Skip to main content

On drums, where would you use a Beyer Dynamic M69?


RemyRAD Wed, 01/25/2012 - 17:16

On the drums. Where else?

I have one of those. I've personally never liked it on any drums. Not a favorite of mine. I found better use for it on guitar amplifiers. Sometimes vocals. Otherwise, maybe snare drum. I can tell you it's crap in a bass drum. Doable on tom-toms. Not nice on overhead. Underneath the snare drum would also be an option. High hat with high pass filtering also has worked.

Take one Beyer and call me in the morning.
Mx. Remy Ann David

moonbaby Thu, 01/26/2012 - 12:08

I have an M69. It used to look like an M69, too, until a vocalist laid it on a pulpit and it rolled off and hit the carpeted floor.
It exploded like a toy Crashmobile. Now it's my talkback.
It was pretty nice on a breathy soprano in a live sound scenario. And like Remy said, on a not-too-loud geetar amp.
I used it on snare - once. Keep that thing as far from the drum kit as possible.
Remember: "Bayer's an aspirin, Beyer's a microphone", quoted from Keith Monks, audio importer/exporter, visionary.

IIRs Fri, 01/27/2012 - 00:39


My M69 used to mostly do live sound female vocal duties. Then one day, with two such female singers to amplify, I put up the M69 side by side with an M201 (plus foam popshield) and was surprised to find they sounded very similar, both on my voice and the girls'.

The M201s have long been favorites of mine for snare and rack toms...

I've not tried it on toms yet, but last weekend I tracked a drum kit with my M69 on top snare (plus 414 underneath), 201's on rack toms, and my old silver M88 on the floor tom. Sounded great, apart from the second rack tom which he couldn't get tuned right...

The M69 doesn't have the same low end extension as the M88, so I wouldn't expect it to work as well on floor toms, kick drums, bass guitar cabs etc. Guitars can sound good however, with a slightly darker, rounder sound than a '57 to my ears.

IIRs Sat, 01/28/2012 - 10:17

I had last weekend's band back in the studio today, so I ran off some short mp3 clips:

[=""]Overheads only[/]="http://www.platinum…"]Overheads only[/] (no processing)

[[url=http://="http://www.platinum…"]Beyer M69 on top snare[/]="http://www.platinum…"]Beyer M69 on top snare[/] (via Drawmer 1969 with very light compression, no other processing)

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.platinum…"]All drum mics[/]="http://www.platinum…"]All drum mics[/] (bit of kick drum EQ, no other processing)

RemyRAD Thu, 02/02/2012 - 21:11

That was a nice piece [[url=http://[/URL]="http://recording.or…"]IIRs[/]="http://recording.or…"]IIRs[/] . It must've been really cold in there? I noticed your drummer had Blue Balls. How did they keep their fingers working in that cold? And what was that on the guitar amplifier? It certainly wasn't a 57. Beyer 200? Also on snare drum? AKG 224 E on backup vocals for sure. U87 looking pop filters on the overheads but the body didn't look like 87's? Sterlings? ADK? They were so nice and shiny looking. My long distance WiFi connection wouldn't allow me to stream in high definition. Never got a look at the bass drum microphone. The bass guitar doesn't sound direct but miked, instead, didn't see that one either.

Great sounding band great track.
Mx. Remy Ann David

IIRs Fri, 02/03/2012 - 01:05

Yes, Blue Balls on the toms. Top snare was a Beyer M201. You couldn't see the 414 under the snare, or the old AKG D12 inside the kick drum. Overheads were less impressive than you thought: Rode NT5s, with some cheap shockmounts I got on ebay (I don't know if they work as shockmounts at all, but they make the mics look more impressive!)

Bass was mic'ed with an old silver ex-BBC M88, as well as DI'ed. Guitar had a Beyer M81 in front, and an old M260 ribbon round the back. BVs were indeed AKG, actually a D222.

That just leaves the wide-spaced pair of ambients I used: an Earthworks QTC30 plus (as I'm currently too poor to afford a second Earthworks) a Beyer MM1 measurement mic.

RemyRAD Fri, 02/03/2012 - 02:32

Well, it just sounds terrific. I was kind of close about the 200 (201). Really? Those were cheesy foam shock mounts for NT 5's? Cool. Half right on the bass guitar. I was in the right ballpark manufacturer for that front guitar microphone. And that old 260 round the back, nice. I didn't look it up and I forgot what the difference was between the 222 & 225? Or has my memory just failed me that badly? Or was that a similar variation? The spaced ambient pair sounded great so all that wonderful ambience was real. Fabulous. The way all rock 'n roll should be recorded. I don't think I've ever seen an M 81? I've used a D 12 on occasion. I have its modern day D 112 equivalent which really doesn't sound as good as the D 12. I've basically relegated my 112 to floor toms. My best student (a fine guitarist in numerous bands) has one of those blue balls. I love it on his numerous guitar amplifiers into the Neve/Brent Averill 1272 I sold him and love over driving the 1272 when I'm doing that. I tried his Sennheiser 409 and actually preferred the blue ball better. I don't have any 409's of my own either. I've never been terribly thrilled when they've crossed my paths other than they work.

