3 mic drum techique: budget mic advice please

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Sorry to bore everyone with yet another request for advice regarding
mics for the 3 mic drum technique described so eloquently by Fletcher.

I've got:

1 x ATM25 dynamic bass drum/brass mic
2 x SM57 dynamics
2 x C1000s small diaphragm condensers
1 x Rode NT2 large diaphragm condenser

Unfortunately I'm stuck in my 'studio' (double garage) on my own
(yeah, no drummer mates...), so experimenting with mics is rather long
winded. So any advice on the best mics to use from my budget
collection for the Front Of Kit, Overhead and Side mic would be much
appreciated.

If possible I'm looking for an everyday setup not using the NT2, and
also a higher quality setup using the NT2 (if anyone thinks it's worth
using...)

Thanks for your help,
Rich.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>From: richard.worsley@ntlworld.com (Rich Worsley)
>Date: 1/29/05 12:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3644154f.0501290953.7ccbd091@posting.google.com>
>
>Sorry to bore everyone with yet another request for advice regarding
>mics for the 3 mic drum technique described so eloquently by Fletcher.
>
>I've got:
>
>1 x ATM25 dynamic bass drum/brass mic
>2 x SM57 dynamics
>2 x C1000s small diaphragm condensers
>1 x Rode NT2 large diaphragm condenser
>
>Unfortunately I'm stuck in my 'studio' (double garage) on my own
>(yeah, no drummer mates...), so experimenting with mics is rather long
>winded. So any advice on the best mics to use from my budget
>collection for the Front Of Kit, Overhead and Side mic would be much
>appreciated.
>
>If possible I'm looking for an everyday setup not using the NT2, and
>also a higher quality setup using the NT2 (if anyone thinks it's worth
>using...)

How many pieces are in your drum kit?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Raymond wrote:
> >From: richard.worsley@ntlworld.com (Rich Worsley)
> >Date: 1/29/05 12:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3644154f.0501290953.7ccbd091@posting.google.com>
> >
> >Sorry to bore everyone with yet another request for advice regarding
> >mics for the 3 mic drum technique described so eloquently by
Fletcher.
> >
> >I've got:
> >
> >1 x ATM25 dynamic bass drum/brass mic
> >2 x SM57 dynamics
> >2 x C1000s small diaphragm condensers
> >1 x Rode NT2 large diaphragm condenser
> >
> >Unfortunately I'm stuck in my 'studio' (double garage) on my own
> >(yeah, no drummer mates...), so experimenting with mics is rather
long
> >winded. So any advice on the best mics to use from my budget
> >collection for the Front Of Kit, Overhead and Side mic would be much
> >appreciated.
> >
> >If possible I'm looking for an everyday setup not using the NT2, and
> >also a higher quality setup using the NT2 (if anyone thinks it's
worth
> >using...)
>
> How many pieces are in your drum kit?

Gretsch Custom Maple Bebop kit: 18" BD, 14" FT, 12" TT, 14" SD, HH,
Left Ride, Right Ride. I play mainly jazz.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Since you mainly play jazz, I can recommend another minimalist mic technique
that works really well. That is to take a stereo microphone (or coincident
stereo pair) and place it a couple feet in front of the kit. It should be
beneath the cymbals and at about tom height "looking" at the snare. You may
find that you like a bit of a touch-up on the kick, but if you position it
right, you likely won't need it.

You get a wonderfully open sound where you (as the drummer) are in control
of what it sounds like. On the cheaper end of things, I've had good luck
with the Shure VP-88 stereo mic.... On the higher end of things, I use my
AKG 426, Royer SF-24, Neumann SM-69 or a pair of good mics like Neumann or
Schoeps cardiods in X-Y (or a fig 8/cardiod M-S pair).

