As I’ve mentioned before, for many years I believed the recording advice I found on the internet. I visited recording forums and searched for discussions of acoustic guitar recording, and bought gear based on those discussions. I was never happy with my tracks, and I hoped that I could find the combination of gear that would make my recordings sound great.
One consistent recommendation was the Schoeps line of microphones. I was lucky enough to find a deal on a pair of used Schoeps CMC64s (CMC6 modular bodies and MK4 cardioid capsules) a few years ago, and even though they were fairly expensive I bought them because I knew that once I had a pair of Schoeps, I could no longer blame the microphones for my less than satisfactory results. (more…)
I posted a link to yesterday’s blog post at a couple of recording forums and one guitar site. I started threads at the Reaper Forum, on Gearslutz, and at the Acoustic Guitar Forum. It’s been interesting reading people’s reactions.
As I expected, some folks reject the validity of these controlled tests, stating that different mics respond to different positioning in different ways, and their performance in their optimal position is the important issue. I can only suggest that they try some controlled testing in those different positions. After all, if the difference really exists, it should be apparent when levels and positions are matched, right?
And as I expected, some people pointed out that mics with different patterns and mics with very different transducer technology, like ribbon mics, sound different from the cardioid condensers I used. I absolutely agree.
Also as I expected, some people suggested that my use of a single source, the acoustic guitar, is preventing me from hearing the differences, which show themselves on cymbals and vocals. As Dirty Harry was wont to say, “A man’s gotta know his limitations.” I don’t record those sources so I don’t use them for testing .
One comment that has come up a couple of times is that the mics I chose were too similar, all large diaphragm mics from the low end of the spectrum. So I pulled out my highest priced mic, a Schoeps CMC64 small diaphragm condenser, and stuck it in the array. (more…)
Mics are fun. They are a great gear fetish item, because they’re collectible, a bit esoteric but still familiar, come in a wide range of types and sizes, and most of them have a bit of a phallic quality (grin). Even better, when I read about microphones on the internet or in recording magazines it seems that each mic has a dramatically distinct personality, and a big part of the job of a recordist is choosing the optimal mic for any given source and style.
Sometimes when I’ve listened to mic samples I thought I heard these dramatic differences, but after a bit I realized that I was listening to different performances, not different mics. Sure the mics had been changed, but the player was hitting the strings differently and playing different riffs at a different volume – so how could I tell what part of the difference was the mic, and what part the player?
Since then I’ve tried to do some mic tests of my own, and I’ve tried to educate myself on audio testing. At this point I’m beginning to think that the differences in microphones are a lot more subtle than I had been led to believe, which makes a careful test even more important. As I’ve mentioned before, very small differences in volume are registered by our ear/brain combination as differences in quality rather than loudness. I’d like to demonstrate the steps I now take to try to make my mic comparisons, and preamp and a/d comparisons, meaningful. (more…)
The video forums and sites I visit go in a lot of different directions, but one of the most consistent points they make is the importance of audio in video. Those of us shooting “look at me play guitar” videos actually have it easy compared to folks doing documentaries or dramatic films, because we usually don’t mind having the microphone(s) visible in the shot, but since we’re showing off our music we really need the audio to shine. For acoustic players like me that means using microphones. The natural sound of the acoustic guitar just doesn’t come across with any pickup system I’ve found yet, so learning to position mics for a compelling recording is a big part of making a satisfactory video. (more…)
While the folks on the high end forum at Gearslutz may debate the relative merits of multi-thousand dollar a/d converters, I suspect that most of us home recordists feel that consumer level a/d and d/a does the job. We’re a lot more likely, though, to ascribe big differences to microphones, looking to different mics for different sources, different tonal flavors, different styles of music. But really, how much difference will we hear if we choose between two very different mics? (more…)
I added some ribbon mic samples to the H6 vs UFX shootout in my last post, but I created the samples using a very low level test tone and what passes for silence in a suburban bedroom. I’ve gotten some requests for samples using voice and guitar, so here they are. (more…)
I was a bit surprised at the small difference I heard in recordings made with the Sony PCM-D50 alongside the Zoom H2n in my last post, and both sounded very close to the Rode NT4 reference track to my ear. A pleasant surprise, indeed considering the cost difference. But many folks who recommend the D50 do so because of its ability to handle external mics, a job poorly handled by the Zoom H2. (more…)
Here are some more observations on the new Zoom H2n recorder. In this entry we’ll look at the Mic/Line input for connecting external mics and line level sources. In the H2 these were separate inputs, with the mic input controlled by the Mic Gain H-M-L switch while the line input had no adjustment. On the H2n these inputs are combined and the Mic Gain dial adjusts the sensitivity of that input. (more…)