Which mic

OK, I read through this thread and found it very interesting. I have a couple of questions:

1. What do you want to use the microphone for. If it is for mic'ing your guitar amp or a snare drum, and SM 57 is fine. By the way, and SM57 and an SM 58 use the same cartridge, but the 58's windscreen provides a little more coloration for vocals. The 57 will be fine for anything that creates a lot of noise with little subtelty (stuff that adds its own small buzz to begin with) like snare drum and guitar amps.

2. If you are recording something that has great nuance, is quieter like vocals or acoustic instruments, then a "large" diaphragm condenser mic is probably your best choice. The MXL/Marshall product, and others make cheap "large" diaphragm mics, but they really aren't "large" (greater than 1") diaphragms. Most of these cartridges are bought out of the far east and tweaked to manufacturer specification. If you have the money (like over $1000) an AKG 414 or a Neumann U series or beyerdyanmic MC 834 product would be great, but not all of us (including me) have that kind of money to spend. A reasonable compromise is the Shure KSM 32. More money than the MXL and so forth, but better quality. At's middle of the road 4033, not the $99 one is a comparable value in terms of quality and sound to the KSM 32.

I can't remember what it was that the UB802 lacked, that made me go for the UB1002 - an excellent piece of kit for a very good price.
I also have a Shure SM57, which is a very good all round mic.

I like the sm57 also and have a mxl for vocals. I have a UB 1202 that works good, but i mostly use my tascam 424 mk3 portastudio for a mixer( I still use the cassette once in a blue moon :lol: :lol: --the dog

Thanks for all the great advice. I wasnt aware of all the nuiances of mics. I am mostly wanting one for recording at the moment so this week I purchased a MXL MARK. Not sure this this was the one to get but I have recorded with it now, and it does sound pretty good.

I am pretty sure at this point that I will be buying more microphones than I originally thought I would.

Geoo

Don't let anyone talk you out of the SM 57.

It's one of the best mics on the planet. I own 6 of them. If aren't sure only buy 2 of them.

I own a number of Audio Technica condensers and they get used occasionally, but it's nothing like my 57s. I have a Royer R121 that gets used much less than my 57s.

I LOVE the 2 57s on one speaker trick.
http://www.recordingreview.com/advanced_guides/2_57s_on_guitar.php

Brandon

When you're talking going through a mobile-pre, it's going to be really far more about the dynamic limitations of the pre-amp than about the mic.

Don't get me wrong, I have a mobile-pre, and I like it alot, but it's not a Neve.

Shure's are very good general purpose microphones, and so are the MXL's. Again, I own and use both.

Different microphones have different dynamic responses, and if you really get into recording you'll find that you can never have enough different microphones in much the same way you can never have enough different guitars. The differences can range from the subtle to the sublime, but you'll come to think in terms of NEEDING a particular mic for a particular job.

If you're just starting out, the MXL set gives you an excellent set of mic's for a very inexpensive price. But you can't go wrong with a Shure either. If price is a consideration, I'd get the MXL's and two mic stands and cords. That gives you the greatest number of choices in terms of how you record your sound.

I disagree with Tracker about recording your guitar in stereo. Record it in mono with two microphones. One at the guitar (or amp) and one further away. You can double one or both of these tracks for stereo effects, but having two clean mono recordings gives you the most flexibility when it comes to mixing the sound. From my perspective, recording is about getting a perfectly played, cleanly recorded track to work with. Everything else is mixing and post-production. Particularly with guitars. Drum kits and pianos are different, but for guitars, two mono tracks really will work better when it comes to mixing.

but having two clean mono recordings gives you the most flexibility when it comes to mixing the sound

What the hell do you need flexibility in mixing for? I have to admit that I hang out in a few of the big boy forums most of the time where guys who charge $4,000 to mix a song. Everyone of those guys says to commit while tracking.

I'm not big boy, but mixing has NEVER done any justice to an electric guitar for me. You need to get kick ass tones going to tape or disk. That's the bottom line. Do you think adding a parametric eq or a compressor is going to do anything good to your tone? In my experience the answer is no.

In fact, if I dont' totally love the tone of the recorded guitar without any EQ on it, I keep tweaking. You'll be happier with your mixes if you do the same. The huge tone doesn't come from your plugins. It comes from your amp.