--Ben

--
Benjamin Maas
Fifth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com

Please remove "Nospam" from address for replies

"Rich" <richard.worsley@ntlworld.com> wrote in message ...
>
> Raymond wrote:
>> >From: richard.worsley@ntlworld.com (Rich Worsley)
>> >Date: 1/29/05 12:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <3644154f.0501290953.7ccbd091@posting.google.com>
>> >
>> >Sorry to bore everyone with yet another request for advice regarding
>> >mics for the 3 mic drum technique described so eloquently by
> Fletcher.
>> >
>> >I've got:
>> >
>> >1 x ATM25 dynamic bass drum/brass mic
>> >2 x SM57 dynamics
>> >2 x C1000s small diaphragm condensers
>> >1 x Rode NT2 large diaphragm condenser
>> >
>> >Unfortunately I'm stuck in my 'studio' (double garage) on my own
>> >(yeah, no drummer mates...), so experimenting with mics is rather
> long
>> >winded. So any advice on the best mics to use from my budget
>> >collection for the Front Of Kit, Overhead and Side mic would be much
>> >appreciated.
>> >
>> >If possible I'm looking for an everyday setup not using the NT2, and
>> >also a higher quality setup using the NT2 (if anyone thinks it's
> worth
>> >using...)
>>
>> How many pieces are in your drum kit?
>
> Gretsch Custom Maple Bebop kit: 18" BD, 14" FT, 12" TT, 14" SD, HH,
> Left Ride, Right Ride. I play mainly jazz.
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> the farthest corner of the room with something to block the line-of-sight
> direct sounds from the kit, even if it's a cardboard box.

if you're talking about blocking high freqs from the cymbals, it's better to
simply point the mic away from the kit to avoid that nasty 16K hypercardioid
tendency of cardioid mics.

--

Jonny Durango

"Patrick was a saint. I ain't."

http://www.jdurango.com



"Sugarite" <nobody@home.com> wrote in message
news:6jkLd.2279$Sx6.191852@read2.cgocable.net...
> > Sorry to bore everyone with yet another request for advice regarding
> > mics for the 3 mic drum technique described so eloquently by Fletcher.
> >
> > I've got:
> >
> > 1 x ATM25 dynamic bass drum/brass mic
> > 2 x SM57 dynamics
> > 2 x C1000s small diaphragm condensers
> > 1 x Rode NT2 large diaphragm condenser
>
> First step, sell the C1000's, the most overrated mic ever, to fund the
> purchase of some suitable overhead mics. Even if the C1000's didn't sound
> like trash, they're hypercardioid, and not suited to the task.
>
> I recommend Rode NT5's for budget overheads, and for jazz I recommend
> dampening the ceiling around the overheads and get the mics as high as
> possible, with a kick mic just to add some body, which the ATM25 will do
> adequately. The SM57's would be happy on the toms (if you're not dead-set
> on the 3-mic thing) and the NT2 would be good as an ambient mic - put it
in
> the farthest corner of the room with something to block the line-of-sight
> direct sounds from the kit, even if it's a cardboard box.
>
> And for jazz I recommend spacing the mics slightly, 2.5-4" with a 90
degree
> angle between them.
>
> These are just my recommendations to start with, the more you experiement,
> the better you learn good placement in your room.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'll try this, but I guess I'm limited to using either my C1000s or
SM57s. The C1000s will have to do until they're upgraded, but at least
I'll get to try out the method. Thanks.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > the farthest corner of the room with something to block the
line-of-sight
> > direct sounds from the kit, even if it's a cardboard box.
>
> if you're talking about blocking high freqs from the cymbals, it's better
to
> simply point the mic away from the kit to avoid that nasty 16K
hypercardioid
> tendency of cardioid mics.

That's another option, but when comparing the two I've prefered the blocked
format enough to not bother trying the backwards position. I suspect the
reflections from the corner itself are undesireable, so the blocked response
pattern is like the opposite of a figure-8, more like a donut. I suppose
some dampening in the corner could fix that issue as well, but blocking the
mic is easier.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play_on wrote:

> "Sugarite" wrote:

> >First step, sell the C1000's, the most overrated mic ever, to fund the
> >purchase of some suitable overhead mics. Even if the C1000's didn't sound
> >like trash, they're hypercardioid, and not suited to the task.

> ??? I have a pair of hyper-card Schoeps that work nicely for OHs.

Sugarite has plenty of fascinating ideas about what mics work where for
what. Much of it seems quite opposite of what I have come to think in
four decades of messing with this stuff. My fave late one of his was the
bit about some mic positioning not getting the vertical motion of the
strings. Loved that. Darwin comes to audio.

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just to clarify, I don't believe the Andy Johns 3-mic technique (the
one that everyone except Fletcher seems to attribute to Fletcher)
employs a near-coincident stereo format.

Also, I've never used the C1000s, but I have heard several people
grumbling about them. Who knows. I use two modified AT4049/4051s
(cardioid/omni) and have had good luck with them and quite a few
compliments on their sound so far. There's other good choices out
there as well.

