|
Post by andyhowell on Dec 24, 2016 8:24:11 GMT
I believe two small condensers to be better. Mic positioning means a lot and I now use different mic positions for different guitar styles. Mind you, changing the recording position in the room also had a big impact. In general I think small diaphragm mics are more versitile.
That being said, a good large mic such as those we are talking about can produce a great, great, sound.
If you sing and are on a limited budget a decent condenser is where I would start. You can always add the kit over time. If it is just guitar then the best pair you can afford would be worth it.
I've built up my mics over years - good medium mics but which still cost a fair amount (Mojave and Beyerdynamic).
Mind you, I still don't know how to use the damn things properly!
|
|
|
Post by lavaman on Dec 24, 2016 8:47:14 GMT
My advice is that your first mic should be the best large diaphragm condenser mic that you can afford. sE and Rode offer a wide range of good quality mics at affordable prices. (e.g sE2200a, or Rode NT1). Use that mic for both vocals and acoustic guitar. If your budget allows go for one that offers a choice of polar patterns like an sE4400a or a Rode NT2A.
Later, when you have more cash, buy a small condenser mic - again sE and Rode are very good value.
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Dec 24, 2016 11:12:20 GMT
The Rode NT2 is a versatile mics and I don't think SE make anything less than very good.
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Dec 24, 2016 11:13:35 GMT
BTW one thing the Rode has going for it is that it is built like a tank and can take a lot of punishment . Have come to appreciate that.
|
|
|
Post by surfguy13 on Dec 24, 2016 19:31:39 GMT
I believe two small condensers to be better. Mic positioning means a lot and I now use different mic positions for different guitar styles. Mind you, changing the recording position in the room also had a big impact. In general I think small diaphragm mics are more versitile. That being said, a good large mic such as those we are talking about can produce a great, great, sound. If you sing and are on a limited budget a decent condenser is where I would start. You can always add the kit over time. If it is just guitar then the best pair you can afford would be worth it. I've built up my mics over years - good medium mics but which still cost a fair amount (Mojave and Beyerdynamic). Mind you, I still don't know how to use the damn things properly! Like you, after donkey's years of recording I still can't honestly say that I fully understand what I'm doing! My mic positioning is always a bit hit and miss but the good thing is that I am always playing in the same room so I know what I'm going to get. I think you are dead right about a pair of good quality small diaphram mics for acoustics.....although I have never used small diaphram mics I have read a lot about the benefits of using them for recording or just miking up. I use a very old pair of Tannoy Cheviot monitors and these allow me to monitor the deck and at the same time use them as I would a dedicated acoustic amp due to their ability to handle just about anything. However, in an ideal world I had wanted to try and find a bit of a dual purpose mic to use for miking up the acoustics and also for using in front of a cabinet. Sadly it's impossible to try before you buy with mics so having feedback from people that use them, and the feedback here has been so helpful, and also online research is almost essential. However, there is now SO much gear out there that making a decision is far from easy! I've never owned a Rode but there are so many positive comments onlinbe about the fact that they're bullit-proof and really high quality mics. I have used SE mics before and I agree, they are consistently good. In the sub £200 price range I think thew differences between the market leaders will be very small indeed and whether my ears will ever be able to pick them up is debateable!!
|
|
|
Post by surfguy13 on Dec 24, 2016 19:35:27 GMT
My advice is that your first mic should be the best large diaphragm condenser mic that you can afford. sE and Rode offer a wide range of good quality mics at affordable prices. (e.g sE2200a, or Rode NT1). Use that mic for both vocals and acoustic guitar. If your budget allows go for one that offers a choice of polar patterns like an sE4400a or a Rode NT2A. Later, when you have more cash, buy a small condenser mic - again sE and Rode are very good value. My last condenser was an SE2200A and it was faultless so maybe that is a good choice? I will have a look at the 4400A and the Rode NT2A as I haven't checked either of those out so many thanks for the tip. It does make sense to buy a large diaphram mic now and then but a small diaphram mic later....as with large diaphram options, Rode and SE seem to be consistently good!
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Dec 24, 2016 22:52:33 GMT
If your budget allows go for one that offers a choice of polar patterns. Excellent advice! Gives a much more diverse choice of sounds. Mark
|
|
|
Post by surfguy13 on Dec 27, 2016 18:19:36 GMT
Hi Guy Agreed about attenuators. I did go through a couple of amps with built in attenuators and I hated the way they attenuated the tone as well as the volume. The Micro Mass does the attenuation in a very neutral way - it's been great value for not much money. Talking of Sound On Sound, here's a link to one of their articles that goes quite in depth on the subject - it may be of use. I believe the small diaphragm type of microphone is reckoned to respond well in close-miking situations to the natural transient response and dynamic character of the guitar, giving better clarity, sparkle and detail than the large-diaphragm, and with minimal distortion and colouration. Something to do with the speed with which the microphone reacts to the sound I am given to understand. But I don't have the knowledge to know if this is hogwash - I just like what my ears tell me. I did reject a pair of Oktava Mk-012s though before I found the Avantone CK-1's that I really like. But I'm sure many people prefer the sound they get from a large diaphragm .... that's the trouble with musical sound - it's all so subjective as to what is good / bad. If you do end up with two condensers like you mention it also gives the opportunity of double miking the acoustic guitar. The sound from the bridge area for example is quite different to that from the neck / body join so one microphone aimed at each of those locations gives more of a flavour of the full sound range of the guitar. Mark Hi Mark I agree, the Weber Micro Mass is a really excellent attenuator.....just about everything Weber produce is well made and does the job! I had a Micro Mass for some years which I used with an old Selmer croc skin head and it was really great but......it just seemed to compress the sound so much as you dialed more in that you lost the sparkly trebles and deep bass. It is a problem when you have neighbours and an attenuator is a must. A friend of mine in France is a keen guitarist and also builds/repairs amps and he has to use an attenuator all the time. he's just had one made for him in the USA at a cost of £450 and he says it's a lot better than the off the shelf units he's used but it still compresses the sound. Thanks a million for the link to the Sound on Sound article......I read this a few years ago and recently tried to find it on S on S and failed! Having it again for reference is so helpful. As you say, we all hear things very differently and of course all acoustics are incredibly different in terms of projection and quality of sound. My main acoustic is all mahogany and although it is amazingly bright and sparkly it will never be as bright as a rosewood/spruce guitar so getting mic placement right is essential. Using only one mic I tend to set it up just behind the soundhole, between the soundhole and the bridge, and seems to give me the right balance. However, it's interesting that small condenser mics tend to have a little more sparkle than large diaphram options, something I didn't know. So, going down the road of a small and large together might work perfectly. I will read the S on S article tonight and I am sure that will either confuse me totally or set me on the right path!!!!!! Cheers Guy
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Dec 27, 2016 22:09:41 GMT
I don't know about sparkle, but large diaphragms have a richer or warmer sound. Smaller condensers probably are more neutral. But using words to describe sound is always a bit dodgy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2016 8:48:11 GMT
Have you thought about a ribbon mic? SE electronics make a very reasonably priced one. They aren't condenser, and you have to be very careful not to supply phantom power, but the sound of one of these is very organic, and they sound terrific in front of an electric guitar amplifier. Rode make an extremely nice one, but it is about £500. Listen to their demo of it though.