I'm not sure I understand all this "cleanly recorded" crap either. What does that mean? I paid serious coin for my Neve preamps just so they'll dirty up the sound.

Brandon

Slow down dude. I think the idea of recording clean is a misconception that distortion is an effect that should be added after recording. I don't understand this either. I hear guys talking about re-amping their tracks which have already been run thru a pod xt. I don't get it. Why not just get the distortion on the first pass. At any rate I think it is a misconception. Nice that you have those Neve Pre's though. Which arm did you give? I've only seen a Neve console from a short distance for about a week before it was replaced by an SSL.

At any rate when he was talking about two mono tracks, I think the idea was to build layering which in itself is another misconception.

IMHO the best way to layer is to do it manually. That is, recording the same line over and over on seperate tracks. Otherwise you might as well just copy and paste the same track over and over. All you will get is more volume. The slight variance between performances is what creates the "fatness".

Gotta remember that there are lots of newbs here in regards to recording. Not all of us but most of us certainly. There is the odd Guru. I hover somewhere just above experienced gopher.

but having two clean mono recordings gives you the most flexibility when it comes to mixing the sound

I'm not sure I understand all this "cleanly recorded" crap either. What does that mean? I paid serious coin for my Neve preamps just so they'll dirty up the sound.

I seem to have not been clear in what I was saying.

First, by "clean" I don't mean "no amp overdrive," and I could see how it could be read that way. Of course you want to let your tubes do what your tubes do -- you can't get the same order harmonics out of a modeller (at least not yet) and you shouldn't try.

By "clean" I meant "well played, well recorded with no extraneous sounds on the track." In other words, you shouldn't be able to hear the kid crying in the other room, or a car backfiring somewhere, or whatever other noise might sneak into the track. For most home studio guys, that will take a lot more takes than you'd think it should!

I do think you should minimize effects used when recording, but you get saturated tube sound only from saturated tubes.

I do think the best way to record a guitar is with two mics -- one at the cab picking the sound up right out of the speaker, and the other in the room getting the wider sound. I don't see the point of recording a guitar in stereo. I've tried it, and it never did much for me.

Effects beyond the distortion -- delay, chorus, flang, etc. are best left to the mix for the simple reason that you can add/remove what you need to get the sound you're looking for. For example, when you have a guitar solo rising in intensity you can slowly pan in delay to make it sound bigger, then back them off as the solo comes back to the song.

When recording, compression should be used sparingly before mixing as well, just because you can't undo clipping.

All of which, btw, is just my opinion -- there are as many different ways to record and mix as there are audio engineers. Different isn't wrong, it's just different . . . if in the end you're happy with your mix and can't imagine it sounding better then it's a good mix.

I've read through this and understood just under nothing of it. All I want is a decent microphone to hook up to my computer to record me play and sing. The one I have just now is horrible at best and although it's only for fun, I still don't like to sound that bad. Can anyone help me out?

Buy an sm57 or equivalent knock-off, a mic cable, a 1/4" mono to stereo mini plug cable and a cheap preamp. $200.00 at most if you overbudget. Once you've outgrown this you will want to buy a decent soundcard.

I have used several thousand dollars worth of mics of every type and description ( but still haven't scratched the surface of what is available). Bottom line, if you can only buy one mic, buy the Shure SM 57. It is an excellent mic for nearly any instrument recording, is quite good as a vocal mic, and is as close to indestructable as a mic can be.

My favorite mic for most vocal types was the AKG414, until I bought a Nady SCM900 for 36 bucks brand new, a slight savings over the $1000.00 cost of the AKG. I haven't used it much yet, but find it quite comparable (to the ear) with the AKG414. I couldn't believe the quality of sound for that price. I still think someone in the factory screwed up and put the wrong capsule in the mic! I have not yet tried the Nady on anything but vocals.

I also bought a mic/stand/cable package from Musician's Friend for $20.00 just to have something to always keep set up to record ideas before they get lost ( I have kids and dare not leave the good stuff out). The stand is good, the cable is OK, and the mic works for that purpose, but if you are recording for ears other than your own, this mic won't cut the mustard. Its still a heck of a deal for a stand and cable: http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=rec/search/detail/base_pid/277031/