Help requested choosing my next mic

[Larpy]

I'd appreciate advice from those of you with more experience with mics than I have.

I want to get more serious recording my acoustic rock band (drums, electric bass, guitars, mandolin, harmony vocals). Right now, I use (mostly) a pair of Peluso CEMC6s (string instruments, drum overheads) and an Audio Technica AT4040 (vocals) through an Apogee Quartet and I get decent results. But I'd like to get both a bigger, richer vocal sound (particularly on female voices) AND to experiment with non-cardioid mic patterns, so I've been wondering if I could buy one new mic that would afford both options.

At first, I was thinking maybe an ADK Thor, a Studio Projects CS5, or an Avantone CV12 might be just the thing (they're all multi-pattern LDCs), but then I wondered if it would make more sense to get, say, omni capsules for my Pelusos (less than $200) and, for richer-sounding vocals, a dedicated vocal mic (ADK Vienna? A similarly-priced ribbon mic? A Shure SM7B?).

And then I wondered if I'd be better off saving up to buy a better multi-pattern LDC mic like a Shure KSM44a (I'm assuming that an AT4050 would be too similar to the AT4040 I already have). Would the Shure KSM44a be a better fit for what I'm after than omni capsules for the Pelusos and, for vocals, another $300-400 LDC as a more colored alternative to my AT4040?

Advice from those of you who have already navigated this path?

[Fran Guidry]

Most of what I read about mics is marketing malarkey, often processed into internet wisdom by forum thought leaders.

Try setting up your Peluso and your 4040, match levels with a test tone, and record one performance on both mics. Then listen to the result. How much difference do you hear? This is about the degree of difference you'll get from various condenser mics. Mics with different transducer tech will usually show greater difference, but careful level matching with an adequate preamp reduces those differences to a surprising degree in my experience.

I think a "bigger richer" vocal sound is more likely to come about with a judicious mix of vocal training, EQ, compression, and reverb than from buying mics.

Of course if it's really about wanting a new toy ... (grin).

Fran

[Ty Ford]

Hi Larpy,

As usual, Fran and I partially agree. Well sometimes.

An AT4040 is a good mic. I tried those Pelusos and was not impressed relative to other SD mics I have.

What do you not like about it? What does "not big enough" mean? Maybe you're not big enough! Can you solve this with EQ? Have you tried? A LOT can be done with EQ once you know what frequencies do what. The easiest way to work with EQ is in a DAW where you can grab points with your mouse and move them around to hear what the changes do.

Once you exhaust those possibilities, move on! As Fran suggests, got money burning a hole in your pocket? Two mics in the last year have sounded "different" to me; the AT4080 ribbon and the AT5040 quad diaphragm condenser mic.

Here's my review of the 4080 with samples: http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com...tivity-at.html

Here's my review of the 5040 with samples:
http://tyfordaudiovideo.blogspot.com...diaphragm.html

Regards,

Ty Ford

[KevWind]

For the most part I agree with TY and Fran and in (general) understand that:

While it is certainly true that different mics can compliment different vocalists , it is a also true that a "bigger, richer vocal sound" (can) often be more more a function of mixing and room acoustics, as opposed to simply a different mic or pre. Particularly with a multi instrument band situation with vocals "clarity" becomes paramount. The judicious use of EQ, notching and or cutting and perhaps alternate relatively narrow slight boosting, to clear mud in the low end as well as make room for the vocals in the mids and upper freq.s may in fact yield more noticeable or equal results as a change in mics .
Compression on the vocal used wisely, can can help with presence and or forwardness ( bigger richer)

[Larpy]

Thanks to all three of you. You offer useful advice. Though I guess I was hoping I'd get an answer like "get this mic and you'll be ready for the next level of recording," I'll admit that you're no doubt right to sense that working on my mixing skill is more the issue than equipment.

Which is good news for my checking account, if not my ego.

By "bigger and richer," yes, I'm looking for a vocal sound that's more three-dimensional and takes up a bigger portion of the sonic soundscape. Now that I've read your responses, I can see that this is something I should work on in mixing before buying a new mic. When it comes to EQ, I confess I'm still at the stage of using it to make instruments sound "bigger" and pop out of the mix more, but it makes sense that the cumulative effect would be muddy-sounding vocals. I need to do more with subtractive EQ, to make room for vocals. That's something I've read about but haven't really done much with on my own.

