That looks pretty cool RecorderMan. I'm a sucker for wierd recordingstuff so I'd really like to make one of those...how do you connect the cable? What's on +&- on the speaker? :d:

Henrik

Originally posted by Henrik Vindeby:
That looks pretty cool RecorderMan. I'm a sucker for wierd recordingstuff so I'd really like to make one of those...how do you connect the cable? What's on +&- on the speaker? :d:

Henrik

Well, hear in the US it's usually pin2 hot. So connect the + side to pin2 and the - side to pin3. Connect the shield to Pin1 but leave it unconnected at the speaker end and it will act as a telescopic shield (being connected by pin1 to the pre-amp chassis ground).

Thanks a lot...I'll try it out :tu:
All the best
Henrik

Howdy

That's really cool, RM. What do you think the difference is if the speaker is in an enclosure rather than without?

When I get moved up to LA in October, I'll get a Subkick from the big Y and we can have a "speaker as kick drum mic" shootout...heh.

Originally posted by Nate Tschetter:
Howdy

That's really cool, RM. What do you think the difference is if the speaker is in an enclosure rather than without?

When I get moved up to LA in October, I'll get a Subkick from the big Y and we can have a "speaker as kick drum mic" shootout...heh.

well without really knowing my guess is that the "enclosure" of a drum and the membrane of the v-drum to hold the speaker are just the differrent depts @ Yamaha getting together and figuring some way to jump on this band wagon. I know of alot of people who've started doing this again. All speakers would sound different. An 8" compared to a 15", etc. It seems to me that covering it would "tune" it of sorts...I just don't know if it would be a big improvement or marketing hype. I will say this. The primary purpose is to capture sub frequencies. And being a free resonator -so to speak- without any enclosure leads me to think that it is truer(as in omni). Who needs proximity effect with this?. It's already giving me more sub than any standard mic....I wouldn't need anymore; and at a fraction of the $450 that yamaha wants.

Great to finally have this confirmed :cool:

I've heard some rumours about this technique a long time ago, but I thought one needed a special set of speakers to get anything out of them.

I figured I'll try this for the next recording with one of my Auratones.

Is there any difference in signal level from the speaker as opposed to an ordinary mic? I mean, there's quite a difference in impedance. My guess is that the speaker is a lot weaker, as the micinput would "see" less resistance. But then again I must admit I missed out on these lessons, so it could just as well be the opposite... :s:

Would an average console micpre be sufficient to process the signallevel?

Have mercy on my ignorance!

UP

That looks great Recorderman, certainly has my wheels turning.

What is a good source for ns10 replacement woofers? I have to get a pair for my monitors anyway...

I have an Electro Voice 18 inch speaker, I'll try that baby next week in front of the kick :D

Originally posted by heinz:
That looks great Recorderman, certainly has my wheels turning.

What is a good source for ns10 replacement woofers? I have to get a pair for my monitors anyway...

well not to be pushing a brand. Lots if not all speakers should b great.

As to the impedance question. Somepeople use a DI. But I've had no trouble with level. In fact I have had to pot it down pretty good not to get too much level.

Glad you're enjoying! I myself was pretty stoked when I got the bar from the machine shop. I've also seen/done a mounting by letting the magnet grab a mic-stand column.
:p:

Originally posted by Han:
I have an Electro Voice 18 inch speaker, I'll try that baby next week in front of the kick :D

WATCH OUT!!!!
Don't forget, this "mic" is in addition to your standard mic. This will be the "subharmonic sythesizer" without the synthesizer! :w:

I had a pair of Boston Acoustic bookshelfs that one of the tweeters blew, so I tried it. It works very well. Now I only need to record a kick with it, tried it with a bass amp and it sounded great, very round and nothing but sub which rolled off around 90hz, now just to screw around I'm going to try to record some cymbals using the tweeter on the other speaker.

Originally posted by RecorderMan:
well not to be pushing a brand. Lots if not all speakers should b great. Here's where I got mine:

Thanks a bunch!

I just get them straight from Yamaha.

Tweeter- Part# XC712001 (49.95)
Woofer - Part# XN542A00 (49.95)

Vd375400 (right) Crossover (89.00)
Vd375300 (left) Crossover (89.00)

Yamaha service.... (888)892-6242

Thanks for the info FloodStage

recordman:

please put some record by your ns10 mic recording to there

i would lesten it

WOW! thats really cool! how deep you get the bass frecuency? do u use another mic or just use the speaker for the kick? :tu:

Originally posted by Aziel:
WOW! thats really cool! how deep you get the bass frecuency? do u use another mic or just use the speaker for the kick? :tu:

IMPORTANT:
This mic (Speaker used as mic) is to be usedin addition to whatever you normally ude on the kick.
So...if you stick a 421 or D112, etc on the kick, do that. Just add this "mic" as another mic. Place mic where tasty and record to another track to give optimum control on mixdown...especially because we are taliking very low frequencies here. You won't have to add extra bottom to your standard kick chain when using this. Just a dab will do.

where do you put the speaker?

