The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 11-01-2020, 09:14 AM
jim1960 jim1960 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,960
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CASD57 View Post
Probably need to use a compressor and or a limiter.
A compressor reduces the dynamic range of a track. It isn't going to eliminate distortion or make a bad track sound good. For tracking, if you're just going to be recording vocals and one guitar, you can probably safely shoot for a level around -8 but you need to pay attention to the loudest parts of the song and make sure you're not coming in too hot.
__________________
Jim
2023 Iris ND-200 maple/adi
2017 Circle Strings 00 bastogne walnut/sinker redwood
2015 Circle Strings Parlor shedua/western red cedar
2009 Bamburg JSB Signature Baritone macassar ebony/carpathian spruce
2004 Taylor XXX-RS indian rosewood/sitka spruce
1988 Martin D-16 mahogany/sitka spruce

along with some electrics, zouks, dulcimers, and banjos.

YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-01-2020, 10:30 AM
rockabilly69 rockabilly69 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 4,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran Guidry View Post
You may have seen the widely circulated idea that a dynamic mic "picks up less room." I'm pretty sure that this is a fallacy.
Not a fallacy, and I've put this to the test more times than I count. It's not a sensitivity issue, as much as it is a frequency response issue. Look at a dynamic like the SM57 or the SM7, and notice the sharp drop-off of response starting around 10Khz, then look at the Shure SM81 which is basically flat up to almost 20Khz, like most good condensers. The condensers are hearing the top end of the room (along with all the other typical noises in the house) which many times is just plain unflattering, whereas the dynamic is rolling off the top end for a more pleasant sound. Put on a set of headphones and plug a dynamic mic into one channel of a stereo pre, and stick a condenser in the other channel. Bring them both up to the same level, and listen to the noises in your house with both microphones. If you don't hear more of the garbage of the room in the condenser I'd be amazed! Yes you can roll off the EQ of the extended range of the condenser, but to a beginner this can be daunting. Especially considering most beginners are starting out in a bedroom, or their living room, with no treatment whatsoever. I can't count the amount of times when friends of mine have told me that they've recorded successfully in their houses with dynamics, and then they bought their first condenser and were shocked by what that mic was hearing. And the OP is obviously a beginner.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-01-2020, 11:48 AM
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudy4 View Post
Hi Fran.

I think it's a fair to assume that sound pressure on a mic diaphragm is going to generate a signal, even if it's at a lower level.

My thought about mics and their ability to pick up "room level" sound is that a high quality condenser, be it small, mid, or large diaphragm, simply has more of an ability to be physically moved by relatively low pressure gradients because the mass of the diaphragm is so much lower than what's found in the typical dynamic; pretty much designed to respond to close sources with high energy levels.

I may be totally off-base, but it makes sense since my real world experience seems to bear out the claim that higher quality condensers pick up more of the low level detail in what's found from sources that are beyond the normal pick up range of the mic than what is picked up by your garden variety dynamic.

If the diaphragm doesn't move then it's not gonna produce any electrical energy that mirrors the sound pressure gradients that surrounds it.

Maybe that old "Wive's tale" is somewhat grounded in the basic physics of diaphragm mass.

I could be totally wrong, too.
I've been told by serious mic geeks that the difference in mass results in the difference in frequency response. And I think (and the geeks assure me) that what we interpret as "low level detail" is a result of the extended frequency response of the condenser. I am told that this is borne out by the extremely low harmonic distortion measurements of microphones, compared for instance to compressors where output varies in a non-linear way with input.

Of course what we really care about is what we hear, but it might be worth recognizing that the human sensory system is very far from a precision instrument in many ways.

Fran
__________________
E ho`okani pila kakou ma Kaleponi
Slack Key in California - www.kaleponi.com
My YouTube clips
The Homebrewed Music Blog
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-01-2020, 12:08 PM
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankHudson View Post
...

For the benefit of others from your experience and knowledge , a question: when folks say (and I think you said something akin to this in following up on my like for the SM7b in this thread) that a dynamic is "less sensitive," what is meant by that? I had what I thought was an understanding of that, and my (limited? wrong?) theoretical understanding* may be prejudicing what I think I hear when use my dynamics for vocals. Is it all just a fancy way to say turn the gain up?

*very rough summary as it relates to this thread, my working belief was: the same stuff the "less sensitive" dynamics don't pick up from vocals that condensers do (and some of that condenser detail is less flattering to some voices as well) is also some of the stuff we don't like to pickup in less treated or higher environmental noise-floor rooms.
Sensitivity in mics is measured at a single frequency, I think it's normally 1 khz. This makes it a somewhat poor analog for what we hear, but useful for comparing mics in their ability to pick up low volumes or deal with high volumes. And 1 khz is nominally the frequency that our auditory system is most sensitive to, so in that way it's a reasonable choice for measuring mic sensitivity.

Frequency response certainly does vary between mics and there are additional issues like resonance and pattern that make big differences in how we hear mics. In a very broadly general way we are usually buying "smoother" response with less uncontrolled resonance and more even polar pickup patterns when we go up the price scale, but of course many other factors enter into the price of mics.