The Rode NT2 is okay for a room mic, but not my favorite. I tend to
like a fuller sounding mic for using as a room mic, but you certainly
could do much worse!! I'm using a Lawson L251, which is admittedly
much more expensive than the NT2!!
Ken/Eleven Shadows
http://www.elevenshadows.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Just to clarify, I don't believe the Andy Johns 3-mic technique (the
> one that everyone except Fletcher seems to attribute to Fletcher)
> employs a near-coincident stereo format.

Well that's an entirely different animal. I had no idea what the Fletcher
reference was, so I assumed conventional overheads were involved. I would
never attempt such an asymmetrical configuration myself, so I can't comment
on that format.

> Also, I've never used the C1000s, but I have heard several people
> grumbling about them. Who knows. I use two modified AT4049/4051s
> (cardioid/omni) and have had good luck with them and quite a few
> compliments on their sound so far. There's other good choices out
> there as well.

I like the AT SDC's as well, the NT5's are less expensive, and don't have
the super-high output of the AT's, which can sometimes be problematic
without pads, though generally not for jazz.

> The Rode NT2 is okay for a room mic, but not my favorite. I tend to
> like a fuller sounding mic for using as a room mic, but you certainly
> could do much worse!! I'm using a Lawson L251, which is admittedly
> much more expensive than the NT2!!

Try a pair of tube LDC's in XY with a barrier to block the direct sound. I
usually wind up using an NT4 since most bands don't want to spring for
matched tube mics for what they consider to be a secondary purpose, but it
doesn't get that low-midrange "buff" as well. I've never thought much of
mono ambience, and I find spaced ambient mics can disturb the time
differential imaging of ORTF-ish overheads.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Sugarite wrote:

> > Just to clarify, I don't believe the Andy Johns 3-mic technique (the
> > one that everyone except Fletcher seems to attribute to Fletcher)
> > employs a near-coincident stereo format.

> Well that's an entirely different animal. I had no idea what the Fletcher
> reference was, so I assumed conventional overheads were involved. I would
> never attempt such an asymmetrical configuration myself, so I can't comment
> on that format.

It can work very well for rock drums, and all the info is somewhere at
Google. Honestly, all kidding aside, I think you'd find it interesting.
It's not something I'd ordinarily think of using for what I think of as
jazz.

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> (And nothing you'll be able to say will tarnish the hilarity of your
> suggestion in another thread that a certain mic position won't hear the
> up and down motion of guitar strings. No further clarification is
> necessary.)

Sure, I oversimplified the properties I was describing, but you must think
I'm pretty dense, and you must be pretty dense if you can't extrapolate what
I meant.

If you put a mark on a guitar string, when the string is strummed that mark
takes a relatively circular path. If the mics are positioned with one near
the bridge and one near the 12th fret, the stereo information of the pattern
is derived from inconsistent phase variances at different positions along
the string. If the mics are positioned above and below the 12th fret with
90 degrees between them, two components of that circular path are picked up
relatively independently, and the stereo information is much more coherent,
wide instead of scattered.

An easy way to describe what the former pattern lacks is the vertical
component to the string's path, when really it's the consistency of the
difference between the two mics that really counts. And as you surely know,
consistency of differentials is the key to any stereo mic format, which is
why I wouldn't touch that Andy Johns technique with a 10' pole. Maybe if
there were a third mic on the other side, but the time differentials have to
be just gnarsty with that amount of separation.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> > usually wind up using an NT4 since most bands don't want to spring for
> > matched tube mics for what they consider to be a secondary purpose
>
> Do you charge by the mic for your sessions, or do you not own the mics
> you like to use and have to rent them for sessions?

I'm developing an entry-level music promotions format which requires that I
get more hands-on experience in other areas of the industry, which means I
don't stock much in the way of recording gear anymore. I do a few
recordings a year to keep my chops up, generally promising up-and-comers
with shoestring budgets. I have several friends with reasonable studios for
budget productions, but there isn't a matched tube mic pair among them.

It gets better - the closest place to rent them is about two hours' drive
each way.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> >If you put a mark on a guitar string, when the string is strummed that
mark
> >takes a relatively circular path. If the mics are positioned with one
near
> >the bridge and one near the 12th fret, the stereo information of the
pattern
> >is derived from inconsistent phase variances at different positions along
> >the string. If the mics are positioned above and below the 12th fret
with
> >90 degrees between them, two components of that circular path are picked
up
> >relatively independently, and the stereo information is much more
coherent,
> >wide instead of scattered.
>
> The vibrating top of the guitar is what makes the sound you hear, not
> the strings themselves. The top, back and sides of the guitar function
> as an amplification system. Without them, you hear almost nothing. For
> example, try an electric guitar unamplified. It's real quiet.

