|
|
Post by smashlord on Jan 8, 2024 19:39:09 GMT -6
Anyone spend time running the gamut of using different mics only to come back to the cliche " go tos" everyone seems to use?
I had a day off today and decided to shoot out all the usual suspects on guitar cab:
Sm57
MD421
M160
R92
M201
M88
R121
KSM44
Soyuz Bomblet
At the end of the shootout, convinced I was going to discover the "ultimate" set up, I ended up liking the 57/421 combo best.....(though the Bomblet with either gets a strong honorable mention).
I recently had this happen with snare and toms. After using an M201 for a while, I threw up a SM57 and was like "oh..... thats the thing". After years of refusing to use MD421s on toms because I was "in the know" using ATM25, C414s, and KSM44s, I noticed I wasn't always 100% happy with how they came out. Well, I put a pair of MD421s up and my reaction was like "oh, sounds like toms on a record".
Maybe I am a basic b*tch, I don't know, but anyone else have a similar experience of re-discovering the boring stuff?
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 8, 2024 20:53:36 GMT -6
Nothing less boring to me than mics that just work well without a bunch of fuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by christophert on Jan 8, 2024 20:57:45 GMT -6
421's sound great on toms.... Until a cymbal is hit 57's - that is another story  |
|
|
|
Post by niklas1073 on Jan 8, 2024 23:05:19 GMT -6
I have quite a narrow palette, but the go to’s for me are never the 57 or similar on cabs or drums except snare, the only place i use a 57 on. For me miking a cab with 57 is as like near miking drums. I dont know if boring is the right word, but its just not for me. Im not recording the sound of the cone, but the sound of a cab in a room so it's always ldc or ribbon. Its like with drums. Near mics are there to just give a small added thump, but the drums are otherwise recorded with ldc and ribbons in my case. So I never gravitate “back to the basics” because i left them for a reason, didn't sound good then, don't sound good now, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jan 9, 2024 8:46:30 GMT -6
421's sound great on toms.... Until a cymbal is hit 57's - that is another story My sentiments exactly. I can eq and compress a tom to sound like a record, regardless of mic. Most of my concern around time mics is picking something with decent sounding spill or excellent rejection, and the 421 offers neither. Other than that, I love me some tried and true mic choices. 57 on guitar 9 of 10 times. Dont usually love 121s or 421s alongside but sometimes they work great. 47 fet outside kick basically every time. Etc and so forth. 👍🏽 |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Jan 9, 2024 11:11:53 GMT -6
I kind of have my own version of "standard" that maybe aren't the norm, but are things I consistently am happy with. I generally work with locals without much time or money, so I have starting points and know what my backup will be in any given situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jan 9, 2024 11:22:48 GMT -6
I kind of have my own version of "standard" that maybe aren't the norm, but are things I consistently am happy with. I generally work with locals without much time or money, so I have starting points and know what my backup will be in any given situation. Let's hear it! |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jan 9, 2024 11:23:28 GMT -6
MD421's and/or 421 MKII?  |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jan 9, 2024 11:37:19 GMT -6
Last thing I did I was assisting a very talented Producer/Engineer and we did:
OH: Pair of 269s in x/y. Plus a near-coincident Coles so he had options at mix.
Kick In: D112?
