly first with warranty service,
but ultimately with design changes. Thus, one of the reasons the KM 184
has sold more units each year since it's introduction in late 1994 is
because it's a mic that engineers and musicians alike have been able to
rely on for a huge variety of applications.
What's upsetting to me (and I hope I'm not the only one) is that people
post "unsubstantiated rumors" in a place like rec.audio.pro when they
have no idea whether there is any truth behind what they are posting.
--
Karl Winkler
Neumann/USA
860-434-5220
http://www.neumannusa.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Mic'ing an acoustic or classical
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 23:01:13 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
George Reiswig <<george.reiswig@intel...>> wrote:
> Hmm...you know, I've heard that the KM184s use Chinese capsules, and that
> the QC on them may not be very high.
I have no idea where you'd hear something like that, other than from a
completely uninformed individual. I think it's not responsible for
anyone to suggest that without knowing the facts, which are that Neumann
does not use Chinese made capsules and takes quality control very
seriously. One can discern the latter by firsthand examination of the
product. Seek out truths before repeating untruths, please.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
| active pickup addom |
|---|
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: active pickup addom
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 11:31:53 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
In article <<20000202191944.26431.00000968@ng-fs1...>> , <hojo2x@aol...>
(Hojo2x) wrote:
> Wes Imel wrote that he has the passive LR Baggs pickup and asks for
suggestions
> to boost it without cutting any additional holes.
>
> For a preamp, I'd suggest the Baggs Para-DI. For an instrument mike, the
Shure
> Beta 57 is what I'm currently using, and it sounds great.
>
> I also use Baggs gear, and like it a lot.
>
>
> Wade Hampton Miller
>
>
I have just purchased an AKG C1000S condensor mike. Cost around 50 per cent
more than an SM57 (actually, twice the discounted mail order price but with
a free mike stand and 6m cable) and exactly the same as a Beta SM57. Total
revelation. I'll never waste money messing around with internal mikes,
dynamic external mikes or under saddle pickups again. I never used a
condensor mike before, and I thought they were fragile, expensive and
probably prone to feedback etc.
This mike is not. It's solid metal, extremely durable, costs only the same
as a Beta SM57 and it does not feedback at gig volumes even with the
speakers behind it. It can be placed three times as far from the guitar as
the SM57, you can move the instrument round in big compass to vary the sound
in a subtle way. I copied Pierre Bensusan's mike position - sort of sunrise,
aiming from below towards the wood behind the bridge, nowhere near the
soundhole. This produces a brilliant sound, hardly any finger and string
noise, very rich and balanced. The 'recommended' six inches from the
soundhole position sounds awful by comparison and the SM57 used to really
get in the way as it needed to be much closer. And you can touch the stand,
or move the mike, with hardly any sound - it's extremely responsive to AIR,
but not to vibration from the floor or its body.
All this time I have been thinking condensor mikes were just fragile
high-end studio stuff but this is a practical working mike for stage or
studio and I wish they had been available years ago!
David Kilpatrick
--
See website: www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
| Best $300-$500 mics for recording acoustic guitar? [2] |
|---|
From: RWS880 <rws880@aol...>
Subject: Re: Best $300-$500 mics for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: 08 Feb 2000 22:01:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I would have to advise against the C1000s as it is sounds really bright and
harsh after awhile. This seems to be the #1 reccommended mike for amateurs
though everyone seems to crave an upgrade after a few months.
I would definetly go with Harvey's advice to check out the MC012 as these seem
to be the favorite "budget" mic of people in the know
But, if you really want to buy a c1000s, I'll sell you mine....
rob
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Best $300-$500 mics for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 23:06:46 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
In article <<20000208170143.05452.00000153@ng-bg1...>> , <rws880@aol...>
(RWS880) wrote:
> I would have to advise against the C1000s as it is sounds really bright and
> harsh after awhile. This seems to be the #1 reccommended mike for amateurs
> though everyone seems to crave an upgrade after a few months.
>
> I would definetly go with Harvey's advice to check out the MC012 as these seem
> to be the favorite "budget" mic of people in the know
>
> But, if you really want to buy a c1000s, I'll sell you mine....
> rob
Do you mean that the sound changes, or that perceptions of the sound change?
I have other good microphones including a ribbon mike, and I have to say
that with the hi-fi type PA I use, the C1000S is pretty near perfect when
miking the guitar from 18 inches away. I'm not using stage PA stuff, I'm
using Quad built studio quality stereo amps. Things like the Shure
vocal/inst SM mikes sound dead, woolly and dense through this set-up - I use
Beyer instead, as they are brighter by far. The AKG seems a good condensor
intsrument mike match for the Beyer dynamic vocal mike.
What I liked about the C1000S was that there is so little noise when
handling the stand or the body, yet so much volume from the guitar - and a
very realistic, non-intrusive amplification of noises from clothes,
breathing, sitting down, finger squeak etc. 'Bright and harsh' is what I
would call my Sony electret condensor mikes in comparison - all clicks and
breathing noises, not much sound!
I think the C1000S would be pretty poor for vocals, though, despite the
provision of the special sound shaper insert and the pop shield. I have not
tried it because the volume is so high that I'd need to sing from two feet
away!
And how much was the C1000S in the USA? I could have had the recommendedly
warmer for vocals Rode NT-1 in Britain for about the same price, but having
studied Pierre Bensusan's miking technique, the C1000S seemed the best way
to approach his method, and sure enough it produces a very similar sound
from a similar guitar.
David
--
See website: www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
| Best of the low-end mics? [3] |
|---|
From: Ted Spencer <prestokid@aol...>
Subject: Re: Best of the low-end mics?
Date: 23 Feb 2000 16:46:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In defense of the NT1 I'll say that I've got a nearly identical sounding pair
(must've gotten lucky) and I agree that they're a bit bass shy. However I have
used them very effectively as a stereo pair on acoustic guitar (bass shy works
for you there) and the mic has come in second a few times in vocal mic
shootouts against a U87, 414, AT 4050 and Lawson. Not bad I say for a cheap (I
paid $275) mic. I'm very happy I bought them.
>One thing about this mic- it seems to vary widely from unit to unit, even
>more so
>than the ones we've talked about around here. If you go listen to one and
>like
>it, _buy that one_, even if it's the display and they won't give you any
>money
>off. No telling what's in the next box, sonically.
>
>Jon Best
>Sales Weasel From Mars
>
>Bill Roper wrote:
>
>> I've heard some good baritones recorded with a Rode NT-1 and was
>disappointed
>> at the amount of low end that wasn't present.
Ted Spencer, NYC
"I'm a lot more like I used to be than I am" - James Taylor
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Best of the low-end mics?
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:19:54 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
<<fuzzbot@my-deja...>> wrote:
> I am curious as to what kind of stuff you'd (and others)use a 57 (with
> a GTQ2)for that may be the realm of other mics even if they were in the
> cabinet. This may be a beaten to death subject, and yes, I haven't
> looked or searched this newsgroup but maybe the original poster (and
> everyone else)could benefit from some discussion on 57 tricks.
I don't think I know many "tricks". <g> My 57 shows up is various roles.
It's been chosen as a favorite vocal mic by the best-trained, quite
lovely-voiced singer I've worked with in a few years, after I'd had fun
putting up several other mics (and not that I have so many, but a
variety) during preproduction tracking. She sounded lovely through it,
and that was before I had the GR or Phoenix pres. This was into a
Soundcraft 200B, which is still, IMO, better-sounding than a Mackie. The
fact is she also sounded lovely through the U87, the C451, Beyer M500
and M88, Shure SM7, Sennheiser 441 and whatever else I tried. But she
was most comfortable singing into that 57. She _liked_ it.
The 57 winds up on acoustic guitars for SR work, on electric guitar
cabs, on snare drums, whatever. Recently a guy named Michael McNevin
opened for Christine Lavin. She had her own wireless mic and guitar
rigs, but for Michael I put up an Audix OM5 for voice and the 57 for his
acoustic guitar, both into the Phoenix GTQ2. His guitar and his guitar
playing sounded lovely at the source and the 57 delivered the goods
deliciously into the room. The "wow" factor was unmistakable. I bought
it in what appeared to be new condition from the pawn shop in Quincy for
the grand sum of thirty-five dollars.
I don't always know, in the intellectual sense, why I reach for a
certain mic at any given time. Sometimes it's out of experience with a
particular mic on a particular source, other times it's just fishing
around for serendipity. If I put a mic up and I like what I'm hearing I
don't usually invest precious time trying other mics. If I don't like
what I'm hearing I might spend the rest of the damn day changing mics,
positions, whatever I can think of next to try to get at what I want to
hear. Sometimes what I want to hear actually is the very least important
aspect of the process, because literally any mic here through a decent
pre will deliver a signal I can use and that satisfies the artist and in
the grander scheme of things moving forward by hitting the red button as
quickly as possible is more important than nitpicking the sound.
What I see happening among quite a few folks is that they will go for a
two or three hundred dollar large diaphragm condensor and quickly become
dissatisfied with it. So they'll buy another one. By then they have
spent enough to have purchased a Peavey VMP2 the Jensen mic input
transformer of which would have offered an SM57 the right kind of
loading and given them a sound worth far more than their investment.
They'd be right down to shouldering the burden of responsibility to
learn how to use that combo, instead of imagining that some other
recently-reviewed el cheapo deluxe wondermic was going to save their ass
and their signal for the price of a sack of peanuts.
Yes, a Great River isn't cheap, though it's right beyond being a hell of
a bargain, and the Phoenix costs half again as much more. But those
aren't the only options for mic pres that perform better than
Mackie-esque pres in many situations with inexpensive dynamic mics are
employed. I've said before that moving the U87 from the Mackie 1202 I
have over to the Great River does make a difference, but that difference
pales beside the results of doing the same with the SM57, which all of a
sudden sounds like it ought to cost several hundred dollars.
I have gone through the "mic pre or better mic" quandry right here in
front of the devil and this forum, and I have come to the personal
conclusion that if one already has a mic as good as an SM57, they should
start saving for a real mic preamp, because that will make a bigger
difference in the quality of their work than will anything other than
figuring out how to work with better signal sources.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Best of the low-end mics?
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:13:00 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Xzef <<xzef@aol...>> wrote:
> >Sorry if this is a tired subject, but I haven't been hanging around this
> >group very long. I want to get a new mic for my home project studio setup.
> >Of course I'd love to have an old Neumann, but it's not going to happen
> >anytime soon, not while I'm forking out dough to go to college. So, I'll
> >settle for cheap for now. But I want the BEST cheap mic. I'm looking through
> >the most recent GC catalog and there are several contenders in the
> >right-around-$200 category. I thought maybe some of you could give some
> >feedback. I need something that is suitable for pop vocals and some
> >occasional acoustic guitar. I have an Oktava MK-219 right now and
> >it's...okay. Not terrible, not great.
> >
> If you learn how to use a Shure SM57 it is the only mic you will ever need.
After putting good thoguhts behind the 57 in another part of this
thread, I read this, and my reaction is that this is _too_ extreme. Yes,
sometimes a good 57 will work wonders, especially if it's having
intercourse with a good mic pre. But if one has any success at all with
this music and mixing stuff, one will eventually want some other colors
on the pallette.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
| octava mics [4] |
|---|
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: octava mics
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 00 20:12:44 GMT
Organization: Technique, Inc.
In Article <<Pine.GSO.4.05.10002221034001.13533-100000@epic4...>>,
kaiyen <<kaiyen@leland...>> wrote:
>hey guys,
> just looking for opinions on the octava mc012 mics. have only
>heard them in use once but in a very non-ideal situation so couldn't judge
>them much. would be used in a stereo pair for live taping or for audience
>mics at the board, someting like that.
>
>thanks,
>kaiyen
First its Oktava, not Octava. Second, due to their extreme LF sensitivity, I
wouldn't want them anywhere near an audience. Third, there are LOTS of
comment from this newsgoup about the Oktavas. that you can find with
http://www.dejanews.com
Enjoy,
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's equipment reviews and V/O files can be found at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Michele Hobbs <mhobbs@ameritech...>
Subject: Re: octava mics
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:18:43 -0400
Organization: Ameritech.Net www.ameritech.net Complaints: abuse@ameritech.net
Hi,
Do a dejanews search for opinions, most of which you are find are positive.
I just ordered one for acoustic guitar recording from The Sound Room
(www.oktava.com will take you to their page). The owner is very nice and will
tell you all you need to know.
The downside is that the MC012 is $279.00, vs. $150.00 from Guitar Center.
However, the Sound Room models sell with 3 capsules (cardioid, hypercardioid and
omni) and are extensively tested compared to Guitar Center stock. Also, there
is a 3-week trial period, as opposed to a 48-hour trial period from GC. Can't
wait to get mine.
--Michele Hobbs
_________________________________
"My name is Michele, not Michael"
----------
In article <<Pine.GSO.4.05.10002221034001.13533-100000@epic4...>>,
kaiyen <<kaiyen@leland...>> wrote:
> hey guys,
> just looking for opinions on the octava mc012 mics. have only
> heard them in use once but in a very non-ideal situation so couldn't judge
> them much. would be used in a stereo pair for live taping or for audience
> mics at the board, someting like that.
>
> thanks,
> kaiyen
>
> --
> --------
> <kaiyen@leland...> http://www.stanford.edu/~kaiyen
>
> The Stanford Concert Network
> http://www.stanford.edu/group/scn
>
From: Tonebarge <Tonebarge@iscweb...>
Subject: Re: octava mics
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 21:52:44 -0800
Organization: Psycho-Acoustic Ward
Michele Hobbs wrote:
> The downside is that the MC012 is $279.00, vs. $150.00 from Guitar Center.
Ummmmm, not. GC sells them (the one with three capsules) for within ten bucks of
the sound room. The big difference is that the SR models have been checked and
they come in +wood+ cases, not in the cheezey white plastic boxes that GC sells
them with.
TB
From: <twmodule@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: octava mics
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 01:07:36 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
hi there
i recently purchased a pair and have been super happy with the mics. my
applications have been mostly on percussion (tablas and other things from
india) as well as the overheads on a drum kit. i'm completely stoked with
their response and got most of my kit recordings with just the oh's, i'd
mix in the direct mics for just a slight enhancement to the stereo image.
i'd think they'ed work great for most anything, with an eq adjustment
here or there relative to circumstance. if your budget allows, go the
sound room route for added caps and such. i didn't have such luxury, but
can't complain about this $300 pair i got at GC.
good luck
tim
In article <<Pine.GSO.4.05.10002221034001.13533-100000@epic4...>>
,
kaiyen <kaiyen@leland.stanford.edu> wrote:> hey guys,
> just looking for opinions on the octava mc012 mics. have only
> heard them in use once but in a very non-ideal situation so couldn't judge
> them much. would be used in a stereo pair for live taping or for audience
> mics at the board, someting like that.
>
> thanks,
> kaiyen
>
> --
> --------
> <kaiyen@leland...> http://www.stanford.edu/~kaiyen
>
> The Stanford Concert Network
> http://www.stanford.edu/group/scn
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
| octava mics-continued |
|---|
From: Michele Hobbs <mhobbs@ameritech...>
Subject: Re: octava mics-continued
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 18:21:47 -0400
Organization: Ameritech.Net www.ameritech.net Complaints: abuse@ameritech.net
There is a review of "lesser-known" small-diaphram microphones in the March
issue of EM. The Oktava and Elation (also available and tested at the Sound
Room) were always in the top 3 choices for recoring various sources in the
shoot-out.
--Michele Hobbs
_________________________________
"My name is Michele, not Michael"
----------
In article <<Pine.GSO.4.05.10002221034001.13533-100000@epic4...>>,
kaiyen <<kaiyen@leland...>> wrote:
> hey guys,
> just looking for opinions on the octava mc012 mics. have only
> heard them in use once but in a very non-ideal situation so couldn't judge
> them much. would be used in a stereo pair for live taping or for audience
> mics at the board, someting like that.
>
> thanks,
> kaiyen
>
> --
> --------
> <kaiyen@leland...> http://www.stanford.edu/~kaiyen
>
> The Stanford Concert Network
> http://www.stanford.edu/group/scn
>
| Microphone for home recording? |
|---|
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: Microphone for home recording?
Date: 23 Feb 2000 03:05:01 GMT
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
Xzef <<xzef@aol...>> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to get a decent microphone for some home recording projects. I
>>> will
>>> be recording acoustic guitar, congas/bongos, vocals and possibly mandolin
>>> and acoustic bass.
>>/.../
>
>I am probably going to get hammered for saying this, but regardless of ho much
>money you spend you won't improve much on a Shure SM57, and I mean even for
>vocal's. If you experiment with positioning and other things its just amazing
>what can be done with one of those old workhorses.
I think that you can improve a whole lot on the SM57, but as a first
microphone, the SM57 is a decent choice and I'd wholeheartedly recommend
it. It's a PA mike with a very distinctive sound to it that isn't always
right on everything, but it's not a bad sound at all, and for the price
that's saying a lot.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
| Mics for acoustic guitar? |
|---|
From: Don Ambory <donambory@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitar?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 18:32:28 -0600
Organization: MediaOne Express -=- Central Region
I just replaced a pair of AKG C1000's with a pair of Octava 012 small
diaphragm condensers (at Guitar Center for $300) and the acoustic Guitar
recordings I'm making are far better. SM-81's are nice, but I actually like
these a little better and their half the price. Check out this months
Electronic Musician magazine for a shoot in which the Octavas did very well
(maybe even "won" depending on how you read it).
Good Luck,
Don Ambory
Tonsoc <<tonsoc@cs...>> wrote in message
news:<20000226150214.18911.00001852@ng-ca1...>...
> Hi All,
>
> What is the minimum frequency response necessary to do a decent job
recording
> an acoustic guitar? I'm an amateur with a home studio, not a professional
> (otherwise I wouldn't be asking this question :-)).
>
> Tony
>
| Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar?? [9] |
|---|
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar??
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 21:27:04 +0100
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
In article <<391466B3.882DE567@bigfoot...>> , Tom Watson <<mrtom@bigfoot...>>
wrote:
> Hi
> I recently purchased a tascam 424 and have been trying to make sense of
> what kind of mikes
> to get.
> I've been hanging around the music shops and asking questions but I keep
> getting thousand
> dollar answers.
> Have any of you had to go through this learning process???
> What should I look out for?
> And what is a Sennheiser modular mic system? should I consider this one ?
Despite opinions that it is too clinical and 'harsh', the AKG C1000S
condensor mike is in my own opinion ideal for miking acoustics at a price of
under $200 current in UK 'street price' mail order ads. Most people who
consider it hard on the ear are comparing it with $1000 Neumann vocal mikes,
which are much warmer is response. Aimed in the classic 'wood' position -
mike about 18 inches from the guitar, aiming from the right hand side
towards the bridge, and not at the strings or sound hole - it successfully
minimises left hand string noise and picks up a good resonance. I have also
recorded guitar and voice perfectly well using it at around 4 feet distance,
chest height, for a quick single take recording and been surprised at the
correct 'listener' perspective this gives.