I would also suggest that dividing the world into dynamic and condenser over simplifies a bit too much. There are a few dynamics that have extended frequency response like the Sennheiser MD441 and the frequency response (and "detail") of various condensers can be all over the map.

Let me end this blather by saying that all we really care about is what we hear, but it's worth considering that what we "hear" is impacted more than we might imagine by things like expectation, experience, visual impact, and much more.

Fran
__________________
E ho`okani pila kakou ma Kaleponi
Slack Key in California - www.kaleponi.com
My YouTube clips
The Homebrewed Music Blog
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-01-2020, 12:11 PM
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jim1960 View Post
The problem with that approach is that if the muddy bottom end is bad enough, you can't eq it out without making the guitar sound really thin. A bass track can compensate for that but if the only instrument is guitar, it's not always as easy as just rolling off the bottom.
I'm not sure I follow - proximity is a change in frequency response, EQ is a tool for changing frequency response. Certainly if the only EQ available is a single high pass shelf I would agree with you, but any reasonable DAW will have a vastly more powerful tool than that, wouldn't it?

Fran
__________________
E ho`okani pila kakou ma Kaleponi
Slack Key in California - www.kaleponi.com
My YouTube clips
The Homebrewed Music Blog
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-01-2020, 12:26 PM
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankHudson View Post
...
So back at the OP's question: even aside from the room reflections/resonance and environmental noise issues, it's still possible more home recording people could consider mid-priced dynamics for vocals than do.


*Yes, like a lot of folks i had used a MXL63 for recording vocals as an "upgrade" to my SM58 I had used live, but it brought out the shrillness in my vocal timbre that I always felt I had to tame afterward. I tried a Audio-Technica AT2035 for awhile. Better, and they're affordable, but still not happy. I got a deal on a Warm Audio WA87 earlier this year and I have it setup with my acoustic guitar Octavia SDC mics for solo recordings. But in comparing some recent recordings vocal tracks I noted my problematic voice sounded best on the SM7b.
In a previous response I mentioned "resonance" as one of the issues that varies between mics and is especially likely to be problematic in lower priced mics. Issues like the mass and material of the mic body, damping of the diaphragm mount, quality of the screening, and more can lead to narrow points of resonance that result in unpleasant results.

I would absolutely agree that if you prefer your vocal sound using the SM7b you should definitely use the SM7b.

That mic in particular has seen a remarkable change in status over the past some years, as you may or may not know. It was a designed and originally marketed as a broadcast mic, a competitor to the dominant EV RE20, and as I recall it didn't succeed in sweeping the market. But when Bruce Swedien used the SM7 for Michael Jackson's vocal on "Thriller" the mic began to be seen as magical. That eventually led to one of the longest joke threads ever on Gearslutz: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-m...ke-thread.html

Fran
__________________
E ho`okani pila kakou ma Kaleponi
Slack Key in California - www.kaleponi.com
My YouTube clips
The Homebrewed Music Blog
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-01-2020, 12:26 PM
jim1960 jim1960 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,960
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran Guidry View Post
I'm not sure I follow - proximity is a change in frequency response, EQ is a tool for changing frequency response. Certainly if the only EQ available is a single high pass shelf I would agree with you, but any reasonable DAW will have a vastly more powerful tool than that, wouldn't it?

Fran
If the problem in the low end is something that can be isolated, then a parametric eq can fix it up, but if the bottom end is overly muddy to the point where it's not just an isolated frequency or two or three, it becomes a more difficult problem to fix. In other words, if hidden in the mud there isn't something enough good low frequency information to lean on, then you're going to be left with a thin sounding guitar track. That isn't necessarily a disaster. As I think I said earlier, you can make up for the lack of low end with a bass track (obviously I'm not talking about fingerstyle guitar here). But if you listen to the isolated acoustic guitar tracks from mixes that include bass and drums, you'll often find they sound a bit on the thin side because the mixer carved out room for the bass and drums.
__________________
Jim
2023 Iris ND-200 maple/adi
2017 Circle Strings 00 bastogne walnut/sinker redwood
2015 Circle Strings Parlor shedua/western red cedar
2009 Bamburg JSB Signature Baritone macassar ebony/carpathian spruce
2004 Taylor XXX-RS indian rosewood/sitka spruce
1988 Martin D-16 mahogany/sitka spruce

along with some electrics, zouks, dulcimers, and banjos.

YouTube
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-01-2020, 12:41 PM
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockabilly69 View Post
Not a fallacy, and I've put this to the test more times than I count. It's not a sensitivity issue, as much as it is a frequency response issue. Look at a dynamic like the SM57 or the SM7, and notice the sharp drop-off of response starting around 10Khz, then look at the Shure SM81 which is basically flat up to almost 20Khz, like most good condensers. The condensers are hearing the top end of the room (along with all the other typical noises in the house) which many times is just plain unflattering, whereas the dynamic is rolling off the top end for a more pleasant sound. Put on a set of headphones and plug a dynamic mic into one channel of a stereo pre, and stick a condenser in the other channel. Bring them both up to the same level, and listen to the noises in your house with both microphones. If you don't hear more of the garbage of the room in the condenser I'd be amazed! Yes you can roll off the EQ of the extended range of the condenser, but to a beginner this can be daunting. Especially considering most beginners are starting out in a bedroom, or their living room, with no treatment whatsoever. I can't count the amount of times when friends of mine have told me that they've recorded successfully in their houses with dynamics, and then they bought their first condenser and were shocked by what that mic was hearing. And the OP is obviously a beginner.
Sorry, I'll say again that what we care about is what we hear.

