Intro to high-end Mics

[RayCJ]

I stumbled upon this video while researching microphones and thought folks here might appreciate this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CtP7PxGzgc

Enjoy...


EDIT: Here is a really nice intro-101 series on microphones. Wish I saw and posed this before posting the first video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxp3eCCQyas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TH82dx7Qas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYWnSuAxato
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYMaRhRt8Ts



Ray

[KevWind]

Great Video and lots of good straight no nonsense information. I have always liked Dirk Brauner's design philosophy and construction ethic, and I especially liked his calling BS on the tube and solid state myth.

But what can I say I am a fan of German engineering in general and Brauner Mic's in particular . After a year long search for a vocal mic , I chose the Brauner Phantom V FET over the Neumann U87 .

And while I love the Phantom V and will keep it, I still am curious to also A/B it with the either the Brauner Valvet tube.
Or I think the other tube mic I would really be interested in is the Cathedral Pipes Notre Dame. Where the Phantom V is in the design category of the Neumann 87 both FET the Cathedral Pipes Notre Dame is in the design category of the legendary U 47 tube mic.

[RayCJ]

Well KevWind, just to set the record straight, I don't have equipment like that and it's not likely my life will lead me in that direction. My ears are no way near the caliber of those kinds of microphones...

Anyhow, Mr Brauner seemed to have a clear and confident mastery of his field. It seems he's dedicated his life to the field of microphones and that company in-particular. With so much competition in that field, he must be a good businessman too. His mics are only available on backorder as they're in high demand and short supply.

My interpretation of his discussion of tube vs FET mics was that only a creature with the combined hearing of an Elephant and a Bat can tell the difference -and then, only if all other conditions were perfect. I did appreciate his honesty and advice to not buy expensive mics if you don't know what you're doing and do not have the studio and equipment to support it.

In any event, I was thinking of upgrading my AT 2020 and I stumbled on those videos and thought other folks might find them interesting. LOL: After researching other mics, I'm probably going to stick with my AT2020 and two, AT2021's. They do the trick for me and are commensurate with my current recording setup.


Ray

[KevWind]

Ray. Actually the AT 20 series are perfectly serviceable mics and a great performance per dollar value. And also having high end equipment is not an prerequisite for appreciating or discussing it

And it should be noted that being able to hear subtle differences in sound reproduction is of course helped by excellent hearing range (which is one problem we all face as we age). However it should also be noted that the ability hear and appreciate the subtle differences is as much or more a matter of critical listening training and practice. And will improve with age/practice of course until hearing loss become significant.



And as for the FET and Tube thing , yes as Mr. Brauner said all things being equal, either one if made well can do a very accurate job of capturing the source.

But "myth" I was specifically taking about is the one that was floated ( with like quality) that if you have a tube mic you use a solid state mic pre, or vice versa FET mic with a tube pre. That is the one that is primarily nonsense.

[RayCJ]

I'm in the process of doing some house remodeling. My wife is thinking of moving her "woman cave" downstairs and I'm eyeing the room she may be vacating. It's big enough for me setup my office on one side and a recording setup on the other side.... -Thus, the renewed interest in possibly upgrading my mics. Right now, I'm setup on one side of a large family room and there's too much background noise from the kitchen and laundry room. I'm practically day-dreaming about the possibilities of doing some nice recording in that room.

I must say, despite my current poor recording setup, the 2020 and 2021's have done a very fine job. It's very easy to get carried away by looking at specs and reading reviews so, I'm determined to hold my ground and not buy any new mics until I move into that room.

One thing I've often wondered about when critiquing mics, is how do folks standardize the speakers or headphones used for listening. Stated in other terms, is it possible to declare a particular mic as "the greatest mic of the day" then, suddenly hate it when listening to the playback out of a different set of speakers or headphones?


How do folks reconcile that side of the equation?

[muscmp]

raycj: from my limited recording knowledge, i've found that i record my songs at the highest quality i can throughout the chain, but, play it back through the best sound system i have, and, the worst(which is a clock radio/cdplayer). usually i find that i don't have the bass loud enough, but, that is me.

play music!

[KevWind]

Good question

But first if you get a new room what you probably should consider before new mic's , is room treatment . Arguably the best dollar value improvement you can make to your sound. No matter what caliber of recording equipment you have .

That said : You have hit upon some key elements in framing your question.


One: the fact that objectively speaking different sound systems can very easily sound quite different with the same source material.

Now as far as "love" the way it sounds on this system , but hate that one, that is a subjective interpretation of the fact of there being a difference.

