Hi there Chris.

First off, you either want small dynamic microphones or small condenser microphones. I don't think anybody has paired a dynamic with a condenser yet? Dynamic with a ribbon, a long time ago by Altec the 649.

OK, OK, with what you have posted, what exactly is your budget? I love my 4 SM 81's and use them all the time for drum overheads and lots of other stuff. When it comes to SDC small overheads, I also love my Neumann KM 86's which have the same capsules as the KM 84's and are the predecessors to the KM 184's. You'll need pads "on" for the AKG C 451's. I'm sure the KSM137's would also be a great choice. Though the Rode 55's are probably the most affordable and sound equally fantastic. I love Sennheiser's but when it comes to small capsule condensers, only the MKH series do I give much credence to. I'm not even familiar with some of their other funnier newer permutations? I really don't care for many of their dynamics either other than the MD 421/441's. I love all of their headphones though. From their cheapest to nearly their best (I can't afford their best).

You're on the right track
Mx. Remy Ann David

Remy,
Small diaphragm condensers is what I meant, haha.
I'm leaning towards the Rode 55's or the SM81's but want to get the best I can possible. For like $1000 ish

I say with that budget go with the SM 81's. Partially because they'll probably be around longer than those other guys? They're not going to go away anytime soon like so many others have. I got my first pair when they first came out for just 180 bucks each. Didn't get the second pair until the late 1980s and they weren't much more in price. Now they're twice the price and still in production which does say something. They are also not a " true condenser " microphone since they do not require +48 V phantom power but anywhere between 5-48 V a.k.a. an "electret" condenser microphone. Those have a permanent polarization whereas other regular/normal condenser microphones require the +48 V to polarize the capsule. The internal electronics don't need that much voltage. In the past, electret condenser microphones were not considered to be of studio quality. Over the years, massive improvements in technology and manufacturing made these electret condenser microphones very popular. All tie tack microphones you see on newscasters are all electret condenser microphones. Any condenser microphone that accepts a single AA battery is a electret condenser microphone. Numerous 1-3 foot long shotgun microphones are also electret types. And all condenser microphones of both varieties are very sensitive to the surrounding humidity levels. Dynamic microphones can be used during thunderstorms and hurricanes without failure. Condenser microphones die nearly immediately under those conditions. Though modern day electret condenser microphones are far less susceptible to humidity than the pilots experienced in the famous Japanese Zero fighter/bomber/kamikaze planes. They had the earliest versions of that electret technology and the humidity from their voice would make their communications microphones fail. I'm sure lots of those pilots cracked up because of that. Or so I've read. And I don't think they were laughing much?

1.) choose one. Crack Pot. (I'll take the latter any time)
Mx. Remy Ann David

I agree with Remy. Sm-81's are hard to argue with. I have 4 as well. I used km84's for years. Here is my dirty little secret though. I've been totally digging sm-57's through my API mic pre's lately. I've track my last 100 songs or so with this chain.

ChrisH, post: 384136 wrote: I'll be getting a pair of good small diaphragm condensers, here in a couple months.
Would like those of you with experience with these mics to describe how there character in sound.
They'll be used as overheads to track drums for all genres, and they'll be my main SDC's

Rode NT55's
Shure SM81's
Sennheiser e614's
Sennheiser e914's
Shure KSM137's
Shure KSM141's
AKG C451's

What you haven't told us is the range of conditions under which you will be using these overheads. Are they for strictly pro studio use, where the drum tracking room has good acoustics and minimal bleed from surrounding performers, are they for all-track-together studio recordings where you mic everyone and work with the bleed, or is it for live stage use?

I have different sets of SDCs that I use as overheads under different conditions. For controlled studio use, I more often end up using my NT55s than my SM81s because I happen to prefer the off-axis sound of the Rodes. Where I have to minimize bleed, I sometimes use my tight-pattern MBHO MBNM440s (sold as the KEL P-1 in N.America).

Boswell, post: 384186 wrote: What you haven't told us is the range of conditions under which you will be using these overheads. Are they for strictly pro studio use, where the drum tracking room has good acoustics and minimal bleed from surrounding performers, are they for all-track-together studio recordings where you mic everyone and work with the bleed, or is it for live stage use?

