so..
in theory
an amateur recorder in a common workroom\ bedroom without acoustics or recording booth
what microphone would get the "best" recording sound
consider sound reflection ,pc fan noise etc....
so what do you guys thins?
Condenser vs Dynamic in common room
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
To know for certain what is workable would need testing both. Depends on your environment.
Large diaphragm mics tend to pick up more room sound. But maybe it would work better on your sources anyway. Or not.
Something that was discussed in an earlier thread, I had forgotten about the mic-- The shure sm87 is a live condenser mic that is tough, minimal handling noise, tight pattern, will put up with close mic handling like singing close to the mic on stage. I had some experience with that one many years ago, singers sounded good on it onstage, and I tested it in home studio with ac guitar and hand percussion and it seemed to work decent, about the same as a studio small diaphragm condenser. Back then, a simple $2 egg shaker percussion instrument seemed telling for high freq transients. Condensers tended to record an egg purt clean, most dynamics tended to record egg real nasty.
Large diaphragm mics tend to pick up more room sound. But maybe it would work better on your sources anyway. Or not.
Something that was discussed in an earlier thread, I had forgotten about the mic-- The shure sm87 is a live condenser mic that is tough, minimal handling noise, tight pattern, will put up with close mic handling like singing close to the mic on stage. I had some experience with that one many years ago, singers sounded good on it onstage, and I tested it in home studio with ac guitar and hand percussion and it seemed to work decent, about the same as a studio small diaphragm condenser. Back then, a simple $2 egg shaker percussion instrument seemed telling for high freq transients. Condensers tended to record an egg purt clean, most dynamics tended to record egg real nasty.
-
- KVRAF
- 6426 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
Cheapest might be using a piece of cloth or bed quilt over you and the mike stand.
It will remove a lot of outside and create rather intimate sound.
Be creative.
And look at characteristics like cardoid or figure-8 type that tell how directional it is.
Look at polar patterns like here a bit down on page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone
Simplest half vocal booths, that you put behind the mike on the stand are really cheap too.
I see them go for $50 or so.
So I would not focus on dynamic or condenser, more on polar pattern.
Not all cheap, about $400, about an inch diaphragm, but really good dynamic is Shure SM7B, cardoid if I remember correctly.
Condensers often figure-8 large diaphragm, meaning back and front pattern, would need a booth on back for best result.
SE Electronics X1 is really good moneys worth, about $100. Often sold as bundle with a half booth.
But even a large coat over you and mike is helpful. Again be creative.
It will remove a lot of outside and create rather intimate sound.
Be creative.
And look at characteristics like cardoid or figure-8 type that tell how directional it is.
Look at polar patterns like here a bit down on page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microphone
Simplest half vocal booths, that you put behind the mike on the stand are really cheap too.
I see them go for $50 or so.
So I would not focus on dynamic or condenser, more on polar pattern.
Not all cheap, about $400, about an inch diaphragm, but really good dynamic is Shure SM7B, cardoid if I remember correctly.
Condensers often figure-8 large diaphragm, meaning back and front pattern, would need a booth on back for best result.
SE Electronics X1 is really good moneys worth, about $100. Often sold as bundle with a half booth.
But even a large coat over you and mike is helpful. Again be creative.
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
LFM makes good points.
Another way to skin the cat-- I'm of the possible minority opinion, if a vocalist sounds good then special coloration in the mic is not necessary. If a mic has no particular coloration, then a clean capture of a good vocalist can be molded with eq into something satisfactory, because the eq doesn't have to try to undo undesirable color added by the mic.
Which comes to omni mics. Now many condenser omni mics are too sensitive and you could overload them loud singing close to the mic.
But there are some dynamic omnis with freq response flat as a pancake, good tolerance to loud sound, and absolutely no proximity bass boost. That means you can eat the mic without obnoxious proximity bass boost. Many directional mics, condenser or dynamic, have too much bass boost if you get close.
A flat omni mic will pick up more room sound, but if you are singing close, the room sound isn't loud compared to the loud voice pickup, and would be another way to minimize the room in the vocal track.
For instance something like an EV RE 50 omni dynamic can make a pretty true capture of near vocals. If the vocals are good, then if it needs more bass or ear candy mids than captured by the mic, add them with EQ.
Just another way to try to skin the cat.
Another way to skin the cat-- I'm of the possible minority opinion, if a vocalist sounds good then special coloration in the mic is not necessary. If a mic has no particular coloration, then a clean capture of a good vocalist can be molded with eq into something satisfactory, because the eq doesn't have to try to undo undesirable color added by the mic.
Which comes to omni mics. Now many condenser omni mics are too sensitive and you could overload them loud singing close to the mic.
But there are some dynamic omnis with freq response flat as a pancake, good tolerance to loud sound, and absolutely no proximity bass boost. That means you can eat the mic without obnoxious proximity bass boost. Many directional mics, condenser or dynamic, have too much bass boost if you get close.
A flat omni mic will pick up more room sound, but if you are singing close, the room sound isn't loud compared to the loud voice pickup, and would be another way to minimize the room in the vocal track.
For instance something like an EV RE 50 omni dynamic can make a pretty true capture of near vocals. If the vocals are good, then if it needs more bass or ear candy mids than captured by the mic, add them with EQ.
Just another way to try to skin the cat.
-
- KVRian
- 789 posts since 13 Aug, 2012 from it's all about location!
I'm in a very similar situation. A friend of mine has a booth, I don't. In the booth my Rode NT1A works just fine. At home it simply doesn't; way too much surrounding noise is recorded. I read quite a lot and quite a lot of people mention the Shure SM7B for that case. Michael Jackson's vocals of the Thriller album was recorded with that mic. It can't be that bad. 
Be sure to check your preamp before ordering since the SM7B has a very low output.
My Golden Age Project Pre 73 and SM7B will arrive this saturday. I'll write a few lines after a test on sunday.
Be sure to check your preamp before ordering since the SM7B has a very low output. My Golden Age Project Pre 73 and SM7B will arrive this saturday. I'll write a few lines after a test on sunday.
-
- KVRAF
- 3089 posts since 4 May, 2012
Whilst I wouldn't advise tracking in a control room, if there is no live room for use then selecting a mic with high rejection, as mentioned above, is probably the first step.
Find a condenser mic with a built in high pass filter or use a high pass filter before your converters; as soon as possible in the signal chain is best.
The Sure Super 55 (dynamic) also comes to mind as it has a tight polar pattern (hypercardioid).
Some acoustic screening is also a good idea. A semi-circle of curved foam around, behind the mic works wonders if you have additional noise sources (such as computer fans and mechanical hard drives) and pretty much kills all reflections in an average sized room.
Find a condenser mic with a built in high pass filter or use a high pass filter before your converters; as soon as possible in the signal chain is best.
The Sure Super 55 (dynamic) also comes to mind as it has a tight polar pattern (hypercardioid).
Some acoustic screening is also a good idea. A semi-circle of curved foam around, behind the mic works wonders if you have additional noise sources (such as computer fans and mechanical hard drives) and pretty much kills all reflections in an average sized room.
-
- KVRian
- 789 posts since 13 Aug, 2012 from it's all about location!
Don't get me wrong, I really want to learn something here. Where is the exact difference in using a highpass of the mic and highpassing with a filter within the DAW?Unaspected wrote:Find a condenser mic with a built in high pass filter or use a high pass filter before your converters; as soon as possible in the signal chain is best.
The software filter seems way more versatile to me. Or will some low frequencies get distorted by the preamp and "bleed" some unwanted noise into the frequency spectrum I'd like to pass through the filter? I would filter within the DAW (non destructive!) but I'm totally fine with being absolutely wrong here.
-
- KVRAF
- 3080 posts since 17 Apr, 2005 from S.E. TN
Its hard to say whether hipassing at the mic is better than in the mix. As you say, both places are downstream of the mic capsule.
Some folk like to track thru a hardware compressor to make it less likely to accidentally clip a take. Murphy demands that if any take of the day gets clipped, it is most likely on the best performance of the day. Too much bass into a hardware compressor might make it track in ways you didn't want. Responding to bass that you don't even intend to keep.
People allege that recording 24 bit with clean gear, one needn't worry about recording hot any more. Just record weeny wimpy levels and it will still sound great.
Mebby so, but for instance if you are recording a lot more bass than you intend to keep-- Maybe with the excess bass you are hitting -12 dB peak, then without that excess bass maybe it is only -18 or -24 dB peak. Perhaps it would make sense to remove the extra bass you don't want and record at -12 dB peak, giving you better detail on what you intend to keep?
Once a track gets recorded, sometimes it can take a long time to remove stuff in the track that you didn't want to begin with. Sometimes it is difficult to remove mic coloration from a track. For instance I've found it rather difficult to take a track recorded with an sm58, and fix it up so it no longer sounds like it was recorded by an sm58.
Just random thoughts, am not an expert and not trying to prove any particular point.
In a bad room, one way to minimize the room sound is to eat the mic. But typically mics are more flattering if you don't eat the mic. Many directional mics get obnoxious levels of proximity bass boost when you eat the mic.
Maybe an sm7 or re20 would sound "ok" if you had to eat the mic to keep the room out of it.
There are probably some directional mics with minimal proximity effect. Shure used to make a very flat directional dynamic stage mic with virtually no proximity effect, the sm59. I liked it a lot and thought it captured singers real accurately without unflattering coloration. I think shure avoided proximity effect in sm59 by backing the capsule farther behind the windscreen, so that a singer would need to stick the mic down his throat to get proximity effect.
But I found it often difficult to convince singers to use sm59 live, because they were hooked on mic coloration, and a nice flat neutral good fidelity capture of their tone sounded "wimpy" to them by comparison, hearing themselves in the floor monitors.
It seems common to see sm59 available purt cheap on ebay.
Some omni dynamics, you can eat the mic without overload or proximity effect. Maybe RE50 plus a windscreen. Maybe you don't even need the windscreen.
With a flat mic, maybe you don't like the tone of the raw track. No problem, you can fix the tone with plugins, and you don't have any mic coloration to remove first.
Some folk like to track thru a hardware compressor to make it less likely to accidentally clip a take. Murphy demands that if any take of the day gets clipped, it is most likely on the best performance of the day.
Too much bass into a hardware compressor might make it track in ways you didn't want. Responding to bass that you don't even intend to keep.People allege that recording 24 bit with clean gear, one needn't worry about recording hot any more. Just record weeny wimpy levels and it will still sound great.
Mebby so, but for instance if you are recording a lot more bass than you intend to keep-- Maybe with the excess bass you are hitting -12 dB peak, then without that excess bass maybe it is only -18 or -24 dB peak. Perhaps it would make sense to remove the extra bass you don't want and record at -12 dB peak, giving you better detail on what you intend to keep?
Once a track gets recorded, sometimes it can take a long time to remove stuff in the track that you didn't want to begin with. Sometimes it is difficult to remove mic coloration from a track. For instance I've found it rather difficult to take a track recorded with an sm58, and fix it up so it no longer sounds like it was recorded by an sm58.
Just random thoughts, am not an expert and not trying to prove any particular point.
In a bad room, one way to minimize the room sound is to eat the mic. But typically mics are more flattering if you don't eat the mic. Many directional mics get obnoxious levels of proximity bass boost when you eat the mic.
Maybe an sm7 or re20 would sound "ok" if you had to eat the mic to keep the room out of it.
There are probably some directional mics with minimal proximity effect. Shure used to make a very flat directional dynamic stage mic with virtually no proximity effect, the sm59. I liked it a lot and thought it captured singers real accurately without unflattering coloration. I think shure avoided proximity effect in sm59 by backing the capsule farther behind the windscreen, so that a singer would need to stick the mic down his throat to get proximity effect.
But I found it often difficult to convince singers to use sm59 live, because they were hooked on mic coloration, and a nice flat neutral good fidelity capture of their tone sounded "wimpy" to them by comparison, hearing themselves in the floor monitors.
It seems common to see sm59 available purt cheap on ebay.
Some omni dynamics, you can eat the mic without overload or proximity effect. Maybe RE50 plus a windscreen. Maybe you don't even need the windscreen.
With a flat mic, maybe you don't like the tone of the raw track. No problem, you can fix the tone with plugins, and you don't have any mic coloration to remove first.
-
- KVRAF
- 3089 posts since 4 May, 2012
If you are rolling off low frequencies before they hit the A/D converter then you might afford a hotter signal - depends on what you're tracking. Any low rumbles passing through the mic stand will also be reduced.TheKid wrote:Don't get me wrong, I really want to learn something here. Where is the exact difference in using a highpass of the mic and highpassing with a filter within the DAW?Unaspected wrote:Find a condenser mic with a built in high pass filter or use a high pass filter before your converters; as soon as possible in the signal chain is best.
The software filter seems way more versatile to me. Or will some low frequencies get distorted by the preamp and "bleed" some unwanted noise into the frequency spectrum I'd like to pass through the filter? I would filter within the DAW (non destructive!) but I'm totally fine with being absolutely wrong here.
Once the signal is sampled you're stuck with what has been captured.
Whilst on the subject, if you have an input signal with a DC offset, you can solve this with a HPF around 1Hz. They are very useful to have in hardware.
If your input chain also involves compression, I would high pass prior to the compressor to potentially improve performance.
-
- KVRian
- 789 posts since 13 Aug, 2012 from it's all about location!
A little note: the SM7B is great with the GAP Pre73. I bought the Carnhill mod because the preamp really needs to be cranked up. Sounds very good. Me likes.
-
- KVRAF
- 2193 posts since 25 Dec, 2005