Robbie
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Dec 28, 2016 10:00:33 GMT
I don't know about sparkle, but large diaphragms have a richer or warmer sound. Smaller condensers probably are more neutral. But using words to describe sound is always a bit dodgy. ... dodgy if not impossible. Good point about the warmer sound of the large diaphragm Andy, and it's an aspect to them that I'd totally forgotten about. If you have high quality guitars like wot most of you all have on this forum, then your guitar will tend, as has been explained very convincingly by one Nigel Forster on the forum here, to have a very neutral sound. If you have cheap crap like wot I have got then the guitar already has a built in warmer sound, so the larger diaphragm can overcook that aspect. I must keep that in mind when I extol the virtues of small condensers. Mind you, the particular pair of Octava small diaphragm mics I tried and sent back before I settled on the Avantones were so warm they were positively muddy! Mark
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Dec 28, 2016 11:28:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Dec 28, 2016 11:30:06 GMT
I don't know about sparkle, but large diaphragms have a richer or warmer sound. Smaller condensers probably are more neutral. But using words to describe sound is always a bit dodgy. ... dodgy if not impossible. Good point about the warmer sound of the large diaphragm Andy, and it's an aspect to them that I'd totally forgotten about. If you have high quality guitars like wot most of you all have on this forum, then your guitar will tend, as has been explained very convincingly by one Nigel Forster on the forum here, to have a very neutral sound. If you have cheap crap like wot I have got then the guitar already has a built in warmer sound, so the larger diaphragm can overcook that aspect. I must keep that in mind when I extol the virtues of small condensers. Mind you, the particular pair of Octava small diaphragm mics I tried and sent back before I settled on the Avantones were so warm they were positively muddy! Mark Good points but remember Mic placement is probably the most significant factor!
|
|
leitrimnick
C.O.G.
Posts: 152
My main instrument is: Fylde Oberon
|
Post by leitrimnick on Dec 28, 2016 11:57:02 GMT
... dodgy if not impossible. Good point about the warmer sound of the large diaphragm Andy, and it's an aspect to them that I'd totally forgotten about. If you have high quality guitars like wot most of you all have on this forum, then your guitar will tend, as has been explained very convincingly by one Nigel Forster on the forum here, to have a very neutral sound. If you have cheap crap like wot I have got then the guitar already has a built in warmer sound, so the larger diaphragm can overcook that aspect. I must keep that in mind when I extol the virtues of small condensers. Mind you, the particular pair of Octava small diaphragm mics I tried and sent back before I settled on the Avantones were so warm they were positively muddy! Mark Good points but remember Mic placement is probably the most significant factor! Have to agree with Andy. I'm not really that much of a techie so I won't add anything to the discussion re mic specs etc. One variable which hasn't been mentioned is the way an acoustic is strung. This year I returned to Bright Bronze strings after years of using Phosphor Bronze (always GHS). The change in tone was significant, and this is on a Fylde Oberon I have owned for decades. I will be recording an album for release in the Spring and I'm sure that the change in tone will have a small but noticeable effect on the recording/mix/mastering process.
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Dec 28, 2016 16:07:05 GMT
Good points but remember Mic placement is probably the most significant factor! Have to agree with Andy. I'm not really that much of a techie so I won't add anything to the discussion re mic specs etc. One variable which hasn't been mentioned is the way an acoustic is strung. This year I returned to Bright Bronze strings after years of using Phosphor Bronze (always GHS). The change in tone was significant, and this is on a Fylde Oberon I have owned for decades. I will be recording an album for release in the Spring and I'm sure that the change in tone will have a small but noticeable effect on the recording/mix/mastering process. Yep, although I rarely get the mic placement spot on I usually get to a point where I need very little Eq, often just a touch out of the mids. One the problems keen hime recordists have is not really recording often and regularly enough. I do find it a bit easier when recording somebody else! I'd not thought about strings but of course that makes a lot of sense. My guitar has a big range and I'd not thought of using bronze strings. Must have a go at that. I'm currently using PB Newtones at the moment which I think just have a bit more presence than the D'Dadarrio I was using. I guess string gauge might also be a recording factor? SaveSave
|
|