Page 2 of 2
Artemis Entreri
Panned
Join date: Dec 2006
5,250 IQ
#41
Nah, I read everything everyone said. I was at work, I just couldnt respond.

Proof
Quote by HeavyKaribean
I had a teacher, 60 years old. He would go the AES conventions and make a a 50 € behringer sound like a 5000 € Neumann. It's a life time of work.


Quote by HeavyKaribean
And i forgot. I didn't say they could make a cheap mic sound great. I said they can make a cheap mic sound THE SAME as a great one. The good one would not do a better job. The experiment was basically this:
A classical guitar. Someone (with knowledge in the matter) would go and place the Neumann.
Record was made. He would listen and than he would place the Behringer in a place were it would sound the same.

It's possible. You just have to be boss xD
Winner of the 2011 Virginia Guitar Festival

Protools HD
Lynx Aurora 16/HD192
Mojave, Sennheiser, AKG, EV etc mics
Focusrite ISA828 pres
Waves Mercury
Random Rack Gear

65 Deluxe Reverb
PRS CE 22
American Standard Strat
Taylor 712
HeavyKaribean
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2013
115 IQ
#42
? xD ah sorry i meant your loss xD
Cause you will be losing teeth savvy? xD
Artemis Entreri
Panned
Join date: Dec 2006
5,250 IQ
#43
I mean, by all means, please show me this. Otherwise, let's get some constructive advice back on this thread.
Winner of the 2011 Virginia Guitar Festival

Protools HD
Lynx Aurora 16/HD192
Mojave, Sennheiser, AKG, EV etc mics
Focusrite ISA828 pres
Waves Mercury
Random Rack Gear

65 Deluxe Reverb
PRS CE 22
American Standard Strat
Taylor 712
HeavyKaribean
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2013
115 IQ
#44
I can't show you the experiment cause i don't have the tracks but search José Fortes. He is the boss.
lockwolf
Recording's AdBot/Dick
Join date: Jun 2007
1,422 IQ
#45
I need to stop sleeping so I can be on this board 24/7 just so I don't wake up to such stupidity.

As for the whole "I can make a $50 Behringer Mic sound like a Neumann", its not hard. Though, why would you want to take a $50 mic & waste time & effort putting in new parts so that by the end, the only thing the same is the shell? Even then, its not going to sound like or be a Neumann.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
HeavyKaribean
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2013
115 IQ
#46
why would you want to waste time and effort learning anything if you can pay for it? Stupid comment is stupid.
And lol cause you've tried it and you can say by experience it doesn't sound the same. Just shut the **** up and go waste your money instead of my time.
chatterbox272
Registered User
Join date: May 2011
1,237 IQ
#47
So what you're saying to me (and everyone else here) is that you can make any microphone sound the same as any other through placement? Do it then. I assume you have two microphones somewhere of some description that you can use, and a speaker so you can play the exact same sound both times. I can guarantee, and I would bet everything I own on it, that if I were to take the two files you produce, and invert the phase of one of them, there would still be sound coming out of my speakers. No digital silence, no perfectly identical sounds.

Seriously, with the amount of variables in a microphone you'd be hard pressed to make two 'identical' microphones sound the same, let alone two different ones.
lockwolf
Recording's AdBot/Dick
Join date: Jun 2007
1,422 IQ
#48
Quote by HeavyKaribean
why would you want to waste time and effort learning anything if you can pay for it? Stupid comment is stupid.
And lol cause you've tried it and you can say by experience it doesn't sound the same. Just shut the **** up and go waste your money instead of my time.


Bitch, get the **** out of here. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

You're taking a $50 mic, pretty much completely gutting it, probably putting vintage parts well above the cost of the original mic and expecting it to sound like a $5000+ mic when in all reality, it's not, nor ever will be the same unless you're putting the exact same parts in it. Hell, there's a distinct difference between a Neumann from now & from the originals from the 60s

Even then, half the shit you've said in this thread is terrible advice. Please, do the new people of this forum a favor and stop giving terrible advice. You're only causing more controversy and questions than actually helping.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
tim_mop
Registered User
Join date: Dec 2005
1,688 IQ
#49
Can someone ban him please? He's going to ruin the whole recording's forum if he sticks around.
ChemicalFire
King of Bacon Pancakes
Join date: Oct 2007
5,773 IQ
#50
Quote by HeavyKaribean

Chemical Fire: Is this argument enough?