Originally posted by Aziel:
where do you put the speaker?

In front of the kick drum. Fairly close. I many times like thee lower left quadrant of the front head...but experimaent. The farther away from the kick, the greater the balance of other drums(Toms & Snare) realtive to the kick. That's not necesarilly a bad thing. The closer to the front head the more of jsut the kick.
This, again, is primarilly for the freq's under 100hz. So that you can aproximate the bottom end of, say, an 808 kick on a live kick without adding an exhorbitant amount of EQ to your standard kick mic(s) [which you will still use].

I've been doing something similar to this with bass guitar - get a second bass speaker cab and put it face to face with the "real" bass amp cab, a couple of feet apart. Line out to a mic pre.

This sounds great mixed in with DI bass.

There really is no problem with levels here either - sometimes I need to move the speaker-mic further back to that I don't overload the preamp.

Lots of fun..... :)

Hey all..I'm making these brackets for sale (a few people have asked me to make them for them). So if you're interested..go down to the classified forum:

(Dead Link Removed)

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the reason you would want to use an NS10 is bacause that way you get subharmonic that won't overload on a pair of ns10s and by default on most anything else...
what you put in is what you WANT out. If you used an 18 you might get tone that would sound great through another 18, but might need some roll off to work through somebodys home speakers, not to mention that you might not be moving enough air to really get a good signal through a speaker that large.

Anyone ever try this?

audiokid, post: 427780, member: 1 wrote: Anyone ever try this?

I have. It's an easy project for a DIYer with basic soldering skills. I used an 8" Klipsch driver that I had collecting dust. Solder a pad into an XLR, connect to the terminals, fasten to a stand, and you have a new mic for next to nothing. It captures the low end of a kick pretty nicely, but a second mic is definitely needed for the attack. Some people put them in tom shells, which I've been meaning to experiment with, but haven't yet.

I had the same experience. Not with an NS10 speaker, but I've wired up an 8 inch speaker (brand unknown) I had lying around to use as a sub-kick mic. Worked fine, certainly picked up a lot of whoooomph (I think that's the technical term?!), but you definitely need to supplement it with another mic for the 'tap'.

I've never tried any of the commercial versions, they usually have an enclosure for the speaker that's more like the DIY speaker-inside-a-tom-shell version that the Reverend mentioned and maybe they're better performing as a result. I have to assume someone who understands acoustic engineering designed those enclosures so they would make a positive difference. But you know what happens when you assume....

Anwyay, I have enough problems dealing with low end energy and mud, so a subkick mic just makes my life more difficult. In the end I found I prefer a D112 or an RE20 positioned well, or sometimes both, and sometimes I substitute an Audix D6 if I need a lot of attack. My DIY subkick is collecting dust in a closet.

I've seen commercial versions of the sub kick mics in both local and online music stores; generally it uses an 6" to 8" speaker, mounted in what resembles a mini snare drum shell. I think Yamaha made one for a while.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, I was a second on a session cutting rhythm tracks for an exercise video during the disco age, where a 10" speaker was wired up and used for this purpose... I have to admit that I didn't really hear much benefit - if any.

My personal observation at the time was that it just seemed to add a lot of low end mud, and at the same time, without any other advantages to it.

But, like I said, that was a long time ago. I might feel different about it now, but I think that I would need to add a sub to my monitoring rig to hear the benefit, if there is any...

I know for a fact that there's no way current choice of monitors is gonna do the job - my Auratones can reproduce down to around 95hz -100hz, and even the larger Reveals, Alesis Monitor Ones and NS10's I have are probably only accurate down to around 70 or so.

I'd be interested to know just how many pro engineers actually use this type of miking method on kick drum... Maybe there are many who do and we just don't hear about it - although I'd think that if it was a "standard" kind of miking method, that we'd be hearing more about it. Then again, with so much VSTi /drum sample-based production and sample replacement happening these days, one would think it would kind of negate the purpose of doing it.

DonnyThompson, post: 427845, member: 46114 wrote: NS10's I have are probably only accurate down to around 70 or so

Donny, i think NS10's are good to about 55 hZ.

in the latest issue of TapeOp they have an interview with Allen Sides and at least two points he talks about needing to hear 33 hZ.

my take, a sub kick mic would be useable in a C/R that's big enough to use large mains ..... like Ocean Way or Western / Cello but not so much in a more typical home studio setting. fortunately, most home studio recordists don't record real drums anyways so no foul.