Controlled acoustic environment, strictly for studio use, noise bleed is not an issue cause I run everyone threw headphones.

These are all flavor choices of the same dessert. All will do the job in a professional and trusted way. Its up to you to determine through hearing these what will be right for you. If you cant audition a variety of these mics in your room then you should choose according to their reputation and build quality.

But they're all good. Just different in their voice.

Boswell, post: 384186 wrote: I more often end up using my NT55s than my SM81s because I happen to prefer the off-axis sound of the Rodes. Where I have to minimize bleed, I sometimes use my tight-pattern MBHO MBNM440s (sold as the KEL P-1 in N.America).

How does a mic have an "off axis" sound? What do you mean?

I'm leaning towards the NT55's, how would you guys describe the voice of those mics?
& Do I really need the pad switchs?

Every microphone and its specifications usually also mentions its sound and/or response from " off axis " sound sources. That means that those sources are not in the direct path of the directional characteristics of the microphone capsule/diaphragm. Generally, the smaller the microphone capsule diaphragm is, the better the " off axis " frequency response and better prevention against phase cancellation will be. Large diaphragm condenser's suffer most from off axis sound in the form of a cloudy phase canceled like audible presentation. Another reason why large diaphragm condenser microphones generally don't sound as good in compromised acoustical environments such as small basement and bedroom studios.

The 55's suffer very little acoustic aberrations because they are SDC's and feature a superior off axis pickup that generally does not have that boxy, nondescript sounding, phase cancellation texture of LDC's. Which is not to say that having a couple of LDC's isn't also an advantageous type of microphone not to have. As long as they are not picking up copious amounts of off axis reflections from walls and other instruments they are not pointing directly at. For instance, vocal overdubs wouldn't suffer as much of that ill effect since they are usually worked a little tighter to the vocalist and no other instruments are bouncing or slapping off of the walls to leak into it. Though a bad acoustical environment would also be accentuated in the most unflattering way. And the SDC won't suffer such awful acoustic maladies by presenting the compromised acoustic environment in a heightened unflattering way. This is why it's crucial to understand about the different types of microphones capabilities and design criteria and where a simple SM58 may solve many more problems than anyone's SDC or LDC of any type or quality level. Because of the way those work they frequently reject most of those unflattering aberrations in the acoustical space utilized. And that's because of their design criteria along with their lesser sensitivity to fully transfer those acoustic aberrations in the space in which you are recording and using them.

Do you really need pad switches? Well, any decent condenser microphone already includes those. They are necessary on high sound level sources to prevent from overloading the microphones internal electronics. Most folks that are novices and unknowing, unknowingly indicate they are only going to use their condenser microphones for some lightweight vocals and acoustic guitars. In that realm, pad switches are generally not needed and you get to save $20. That's a sorry ass excuse not to have a microphone that may have to be put into a live sound environment application such as drums, loud amplified metal guitars, etc.. And when used for vocals, most quality condenser microphones also include a bass cut a.k.a. low pass switch to roll off some low-end and able to thwart the " Proximity Effect ". And when not used, vocals frequently appear to be rather muddy and nondescript, not easy to mix, not great to listen to. It sounds great in your headphones and that's why you shouldn't mix with headphones. It's not giving you the real sonic picture without also hearing it through control room speakers of some type. And most entry-level folks just don't understand that since they think their headphones sound great. They sound especially great when the recording is properly engineered and was mixed through speakers to begin with. Not the other way around. Most people don't understand when mixing with headphones, you go for the least amount of bass. Then when you play it back through speakers, it might sound like something reasonable. And that concept is difficult for most newbies to comprehend. It takes time, talent and tons of listening tests with headphones and speakers to finally be able to get a usable mix utilizing only headphones which does happen from time to time. You don't always get a place on location to set up a control room in which to set up speakers in. And you might even be right in front of the band and being inundated with an abundance of low frequency energy all around you making it extremely difficult to evaluate what you are hearing through headphones in that environment. So you crank the low end up until you hear it properly in the headphones and the next day you realize your mix sounds like crap with nothing but a booming low-end of mud. Then everybody stands around scratching their head and blaming their equipment. Broadcast oriented recording engineers like myself have frequently been in those types of situations. So it's imperative to understand what's going on with the headphones and what you actually are listening to.