If you hadn't completely changed your argument then it would of been. You also agreed with me on what the frequency chart shows which shows that the high on a 57 are over hyped and lack body compared to the NT1. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove apart from me right.

From what I'm reading it's as if you've heard one guy can maybe do it and then you're going around spouting bs about how mics don't matter as if you're some kind of production messiah. I want proof, I want to hear it with my own ears.
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
Last edited by ChemicalFire at Jan 23, 2013,
ChemicalFire
King of Bacon Pancakes
Join date: Oct 2007
5,773 IQ
#52
Says the guy who can't keep his argument straight =P
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
kyle62
Need a dispenser here!
Join date: May 2007
1,619 IQ
#53
jesus, what a cluster****.


I honestly do understand the point you're trying to get across, but you're several miles wide of the target.
Yes, you can get decent results with less-than-ideal gear if you take the time, but there's simply no reason to when you could find something much better suited in the same price range.

Talking of cheap Behringers, I stand by my original post - the Behringer B-2 PRO is a beast of a budget condenser. I've heard a fair few people say the modded B-2 can hold its own against a U87
lockwolf
Recording's AdBot/Dick
Join date: Jun 2007
1,422 IQ
#54
Quote by kyle62
jesus, what a cluster****.

Talking of cheap Behringers, I stand by my original post - the Behringer B-2 PRO is a beast of a budget condenser. I've heard a fair few people say the modded B-2 can hold its own against a U87


Yeah, this is what happens when 13 year olds who think they know everything come on the board.

I think what you're saying is more what our friend who has no idea what he's talking about should have said originally. A Behringer B-2 is never going to sound like a U87, but with some mods, you can get it close. Still, a B2 will never be a U87
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
Artemis Entreri
Panned
Join date: Dec 2006
5,250 IQ
#56
Quote by jkielq91
Well, my threads taken an interesting turn...

Shame on you for creating it
Winner of the 2011 Virginia Guitar Festival

Protools HD
Lynx Aurora 16/HD192
Mojave, Sennheiser, AKG, EV etc mics
Focusrite ISA828 pres
Waves Mercury
Random Rack Gear

65 Deluxe Reverb
PRS CE 22
American Standard Strat
Taylor 712
Artemis Entreri
Panned
Join date: Dec 2006
5,250 IQ
#58
Quote by jkielq91
I got the info I asked for.


Good, I'm glad at least somthing came out of this thread.
Winner of the 2011 Virginia Guitar Festival

Protools HD
Lynx Aurora 16/HD192
Mojave, Sennheiser, AKG, EV etc mics
Focusrite ISA828 pres
Waves Mercury
Random Rack Gear

65 Deluxe Reverb
PRS CE 22
American Standard Strat
Taylor 712
ChemicalFire
King of Bacon Pancakes
Join date: Oct 2007
5,773 IQ
#59
From what I can tell HeavyKaribean has simply decided to regurgitate this Jose Fortes guy's opinion (who is by the way so well respected that he doesn't have a wikipedia article on him in English) on music production, who claims that equipment is pointless if it all has "since it has no commitments or construction defects that compromise the sound." which is wrong... as all mics have defects... especially SM58's and that people are "forgetting that the most important is the placement of the microphone in the right place."

Honestly Heavy is missing the point. No where does he say that it doesn't matter which mic you use, he's saying more that there's no reason to not get a good sound if you have good equipment and can put the mic in the right place; there is no need for over doing post... which I agree with.

What he is NOT saying is that it's fine to record vocals with an SM58 in ALL cases as long as you put the mic in the right place.
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
HeavyKaribean
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2013
115 IQ
#60
LOL just commenting on "who is by the way so well respected that he doesn't have a wikipedia article on him in English". He is Portuguese so he has an article written in portuguese. Not having an English article in wikipedia means he is no good? Your argument just proves you are an idiot. So no need to discuss professional things with a ****ing asshole.
ChemicalFire
King of Bacon Pancakes
Join date: Oct 2007
5,773 IQ
#61
If I'm the idiot then why did you focus on what was a passing joke that was part of a larger more serious argument?
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
axemanchris
Awwww.... NOW what?!
Join date: Aug 2006
2,471 IQ
#62
Holy f*** me. Where do I even start?

Let's start with the positive. (because, as a teacher, it's what I instinctively do....)

A well-placed cheap microphone will beat a poorly placed great microphone a lot of the time. Yes. Placement is very important, along with the room, etc. as you've mentioned.

An SM58 can be a great vocal microphone. Yes. I had it happen to me. Once.

Cheap gear has come a long way in the last number of years. Yes. In fact, I'd even say, "Geez, has it ever!"

That all said...

Arguing *anything* about microphones with respect to frequency response is a waste of time. If you want to look at numbers and statistics and such, the Behringer ECM8000 is one of the flattest mics anywhere in the world. In practice, it sounds pretty decent. Except it's an omni, so it is very dependent upon the room. Except there's not a huge demand for a microphone that is so accurate and that can pick up anything from any direction. Why not? Because, in practice, it is a "boring" microphone. There's an Earthworks mic, similar in design to the Behringer, that is a little flatter. It sells for over a grand. Nobody uses them either for much. Why not? Because they're boring.

We buy gear for the way it sounds. Look at the frequency response of a U87 - one of the most coveted mics in the world. It shouldn't be a great sounding mic, based solely on the frequency plot. It's because it ISN'T flat that it has a character. Lucky for Neumann, it is a character that people find appealing.

There is also things that a frequency plot does not measure that are part of the story - the "warmth" of a mic can't be shown on a graph.

----

Pro studios have expensive gear for a reason. If it was really true that you could make a $50 mic plugged into a Behringer mixer sound like a Neumann through an SSL console, then pro studios would lower their overhead costs and make some lesser investments.

Pro studios have access to SM58's and mics that are many times more expensive. Why would they choose a more expensive mic instead of going with the no-frills, ubiquitous SM58? Short answer is that they don't.

Now, you'll rightfully point out that such-and-such an album was done with such-and-such a mic. I'm hardly running a pro studio, but I've been at this stuff for over ten years. I had a singer that sounded strident through every bloody mic I put in front of her - including a kick drum mic. I got out my SM58, and it was just perfect. That said, it is the ONLY time an SM58 was perfect. In over ten years. The difference is not due to placement.

That's all I have time for for now.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jan 23, 2013,
axemanchris
Awwww.... NOW what?!
Join date: Aug 2006
2,471 IQ
#63
Quote by HeavyKaribean

The problem with condenser microphones is that high SPL (sound pressure levels) can easily damage them. Percussion might be a problem. Singing very loud can also be a problem. You will have less versatility.


AFAIK, that used to be true. Not anymore, really. Well, ribbons...

But just a sampling of a few mics: (from manufacturers websites)
U87 SPL= 127 db
Rode NT1 = 137 db
AKG 4050 = 149 db
Rode K2 = 162 db

As a frame of reference for comparison: (from wikipedia, just because it's convenient)
Hearing damage = 120 db
Threshold of pain = 130 db
Jet engine at 30m = 150 db
M1 rifle at 1m = 168 db

So, you might want to be a little careful with the U87, but otherwise... I could record a jet engine probably at point blank range with my Rode K2.


Quote by HeavyKaribean

jof1029: You should then applaud me. And if you prefer small diaphragm condensor microphones that's your taste but I assure you, you wouldn't do a better job than me with an SM57 recording an Acoustic Guitar.


You're not even taking into consideration the idea of "the right tool for the job." Sure, you CAN pound in a screw with a hammer and do an okay job, but who the hell wants to do that if they have a drill and screwdriver bit?

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
axemanchris
Awwww.... NOW what?!
Join date: Aug 2006
2,471 IQ
#64
Quote by HeavyKaribean
LOL just commenting on "who is by the way so well respected that he doesn't have a wikipedia article on him in English". He is Portuguese so he has an article written in portuguese. Not having an English article in wikipedia means he is no good?


It doesn't mean that he's not any good, no. But to put it into context, anyone who is conventionally considered a great producer has articles written many languages. Mutt Lange, Bob Rock, Garth Richardson, Quincy Jones, George Martin, Tom and Chris Lord-Alge, etc. I assure you that these people all use the best tools for the job, whether it be Avalon, Manley, Neumann, Sony, Schoeps, Shure, or even Behringer. There's a reason why they consistently use the higher end gear. Read any of the interviews with any of them and look at the tools they use.

Quote by HeavyKaribean

Your argument just proves you are an idiot. So no need to discuss professional things with a ****ing asshole.


Wow... you're a real sweetheart, ain't-cha? If my "former moderator spidey senses" are half-way accurate, you might want to check your email for a warning from UG. Some forums (like the Pit) are somewhat more forgiving of barbs slung by 15-year-old tough-talking bad-boys angry because of their under-utilized libido, but the recording and many other forums here on UG have a higher standard than that.

That said, welcome to the forum. Stick around. Read. Learn. Discuss with a more civilized level of decorum such as what you typically see around these parts.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
ChemicalFire
King of Bacon Pancakes
Join date: Oct 2007
5,773 IQ
#65
Quote by axemanchris


Arguing *anything* about microphones with respect to frequency response is a waste of time. If you want to look at numbers and statistics and such, the Behringer ECM8000 is one of the flattest mics anywhere in the world. In practice, it sounds pretty decent. Except it's an omni, so it is very dependent upon the room. Except there's not a huge demand for a microphone that is so accurate and that can pick up anything from any direction. Why not? Because, in practice, it is a "boring" microphone. There's an Earthworks mic, similar in design to the Behringer, that is a little flatter. It sells for over a grand. Nobody uses them either for much. Why not? Because they're boring.

We buy gear for the way it sounds. Look at the frequency response of a U87 - one of the most coveted mics in the world. It shouldn't be a great sounding mic, based solely on the frequency plot. It's because it ISN'T flat that it has a character. Lucky for Neumann, it is a character that people find appealing.

There is also things that a frequency plot does not measure that are part of the story - the "warmth" of a mic can't be shown on a graph.


I should probably of known that. I have learnt something here, at least how to put into words what I meant. Mics aren't exactly my strong point but I knew I was right... I just wasn't entirely sure why...
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
HeavyKaribean
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2013
115 IQ
#66
"We buy gear for the way it sounds. Look at the frequency response of a U87 - one of the most coveted mics in the world. It shouldn't be a great sounding mic, based solely on the frequency plot. It's because it ISN'T flat that it has a character. Lucky for Neumann, it is a character that people find appealing."
LOL and now we got to the point were not being flat is good and flat is boring xD
A microphone with character....
LOL yeah sure I'll stick around but learning something? From any of you? XD PAHAHAHA
chatterbox272
Registered User
Join date: May 2011
1,237 IQ
#67
Quote by HeavyKaribean
"We buy gear for the way it sounds. Look at the frequency response of a U87 - one of the most coveted mics in the world. It shouldn't be a great sounding mic, based solely on the frequency plot. It's because it ISN'T flat that it has a character. Lucky for Neumann, it is a character that people find appealing."
LOL and now we got to the point were not being flat is good and flat is boring xD
A microphone with character....

Flat microphones have their time and place, so does the U87. Flat can be good, but so can non-flat.
Quote by HeavyKaribean
LOL yeah sure I'll stick around but learning something? From any of you? XD PAHAHAHA

So if you're so much more superior and knowledgeable than anyone here (which I doubt) care to share some of your work? I'm pretty terrible at recording/mixing at the moment, but I'd still hazard a guess based on your attitude that I'm better than you. And these guys, well, if I'm right they know more than you possibly ever will.
ChemicalFire
King of Bacon Pancakes
Join date: Oct 2007
5,773 IQ
#68
Can we just ban him already. The guy is obviously a dick and he's never actually going to be a useful member of this community

Quote by HeavyKaribean
"We buy gear for the way it sounds. Look at the frequency response of a U87 - one of the most coveted mics in the world. It shouldn't be a great sounding mic, based solely on the frequency plot. It's because it ISN'T flat that it has a character. Lucky for Neumann, it is a character that people find appealing."
LOL and now we got to the point were not being flat is good and flat is boring xD
A microphone with character....
LOL yeah sure I'll stick around but learning something? From any of you? XD PAHAHAHA


Bare in mind that you're still wrong. An SM58 is NOT a good mic for vocals based on the frequencies it favours in most cases. I'm not sure what you're gloating about, it was you who was ex-positing about the flatness of microphones, not us. I was saying that the 58 wasn't ideal for vocals in all cases due to it's cut mids and hyped top end. YOU were the one saying that flat was good, not us.

You're still wrong and I don't even think you realise it.
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
Last edited by ChemicalFire at Jan 24, 2013,
kyle62
Need a dispenser here!
Join date: May 2007
1,619 IQ
#69
Indeed. It's 'put your money where your mouth is' time for Mr Troll.


One reason I like this forum is that it's a bunch of normal dudes, just trying to do the best job they can on a tight budget.