But I'll also say again that our auditory system is far from a precision instrument. I've done tests using SPL meters, matched levels, and 1 khz test tones rather than plugging in headphones and I've satisfied myself that the mic geeks are right, with matched levels dynamics hear the same room as condensers, just with a different tonal balance. They don't hear much above 10 khz, but there is very little energy up there anyway. They'll both hear the motorcycle going by on the street, the refrigerator cycling in the kitchen, and the TV in the kid's room.

I think that in answer to the original question I'd recommend that a beginning recordist select a nice medium priced multi-pattern condenser at about the same price point as an SM7b and learn to deal with all the issues that arise in home recording from that basis. Just an opinion, of course.

Fran
__________________
E ho`okani pila kakou ma Kaleponi
Slack Key in California - www.kaleponi.com
My YouTube clips
The Homebrewed Music Blog
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-01-2020, 04:10 PM
rockabilly69 rockabilly69 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ogden, Utah
Posts: 4,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran Guidry View Post
Sorry, I'll say again that what we care about is what we hear.

But I'll also say again that our auditory system is far from a precision instrument. I've done tests using SPL meters, matched levels, and 1 khz test tones rather than plugging in headphones and I've satisfied myself that the mic geeks are right, with matched levels dynamics hear the same room as condensers, just with a different tonal balance. They don't hear much above 10 khz, but there is very little energy up there anyway. They'll both hear the motorcycle going by on the street, the refrigerator cycling in the kitchen, and the TV in the kid's room.

I think that in answer to the original question I'd recommend that a beginning recordist select a nice medium priced multi-pattern condenser at about the same price point as an SM7b and learn to deal with all the issues that arise in home recording from that basis. Just an opinion, of course.

Fran
We have different methods of testing, and IMO I don't think test tones tell the story as well as actual instruments. And I disagree with you about what we hear, In my experience I rarely hear the average house sounds as easy with a dynamic. And I generally write and record most of my songs at home and record the demos there before I record them at my studio. So we will agree to disagree, but even as we disagree, if you look at my first post in this thread, I recommended the same thing as you did, a reasonable priced condenser to learn with, the well reviewed CAD M179. https://www.gearslutz.com/board/revi...-cad-m179.html

And even at home I almost always use condensers over dynamics, and deal with the noise as best as I can. I've actually used the M179 mic recording at a friends house and it was decent little mic. And it worked pretty well in a non-treated environment.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-03-2020, 07:22 AM
cmac3317 cmac3317 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Greensboro, NC
Posts: 15
Default

Thank you all for the suggestions and comments, I appreciate it! I actually did some digging around in my closets yesterday and found an Oktava MK-319 that I bought many years ago and had totally forgotten about. I quickly tested it to see that it's working (it is) and I plan to do a better test for sound quality later today.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 11-04-2020, 03:34 PM
Br1ck Br1ck is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: San Jose, Ca
Posts: 6,943
Default

I have not bought a mic for my studio in over ten years. I attribute that to not buying bottom tier gear. Here is what I'd want for a basic home studio mic setup. SM 57 at the top of the list. If you have a hundred bucks period for a mic, buy this one. Then I'd buy a large diaphragm condenser and shoot for something in the over $300 range. I have a Rode NT2 but Audio Technica and many others make good mics. I'm not a fan of cheaper Mics but I'll have to admit that the Rode NT1a is pretty decent. Then you round things out with a pair of small diaphragm condensers. A good sounding acoustic guitar can sound great in stereo. I bought my SM 81s one at a time as I could afford them.

Anything higher end than the above, and I'd have to start thinking about a quality mic pre. The trick is getting your whole signal chain to match. Buy a thousand dollar mic, and it will point out weak links.
__________________
2007 Martin D 35 Custom
1970 Guild D 35
1965 Epiphone Texan
2011 Santa Cruz D P/W
Pono OP 30 D parlor
Pono OP12-30
Pono MT uke
Goldtone Paul Beard squareneck resophonic
Fluke tenor ukulele
Boatload of home rolled telecasters

"Shut up and play ur guitar" Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 11-06-2020, 01:13 PM
lkingston lkingston is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Asheville North Carolina
Posts: 3,231
Default

I have experimented with both dynamic and condenser mics and get good results either way. My dynamic mic of choice is an SM7B with a FetHead or CloudLifter. My Condenser mic is an AT4050ST. Both sound fantastic.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-03-2020, 04:32 PM
dyna dyna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 181
Default

For recording vocals, I often prefer my Sennheiser MD421 to my Rode NT2. But that’s me.
There is no such thing as ”a good microphone” though. It depends on what you want to obtain, what you want to hear.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=