Easy to do screw... when you don't have a clue.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Personally I prefer Large diaphram condensors as overheads for recording. Having said that here's my 2 cents worth on a few sdc's.
AKG C451: really nice microphones, but can be a tad bright on some cymbals
Shure sm81: also nice..not as bright
not on the list you mentioned but:
Octava MK-012: a bit darker sounding. Can work well on brighter cymbals etc

Very helpful information, thank you everyone.
What would you say the difference between Rode nt55's and Shure SM81's would be?

About $20 per mic on average. And the Shure is more 'in your face'. Both are very good. While I dont have as much experience with the Rodes as I do with the Shures, I would not hesitate to use either in pairs for anything I would want an SDC for.

That being said, my favorite SDC's at the moment are the AT4051's or the 4041's depending on whether you want a bit of zing and color or you want intense reality.

One thing. The Rodes have interchangeable capsules so you do get an omni as well as the cardioid. Helpful in stage production types of recordings and drums in a larger space.

For rock drums, the Shures are the sound. With the AT4051 close behind. For acoustic guitars, ESPECIALLY a really good woody sounding one, the AT4041 is superb.

I usually record acoustic guitars with a 4041 and a 3Zigma Chi with a cardioid capsule. The 4041 on the 12th fret area and the Chi System almost parallel to the lower bout below the bridge. Especially on loud massively vibrating tops like Martins or Guriens. On my Tayler I use the 4041 in the same spot and an LDC over the top of the guitar, The AT4033 for brighter strumming tracks and the U87 for darker work.

Of course if you want to go 'all the way' then you're looking at a pair of Schoeps or Neumann KM184's or something along this line.

You'll certainly never buy another SDC.

Speaking of the AT4033. Theres not a lot of better sounding drum mics than these. They are a medium sized capsule and theres something about their frequency response which lends itself to drums. Also great on a lot of things, but as overheads, superb. The Shure KSM27 and KSM32 are also great overhead mics.

Something to consider.

Davedog, post: 384475 wrote:
That being said, my favorite SDC's at the moment are the AT4051's or the 4041's depending on whether you want a bit of zing and color or you want intense reality.

So the Audio Technica's are now on my list, my favorite drum sound is the drums on the Incubus Morning View Record, looks like a pair of AT4051's or 4041's.
There's footage of them tracking the drums for that album on youtube and it looks like just like the at4051's and 4041s but not a good enough shot to say for sure.
Here's an mp3 of the sound i'm going for
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.4shared…"]Incubus - 11 am.mp3 - 4shared.com - online file sharing and storage - download - K.[/]="http://www.4shared…"]Incubus - 11 am.mp3 - 4shared.com - online file sharing and storage - download - K.[/]

The sound you're going for as indicated, sure as heck doesn't sound like SDC's over-the-top of the drums to me. And this is a relatively straightforward and simple sounding recording. Vocal microphone sounds like it could be a SHURE SM 7? Doesn't quite have that energy condenser sound. But I could be wrong? It's nice-sounding. It's simple sounding. Follow that lead.

Don't let it lead to nowhere.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Here's a video of them tracking the drums (in certain parts of the video you can see the overheads)
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.youtube…"]Incubus- Circles (practice) - YouTube[/]="http://www.youtube…"]Incubus- Circles (practice) - YouTube[/]

They did use a SM7 on the vocal, 57 on guitar cab, E604's on Tom toms, 57's on snare, dw drums, jose pasillas + an amazing live room = My favorite drum sound "ear candy"

That was a nice little house they were in. Too bad the trees and ocean are such a distraction. And all that light from those windows... sheesh... what kind of ambience is that to create in?

So, do you have a big room for that big drum sound? No? It's OK. You've got software. So in some convoluted way you can create that same space with some convulsions and convolutions. You only need a single microphone on the opposite side of the room for that. But a stereo one of course. Oh! And a bass drum microphone.

Another problem solved
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD, post: 384533 wrote: That was a nice little house they were in. Too bad the trees and ocean are such a distraction. And all that light from those windows... sheesh... what kind of ambience is that to create in?

The house is called Morning View Studios, and it's a very big house. The live room is 75'x40' with 30ft ceilings. I guess you're being sarcastic cause I can't imagine a better ambience to record in.