Thanks again.

[Mobilemike]

Your Pelusos are awesome mics already - they will do well for you on guitars for years to come. Getting the omni caps for them is a great idea - I often prefer recording acoustic guitar with omni mics because you can get the mics extremely close to the guitar for a super intimate, detailed sound, and not have to worry about proximity effect muddying things up.

The 4040 is a good mic too, but I'm usually not the hugest fan of AT mics on vocals. You don't mention a price range for a new vocal mic but in the range of the mics you mentioned the Stellar tube mics are awesome. They are large diaphragm, multi pattern tube mics and will absolutely give you a big rich sound. I have both the Stellar CM6 and the Stellar CM5 and they are both great. The CM5 is a big, warm, vintage sounding mic. The low mids on it are huge and it sounds fantastic on female vocalists and higher make vocals. I have a low baritone voice that tends to get muddy sometimes though, so for my voice I prefer the CM6. The CM6 is a more modern voiced tube mic, a little brighter, still with a nice rich sound but less emphasis on the low end. Where the CM5 can make me sound a bit more muddy than usual the CM6 rounds me out and helps me cut through a mix. They both have continuously variable polar patterns as well and experimenting with these can change the sound quite a bit too.

Of course if you have the budget it's hard to go wrong with something like the Neumann TLM170 - an incredible mic too!

-Mike

[rick-slo]

You listed quite a variety of mike types. Results will vary with what you are recording, your recording space, and the rest of the gear. You can read up more on the basic categories of mikes prior to spending money (dynamic, condenser, ribbon, tube, cardioid, omni, etc.) Demo mikes prior to monetary commitment.

[alohachris]

Aloha Larpy,

Treat your space & $ave on new mic's. Beyond increasing your recording knowledge over time, Room Treatment is the ONLY way to significantly upgrade & maximize the sound of your gear - especially mic's. Still, it's often left as the last investment for recording guitarists - a mistake, IMO (that I once made). Many $pend lots on gear & mic upgrades for little or no gain when it was the untamed early reflections of their untreated spaces that was sabotaging their recorded sound.

DIY treatment musn't be expensive, difficult to make or permanent in a room. Here are some clues, including some excellent videos from Fran Guidry:

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...-on-the-cheap/

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2011/...adband-panels/

http://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html

Mic's: Vocal mic's are all voice specific. So ya gotta try out many BEFORE YOU BUY. The voice makes the decision. Studio's have mic lockers so they can match a mic to a voice.

If, after treatment, you're still looking for a very good, professional-level studio condenser vocal mic upgrade from what you have? Then check out the Mojave MA-200 (cardioid) or MA-300 (variable patterns) LDC's. They work great on many voices, male & female, are versatile & sound great on acoustic guitar as well. Those are great open-sounding, warm yet detailed vocal studio mic's & are very affordable for studio LDC's, especially if you buy used (check out Gearslutz classifieds - often under $600 for an MA-200). Up from there with vocal studio LDC's, the sky's the limit. Let the voice decide.

I once owned a pair of CEMC6 SDC's (briefly). Nice sound, but I found their self-noise for recording to be more than I wanted. BTW, that Apogee Quartet is a great value.

Start with upgrading your room treatment FIRST, Larpy. And have fun auditioning vocal studio mic's (preferably in your home space). I've auditioned many hundreds of mic's on my home rigs. Trust YOUR ears, Larpy, not online opinions, especially re: recording vocal mic's.

A Hui Hou!
alohachris

PS: My current favorite vocal recording condenser mic -for my voice- is the Microtech-Gefell UM900 variable cardioid. But an MA-200 works very well on it too. My favorite for recording acoustic guitar is a pair of Schoeps CMC6's w/ the 41 hypercardioid capsule or Microtech-Gefell M295's. Some can hear subtle differences among mic's, some can't, Larpy. ONLY TRUST YOUR EARS. The more mic's you use & experiment with, the more educated & trustworthy your ears will be. -alohachris-

[Ty Ford]

Hey Larpy,

Learning to trust your ears may require time. I have a friend with a PA system that uses Bose 800 speakers. I hadn't really heard the system out in a club until a week ago. That's when I noticed he used the 800s. I thought I remembered that they were SUPPOSED to be used with a Bose active equalizer. I looked it up. Yep.