David
--
Read about our photo magazines: http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
From: jtougas <jtougas@ix...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar??
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 22:10:26 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
In article <<391466B3.882DE567@bigfoot...>> , Tom Watson
<<mrtom@bigfoot...>> got curious about:
>
>> I recently purchased a tascam 424 and have been trying to make sense of
>> what kind of mikes to get.
The C1000s would require a micpreamp, as it needs phantom power to
operate. I don't remember whether or not the 424 has phantom power,
but I don't think it does (feel free to correct me).
On the other hand, there are some decent mic pre's out there for under
$100, you just have to know where to look.
If you're looking for a dynamic mic, the Shure SM57 is supposed to be
great for guitars. I haven't had a chance to try one, but plan on
purchasing one (<$100 is one reason...). For vocals, I recently
purchased an SM58, which deserves its reputation for great sound on a
budget.
If you'r willing to spend the bucks, go for the condenser mic and the
preamp, your ears will love you for it. If you're on a budget, the
Shure's are safe bets. For other ideas, go to Harmony Central, and
follow the recording links to mic manufacturers. Then, go to each site
and take a look at the frequency responses of the mics. Look for
either flat or a gentle curve in condensers ( there's no such critter
in dynamics) or a gentle curve without too many spikes in the dynamic
mics. Skip the Neumann page, you'll only be tortured. ;-)
jtougas
We all have our scars-
You show me mine
I'll show you yours.
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar??
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 00:54:22 +0100
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
In article <<39149646.30688034@nntp...>> , <jtougas@ix...>
(jtougas) wrote:
> In article <<391466B3.882DE567@bigfoot...>> , Tom Watson
> <<mrtom@bigfoot...>> got curious about:
>>
>>> I recently purchased a tascam 424 and have been trying to make sense of
>>> what kind of mikes to get.
>
> The C1000s would require a micpreamp, as it needs phantom power to
> operate. I don't remember whether or not the 424 has phantom power,
> but I don't think it does (feel free to correct me).
>
No, it doesn't need preamp. It comes with a 9v battery installation and if
you don't have phantom power, it runs off this instead. The gain level from
the mic is probably twice that of the SM57, so it works extremely well on
four-tracks, while the SM57 is very low in output and usually needs the
sensitivity control on the recorder channel turned up full.
David
--
Read about our photo magazines: http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
From: No Busking <nobusking@erols...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar??
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 20:57:13 -0400
jtougas wrote:
> > The C1000s would require a micpreamp, as it needs phantom power to
> > operate. I don't remember whether or not the 424 has phantom power,
> > but I don't think it does (feel free to correct me).
to which David Kilpatrick replied:
> No, it doesn't need preamp. It comes with a 9v battery installation and if
> you don't have phantom power, it runs off this instead.
You've both confused preamps with phantom power. They're different
features. Both mics will require a preamp (which the 424 has...it's
controlled by the Trim knob). The condenser also requires phantom power or
a battery...the 424 does not have phantom power, so the battery would be
used.
It's a toss-up whether you're better off buying a $200 condenser mic or two
SM 57's. No doubt that the condenser mic will sound more crisp and
articulate than a single SM57...but with two SM57's you can do multiple mic
placements or stereo recording, which will give you effects and articulation
that you can't get with a single mic. I've got several condenser mics that
I love, but I've also had really good luck with two '57's in an XY
configuration.
Also, the mic preamps in the 424 are likely to be pretty low budget, so they
probably won't give you the full clarity that a condenser mic can produce.
You'll be happy with either choice. Since you're just setting your studio
up, I would lean toward the more flexible answer...which I believe to be a
couple of SM57's, SM58's if you'll be doing a lot of vocals, or the
equivalent.
BTW...buy good cassette tapes, run at double speed, concentrate on good
gain-staging technique, go to tape as hot as you can without distorting, and
learn good mic placement techniques. Don't forget to buy mic stands with
booms and good cables.
You'll be amazed at how good the quality of a 4 track cassette machine can
be.
Have fun.
--
Michael Pugh
From: No Busking <nobusking@erols...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar??
Date: Sun, 7 May 2000 13:57:31 -0400
Mike Banks wrote:
> ...i like 57's for stage use, but for recording?? perhaps i simply
haven't
> found the way to use them properly...
Well...don't overestimate my results.
First, even though I think that excellent recordings can be made using a
four-track cassette machine and dynamic mics, the resulting product can't be
confused with a matched-pair of condensers, audiophile preamps, and a 24/96
digital setup. But, for decent and clear fingerpicking and strumming tracks
for a demo or for fun, '57's work fine. Mic placement is pretty
critical..but that just makes it good practice.
Second...I very rarely record solo acoustic guitar. On those occasions when
I do, condenser mics are in order unless I'm intentionally going for a lo-fi
sound. Most of the times I've used the '57's on the acoustic have been when
it's in the mix with drums, bass, keys, etc. For some reason, I have more
luck "seating" the acoustic guitar sound in a rock and roll mix with dynamic
mics.
Third, I also record electric guitars, mandolins, vocalists, drums, harps,
bodhrans, and whatever else people are carrying when they walk in the
door...SM57's are like Swiss Army Knives and can be used in a lot of
situations if you can't afford to buy 30 different microphones all at once.
As my mic collection has grown, the '57's get less use...but they were a
great place to start.
Yer probably not going to release the next top-selling acoustic album from a
Tascam 424 and 2 SM57's. But, it is a flexible setup that can yield good
results.
--
Michael Pugh
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar??
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 23:51:08 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
In article <<391466B3.882DE567@bigfoot...>> , Tom Watson
<<mrtom@bigfoot...>> wrote:
>
> I recently purchased a tascam 424 and have been trying to make sense of
> what kind of mikes to get.
The DejaNews archives of rec.audio.pro holds eons worth of "acoustic
mics for guitars" discussion. Go to the power search page and be
deluged.
Deja.com: Power Search
http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
Those archives for rmmga also have some good stuff. Harvey Gerst
sometimes waxes experiential with good results. Look for some of his
posts about acoustic guitars and mics.
The link in my .sig below leads to the RAP FAQ which presents basic info
about recording in general with some discussion of various types of
mics.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar??
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 20:39:07 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:
>hank alrich wrote:
>> Those archives for rmmga also have some good stuff. Harvey Gerst
>> sometimes waxes experiential with good results. Look for some of his
>> posts about acoustic guitars and mics.
>I've kept most of the substantive posts on this over the past
>few years, and have put them on web pages, threaded for easy
>reading/navigation; you'll find them at:
>
>http://www.museweb.com/ag/rmmga/mics97_98.html
>http://www.museweb.com/ag/rmmga/mics99.html
>http://www.museweb.com/ag/rmmga/mics00.html
>
>These 3 web pages collect posts from 1997/1998, 1999, and
>2000 (up to today). The coverage of RMMGA posts should be pretty good;
>I'm a less regular reader of rec.audio.pro but there are lots of
>rec.audio.pro posts in the files. There is a lot of collected wisdom in these
>posts, as well as some advice that is probably not so good. You'll
>have to sort that out for yourself. But as a hint, follow Hank's
>advice about looking for Harvey Gerst's input, as well as that of
>Rick Ruskin, Scott Dorsey, Monte Mcguire, and Hank himself. There
>are others who offer good advice as well, but these are authors whose
>posts here and elsewhere on this topic have the "ring of truth" in
>my opinion. It is probably not coincidental that all of these folks are
>accomplished audio engineers, and not just home studio hackers (like
>myself!).
>Tom Loredo
Geez, I can't believe I wrote all that stuff!! Way too much free time on my
hands. <g> But there is some great information in those web pages you've put
up, Tom. A few small notes of caution to whoever wants to learn more about
the subject of micing acoustic instruments:
1. Understand that there is a near-field AND a far-field. The near-field is
usually inside the distance of the longest dimension of the instrument. Any
less spacing than that gets you too close to hear the whole instrument and mic
selection and placement becomes more critical.
2. There is NO one best mic for all guitars; it depends on the player, the
instrument, the song key, and the player's technique.
3. Generally speaking, smaller mics work better. I like small (1/2" or less)
condensor mikes; either omni, cardioid, or hyper-cardioid mics. Ribbon mics
are another good option. With any mic, always try some of the different low
frequency roll-off settings.
4. Don't confuse a harsh, overly-bright top end on a mic as being "more
detailed, open, or airy". It gets real old, real quick. This is a common
characteristic of some of the new large diaphragm, inexpensive mics you are
seeing more of these days.
5. Read the magazine reviews, but learn to read between the line. There's a
big difference between a reviewer saying this is a "good bang for the bucks"
mic, and saying "if you're looking for a mic in this price range, consider
this", the last statement is almost a hidden message telling you to really
listen very carefully to the item before you buy - it's limited in its ability
and is only good for some things.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: yachtboy! <swl_yb400pe@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar??
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:59:19 -0700
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
when i used to record, on my 244, i used an elctro voice, and i
found that just a little bit of comression actully helps get
that "pro" sound. i know, every one hates compression, but using
anolog equipment sometimes leaves little room for MAJOR
dynamics. i also reccommend lots of trial and error, spend
hours just listening to the tiniest parts. mix and re-mix. make
a tape of just one song, mixed many different ways. have friends
do mix's of your material. youll be suprised what they find
important. if you use 2 mics, listen in both stereo AND mono,
there will be differences. on 4 track, you may find mono works
best, but then, i always liked to mix in stereo! now, what does
this have to do with mics? everything. its the musician, not the
equipment. spend time with your stuff, it will pay dividends
later. put on those headphones and play!!!!!!!!
"Being diabetic is alot like having an un-invited
guest at a picnic, who keeps pointing out the potato salad may have gone bad."--W.B. Willis* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
From: George Reiswig <george.reiswig@intel...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Recording Acoustic Guitar??
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 12:52:17 -0700
Organization: Intel Corporation
We've been through a lot of microphones for acoustic guitar, including
Neumann KM-184s and TLM-170, AT 4060, Earthworks SR-71, and so on...we've
settled on using Oktava MC-012s as our primary AG mic, complementing it in
stereo setups with either another Oktava, and recently we tried my Beyer
M-260 ribbon as a complement to it.
The Oktava seems to work well because of what it lacks: it has a less
well-defined high end, and less bass response, than most mics. As a result,
acoustic guitars seem to require less EQ later on.
But then opinions are like navals...and I use B-Bands...(in my guitars, not
my naval)
GR
Smith, Kent [RICH6:5915:EXCH] wrote in message
<<3916E1D3.807211E2@americasm01...>>...
>I'm getting ready to by a Shure KSM-32 condenser. Obviously, I can't give
>a report, but the press is good, and there's no other way to try than to
>buy.
>
>It's about $500.
>
>
>"Dar S." wrote:
>
>> Any more recommendations for mic's in the $500 to $ 800 range? Large
>> and/ or small diaphragm condenser. Also, thoughts on using one or two
>> for solo guitar, and getting the most
>> richness and fullness. Thanks,
>> Dar
>
| Miking Acoustic Guitars? [2] |
|---|
From: Ron French <ronfrench@pathcom...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitars?
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 23:56:34 -0400
Organization: Pathway Communications
I have been playing around with the same things. Here's what I have decided to go
with.
A radio Shack replacement Electret condenser mic with a small pre-amp circuit.
You can go to http://harmony-central.com/Guitar/condenser-mic.txt to see all the
discussion on the topic. I have built a prototype and used it one day playing
for a kid's festival. Instruments included bass, drums, keyboard. I blended the
sound with a Fishman Rare Earth Soundhole pickup borrowed from a friend. The mic
gave a really clean acoustic sound. (An amateur's opinion of course)
You may also find articles at www.soundadv.com/link32.html interesting.
I have E mailed the audio technica company to get some recommended soundhole
microphone recommendations and they suggested the AT831b
www.audio-technica.com.
Good luck I think we are looking for the same thing. I hope this was helpful
Regards
Ron French
bacon wrote:
> I presume this topic has been hashed and rehashed but I'm new here so please
> pardon the redundancy.
>
> I've been playing and performing on electric guitars in rock bands for years.
> I only recently picked up an acoustic and I like it a lot. I've tried to
> mic it for live performance (having tried soundhole pickups and not liking
> the result) but I simply cannot get any volume out of it without terrible
> feedback problems. I've seen it done. I've seen externally miked acoustics
> being used to wonderful effect in high volume situations and I wonder what
> the secret is.
>
> Anyone with any recommendations, specific microphones, setups etc will be met
> with gratitude!
>
> Bacon
From: Tom from Texas <trisner52@aol...>
Subject: Re: Miking Acoustic Guitars?
Date: 09 May 2000 23:51:38 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Bacon was makin' an inquiry:
>Anyone with any recommendations, specific microphones, setups etc will be met
>
>with gratitude!
When a soundman is miking my guitar, he usually sets it about 10 feet from the
guitar and aimed at the ceiling in order to get what he calls "reflective
sound". Then he sets the mike on "Overall Fractile Frequency" which is
abreviated "OFF" on the mike. These soundmen really know their stuff.
Tom (I sound great) from Texas
| compression question [2] |
|---|
From: <jdanz@cdsnet...>
Subject: compression question
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:25:38 -0700
Organization: MegaNews!
I have been doing some recording. I have been using a Santa Cruz and Tacoma
to record with. I have cakewalk on my PC and a decent microphone (AKG
C100), I mic the guitar (and have tried every angle, placement and distance
possible), plug the mic into a mackie mixer, and then into my computer sound
card.
Problem is no matter what I try (and I have tried lots), the bass seems a
bit louder and boomier than I would like (I play fingerstyle and the tacoma
is a parlor size). I have also tried changing picking technique and EQ
settings. I still can't get the sound I want (like Pepino D'agustino, or
Ken Bonfield). Just a nice clean acoustic with a soft mellow base, with a
little reverb. (and my guitars do give me the sound I want when I play
without micing them)
Question. Is if worth buy a compression program / unit? Will this help or
take care of the problem? I prefer to mic the guitar cuz I like this sound
better than a pick up / plug in recording. Other suggestions would be
helpful like is there a way to soften the bass by cutting a specific
freqency? (just cutting back on the bass on the mackie doesn't help much).
Thanks.
Jeff
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: compression question
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:20:18 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
To the original poster:
1. How old are your strings? It's best that they be "just stretched
out" new for the kind of sparkle I believe you're after.
2. What is the basic sound of your recording/monitoring environment?
Assuming you're doing everything in one room, any anomalies will be
twice as bad.
3. With a directional mic, overall boominess usually means it's too
close to the source. Try getting it as far away from the instrument
as the body length and see what you get. Still too boomy? Then from
the same distance angle the mic a bit. (Towards the fingerboard is a
good place to start.) Too "distant" sounding? Close the gap by just
a little bit.
4. What's your signal chain?
Feeding the sound card with the Mackie's buss-outs or direct? Use the
direct if it still allows for EQ-ing.
5. How good is that soundcard anyway? a typical computer unit will
not sound very good no matter what you do, before or after the
fact.To the posters of the quotes below:
"Firstly, yes, compression is a great effect and (IMO) essential for
recording. It really can make things more "professional" sounding. It
evens out the dynamics, bringing up your quiet notes, bringing down
the loud ones, promoting sustain. (IOW, be careful how much you use
it! It can magnify noise and make things bland if overdone.)"
Compression is useful but hardly essential for good recordings. By
more "professional," you are probably referring to "sounding more like
it does on the radio." Radio compresses the living crap out of
everything so they can run at maximum modulation. Listening to
pre-compressed music after that process is the sonic equivilent to
viewing a vista through a soda straw.
"I frequently find myself having to use dynamic mics (the everpresent
Shure SM58 for example) which give the nasty old bass proximity
effect."
All directional mics (unidirectional/fig 8) have proximity effect.
Fig 8 yielding the most. Tip: Wanna improve the sound of an SM-58?
Remove the wire mesh ball (it unscrews) and dispose of the foam in the
upper half. This foam filters much more than pops. It keeps out high
frequencies as well.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
| Acoustic guitar microphone [10] |
|---|
From: PDtek <pdtek@aol...>
Subject: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: 24 Jun 2000 03:16:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Please pardon my redundancy if this has been addressed recently.
I am looking for a microphone for recording solo acoustic guitar on my
computer. It does not need to be studio quality. Just better than your standard
$10 computer mic. Any suggestions for the best compromise between cost and
quality?
Thanks
Dave
From: Michael S. McCollum <eadric@visi...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:25:20 GMT
PDtek <<pdtek@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20000623231636.29938.00002616@ng-fn1...>...
> Please pardon my redundancy if this has been addressed recently.
>
> I am looking for a microphone for recording solo acoustic guitar on my
> computer. It does not need to be studio quality. Just better than your
standard
> $10 computer mic. Any suggestions for the best compromise between cost and
> quality?
I've had good results with a little old $30 omni electret condenser mic from
Radio Shack..model # 03-3003 I believe.
Mike
From: Edward Lowenstein <elowenstein@cfl...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 17:42:34 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Central Florida
The AKG C1000S is a great choice as well and isn't too pricey (< $200).
Great for close miking at the junction of body and neck.
---> Ed
From: Mothra666 <mothra666@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: 24 Jun 2000 17:58:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>The AKG C1000S is a great choice as well and isn't too pricey (< $200).
>Great for close miking at the junction of body and neck.
>---> Ed
>
Im not a big fan of this mic. Your best budget mic, is an octava from the sound
room. 3 capsules for 279 bucks.
Philip Stevenson
Http://members.aol.com/mothra666/chris.htm
"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
- Dorothy Parker
From: Dar S. <Sheltech@webtv...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:53:11 -0600 (MDT)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
I know the original question was about inexpensive mic.'s bit I amsticking my nose is to get opinions on expensive (but not ridiculously
so) ones.
I've got a few possibilities at the store here, and they'll let me testrecord, bu I'd like more opinions(again, expert and completely unbiased,
as always (^:#)
I also will be recording to hard drive via a tube mic preamp .Mybudget is about 1k. I haven't
decided but I'm leaning towards a matched pair
of Neuman small diaphragms or a really good large dia. plus a not as
expensive small ia., depending on what sounds best on my guitar.
Thanks, and my apology for butting in so rudely. (I usually butt inless rudely)
Dar
From: John Sorell <jsorell@bouldernews...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:39:27 -0600
Organization: InfiNet
"Dar S." wrote:
> I know the original question was about inexpensive mic.'s bit I am
> sticking my nose is to get opinions on expensive (but not ridiculously
> so) ones.
