Microphones, Bob W. and others please reply

[RL]

I'm using a Roland VS880EX to record guitar and vocals(20 bit recording) Recording for me is primarily a hobby.

My main large diaphram condenser mic has been a Rode NT2 which works o.k. especially for the money.

I want to improve my microphone collection for recording vocals and also guitar/mandolin/fiddle. Since I record in a digital medium, i.e. the 880EX, I would like something warmer sounding with a bit more definition in the sound. Tube mic?

Now, I realize that one mike may not do it all so here is my question....

Is there a mike out there that is pretty good for vocals and acoustic instruments? Or should I be looking at two mikes(again limited $$$ hobbyist you know?

I have looked at Neumann, AkG and Audio-technica. I think all have their merits but I haven't tried many of any of the above.

I would like to keep this next mike purchase to under $1,000 if I am to get one mike for vocals and then spend another $1,000 or so for recording acoustic for a total of $2,000 or less on two mikes.

Bob, I think that you responded some time back about(pre-amps?) equipment that would warm up the sound. I'm thinking now that I need to increase the number of mikes that I do have.

One other thing, I do have an 814CE and 514CE. I use the built in electronics on both guitars for recording. The sound I get is not bad but...but the truth is... the live mik'd sound of both guitars is one I like better.

Anyway, I'm sure this topic has been covered before but I'm hoping to start a thread here and get some more ideas.

Thanks all.

Take care.

[J.R. Rogers]

The Rode NT2 is a great sounding mic. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that I don't personally think you're going to hear a lot of difference between the NT2 and say a TLM103 ($900 Neumann), which is a much used Studio workhorse. Some people have a "golden" ear, and can notice the subtle differences. In reality, though, when the recording is played back on standard equipment, any subtle differences are going to fly right out the window.

In my somewhat limited experience of home recording, I've found that getting the right volume and presence on "tape" of the original signal, is certainly paramount to any subtle difference in mics. That said, much of the battle is going to be getting the right sound out of your compressor, eq, and to a lesser degree, your preamp. In recent year, combination mic preamps / compressors have become popular, because, while they are possibly more limited in their flexibility, they are great at matching a good preamp setting to the built in compressors settings. I've heard great things about the JoeMeek Products like the VC1Q, and the HHB Fat Man (Fat Man II was just released). These products combine the preamp with a compressor, and possibly eq, and have presets that can help you get started.

I've found my personal biggest challenge to getting a good sound on tape, is getting the levels, eq, and the compression set right. Once you get those matched with your mic, you can get some great sounds! Many a good acoustic recording has been done with a basic SM57.

Another factor is certainly mic placement. This can have a major effect on the "color" of the sound that you get on tape. There are a lot of different ideas about mic placement. I like using a mic at the 12th fret, and another one below the bridge a few inches in stereo. This seems to sound pretty good.... But, like you, I'm still searching for the best sound, myself.

Very anxious to read the replies to this thread, from others with more experience in this area!

Regards,
J.R. Rogers

[RL]

Originally posted by J.R. Rogers:


Very anxious to read the replies to this thread, from others with more experience in this area!

Regards,
J.R. Rogers

Thanks J.R. for responding. Good insights.

Hopefully we will get a thread going here.

Again, thanks.

RL

Hey RL!

Let me say that I've been a bit of a gear snob, but because my nose has been dragged through some new inexpensive gear recently, I've had to change my ways. You've got a couple of routes to go to "warm up" the sound:

Mics: I work day-in-day-out with Neuman TLM-170s, AKG "The Tube" mics, Neuman U-47s, AKG 451s, etc. I've found that the TLM-170 is a wonderful mic for both guitar and voice. I love it for both, because it is both warm and crisp. It has a very flat yet tasty sound. Unfortunately, we are talking about a $3000 instrument here. The Neuman TLM-103, at $900, has the same capsule and features one pattern only (cardioid). It sounds virtually identical to the 170, and I use cardioid about 90% of the time.

But, I recently auditioned a Marshall MXL 2003, large diaphragm mic and was AMAZED at its quality: it could have easily been mistaken for the TLM-170. I've seen them at a guitar store recently for $199. At that price you almost can't loose. Go to my website below for my own little review which (right off the main frames page). They offer other models including the MXL V67G which is voiced for vocals. I didn't like it quite as much. Here's their website:
http://www.mxlmics.com/

Another route is the tube preamp route. There are some fairly inexpensive tube mic preamps out there and tubes lower the high-end response speed and smooth things up. Here's a little review of the ART tube preamp on the Full Compass site:
http://www.fullcompass.com/lit/tube-mp.html

I can't vouch for these partcular preamps 'cause I haven't used them. I also have heard good things about the JoeMeek preamps. We use Avalon preamps here where I work but they are darned expensive.