He's been using them without the EQ since the 70s. He trusted his ears…..they weren't telling him the right things.

Why not post something somewhere so we can all hear what you don't like?

Regards,

Ty Ford

[MikeBmusic]

It was mentioned by others and alohachris - acoustic treatment. How well do you have your recording space treated? Most people devalue this until they actually do it, then it's a 'wow, they were right' head-slapping moment!

[Larpy]

Actually, I record in two distinctly different-sounding rooms. For guitar, mandolin, and some vocals, I record in a carefully treated music room at home. It's small (10' x 12'), but I have two bass traps and lots of diffusing/absorbing material--it's the room where my stereo is, and to get rid of a nasty rise in the treble (two walls have windows across them), I've probably over-damped the room. I suspect it might be a little too dead acoustically. When I clap my hands, I don't hear any echo at all.

The room is too small for drums or ensemble recording, so for those things I record in a large, high-ceilinged room in an old building. A classroom at the school where I teach, actually. It's very live sounding, but in a pleasant way. About 25' by 40', with a 15' ceiling.

As Ty Ford suggested, I'll post a clip of a recent recording. I don't have a Sound Cloud account, but I imagine setting one up is free and easy(?). Are there better alternatives?

[alohachris]

Aloha,

Glad to read that you're so akamai about the need for adequate room treatment, Larpy. Now, the only thing to do is to go out & start auditioning studio vocal condenser mic's - lotsa fun!

BTW, what is the rest of your recording signal chain? I mean, mic's are very important, but other elements are too. The main thing is not to mix mediocre w/ high end professional gear in your chain- it's counter-productive.

There are many, many ways to audition mic's. I'm a reformed high-end mic-a-holic who used to audition about a hundred mic's per year on my home rig - for decades. Living in Hawaii, we don't have a single pro level music store with an adequate mic locker. Therefore, I had to find other solutions to keep getting my fix auditioning great studio mic's, mostly on my home rig, including:

- taking a trip to LA every year to audition new gear & many mic's,
- borrowing mic's from other musicians, stores & studio's to try out at home,
- buying recording studio time to audition several mic's at once,
- "buying" mic's from stores that have generous return policies,
- renting from studio's & rental sources all over the world (from Hawaii) on weekends & negotiating down to one-day rentals (it works, guys, try it).
- do shootouts, renting several mic's at once to try out at home.

As you move up the trough in mic's in terms of value, buying & selling, you'll find out where the best sources are (hint: several are in Nashville, TN) & it will get much less expensive to get the gear to audition, especially mic's which are less expensive to ship. And you'll find networks of other mic freaks who will make it easy to try out or trade any mic you want to trade or buy.

If you're as serious as I used to be about really hearing the differences among higher quality mic's, those are some of the ways to do it, Larpy. Recordings alone (especially online & youtube recordings) cannot tell you all you really need to know about studio mic's - especially the quality of the build. Hold a mic, record it solo & in a mix, check out its electronics, get a feel for how it sounds live, its noise levels - all values that are best understood in a controlled environment like your home space, not in a noisy music store. Do NOT judge a studio mic by recordings alone, Larpy.

Of course, if you live near a BIG city, auditioning mic's is much easier, but it's not that difficult to do anyway as I listed above.

Check out those Mojave MA200 or 300's I previously mentioned. Warm, detailed, accurate & relatively un-hyped, you'd be surprised by how good & versatile that mic is for many voices & applications. I think you would find the Mojave's more suitable as a primary studio vocal mic than any of the mic's you've listed in your first post, even the Shure KSM-44, an excellent mic. I like the Peluso 2247LE. The Pearlman TM-1 is another great one & better made than the Peluso's, IMO.

What's really fun is doing a shootout of mic's on your home rig & discovering which mic's can't live up to the marketing malarkey than Fran speaks of & discovering mic's that unexpectedly are a perfect fit, without much marketing at all, like the ADK A6 on an acoustic guitar for example. Again, for vocals, try as many as you can, Larpy, before you buy.

