My Microphone Epiphany

[hduncan]

I downloaded all 168 microphone samples from Warrens Front-End-Audio "Tuesday Testers" page that compared 28 mics on 6 different sources...

While listening to these and comparing each category, I noticed that the sound of these mics wasnt just a little different (as I had always thought) it was incredibly different! Some microphones sounded damn good on somethings, some mics sounded horrible!!!

I noticed a few things, most mics fall within one of three categories:
A) Sounds Bad: Dull, EQ'd, too dark/too bright or just not exciting
B) Sounds Good: Flatters the source, seems to boost the right stuff
C) Sounds Full: Sounds balanced and flat, seems to give you a good full/round recreation of the source

Obviously, we dont like A. But which do you tend to prefer? yes, B sounds good on the instrument because it hypes the right frequencies, but C seems to give you more options... the mics that fall into the C category seem like they'd be more compatible with effects and dramatic EQing whereas the B category mics sound sort of like, "this is how its going to sound, if you mess with it too much, it will fall apart".

An example of this is good with the Snare... I listened back to back to the RE20 and the SM7B as well as the Audix D6 (yeah I know its a kick mic)

The RE20 was a category C, it was a little darker than the SM7b and the D6, but it was very full and rounded out. smooth. seemed more moldable/pliable.

The SM7b had some good tone but it seems a little more accentuated in the fundamental snare frequencies, but didnt have the fullness of the RE20, its a bit brighter. Its a category B

Then the D6 seems suuuper boosted in some frequency that makes the snare really sizzle... it sounds really cool at first and frankly I cant decide if its a good thing or bad thing, but I think ultimately, for a snare mic, it boosts the hihat too much and that sort of bleed really isnt so great, so it would fall into the A category I suppose

So heres the point: is it better to use the mic that gives you the basic tone you want right up front, or use the mic that sounds like there will be more to work with later?

[tropicalhotdog]

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

So heres the point: is it better to use the mic that gives you the basic tone you want right up front, or use the mic that sounds like there will be more to work with later?

Yes.

[danbronson]

I try not to stress about it and just choose the mic that works best at the time. 'Best' is subjective of course, but to me it basically means whatever grabs me as sounding 'good' on a very basic level without overthinking. If I listen to my instincts, things tend to work out.

I see what you're saying though, and agree that it's worth noting.

[mbradzick]

Originally Posted by danbronson

I try not to stress about it and just choose the mic that works best at the time. 'Best' is subjective of course, but to me it basically means whatever grabs me as sounding 'good' on a very basic level without overthinking. If I listen to my instincts, things tend to work out.

I see what you're saying though, and agree that it's worth noting.

It's about the whole package though. Great mic into shitty pres and converters will kill you. I've heard though that cheap Chinese mics hype the his so when you hear it you like the bright sparkle. Not good for sibilance and your overall recording though.

[mcsmitty]

CAD TSM on tom = whoa. might have to look into that one.

[danbronson]

Originally Posted by Mitch97

It's about the whole package though. Great mic into shitty pres and converters will kill you. I've heard though that cheap Chinese mics hype the his so when you hear it you like the bright sparkle. Not good for sibilance and your overall recording though.

Yeah but that doesn't sound good in the first place.

I wish I could describe what 'good' sounded like to me. But I guess it's different for everyone. All I know is that when I track individual instruments and they sound good, the entire mix shares their qualities and is as 'good' as those tracks are. I don't generally have to EQ much in this case, but of course it's necessary sometimes to make things fit a bit better. This is assuming I'm tracking good sounding, high quality instruments played by talented people.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by DarkEcho

So heres the point: is it better to use the mic that gives you the basic tone you want right up front, or use the mic that sounds like there will be more to work with later?

I think it depends on whether or not you KNOW what basic tone you want up front, and for me that varies from one project to the next.

It's similar to the 'tracking through effects' debate.

The lesson I draw from this is:

it is good to have as many mics to choose from as possible!

[hduncan]

so, if you know what tone you want from the get go then you can choose the mic that gives you that tone

but if you dont know what tone you want from the get go, might be better to use a more well rounded mic that you can mold later..

I am trying to buy a modest set of mics, so I should probably go with the mics that give me a well rounded sound so that I can cut what I need to after-the-fact.

[river]

For me, the decision on what I want a mic to do relative to a particular voice or instrument depends on the arrangement of the song. Let's say I'm working with grand piano. If the arrangement is sparse and allows for a full, balanced sound, I'll choose a mic accordingly. If it's a dense arrangement and the piano needs to cut through, I'll choose a mic that hypes the mids and highs, and make sure the piano is playing in a register that isn't going to clash with other elements in the mix. Whatever tool gets the job done.

[theblue1]

Don't forget, there's much more to a mic's performance than merely its on-axis frequency response at a specified level.

Mics, most mics, are highly unlinear in many respects. That is, you get one frequency response pattern at one angle, an entirely different one at another angle and yet a third response curve at another angle.

Change the impedance the mic is working into and it changes again.

Change the pressure level and it changes again...

Mics are little balls of chaos that we roll toward the tenpins of desired perfection... you seldom get a strke but if you're careful, you can keep the ball out of the gutter most days...

[warhead]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Don't forget, there's much more to a mic's performance than merely its on-axis frequency response at a specified level.

Yes, and clips are never 100% enough info to make decisions on either most times. However, the reason I always include the entire tom tracks etc is it lets you hear bleed you can expect and you can hear how the mic colors it also so that can at least help.

War

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Mics are little balls of chaos that we roll toward the tenpins of desired perfection... you seldom get a strke but if you're careful, you can keep the ball out of the gutter most days...

Nice!

[KingDaddyO]

Originally Posted by theblue1

... Mics are little balls of chaos that we roll toward the tenpins of desired perfection... you seldom get a strke but if you're careful, you can keep the ball out of the gutter most days...

LOL ... great description. Gets my vote for Gearslutz 'quote of the day'.

[EvilE]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Don't forget, there's much more to a mic's performance than merely its on-axis frequency response at a specified level.

Mics, most mics, are highly unlinear in many respects. That is, you get one frequency response pattern at one angle, an entirely different one at another angle and yet a third response curve at another angle.

Change the impedance the mic is working into and it changes again.

Change the pressure level and it changes again...

Mics are little balls of chaos that we roll toward the tenpins of desired perfection... you seldom get a strke but if you're careful, you can keep the ball out of the gutter most days...

THANK YOU! I love it. Wiser words are seldom spoken.

[EvilE]

Originally Posted by bcgood

Nice!

wow!

e