Using this technique the stereo aspects come largely from the strings
themselves. The body resonance does not extend much past 1.2kHz, and does
not offer any significant imaging, which is why the mic position must relate
to the strings for good stereo response. The sound hole provides a point of
reference for a separated pair of mics, the strings provide the orientation
for those mics. Often the guitar has too much body sound with mics placed
12-18" away, so it can help to move them down the neck somewhat, generally
somewhere between the hole and the 12th fret.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> >The body resonance does not extend much past 1.2kHz, and does
> >not offer any significant imaging, which is why the mic position must
relate
> >to the strings for good stereo response. The sound hole provides a point
of
> >reference for a separated pair of mics, the strings provide the
orientation
> >for those mics. Often the guitar has too much body sound with mics
placed
> >12-18" away, so it can help to move them down the neck somewhat,
generally
> >somewhere between the hole and the 12th fret.
>
> Where do you get these nutty ideas??? With an acoustic guitar, it's
> ALL "body sound".

I'm sure that's what they told you at the technical institute, but a luthier
will tell you something altogether different. You probably also subscribe
to the idea that the strings only emit as much sound as an electric guitar's
strings unamplified. That's wrong too.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:12:46 -0500, "Sugarite" <nobody@home.com> wrote:

> You probably also subscribe
>to the idea that the strings only emit as much sound as an electric guitar's
>strings unamplified. That's wrong too.

So, take an acoustic guitar neck, bridge, and strings, and attach them
to an appropriate length of 2 by 4 lumber, instead of an acoustic
guitar body. That's different than an unamplified electric guitar,
how?

The Martin "backpacker" guitar approaches this, but still has somewhat
of an acoustic body, sort of...


====================
Tracy Wintermute
arrgh@greenapple.com
Rushcreek Ranch
====================

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:12:46 -0500, "Sugarite" <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>> >The body resonance does not extend much past 1.2kHz, and does
>> >not offer any significant imaging, which is why the mic position must
>relate
>> >to the strings for good stereo response. The sound hole provides a point
>of
>> >reference for a separated pair of mics, the strings provide the
>orientation
>> >for those mics. Often the guitar has too much body sound with mics
>placed
>> >12-18" away, so it can help to move them down the neck somewhat,
>generally
>> >somewhere between the hole and the 12th fret.
>>
>> Where do you get these nutty ideas??? With an acoustic guitar, it's
>> ALL "body sound".
>
>I'm sure that's what they told you at the technical institute,

NOT. I'm a guitarist myself and I buy and sell the finest acoustic
steel string guitars in the world. I do know what I'm talking about
here. If you think the strings make the sound, as someone else
suggested, try micing an unplugged strat sometime.

> but a luthier
>will tell you something altogether different.

You must know some different luthiers than I do.

You probably also subscribe
>to the idea that the strings only emit as much sound as an electric guitar's
>strings unamplified. That's wrong too.

And just how is that??? The acoustic guitar's top wood is what
amplifies the vibration of the strings; the body shape and the sound
hole then project those vibrations out into the air around the guitar.
If you think it's the strings, try stringing up a brick and see how
much sound you get out of it.

Al

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

play_on <playonAT@comcast.net> wrote:

> The acoustic guitar's top wood is what
> amplifies the vibration of the strings; the body shape and the sound
> hole then project those vibrations out into the air around the guitar.
> If you think it's the strings, try stringing up a brick and see how
> much sound you get out of it.

You ought to hear how Lance McCollum can get identical models with the
same strings to sound like different guitars, by the way he voices the
top wood. It's akin to magic. A Grand Auditorium can punch nearly all
fundamental for bluegrass leads, sing overtones liek a Celtic harp, or
sit right between those, as does my own, just by his tweaking of the
tops when a'building.

Multitracking and overdubbing hasve gotten folks to smash their mics
right up against the guitars. Personally, given space that's
acoustically usable, I want my guitar mics back about three feet, maybe
even more. I do not want to listen to guitars with my face stuck against
the top.