Of course, I could mention many other vocal studio recording mic's here that I've auditioned. The questions are what are you looking at to date & how much do you want to spend? Again, as you look, consider used mic's over at gearslutz.com classifieds. They are often in better shape than other sources. Wait til you get into mic/preamp combo pro's & cons - Ha!

All the best, Larpy. Happy auditioning!

alohachris

PS: In addition to knowledgable players here at AGF, there are educated opinions & reviews galore of every mic & piece of gear & signal chain over at the gearslutz "High End" forum. Check it out.-alohachris-

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Larpy

Thanks to all three of you. You offer useful advice. Though I guess I was hoping I'd get an answer like "get this mic and you'll be ready for the next level of recording," I'll admit that you're no doubt right to sense that working on my mixing skill is more the issue than equipment.

Which is good news for my checking account, if not my ego.

By "bigger and richer," yes, I'm looking for a vocal sound that's more three-dimensional and takes up a bigger portion of the sonic soundscape. Now that I've read your responses, I can see that this is something I should work on in mixing before buying a new mic. When it comes to EQ, I confess I'm still at the stage of using it to make instruments sound "bigger" and pop out of the mix more, but it makes sense that the cumulative effect would be muddy-sounding vocals. I need to do more with subtractive EQ, to make room for vocals. That's something I've read about but haven't really done much with on my own.

Thanks again.

Since it seems you addressed room acoustics, and assuming there are no significant build up reflections that would be contributing to creating mud during recording in the low and mid ranges. Then you can look elsewhere for solutions to cleaning up the mix . Also by no mens discounting any of the excellent advice given so . For example I would as Chris suggested (if possible) to try before buy. But at the same time I would seriously look into your mixing process. particularly your statement about using EQ to make instruments sound bigger and pop.

As counter intuitive as it may sound particularly in a multi instrument mix with vocal, this is usually best accomplished by first using effective, subtractive EQ. Which often is enough by it self, but only then consider slight additive. The problem with using only boosting is that you may be simply building up and creating mud by amplifying competing frequencies instead of complimenting frequencies. Particularly if you are boosting wider sections of frequencies (wide Q). For example boosting 2.5k to 4.5k , on two or three mid range type instruments and the vocal and now all of sudden nothing will pop and the entire mix will sound less 3D.

So first here is a quick (and very general) EQ 101.

Generally speaking mud is most prevalent in the low Freq's below 150 hz

In recording acoustic instruments and particularly stringed instruments and vocals there will be significant build up from the low mid's to high mid's frequencies, in addition to a tendency for proximity boom or mud in the lows.

A Multi band parametric EQ with adjustable (Q) (i.e. control over the , width of the individual bands of frequencies being cut or boosted ) and the ability to sweep an individual narrow Q ed band back and forth through the frequency range (more on this later) is invaluable and should be placed on every individual instrument and vocal track. (note) remember that with multiple EQ generally speaking less is better, use only enough to barely discern any effect (especially on any individual track soloed) because these small multiple adjustments will have a cumulative effect across multiple tracks.

In sessions with drums and bass virtually everything else gtr.'s vocals etc. should be cut varying but generally below about 200hz




Now a good method to try to discover what mid frequencies are the most problematic (mud wise) in each track, is to use one of the mid freq. bands set to a relatively narrow Q , boost it way up and sweep it back and forth starting at about 400 hz and sweeping up to about 4khz. What you will hear is at some point (often for many instruments and even vocals around 500k) and then again occurring usually at the double point up the frequencies from there, 500k, 1000k, 2000k, 4000k etc. there will be a particular "honky" "tubby" or "ringing" in the upper mids (shouting thru a culvert) type sound.

Again (very generally speaking) these are usually good places to put a relatively (narrow Q) cut of say 3 to 6 db. ( note some times if there are multiple instruments with problems right around the same freq. the try to determine if you hear, and select a position just above or below that frequency for different instruments.

After you have cut the lows and cut problem freq's , what you may discover is by doing this you are carving out different spaces for different instruments and even with out boost they will stand out individually better in mix and it will sound clearer and with more presence.