> I've got a few possibilities at the store here, and they'll let me test
> record, bu I'd like more opinions(again, expert and completely unbiased,
> as always (^:#)
> I also will be recording to hard drive via a tube mic preamp .My
> budget is about 1k. I haven't
> decided but I'm leaning towards a matched pair
> of Neuman small diaphragms or a really good large dia. plus a not as
> expensive small ia., depending on what sounds best on my guitar.
> Thanks, and my apology for butting in so rudely. (I usually butt in
> less rudely)
> Dar
I have a pair (not matched) of KM 184 mics. I'm probably the least
experienced person posting here about sound engineering. I had an AKG C1000S
but took it back because it sounded to crispy and fake to me. I'm very
pleased with the Neumanns.
John
From: Mothra666 <mothra666@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: 24 Jun 2000 22:43:21 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I'm very
>pleased with the Neumanns.
>
they are great. I like the old 84's a little better just because the high end
is a little less pronounced. In terms of expensive mics, there are so many that
can sound good. KM84's, AKG c60, U47, C12, schoeps 221's are favs, even a coles
4038 can work on some overly bright instruments...
Philip Stevenson
Http://members.aol.com/mothra666/chris.htm
"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
- Dorothy Parker
From: Evan A. Gordon <gordone1NOgoSPAM@excite...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:18:23 -0700
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
I have great results with an Audio-Technica AT0433 about a foot
in front of the soundhole and the KM184 pointed towards the 12th
fret. I was happy to hear that this is very close to the setup
they used in the new 3D Audio mic-pre shootout (except they used
a KM84)
Don't forget a good pre-amp is very important...
I'm looking to upgrade my (don't laugh) Aphex 107 with hopefully
a Great River...
<mothra666@aol...> (Mothra666) wrote:
>>I'm very
>>pleased with the Neumanns.
>>
>
>they are great. I like the old 84's a little better just
because the high end
>is a little less pronounced. In terms of expensive mics, there
are so many that
>can sound good. KM84's, AKG c60, U47, C12, schoeps 221's are
favs, even a coles
>4038 can work on some overly bright instruments...
>
>
>
>Philip Stevenson
>
>Http://members.aol.com/mothra666/chris.htm
>
>"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
> - Dorothy
Parker
>
>
Evan A. Gordon
Software Engineer/Folksinger
WWW - http://home.earthlink.net/~egordon99
Please ignore the SPAM inserted without permission by REMARQ below:
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 02:56:05 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:18:23 -0700, Evan A. Gordon
<<gordone1NOgoSPAM@excite...>> wrote:
<snip>
>Don't forget a good pre-amp is very important...
>I'm looking to upgrade my (don't laugh) Aphex 107 with hopefully
>a Great River...
>
The Great River Preamps are stellar sounding. 9 times out of 10, they
are what I use for myself and studio clients. I am also a dealer. If
you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: <jdanz@cdsnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar microphone
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:54:35 -0700
Organization: MegaNews!
I will ditto this post. I have one.. picks up everything, the cat meowing
in the garage, cars going by... sigh!
Jeff (<jdanz@cdsnet...>)
Edward Lowenstein <<elowenstein@cfl...>> wrote in message
news:eq655.35014$<74.132585@typhoon...>...
> The AKG C1000S is a great choice as well and isn't too pricey (< $200).
> Great for close miking at the junction of body and neck.
> ---> Ed
>
>
| Oktava C012 doubts [4] |
|---|
From: <tonewoods@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Oktava C012 doubts
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:18:32 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
In article
<<90B4483864B7B0C8.C3381F4C60878C34.CB97320324B5D62F@lp...>>,
Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:> "Anymouse" <<Anymouse@anywhere...>> wrote:
>
> >Or actually listen to the mics and save a serious percentage....
Percentage
> >wise the marketing hype at the SoundRoom didn't sell me. Oh well.
>
> John,
>
> Sorry I don't share your negative opinion of the Sound Room Oktavas -
I bought a
> pair quite a while ago, after extensive prior listening and I've been
very happy
> with them. I went back to the Sound Room's website, and I personally
thought
> their "marketing hype" isn't the big deal you portray. Your comments
seem to be
> based on some bad units you got from Guitar Center, even though
everyone here
> has pointed out many times that the Sound Room "versions" ARE
different.
>
> I haven't heard the Guitar Center units, so I can't directly compare
the two, or
> their differences. I posted the actual response curves of my two
mics on my web
> site, since a lot of people seemed to be interested:
>
> http://ITRstudio.com/mc012-3.gif and http://ITRstudio.com/mc012-4.gif
>
> A while back, I also posted my impressions of all the Russian mics
I've had a
> chance to listen to: the Oktava 219, the Oktava 319, the Elation 201,
the
> Elation 901, the Oktava MC012, the Lomo M1 head, and the VM100 tube
mic. As I
> recall, I wasn't too crazy about the Oktava 219, the Oktava 319, or
the Elation
> 201 or 901, although I thought the Oktava VM100 was pretty good. I
WAS impressed
> with the Oktava MC012 (altho I mentioned it was very easy to bottom
out) and I
> really liked the Lomo M1 head.
>
> I'm not a reviewer, just another bottom-feeding, small studio owner,
and my
> comments were just that - MY comments. Feel free to take a look at
my mic
> locker at http://ITRstudio.com/equip.html and see how the Oktavas fit
in with my
> other mic choices.
>
> I don't spend money on mics I'm not gonna use, and anything over $300
is a "BIG"
> purchase to me. My only BIG mic purchases have been the Coles, the
RCA 44BX and
> 77DX, the Neumann TLM-103, the Sony C-38, and the Oktava/Lomo trio.
That should
> tell you something about how much I value their sound.
>
> There was a recent "small mic" shootout in one of the mags a couple
of months
> ago, and I was impressed at how closely their (4 different reviewers)
opinions
> of the Elation 201 vs the Octava MC012s (from Sound Room) matched my
own
> listening experience, which I posted here about 6 months before that
magazine
> came out.
>
> If the Octava MC012s don't work for you, that's fine with me. But if
you're
> gonna "warn" people about them, then I'm also gonna "warn" those same
people
> that they may be missing out on a very good deal.
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/
>
Harvey, or anyone else...could you elaborate on your experience with
the RTT VM100? I'm looking for a large diaphram tube mic, and that
one's on the hit list to explore.
Funny, that mic is not on the Soundroom's current website, yet it comes
up on their site on a search for "Lomo 19A19" (another mic I'm
interested in). Is the mic available? Looks really interesting. I'm
looking for a vocal mic with lots of tubey characteristics, excessively
so...I've heard these might fit the bill.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Oktava C012 doubts
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:36:28 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<liondog@isomedia...> (Rick Ruskin) wrote:
>Anyone who has doubts about these mics has my permission not to use
>them whenever the mood does or does not strike them. That goes for
>any other piece of gear as well.
>Rick Ruskin
>Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
>http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
>http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
Finally, a voice of reason.
Please, can we stop about this whole Oktava thing? I feel like the damn "poster
boy" for Oktava, and I hate being in that position. I think they're a great mic
for the money, but if the GC Oktava works for you, fine. But if it doesn't,
don't assume the Sound Room version will have the same problems.
I'm not the final word on ANYTHING. Hell, when Dave Martin brought up his
Lawson 47, I was expecting way more than I heard. Does that mean the Lawson
sucks? No, it just means I didn't hear what I expected to hear, but it was
still one helluva mic.
I hadda chance to get a 414 for $500 brand new. The guy even loaned it to me to
try it for a month. I passed on it. It wasn't something I'd use on a regular
basis, even though 100s of engineers have been very successful with them - I'm
just not one of them.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Elizabeth Papapetrou <NOSPAMelizabeth@motherheart...>
Subject: Re: Oktava C012 doubts
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:59:09 GMT
Organization: GRU.Net
> Actually I love the Octava mics. But here is my point. I can go to
> Guitar Center and buy 2 012 for $498 with three capsules. Or go to the
> Sound Room
>and spend $659. I went to GC and got 5 and then listened to them. Then
>I took 3 back. Now I could have paid the Sound Room 25% more so that I
> wouldn't have to listen to them, I could trust the Sound Room.
You are quoting the Sound Room price for a Factory Matched Pair of MC012s.
Despite what you likely believe, you cannot match a pair of microphones by
ear alone anywhere near as well as those with matched frequency responses
tested in an anechoic chamber.
You can buy individual Sound Room MC012s, with three capsules, a -10dB pad,
a cool cedar case, extensive quality control and a REAL 2 year warranty for
$299. That's a total of $598. Only very recently, the price increased from
$249 for each set - which was identical to GC pricing with a heck of a lot
more content, value and reassurance. This was necessary as Taylor had
absorbed several increases in costs and just had to reflect the latest in a
price rise or make virtually nothing on the sales.
Sir, you are entitled to your opinions but please base them in fact.
Elizabeth
--
Remove NOSPAM from email address for personal replies
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Oktava C012 doubts
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:56:06 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Jim Gilliland <<usemylastname@altavista...>> wrote:
>I've followed this thread and several others about these mics over the
>past year or so here. It appears to me that this has become "myth" -
>the idea that the Guitar Center MC012s are the rejects from the Sound
>Room. I suppose it's possible, but it seems unlikely to me. Certainly
>Taylor Johnson has not made such a claim.
Yes, that would be false, exactly as stated. Guitar Center is not buying the
Sound Room's rejects in the strictest sense of the term, but Oktava is culling
the best of every production batch, which is then sold to Taylor, after another
factory in Russia (with more extensive testing facilities) verifies the
performance. The best of those go to Taylor, the rest are returned to Oktava.
Why does Oktava do this? Mainly because Oktava is paid directly by Taylor and
more American dollars flow into their people's pockets per unit than from their
normal worldwide distributor. And Taylor is helping them with new mic designs
that will increase their profitability, especially in the American market.
So, no, GC is not buying the Sound Room's rejects, but Sound Room IS getting the
best units of each production batch. The polotics involved are very complex,
but the bottom line is that the units Taylor sells ARE superior to the same
units that are available at Guitar Center.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
| Mic Placement on Acou Gtr [6] |
|---|
From: ws <stephens.144@osu...>
Subject: Mic Placement on Acou Gtr
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:22:08 -0400
Organization: midwest
Hello,
My wife (bless her heart) brought home a new Taylor 310ce acoustic gtr
as an anniversary gift for me last night
I guess my ranting and drooling over pictures gave her an idea that I
really wanted one, and it sounds awesome....... I love it!
Anyway..............................
I have a Large Diaphragm condenser mic and a small diaphragm condenser
mic (budget mics) plus the "Fishman" stuff built into the gtr and a few
of the normal dynamic 57/58 type of mics.
I'm using (for now) a Tascam TMD 1000 for input mic pre's, then SPDIF
over to my computer and Vegas Pro/SoundForge 4.5.
I'm looking for experienced engineers ideas for mic placement on
acoustics.
I'm fairly new at recording in general and really want to capture as
much of the natural tone as I can.
I 've done alot of live mixing but not much with acoustics, and when I
did it was always just stick 451 or sm81 infront of the sound hole and
make it work.
I'm sure there are areas that work better for recording, and hoped
someone could impart a good starting point to save me some time.
Thanks much for any advice............ you guys are great!
Also,If any are interested in listening to some of the stuff I'm working in
my home studio, please go to:
http://welcome.to/backrounds
I would welcome any ideas on mixing or arrangement of these songs
Thanks again
From: Victor Kruger <victor@mail...>
Subject: Re: Mic Placement on Acou Gtr
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 11:44:32 -0400
this is a starting place:
http://www.harmony-central.com/Features/FRecAcousticGtr/
"ws" <<stephens.144@osu...>> wrote in message
news:<397DA28F.F49663F4@osu...>...
> Hello,
> My wife (bless her heart) brought home a new Taylor 310ce acoustic gtr
> as an anniversary gift for me last night
> I guess my ranting and drooling over pictures gave her an idea that I
> really wanted one, and it sounds awesome....... I love it!
> Anyway..............................
> I have a Large Diaphragm condenser mic and a small diaphragm condenser
> mic (budget mics) plus the "Fishman" stuff built into the gtr and a few
> of the normal dynamic 57/58 type of mics.
> I'm using (for now) a Tascam TMD 1000 for input mic pre's, then SPDIF
> over to my computer and Vegas Pro/SoundForge 4.5.
>
> I'm looking for experienced engineers ideas for mic placement on
> acoustics.
>
> I'm fairly new at recording in general and really want to capture as
> much of the natural tone as I can.
>
> I 've done alot of live mixing but not much with acoustics, and when I
> did it was always just stick 451 or sm81 infront of the sound hole and
> make it work.
>
> I'm sure there are areas that work better for recording, and hoped
> someone could impart a good starting point to save me some time.
>
> Thanks much for any advice............ you guys are great!
>
> Also,
> If any are interested in listening to some of the stuff I'm working in
> my home studio, please go to:
> http://welcome.to/backrounds
>
> I would welcome any ideas on mixing or arrangement of these songs
> Thanks again
>
From: MusicTECH Productions <mt4music@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Mic Placement on Acou Gtr
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:38:43 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
A one microphone technique that is pretty common is to use a small diaphragm
condensor (such as an AKG 451) and position it so that it is roughly
pointing at the junction of the neck and the body of the guitar, and angled
more towards the body. You can get in pretty close if you want that closer,
brighter sound, or you can move back and even up (then angled down towards
the guitar) from there until you find the sound you are after. The closer
to the body, the warmer the tone (typically), while the more you move up the
neck generally will make it brighter. Usually pointing right at the sound
hole is a bad idea because it will be too boomy. If you also have a large
diaphragm condenser and want to go for kind of a natural stereo image, I've
had good luck by using the above technique for the small microphone, and
then placing the large microphone near the other side of the guitar, aimed
roughly at the bridge... again moving it around to find the sweet spot for
that guitar. I've also had good luck in the past using a couple of small
diaphragm condensor (such as KM84s) set two or three feet in front of the
guitar, centered at the sound hole, but in an X-Y type of configuration (so
that neither mic is actually pointed right at the sound hole)... this gives
a different kind of natural stereo image and works even better when you are
in a really nice sounding room.
Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MusicTECH Productions
"Get it right the first time!"
http://www.music-tech.com
Home of the FREE Musicians' Classifieds
http://www.freemusiciansclassifieds.com
<stephen@music-tech...>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ws <<stephens.144@osu...>> wrote in message news:<397DA28F.F49663F4@osu...>...
> Hello,
> My wife (bless her heart) brought home a new Taylor 310ce acoustic gtr
> as an anniversary gift for me last night
> I guess my ranting and drooling over pictures gave her an idea that I
> really wanted one, and it sounds awesome....... I love it!
> Anyway..............................
> I have a Large Diaphragm condenser mic and a small diaphragm condenser
> mic (budget mics) plus the "Fishman" stuff built into the gtr and a few
> of the normal dynamic 57/58 type of mics.
> I'm using (for now) a Tascam TMD 1000 for input mic pre's, then SPDIF
> over to my computer and Vegas Pro/SoundForge 4.5.
>
> I'm looking for experienced engineers ideas for mic placement on
> acoustics.
>
> I'm fairly new at recording in general and really want to capture as
> much of the natural tone as I can.
>
> I 've done alot of live mixing but not much with acoustics, and when I
> did it was always just stick 451 or sm81 infront of the sound hole and
> make it work.
>
> I'm sure there are areas that work better for recording, and hoped
> someone could impart a good starting point to save me some time.
>
> Thanks much for any advice............ you guys are great!
>
> Also,
> If any are interested in listening to some of the stuff I'm working in
> my home studio, please go to:
> http://welcome.to/backrounds
>
> I would welcome any ideas on mixing or arrangement of these songs
> Thanks again
>
From: Geoff Ruby <geoffruby@idirect...>
Subject: Re: Mic Placement on Acou Gtr
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:17:06 GMT
Organization: Internet Look Communications - http://www.look.ca
Whew, nice present!! Maybe I should show this post to MY wife.
Anywho, um, you got the mics, you got a real nice guitar, take some time and
experiment. Acoustic guitars radiate sound from all over the body and neck
(not just the soundhole) and different frequencies will be
emphasized/diminished depending on a kajillion factors: the shape of the
guitar, the wood it was made with, the way the player handles the guitar,
how he/she plays, type of strings and guage, the phase of the moon etc.
Thats even before you decide where to put the the mic, which in turn affects
the reception of the soundwaves given off. So, lots of things to experiment
with.
That being said, I often start off with a small or mid sized diaphragm
condensor about 8" off the 12th fret and pointing to where the neck joins
the body. Too full sounding?, point a few frets up the neck (beware finger
squeaks). Too thin, try pointing more towards the body/soundhole from the
same starting position. Often this approach will make me happy. Sometimes it
will not. Depends what you're looking for.
So, in a nutshell, experiment. See where the Taylor is throwing off a sound
that you find pleasing. Move the mic around. Get another player in, have
them play, and stick a finger in one ear. Then move around the guitar like
that - closer, farther, different parts of the body, behind it, up the neck
etc. This will give you an approximation of what the mic will be hearing -
if you have one ear that is better than the other, use that one. Other
places i like to try are over my right shoulder looking back at the guitar,
sort of around my elbow of my right arm (I'm right handed) but in a bit.
Sometimes sticking a mic about a foot away from the bridge works wonders
too. Beware of sticking a mic in front of the soundhole - you tend to get a
lot of buildup @ 200 Hz there with a lot of mics due to the proximity
effect. this can translate to a very muddy sound even from an insturment
that is not particularly muddy sounding on its own. Also beware of sticking
a mic too close to the body of the guitar in general to avoid the build up
of muddy frequencies (as a general rule).
So, regarding what mic to use and where to put it: It all depends.
You have more than one mic, right?. Try a couple mics in different places.
It usually doesn't work for me - watch for phasiness if you sum the mics to
mono - but it might work wonders for you. Sometimes a good sounding acoustic
guitar in stereo can be a wonderful thing.
Experiment!!!
Good luck,
Geoff Ruby
ws wrote in message <<397DA28F.F49663F4@osu...>>...
>Hello,
>My wife (bless her heart) brought home a new Taylor 310ce acoustic gtr
>as an anniversary gift for me last night
>I guess my ranting and drooling over pictures gave her an idea that I
>really wanted one, and it sounds awesome....... I love it!
>Anyway..............................
>I have a Large Diaphragm condenser mic and a small diaphragm condenser
>mic (budget mics) plus the "Fishman" stuff built into the gtr and a few
>of the normal dynamic 57/58 type of mics.
>I'm using (for now) a Tascam TMD 1000 for input mic pre's, then SPDIF
>over to my computer and Vegas Pro/SoundForge 4.5.
>
>I'm looking for experienced engineers ideas for mic placement on
>acoustics.
