Mic closet recommendations

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:22 pm

yeah, but you need the original pre-1988 dictaphones,with the red logo.. They have this
really bright, yet natural sound..

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:07 pm

how about Audio-technica AT4060 or Blue Bottle?

Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:09 pm

basicly I need mic only for vocal, so I think bright is what I need:) and pricew isn't bad 400-600

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:21 am

I have to say that you left out an important mic, the Nuemann 184...which the other day I found is great when combined with the Shure SM57...great microphone.

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:28 pm

I sez:

Blood Sugar Sex Magic was recorded almost exclusively on sm-57's(and a pair of C414's for overheads). Most of it was done with one 'sweet' SM-57 that just seemed to work on everything.

Huub sez:

errm...no...
watch the funky monks dvd..
overheads look like neuman type mics,on toms md421..
leadvocals sm7b, acoustic guitar sennheiser md441..
backingvox u87, git amp sm57 indeed, but i think i saw a large diaphragm on there too.. anyway i saw lotsa non-sm57 mics..
sorry 'bout being smart-assed, but, hey, we ARE talking about a classic sonic and musical masterpiece...

I sez:

No offence taken, buuuuuuuuuutt...

"Making the ultimate demo" by Michael Molenda. Pages 111-112, "Drums and Bass, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Blood Sugar, Sex, Magic"

The exact words of producer Rick Ruben:

"For the song "Give it Away," Chad Smith's drums were placed in this great solarium, which had marble floors and huge glass panes for the walls and ceiling. I used only four mics on the kit: a Shure SM57 on the kick drum, an SM57 on the snare, and two AKG C414's for overheads. Individually, the tracks really didn't sound very good. The kick and snare were thin, and the overheads were pretty washy. But the combination of all the mics sounded amazing.

This arrangement was used pretty much throughout the album. For other songs I miked the toms and hi-hat individually, but ended up erasing the separate tracks and using only the kick, snare, and overheads..."

He goes on.

"...We even had what we called the "magic mic," a Shure SM57 that sounded great on everything. I'd say 75% of the overdubs were tracked with that single microphone. It's kind of funny-the main mic used on this huge multi-platinum record cost about $140."

Those are his words, verbatum, not mine.

I'm guessing they added a bunch of mics and such in the video to make it look sexy for the cameras. However, unless I'm reading this wrong, most of what we actually hear when we press 'play' came through 57's.

Cheers Mates
Keith

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:11 am

I was just parusing that article again to make sure I didn't make a major faux pas in my recording of the information.

The only other mic Rubin makes reference to is having recorded the bass amp on a "large-diaphragm Sony condenser." So I stand by my original statement, that the album was recorded almost exclusively on 57's, with C414's as overheads.

Hey, by the way, something else he says that I believe IS relevant:

Rick Rubin:

"The reason the drums sound so kickin' is almost completely due to the fact that Chad (Smith) is a great drummer..."

"...if you're recording a guitar track, and the amp sounds good, and the buitarist is playing well, it probably won't matter what microphone you use. Whatever records the performance cleanly on to tape is usually good enough."

I figure every great recording we have ever fallen in love with had, in order of importance:

1-A great song, then
2-A great arrangement, then
3-Great players, then
4-A great, or at least the right room, then
5-A great engineer, then waaay down the list of important things,
6-The equipment, which may or may not have been great.

Funny how we seem to obsess about things in the wrong order. Hmmmmm....

Sorry to derail the discussion. And now, back to mic talk.

"...Yeah, how bout that BGCKRSEHOLE4576302 anyway? Nice stuff or what?..."

Cheers
Keith

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:43 pm

ahahh..
'kay.. i believe you..
but still.. the funky monks video is a documentary about the making..
I still saw the mics i saw..
I'm guessing they used different setups for different songs?
So then we're all a bit right? Razz

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:11 pm

Makes sense to me.

By the way dude, you should get a job with the police or something, picking out that many mics accurately, viewing what is no doubt a moving target, is pretty cool, actually approaching spooky.

You'd probably be of use to them if you could do the same with vehicles or people at great distances...

cheers
K

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:34 pm

And I respect it and agree that you could do pretty much anything - but its so dependent on what you do, or should I say, if your main business will be some genre there might be more optimal choices.

