Home Studio Mic Recommendations

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by kurth

Doug...couldn't part of the problem most face be construction techniques of housing esp in North America? It's one of the few places that uses hollowed walls with highly reflective surfaces. As well, the size of most rooms being used are small and surfaces easily reflect with each other. thanks

I don't think North American has anything to do with it, but hard surfaces on parallel walls in small rooms is usually a recipe for acoustical issues. I don't think hollow walls has much to do with it - that may play a role in noise isolation.

Room acoustics is so hard to talk about in the abstract, in short posts. There are tons of good books that cover acoustics. Heck, you can get college degrees in the topic. A truly world-class studio usually involves construction planning from the ground up. Obviously thats out of reach for home recording fans. What we need is a room that sounds "good enough". For some people, they luck out and their living room or bedroom or whatever works fine for them. Others need to find ways to deal with issues.

How do we know if a room sounds good enough? The easiest way is to record something and see how it sounds. If it sounds good, you're good to go. If, like the OP, you find that the recording is boomy, or that you need to move into a closet to avoid noise, then you may need to figure out how to deal with the problem. There are a variety of solutions, and you kind of have to start with what, if any, problem do you have? The topic is often complicated by lack of recording expertise and experience that we all have when we start home recording. An experienced engineer will know what to listen for, know what can and can't be fixed, and so on. When we're beginning, we often (just speaking for myself from my own past experience), don't even realize we have an issue, or if we do, assume it's a gear problem - like "I must need a better mic" and so on.

[kurth]

North America ...because both Canada and the US build homes the same way...and very different from other parts of the world. For example in Mexico no homes are built using drywall. So it seems logical to first examine the properties of the structure one is attempting to acoustically modify. And just a cursory search shows that drywall is almost transparent and not a very effective acoustic material to start with.

[Doug Young]

I have no idea about construction materials or techniques around the world. If someone is lucky enough to live in, or have access to, a space that has good acoustic properties, however that happened, then that's great - they're a step ahead of the game.

[dnf777]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I have no idea about construction materials or techniques around the world. If someone is lucky enough to live in, or have access to, a space that has good acoustic properties, however that happened, then that's great - they're a step ahead of the game.

Theres probably a home construction forum having a thread about how music studios have excellent R-values due to crazy sound engineers hanging Corning panels disguised as modern art on the other side of the drywall!

[b1j]

One analogy about room treatment that came to me is this:

Imagine trying to photograph a portrait or still life in the studio using the best, most sophisticated lighting gear — outside in the sun. Until you remove the sunshine you can never fully control what the camera records.

A lens sees what it’s aimed at. A microphone — especially a high-end microphone — hears what’s audible around it.

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by b1j

One analogy about room treatment that came to me is this:

Imagine trying to photograph a portrait or still life in the studio using the best, most sophisticated lighting gear — outside in the sun. Until you remove the sunshine you can never fully control what the camera records.

A lens sees what it’s aimed at. A microphone — especially a high-end microphone — hears what’s audible around it.

Really good analogy.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by b1j

One analogy about room treatment that came to me is this:

Imagine trying to photograph a portrait or still life in the studio using the best, most sophisticated lighting gear — outside in the sun. Until you remove the sunshine you can never fully control what the camera records.

A lens sees what it’s aimed at. A microphone — especially a high-end microphone — hears what’s audible around it.

Originally Posted by runamuck

Really good analogy.

As an ex commercial photographer, that is a reasonable analogy. While exact representation of a product is often the prime goal, it is not always the everything goal. Companies often want you to represent the product on how they hope it will make you feel. In some cases combining Natural light and Studio lights in the outdoors is the only way to achieve this.

Point being that Photography & Music aren't always about recording exactness. If music was only about exactness, we would never use proximity effect to our advantage. We would not add reverb. Nor would we EQ certain instruments in the mix. In fact it has indeed been the opposite for many of the biggest selling albums.

I will say this, capturing the source as true as possible allows us to control and add desired effects to our hearts desire much more easily.

I too was a very stubborn in adding room treatment. And part of the reason I have been lucky enough to record in larger rooms with less sonic problems. But then a couple of years back came Doug Young's statement on room treatment. Kind of the reverse(but still in the same vein as bij's.
he said something like this:
Imagine using a flashlight in broad daylight, you will barely notice the light. However in the dark, the flashlight reigns.
Doug's analogy literally switch on a light for me on how I viewed room treatment. The Daylight, is not letting the flashlight itself be seen for itself. In our case, the room is not letting the microphone record just the guitar itself. The microphone is recording the room reflections as well.