Then if so desired, slightly boost (again fairly narrow but sightly less narrow Q than on the cuts and at different frequencies for the different instruments and they will now pop cleanly forward in the mix.

[Larpy]

Originally Posted by alohachris

BTW, what is the rest of your recording signal chain? I mean, mic's are very important, but other elements are too. The main thing is not to mix mediocre w/ high end professional gear in your chain- it's counter-productive.

I use an Apogee Quartet (aggregated with an Apogee Duet when I want to record drums and another instrument together) into my MacPro laptop.

I've been using Garageband, but I don't like the latest version, which seems way too "dumbed-down" to me. I've been thinking about going to Logic.

I mix mostly on my home stereo (I'm an audio weenie): DIY tubed preamp (a slightly modded Bottlehead Extended Foreplay) to a VTL tubed amp to a pair of Aerial 7B speakers. I also listen on headphones: Sennheiser HD 800s and HiFiMan 500s (I warned you I was an audio weenie).

I'm 51 and played guitar in loud rock bands for years. My hearing is good up to 10K, but by 15K I don't hear at all. I'm super-sensitive to treble spikes in the 5K area, but up to a point I tend to like bright sound. All my guitars are pretty bright (my two favorites are a Lowden and a Collings), I like the sound of the Peluso CEMC6, but I think the Sennheiser HD800s are way too bright.

Originally Posted by alohachris

PS: In addition to knowledgable players here at AGF, there are educated opinions & reviews galore of every mic & piece of gear & signal chain over at the gearslutz "High End" forum. Check it out.-alohachris-

I've looked at Gearslutz and I find it a bit overwhelming. Lots of helpful info, but also lots of chest-thumping and pissing contests.

Thanks for your advice.

Oh, and you can address me as Larry. When I joined, there was already a "Larry," so I chose "Larpy" instead.

_____________
Larry

[Larpy]

Originally Posted by KevWind

So first here is a quick (and very general) EQ 101.

Generally speaking mud is most prevalent in the low Freq's below 150 hz

In recording acoustic instruments and particularly stringed instruments and vocals there will be significant build up from the low mid's to high mid's frequencies, in addition to a tendency for proximity boom or mud in the lows.

A Multi band parametric EQ with adjustable (Q) (i.e. control over the , width of the individual bands of frequencies being cut or boosted ) and the ability to sweep an individual narrow Q ed band back and forth through the frequency range (more on this later) is invaluable and should be placed on every individual instrument and vocal
track. (note) remember that with multiple EQ generally speaking less is better, use only enough to barely discern any effect (especially on any individual track soloed) because these small multiple adjustments will have a cumulative effect across multiple tracks.

In sessions with drums and bass virtually everything else should be cut varying but generally below about 200hz




Now a good method to try to discover what mid frequencies are the most problematic (mud wise) in each track, is to use one of the mid freq. bands set to a relatively narrow Q , boost it way up and sweep it back and forth starting at about 400 hz and sweeping up to about 4khz. What you will hear is at some point (often for many instruments and even vocals around 500k) and then again occurring usually at the double point up the frequencies from there 500k, 1000k, 2000k, 4000k etc. there will be a particular "honky" "tubby" or "ringing" in the upper mids (shouting thru a culvert) type sound.

Again (very generally speaking) these are usually good places to put a relatively (narrow Q) cut of say 3 to 6 db. ( note some times if ther are multiple instruments right around the same freq. the try to determine if you here and select a position just above or below that frequency for different instruments.

After you have cut the lows and cut problem freq's , what you may discover is buy doing this you are carving out different spaces for different instruments and even with out boost they will stand out individually better in mix and it will sound clearer and with more presence.

The and if so desired slightly boost (again fairly but sightly less narrow Q at different frequencies for the different instruments and they will now pop cleanly forward in the mix.

This is very helpful. Thank you. The latest version of Garageband doesn't have a parametric EQ plug-in, and that's one of the reasons I've been thinking about going to Logic. (I'm assuming Logic does have parametric plug-ins.)

Those of you who use (or have used) Logic, do you know if would be able to import my existing GB files into it? I've already got 5 or 6 songs in various stages of completion and wouldn't want to have to start again from scratch).

_________
Larry