RemyRAD, post: 384533 wrote: So, do you have a big room for that big drum sound? No? It's OK. You've got software. So in some convoluted way you can create that same space with some convulsions and convolutions. You only need a single microphone on the opposite side of the room for that. But a stereo one of course. Oh! And a bass drum microphone.

Another sarcastic response? C'mon..

OK so I was a little sarcastic, sorry. I think you should vote for Mitt Romney? I know, more sarcasm.

Morning View, not bad. Everybody should have a nice little house like that to record in. Nothing like having the wind in your hair and the microphone at your back. Where you can also make noise with that other part of your body to record. No but really, you can generate that kind of ambience without such a large and luxurious space. Hundreds of NYC recording studios have been doing it for years. It's nice though to have the large cubic footage where waves can properly propagate & bloom. Some of us have had opportunities in the past to record in lovely large acoustically fabulous studios. Unfortunately, it will screw you up when you record in any little space again. It's an experience to behold. Nothing wrong with dead little spaces either since it provides a better feeling of intimacy with a complete lack of acoustical value. After all, all equipment tests are performed in anechoic rooms. So why not record in one? It's actually a little bit more challenging to record in cramped spaces. And in rooms that large, when the band is tracking their basic rhythm tracks, you have to keep the band members fairly close together. Otherwise with long distances of that magnitude, you get plenty of time delay slap. The studio I designed and built in 1978 was 50' by 40'. In an early session, we have the drummer at one end and the guitarist at the other end. It was no can do. The time delay between the two rigs was too long. So we had to move them closer together. Great for that additional ambience but you had to keep people within about 15 feet of each other. I like the ambient interaction and bleed between band members. When they get too far apart even in the studio, you just start picking up too broad a time delay between instruments. So careful placement of your microphones along with careful placement of your musicians is of paramount importance. And I'm not being sarcastic about trying to obtain that same room feeling through electronically generated hardware/software ambience generators a.k.a. short reverb. And so, virtually any SDC will do you fine.

I'm just another smartass bitch
Mx. Remy Ann David

RemyRAD, post: 384566 wrote:
No but really, you can generate that kind of ambience without such a large and luxurious space. Hundreds of NYC recording studios have been doing it for years.

Ok, I get what you were saying now. Sorry, thought you were being completely sarcastic.

RemyRAD, post: 384566 wrote: Virtually any SDC will do you fine.

I understand what you're saying but what ever they used had a certain realistic and sizzle'y character, so thats what I'm looking for.
I assume you mean any high-end professional quality SDC? Cause I know my $200 pair of Audix F15's don't get that same flattering sound.
I understand Room mics, preamps, processing, eq'ing, also play big role but I'd say the mics they used were a much bigger factor.

You're wrong there. SDC's virtually all sound good. Virtually all have good off axis performance. That sizzle you describe I believe is more of the microphone preamp than which SDC was used. Really good mic preamps have that sweeter zinger sound to them and are also most likely transformer coupled inputs through a good transformer like Jensen. The preamps can be discrete transistor and even IC chip with Transformers. Most lower-cost gear can't afford the price nor the weight that Transformers present. So the manufacturers are sure to include marketing hype along with test data to prove how much better their transformer less stuff is over those ringing and distortion producing Transformers. But I find a lot of those transformer less preamps really lack in that zingy lifelike sound one gets from good preamps more so than from the microphones themselves. I've utilized plenty of inexpensive, entry level & Radio Shaft microphones that sounds positively unreal going through Neve & API style all discrete transistor preamps with Transformers. I really don't have any problems combining $30 Radio Shaft condenser microphones with $3000 Neumann's right next to each other. And I'm not giving you crap here, this is real, this is the truth. I've actually talked to teachers of the second largest independent recording school in the USA this same lesson on a on location recording with them. They never believed me when I told him that SHURE SM57's could sound better on a gospel choir than all of their Neumann's that they had already hung. They could not get the sound they wanted. They also had too much off axis bleed into their LDC Neumann's, especially from the drums, which sounded like total crap. They finally deferred to my suggestion when the choir began to complain they were getting tired during the microphone check. They couldn't believe how good the 57's sounded through the Neve preamps. And they're the guys getting paid to teach and I'm not. I even bumped heads with a PhD in the Recording Arts & Sciences from the University of Maryland. He too was amazed at my insights and knowledge. I did everything in his studio (mixing a friends CD) that he told me wouldn't work and wouldn't sound good. He told me he had never heard a sound that's stellar, from his control room before. So he was an idiot, with a PhD. Thankfully, it was not long after that he gave up doing audio and teaching it. He became a lawyer. If you get arrested, don't go to him. If you need to negotiate a deal, don't go to him. You can tell him " Dr. it hurts when I record your way...". And we all know the appropriate answer to that don't we?

