|
|
Post by Steelpriest on Sept 6, 2004 0:57:27 GMT -5
Oh boy, yesterday I tried to microphone my cabinet. I was sick and tired of using the Behringer V Amp and it´s cabinet simulation. I wanted the real McCoy on our recordings and tried various microphones in order to get a decent sound from my cabinet. Not only the microphone itself, also lots of different positions, various angles of microphone placement, etc.. this all has an enormous influence on the sound you get on your tape or HD. I tried all the options without adjusting the input EQ of the console, I had the input EQ flat, in order to compare the options I have better. Also I was able to check out which microphone that I own is the best for this job concerning it´s frequency response. In the end I found that there is nothing like a golden rule, but managed to achieve a sound that comes close to my desire. I am not finished with it, I have to try some more. Any suggestions? Any advice is well appreciated.  |
|
|
|
Post by mandough on Sept 16, 2004 9:23:17 GMT -5
I hate to sound like a cheap person, but the sm-57 from Sure is a good bet, not because it's especially great, but because it only does what it does, and it's TOTALLY predictable. If you're into good condensers, the AKG C-3000 will treat you right. I like to place off to the side of the speaker, about an inch from the grill cloth so as to catch some of the highs that would normally get lost, but then, our bassist is also an engineer, so it's not my idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZacAttack on Oct 18, 2004 20:57:09 GMT -5
I hate to sound like a cheap person, but the sm-57 from Sure is a good bet, not because it's especially great, but because it only does what it does, and it's TOTALLY predictable. If you're into good condensers, the AKG C-3000 will treat you right. I like to place off to the side of the speaker, about an inch from the grill cloth so as to catch some of the highs that would normally get lost, but then, our bassist is also an engineer, so it's not my idea. Yup he nailed it. The shure sm-57 is not only pratickly unique but it has also been an industry standard for years. Many of the recordings you hear and think are what you want to reproduce, used a shure sm-57 to make those recordings. I have known for quite some time their use on stage, but only in the past few years discovered that they move right into the studio with the same great results. Also placement of the mic is important. you put it 2 to 4 inches from the grill, point it directly at the diaphram and then split the difference between aiming it at the cone and the diaphram for a bright mic placment. Farther away and you will get a medium mic placment and even farther away for a dark mic placment. Experiment with this and find the placment you want with the shure sm-57. Also I made a post in Live Sound Advice that spells out what mics I like to use where. These same mics transfer right over to studio with good results. Zac |
|
|
|
Post by Ol Geezer on Oct 19, 2004 14:49:43 GMT -5
I am not finished with it, I have to try some more. Any suggestions? Any advice is well appreciated. Yes, the SM57 has been the standard over all these years for good reason. But, if you have access to a Sennheiser 421 give it a try in the same positions as you like the Shure. It also offers EQ rolloff options that may help you out, and might give you a "bigger" sound. If you like the SM57 sound but want things brighter, substitute it with an SM58 with which you've first removed the windscreen ball assembly. |
|
|
|
Post by ZacAttack on Oct 20, 2004 17:07:28 GMT -5
Yes, the SM57 has been the standard over all these years for good reason. But, if you have access to a Sennheiser 421 give it a try in the same positions as you like the Shure. It also offers EQ rolloff options that may help you out, and might give you a "bigger" sound. If you like the SM57 sound but want things brighter, substitute it with an SM58 with which you've first removed the windscreen ball assembly. This is very true. If you can first find a Sennheiser 421 and second afford one, it will prove to be a very versitile instrument mic to be sure. Also the Sennheiser 431 makes an excellent vocal mic if you can deal with the smaller pattern. It takes a bit more mic technique but will not feed back as much due to the smaller pattern. Its a super cordiod mic thus it has more fidelity than a SM 57 or 58. For many it all comes back down to affordability and accessability. And thats why I always like to sing shure mics praises. But yes in all reality the Sennheisers are better mics. The newer Sennheiser evolution mics are closer to the shure 58s in my opinion because the better mic is not always the most popular choice. Thus we get Sennheiser dumbing their mics down a bit to compete closer with the Shure line. Zac |
|
|
|
Post by Steelpriest on May 25, 2005 22:24:22 GMT -5