>
>I'm fairly new at recording in general and really want to capture as
>much of the natural tone as I can.
>
>I 've done alot of live mixing but not much with acoustics, and when I
>did it was always just stick 451 or sm81 infront of the sound hole and
>make it work.
>
>I'm sure there are areas that work better for recording, and hoped
>someone could impart a good starting point to save me some time.
>
>Thanks much for any advice............ you guys are great!
>
> Also,
>If any are interested in listening to some of the stuff I'm working in
>my home studio, please go to:
>http://welcome.to/backrounds
>
>I would welcome any ideas on mixing or arrangement of these songs
>Thanks again
>
>
From: Michael R. Kesti <mkesti@gv...>
Subject: Re: Mic Placement on Acou Gtr
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 17:55:49 -0700
Organization: MK Associates
ws wrote:
> I'm looking for experienced engineers ideas for mic placement on
> acoustics.
Others have posted good advice, so I'll only add that you should not be
afraid to try what seem like unusual placements. Some guitars output
good sound from the bridge area and even more unusual places. Try it
and see if yours is one such. Have someone take a handheld mic and move
it around while you play and both listen on phones. If you find a nice
spot, you'll probably know it right away!
--
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make | two, one and one make one." mkesti@gv.net | - The Who, Bargain
From: Trevor Zylstra <staff@mars-music...>
Subject: Re: Mic Placement on Acou Gtr
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 03:52:59 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I usually prefer small diaphragm condensors for acoustics, but I
recently used the stereo Royer (which is a ribbon) and was amazed at
how great it sounded. Anyway, if you've got one small and one large
condensor (and they are both of adequate quality- none of this will
work very well if it is an AKG C1000), start with the small. Route the
mic's signal to the headphones, then while another guitarist plays,
experiment with placement. A good place to start is approximately
where the neck meets the body, approx. six inches away. Listen to the
way the guitar sound sustains in the headphones. Moving the mic around
you should find a spot where the sustain is good, while the quick
transients as the strings are hit remain nice and bright. When
experimenting with placement, adjust not only location of the mic but
also the orientation of the mic. With a Taylor, the transients should
sound good from many locations, it is a bright guitar, so move the mic
until the sustain sounds right. Usually the sound hole is not the
right place, since you tend to get a boomy sound, but occasionally the
sound hole works if the mic is angled. For smaller stringed
instruments like mandolins, the sound hole works much more often.
If you want to use the large diaphragm condensor as well, I'd first try
it low on the body of the guitar, back a little farther, but again you
want to experiment while listening to headphones. Don't be afraid to
try the omnidirectional and figure eight patterns if you have that
choice, depending on your room it may sound better.
I doubt you want anything from the Fishman, but then I've always
disliked the sound of piezo pickups. I think they make a guitar sound
like a harpsichord.
Trevor Zylstra
Mars Musical Adventures
715-381-3100/651-436-3877
ws <<stephens.144@osu...>> wrote:
> My wife (bless her heart) brought home a new Taylor 310ce acoustic gtr
> as an anniversary gift for me last night
> I guess my ranting and drooling over pictures gave her an idea that I
> really wanted one, and it sounds awesome....... I love it!
> Anyway..............................
> I have a Large Diaphragm condenser mic and a small diaphragm condenser
> mic (budget mics) plus the "Fishman" stuff built into the gtr and a few
> of the normal dynamic 57/58 type of mics.
> I'm using (for now) a Tascam TMD 1000 for input mic pre's, then SPDIF
> over to my computer and Vegas Pro/SoundForge 4.5.
>
> I'm looking for experienced engineers ideas for mic placement on
> acoustics.
>
> I'm fairly new at recording in general and really want to capture as
> much of the natural tone as I can.
>
> I 've done alot of live mixing but not much with acoustics, and when I
> did it was always just stick 451 or sm81 infront of the sound hole and
> make it work.
>
> I'm sure there are areas that work better for recording, and hoped
> someone could impart a good starting point to save me some time.
>
> Thanks much for any advice............ you guys are great!
>
> Also,
> If any are interested in listening to some of the stuff I'm working in
> my home studio, please go to:
> http://welcome.to/backrounds
>
> I would welcome any ideas on mixing or arrangement of these songs
> Thanks again
| mics for acoustic guitar [21] |
|---|
From: MusicTECH Productions <mt4music@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:47:17 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
When I was looking for such a microphone for my project studio, I was pretty
much used to using AKG 451s and Neumann KM84s at the big studio. I was also
looking for something easier to find and easier on the wallet, and someone
suggested the AT 4031 microphone. AT has some higher priced ones, but the
person I was dealing with thought that the 4031 was the best buy for the
money and would be the closest sounding to the 451. I worked on an acoustic
project with a friend of mine and we tracked guitars in the hallway of the
home I was in then with the AT 4031 running through a Drawmer 1960. We also
tracked some guitars for the same project out at the big studio I worked at
with an AKG 451 going through some really nice pre-amps and either an LA2A
or 1176. When we compared the tracks, the guitar player liked the sound I
got with the AT 4031 much better than what we did at the big studio. The AT
4031 is naturally a bit warmer sounding than the AKG 451, which tends to be
a bit brighter (which I usually like when I'm doing rock/pop stuff and there
are many other things in the mix). For the solo ac gtr stuff, the sound of
the AT 4031 was the winner for that particular project, with that guy's
particular guitar. All the tracks were very nice sounding, but he just
favored the sound of the AT4031 a bit more than the 451.
Steve
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MusicTECH Productions
"Get it right the first time!"
http://www.music-tech.com
Home of the FREE Musicians' Classifieds
http://www.freemusiciansclassifieds.com
<stephen@music-tech...>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
L Field <<lfield@uswest...>> wrote in message
news:Fkhf5.327$<JC1.60835@news...>...
> Does anyone have a good suggestion for a small condenser mic ,to use
> recording an acoustic guitar. On the back end I am using a Neumann103 but
> would like to use a small condenser by the neck. I realize that Neumann
> sells the 184's , but I don't know if the people I record are of the
quality
> that this mic would be worth buying. Any suggestions would be greatly
> appreciated!
>
> Kelly
>
>
>
From: Larry Williams <lwilliams@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 16:58:35 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
A/T 4041.. I have a pair and they're great for acoustic guitar. I think
they're about $250 each.
LW
L Field <<lfield@uswest...>> wrote in message
news:Fkhf5.327$<JC1.60835@news...>...
> Does anyone have a good suggestion for a small condenser mic ,to use
> recording an acoustic guitar. On the back end I am using a Neumann103 but
> would like to use a small condenser by the neck. I realize that Neumann
> sells the 184's , but I don't know if the people I record are of the
quality
> that this mic would be worth buying. Any suggestions would be greatly
> appreciated!
>
> Kelly
>
>
From: Brensolo <brensolo@aol...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: 25 Jul 2000 23:03:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I would just like to second the opinion on the AT 4041. A great value which
does a fine job.
Brendon
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 00 07:54:52 GMT
Organization: Technique, Inc.
In Article <Fkhf5.327$<JC1.60835@news...>>, "L Field"
<<lfield@uswest...>> wrote:
> Does anyone have a good suggestion for a small condenser mic ,to use
>recording an acoustic guitar. On the back end I am using a Neumann103 but
>would like to use a small condenser by the neck. I realize that Neumann
>sells the 184's , but I don't know if the people I record are of the quality
>that this mic would be worth buying. Any suggestions would be greatly
>appreciated!
>
>Kelly
Kelly,
Without knowing the context in which you plan to use the guitar track and
what the guitar itself sounds like, it's difficult to make suggestions.
The cardioids mentioned by others are good, but don't leave out the
possibility of a good omni worked within inches of the guitar.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford does narration, production and location audio. His equipment reviews and
V/O files can be found at http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 07:55:18 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
>"L Field" <<lfield@uswest...>> wrote:
>Does anyone have a good suggestion for a small condenser mic ,to use
>recording an acoustic guitar. On the back end I am using a Neumann103 but
>would like to use a small condenser by the neck. I realize that Neumann
>sells the 184's , but I don't know if the people I record are of the quality
>that this mic would be worth buying. Any suggestions would be greatly
>appreciated!
>
>Kelly
Kelly,
Lately I've been using an Audix 1/4" omni TR-40 calibration mic over the
guitarist's right shoulder, pointed down at floor, and the results have been
amazing. It minimizes finger squeeks as well. I'm sure any decent omni will
work fine. The Audix is under $300.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Erwin Timmerman <erwint@stack...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:43:23 +0200
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> Kelly,
>
> Lately I've been using an Audix 1/4" omni TR-40 calibration mic over the
> guitarist's right shoulder, pointed down at floor, and the results have been
> amazing.
Harvey,
how do you get the guitarist to sit still while playing?
I've used this technique with my Oktava and LOMO M1, and had good results.
However if I move just half an inch forward or backward the sound changes
dramatically. It makes me concentrate more on my position than on my
playing, which is not good for my playing, of course.
Greetings,
Erwin Timmerman
--
"Tell you one thing, when your solid state parts wear out you can't play
rocket ship with any of them."
-> Twang, in a discussion on alt.music.4-track about tubes vs transistors
Links to a lot of recording FAQs: http://go.to/recordingfaq
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:31:56 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Erwin Timmerman <<erwint@stack...>> wrote:
>Harvey Gerst wrote:
>>
>> Kelly,
>>
>> Lately I've been using an Audix 1/4" omni TR-40 calibration mic over the
>> guitarist's right shoulder, pointed down at floor, and the results have been
>> amazing.
>
>Harvey,
>
>how do you get the guitarist to sit still while playing?
>I've used this technique with my Oktava and LOMO M1, and had good results.
>However if I move just half an inch forward or backward the sound changes
>dramatically. It makes me concentrate more on my position than on my
>playing, which is not good for my playing, of course.
Erwin,
With the omni, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Sounds like you're in a whole
lot closer than I am. The mic should be at ear level, about 6" out from the
ear, and a foot or so in front of the guitarist. I'll try and take a picture of
the rough placement later today.
My son and I really like this way of miking acoustic guitars; it dramatically
lowers the sound of finger squeeks, and every guitarist we've used it on has
commented that it's the best sounding recording of their guitar without
question. You can hear the sound of that technique on Alex's r.a.p. CD entry
this year. It's a hi-strung (Nashville 6) Martin Sigma.
We may have just been lucky so far. When we get another Ovation thingy in to be
recorded, we'll put it to the real test.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Jim Gilliland <usemylastname@altavista...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 09:43:15 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Erwin Timmerman wrote:
>
> Harvey Gerst wrote:
> >
> > Lately I've been using an Audix 1/4" omni TR-40 calibration mic over the
> > guitarist's right shoulder, pointed down at floor, and the results have been
> > amazing.
>
> how do you get the guitarist to sit still while playing?
> I've used this technique with my Oktava and LOMO M1, and had good results.
> However if I move just half an inch forward or backward the sound changes
> dramatically. It makes me concentrate more on my position than on my
> playing, which is not good for my playing, of course.
I'm by no means an expert, but it seems to me that Harvey is talking
about a small diaphragm omni and you're talking about a large diaphragm
cardioid. I would think that your mic setup would be much more position
sensitive than his.
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:41:15 -0500
Organization: Psionic Media
I like the TLM 103 mebbe 18 inches in front of the 12th fret, angled back
towards the body. Though I've also had good luck with others, including
spaced Wright omnis. I'll try Harvey's approach with an MC012 with the omni
cap.
Depends on what the role of the guitar in the song is.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"Erwin Timmerman" <<erwint@stack...>> wrote in message
news:<3980043B.2E37E0@stack...>...
> Harvey Gerst wrote:
> >
> > Kelly,
> >
> > Lately I've been using an Audix 1/4" omni TR-40 calibration mic over the
> > guitarist's right shoulder, pointed down at floor, and the results have
been
> > amazing.
>
> Harvey,
>
> how do you get the guitarist to sit still while playing?
> I've used this technique with my Oktava and LOMO M1, and had good results.
> However if I move just half an inch forward or backward the sound changes
> dramatically. It makes me concentrate more on my position than on my
> playing, which is not good for my playing, of course.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Erwin Timmerman
>
> --
> "Tell you one thing, when your solid state parts wear out you can't play
> rocket ship with any of them."
> -> Twang, in a discussion on alt.music.4-track about tubes vs transistors
>
> Links to a lot of recording FAQs: http://go.to/recordingfaq
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 20:58:53 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
>Harvey Gerst <<harvey@ITRstudio...>> wrote:
>>Erwin Timmerman <<erwint@stack...>> wrote:
>>> Harvey Gerst wrote:
>>> Lately I've been using an Audix 1/4" omni TR-40 calibration mic over the
>>> guitarist's right shoulder, pointed down at floor, and the results have been
>>> amazing.
>>how do you get the guitarist to sit still while playing?
>>I've used this technique with my Oktava and LOMO M1, and had good results.
>>However if I move just half an inch forward or backward the sound changes
>>dramatically. It makes me concentrate more on my position than on my
>>playing, which is not good for my playing, of course.
>
>Erwin,
>With the omni, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Sounds like you're in a whole
>lot closer than I am. The mic should be at ear level, about 6" out from the
>ear, and a foot or so in front of the guitarist. I'll try and take a picture of
>the rough placement later today.
As promised, here's a side view of the setup:
http://www.ITRstudio.com/micguit1.gif
and a head-on view:
http://www.ITRstudio.com/micguit2.gif
The mic sits about 6" forward of the guitar face. Depending on the sound I'm
looking for, I'll move it in or out slightly, or move it up or down. But the
way it's pictured here usually gets me damn close right away.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Ted Spencer <prestokid@aol...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: 28 Jul 2000 03:48:09 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Harvey Gerst wrote:
>As promised, here's a side view of the setup:
>
>http://www.ITRstudio.com/micguit1.gif
>
>and a head-on view:
>
>http://www.ITRstudio.com/micguit2.gif
Harvey I just have to thank you for your generosity in taking the time to
photograph and upload your miking suggestion. I've tried setups like this with
good results (I call it the "thought mic" because it's so close to the player's
brain), but my hat is off to you for sharing your approach with others so
clearly. More of us should be doing this kind of thing.
Ted Spencer, NYC
"I'm a lot more like I used to be than I am" - James Taylor
From: Michael Vladimirsky <rtt@online...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:09:12 +0400
Organization: Golden Telecom
In the March 2000 issue of the Electronic Musician, available online, I
believe,
there is a comparative review of several small-diaphragm mics, including
EarthworksSR77, AudixSCX-one, Gefell m300, Oktava MC-012, etc. They had put
the mics on acoustic guitar as well.
Michael Vladimirsky
Russian Transducer Technologies
www.webcenter.ru/~rtt
Mike Rivers wrote:
>
>In article <<20000727234809.17740.00001143@ng-cg1...>> <prestokid@aol...>
writes:
>
>> >http://www.ITRstudio.com/micguit1.gif
>> >http://www.ITRstudio.com/micguit2.gif
>
>> Harvey I just have to thank you for your generosity in taking the time to
>> photograph and upload your miking suggestion.
>
>
>Those two pictures are truly worth 1000 words apiece. (though one by
>itself would only be worth about 25) It's so difficult to describe a
>mic setup in words and so easy to see it. And so much easier to see
>it from the eyes of a draftsman than of an art director (who would
>probalby take a shot which wouldn't give you any idea of the height
>above the guitar or the distance from the body.
>
>
>
>
>--
>I'm really Mike Rivers (<mrivers@d-and-d...>)
From: Erwin Timmerman <erwint@stack...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:32:20 +0200
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> >Harvey Gerst <<harvey@ITRstudio...>> wrote:
>
> >>Erwin Timmerman <<erwint@stack...>> wrote:
>
> >>> Harvey Gerst wrote:
> >>> Lately I've been using an Audix 1/4" omni TR-40 calibration mic over the
> >>> guitarist's right shoulder, pointed down at floor, and the results have been
> >>> amazing.
>
> >>how do you get the guitarist to sit still while playing?
> >>I've used this technique with my Oktava and LOMO M1, and had good results.
> >>However if I move just half an inch forward or backward the sound changes
> >>dramatically. It makes me concentrate more on my position than on my
> >>playing, which is not good for my playing, of course.
> >
> >Erwin,
> >With the omni, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Sounds like you're in a whole
> >lot closer than I am.
Well, not the height but I was a bit farther back. Which would mean if I
bend over just a little the mic would be picking up the side of the guitar
instead of the front of the guitar. Also I used the 012 cardioid capsule
and the LOMO (which is only cardioid as you know). So I'll try the omni
next time.
The sound I'm after is an "up close and crisp" sound, warm but not boomy.
My Tak EN20 Jumbo gets boomy quite fast (I hear the booms even with my ear
so how could the mic NOT hear it :-) and if I move further away the sound
becomes a bit thin to me. But maybe the omni will solve that, or at least
give a bit more constant sound because using the proximity effect to get a
sound makes you sit really still to keep that sound :-)
> As promised, here's a side view of the setup:
Thanks Harvey, you're the greatest.
Does this approach work for classical guitars as well? Somewhere at that
place (a bit behind the bridge, and a bit below the height the mic on the
photo is at) my classical has a nice spot as well, so I'll try that too.
Thanks again,
Erwin Timmerman
--
"Tell you one thing, when your solid state parts wear out you can't play
rocket ship with any of them."
-> Twang, in a discussion on alt.music.4-track about tubes vs transistors
Links to a lot of recording FAQs: http://go.to/recordingfaq
From: Arrgh <arrgh@greenapple...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 05:50:00 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:31:56 -0500, Harvey Gerst
<<harvey@ITRstudio...>> wrote:
>With the omni, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Sounds like you're in a whole
>lot closer than I am. The mic should be at ear level, about 6" out from the
>ear, and a foot or so in front of the guitarist. I'll try and take a picture of
>the rough placement later today.
Harvey,
I've been using an 012 omni similarly for several months,
and it's worked out real well for most tunes. However, my
variation on your setup:
about 6" out from the ear, about 6" above the head, and
about two feet in front... with an additional track of the
often described 'dynamic du-jour at the 12th fret aimed at
the body' thing.
Sometimes, the combination of these two tracks is just plain
nice. (Other times, one of the tracks gets muted in the
mix.) I've panned them opposite each other for a neato
stereo thing, or mixed them at the same position for a sound
you probably wouldn't get with just one mic. Obviously,
relative levels and EQs to taste, and watch out for phasing
stuff. Lots of 'games' you can play with the sounds of this
setup, depending upon what the song needs. F'rinstance, if
the acoustic needs to be more a percussive than melodic
instrument; roll off everything but upper-mids on the
dynamic, and everything but extreme highs on the 012.... the
dynamic catches all the percussive pick sound, and the 012
adds a little 'twinkle' to it.... or whatever, I think you
get the picture.
>We may have just been lucky so far. When we get another Ovation thingy in to be
>recorded, we'll put it to the real test.
>
>Harvey Gerst
>Indian Trail Recording Studio
>http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Been there, done that.... the dynamic ended up muted...
the sound? Well, I've heard a lot worse from an Ovation,
but...
Hmmmm... maybe different strings would help... ;-)
Tracy Wintermute
<arrgh@greenapple...>
Rushcreek Ranch
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:31:53 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Arrgh <<arrgh@greenapple...>> wrote:
>Harvey,
>I've been using an 012 omni similarly for several months,
>and it's worked out real well for most tunes. However, my
>variation on your setup:
>about 6" out from the ear, about 6" above the head, and
>about two feet in front... with an additional track of the
>often described 'dynamic du-jour at the 12th fret aimed at
>the body' thing.
>
>Sometimes, the combination of these two tracks is just plain
>nice. (Other times, one of the tracks gets muted in the
>mix.) I've panned them opposite each other for a neato
>stereo thing, or mixed them at the same position for a sound
>you probably wouldn't get with just one mic. Obviously,
>relative levels and EQs to taste, and watch out for phasing
>stuff. Lots of 'games' you can play with the sounds of this
>setup, depending upon what the song needs. F'rinstance, if
>the acoustic needs to be more a percussive than melodic
>instrument; roll off everything but upper-mids on the
>dynamic, and everything but extreme highs on the 012.... the
>dynamic catches all the percussive pick sound, and the 012
>adds a little 'twinkle' to it.... or whatever, I think you
>get the picture.
Tracy,
Wow, sounds like a great idea - I'll give it a try next time. Thanks.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:29:39 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
spud <<s-spud@mailcity...>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:31:56 -0500, Harvey Gerst <<harvey@ITRstudio...>> wrote:
>>>> Lately I've been using an Audix 1/4" omni TR-40 calibration mic over the
>>>> guitarist's right shoulder, pointed down at floor, and the results have been
>>>> amazing.
>Hi, how do you find the self noise of the Audix compares with the
>Earthworks TC30K? Similar sound quality? Thanks as always, s.
I haven't had any problems with noise from the Audix. I've never directly
compared them to the Earthworks TC30K, so I can't say what the differences are.
It seems to me like they should be about the same.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Rich <stomoaudio@aol...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: 27 Jul 2000 22:38:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lyle sez:
>I like the TLM 103 mebbe 18 inches in front of the 12th fret, angled back
>towards the body. Though I've also had good luck with others, including
>spaced Wright omnis.
I'll second that 103 placement. And I'll have to try the Wright set up - and I
wonder how Harvey's placement would work with Wrights. My fave so far is a
KM84 at 12th fret and another one opposite the end (jeez - what's that called,
anyway) angled toward the bridge. Adjust for mono. Yeah, I know...depends on
room, guitar, etc.
Hey - but what do I know? I'm too old to be part of the new guard, and too
green at this to be...well, you know. I hate those pigeonholes anyway.
Besides, I wouldn't fit in a million years.
Best...
Rich
Stolen Moments Audio
<StoMoAudio@aol...>
http://members.aol.com/stomoaudio
"Practice." --- Fletcher (Mar 15, 1999 11:44 AM)
From: <robadelman@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 00:38:16 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
In article <Fkhf5.327$<JC1.60835@news...>>,
"L Field" <lfield@uswest.net> wrote:> Does anyone have a good suggestion for a small condenser mic ,to
use
> recording an acoustic guitar. On the back end I am using a Neumann103
but
> would like to use a small condenser by the neck. I realize that
Neumann
> sells the 184's , but I don't know if the people I record are of the
quality
> that this mic would be worth buying. Any suggestions would be greatly
> appreciated!
>
> Kelly
>
Kelly, I feel that any good condenser mic will do that job, placement is
of course critical. I have an AKG C535 that I have used for that,and you
can pick them up for around 200.00. It is really a vocal mic, but works
well for acoustic guitar if placed properly. I also like an AT 4031, or
4041 for that.
Rob
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Jay - AtlDigi <atldigi@aol...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 22:54:26 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I'm jumping in late here so I've missed what's been suggested already,
but I've had great luck with an Earthworks through a Martech mic pre.
I've used plenty of other mics and combinations (B&K, Schoeps, AKG 451 -
I tend to like small diaphraghm condensors on acoustic guitar, but I've
also used tube mics and dynamic mics), but the Earthworks/Martech combo
was the one that I remember being most impressed with. It's the
instance that always comes to mind first when I think of acoustic guitar.
-Jay Frigoletto
http://www.promastering.com
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 00 07:24:59 GMT
Organization: Technique, Inc.
In Article <8m4gcv$n81$<1@news...>>, "Michael Vladimirsky"
<<rtt@online...>> wrote:
>
>In the March 2000 issue of the Electronic Musician, available online, I
>believe,
>there is a comparative review of several small-diaphragm mics, including
>EarthworksSR77, AudixSCX-one, Gefell m300, Oktava MC-012, etc. They had put
>the mics on acoustic guitar as well.
>
>Michael Vladimirsky
>Russian Transducer Technologies
>www.webcenter.ru/~rtt
I recorded some acoutic guitar tracks with my Harmony Soverign body
12-string over the weekend. Because it was already on the stand, I tried a
tlm 103 first, expecting to cut the bottom and fiddle with the orientation
to dump the lows. Turns out I just kootched it right up to within six inches
and got a really nice tone. Adding bit of 12K EQ and (wonder of wonders) a
bit of low end made an exceptionally nice recording.
This points up again that the particular guitar should determine the mic
used. My D28S Martin is way to big on the bottom to be recorded this way.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford does narration, production and location audio. His equipment reviews and
V/O files can be found at http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Gallimhabu <gallimhabu@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: mics for acoustic guitar
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:26:15 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I have used a pair of Neuman KM84i's or older KM84's on guitar for
years with great results. Recently I tried a pair of Gefel MV692's
and was stunned by the result. The best guitar sound I had found yet.
Especially in stereo. Finding a pair of MV692's would be tough
though, they are not made anymore. However Gefel uses the same
capsule in the M294 they changed the preamp from the simplex type
requiring a separate power supply used in the 692 to a Phantom 48v
configuration. There are other mics that will work well, you must
decide how "bright" or "warm" you want to sound. The AKG small
condensors....451/461 are quite bright. The KM 84 was fairly warm.
Buying good mics makes good sense, a good mic will make a marginal
player sound good and a good player sound great. So if you can
afford it buy the best mic that you like.
Gallimhabu
> Does anyone have a good suggestion for a small condenser mic ,to use
>recording an acoustic guitar. On the back end I am using a Neumann103 but
>would like to use a small condenser by the neck. I realize that Neumann
>sells the 184's , but I don't know if the people I record are of the quality
>that this mic would be worth buying. Any suggestions would be greatly
>appreciated!
>
>Kelly
>
| Microphone question (s) [25] |
|---|
From: cjpark1 <cjpark1@home...>
Subject: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:34:24 GMT
Organization: @Home Network
Howdy Folks,
Here we go again. I hope I can get my question across and have itunderstood so as to not hurt feelings or anger anyone. Ah, what the
hey!!
On RMMGA CD #1 I did "Always On My Mind". It was recorded in myback room which has a ceiling that ranges up to 9 feet. The room is
20X24 and opens into the rest of the house. There are large windows and
a 10 foot slider out to the deck. My recording equipment was a Tascam
414 Portastudio, Shure 58 for vocal and for guitar either a Shure 57 or
a Fishman dual blender, I can't remember.
OK here is the question.Everyone says it sounds like me and sounds natural. Can I soundmore like me with expensive gear? I want to sound like me and I want it
to be natural. Am I missing something?
Mike Pugh recorded at EC 3 and I didn't see any expensive mics andthat all came out sounding natural, as in just like you were there.
Once again this is not intended to cause flames. It is somethingthat has been bugging me for a long time.
Charles Park
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: 09 Aug 2000 17:23:25 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:34:24 GMT, cjpark1 <<cjpark1@home...>> brewed up
the following, and served it to the group:
<snip>
> Everyone says it sounds like me and sounds natural. Can I sound
>more like me with expensive gear? I want to sound like me and I want it
>to be natural. Am I missing something?
>
> Mike Pugh recorded at EC 3 and I didn't see any expensive mics and
>that all came out sounding natural, as in just like you were there.
No flames here, Charles--IMHO, go with what works. The Shure SM58 is
a time-tested, bullet-proof workhorse of a microphone. You can easily
go out and spend thousands on mics--and if you're setting up a
megabucks studio, it's probably not a bad idea. But for home
recording on a 4-track machine, I don't see how you can go wrong with
the SM58 for vocals and SM57 for instruments (hell, I used the SM57
for vocals for close to 20 years, until I finally got the SM58...).
I stayed out of the gear wars threads--but I'll throw my $0.02 in
here...nobody's cross-posting, right? B-{)}
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: IICor.5:18-20 <transparency_76@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 15:18:10 -0400
That's right. In this case, your bottleneck as far as recorded sound quality
is your recording equipment, not your mics. In other words, at least in my
experience, the SM-58 and SM-57, when set up properly, have better audio
specs than a standard 4 track cassette tape recorded can record. If you had
a HD/minidisk/DAT recorder, mediums with better sound reproduction and
recording qualities than a cassette tape, then you would reach a point at
which your equipment could record at a higher fidelity than those mics could
provide, in which case you would want to go buy a better mic. But with that
setup, you would just be wasting money on a $1000 vocal mic.
-Ben
"Bill Chandler" <<drink@yourown...>> wrote in message
news:<ga43psgsp69jhtec2tp1egqs3mmlguugkk@4ax...>...
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:34:24 GMT, cjpark1 <<cjpark1@home...>> brewed up
> the following, and served it to the group:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Everyone says it sounds like me and sounds natural. Can I sound
> >more like me with expensive gear? I want to sound like me and I want it
> >to be natural. Am I missing something?
> >
> > Mike Pugh recorded at EC 3 and I didn't see any expensive mics and
> >that all came out sounding natural, as in just like you were there.
>
> No flames here, Charles--IMHO, go with what works. The Shure SM58 is
> a time-tested, bullet-proof workhorse of a microphone. You can easily
> go out and spend thousands on mics--and if you're setting up a
> megabucks studio, it's probably not a bad idea. But for home
> recording on a 4-track machine, I don't see how you can go wrong with
> the SM58 for vocals and SM57 for instruments (hell, I used the SM57
> for vocals for close to 20 years, until I finally got the SM58...).
>
> I stayed out of the gear wars threads--but I'll throw my $0.02 in
> here...nobody's cross-posting, right? B-{)}
>
> -----
> "The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
> looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
> --Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
>
> the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.
> the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
>
> Bill Chandler
> ...bc...
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:31:39 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
IICor.5:18-20 <<transparency_76@hotmail...>> wrote:
> the SM-58 and SM-57, when set up properly, have better audio
> specs than a standard 4 track cassette tape recorded can record
But recorders don't record specs, they record music, and they work with
what we send them. Every link in the signal chain can be influential,
for better or worse. While it makes little sense to spend money you
really shouldn't on gear that won''t pay for itself, if you don't incur
hardship due to buying better gear, even your lowly 4-tracker cassette
will appreciate the improvement. If/when you decide to upgrade to a
better storage medium you will have more of the classier ducks in a row
to dress up for show and tell.
--
hank sez "You got to get it while you can!"To order the seven-CD set of "Bohemian R.A.P CD"
see http://www.hoohahrecords.com/rapA Public Service Announcement from secret mountain
From: Jcarp <jcarpenterNOjcSPAM@usuhs...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 10:23:38 -0700
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
Charles,
Those are excellent questions and I can see no reason why they
would offend. I have similar questions. I'm not that intersted
in mics for recording, but rather would like to know more about
what I might choose to plug into the second channel of my amp for
a small gig sometime. Maybe that's a stupid idea, I'm just not
up on this stuff.
jcarp
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:31:41 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Bob Dorgan <<d77737@epix...>> wrote:
> For vocals, SM58, for instrument SM57.
> Cheap, clean, reliable.
> There are certainly better mics on the market, but I haven't seen any at
> this price point.
Might want to take a listen to the Audixes in their lower priced
spreads, like the OM3xb, which costs very little more that an SM58 and
slays it without sweating, IMO. I've not tried the OM2, nor the OM4, but
I have a pair of OM5s I use often for vox and sometimes on swing fiddle
for SR work. They are a tad sensitive to handling noise, which I'm told
the OM6 mitigates.
--
hank sez "You got to get it while you can!"To order the seven-CD set of "Bohemian R.A.P CD"
see http://www.hoohahrecords.com/rapA Public Service Announcement from secret mountain
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: 9 Aug 2000 18:31:59 GMT
Organization: Library of Congress
In <<0de03810.7b28f93e@usw-ex0105-040...>>, Jcarp <<jcarpenterNOjcSPAM@usuhs...>> writes:
>Charles,
>
>Those are excellent questions and I can see no reason why they
>would offend. I have similar questions. I'm not that intersted
>in mics for recording, but rather would like to know more about
>what I might choose to plug into the second channel of my amp for
>a small gig sometime. Maybe that's a stupid idea, I'm just not
>up on this stuff.
>
>jcarp
>
Charles, Jim,
I think for the EC3 recordings almost everyone sang through the Sennheiser E835
that I brought. It's very similar in price and quality to a Shure SM58. The specs
are a little better than the SM58. Sennheiser has packaged the mic, a very
decent boom stand and 20' XLR cable and most stores have these for about
$100-$120. MARS is selling a E825 (slightly lesser mic) package for about $100.
It's a decent workhorse stage mic for vocals.
I don't think it would be the first thing I'd jump for recording solo acoustic guitar,
but I believe Chuck Boyer's recordings were made with Sennheiser E835's.
I think his cuts on CD 1 are among the best sounding of the whole bunch.
I've gotten better recording results with my rig using the built in Crown mic and
Fishman saddle transducer on my Collings probably because the room is lousy and
I don't like messing with mic placement or like staying still when I play.
When the audiophiles weigh in we'll all learn that we can't possibly be getting
decent recordings without $2K Neumann's, but that's a whole 'nother league.
Dick Thaxter
From: Chuck Boyer <chuck@caboyer...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 21:20:01 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Cox
"Dick Thaxter" <<rtha@loc...>> wrote in message news:8ms82v$mklc$<1@rs7...>...
| --- snippage ---
| I don't think it would be the first thing I'd jump for recording solo acoustic
guitar,
| but I believe Chuck Boyer's recordings were made with Sennheiser E835's.
| I think his cuts on CD 1 are among the best sounding of the whole bunch.
Thanks, Dick -- yes, I'm using a pair of E835's; Veneman's had
them on sale with stands back when I was gearing up for CD1.
I record through the front end of a Tascam 424 Mk II into a Sony
MZ-R30 or direct into the Turtle Beach Montego sound card on
my PC. IIRC, that 'Bony Crossing the Alps' piece I posted on
mp3.com was recorded directly to the PC -- not that you could
tell much difference after the mp3 encoding... ;-)
Cheers!
Chuck Boyer
From: Chuck Boyer <chuck@caboyer...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 21:41:19 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Cox
Forgot a couple of things on the previous reply... :-)
Dick Thaxter wrote...
| I don't think it would be the first thing I'd jump for recording solo acoustic
guitar,
| but I believe Chuck Boyer's recordings were made with Sennheiser E835's.
The sale price (with stands) was just over $100 at the time.
| When the audiophiles weigh in we'll all learn that we can't possibly be
getting
| decent recordings without $2K Neumann's, but that's a whole 'nother league.
At the risk of igniting another flash fire, I recall the first time I heard
my guitar through headphones -- Al Petteway had just gotten some
new large diaphragm condenser mics and wanted to play with them.
(Show them off, really ;-) Put them in front of my D-1R, and into his
(warning: flashpoint ;-) Mackie mixer, and then into some headphones
with specs that exceed my ears'. I was blown away by the crispness
and depth. I forget which mics they were, but the combination was
better than my ears could keep up with. My setup doesn't come close.
Cheers!
Chuck
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:31:43 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Chuck Boyer <<chuck@caboyer...>> wrote:
> At the risk of igniting another flash fire, I recall the first time I heard
> my guitar through headphones -- Al Petteway had just gotten some
> new large diaphragm condenser mics and wanted to play with them.
> (Show them off, really ;-) Put them in front of my D-1R, and into his
> (warning: flashpoint ;-) Mackie mixer, and then into some headphones
> with specs that exceed my ears'. I was blown away by the crispness
> and depth. I forget which mics they were, but the combination was
> better than my ears could keep up with. My setup doesn't come close.
Interestingly, IME the Mackies pres don't work very well with the SM58
and SM57, and perhaps other dynamic mics that are very sensitive to the
load they see from the preamp. Moving my SM57 from my Mackie 1202 to the
Great River or the Phoenix preamp adds at least a thousand bucks worth
of apparent sound value to the el cheapo mic. The big condensors work
much better with the affordable transformerless mic pres and hence
represent a good investment in sound quality even if you only have a
fairly lowly pre. If you like ribbon mics on fingerstyle guitar then we
can forget about the Mackie-esque pres, as they just don't hit against
that pitcher.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Chuck Boyer <chuck@caboyer...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:49:12 GMT
Organization: RoadRunner - Cox
"hank alrich" wrote...
| ...
| of apparent sound value to the el cheapo mic. The big condensors work
| much better with the affordable transformerless mic pres and hence
| represent a good investment in sound quality even if you only have a
| fairly lowly pre. If you like ribbon mics on fingerstyle guitar then we
| can forget about the Mackie-esque pres, as they just don't hit against
| that pitcher.
Yo, Hoink! how 'ya doin? If you haven't checked out the
RMMGA East list lately, please do. We'll be congregating
at Dale's on 2 Sep.
As to the mikes, etc... I'm a fair enough EE, but neither a true
"muso" nor a sound guy. In fact my hearing's not all that great,
and I'm easily impressed. If you're ever interested in building
custom preamps sometime, give me a holler. Better yet, give
Tom Loredo a call. He's built and tested all manner of such,
although I think his efforts have been directed more toward
pickups than mics.
Cheers!
Chuck Boyer
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 22:30:34 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Chuck Boyer <<chuck@caboyer...>> wrote:
> If you're ever interested in building
> custom preamps sometime, give me a holler.
I'm so very happy with my Great River and Phoenix pres that I don't
hanker for much more than fifteen or twenty more great preamps and a few
dozen fine mics for each of 'em. <g>
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Garrett Kenehan <gkenehan@rohan...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: 10 Aug 2000 05:42:39 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University
In article <8ms82v$mklc$<1@rs7...>>, Dick Thaxter <<rtha@loc...>> wrote:
>
>When the audiophiles weigh in we'll all learn that we can't possibly be getting
>decent recordings without $2K Neumann's, but that's a whole 'nother league.