So, basically what I'm saying is, it may have more to do with your placement, gain structure, with proper equalization and mixing technique. It's so much easier to blame your equipment when you don't get what you want. The fact remains, even on that lesser stuff, you should still be able to get that sound with what you currently have. You can tell I'm not a salesman. And you shouldn't blame the equipment for something it's not responsible for.

Repeat after me..." it ain't the microphone, it ain't the microphone...".
Mx. Remy Ann David

BTW, how do you know you are not listening to an APHEX Aural exciter? They do that sound you heard. It's likely a manufactured distortion component. So cleanliness, neutrality, transparency is not necessarily the magical ingredient. And of course, they produced that through a quality console also. There is so much technique and knowledge, experience you are lacking, of course it's easy to blame your microphones because they are inexpensive. But most of these inexpensive microphones capsules are mostly produced in a couple of Chinese factories across the board for all of these budget oriented devices. For instance, even my 20-year-old Radio Shaft Pressure Zone Microphones utilize the same capsules in their $30/$40 microphone that are used in the Crown Pressure Zone Microphones. This was verified to me by a Crown applications engineer because there was little difference between the $30/$40 ones and the $375 one. He told me they got their capsules from a Chinese manufacturer and when they licensed Radio Shaft to produce a consumer oriented version that was less rugged, it had the same capsules. The only difference there was that Crown required specific test data for each capsule. The Radio Shaft version went through no testing procedures. The Crown was built with more metal and the Radio Shaft was built with more plastic. Same capsules. The Radio Shaft only had a 1/4 inch unbalanced output. But internally, it had a transformer and with a simple snip of the 1/4 inch connector, the internal wires revealed red/white & stranded wrapped copper ground. So one and only needed to solder on a XLR. One could also install higher voltage batteries that would up the level and reduce noise since they could not be modified for phantom power like the Crown could. So instead of 1.5 V AA, 2 specialized batteries could be put together and fit in the AA slot and also provide for 12 V power. So all inexpensive stuff is a little bit of a crapshoot since no testing is performed on any of that budget oriented stuff. The Crown engineer was right as out of the 10 Radio Shaft microphones I purchased, 2 sound like crap. So I gave this to a friend who loves those slightly modified units. And I'm still using 7 of those 8, 20 years later (somebody stepped on number 8 and broke it. No reason to shed any tears since it only cost 40 bucks).

Things will only sound as good as your engineering allows for.
Mx. Remy Ann David

No, it's not my placement or gain structure or "PROPER" equalization, thank you but after 10 years of experience I actually have a hold on it.
There is many other factors that contribute besides the gear, Dave Holdredge is an amazing engineer, and who knows what tricks he has up his sleeves.
We'll just have to disagree on the importance of a mic viruses the importance of a preamp, my experience has proved to me that the mic comes first in terms of gear.

RemyRAD, post: 384588 wrote: There is so much technique and knowledge, experience you are lacking

Just decided to throw that one in there huh?
Just when I thought after 10 years of experience, and producing great sounding records would keep me from getting condescending remarks.
No no, I think it's great that you have fun playing with Radioshack mics whilst trying to belittle other people.

Now I'm looking for some new mics because I simply want some nicer mics, NOT because I'm getting crappy or bad results with the ones I have, I just want a new pair of overheads that will give me a better sound to start with.

Kind of over reacted, my apologies Remy, I know you mean well and I was just having a bad day. Forget that last post of mine.