After trying out several microphones and being not so happy and meanwhile returning to amp/speaker-simulations we tried a large membrane studio microphone last weekend. Now I am really satisfied with what I got. Zac, Geezer... I can really recommend trying this kind of microphone design. It may not be the appropriate guitar microphone for a live situation (it surely is not!  ) but for studio recordings it is amazing. Ironically I had this microphone for a long time, but never thought about using it for any other purposes than vocals. D'oh! It captures the full bandwith of a 4x12" cabinet, especially the rumbling bottom edge and resonance from the enclosure. To describe sound in words is always difficult, but if you never tried a large membrane microphone for recording an amplifier, try it. This is the one we used: www.thomann.de/thoiw2_the_tbone_sc600_grossmembranmikro_prodinfo.htmlSteele. |
|
|
|
Post by Ol Geezer on May 26, 2005 0:38:01 GMT -5
Zac, Geezer... I can really recommend trying this kind of microphone design. Steele. Sure, large diaphragm condensers have great frequency response and dynamic range. Until recent years they were pricey, but that's all changed. It also used to be that they were easily overloaded with the sound pressure levels associated with guitar amplifiers, such that dynamic mics like the Shure SM57 and Sennheiser MD421 became more of an industry standard. By the way, the POD-xt guitar modeler offers a Neumann U87 emulation as one of its three virtual mics. You might also want to experiment with a ribbon mic, but do be careful with high volumes if the mic is placed close to the speaker. I notice that mic of yours offers multiple patterns; have you tried using the mic in omni rather than cardioid setting? |
|
|
|
Post by Steelpriest on May 26, 2005 16:25:30 GMT -5
Sure, large diaphragm condensers have great frequency response and dynamic range. Until recent years they were pricey, but that's all changed. It also used to be that they were easily overloaded with the sound pressure levels associated with guitar amplifiers, such that dynamic mics like the Shure SM57 and Sennheiser MD421 became more of an industry standard. I notice that mic of yours offers multiple patterns; have you tried using the mic in omni rather than cardioid setting? Well, you are absolutely right... the large diaphragm condenser is very sensitive, we had to turn down the volume of the guitar amp alot to have a controllable output level. But the microphone was easy to handle concerning positioning. It has an overall very balanced frequency range that does not change that much when you vary the position of the microphone. With Shure SM57s (I admit I don´t like them at all for amp microphoning) it is very much more difficult to find a suitable location and angle to get a real good sound. Personally I always found SM57s either very harsh, or on the other hand very nasal, honking and muffled depending on the position. I find it very hard to achieve a sound that covers the full bandwith of a guitar cabinet with an SM57. So far we only used our large membrane condenser only in cardioid setting. What would the difference be in omni directional setting? And for which purpose would you suggest to try it? Steele. |
|
|
|
Post by Ol Geezer on May 26, 2005 18:34:24 GMT -5
So far we only used our large membrane condenser only in cardioid setting. What would the difference be in omni directional setting? And for which purpose would you suggest to try it? Steele. In Omni setting it will pick up more of the "room" sound and be less of a close-mic'd sterile sound, as well as capturing more the overall sound of the cabinet rather than just one speaker in it. This can be a good thing or a bad thing. You may also be able to move the mic closer to the cabinet in Omni mode before overloading, which could help isolate it from other instruments. I like to mic acoustic guitars with Omnis; placement becomes less critical (as does inevitable movement during playing) and you get more of the overall guitar's sound. Try it! |
|
|
|
Post by timscott on Jul 11, 2012 8:00:06 GMT -5
In my mind, how acceptable a transfer is to listeners is the only standard
by which it can be deemed proper or improper. After all, transfers do not
seem to be ends in themselves, but rather means to pleasing us listeners .
|
|
jhon551
not so new Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by jhon551 on Sept 28, 2012 14:47:39 GMT -5
If an in-house bug tracker needs to be replaced, implementing a bug tracker online could be a welcomed change. In addition to costing more to implement and maintain than a web-based tracker, an in house tracker does not offer important advantages that come standard with a web based tracking system. Below are five reasons why an in house bug tracking system with online tracking should be considered. Bug Tracking System |
|