>
>Dick Thaxter
I'm no audiophile (I use standard power cords :)), but I do use a $199
Rode NT1, which is a cardiod copy of a U87. It sounds great, though you
need a mixer that has phantom power. Gets you into the major studio
league without major studio bucks.
Actually I use two for stereo, but who's counting. And I still suck (but
sound fairly good sucking -- at guitar, people!).
-Garrett
From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:00:36 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Dick Thaxter wrote:
> I think for the EC3 recordings almost everyone sang through the
Sennheiser E835
> that I brought. It's very similar in price and quality to a Shure
SM58. The specs
> are a little better than the SM58. Sennheiser has packaged the mic,
a very
> decent boom stand and 20' XLR cable and most stores have these for
about
> $100-$120.
I'll be going to pick up a couple of these then. I really liked that
mic...from the sound desk, I could hear a significant difference
between it and my SM58 knockoffs that were at the other mic stands.
I've got some real 58's at home that didn't make the travelling squad
for that trip (OK, I grabbed the wrong mic cases), and they don't sound
as nice as your Sennheisers.
--
Michael Pugh
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: 10 Aug 2000 12:44:30 GMT
Organization: Library of Congress
In <8mu5h2$ef1$<1@nnrp1...>>, No Busking <<nobusking@yahoo...>> writes:
>Dick Thaxter wrote:
>
>> I think for the EC3 recordings almost everyone sang through the
>Sennheiser E835
>> that I brought. It's very similar in price and quality to a Shure
>SM58. The specs
>> are a little better than the SM58. Sennheiser has packaged the mic,
>a very
>> decent boom stand and 20' XLR cable and most stores have these for
>about
>> $100-$120.
>
>I'll be going to pick up a couple of these then. I really liked that
>mic...from the sound desk, I could hear a significant difference
>between it and my SM58 knockoffs that were at the other mic stands.
>I've got some real 58's at home that didn't make the travelling squad
>for that trip (OK, I grabbed the wrong mic cases), and they don't sound
>as nice as your Sennheisers.
>
>--
>Michael Pugh
>
>
Mike,
Check the box carefully as the ones I've seen at MARS lately are E825's, not 835's
The stand, mic, and cable come in a big white box called an "e-Pack" or
somesuch. Got mine at Veneman's but all the stores got them in about
a year and a half ago.
Actually, you probably don't need stands, but I have seen the mic separately
but it was like $99--more or less the same as an SM58.
Dick
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:31:42 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Dick Thaxter <<rtha@loc...>> wrote:
> When the audiophiles weigh in we'll all learn that we can't possibly be
> getting decent recordings without $2K Neumann's, but that's a whole
> 'nother league.
The $2K Neumanns can't hold a candle to the $4.5K Brauner VM1, you
cheapskate. <g> But then, I can't budget for audiophilia, either.
Decent recordings depend on decent source material and intelligent
application of whatever tools one has available. Still, there is a
stratosphere of audio fidelity, and if that air is rare, it's also often
sweet. But feed it crappy sounding source material and we'll get to
appreciate that crappy-soundingness to its fullest.
Once upon a time at a trade show I got to hear Rick Ruskin through a
$7.5K Brauner VMS-1 (stereo for less than the price of two mono
Brauners) into a $4.5K Drawmer 1962 preamp (and compressor/24-bit DAC)
into $5K Klein & Hummel self-powered triamped nearfields, and even in
the lousy tradeshow monitoring environment I doubt anyone would've
wanted to start swapping-out stuff for SM58s and Mackies. Gorgeous
source material through a wonderful signal chain is a joy to behold.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:06:37 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich) wrote:
>Dick Thaxter <<rtha@loc...>> wrote:
>
>> When the audiophiles weigh in we'll all learn that we can't possibly be
>> getting decent recordings without $2K Neumann's, but that's a whole
>> 'nother league.
>
>The $2K Neumanns can't hold a candle to the $4.5K Brauner VM1, you
>cheapskate. <g> But then, I can't budget for audiophilia, either.
>
>Decent recordings depend on decent source material and intelligent
>application of whatever tools one has available. Still, there is a
>stratosphere of audio fidelity, and if that air is rare, it's also often
>sweet. But feed it crappy sounding source material and we'll get to
>appreciate that crappy-soundingness to its fullest.
>
>Once upon a time at a trade show I got to hear Rick Ruskin through a
>$7.5K Brauner VMS-1 (stereo for less than the price of two mono
>Brauners) into a $4.5K Drawmer 1962 preamp (and compressor/24-bit DAC)
>into $5K Klein & Hummel self-powered triamped nearfields, and even in
>the lousy tradeshow monitoring environment I doubt anyone would've
>wanted to start swapping-out stuff for SM58s and Mackies. Gorgeous
>source material through a wonderful signal chain is a joy to behold.
Hank, one small correction. There was no Drawmer 1962 preamp used, as I recall.
The line out on the Brauner mic box went directly into the HHB CD recorder we
were using. No outboard preamp, no eq, no compression - no nothin' but Rick,
the mic, and the recorder. The output of the HHB feed a multi-tap setup to
various Drawmer stuff and the K&H speakers for visitors to play with. I could
be wrong.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 01:52:59 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich) wrote:
>Harvey Gerst <<harvey@ITRstudio...>> wrote:
>> Hank, one small correction. There was no Drawmer 1962 preamp used, as I
>> recall. The line out on the Brauner mic box went directly into the HHB CD
>> recorder we were using. No outboard preamp, no eq, no compression - no
>> nothin' but Rick, the mic, and the recorder. The output of the HHB feed a
>> multi-tap setup to various Drawmer stuff and the K&H speakers for visitors
>> to play with. I could be wrong.
>Thanks, Harvey. I thought that Drawmer box was doing the preamping of
>the Brauner and Soundfield mics, and also ADC for the burners. Shows
>what I know!
Hank, as I said, I could be dead wrong. I'm sure I have some pictures here
somewhere. If it was a Drawmer 1962, then yes, it would be the preamp section
only, no eq or compression used.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 17:26:01 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 16:34:24 GMT, cjpark1 <<cjpark1@home...>> wrote:
>
>Howdy Folks,
>
> Here we go again. I hope I can get my question across and have it
>understood so as to not hurt feelings or anger anyone. Ah, what the
>hey!!
>
> On RMMGA CD #1 I did "Always On My Mind". It was recorded in my
>back room which has a ceiling that ranges up to 9 feet. The room is
>20X24 and opens into the rest of the house. There are large windows and
>a 10 foot slider out to the deck. My recording equipment was a Tascam
>414 Portastudio, Shure 58 for vocal and for guitar either a Shure 57 or
>a Fishman dual blender, I can't remember.
>
> OK here is the question.
>
> Everyone says it sounds like me and sounds natural. Can I sound
>more like me with expensive gear? I want to sound like me and I want it
>to be natural. Am I missing something?
>
> Mike Pugh recorded at EC 3 and I didn't see any expensive mics and
>that all came out sounding natural, as in just like you were there.
>
> Once again this is not intended to cause flames. It is something
>that has been bugging me for a long time.
>
>Charles Park
1. Better gear makes it easier to get the sonic results you are
after.
2. Better gear takes you from natural/acceptable to natural/more
pleasing sounding. The better the gear, the more pleasing and
flexible things get. Spend enough on the right pieces, you can make
it all the way up to "what-kinda-sound-you want/stellar."
The quality of equipment you now have is well matched. Right now, the
weakest link is probably the Tascam portastudio. Cassette based units
are mid-fi at best. If you got a separate mixer and multitrack unit
you would notice the difference right away. Better mics would move
things along even further up the performance chain.
There is a limit to how good a mic will will work well with the
portastudio because the mic preamps will run out of headroom with
too-hot a mic. That's why I suggest replacing the Tascam unit 1st.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 20:40:14 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 19:13:13 GMT, "JD Blackwell"
<<jd.blackwell@gte...>> wrote:
>
>Rick Ruskin <<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote in message
>news:<39919157.12302156@news...>...
>
>(snip)
>> There is a limit to how good a mic will will work well with the
>> portastudio because the mic preamps will run out of headroom with
>> too-hot a mic. That's why I suggest replacing the Tascam unit 1st.
>
>Ahh, but with what? Some of the digital recorders are awfully popular like
>the Korg D8 or the new D16. The Rolands and Akais are just a shade spendier
>but also popular. I know you're an analog kind of guy so what say you on the
>subject and are any of the small portables equipped with decent enough mic
>pres to make a Neumann worthwhile.
>
>JD
>
I puposely didn't recommend anything in particular because I don't
have any idea how deeply Charles wants to get into recording.
I can't help you on your question because I pay no attention to the
"portable audio" world what-so-ever. I do believe it's somewhat of a
waste of time to plug a Neumann into a crappy mic pre. The level that
current condensors throw down the wire will scare those cheap
front-ends right into distortion. You would want something at least
as good as the Mackie units but there's lots better out there if you
have the $$$.
I don't know where you got the idea that I'm an "analog kind of guy."
I have and use both digital and analog all the time. Both have their
advantages/disadvantages. I _am_ a "tape" kind of guy, however - at
least for multitracking and mixing. The hard-drive is reserved for
mastering and editing.
If cost was no object, I'd get a Sony 3348 (a 48 trk digital reel to
reel) and some flavor of late model Studer Analog 24 track for analog
work. I'd probably mix to 1/2" or 1/4" analog reel to reel @ 15 or
30ips. Whichever sounded better on the specific musical material.
The above notwithstanding, I cannot complain about the performance of
my DA-88's, modified Fostex 16 track, and bevy of other sonic tools.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: JD Blackwell <jd.blackwell@gte...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 21:33:57 GMT
Rick Ruskin <<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote in message
news:<3991bc4c.23296878@news...>...
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 19:13:13 GMT, "JD Blackwell"
> <<jd.blackwell@gte...>> wrote:
>
> >
> >Rick Ruskin <<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote in message
> >news:<39919157.12302156@news...>...
> >
> >(snip)
> >> There is a limit to how good a mic will will work well with the
> >> portastudio because the mic preamps will run out of headroom with
> >> too-hot a mic. That's why I suggest replacing the Tascam unit 1st.
> >
> >Ahh, but with what? Some of the digital recorders are awfully popular
like
> >the Korg D8 or the new D16. The Rolands and Akais are just a shade
spendier
> >but also popular. I know you're an analog kind of guy so what say you on
the
> >subject and are any of the small portables equipped with decent enough
mic
> >pres to make a Neumann worthwhile.
> >
> >JD
> >
>
> I puposely didn't recommend anything in particular because I don't
> have any idea how deeply Charles wants to get into recording.
I doubt any of us wants to get into it that deep, at least not in the
context of rmmga.
>
> I can't help you on your question because I pay no attention to the
> "portable audio" world what-so-ever. I do believe it's somewhat of a
> waste of time to plug a Neumann into a crappy mic pre. The level that
> current condensors throw down the wire will scare those cheap
> front-ends right into distortion. You would want something at least
> as good as the Mackie units but there's lots better out there if you
> have the $$$.
At the risk of sounding dumb does that mean that it's preferable to run
through a decent board with it's mic pre's than to go direct into the
recorder like most amateurs do?
>
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that I'm an "analog kind of guy."
> I have and use both digital and analog all the time. Both have their
> advantages/disadvantages. I _am_ a "tape" kind of guy, however - at
> least for multitracking and mixing. The hard-drive is reserved for
> mastering and editing.
Analog is kind of an arcane art as I understand it. Word on the street is
that you have better ears and skills with analog than the average bear.
>
> If cost was no object, I'd get a Sony 3348 (a 48 trk digital reel to
> reel) and some flavor of late model Studer Analog 24 track for analog
> work. I'd probably mix to 1/2" or 1/4" analog reel to reel @ 15 or
> 30ips. Whichever sounded better on the specific musical material.
I actually know people who put that kind of gear in their hobby studios but
they're filthy rich and don't worry about making money with it. I think most
of us would be using the VS-1680 as the high dollar benchmark. I guess the
question is more along the lines of how to use that type of thing best
without pissing up a rope using mics that are too hot. And is digital the
way to go for amateur "portable" users?
JD
>
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 21:52:28 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>
>At the risk of sounding dumb does that mean that it's preferable to run
>through a decent board with it's mic pre's than to go direct into the
>recorder like most amateurs do?
Usually.
>>
>>
>> I don't know where you got the idea that I'm an "analog kind of guy."
>> I have and use both digital and analog all the time. Both have their
>> advantages/disadvantages. I _am_ a "tape" kind of guy, however - at
>> least for multitracking and mixing. The hard-drive is reserved for
>> mastering and editing.
>
>Analog is kind of an arcane art as I understand it. Word on the street is
>that you have better ears and skills with analog than the average bear.
One's processes of recording digital and analog are the same. You
listen to the source and get the best/preferred sound on the way in.
Then you listen back. Each type of storage does its own "thing(s)" to
the sound. You adjust your working methods to those "things" until
you're satisfied with the results. What's so arcane about that?
>>
>> If cost was no object, I'd get a Sony 3348 (a 48 trk digital reel to
>> reel) and some flavor of late model Studer Analog 24 track for analog
>> work. I'd probably mix to 1/2" or 1/4" analog reel to reel @ 15 or
>> 30ips. Whichever sounded better on the specific musical material.
>
>I actually know people who put that kind of gear in their hobby studios but
>they're filthy rich and don't worry about making money with it. I think most
>of us would be using the VS-1680 as the high dollar benchmark. I guess the
>question is more along the lines of how to use that type of thing best
>without pissing up a rope using mics that are too hot. And is digital the
>way to go for amateur "portable" users?
If that's your target machine, check out the combination @ the dealer.
Chances are this unit will give you decent, respectable recordings
with a wide variety of mics. Ask to see a block diagram and look for
the mic-pre's 1st gain stage. Is there a trimmer and/or attenuation
switch ahead of it? If so, you're probably fine. Any such device
after is pretty useless. Once the front end goes into distortion, no
amount of trimming after the fact will solve the problem. BTW - if
the sales staff doesn't know what a block diagram is, find another
dealer.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 23:10:42 +0100
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
If you wait till tomorrow, I should be posting details of five 30-second
test tracks on mp3.com - they are awaiting approval. I rigged up four
simultaneously sources recorded on four separate tracks, and played one
piece. Two were mikes, two were pickups. I'll post full info just as soon as
the tests are available. I just wish I could manage to record eight sources
at once.
One thing I can tell you, which I am now convinced is the way forward for
top grade recordings, is that multi-miking and pickup-ing followed by a
stereo mixdown of ALL the results creates a superb, complex, rich and
surprisingly accurate sound. The fifth track demonstrates this, and I have
also put the entire 4-minute recording up which reverb added to just one of
the four tracks, and two of them hard panned, to create the full image I
wanted.
If it is of any help, I have not really found digital recording very much
superior to the Tascam when it was brand new and had top quality, purpose
made tapes and was run at the double speed with careful preamping before
input. When my Tascam got to be three years old, and the heads needed
degaussing and cleaning or whatever you do, and I had re-used tapes or
bought cheap regular tapes, I got some poor recordings. But a good, well
maintained Tascam can still do a very acceptable one-take multitrack (if you
intend to multitrack or edit in any way, digital MD or HD is the only way to
go - it transforms life and saves you HOURS).
David
--
Subscribe to our magazines by secure CC transaction - get Freelance
Photographer, The Master Photographer or Minolta Image:
http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Make me rich! Buy my CD or listen to my songs and instrumentals:
http://www.mp3.com/DavidKilpatrick
Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
From: George Reiswig <george.reiswig@intel...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:26:54 -0700
Organization: Intel Corporation
Charles,
I tend to agree with Rick. Of course, upgrading mics in the meantimemight also benefit live performances. Try an AKG C-535EB for vocals some
time...best bang for the buck out there, as far as I can see. Or if you
want REALLY good vocals, and something that is really good in the studio
too, try a Neumann KMS-105. For recording guitar, get an Oktava MC-012 from
the Sound Room.
I'm still not convinced that the goal is always to sound "exactly like"the voice, or the guitar. The goal I seek, more often than not, is what is
the most flattering sound? The mics you mention will do nicely for a lot of
things, but they tend to have peaks in the 4-5kHz range, and not a very
transparent high frequency response.
You never know until you try...GR
Rick Ruskin wrote in message <<39919157.12302156@news...>>...
>1. Better gear makes it easier to get the sonic results you are
>after.
>2. Better gear takes you from natural/acceptable to natural/more
>pleasing sounding. The better the gear, the more pleasing and
>flexible things get. Spend enough on the right pieces, you can make
>it all the way up to "what-kinda-sound-you want/stellar."
>
>The quality of equipment you now have is well matched. Right now, the
>weakest link is probably the Tascam portastudio. Cassette based units
>are mid-fi at best. If you got a separate mixer and multitrack unit
>you would notice the difference right away. Better mics would move
>things along even further up the performance chain.
>
>There is a limit to how good a mic will will work well with the
>portastudio because the mic preamps will run out of headroom with
>too-hot a mic. That's why I suggest replacing the Tascam unit 1st.
>
>
>
>Rick Ruskin
>Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
>http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
>http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
>
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Microphone question (s)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 19:56:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
George Reiswig <<george.reiswig@intel...>> wrote in message
news:8msb84$<cbv@news...>...
> Charles,
> I tend to agree with Rick. Of course, upgrading mics in the meantime
> might also benefit live performances. Try an AKG C-535EB for vocals some
> time...best bang for the buck out there, as far as I can see. Or if you
> want REALLY good vocals, and something that is really good in the studio
> too, try a Neumann KMS-105. For recording guitar, get an Oktava MC-012
from
> the Sound Room.
> I'm still not convinced that the goal is always to sound "exactly
like"
> the voice, or the guitar. The goal I seek, more often than not, is what
is
> the most flattering sound? The mics you mention will do nicely for a lot
of
> things, but they tend to have peaks in the 4-5kHz range, and not a very
> transparent high frequency response.
> You never know until you try...
The 535 imo is one of the best values in mics today a real can do it all
mic
George Gleason
| speaking of the KMS-105 [2] |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: speaking of the KMS-105
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 21:12:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Yes I got an advance production unit last dec that I used at Folk Alliance
in Manhatten It is the finest live vox mic I have ever touched It is so
worth the money as to make one cry who does not have 600$ for a single live
vox mic I have 2 now and as soon as I can will have 8 of them!!!! if you
canbuy one asap
the earthworks is also great at 1/2 the price SR69 i think is the model
Tom Gruning <<tgruning@ccwf...>> wrote in message
news:8msgfk$hvp$<1@geraldo...>...