--
ha

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:09:59 GMT, Logan Shaw
<lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Tracy Wintermute wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 00:12:46 -0500, "Sugarite" <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
>>>You probably also subscribe
>>>to the idea that the strings only emit as much sound as an electric guitar's
>>>strings unamplified. That's wrong too.
>
>> So, take an acoustic guitar neck, bridge, and strings, and attach them
>> to an appropriate length of 2 by 4 lumber, instead of an acoustic
>> guitar body. That's different than an unamplified electric guitar,
>> how?
>
>Because the strings are about 50 zillion times heavier?
>
>Perhaps a reasonable test of whether this makes a difference:
>1. get an electric guitar
>2. grab the neck firmly around, say, 3rd or 4th fret so that
> you mute all strings and dampen vibration going through neck
>3. pluck the strings up at the head, between the tuning pegs
> and the nut
>4. now repeat the experiment with an acoustic guitar
>
>If the strings are emitting the same amount of sound on both,
>then the strings up at the head stock should also emit the
>same amount of sound.
>
> - Logan


First of all, the strings on an acoustic aren't a "zillion" times
heavier. I string my acoustic with .012"-.053" gauge strings, which is
probably average for most acoustics, though some go heavier. I have
used anywhere from .09-.042 to .011-.050 on my electrics, though there
are people who string electrics with .012-.053 strings and higher.

So according to some quick calculations my acoustic strings are
anywhere from 1.13 to 1.26 times heavier (depends on the particular
string) than my lightest electric strings. And for some electrics the
strings will be the same gauge as on an acoustic.

I did your headstock test, I heard no appreciable difference.

Darryl

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> You probably also subscribe
> >to the idea that the strings only emit as much sound as an electric
guitar's
> >strings unamplified. That's wrong too.
>
> And just how is that??? The acoustic guitar's top wood is what
> amplifies the vibration of the strings; the body shape and the sound
> hole then project those vibrations out into the air around the guitar.
> If you think it's the strings, try stringing up a brick and see how
> much sound you get out of it.

Nothing is being amplified, it's a matter of resonance, and it's a two-way
street. The strings pass vibrations to the body, which resonates at the
lower frequencies. That resonance is passed back to the strings, which also
resonate producing overtones higher than the resonant range of the body.
This does not happen with electric guitars to the same extent, except when
amplified loud enough to substantially vibrate the guitar, and even then
it's a different animal.

In both cases if you apply a substantial low-midrange vibration to the body,
the strings will resonate with overtones that are higher than the original
signal, moreso with the higher-tension strings of an acoustic guitar.

Now before you resume misquoting and exagerrating what I said, consider the
idea that the transients and string overtones might very well be the most
significant source for *coherent stereo information* of an acoustic guitar.
I never implied that the string sound made up a large proportion of the
overall sound. Getting a coherent stereo sound from acoustic guitar isn't
easy, and I claimed that the best way to do it is for the strings to be
moving between the mics, instead of along the line between them. I wrote it
in a simplistic way at first because the OP (on another thread) simply asked
"how do I mic acoustic guitar" and I didn't want to get into the geometry of
it.

Since then you guys have been camped out looking to sharpshoot me at a
personal level, even dragged the issue from the other thread for no reason.
Real professional. Last I checked one didn't need more justification for
posting an opinion here other than "it works for me". If you refuse to
consider opinions that conflict with your own then usenet is not for you,
and personal attacks on an anonymous poster couldn't be a bigger waste of
time.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

walkinay@thegrid.net (hank alrich) writes:
>Multitracking and overdubbing hasve gotten folks to smash their mics
>right up against the guitars. Personally, given space that's
>acoustically usable, I want my guitar mics back about three feet, maybe
>even more. I do not want to listen to guitars with my face stuck against
>the top.

Best electric guitar tracks I've recorded to date were with an RE-20 about
6 ft away from a 1-15" cab (JBL D-130f). YMMV

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm not dissing your mic technique... but your explanation for it it
totally bogus, sorry.