For example, there's no Ribbon mic in the list, and they are amazing for a lot of things and noiseless. There is no "big mid" creamy like a u47, or any or its clones. There is no ohmygod SDC like a B&K, and there is no "great omni" like an earthworks - which are handy esp if you want to start measuring things. Anyway, just a few thoughts.

Small studios do a lot one track at a time - so fewer great mics will be more forgiving and yield better results than a lot of good mics all else being equal.

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 4:33 am

Kurt Foster wrote:

...These are the ones I think are a a bare minimum requirement,...

btw:
this is a sticky and not a discussion right Laughing

Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 2:35 am

I have a totally different approach. I don't generally agree with the claim that you need to have all those "flavours" to choose from. I try to find ONE brand that sounds good enough - and if it sounds good enough, you can make it sound good on anything as long as you know how to place it and have a good venue to record in. The not-so-good microphones have all kinds of flaws (such as unstable polar pattern etc.) that make them sound bad on some instruments and good on others - what a mess.

In my case, the choice is Schoeps (several models of both small CCM's and bigger CMC's + capsules). For me, no more choices than that are needed. If you have all the polar patterns (or most of them), you are basically safe. The rest is placement and equalization. I think that in a bit too many cases people use a given microphone to get a given "sound" when they could actually get practically the same "sound" using instead a tonally neutral microphone and some creative equalization.

Of course, if budget is an issue (as it is for me too!), then you cannot buy arbitrary numbers of Schoeps (or DPA, or Sennheiser MKH, which are in the same league).

Also in my opinion this traditional thing about using large-diaphragm microphones on vocals (or for some close-miking in general) is a bit of a cliche. You certainly can use small-diaphragm ones if they are good enough, and if some equalization is available (to perhaps attenuate the highest frequencies a bit, as large-diaphragms often do).

Then again, I have 4 pcs of C414, but mostly only because I couldn't afford 4 additional Schoeps microphones.

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:46 pm

Kurt,

I thought you'd come back and mention a ribbon or two. I have to say, a ribbon mic IS fragile but the use and result is unique and well worth it. I have only used the R121 but after reading about certain success in recording acoustic guitar, I'm going back to that as another application. (The best acoustic I ever recorded was with a ribbon but it took an hour to find the sweet spot)

Don't get me wrong, I think mic care and pracitcal use is a difficult balance. I want to use my mics, even push them to the limit but I don't want a museum piece in a velvet box. You've put together a great, sensible list that beginners and experienced studio owners should take a look at. No preference on ribbons but every good mic cabinet should have one. When I did a recent drum session at Golden Track, Steve put up 421's all around. Not sure what was on the kick but the overheads (2) and room (2) were U67's and U47's. The 421's were great on the maple kit and I usually opt for a 421 on the snare but his 421's are from the 60's so I think it's important that people understand some mics can get worse from age (57's/58's) and some sound immeasurable better than their current versions.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:28 am

I am using a Rode NT1-A, and through the digi002 it just sounds incredible. I am still fairly new at this whole digital recording thing(recording period for that matter). I am in the military right now and am stationed in Japan. It would be a good idea to go to Berklee online right? Is there a better school for online classes on sound engineering?

About the mic pres, what about software or would a tube preamb(please tell me less expensive than an Avalon) but maybe a plugin? But how does the digi002 preamps and other outboard preamps compare?

Also, with the guitar rig, would I be just fine with the guitar rig or better off going through a tube amp(I just know somehow everyone is going to tell me the tube amp)?

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:30 am

The only problem i have with plug-ins is future compatibility. If you shop you can find well priced, quality mic pres like the Trident S20, a fantastic dual mic pre (I also have an Avalon M5 $1300 single unit) that goes for about $1000. A good mic pre does not have to be tube. If your eventually using converters before the dig002, you'll be able to add to your outboard gear and use that with any computer system you record on in the future.

As for guitar amps, the sound of a guitar with an amp is obviously limited compared to plugins. To me, I prefer it but if you want to record direct and have a variety of guitar sounds in an instant, plug-ins again are fine. Everything you record should go through some kind of pre amp. Don't get too hung up on tube pre amps. They have their down side too, especially cheap ones.

Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:19 pm

a perfect list man
its really great reading ur views

This topic sponsored by: