Best mic for recording guitar?

[Jim Andrada]

Well, some of my thinking that led to trying the wide cardioid was that the shrillest instrument in the band (Eb cornet) is also the furthest off axis (far left)

Definitely no emphasis needed there

Although I do plan to try an omni as part of the M/S setup in the near future

[Michael Thames]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Michael,

I don't see where Schoeps or Posthorn suggests that capsule for guitar. If you have a good sounding guitar, boosting the highs is not required. I used a MK41 capsule on mine and find it hides the flaws in the room better.

And, again, I'd start with one Schoeps on one guitar.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Thanks Ty, In the Scheops catalog it says the MK 21h was made for drums and guitar. I guess the "H" stands for "Highs", in which case that doesn't sound appealing for classical guitar, but better suited to steel strings.

[Michael Thames]

Originally Posted by Mike Demmers

If you are recordng voice and guitar at the same time, things get a lot more complicated.

There are two basic approaches.

One is to back off the mics and record this like a classical performance. This will require a reasonably good room, and a performer who knows how to balance the voice and guitar well naturally. What you hear is what you get.

A pair of cardiods, a cardiod and figure 8 (for MS) or even a pair of omnis in a good room will work well for this.

The other approach is to close mic. This opens up a very large can of worms. The problem here is that the two sources are very close together, and that any bleed from voice into the guitar mic (and vice versa) will sound bad, due to being off axis (especially with cardiods) and the distances are such that there is likely to be phase cancellation or comb filtering (distance 1 to 2 feet between the mics means problems with phase in the 500-3000 Hz range - right in the middle of the sensitive vocal range!).

Another problem is that you will need to be micing very close to get near the 3 to 1 guideline (which is a minimum). Small condensor mics with a cardiod pattern tend to get very boomy and are very prone to pops at such distances.

Here are two approaches I often use in such situations:

1. This is where the unique properties of the figure 8 pattern come in very handy. I use such a mic on the guitar, with the front pointed at te strings, but the null of the mic pointed at the singers mouth. This almost perfectly eliminates the voice from the guitar mic. No other pattern can do this as well, only figure 8 has a perfect null.

For the voice, normally a small condensor would not be my first choice due to the problems mentioned above. If I did have to use one, I would choose an omni pattern which can be used close without boominess and pops. More likely though, I would choose a large condensor, and also use it in a figure 8 pattern, but with the null of this mic pointed at the guitar.

2. Similar to #1 on the guitar, but I would use a dynamic mic for the vocal - something designed to be used VERY close, such as an SM-7 or SM-57. This pretty much eliminates any bleed from the guitar into the vocal mic due to sheer distance (1 in from mouth, 12-24 in from guitar - much better than the minimum 3 to 1).

If one of the Schoeps is specifically for voice (as opposed to for stereo), omni rather than cardiod may be better, if you plan to close mic.

If I were going to buy two Schoeps, in this circumstance, I might get one figure eight and one omni. This woud allow both a nice MS stereo setup for distant micing and and the potential for better separation and less chance of vocal pops and boominess in a close miced situation.

You might think a bi-directional mic would not not be a good choice in a less than perfect room. In actual practice, what happens is that - in a close mic situation - the bounce from sidewalls is eliminated by the null of the mic, and the sound from the rear wall is so much less than the front (due to close micing) that it makes little difference.

And of course in a distant micing situation, using MS micing allows the amount of ambience to be varied after the fact - a great advantage if you are uncertain of the room.


-Mike

Yea I know so many guys who record in an acoustically dead room, this doesn't help the classical guitar in my opinion.

I think there was some confusion about my wording. What I need is a capsule that will record just voice for instructional videos, and one for guitar. I won't be recording both a guitarist and a singer at the same time. Was wondering if one capsule could do both reasonably well.

[Ty Ford]

Originally Posted by Jim Andrada

I generally use the MK21 (not 21H) but for the guitar recordings I like the cardioid MK4.

I like the MK21 because it doesn't disproportionately boost off axis highs and works very well for a lot of what I do, and I agree with Ty that the MK41 is a surprisingly good mike for a lot more than what it normally gets used for

In the old analog tape days, adding some hf was done to add some of the hf lost when recorded to analog tape. That's no longer relevant. So hf boost is good for adding hf lost for distance micing.

Regards,

Ty

[Jim Andrada]

Well, maybe an MK41 for voice and an MK2 omni for the guitar??? Although the omni might work well for voice as well if placed properly.

I actually have a large diaphragm Rode that I use for voice and it has been pretty satisfactory with the omni setting and used quite close with a pop screen (and a bit below mouth level). I think voice is nowhere as much of a challenge as music so maybe a completely different mic would be fine (also probably cheaper than a Schoeps capsule)

Or maybe even a lav for voice.

Really, the only way to know is to try them before you buy them.

Schoeps makes a low sensitivity mic capsule that is intended to be placed inside the guitar. No idea how it would work and not motivated to spend the $$$ on one

By the way, when I was debating where to start I actually asked the folks at Schoeps and they were quite helpful.

[Ty Ford]

[QUOTE=Jim Andrada;1172749]Well, maybe an MK41 for voice and an MK2 omni for the guitar??? Although the omni might work well for voice as well if placed properly.

>>>If you're singing and playing at the same time, my favorite plan is a figure of eight, sideways and nulling the guitar.

I actually have a large diaphragm Rode that I use for voice and it has been pretty satisfactory with the omni setting and used quite close with a pop screen (and a bit below mouth level). I think voice is nowhere as much of a challenge as music so maybe a completely different mic would be fine (also probably cheaper than a Schoeps capsule)

>>Which Rode?

Or maybe even a lav for voice.

>> Ya know, I wouldn't have said yes except for a recent shoot I did. Gerry Clarke is singing into a Countryman E6. Neil Harpe Gerry Clarke - "What You Think This Is" on Vimeo

Really, the only way to know is to try them before you buy them.

Schoeps makes a low sensitivity mic capsule that is intended to be placed inside the guitar. No idea how it would work and not motivated to spend the $$$ on one

>Me neither. For live, I like the K&K pickups.

By the way, when I was debating where to start I actually asked the folks at Schoeps and they were quite helpful.

Jerry Bruck and Buzz Turner are both great guys.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Mike Demmers]

Originally Posted by Michael Thames

I think there was some confusion about my wording. What I need is a capsule that will record just voice for instructional videos, and one for guitar. I won't be recording both a guitarist and a singer at the same time. Was wondering if one capsule could do both reasonably well.

If I had decided to buy a Schoeps, was not recording in stereo, was not reccordng voice or anything else at the same time, had a reasonably good room to record in, and had no known noise problems to have to minimize using mic patterns, I'd just buy one mic with an omni pattern, for the reasons mentioned above.

I would use this for a while, and then later, after this experience, decide about a second capsule.

But that is just me.

I don't think Schoeps makes a bad sounding mic, so no matter what you decide, I don't think you will be disappointed. ;-)

-Mike

[Mike Demmers]

Which mic for voice is very dependent upon the specific voice, style of music, room, etc.

With a good voice in a good room I usully start with a large diaphram condensor in omni mode.

Using a small condensor for voice would normally be pretty far down my list of mics to try.

So I would agree with a previous poster that rather than a second Schoeps capsule, a mic more optimized for voice might be a better use for the dollars.

-MD

[Ty Ford]

Mike, et al,

I used to think that way too, but the cmc641 (which is an SD mic) is the mic of choice for interior shot movie dialog.

I once thought the bigger diaphragm would be much fuller sounding (because of its size) than an SD mic. Not so much. Sure, there are a lot of excellent LD mics out there. TLM 103, C414, U 87, U 89, M71, TLM 67, TLM 103, among others. How each one handles that little peak that happens as a result of capsule architecture is REALLY important.

Having said that, the cmc641 is NOT your typical SD mic. Until you've compared it to other mics, both SD and LD, you really don't know. I suggest that people rent one for a few days. But be careful, every time I say that, someone does and then buys one.

As for the pattern, it's a supercardioid. My room's pretty good sounding. I compared the wider cmc64 and the cmc641. For my money, and that's what it was, the cmc641 heard less room and more of what I wanted to record.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Mike Demmers]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Mike, et al,

I used to think that way too, but the cmc641 (which is an SD mic) is the mic of choice for interior shot movie dialog.

I once thought the bigger diaphragm would be much fuller sounding (because of its size) than an SD mic. Not so much. Sure, there are a lot of excellent LD mics out there. TLM 103, C414, U 87, U 89, M71, TLM 67, TLM 103, among others. How each one handles that little peak that happens as a result of capsule architecture is REALLY important.

Well, I wouldn't argue that, since I have not done much movie dialog. And I have not used a cmc641 (though your glowing endorsement has made me want to try one.)

But the poster was not talking about dialog, but an overdubbed vocal (singing). A different matter. And if there is such a thing as a 'standard' for that, it would have to be something like a U-87 or other large diaphram condensor.

It's not completely about the sound either - larger diaphram mics, all else being equal, are less prone to pops, have better S/N ratio (physics), and the good ones usually come with switchable patterns , which gives you some choices on the spot.

One of these days I want to get my hands on a cmc641 and see how its supercardioid pattern compares to the supercardioid on one of my TLM-170s. I think these two mics derive that pattern through two different means (interference tube vs phase cancellation) so it could be interesting to see the strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches.

-Mike

[Ty Ford]

Mike:Well, I wouldn't argue that, since I have not done much movie dialog. And I have not used a cmc641 (though your glowing endorsement has made me want to try one.)

Mike: But the poster was not talking about dialog, but an overdubbed vocal (singing). A different matter. And if there is such a thing as a 'standard' for that, it would have to be something like a U-87 or other large diaphram condensor.

Ty: Both voice jobs, obviously. Some great vocals have ben recorded using SM58s during live shows. It's a standard. Part of the PROBLEM with this point is that there are many LD mics that sounds pretty crappy that have been sold to unsuspecting buyers. It's not the size of the diaphragm. It's about the specific mic and the specific preamp for the specific job. In the studio, I use a u 89 a lot for vocals, but have used the cmc641.

Mike: It's not completely about the sound either - larger diaphram mics, all else being equal, are less prone to pops, have better S/N ratio (physics), and the good ones usually come with switchable patterns , which gives you some choices on the spot.

Ty: Although LD mics do have higher sensitivity, with proper placement and modest pop protection, popping isn't really any more a problem with the cmc641. Not all LD mics come with switchable patterns, of course. The TLM 193, which is based on the u 89, for example is cardioid only.

Ty: The downside of LD mics is that due to their capsule construction, they are prone to a presence peak that CAN DEFINITELY get in the way, making the source sound edgy. Phase response of LD mics is not as good as SD mics. I think that's partly due to the headgrille and internal acoustical environment of the capsule because it seems less apparent to me when using my TLM 103.

Mike: One of these days I want to get my hands on a cmc641 and see how its supercardioid pattern compares to the supercardioid on one of my TLM-170s. I think these two mics derive that pattern through two different means (interference tube vs phase cancellation) so it could be interesting to see the strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches.

Ty: The TLM 170 is also based on the u 89. It has a slightly smaller capsule than the u 87. As such some have called it an MD. It is a pressure gradient mic. It has no interference tube. The Schoeps CMIT has an interference tube. I like the u 89 and TLM 170 because they don't have as much of a presence peak as the u 87. Some people have they said the TLM sounds dull. I think it sounds normal and natural. We can get fooled by brightness, thinking brighter is better.

Ty: I've written about that in published articles before. Hmm, here you go.

If you’re just starting the trek from dynamic to condenser microphones, beware of the four steps of disillusionment.

Step 1. Wow, this new cheap condenser mic sounds great! Listen to all of the high frequencies! I’m going to use it on everything!

Step 2. Hey, is it me, or is this new cheap condenser mic a little edgy on some things?

Step 3. Hey this new cheap condenser mic is noisier than some of my dynamic mics, especially on really quiet instruments. My dynamic actually sounds better on some stuff.

Step 4. I guess you get what you pay for. Oh well, maybe I can sell it on eBay and get one that’s quieter and less distorted.

In this case, being disillusioned (or without illusion) is a good thing because you have learned to hear the difference.

How To Compare Microphones

1. To do this test you first need matching mic cables and preamps.

2. Pan two channels to the center position. Turn of all effects, EQ and excess routing and make the simplest path to the headphone jack.

3. Get a good set of headphones. I like Sony MDR 7506 for this test because of their high frequency response.

4. Place the mics in stands so that they are about two inches apart and angled slightly inward. (Position the stands so you can comfortably get to the console controls.)

5. Plug each mic into a separate channel.

6. Using your vice as a source, set a nominal level with the input trim for the first mic, and set the channel fader to unity gain (that’s usually about 3/4 up).

7. Set the trim of the second mic channel input trim to the same spot the first trim pot is set.

8. Place your mouth about six inches away from the mics. Speak straight ahead so that your voice is picked up by both mics equally.

9. Using the bus buttons, switch from one mic to another. Adjust the second trim as needed until the voice is at the same level on each mic.

10. If the second input trim is higher than the first, the first mic is more sensitive. If the second input trim is lower than the first, the first mic is less sensitive.

11. Stop talking and get the studio as quiet as you can. Turn up the headphones a bit. Check for relative self-noise differences by listening to each mic. As I mentioned earlier, self-noise sounds like white noise, sort of a Pffffffffff.

And there you have it.


Ty: The u 89 is brighter than the cmc641, It has that presence peak. With some vocalists, I have to pull down around 6 kHz to get rid of the edge.

BTW, guess what mic on Gerry's vocals? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhDtH5OMpv8

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Mike Demmers]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Both voice jobs, obviously. Some great vocals have ben recorded using SM58s during live shows. It's a standard. Part of the PROBLEM with this point is that there are many LD mics that sounds pretty crappy that have been sold to unsuspecting buyers. It's not the size of the diaphragm. It's about the specific mic and the specific preamp for the specific job. In the studio, I use a u 89 a lot for vocals, but have used the cmc641.

Yes, I should also be clear that I am talking about high quality mics, specifically Neumanns ;-)

Not the cheap crap that has come out in the last few years. In a previous era there was no need to make the distinction, since there were only a few choices, all good.

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Ty: The TLM 170 is also based on the u 89. It has a slightly smaller capsule than the u 87. As such some have called it an MD. It is a pressure gradient mic. It has no interference tube. The Schoeps CMIT has an interference tube. I like the u 89 and TLM 170 because they don't have as much of a presence peak as the u 87. Some people have they said the TLM sounds dull. I think it sounds normal and natural. We can get fooled by brightness, thinking brighter is better.

Actually my 'go to first' mic for vocals is the TLM170, not the U-87. It has a small peak, but it is high - above the main voice range, more in the 'air' range. I use the U-87 if I feel a vocalist is lacking in presence, as it has a more pronounced peak closer to the vocal presence range. Also, the TLM170 is quieter than the U-87 and slightly less prone to pops. I like the less colored sound of the TLM170, as I prefer to use the console EQ if I want to mess with the sound. It does have a slightly smaller diaphram than the U-87, perhaps a factor in its smaller peak and less susuptability to pops. (Neumann does refer to it as a 'large condensor mic' though).

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Although LD mics do have higher sensitivity, with proper placement and modest pop protection, popping isn't really any more a problem with the cmc641.

That would be very surprising to me. In my experience, the pattern has more effect than the specfic mic. The more directional, the more prone to popping. It's very clear with switchable pattern mics - if a mic is popping in cardiod, switch to omni and the problem goes away (usually).

We probably have different perceptions from different usages. It is not uncommon to have a pop vocalist in a studio screaming at the top of their lungs an inch away from the mic. I'm guessing you rarely use your cmc641 that way. ;-) If the highy directional cmc641 can handle THAT without pops I DEFINITELY would like to hear it.

I'm sure the cmc641 can record vocals beautifully when used appropriately.

I've recorded a few singers that seemed to have more 'pop' than 'voice'. ;-)

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

BTW, guess what mic on Gerry's vocals? YouTube - "What You Think This Is"

I wouldn't even hazard a guess. You really can't tell such subtle differences once things are mixed.

Also, as recently dramatically brought to my attention here, U-Tube does such horrible things to audio, it is questionable if you could tell the difference between a $10 Radio Shack mic and your cmc641 after it went through their processing.

-Mike

[Ty Ford]

You and I are in the same camp regarding the TLM 170, u 89. Both are frequently overshadowed by the u 87.Poppability of mics depends mostly on the headgrille and the distance between the headgrille and the diaphragm. Putting a pop filter right up against the headgrille of a mic really doesn't give you much. YOu need space between the

Sure omni patterns don't pop as easily as more directional patterns (in general and all other things being equal), but having a vocalist yell into any LD mic in cardioid pattern vocal mic that's only an inch or two away is just asking for popping trouble. I usually push 'em back by increasing their headphone level so they hear PLENTY at a proper distance. If they get too close, the proximity effect can result in a muddy track.

If you provide the cmc641 with a headgrille (pop filter) and similar distance between the headgrille and element as you'd find with an LD mic, the popping potential is about the same. Then too, I don't have vocalists sing right down the throat of the cmc641. I get them to sing across or under it. OOOPS! another trade secret gone.

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

I get them to sing across or under it. OOOPS! another trade secret gone.

No huge secret. I generally put an LD mic in front of the forehead, angled toward the mouth. It reduces pops, and delivers the character of the head resonance, rather than the muddiness of chest resonance. If the singer sounds thin, I move the mic below the mouth to add more chest voice.

I don't even consider putting the mic right in front of the mouth. I guess that would be good if you need more definition in the consonants.

[Jimmy Tuffrey]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

I get them to sing across or under it. OOOPS! another trade secret gone.

Regards,

Ty Ford

It's always amazed me how many people stick the mouth right on the mic. I learnt from the voice over engineers in London Soho back in late 80's and it was always speak across the mic. We did not even own a pop guard. Sometimes employed the foam though. Brought the mic in close for people v/o's like Bill Mitchell I think, for the proximity effect. Other than that it was considered unnatural to place the voice so close to the mic.

I wonder if you guys would hazard a guess at what Nuamann 's they where as I don't know the names. It was late '80's and they where shorter than a U87 and a stubbier with various polar patterns. Not sure if they had power supplies but I think they might had. I've often wondered what model they where. would appreciate solving that old mystery. Jim