To bij's point. Here is a case where I actually did remove the sunlight for a commercial advertisement. I went out into the desert at Nighttime with 5 thousand watts of strobe power. My first real pro assignment.

But this shot was not about exactness. Using an extreme wide angle lens to curve the earth's surface, was the only way to make the earth look like we were on the moon. And in using such a lens, the guitars are not perfectly represented. And a One Source light can not represent all of the guitar exact colors as they are different distances from each other. But that was A. O.K. Cause in this case it was about representing the guitars in how they made you feel, not their exact shape and color. This Shot taken about 40 years ago. No photoshop then. With the Exception of the earth which was easily airbrushed in on a black background, there was no other retouching.



In the end, I totally understand how newcomers want first to invest in a reasonable microphone. I think us fighting them on this is a downhill battle. You first got to get a signal into your recorder. If you can only afford one...then I say make it a microphone. As Mics are sexy, as may of you have said. Room treatment is beyond what any of us newcomers can comprehend. That is something that will take time to embed.

However, now I can honestly say that room treatment can be sexy too. Maybe if I had seen these a few years ago, I would have got into room treatment sooner.



In the end, I do have to thank all of you for constantly embedding into me the importance of room treatment. It took some time, but it finally worked.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by kurth

Doug...couldn't part of the problem most face be construction techniques of housing esp in North America? It's one of the few places that uses hollowed walls with highly reflective surfaces. As well, the size of most rooms being used are small and surfaces easily reflect with each other. thanks

Well yes, and no not really.
No the problem has little if anything to do with construction techniques per. se.
No the problem is not really the typical stud and sheeting walls with a hollow space in between (typical in US) .
Yes the problem is smaller rooms and reflective surfaces BUT a reflective surface issue will be more or less the same issue with concrete and concrete block walls , with stucco (typical in Mexico for example) as with stud and sheeting walls

The situation where the wall construction would play a role to be considered would be in attempting to sound proof the studio space from the outside or adjacent rooms, but not in dealing with the room acoustics which is about reflections and what we typically discuss here in the recording forum

[ACOUSTICDEWD]

Those panels may be using Sonopan, a new (green) acoustic material from Canada: https://sonopan.com/

I see that Home Depot carries it so now I have a reason to go

.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by ACOUSTICDEWD

Those panels may be using Sonopan, a new (green) acoustic material from Canada: https://sonopan.com/

I see that Home Depot carries it so now I have a reason to go

.

Actually those panels Acoustic Dreams is showing are a GIK Acoustics product with probably Owens Corning 703 beneath the Green color fabric choice and with the leaf pattern in wood is probably getting some small amount of diffusion as well

The Sonopan product appears to be focused more on sound proofing on walls, floors, and ceilings, and the web site gives only STC rating , not NRC ratings . That said it could help some BUT hard to evaluate for comparison given the sound absorption products Like Rockwool and OC 703 etc give NRC ratings

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Actually those panels Acoustic Dreams is showing are a GIK Acoustics product with probably Owens Corning 703 beneath the Green color fabric choice and with the leaf pattern in wood is probably getting some small amount of diffusion as well

According to GIK, they told me they now only use Knauf 1.6lb in all of their panels.

They claim it is slightly better than 703. And they also claim that Knauf 3.0 does not work as good as Knaub 1.6lb. Saying that it is too dense in comparison.

https://www.gikacoustics.com/product...rglass-1-6-lb/

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Green color fabric choice and with the leaf pattern in wood is probably getting some small amount of diffusion as well

I paid extra and had them Fabric the rear as well for my four Floor standing panels. That way..I could A/B the difference between Diffusion and absorption.

In my rough tests, I found there to be quite a difference in sound between the front and rear(with no diffusion ) I Prefer the diffusion facing towards me ,sound wise. I can not say for sure, but to me it is scattering the sound in all directions changing the way the sound waves interacts with the room and...even how it interacts with the other sound waves.

There is of course much debate about how close diffusion panels should be to the source. Some saying you need a minimum of 10 feet away. However I have seen a few tests, plus my own, and I actually like diffusion panels up close and personal.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

According to GIK, they told me they now only use Knauf 1.6lb in all of their panels.