We don't have racks of 1176s, Pultecs and Avalon preamps lining our walls, and an extra set of Genelecs in the bathroom for checking mixes while we take a dump (complete with Studer reel-to-reel toilet paper) .
At the lower levels it's a constant battle to get the best results possible without giving your bank manager a stress-induced aneurysm. Compromise is the name of the game.

So yes, if you've stumbled across a way to make a £50 handheld dynamic sound like a £3000 vintage valve condenser, we're all extremely interested. Let's hear some results!
HeavyKaribean
Registered User
Join date: Jan 2013
115 IQ
#70
"Flat microphones have their time and place, so does the U87. Flat can be good, but so can non-flat."

Guess this is the answer to:

" I'm pretty terrible at recording/mixing"

And I'm not superior than anyone. In fact my first opinion in this thread was just "go search for Sm58 and Sm57 they are good microphones, and compared with the options you are giving they will easily do a great job and are much more versatile"...

And now we are here, everybody saying that is impossible to make a Sm sound like an U87. That was just an example. If you don't believe it who cares. You are all saying it can't be done but you never saw someone doing it. I say it's possible you say I'm lying. Well it's impossible to argue with people who just say: I don't believe.

But that's not the point. The point is compared to what the first options were SM could be more helpful.

And you are wrong saying that non-flat microphones are good. You should want a microphone as flat as possible cause the objective of a perfect microphone is to record exactly the same sound that is being produced. No equalization, no compression, no nothing. That is your work.

Now if you tell me that the eq made by the U87 is in most cases profitable ok whatever thats taste. It doesn't mean non-flat responses are good.
ChemicalFire
King of Bacon Pancakes
Join date: Oct 2007
5,773 IQ
#71
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
ChemicalFire
King of Bacon Pancakes
Join date: Oct 2007
5,773 IQ
#73
It's impossible for anyone to be this stupid right? I must be dreaming... the logic in that last post is just...wow... just wow.

Are you saying we're meant to believe you with your crappy attitude and all without proof? Are you pedalling a religion here or something? xD
All I want is for everyone to go to hell...
...It's the last place I was seen before I lost myself



Quote by DisarmGoliath
You can be the deputy llamma of the recordings forum!
chatterbox272
Registered User
Join date: May 2011
1,237 IQ
#74
Quote by HeavyKaribean
"Flat microphones have their time and place, so does the U87. Flat can be good, but so can non-flat."

Guess this is the answer to:

" I'm pretty terrible at recording/mixing"

Uh no. the answer to that is I haven't had anywhere near the experience of the others here, majorly substandard equipment, and lack some gear I need to do supply myself with tracks to practice on.

Quote by HeavyKaribean
And I'm not superior than anyone. In fact my first opinion in this thread was just "go search for Sm58 and Sm57 they are good microphones, and compared with the options you are giving they will easily do a great job and are much more versatile"...

And had this been about live microphones, or even microphones for just distorted guitars I would have agreed. But this is recording, and those mics are not designed to be good recording mics. The 57 happens to make a decent guitar cab mic for recording, but there are better.

Quote by HeavyKaribean
And now we are here, everybody saying that is impossible to make a Sm sound like an U87. That was just an example. If you don't believe it who cares. You are all saying it can't be done but you never saw someone doing it. I say it's possible you say I'm lying. Well it's impossible to argue with people who just say: I don't believe.

Okay, how about this then. What does a U87 sound like exactly? no to microphones sound identical because of the sheer infinite number of variables involved in their manufacture. That isn't belief it's scientific fact. Now we've established that you can't even make a U87 sound like another U87 how on earth do you plan on making something as vastly different as an SM58 sound the same.

Quote by HeavyKaribean
But that's not the point. The point is compared to what the first options were SM could be more helpful.

A microphone that will do everything as well as possible with a large focus on vocals. This is a criteria that will come down to the context it's asked in. If we were in a live sound board then yes, 57/58 all the way for live versatility. But we're in a recording board which means for these uses the condenser reigns supreme.

Quote by HeavyKaribean
And you are wrong saying that non-flat microphones are good. You should want a microphone as flat as possible cause the objective of a perfect microphone is to record exactly the same sound that is being produced. No equalization, no compression, no nothing. That is your work.

So then, you also don't believe in distorted guitars or amps with tonestacks then? because an amplifier is supposed to amplify the sound not modify it? The purpose of a microphone is to capture sound, which it does. Accuracy isn't always a necessity. Not to mention your beloved sm58 has so much equalisation on it it's not funny.

Quote by HeavyKaribean
Now if you tell me that the eq made by the U87 is in most cases profitable ok whatever thats taste. It doesn't mean non-flat responses are good.
Actually it does. If people like the sound, and are willing to pay money for the sound, then the sound is good.
lockwolf
Recording's AdBot/Dick
Join date: Jun 2007
1,422 IQ
#75
Quote by HeavyKaribean
And now we are here, everybody saying that is impossible to make a Sm sound like an U87. That was just an example. If you don't believe it who cares. You are all saying it can't be done but you never saw someone doing it. I say it's possible you say I'm lying. Well it's impossible to argue with people who just say: I don't believe.


Are you apart of some religious cult of people who pray hard and turn ordinary cheap mics into U87s or something?
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
axemanchris
Awwww.... NOW what?!
Join date: Aug 2006
2,471 IQ
#77
Quote by kyle62
jesus, what a cluster****.


Yeah, what he ^ said.

Heavy.... Heavy..... Heavy.....

A younger version of me might have considered baiting you into a flame war, possibly getting banned, but ensuring that I take you down with me. The pleasure would almost have been worth the consequence.

Instead, we'll let the mods deal with your flaming and name-calling and maybe you'll just buy your own cooling-off period.

The more mature (read: less immature... haha) version of myself says, "the guy just needs to read more." I thought that flat and transparent would be the holy grail of microphone ideals at one time too.

Consider photography... Do pro photographers practically *ever* present their work to the market without retouching? No. The viewer - whoever they may be - does not want the perfect, honest picture. Sure, it's nice... but the airbrushing, colour tweaking, contrast adjustments, etc. almost always produce the most interesting and appealing pictures - regardless of the fact that they're a little less "honest."

Now, I'm anticipating your argument here: "Exactly! Pro photographers use really accurate honest cameras and the refinements are done after the fact. So, if you use a really honest, accurate mic, you can add what you want later with EQ, compression, etc."

However, probably the first commandment of recording - and surely you'll agree with this too - is "Thou shall capture the sound the way you want it directly to the recording." In other words, don't capture a sound you're just going to have to screw with later.

So, if a mic has an EQ curve and responds to transients in a certain way *already*, then you don't have to try to screw with it as much later. It's like the photographer who chooses a specific lens for a specific application. Sure, he/she might be able to approximate it later in photoshop, but with the right lens in the first place, he/she doesn't have to - and gets better results in the first place. In the recording world, how do you EQ warmth? You can't. And sure, you could use a perfectly flat mic and then EQ it down exactly to the frequency curve of a U87, but it won't sound like a U87.

One other factor - often a great vocal mic will give a "three dimensional" quality. My first main vocal mic was an NT1. It sounded quite good, and got me through for a good number of years. I'm still not using a U87, never mind a Sony C800 series (look *that* one up!), but on first listen, when I got my Rode K2, it didn't sound *that* much more tonally different than the NT1. At first I was a little disappointed and almost decided not to buy it. But I was "listening in the wrong place." I listened a couple more times, and did notice a pretty significant difference. Whereas the NT1 sounded more flat and two-dimensional - like a really detailed drawing on a page - the K2 sounded more transparent, more three-dimensional, like a voice in an actual space. Working in an actual mix, tracks recorded with the K2 seem to almost mix themselves. With the NT1, I sometimes (often) had to muck with them to get them to sound and sit right.

You can't achieve those qualities/characteristics/benefits after the fact.

One last thing:

This may be the greatest resource on microphones on the planet:

http://www.hr-faq.org/HarveyThread.doc

It is a condensed version of a 97-page thread from this site:
http://homerecording.com/bbs/equipment-forums/microphones/how-does-diaphragm-size-polar-pattern-relate-mic-applications-27030/

I point you to this because it is from "someone who isn't one of us know-nothings."

Harvey Gerst, the author, has 50+ years of experience as a gold record songwriter, recording engineer, producer, and product design specialist. He's worked with Bob Dylan, Albert King, Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, and Jefferson Airplane. He designed prducts for JBL, Trident, Morley, etc. In short, there are few people who know more about this stuff than him, and he has chosen to share it.

He covers everything from different types of mics and how they work, to how to use them and how to place them. He's NOT a gear snob. He *likes* some of the Behringer and MXL stuff. He offers a LOT of guidance on how to choose the best tool for the job.

It's a really great read for anybody interested in recording. I keep going back to it and I understand some parts of it a little more each time.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
Last edited by axemanchris at Jan 25, 2013,