Two:
And I digress here a little, but it applies and I will attempt to tie it in

The other element you have hit upon is what is referred to by professional mix engineers as "translation" (even though it is going to sound different on different playback systems, does it sound good and sound like the same relative balance across different playback systems ? )

In todays world it is even more of an issue and more difficult to get right .
Considering that translation now has to work for the drastic difference in playback quality between the 'the studio monitoring system" (which can easily be in the thousands of dollars and reflect that in the quality of reproduction) ......... all the way down to the proliferation personal portable playback listening on smartphones/earbuds to tiny and honestly crappy laptop computer speakers .

And while the above is about mixing the music for translation across varied playback systems. The concept applies directly to auditioning mic sound .

So in answer as to how to reconcile this problem. First the basic rules still apply, the better the mic the better the sound going into the mix > the better the mix the better it will translate > Which means the drastic difference in playback systems will not create a drastic difference in translation >So that the reaction of the listener to that difference is more like one of " Oh it's different but not hateful" as opposed to the reaction being "Oh that sounds awful" .

With that in mind when shopping for new mic FIRST decide on budget.

Then the best idea is to eliminate as many variables as possible:
#1 ideally audition in your situation or #2 if that's not feasible, try as many mics in a single given store location as possible, because generally if sounds the best of the mics tested in the store it will still sound the best in your room.

And understand if it sounds bad on a different playback it is more than likely the mix not the mic.
Sorry to be so wordy but the truth is the subject is actually fairly complex

[RayCJ]

@ KevWind:

One thing for sure, I'm not going to upgrade the mics until after making some recordings in that new room and even then, I'll experiment with changing the carpeting, curtains etc to see how that changes things. It's got to be an improvement over what I'd doing right now. Also, it's just me playing guitar and singing. I'm not a hard strummer nor a loud singer so, I do not feel my needs are highly sophisticated. My gut feeling is that the current mics will be just fine.

@muscmp:

I've got a very simple setup. The mics go into an 18i20 Focusrite interface box and it enters the computer via USB. The mic cables are all short length and I do not have any effects pedals etc in the electrical chain. I'm using Cubase software and only use the EQ and "Room Sonics" plugins. My method of EQ is very simple and I never make adjustments of more than 2-3 dB. I add a hint of room "reverb" but not much. If I can't get the track to sound good, I adjust the mic position and try again.

A couple times, I've played my music back and people in the kitchen thought I was playing live.

It's a slow process for me though -especially when the African Grey parrot (named Argus) decides to augment my performances.


Ray

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by RayCJ

...One thing I've often wondered about when critiquing mics, is how do folks standardize the speakers or headphones used for listening. Stated in other terms, is it possible to declare a particular mic as "the greatest mic of the day" then, suddenly hate it when listening to the playback out of a different set of speakers or headphones?


How do folks reconcile that side of the equation?

On the recording engineer/producer side of the business it is usually accomplished by the reviewer listening on monitors he is familiar with in a treated environment he is familiar with, and through a chain he is familiar with, thus eliminating as many variables as possible. For instance, I listen on monitors I've worked with for twenty-six years in a room I've mixed in for twenty years using preamps and power amps I've worked on for seventeen years. Consistency and familiarity are important factors.

The second part of the question brings up an interesting turn in the industry: during the transition from analog to digital recording a school of thought developed that influenced mic design for a while. You see, in analog days engineers were always fighting high frequency loss. Every generation of tape induced high end loss. Every moment after an analog tape was recorded it suffered from high end "relaxation" where the treble frequencies slowly faded. And any high end added after the initial recording also brought up tape and system hiss. As a result, the philosophical position of engineers was to always record with a bit of high end tilt-up to counter the many subsequent sources of loss. As a result, many mics were designed with a little bit of tilt-up so that you didn't have to add it at the console. For that matter, for years recording console EQs had little control over the high end anyway. You altered your high end by choice of mic.

When digital began to take over, the "straight wire" faction of the recording industry who eschewed processing said, "Wait a minute, now all our recordings with these mics have a harsh high end. We must have new mics without any pre-emphasis." It was also realized that many tube and transformer-equipped devices had lower slew rates, which had never been a problem with analog tape. A new generation of mics without the pre-emphasis and transformers and consoles without transformers came out and the old designs were abandoned. Surprise! It was a fad. Within a few years the older mics were recognized as having desirable character for many applications and people remembered that you could reach up to that little EQ thingy (now becoming parametric!) and tilt back down any undesired brightness. The prices of these vintage mics and preamp channels went through the roof and the age of the vintage mic reproduction and Neve preamp reproduction was begun.

So, yes, there can be reasons that people all of a sudden change mic tastes. Not always good reasons.

Bob