They claim it is slightly better than 703. And they also claim that Knauf 3.0 does not work as good as Knaub 1.6lb. Saying that it is too dense in comparison.

https://www.gikacoustics.com/product...rglass-1-6-lb/

Interesting I had not heard of Knaub 1.6 lb. is it a rigid like 703 ? Guess I am out of date I got my GIK panels maybe 18 -20 years ago. Back when it was pretty much a one man shop with just Glenn answering the phone

But what I really perplexed by is how you got the guitars to stand straight up on the moon =must be a low gravity thing

[kurth]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Well yes, and no not really.
No the problem has little if anything to do with construction techniques per. se.
No the problem is not really the typical stud and sheeting walls with a hollow space in between (typical in US) .
Yes the problem is smaller rooms and reflective surfaces BUT a reflective surface issue will be more or less the same issue with concrete and concrete block walls , with stucco (typical in Mexico for example) as with stud and sheeting walls

The situation where the wall construction would play a role to be considered would be in attempting to sound proof the studio space from the outside or adjacent rooms, but not in dealing with the room acoustics which is about reflections and what we typically discuss here in the recording forum

Kev...isn't half the problem most people face, other than those who live in the country, sound traveling the other way. And certainly building techniques has everything to do with that. I don't think the OP was using his closet to get warm. It was, as he said, to escape the noise.

And only for accuracy sake, we don't use stucco in mex. That'd be new mex, and arizona, or utah. Maybe here on some cheap project housing, but 99% of private residences in mexico use aplanado over either stone or brick, usually locally fired. Stucco and aplanado aren't the same, although they both usually contain cement, they can have resin stucco that doesn't even use cement.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Interesting I had not heard of Knaub 1.6 lb. is it a rigid like 703 ? Guess I am out of date I got my GIK panels maybe 18 -20 years ago. Back when it was pretty much a one man shop with just Glenn answering the phone

But what I really perplexed by is how you got the guitars to stand straight up on the moon =must be a low gravity thing

* (If I remember correctly )...No the Knaub 1.6 is not as stiff as 703. The 3lb Knaub is. However...GIK feels that the 3lb...as well as 703 is too reflective. Claiming more precise methods of measuring, they have changed their viewpoints on absorption. They like combining two -two inch 1.6 lbs together. They claim better performance. Better Absorption. I too was interested in more stiff. But according to them Less stiff is better. They only carry the 3 lb out of obligation for being a dealer.

My panels both absorb (through the spaces in the pattern ) And scatter the frequencies. And then in the rear, they just absorb.

* Now as to your question about how did I get the guitars to stand straight up? ha ha....well that was actually pretty easy. Just shoved a thin stake into the ground behind them. And then attached Velcro to the stake and to the back of the guitar.

It took a little effort to get the Velcro off the back of the guitar afterwards...But hey...anything for a good picture.

I used the same technique in studio as well. But there I could lean the guitar back a tiny bit. I would drill a small hole in a sheet of 4 by 8 plywood. Screw down a small block and attach velcro to it, and then to the back of the guitar. Since the block was behind the guitar, you would never see it. I could even lift the guitar off the board a tiny bit.

I will boldly make a claim...that I was possibly the first to use a new lighting technique on Guitars some 40 plus years ago. Nothing revolutionary....Nothing that someone else would not have eventually done.....but it was completely different than anything I had ever seen before. The lighting technique helped see through see through colored finishes. Giving more accuracy to the shot. Now, this technique has become a staple in the industry. It is most often used by most of the big custom Acoustic Guitar sellers as well. Again, nothing that complicated...but it certainly works very well.

From what I hear from a friend of mine that is the head of the Photography department for a toy company= he says in the next five years his company will buy a large scanner(basically one or more camera's on a rotary bar...and they will simply scan the toy. No more complicated photography because they can drop in any background they want now. Plus...cameras can take 4 or more pictures at the same time, exposing differently for all the areas. Thus...arranging making all the areas well lit afterwards. It is all changing.

I would not know the first thing about how to operate the new pro cameras.



Today there are some really great photographers...and all of the photo programs to go with it. I myself...just use a higher quality point and shoot camera 99% of the time. And then adjust in Mac's Photo's.

We had nothing like that back in the day. We had to test every batch of film for color accuracy. That meant photographing a color chart. Then having that film analyzed,...and then putting a correctly gel in front of the lens. Or, going with the slight differences in color and using different Films to bring out the best in the Guitar.