Abbey Road used speaker cabs to mic McCartneys amp after the fabs complained that Motown Records had more pronounced bass. this is nothing new. people have been doing this for eons. i remember doing this same thing in my garage when i was 13 or so .... lol.

Kurt Foster, post: 427872, member: 7836 wrote: Abbey Road used speaker cabs to mic McCartneys amp after the fabs complained that Motown Records had more pronounced bass.

I wonder if Paperback Writer and Rain were the result of that trip to Motown and his appealing to EMI to allow more low end on his bass...

You can sure hear a huge difference in the way the bass sounded - between the tracks recorded both before that time and afterwards.

I can listen to a song like I Wanna Hold Your Hand or She Loves You and the bass isn't nearly as full or prominent as it is on Paperback - or the other stuff that followed afterwards ( was it '66 or so?)

On the NS10's - I would have lost the bet on the NS10's reaching that low. I checked and you're right. While I can see that they are down by -10 or so around 50, it's still there, and plenty audible in that range.

I'd like to try and mix with a sub a few times, just to see what the result is now... but my suspicion is that my room is probably far too small to be able to do so to the sub's potential advantage(s), and on top of that, there's the very real possibility it could end up being detrimental, too.

DonnyThompson, post: 427908, member: 46114 wrote: I wonder if Paperback Writer and Rain were the result of that trip to Motown and his appealing to EMI to allow more low end on his bass...

You can sure hear a huge difference in the way the bass sounded - between the tracks recorded both before that time and afterwards.

I can listen to a song like I Wanna Hold Your Hand or She Loves You and the bass isn't nearly as full or prominent as it is on Paperback - or the other stuff that followed afterwards ( was it '66 or so?)

exactly! the first two records were two track live. in 66 they started recording on 4 track and the fun began! it was after Paul visited both Motown and Capitol in LA ... that shows how interested he was in the recording process.

Kurt Foster, post: 427920, member: 7836 wrote: exactly! the first two records were two track live. in 66 they started recording on 4 track and the fun began! it was after Paul visited both Motown and Capitol in LA ... that shows how interested he was in the recording process.

I'm curious what the gain-chain would have been for those first two initial tracks where his bass was that much more prominent - because it wasn't just a volume difference - it was a tonal thing, too. I'm sure they were using the REDD desk at ARS but I don't know what the processing would have been - beyond the obligatory Fairchild - which was used on pretty much of everything coming out of ARS at the time...

It's as if you can mark an exact point in time of the change in overall tone. I'm sure having more tracks available played a part, as they were able to then keep certain instrumentation more discreet - which had to have supported the changes in production as well, but that doesn't necessarily explain the drastic tonal change.

If you think about it, in 3 short years, they went from recordings like the simplicity of Please Please Me to the outrageous Tomorrow Never Knows - and while Lennon and McCartney's growth as songwriters is most certainly evident, and the production changed drastically, the change in overall tone of those recordings as really evident... If I didn't know better, I would bet on a console change as the explanation... but I don't think that happened. They had been recording through that REDD 37 desk the whole time and I don't think that changed until ARS installed a new TG-12345 Desk in late '68.

The room was the same. Mics didn't change, either - The U47 was the go-to, and remained so.

It seems like McCartney's plea for more bass in '66 opened a kind of floodgate of sorts - once they were able to get EMI's administrative foot off their necks - in terms of what they were and weren't allowed to do in the studio - they were able to try more, to experiment with different methods and ideas.

But beyond that, I can't explain the drastic changes in tone.

But I bet you can. LOL ;)

d.

from Rubber Soul / Revolver on; The Beatles had run of the farm as EMI's cash cows. they no longer paid for studio time and were in effect allowed a "lock out" at Abbey Rd.

they were really beginning to explore the possibilities of the studio, spending more time crafting the sounds and parts with George Martin as well as writing in the studio at times.

as a result of Paul's wishes, the push was to make the bass better defined. they began using an EMI modified Altec limiter for Paul's bass (my guess is he got this idea from his visit to the the Motown studio). they also switched from his Hoffner to the Ricky...

they switched from the BTR's to 4 track machines .. changing how they recorded. initially they were recorded live to mono or two track ... sometimes a bounce between two machines would be done for over dubs.

From Rubber Soul on, the process changed. they recorded drums and guitar tracks first (rhythm track) then instrument overdubs and vocals with the bass being the last track recorded.

they did this not only to make the bass better defined but in case they needed to do a "reduction" for more tracks they could bounce everything to a second four track without lo freq head bump slobbing up the bass track and continue. the recording of the bass last allowed Paul to really cut loose with super melodic bass parts and allowed the balance engineer to fine tune bass level at mix.

as an aside, this was pretty standard practice back in 4 track time. i arrived at this same technique myself without ever knowing this was what The Beatles and others did. it really is pretty obvious when you think about it.