>
> Hey George,
> Not to change the subject but, I've been looking at the Neumann KMS-105
> (specs, testimonials, etc.) but haven't had a chance to test drive one. Do
> you have any live-sound hands-on with this mic and if so, what was your
> impression?
> Thanks,
> Tom Gruning
> <tgruning@ccwf...>
> <tcs_obscure@yahoo...>
> http://www.geocities.com/tcs_obscure/
> "George Reiswig" <<george.reiswig@intel...>> wrote in message
> news:8msb84$<cbv@news...>...
> >Or if you
> > want REALLY good vocals, and something that is really good in the studio
> > too, try a Neumann KMS-105.
>
>
From: George Reiswig <george.reiswig@intel...>
Subject: Re: speaking of the KMS-105
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 12:42:23 -0700
Organization: Intel Corporation
I saw that the other George also responded, but I'll throw in mine, too...
I have used it live at my last three gigs. It is just plain a great mic.
Beware that it will reveal every nuance of your voice, moving mouthparts,
breath, and facial tick noises.
Seriously, this is the first mic that I felt like I could treat like a
musical instrument: I can actual use proximity to the mic to get the
effects I'm after of intimacy, or whatever. Hard to describe, but it's just
a killer mic.
GR
Tom Gruning wrote in message <8msgfk$hvp$<1@geraldo...>>...
>
>Hey George,
>Not to change the subject but, I've been looking at the Neumann KMS-105
>(specs, testimonials, etc.) but haven't had a chance to test drive one. Do
>you have any live-sound hands-on with this mic and if so, what was your
>impression?
>Thanks,
>Tom Gruning
><tgruning@ccwf...>
><tcs_obscure@yahoo...>
>http://www.geocities.com/tcs_obscure/
>"George Reiswig" <<george.reiswig@intel...>> wrote in message
>news:8msb84$<cbv@news...>...
>>Or if you
>> want REALLY good vocals, and something that is really good in the studio
>> too, try a Neumann KMS-105.
>
>
| Mauel and microphones [9] |
|---|
From: david bagwill <dbagwill@earthlink...>
Subject: Mauel and microphones
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:21:47 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
First, I've been playing my Mauel 000, 12 fret to the body, cedar topped
and mahagony b+s guitar for almost a year now. I took the guitar to a great
tech here in southern Oregon - Steve Spalding -
for a minor adjustment. He took the guitar out of the case, fingered an open
am7 and strummed it once. He looked up at me, with a puzzled look on his
face, and said "WOW." He was not expecting anything like the balance, the
sweetness, and volume of this smaller bodied guitar. He wanted to take it
apart to see what magic was inside, but I stopped him :-).
His reaction is typical of others, but really meant something to me since he
has worked on many hundreds of guitars.
The guitar has been teaching me many things. It really responds to finger
angle, nails, type of string, and other factors to the point that I realize
the tone is there for me to get, and I cannot blame the instrument!!dang..
Second - I need the best quality microphone I can get for 500 bucks -
strictly for amplifying the guitar - any suggestions?
Thanks
Dave
From: Garrett Kenehan <gkenehan@rohan...>
Subject: Re: Mauel and microphones
Date: 1 Sep 2000 05:42:57 GMT
Organization: San Diego State University
In article <ehFr5.12299$<K4.504171@newsread1...>>,
david bagwill <<dbagwill@earthlink...>> wrote:
<snip>
>Second - I need the best quality microphone I can get for 500 bucks -
>strictly for amplifying the guitar - any suggestions?
Rode NT1 if you have a phantom power supply in your mixer. You can get a
stereo pair for $398. They are basically cardioid only mics, similar to a
Neumann U87 (without the other pickup patterns, pad switch, or filter
switch). I have only used these for recording (FANTASTIC), and don't know
about live sound reinforcement uses.
Hope this helps,
-Garrett
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Mauel and microphones
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 01:01:15 -0500
Organization: Psionic Media
NT1s, like may large diaphragm condensers, may not be the best choice for
live work, because their off-axis sound can be very strange, which makes
feedback a real nightmarish possibility.
As to what mics, I'd suggest a small diaphragm condensor with a cardioid or
hypercardioid pickup pattern. I wouldn't go stereo for live, since any
movements you make will exaggerated. While this can be a problem with a
mono mic, it's not so glaring an effect.
For $500, you have a lot of nice choices. I would recommend you audition an
Oktava MC012, an Audio Technica 4051, or a used Neumann KM-184. Sennheiser
makes some nice ones in this range, but I've not used them and I don't
remember the model # offhand.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"Garrett Kenehan" <<gkenehan@rohan...>> wrote in message
news:8onfl1$pan$<1@gondor...>...
> In article <ehFr5.12299$<K4.504171@newsread1...>>,
> david bagwill <<dbagwill@earthlink...>> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Second - I need the best quality microphone I can get for 500 bucks -
> >strictly for amplifying the guitar - any suggestions?
>
> Rode NT1 if you have a phantom power supply in your mixer. You can get a
> stereo pair for $398. They are basically cardioid only mics, similar to a
> Neumann U87 (without the other pickup patterns, pad switch, or filter
> switch). I have only used these for recording (FANTASTIC), and don't know
> about live sound reinforcement uses.
>
> Hope this helps,
> -Garrett
>
From: Lance & Dawn McCollum <mccollum@netshel...>
Subject: Re: Mauel and microphones
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:50:04 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I've been on the hunt for good mics and a pre-amp in order to eventually be
able to record some of my artists that happen to stay at my house from time
to time. I wanted something that was as close as possible to the sound of
my guitars. No coloration, easy to use, especially now that I don't have a
studio room and a lot of it would need to be done in the bedroom. But I
felt that if I could find the right good sounding stuff, and got used to
using it in my non-studio environment, that I could get pretty even results.
Just so happened that I got really lucky in a trade and ended up with a
Millennia HV3 pre-amp. Now I'd heard of these before and have used other
mic pres before, but I was not prepared for what this did to the overall
sound even using the cheapest Rode mic that I had. The thing is
.......amazing. It made the Rode work better and sound about 10 times
better than it ever had before. You just can't believe the difference a
good mic pre can make. Then the wait was on. As I was searching for a
matched pair of microphones and also the money to afford them :) After much
research and talking and reading everything I could on the web, and figuring
out what I could afford, I ended up ordering a pair of Microtek Gefell
M300s. I got them from Studio Tech Supply http://www.studiotechsupply.com
in Texas. Thanks to Hank Alrich for this referral. They were incredibly
nice to work with and made the transaction easy, even though I had to wait
for the mics to come into the country in a matched pair. So finally got the
mics, hooked them all up, and between the mics and the pre-amp, I'm amazed.
They truly reproduce the sounds of my guitar. Especially listening through
headphones. I have used the mics in a studio setting to record with some
friends using one of my guitars and so far everybody is pretty blown away by
how accurate they sound. I should mention that the mics were about $445
apiece plus shipping. I'm extremely happy with this setup. Now all I need
to do it fix my ADAT, as it broke the first time I went to record myself
with my new setup and I've been so busy with guitars that I haven't had a
chance to get it fixed so I can record.
So these are my experiences with everything that was available to me, but I
think the biggest difference is the mic pre. You won't believe it until
you've heard it.
Lance McCollum
McCollum Guitars
http://www.mccollumguitars.com
"Rick Ruskin" <<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote in message
news:<39b05f33.12607154@news...>...
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 01:07:24 GMT, <cwtwang@my-deja...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Here are some very nice mics: Neuman KM 184 (list about
> >$700), the Audio-Technica AT4051 (list about $700), and the AKG C1000 S
> >($297 list-$199 in Musician's friend). The AKG is supposed to be a very
> >good stage mic also. Check out the recording tips in the March 2000 issue
> >of Acoustic Guitar Magazine-Vol 10, #9. Also check out the interview on
> >recording acoustic gutiar by M. Spriggs in the latest issue of Taylor's
> >"Wood and Steel"
>
> The C-1000 is very far down the quality chain. Not even close to the
> KM-184 or 4051.
>
>
> >A great tube preamp is a must if you are recording digitally in order to
> >fatten the tone-digital sounds very clean and quiet but not as warm and
> >full as analog.
>
> I can't wait for these myths to die. Everything else being equal,
> tube mic preamps are no better/warmer/more detailed/ad nauseum than
> solid-state mic preamps. Analog is not inherently better/warmer/more
> detailed/ad nauseum than digital. If you know what you are doing, you
> can achieve any sonic results that you want.
>
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
> http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
> http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
>
From: <cwtwang@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Mauel and microphones
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 14:06:34 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
In article <<39b05f33.12607154@news...>>,
liondog@isomedia.com (Rick Ruskin) wrote:> On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 01:07:24 GMT, <cwtwang@my-deja...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> Here are some very nice mics: Neuman KM 184 (list about
> >$700), the Audio-Technica AT4051 (list about $700), and the AKG C1000 S
> >($297 list-$199 in Musician's friend). The AKG is supposed to be a very
> >good stage mic also. Check out the recording tips in the March 2000 issue
> >of Acoustic Guitar Magazine-Vol 10, #9. Also check out the interview on
> >recording acoustic gutiar by M. Spriggs in the latest issue of Taylor's
> >"Wood and Steel"
>
> The C-1000 is very far down the quality chain. Not even close to the
> KM-184 or 4051.
>
> >A great tube preamp is a must if you are recording digitally in order to
> >fatten the tone-digital sounds very clean and quiet but not as warm and
> >full as analog.
>
> I can't wait for these myths to die. Everything else being equal,
> tube mic preamps are no better/warmer/more detailed/ad nauseum than
> solid-state mic preamps. Analog is not inherently better/warmer/more
> detailed/ad nauseum than digital. If you know what you are doing, you
> can achieve any sonic results that you want.
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
> http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
> http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
I was only quoting an abbreviated version of some detailed reports by
some studio engineer in New York and Nashville. Everyone recording
engineer who I personally know (only 3) use a variety of tube preamps
(and transistor preamps for certain sounds) to warm up the digital sound-
they carefully match the preamp to whatever they are recording-different
preamps work with different combinations of mics, vocals, and guitars.
I don't know what kind of sound he wants inparticular from his guitar-thin and cutting with a fast decay, for example, or a full sound with
lots of sustain. We don't even know what type of music he plays. My
recordings have used mostly tube preamps and tube microphones-that is my
experience and I prefer that sound. I am not an engineer-just passing on
the condensed opinions of some engineers whose work I admire.
As far as the C1000 S-of course it is not a Neuman-it was mentioned as a
less expensive decent mic to record with since the cost of home studio
gear can really escalate. Also, some of the entry level mixer-recorders
are difficult to use with sensitive mics. I have heard some SM 57s used
on guitars in professional studios with a specific preamp to get a
specific sound for a specific song. There are so many factors in the mix.
This messenger did not tell us if he had or was starting up his own home
studio or was going to record at a professional or semi-professional
studio.
So to rephrase this more specifically: I personally prefer using 2 Neuman
KM 84 with certain vintage tube preamps.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Mauel and microphones
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 21:14:56 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
<<cwtwang@my-deja...>> wrote:
> Sounds like a great guitar you have there-worthy of a nice studio
> microphone. Here are some very nice mics: Neuman KM 184 (list about
> $700), the Audio-Technica AT4051 (list about $700), and the AKG C1000 S
> ($297 list-$199 in Musician's friend). The AKG is supposed to be a very
> good stage mic also. Check out the recording tips in the March 2000 issue
> of Acoustic Guitar Magazine-Vol 10, #9. Also check out the interview on
> recording acoustic gutiar by M. Spriggs in the latest issue of Taylor's
> "Wood and Steel"
The AKG C1000 is quite a mediocre mic, in my opinion, and I wouldn't be
caught dead or alive using one onstage. The only positive thing I can
say about them is that they're pretty inexpensive. Unfortunately, they
also sound downright cheap. They definitely cannot hang with KM184s.
A decent inexpensive condensor is the Crown CM700, about $250, so the
guy could get a pair of them for his $500, and enjoy the benefits of
this new fangled stuff, "stereo", if he's intending to record, though he
stated he wanted a good mic to "amplify" his guitar.
> A great tube preamp is a must if you are recording digitally in order to
> fatten the tone-digital sounds very clean and quiet but not as warm and
> full as analog.
Good recording techniques (which take practice, just like playing the
instrument) beget good recordings, independent of the storage medium.
There's little to support the "warmth" mythology unless harmonic
distortion is desired and is what one defines as "warmth".
There are many fine solid-state preamps around (I have a Great River
MP2-MH and a Phoenix GTQ2, both capable of rendering gorgeous recordings
if one puts a gorgeous source in front of them, feeds them with good
mics, and stays out of the way), and also many fine tube preamps
(Manley, Forsell and D.W. Fearn come to mind). The good stuff costs
pretty good money, and in the long run it's worth it if you can afford
it or if you'll see it repaid in product sales. But merely purchasing a
tube preamp will guarantee you nothing regarding good quality
recordings.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Mauel and microphones
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 11:56:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
>
> The AKG C1000 is quite a mediocre mic, in my opinion, and I wouldn't be
> caught dead or alive using one onstage. The only positive thing I can
> say about them is that they're pretty inexpensive. Unfortunately, they
> also sound downright cheap. They definitely cannot hang with KM184s.
>
I agree I bought 4 of them then dumped them for 100$ ea just to get away
from the C1000s
> A decent inexpensive condensor is the Crown CM700, about $250, so the
> guy could get a pair of them for his $500, and enjoy the benefits of
> this new fangled stuff, "stereo", if he's intending to record, though he
> stated he wanted a good mic to "amplify" his guitar.
A good all around mic for live is the AKG 535 works on vox and inst The
Beyer m88 also is a fine mic if you dont want to foll around with a
condensor mic
George Gleason
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Mauel and microphones
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 08:50:07 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Andrew P. Mullhaupt <<smullhau@home...>> wrote:
> "david bagwill" <<dbagwill@earthlink...>> wrote in message
> news:fhFr5.12300$<K4.504171@newsread1...>...
> >
> > Second - I need the best quality microphone I can get for 500 bucks -
> > strictly for amplifying the guitar - any suggestions?
>
> If you wanted a great microphone for recording the guitar, the Neumann KM 84
> or KM184 could be the best choice, although a bit more than $500.
>
> I'd normally say the same for amplification, except that feedback from
> monitors could become an issue depending on placement and level.
Some of the comments made over in rec.audio.pro about the new Neumann
KM105 vocal mic suggest to me it might be worth trying live for
instruments. Folks are touting its feedback rejection, its similarity to
the 184 in sound (not exactly, of course), and I'd think its presence
peak might help counter proximity effect from onstage close micing. It's
also less expensive.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Mauel and microphones
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 13:31:37 -0500
Organization: Psionic Media
A nice dual purpose mic that can be found used for about $200 is the Shure
Beta 87. Great on live vox, very good on acoustic instruments (it's also
great on hand percussion).
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"Andrew P. Mullhaupt" <<smullhau@home...>> wrote in message
news:_dvs5.39668$<e11.308080@news1...>...
>
> "hank alrich" <<walkinay@thegrid...>> wrote in message
> news:<1egdhiv.qt6w3d1ofgz0aN@209-162-27-36...>...
> > Andrew P. Mullhaupt <<smullhau@home...>> wrote:
> >
> > > If you wanted a great microphone for recording the guitar, the Neumann
> KM 84
> > > or KM184 could be the best choice, although a bit more than $500.
> > >
> > > I'd normally say the same for amplification, except that feedback from
> > > monitors could become an issue depending on placement and level.
> >
> > Some of the comments made over in rec.audio.pro about the new Neumann
> > KM105 vocal mic
>
> I have been wondering about that. I think Reiswig here has used one for
> vocals, but that's as close as I come to experience with them. Otherwise,
> that is probably the most interesting microphone at the moment for this
sort
> of thing.
>
> I happened to watch a DVD about Robert Johnson yesterday in which a
> microphones which looked a lot like the KM105 was used for live vocals,
and
> it is recent enough that it could have been KM105s. They didn't ever use
it
> on the acoustic guitars, though, so I don't know what to make of that.
>
> > suggest to me it might be worth trying live for
> > instruments. Folks are touting its feedback rejection, its similarity to
> > the 184 in sound (not exactly, of course), and I'd think its presence
> > peak might help counter proximity effect from onstage close micing.
>
> It might also make sense to pull it back a little from the source, because
> the tight pattern would let you.
>
> > It's also less expensive.
>
> I think that would be one big plus, and the other being versatility. A lot
> of people here would probably like a microphone that is great for vocals
and
> can also be used for acoustic guitars.
>
> Later,
> Andrew Mullhaupt
>
>
| KM183 on Acoustic Guitar...Anyone? [2] |
|---|
From: BKJjohnson <bkjjohnson@aol...>
Subject: Re: KM183 on Acoustic Guitar...Anyone?
Date: 31 Aug 2000 17:54:26 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Can't speak for the Km183, but I have used the 83 on guitars in the past and
have been very pleased. There is something about an omni that works very well
on acoustic guitars, if you want you can get it close without getting
overwhelmed with lows. I often find that deep, full sounding guitars often
benefit from omni mics - prevents the low mush. You can always rent the mic
for a day or two and give a personal try.
From: Daniel Fuchs <dfuchs@stud...>
Subject: Re: KM183 on Acoustic Guitar...Anyone?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 23:41:21 +0200
Organization: GWDG, Goettingen
SoundsGood2Me wrote:
>
> Anyone have any experience using the Neumann KM183 omni on acoustic
> guitar? Any input appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Stan
This thing is a diffuse-field omni, so it'll have quite a lot of treble
at a short distance (and facing straight towards the instrument). Might
be too much... Might not...
Daniel
| removing piezo "quack" [6] |
|---|
From: John Sorell <jsorell@bouldernews...>
Subject: Re: removing piezo "quack"
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 12:23:40 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
George Gleason wrote:
> I am not sure what the real problem with using a mic on stage .Beside the
> fact the musician has to has a very small bit of disipline to keep his
> guitar in the mics pick up pattern
> .I provide for hundreds of acoustic guitarists,banjos,mandos,double
> basses, slide guitars,fiddles,voices,pipes of all sorts,drums all year round
> indoors ,outdoors festivals , coffeehouses and concerts I always mix the
> mic to the audience and if the muso will allow a realistic monitor
> volume(not some 110dB rock and roll nonsense) I will give the mic to the
> monitor also. I don't have feedback .I do not have piezo quack,. I have just
> wonderful music as natural as sitting in your den with a cold beer waiting
> for you lips at the end of a song. The musos hear a clean natural vox and
> guitar . I just do my job as a soundguy and get it right .
> George Gleason
George,
What is your recomendation for the best mic for acoustic guitar; both solo
fingerstyle and flatpicking in a group?