That story about the 57's is rather interesting, and not currently being an owner of high end transistor preamps, just makes me excited for my near-future purchase of some.
I still have allot to learn, In any field of music it's a never ending journey of learning.
I get what you're saying but don't you believe that if everything else is in order that you still benefit to have quality mics for the job?
I'm actually think about going with KSM32's for overheads, being a medium sized condenser and I really have loved all sound clips I've heard of them, they have a very natural warm sound. Any advice on those? I have a proper acoustic environment for them

I know what a frustrating day can be an no problem friend.

I love virtually every microphone that SHURE Brothers manufactures. While I haven't used any of their LDC myself, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase one myself without ever even hearing it. That's because I already know, they are going to sound good. And if my SM 81's is any indications of how superb their condenser microphones sound, I think you'll love their KSM 32.

We can also agreed to disagree. I'm one who believes the first stage (microphone preamp) is far more important than the microphones you choose. I've proven this to other highly regarded recording school instructors who also have Not believed me until I've proven this to them. And that's largely because they haven't been doing this as long as I have nor have they been doing this for any kind of broadcast applications either. Sometimes the best microphones are the worst ones to use. That's because they pick up so much more of what you don't want as well is what you want. Whereas lesser sensitive incarnations of dynamic microphones can actually prove to be more appropriate in many situations than + $3000 condenser microphones can. Though for overheads, I generally do utilize quality LDC or SDC types over dynamic microphones. But even then, on occasion, I've utilized SM57/Sennheiser 421's for overheads. Especially when you have a couple of guitarists and/or bass players flanking the drum set who already play too loudly. But thankfully that doesn't happen all too often.

You'll be surprised at how much of a difference a quality mic preamp can make. It's also another reason why I also recommend discrete transistor preamps over hybrid IC chip/transistor types. The margin for error of bad sound from a microphone preamp can generally be found from IC chips because they are so much less forgiving than their discrete transistor brethren. Overload can sound cool with lots of discrete transistor preamps. They don't sound cool from overloading IC chip preamps. And with rock 'n roll, you frequently have an overabundance of hard-hitting transients. Not to mention cymbal crashes and tympani hits in orchestral recording also. But we all do what we feel we must do and so will you. Thankfully, I believe most microphone preamps that are touted as being class A (such as the Pre-Sonus units) are most likely a discrete transistor front end. That's simply because I don't know of any IC chips that can be considered class A? But then again, the API & Neve preamps I use are all discrete transistor class A/B types. The front end of those operational amplifiers are in fact class A while just the output driver section is a pair of push/pull A/B discrete transistor outputs. The older Neve's for instance utilized only a single power transistor output which makes those, pure class A all the way through. So those outputs go asymmetrical when they clip as opposed to the symmetrical clipping of the output transistors in class A/B devices. It's a difference in their linearity. Then there is also the saturation of the output transformer which also adds something to the pushed cool factor. As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of transformer less preamps and outputs. They can show you the performance improvement in test data but that is really more marketing hype than anything else. It is no longer practical to produce a console with dozens of input and dozens of output transformers. So they don't want to tell you that the transformer less stuff was more easily automated construction practices because then you would think them cheap. Those transformer less preamps can and do sound marvelous for a lot of folks depending upon your engineering style and technique. Most folks like to play it safe. There are those of us that constantly push the envelope. So we want what we want the way we want it. But hey, if any kind of mixer works, my engineering technique always renders a professional product regardless what I'm using. Any who, who doesn't like the sound of a good and reasonable condenser microphone? As long as it fits the application.

Make some great tracks for us
Mx. Remy Ann David

Well that's awesome, I've already started losing sleep because I'm so ecstatic about the arrival of my Daking Preamps.

I've heard really good things about those. Made in the fine Trident tradition and from what I remember mostly if not all class A design concept. You should be excited. I'm excited for you. Can't wait to hear what you come up with with those who boy, yeah man.

Now you're cooking with gas
Mx. Remy Ann David

Hey guys what about the AKG Blue Line SE300b series. I have been trying to find good or bad stuff about them but I cant find much at all. They have been around for ever as well. I did a piano recording once with se391bs, the studio owner walked in and thought it was a Korg Triton sample but it was the lady playing a 100 year old upright grand in the tracking room. He looked scared when he found out. Or the Oktava 012s? These are pretty good sounding as far as im concerned. Any opinions on these 2 mics?