On one of my recent projects I recorded everything to analog multi-track (Song APR-24 with Dolby SR) and transferred the results into a Fairlight workstation to edit. The analog stage warmed things up nicely. If you can prevent excessive noise in the analog stage, it can prevent the harshness sometimes found in an all-digtal recording.

I hope that helps a little.

Bob

[ 03-26-2001: Message edited by: Bob Womack ]

[J.R. Rogers]

Ok... What is the trick to getting a hot sound on to tape, while keeping the noise floor low? I've been fighting this for a long time, and am about to toss my fairly expensive recording setup out the window!

I go straight into the mixing board with my mics, and from the board into the DBX DDP, through the main inserts, before going out to "tape" (Computer). To get a hot signal, I have to boost something in the path. I have to either boost the output of the mixer, the input of the DDP, or the output of the DDP. No matter what I do, though, I have my choice between a low clear sound, or a hot sound with lots of hiss and noise. The problem isn't local to the mic, the mixer, or the DDP, because all of them have a certain noise floor. (I've tried gating, but it makes the guitar sound terrible.)

What is the trick to getting the levels right, getting a hot sound on tape, and controlling the noise floor?

J.R.

[RL]

Hello,

Thanks for the responses.

Bob, I'm going to check out both the neumann and marshall mikes you mention. I have used the art tube pre-amp you mentioned and it wasn't bad...but I got quite a bit better results from using an AKG solid tube mike.

J.R., it sounds like you are laying your master tracks to tape. I did that a few years back and really liked the sound...I had trouble with noise though.

Perhaps we'll hear from some others as well here.

Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

JR,

Sounds to me as if there is a level mis-match between your mixer (is it "semi-pro", putting out -10db as 0vu) and the DDP (It is a "pro" item. Does it have a menu selection which sets its input level from -10db to +4db?). You could also be mismatched between the DDP and the computer.

It used to be easy: -10 items used unbalanced 1/4" or RCA jacks, +4 items used balanced XLR connectors. These days, many pieces of equipent offer both, and many signal processors offer switchable operating levels in and out of their one set of jacks. Grab the manuals and see if you might be mismatched somewhere and see if you can switch your interfaces.

If the items are at fixed levels and they don't match, there are matchboxes available for $150 or less.

Stay in touch,

Bob

Oh, yea, be sure the tape emulation simulation of the DDP isn't contributing too much intermoduation distortion, harmonic distortion, and hiss if you jack up the levels. Can the Tape saturation emulation be temporarily switched off? See if that is contributing.

[J.R. Rogers]

Thanks, Bob. I'll re-check all the I/O's for a mismatch. You're right. both the DDP and the computer are selectable, but I think the mixer is fixed.

I'll followup...

J.R.

[RL]

Hello JR and Bob,

Just a couple of comments after reading your posts...

Bob, I'm going to check out some of the Marshall mics this weekend if I manage to get to the Twin Cities. I, also, have heard some good things about especially the MLX 2003. Interesting though, the reviews of these mikes are mixed in that different reviewers will remark that there is an issue of sound quality from mike to mike.

BTW, I ran across your review of this mike in the musicians room before I saw your note. Your article came up on a google search.

I have considered the TLM 103 and have friends that use this mike. They all like it but have reported mixed reviews on vocals. Some seem to like this mike more for drum over heads, guitar etc. Still, I think that it seems to be often the mike of choice for general recording.

I'm still going to check into the ART pre-amp and also follow up on JoeMeek as both you and JR mention.

I have a Mackie 808S that actually I'm using to phantom power my condenser mics. It actually has a compressor built in and microphone pre-amps of sort. But since it is a digital amp and it's going into a digital board, there are times when I get, for lack of a better word, a somewhat 'cold' sound.

I have debated buying a tube mike as well. I tried an AKG solid tube once and liked that sound.

JR, one thing that I you mention I find to be quite true, and that is that mike placement does seem to make quite a difference. I have found this to make a big difference especially on recording acoustic instruments.

As far as the variation in the sound of diffferent mikes go, I do get different tonal qualities on my Roland using different mikes. This is especially so when I sample at higher rates and I can hear a difference between a mike like the RodeNT2 that I regularly use and say an AKG C1000S that I have used as well.

Again, good comments all.

