Dynamic mics vs condensors....

[TBman]

I'm doing a little reading and found that condensor mics are much more sensitive than dynamics. Everything I've read points to using condensers for guitar, but if you are in a smallish room and treatments aren't in the equation, wouldn't going to a less sensitive microphone chop out a lot of unwanted noise. I mean noise, other than the strings - body movements, your hand on the neck, etc.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by TBman

I'm doing a little reading and found that condensor mics are much more sensitive than dynamics. Everything I've read points to using condensers for guitar, but if you are in a smallish room and treatments aren't in the equation, wouldn't going to a less sensitive microphone chop out a lot of unwanted noise. I mean noise, other than the strings - body movements, your hand on the neck, etc.

A less sensitive mic is going to give you less detail from your guitar. Even in your small untreated room, some sources of noise can be controlled to a larger degree than you're doing now. I listened to the two clips you put up in the other subforum and I hear a lot of clothing rubbing against clothing and breathing. Those are two noises that can be reduced quite a bit. Some clothing is noisier than others (i.e. the corduroy swish we all knew as youngsters). Breathing noise can be minimized also. Be conscious of your breathing while you play. Deep breaths make noise, so avoid those. How you position your mics can also make breathing an issue. Try to point the mics down towards the guitar thereby moving your mouth and nose off-axis.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by TBman

I'm doing a little reading and found that condensor mics are much more sensitive than dynamics. Everything I've read points to using condensers for guitar, but if you are in a smallish room and treatments aren't in the equation, wouldn't going to a less sensitive microphone chop out a lot of unwanted noise. I mean noise, other than the strings - body movements, your hand on the neck, etc.

Anything that removes sound from the room is also going to be removing sound from your guitar. One thing you can do with a small, less treated room is to use a mic with a tighter pattern. I used hyper-cardiods for my you tube videos, because I'm shooting in a small typical bedroom, untreated, for example. It's subtle, but it may help. The other thing you can do is close mic - for that you want a mic with less proximity effect, so you don't get overly boomy. When the mic is close to the guitar, the guitar is louder than the room. The mic may still pick up everything, but if your guitar is louder, then the room and other noises are softer in comparison.

One set of mics that works really nicely for close micing is the relatively new AEA N22's BTW. They're figure 8 mics, so you'd think they'd pick up more room sound, but they're designed to allow you to close mic - you can literally get 2-3 inches away from the guitar, which reduces a lot of the room effect as well as some other noises.

You can also play louder! People who play very quietly are very hard to record without noise, since the noises may be as loud as they play. I was once in a workshop with Laurence Juber, and someone asked him how he managed to never squeak. He said, "I squeak all the time, but I play loud, so you don't notice, because the notes are so much louder than the squeaks".

[TBman]

Originally Posted by jim1960

A less sensitive mic is going to give you less detail from your guitar. Even in your small untreated room, some sources of noise can be controlled to a larger degree than you're doing now. I listened to the two clips you put up in the other subforum and I hear a lot of clothing rubbing against clothing and breathing. Those are two noises that can be reduced quite a bit. Some clothing is noisier than others (i.e. the corduroy swish we all knew as youngsters). Breathing noise can be minimized also. Be conscious of your breathing while you play. Deep breaths make noise, so avoid those. How you position your mics can also make breathing an issue. Try to point the mics down towards the guitar thereby moving your mouth and nose off-axis.

Thanks Jim. The mics were almost 2 feet away from me. I think I need mics that sensitive. I didn't even hear the breathing on my system, lol.

[TBman]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Anything that removes sound from the room is also going to be removing sound from your guitar. One thing you can do with a small, less treated room is to use a mic with a tighter pattern. I used hyper-cardiods for my you tube videos, because I'm shooting in a small typical bedroom, untreated, for example. It's subtle, but it may help. The other thing you can do is close mic - for that you want a mic with less proximity effect, so you don't get overly boomy. When the mic is close to the guitar, the guitar is louder than the room. The mic may still pick up everything, but if your guitar is louder, then the room and other noises are softer in comparison.