So what was that space this was all going on in? The apparent cold seems to negate the possibility of it being a warm studio? Sure sounds terrific though. Your place? Or were you guys creatively trespassing? The video also was quite cool. Nothing fancy just guys getting down. Did you record in that cold room because the RT 60 is better in the drier winter humidity?

You British engineers are so good, sheesh...
Mx. Remy Ann David

IIRs Fri, 02/03/2012 - 03:51


RemyRAD, post: 383901 wrote: Really? Those were cheesy foam shock mounts for NT 5's? Cool.

[[url=http://[/URL]="…"]These ones[/]="…"]These ones[/] I think. They make the NT5s look much more expensive and esoteric!

RemyRAD, post: 383901 wrote: 222 & 225? Or has my memory just failed me that badly? Or was that a similar variation?

I don't know the 225s. I have an old D202 however: its very similar to the D222, but a bit more vintage looking with rocket fins at the back, an extra low-cut filter switch, and mine has a Tuchel connector instead of an XLR. I actually put the D202 up as a main vocal to begin with (partly because I thought it would look cool for the video) but swapped it for the Beyer as it wasn't really sounding too good on his voice...

I've actually had very good results using those two mics for vocals in the studio: they work really well for the kind of voice that tends to sound harsh and abrasive on condensers (eg: Sean Cannon of The Dubliners). But in the studio I always position them much as I would a condenser, ie: the talent is backed off a bit and isn't 'eating' the mic like they would on stage.

Those mics are supposed to have no proximity effect due to the dual-diaphragm design with the LF capsule at the back of the mic. But I've discovered this to be not quite true: there's actually a kind of reverse proximity effect when right on the mic, which seems to lose the low end, and over emphasize the nasal honky mid-range. I didn't want to ask Joe to back off the mic as the band were pretty noisy, and you can imagine how it rattled around that space! So I swapped it for the M69, which worked much better. I had a couple of '58s in the box as well just in case, but I've run FOH for this band quite a few times with '58s on vox, and I had a feeling that the Beyer might suit Joe's voice better.

RemyRAD, post: 383901 wrote: The spaced ambient pair sounded great so all that wonderful ambience was real. Fabulous. The way all rock 'n roll should be recorded.

Mostly real. The video guys specifically requested that I capture the sound of the space, but it was difficult to avoid it sounding really messy with the type of music they play. I ended up sidechaining a compressor over the ambient mics, which was keyed from the the rest of the close mics, so I could punch holes in the ambience to let transients through and keep some definition in the sound. I departed from reality a bit in the pause near the end, and lengthened the reverb tail slightly by sending the ambients to an instance of Valhalla Room.

RemyRAD, post: 383901 wrote: I don't think I've ever seen an M 81?

No, I think they were a bit of a discovery of mine! They appear to have been intended for home recording duties: they usually come with jack or DIN connectors, have cheap and flimsy table-top stands, and often come in pairs in a presentation box. But the mics themselves are really solid and well made (resembling little minature MD421s) and I discovered them to sound really great on things like sax, or (especially) guitar cabs: fat, warm and chunky, but still with all the detail you need.

I picked up my first pair on ebay for a fiver. Then a third for about £15. Then another pair for £30. Since then I've not seen them for less than about £80 each, which I'm afraid might be partly due to me praising them warmly on my website. Doh! (speaking of which, how come my site is down today all of a sudden? WTF???)

RemyRAD, post: 383901 wrote: So what was that space this was all going on in?

An old disused mill in Bradford (north of England). I'm pretty sure we had permission to be there, but the video guys arranged the location... and failed to mention four flights of stairs / no lift duh

Yes it was cold. Seriously bloody freezing actually: it was december, and it was warmer outside...

Davedog Sat, 02/04/2012 - 13:41

Ah. I had a lot of em right. Since the shots were so quick you really had to pay attention or resort to freeze-framing everything.

I had the 201 on the snare and the Blue-Ball mics on the toms. I thought the guitar mic was a Sennheiser 417 at first and then wasnt sure..I also thought the back mic was a 160 ribbon. Close. Since I used to own two AKG 202's I got those. Is the difference in the 222 and the 202 some kind of tone shaping?

Anyway. Nice production and a very good band. I feel for the temperature and the discomfort these kind of shoots can involve.

IIRs Sat, 02/04/2012 - 15:24

Davedog, post: 383960 wrote: Is the difference in the 222 and the 202 some kind of tone shaping?

There's a slight difference in body shape, and different switches for the LF roll-off. But with both set flat they sound the same to me: the one time I did a direct shootout (on vocals) the differences were subtle enough to have been in the performance. I therefore use the D222 more often as I don't have to dig out a special Tuchel cable for it.

The ebay seller that sold me the D202 claimed it was originally a "spare" from the houses of parliament! I took that with a pinch of salt, but its a nice story to tell my clients ;)


User login