John
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: removing piezo "quack"
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:02:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
John Sorell <<jsorell@bouldernews...>> wrote in message
news:<39BA2C00.EE4DC89C@bouldernews...>...
> George Gleason wrote:
>
> > I am not sure what the real problem with using a mic on stage .Beside
the
> > fact the musician has to has a very small bit of disipline to keep his
> > guitar in the mics pick up pattern
> > .I provide for hundreds of acoustic guitarists,banjos,mandos,double
> > basses, slide guitars,fiddles,voices,pipes of all sorts,drums all year
round
> > indoors ,outdoors festivals , coffeehouses and concerts I always mix
the
> > mic to the audience and if the muso will allow a realistic monitor
> > volume(not some 110dB rock and roll nonsense) I will give the mic to the
> > monitor also. I don't have feedback .I do not have piezo quack,. I have
just
> > wonderful music as natural as sitting in your den with a cold beer
waiting
> > for you lips at the end of a song. The musos hear a clean natural vox
and
> > guitar . I just do my job as a soundguy and get it right .
> > George Gleason
>
> George,
>
> What is your recomendation for the best mic for acoustic guitar; both solo
> fingerstyle and flatpicking in a group?
>
> John
>
>Km84 followed closely by the 184 then a 414 an ideal set up imo would be
the 84 at the fretboard/body joint and the 414 at a sweet spot on the body
of guitar--would be diffrent for every guitar--these are the mics I
use --there may be others and I have never tried any mic like a u47 or 103
in a live situation same with the schopes I have no experiance with it so I
don't know how to use it.
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: removing piezo "quack"
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:32:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Robert McArthur <<rtmca@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:8pihkv$2vg$<1@nnrp1...>...
> In article <Bmdu5.298$<A82.19215@bgtnsc04-news...>>,
> "George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:I always mix
> the
> > mic to the audience and if the muso will allow a realistic monitor
> > volume(not some 110dB rock and roll nonsense) I will give the mic to
> the
> > monitor also. I don't have feedback .I do not have piezo quack,. I
> have just
> > wonderful music ...
> > George Gleason
> >
> What mic do you use for guitars?
>
Most often a 184 but I like the 84 better when I can borrow one(they were
out of production before I was turned on to Neumanns)
If you are on a budget that does not allow a 800$ guitar mic then the AKG
535 would be a great choice(approx235$ usa)
under that is the 57 and I would rather work around the limitatiions of a
pickup before I would put a 57 on a live guitar
From: BrettGV <brettgv@aol...>
Subject: Re: removing piezo "quack"
Date: 12 Sep 2000 04:34:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I second that recommendation for the AKG C535EB. I've recorded with it and
used it live. It does a very good job, and it won't destroy your bank account.
Brett
>If you are on a budget that does not allow a 800$ guitar mic then the AKG
>535 would be a great choice(approx235$ usa)
>under that is the 57 and I would rather work around the limitatiions of a
>pickup before I would put a 57 on a live guitar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: removing piezo "quack"
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:09:49 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> Robert McArthur <<rtmca@yahoo...>> wrote in message
> news:8pihkv$2vg$<1@nnrp1...>...
> > In article <Bmdu5.298$<A82.19215@bgtnsc04-news...>>,
> > "George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:I always mix
> > the
> > > mic to the audience and if the muso will allow a realistic monitor
> > > volume(not some 110dB rock and roll nonsense) I will give the mic to
> > the
> > > monitor also. I don't have feedback .I do not have piezo quack,. I
> > have just
> > > wonderful music ...
> > > George Gleason
> > >
> > What mic do you use for guitars?
> >
> Most often a 184 but I like the 84 better when I can borrow one(they were
> out of production before I was turned on to Neumanns)
> If you are on a budget that does not allow a 800$ guitar mic then the AKG
> 535 would be a great choice(approx235$ usa)
> under that is the 57 and I would rather work around the limitatiions of a
> pickup before I would put a 57 on a live guitar
Earlier this year, George, I put an SM57 on a player's acoustic guitar,
fed it to the Great River MP2-MH, brought that back through a Mackie
1202 (FOH via UPAs/Crests and mons were Bag End TA12s/Crests) and had
him tell me it was the nicest sound he'd ever gotten onstage. And he is
not a novice. He responded like that after playing for about thirty
seconds. I'd be willing to be that in a blind test you would not have
indentified the 57. Why? Because they are _very_ sensitive to loading,
and can sound like garbage with one pre and like gold with another. In
this particular instance with that preamp it sounded truly fabulous.
Over in RAP guys like Bob Olhsson who worked at Motown years ago and has
kept going strong ever since, will point out that in-studio one ought to
be sure that on a given day with a particular source the lowly SM57
isn't going to stomp a Neumann U47, etc. He only talks that way because
he's been there and done that.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: removing piezo "quack"
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:08:31 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> I would like to have four channels of outboard(for live rig that lives
> in a truck must take loads of abuse summer and winter)
Great River Electronics MP series. Very simply packaged, no bells nor
whistles, various configurations. See info at
http://www.greatriverelectronics.com
Great pres, great people, great service. I bought mine from Flethcer at
Mercenary Audio: http://www.mercenary.com
Other superbly roadworthy units are the John Hardy and the Millennia
pres. But they are more fancily packaged and cost more than a Great
River, and they all bat in the same sonic league. Can't really go wrong
with any of them.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
| Microphones for Acoustic Soloist? [2] |
|---|
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Acoustic Soloist?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 14:22:20 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
citizen <<citizen@free...>> wrote:
>
>Thanks Dave,but the $2000 project studio
>that we have is in need of Microphones that
>will record Acoustic Soloist's,that I mean one person sitting down with a
>guitar and singing.
Oh! You need microphones to deal with guitar and vocal acts. That's
a different thing altogether.
If I had $500 to spend, I'd get a Beyer M130 for the vocals. You'll
probably have to dump the Aphex and get a better preamp to deal with it,
but you really want a figure-8 for the application and the M130 is about
the cheapest you can do and still get a good null.
>Booking time is allright,but this is for a local group of songwriter's who
>have little money!
>I have recorded scores of hours with miced amps using SM57's,but the SM94's
>just don't cut it even in the xy possession
>for acoustic guitars,like a D28,OM10 Martin and various Classicals!
Well, what I'd do on a D28 and an OM10 are totally different things. But
if I had only $500 to spend, I'd get the Oktava MC019 kit from the Sound
Room as a general guitar mike. It's not really optimal but it's a good
compromise for a low price.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Microphones for Acoustic Soloist?
Date: 13 Sep 2000 18:00:38 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Jim Gilliland <<usemylastname@altavista...>> wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> You need microphones to deal with guitar and vocal acts.
>>
>> If I had $500 to spend, I'd get a Beyer M130 for the vocals.
>> .... you really want a figure-8 for the application and the M130 is about
>> the cheapest you can do and still get a good null.
>
>Scott, educate me. Why would he specifically want a figure-8 pattern
>for recording that vocal? Thanks.
The big deal with a figure-8 is that it has a very tight null. This means
you can position it to very effectively eliminate a signal sound source.
A cardioid still has some pickup from the rear, but a figure-8 will
pick up almost nothing from the side.
This means that you can get a clean vocal without any guitar leakage into
it at all, and that's important.
A good hypercardioid mike will have nulls 120' off-axis and is definitely
an improvement over a cardioid for the application, but a figure-8 is
truly amazing in terms of the amount of isolation you can get on a guitar
and vocal job.
On a lot of these, I'll use an ORTF stereo pair positioned to where the
guitar sounds good, and then a figure-8 vocal mike. I'll bring the vocal
mike up into the ORTF pair until the vocal is nice and forward and doesn't
shift in position too much when the performer moves around.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
| Acoustic Guitar Mics [5] |
|---|
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Mics
Date: 27 Sep 2000 11:54:50 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Matt Dixon <<matt_d1204@mindspring...>> wrote:
>Well, yeah, but the original post was talking about "bang for the buck mics." I
>think the C100S does pretty well for being $200.
Sure, but you can get a Telex Cobalt or a Crown CM-700 for less, and they're
a lot cleaner on the top end. Or you could get an Oktava 019 for a little
bit more, and they're an order of magnitude better.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Particle Salad <psalad@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Mics
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 18:03:20 GMT
Organization: Yes
Not too long ago, there was a gentleman somewhere who had up some comparison
wav files..
-drum kit a with only Neuman KM184 overheads
-drum kit with a pair of c1000
..same preamps and positioning for each..
I didn't expect to hear the huge difference I heard. The C1000 sounded so
much more spitty, grainy, and lacking in bottom..
The Neuman sounded balanced, full, and smooth in comparison.
I would not mic a drum kit with C1000 as overheads after listening to the
comparison files.
Matt Dixon wrote:
> Unlike most people around here, I also love my C1000S mics. I have 3 of
> them.
>
> <gman_81@my-deja...> wrote:
>
> > I use an AKG C1000S.
> > I found it to be the best mic for the money.
> >
> > Gman ( o )==#
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
--
~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^
Particle Salad/ Noom Room Studio
http://home.earthlink.net/~psalad
mp3 songs:
http://www.mp3.com/particlesalad
~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Mics
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:30:48 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Matt Dixon <<matt_d1204@mindspring...>> wrote:
>Yes, ok, but how much more do they cost? BTW I don't usually use my C1000s for
>drum overheads either. My oktavas do a much better job on most things. I'm not
>arguing that there aren't a whole slew of better mics out there, but for the
>money, the average home studio owner could benefit from those AKG's IMO. Also,
>I do agree that there are better mics in that price range for certain
>applications. But I think it's kind of funny that all the guys in here love to
>talk trash about a $200 condenser mic, as it's clearly not a product made for
>the pro anyway. For the intended user, in it's intended purpose, I think they
>do pretty well.
Well, I (along with several other people here) praised the Oktavas MC012s when they were
around $200, so I don't think the comment about us trashing all $200 condensor mics really
applies well. Even AKG says it's a studio mic. The AKG literature says:
"Studio quality even when powered by a battery.""This microphone can also be used for a variety of studio applications."So AKG considers it "pro quality", which makes it fair game here.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Mics
Date: 27 Sep 2000 20:44:09 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<-drum kit a with only Neuman KM184 overheads
-drum kit with a pair of c1000
..same preamps and positioning for each..
I didn't expect to hear the huge difference I heard. The C1000 sounded so much
more spitty, grainy, and lacking in bottom..The Neuman sounded balanced, full,
and smooth in comparison.>>
That's what we keep trying to tell you. Now you know. Until you've heard a real
mic, the low end crap seems pretty decent, doesn't it? You really do get what
you pay for.
Scott Fraser
From: Nate Tschetter <nate@gluethemoose...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Guitar Mics
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:16:58 GMT
Organization: Glue The Moose
Since this is a thread about Acoustic Guitar, I thought I'd mention that
MC012s work great for that application as well. Harvey Gerst had a link
to a jpg on his site showing one possible mic placement. It used an omni
mic near the performer's ear and a cardiod pointed toward the sound hole
of the guitar. I usually start with that...using my Sound Room SMP
MC012s.
Plus, the cedar box smells cool...and...NO MOTHS!
Nate Tschetter
Sonic Taxidermist
www.gluethemoose.com
fretwizz wrote:
>
> In article <7VdA5.5078$<V54.49512@news4...>>, "Lyle Caldwell"
> <<caldwell@bellsouth...>> wrote:
>
> > No, it really doesn't. Mow a few more yards and get an MC012.
> >
> > --
> > Lyle Caldwell
> > Psionic Media, Inc
> >
>
> Anyone tried these mics as drum overheads?
>
> Steve
| Performance Mic for acoustic [3] |
|---|
From: noodle <dmirolli@vt...>
Subject: Performance Mic for acoustic
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 09:15:14 -0700
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Hello,
Could you fine folks give me your suggestions on which microphone to get
(under $250) for micing an acoustic guitar on stage. There will also be
a drummer, bassist, 3 vocalist and a keyboard player. Stage volume is
not very loud (it's a contemporary worship & praise band. I'm interested
in hearing opinions and experiences.
Also, are there any really good soundhole pickups out there ?
thanks again,
Dan Mirolli
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Performance Mic for acoustic
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 14:46:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
>>
>
> AKG C 1000 condenser
Stephen The older c1000 are much nicer than the new ones
the new ones can sound ok for distant mic positions but are grainy andharsh as a close mic
I bought 4 of them and sold the a month later as I could not get alongwith them
BTW they (C1000s)also are a PITA mic as they need a special clip and beingso heavy you can not use as much freedom in placing them ,cause your mic
stand will fall over -- THE 535 is only a few dollars more and out shines
the 1000 but a great amount
Thank You
George Gleason
From: noodle <dmirolli@vt...>
Subject: Re: Performance Mic for acoustic
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 08:13:51 -0700
Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
George Gleason wrote:
> >>
> >
> > AKG C 1000 condenser
>
> Stephen The older c1000 are much nicer than the new ones
> the new ones can sound ok for distant mic positions but are grainy and
> harsh as a close mic
> I bought 4 of them and sold the a month later as I could not get along
> with them
> BTW they (C1000s)also are a PITA mic as they need a special clip and being
> so heavy you can not use as much freedom in placing them ,cause your mic
> stand will fall over -- THE 535 is only a few dollars more and out shines
> the 1000 but a great amount
> Thank You
> George Gleason
OK gang,
I went out this weekend and bought a AKG 535 on the advise of George. I also
bought a Fishman RareEarth sound hole pickup just in case.
After relocating a few times on the stage ( I play in a contemporary worship
and praise service every sunday, approx 300 people) and moving further away
from the drummer and more infront of his drum sheild we found a relatively
quiet spot. For the first time I can honestly say I loved my acoustic sound. I
placed the mic aimed at the 12th-14th fret and the sound guys didn't have too
much trouble with feedback issues. I did not try the different positions of the
switch on the mic but I will. Thanks so much (George) and everyone else who
responded.
BTW: I hated the Fishman.
Dan Mirolli
| My microphone decision |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: My microphone decision
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:12:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> Yes he did.
> And the pickup was a Fishman SBT.
> I'm not sure what brand and model the internal mic was, but the sound
> was excellent.
> I helped him set up for the show the following night, and his set up and
> sound check didn't take more than 15 minutes.
> Bob Dorgan
It was a crown glm angled at 45 degrees off axis of guitar body--I would
have like to tweek the fingerlakes show BUT thats just the way I am--nobody
should be happy till I'm happy :-)
George"always futzzing"Gleason
| What Mic Would You Recommend? [3] |
|---|
From: Stephen <stephenu@webtv...>
Subject: What Mic Would You Recommend?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:46:55 -0500 (EST)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Hi Everyone,
I want to use an external mic for my acoustic guitar. I have tried an
SM57 and it sounded ok but I would like to get something better. For
around $200 what would you all recommend?
Thanks,Stephen
From: Angela and George Reiswig <reiswig@europa...>
Subject: Re: What Mic Would You Recommend?
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:18:35 -0800
Organization: Northwest Link
Oktava MC-012 from the Sound Room. Good enough to record with.
GR
Stephen wrote in message
<<19850-3A0C7ADF-17@storefull-617...>>...
Hi Everyone,
I want to use an external mic for my acoustic guitar. I have tried an
SM57 and it sounded ok but I would like to get something better. For
around $200 what would you all recommend?
Thanks,Stephen
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: What Mic Would You Recommend?
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 13:37:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Angela and George Reiswig <reiswig @ europa.com> wrote in message
news:<3a0cc897_2@news...>...
> Oktava MC-012 from the Sound Room. Good enough to record with
.
Nice choice I would have the poster look to the AKG 535 also
George
| Voicing - Another way to look at products (long) |
|---|
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Voicing - Another way to look at products (long)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:53:32 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
OK, so here I am, surrounded by a lot of inexpensive Chinese and Russian mics
from Marshall, Nady, and Taylor Johnson, and it started me thinking about the
way I judge things, and the questions we get here about "what's the best xxxx
for under $XXX?", and then it hit me - it's all about "voicings", not A vs. B
quality. Think about it for a minute.
Zildjian, Paiste, and Sabian makes about eleventy million different crash
cymbals. Why? Martin, Gibson, and others makes a ton of different guitars.
Again, why? We all know the answer, but sometimes we forget that when someone
asks "What's the best?". It's really all about voicings.
People that make things like cymbals, guitars, speakers, and microphones
understand that there is no best, only products that may fit a specific purpose
better than others, and that there are many degrees and variations even within
that specific purpose. As users, we need to be more aware that there are many
solutions to each problem, and there are only "degrees" of solution to problems,
not final answers.
Swiss Army knives are often used here to describe our feelings about certain
equipment, but it's not just the "knife" part that makes the Swiss Army knife
valuable - it's the versatility of all the other built-in features.
It's what separates the RNC, for example, from the Alesis 3630. The Alesis 3630
is like the Swiss Army knives you can buy at the K-Mart checkout counter for
around $10 - it has a lot of the same features, but it doesn't do any job well,
the blades are hard to open, and it's just not the same as the real thing.
The Shure SM57, the RNC, the Great River, the U87, and the TLM103 are the "Swiss
Army knives" of this group, and for good reason - they have been proven over and
over again to be useful tools in a lot of situations. But none of them (just
like the Swiss Army knife itself) are the perfect tool for EVERY situation.
Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that there MAY be a "best" tool, for one
specific application, under one set of specific circumstances. Sears makes nice
versatile Phillips head screwdrivers, but the little 29 cent drywall Phillips
head bit is the best bit around for drywall screws. Is it a tool worth having
around? Not unless you do some drywall stuff at times.
But back to the original idea about "voicings". Rather than look at all these
mics from a "good, better, best" point of view, I'm starting to lean more
towards "the manufacturer 'voiced' each of these mics differently" and I've got
to figure out how each 'voicing' might work in a particular situation. In
simpler terms, "Where might this mic work well?".
If the "tonality" of a particular mic only makes it useful for one purpose (that
someone may only have an occasional use for), it doesn't fall into a "Swiss Army
knife" category (nice for a lotta things, best bang, etc.), and I shouldn't
recommend it for more general use. There are also some "unfit for human
consumption" factors (high self-noise, easily broken, poor quality, resonances,
peaked or uneven response) that make some mics unusable, and I'll be looking at
that, too.
So I'm gonna look at each mic from a lotta different viewpoints: versatility,
voicing, specific applications, "best bang for the bucks" factor, but not from a
"holy grail" viewpoint, and that's the point of this whole diatribe - there is
NO best.
In the end, there are only "different voicings", and what is the most useful to
a buyer must still (and will always) be determined by the buyer's specific needs
and the specific situation.
After reading this whole thing before I decided to send it, I sadly came back to
the realization that most of us on this group who try to answer general
questions about what's "best" have already come up with a standard two-word
reply that really sums it all up, and it's the only right answer: "It depends".
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