One set of mics that works really nicely for close micing is the relatively new AEA N22's BTW. They're figure 8 mics, so you'd think they'd pick up more room sound, but they're designed to allow you to close mic - you can literally get 2-3 inches away from the guitar, which reduces a lot of the room effect as well as some other noises.

You can also play louder! People who play very quietly are very hard to record without noise, since the noises may be as loud as they play. I was once in a workshop with Laurence Juber, and someone asked him how he managed to never squeak. He said, "I squeak all the time, but I play loud, so you don't notice, because the notes are so much louder than the squeaks".

Thanks Doug. I'll try various things before I plop down any money on a couple of dynamic mics, but something tells me I over did it with the mics I have. I just want a solid close sound of the guitar. The condensers seem to more mic than I need.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by TBman

I'm doing a little reading and found that condensor mics are much more sensitive than dynamics. Everything I've read points to using condensers for guitar, but if you are in a smallish room and treatments aren't in the equation, wouldn't going to a less sensitive microphone chop out a lot of unwanted noise. I mean noise, other than the strings - body movements, your hand on the neck, etc.

I suggest you study the term "sensitivity" as used as a specification for microphones. In this context it has a rather narrow meaning, so much so that the list of things to which it does not apply is quite long. It does not involves frequency response, polar pattern, noise, what it will and won't "hear" and several other things. It is simply a measurement of the amount of gain the mic needs to reach a common/standard output voltage.

That being said, a mic's sensitivity can affect a recording. For example, a mic with low sensitivity (e.g., non-powered ribbon mics, dynamic mics) can generate more noise than one with higher sensitivity. That extra noise would originate from the mic preamp, not necessarily from the mic itself. Cheesy mic preamps get quite noisy when turned up. A low sensitivity mic will require more gain from the mic preamp to reach the same mic output level.

[jim1960]

Another mic that might work well for you is the Gefell M295. It's not cheap, but it's designed with close mic-ing in mind. But you're right, you should experiment more before you invest a bucket full of money. I wouldn't go the dynamic route though. The trade-off in detail isn't worth it.

Dave's suggestion of a hyper-cardioid is a good one. They're certainly very good at minimizing extraneous noise; however, my own experience is they're sensitive to small movements of the instrument when you're up close. If you don't move the guitar around a lot while you're playing, that could be a good option for you.

Dave's other suggestion to play louder would work also. I've never been able to make that work for me (I lean towards a lighter hand too) but that doesn't mean other people can't make that adjustment.

One more suggestion... You might get better results with something that reduces reflections in your small room. I know you've said treatment is out of the quesiton, but the sE Electronics Space is pretty small at 1 x 1.5 feet. The panels are made of layers of various materials (including rock wool) and feel pretty solid to the touch. It's not going to be as good as a treated room, but I think it could improve your sound some. I'd steer clear of similar products that have foam panels. Foam is pretty close to useless.

[TBman]

Interesting info everyone, thank you.

[Wyllys]

Another good option is to use a ribbon mic. The figure 8 pattern means you can utilize the nulls to reduce unwanted breathing noise and such and also give you a titch of room sound on the back side allowing you a bit closer positioning for deyail without the "up close" sound of a cardioid or hyper-cardioid mic.

If you're going to use condensers, use a pair of SDC's deployed per the Shure "how to mic the _________" instructions available on their website.

[leew3]

"I squeak all the time, but I play loud, so you don't notice, because the notes are so much louder than the squeaks".

Genius, Doug-thanks for sharing this great encouragement with us. Of course the answer is simple: "Play loud" !

[JeffreyAK]

I just tried an A/B comparison, setting a SM57 dynamic right next to a KM184 condenser on a pillow on a desk top. Both were pointed roughly at the 15th fret of my S18 harp guitar, about 8" away, and recorded simultaneously through two input channels of a Zoom Q8 (48K/24 WAV files). Not an ideal setup, no stands, I'm playing directly towards a wall, but enough to notice a few things.