Al

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 12:50:29 -0500, "Sugarite" <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>> You probably also subscribe
>> >to the idea that the strings only emit as much sound as an electric
>guitar's
>> >strings unamplified. That's wrong too.
>>
>> And just how is that??? The acoustic guitar's top wood is what
>> amplifies the vibration of the strings; the body shape and the sound
>> hole then project those vibrations out into the air around the guitar.
>> If you think it's the strings, try stringing up a brick and see how
>> much sound you get out of it.
>
>Nothing is being amplified, it's a matter of resonance, and it's a two-way
>street. The strings pass vibrations to the body, which resonates at the
>lower frequencies. That resonance is passed back to the strings, which also
>resonate producing overtones higher than the resonant range of the body.
>This does not happen with electric guitars to the same extent, except when
>amplified loud enough to substantially vibrate the guitar, and even then
>it's a different animal.
>
>In both cases if you apply a substantial low-midrange vibration to the body,
>the strings will resonate with overtones that are higher than the original
>signal, moreso with the higher-tension strings of an acoustic guitar.
>
>Now before you resume misquoting and exagerrating what I said, consider the
>idea that the transients and string overtones might very well be the most
>significant source for *coherent stereo information* of an acoustic guitar.
>I never implied that the string sound made up a large proportion of the
>overall sound. Getting a coherent stereo sound from acoustic guitar isn't
>easy, and I claimed that the best way to do it is for the strings to be
>moving between the mics, instead of along the line between them. I wrote it
>in a simplistic way at first because the OP (on another thread) simply asked
>"how do I mic acoustic guitar" and I didn't want to get into the geometry of
>it.
>
>Since then you guys have been camped out looking to sharpshoot me at a
>personal level, even dragged the issue from the other thread for no reason.
>Real professional. Last I checked one didn't need more justification for
>posting an opinion here other than "it works for me". If you refuse to
>consider opinions that conflict with your own then usenet is not for you,
>and personal attacks on an anonymous poster couldn't be a bigger waste of
>time.
>

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Sugarite wrote:

> First step, sell the C1000's, the most overrated mic ever, to fund
the
> purchase of some suitable overhead mics. Even if the C1000's didn't
sound
> like trash, they're hypercardioid, and not suited to the task.


whats the disadvantage of using hypercardiods as overheads ?
thanks

Sidhu

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1grchfi.1xwtjk11ez9h62N%walkinay@thegrid.net> walkinay@thegrid.net writes:

> Multitracking and overdubbing hasve gotten folks to smash their mics
> right up against the guitars. Personally, given space that's
> acoustically usable, I want my guitar mics back about three feet, maybe
> even more.

But there's a hardware problem with that. First off, most people don't
have an acoustic space that's quiet enough to back off three feet from
the source. If I did that in my dining room (the best space in my
house to record an acoustic guitar), depending on the season I'd be
recording lawn mowers or chain saws (not a lot of snow blowers around
here), and depending on the time of day, I'd be recording school
busses, airplanes, or helicopters. And I'm not even on a very busy
street.

The other problem is that in order to make the meters move very far,
with most acoustic guitars and modern condenser mics, you need more
than 60 dB of gain in the mic preamp. That's where most of today's
preamps top out. At the NAMM show, Wes Dooley told me that he was
working with a designer that some of us know to produce a fairly
priced preamp with sufficient gain to properly record acoustic
instruments with his ribbon mics. I ran into Wes at the Deering banjo
booth where he was in the midst of a discussion about how to
accurately record different sounding banjos, so I know he means
business.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:42:48 -0500, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article <znr1107364739k@trad> ):

>
> The other problem is that in order to make the meters move very far,
> with most acoustic guitars and modern condenser mics, you need more
> than 60 dB of gain in the mic preamp. That's where most of today's
> preamps top out. At the NAMM show, Wes Dooley told me that he was
> working with a designer that some of us know to produce a fairly
> priced preamp with sufficient gain to properly record acoustic
> instruments with his ribbon mics. I ran into Wes at the Deering banjo
> booth where he was in the midst of a discussion about how to
> accurately record different sounding banjos, so I know he means
> business.

Well sure and I bet he has a step up transformer front end in mind. The Neve
9098 has that as does the Jensen preamp.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Thanks for the info Scott. I think I erred in ordering the hyper
capsule with the MC012 stereo pair from the soundroom. though Im sure
it wont go waste. Ill try and collect for the cardioids now.

sidhu





Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Sidhu <nitinsidhu@indiatimes.com> wrote:
> >Sugarite wrote:
> >
> >> First step, sell the C1000's, the most overrated mic ever, to fund
> >the
> >> purchase of some suitable overhead mics. Even if the C1000's
didn't
> >sound
> >> like trash, they're hypercardioid, and not suited to the task.
> >
> >
> >whats the disadvantage of using hypercardiods as overheads ?
>
> The only real disadvantage is that they are narrower patterns than
cardioids,
> which means you're going to need to pull them back more in order to
get a good
> balance between the kit and the room. In a small room that is often
just not
> possible. In a huge room, hypercardioids may be a great choice,
though.
>
> The C1000, though, can be set up as a cardioid or a hypercardioid,
depending
> on whether you use a removable baffle or not. It sounds bad in
either pattern,
> though.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."