BTW, if you would like to hear a sample of one of my recordings, go to:
http://members.home.net/rogerl32/

and click on music.

There is one song on there sung by my daughter using the RodeNT2 for voice. The guitar in the background is a Taylor 410CE run directly into the Roland.

The tune is one that I wrote for a couple of friends to use.

Take care and thanks for the thoughts.

Rog Lee

You're absolutely right: The microphone placement is where much of the art of recording comes in. You can move a mic 1/2" and get an entirely different sound.

Here's a trick I use for vocals with a large-diaphragm mic: Place the mic about 10"-12" out, slightly above nose level, and facing the mouth. As a person sings or speaks, his plosives (Ps &Ts) are expelled as a cone of wind coming out of the mouth. The trick to avoiding pops is to place the mic on-axis, but outside the blast cone. The above placement allows the singer to have a music stand in front of him.

I just about always use a "popper stopper", rather than the heavy foam windscreen shipped with the various mics. A popper stopper is a hoop with two layers of nylon screen, mounted on a gooseneck. It stops many pops without killing the high-end of the mic. You can make your own with the following supplies:

7" or 8" embroidery hoop
lightweight panty hose (black if you want to look professional) - save money by getting used ones from your wife.
A lightweight gooseneck with C-clamp fitting at one end and fitting with flanges and screw holes at the other end.

Stretch the hosiery over the inner hoop and tighten the outer hoop. Trim excess. Screw the flanged fitting to the outer rim and attach the gooseneck. Voile' You just created a $30 accessory. Mount it on your boom arm so that the screen can be placed about an inch in front of the mic.

Have fun!

Bob

Pardon me if I have mentioned those tips before.

RL: I'm on vacation and my home computer is having interrupt assignment problems so I have no sound card. I'll listen to your files at work next week.

[RL]

Thanks again Bob for the tips. I'll try your advice with the vocal mike.

Besides the fact that I learn a lot from posts like these, I very much enjoy the discussions that occur about recording.

Out here in the sticks of S. Dak. there aren't too many folks that do any sort of recording so it's very helpful for me to get info this way.

Have yourself a good vacation.

Take care

RL,

I'm back off vacation and I played your clip today. I'd left you some notes on your home email. Toodle-doo!!!

Bob

[RL]

Thanks Bob,

I've read your notes and am sending a reply.

[RL]

Hello Bob,

First of all, let me say thanks for taking the time to email and give me your insights on the recording I posted. Your time and comments are appreciated.

I've been re-reading these posts. I do need(love that word need for a hobby)to get at least one more mike for acoustically recording guitar regardless of what I end up doing with pre-amps etc.

So for acoustic guitar the next question is...large diaphram vs. small diaphram mike for recording guitar. Is there an advantage, one over the other?

Our local music store carries a small amount of Audio-Technica and AKG. So for comparison of large vs. small diaphram, I did borrow and recorded my 514CE with both an AKG 414 B-Uls and C1000S.

Also, I did try, as best I understood it, to use the miking techniques that you suggested Bob.

It appeared, as expected I suppose, that the AKG 414 had the 'bigger' sound than the C1000S. Other than the size(range) of sound, both mikes seemed to produce similar characteristics in the recording of the guitar.

Both mikes produced a sound too 'bright' for my liking....but whether that was the mikes, the all digital domain of my recordings or the brighter sound of Taylor, I don't know...

Anyway, if anyone has time to respond on this post, thanks for doing so.

Take care all.

No offense to anyone, but I'm not a horribly big fan of the AKG 414. There's a kind of "hardness" or possibly "harshness" to them that I don't much like. I've got a Zubin Mehta recording of Vivaldi's "Four Seasons", done entirely with 414s, which reminds me of this every time I listen to it. They sound nice on tom-toms and sometimes as drum overheads. As you'll see below, I do like some AKGs.

Most of this used to be moderated by the analog recording medium. When we made the transition to digital, the hardness of some mics became apparent and much of the practice of microphony had to be subtly changed.

To your question of large vs. small diaphragm mics for guitar: The smaller diaphragm will have a higher resonance point, will be tighter, and have lower mass, all leading to stronger re-inforcement of the highs and less ability to re-inforce the lows. The opposite will be true for a large-diaphragm mic. The result: Typically, you will get a more "sparkling" sound from a small diaphragm mic (KM84, KM184, AKG 451, AKG 460), a smoother, fuller sound from a large diaphragm mic (TLM170, TLM103, etc.).

Howzat?

Bob

[ 04-04-2001: Message edited by: Bob Womack ]