One, I had to crank up the input gain on the dynamic mic quite a bit to match the condenser. Two, the condenser track was a bit bassier, but the mic positions and pointings could not be identical and the condenser was closer to the sound hole, so I'm not sure if that's a real mic difference - it was easy to make them sound much closer with a little EQ in Audacity. But three, looking closely at the waveforms in Audacity, the dynamic mic showed a lot more noise at low and high signal levels, a lot less sensitivity at low signal levels, and some apparent slight flat-topping at high signal levels (so, less linear dynamic range). It was pretty obvious in the waveforms which was which, even if I played with the EQ to make them sound very similar, though it's quite subtle to the ear, particularly when I was playing moderately and consistently loud.

So I guess that's the takeaway to me, at least comparing those two mics - the KM184 is much more sensitive and more faithfully reproduces wide dynamic range sounds without adding noise, but the SM57 is very good and probably not distinguishable by most listeners, or for consistently moderately loud playing. YMMV.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by JeffreyAK

I just tried an A/B comparison, setting a SM57 dynamic right next to a KM184 condenser on a pillow on a desk top. Both were pointed roughly at the 15th fret of my S18 harp guitar, about 8" away, and recorded simultaneously through two input channels of a Zoom Q8 (48K/24 WAV files). Not an ideal setup, no stands, I'm playing directly towards a wall, but enough to notice a few things.

One, I had to crank up the input gain on the dynamic mic quite a bit to match the condenser. Two, the condenser track was a bit bassier, but the mic positions and pointings could not be identical and the condenser was closer to the sound hole, so I'm not sure if that's a real mic difference - it was easy to make them sound much closer with a little EQ in Audacity. But three, looking closely at the waveforms in Audacity, the dynamic mic showed a lot more noise at low and high signal levels, a lot less sensitivity at low signal levels, and some apparent slight flat-topping at high signal levels (so, less linear dynamic range). It was pretty obvious in the waveforms which was which, even if I played with the EQ to make them sound very similar, though it's quite subtle to the ear, particularly when I was playing moderately and consistently loud.

So I guess that's the takeaway to me, at least comparing those two mics - the KM184 is much more sensitive and more faithfully reproduces wide dynamic range sounds without adding noise, but the SM57 is very good and probably not distinguishable by most listeners, or for consistently moderately loud playing. YMMV.

Nitpick.

You are misusing the term "sensitive" as it is normally used in microphone technology (see post above). Let me rephrase a portion of your sentence from above:

"the KM184 ... more faithfully reproduces wide dynamic range sounds without adding noise...."

By deleting the clause containing the word "sensitive" in it, the actual meaning you wanted to convey is completely intact.

[Wyllys]

Yes to the previous post. Additionally, laying the mics on a pillow instead of using a proper stand means you've essentially crippled the mic.

[JeffreyAK]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

Nitpick.

You are misusing the term "sensitive" as it is normally used in microphone technology (see post above). Let me rephrase a portion of your sentence from above:

"the KM184 ... more faithfully reproduces wide dynamic range sounds without adding noise...."

By deleting the clause containing the word "sensitive" in it, the actual meaning you wanted to convey is completely intact.

Actually I mean the word in exactly the sense that you defined it above, "It is simply a measurement of the amount of gain the mic needs to reach a common/standard output voltage." By this definition, the KM184 is much more sensitive than the SM57, though it wouldn't matter as long as you are able to add more gain to the SM57, and as long as doing so would not degrade performance in other ways.

[JeffreyAK]

Originally Posted by Wyllys

..laying the mics on a pillow instead of using a proper stand means you've essentially crippled the mic.

Hardly, both mic ends were out in the air and had a clear path to the forward hemisphere and part of the back. Both tracks sounded good as well, though they would have sounded better if I hadn't been lazy and had set up my stands that I took down hours earlier to make room for company, and hadn't played directly into a wall.