Kick Out: U67 RI
Snare: 57
Toms: 421s
Rooms: 414s
Pretty basic stuff. Straight from the API to PT, with ample EQ and some amount of desk compression, now that I think about it.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,098 
|
Post by ericn on Jan 9, 2024 13:17:55 GMT -6
Anyone spend time running the gamut of using different mics only to come back to the cliche " go tos" everyone seems to use? I had a day off today and decided to shoot out all the usual suspects on guitar cab: Sm57 MD421 M160 R92 M201 M88 R121 KSM44 Soyuz Bomblet At the end of the shootout, convinced I was going to discover the "ultimate" set up, I ended up liking the 57/421 combo best.....(though the Bomblet with either gets a strong honorable mention). I recently had this happen with snare and toms. After using an M201 for a while, I threw up a SM57 and was like "oh..... thats the thing". After years of refusing to use MD421s on toms because I was "in the know" using ATM25, C414s, and KSM44s, I noticed I wasn't always 100% happy with how they came out. Well, I put a pair of MD421s up and my reaction was like "oh, sounds like toms on a record". Maybe I am a basic b*tch, I don't know, but anyone else have a similar experience of re-discovering the boring stuff? Rule #1 of audio never, ever, ever knock what works. I have sat through to many shoot outs and demos where the cheapest or most dissed product just works, you shut up and walk away when $75 dollar mic works and feel sorry for the guy who needs to spend $30K. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 9, 2024 13:25:13 GMT -6
Me 20 years ago: "I'm not going to use _____ because I want to find my own sound and be famous for it!! I don't care if people have been using these same setups for decades on a million records!!"
Me today: "I use _____ because it's already been vetted by a million people on a million records"
|
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Jan 9, 2024 16:56:57 GMT -6
I kind of have my own version of "standard" that maybe aren't the norm, but are things I consistently am happy with. I generally work with locals without much time or money, so I have starting points and know what my backup will be in any given situation. Let's hear it! MC012 Overheads ATM23he Snare M88 toms e602 BD IN various BD out M201 Hats d1000e re10 guitars sE x1r or TOMB ribbons Horns U87, CMV563, 414eb (on loan) vocals U87 mono Leslie MC012 or M88 stereo Leslie M69 scratch vox 635a percussion Those are 'goto/preset' choices, but I might be in a mood to change, and I have backups for everything in a "if ____ doesn't work I'll try _____ next." |
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Jan 9, 2024 16:57:44 GMT -6
Me today: "I use _____ because it's already been vetted by a million people on a million records" Some younger guys one time heard a demo of a blues/rock band I was playing in and asked me what pedalboard I used to sound like I was playing a strat plugged into a Marshall. I said a strat, a chord, a wah wah pedal, a chord, and a Marshall. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jan 9, 2024 17:17:43 GMT -6
I can totally identify with the original post. Recently I got into some rabbit hole trying to find the best mic setup for my new D-28 thinking "a beautiful sounding guitar needs an EXTRA beautiful mic" or some such nonsense.
In the end I went back to may two favorite acoustic mics (57 and 635a) and both of them blew away all the fancy stuff I was trying.
(As I've said elsewhere, acoustic guitar is probably the ultimate "your mileage may vary" instrument I think. And what I like seems to be the opposite of what many people like, but you really can't beat those old dynamics to get the woody tone I'm looking for.)
|
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Jan 9, 2024 17:34:35 GMT -6
I can totally identify with the original post. Recently I got into some rabbit hole trying to find the best mic setup for my new D-28 thinking "a beautiful sounding guitar needs an EXTRA beautiful mic" or some such nonsense. In the end I went back to may two favorite acoustic mics (57 and 635a) and both of them blew away all the fancy stuff I was trying. (As I've said elsewhere, acoustic guitar is probably the ultimate "your mileage may vary" instrument I think. And what I like seems to be the opposite of what many people like, but you really can't beat those old dynamics to get the woody tone I'm looking for.) Your current project reeks of “not fancy” in all of the best ways. It’s a lot of fun to listen to. |
|
|
|
Post by gravesnumber9 on Jan 9, 2024 17:46:10 GMT -6
I can totally identify with the original post. Recently I got into some rabbit hole trying to find the best mic setup for my new D-28 thinking "a beautiful sounding guitar needs an EXTRA beautiful mic" or some such nonsense. In the end I went back to may two favorite acoustic mics (57 and 635a) and both of them blew away all the fancy stuff I was trying. (As I've said elsewhere, acoustic guitar is probably the ultimate "your mileage may vary" instrument I think. And what I like seems to be the opposite of what many people like, but you really can't beat those old dynamics to get the woody tone I'm looking for.) Your current project reeks of “not fancy” in all of the best ways. It’s a lot of fun to listen to. Thanks! Going for exactly that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2024 1:05:02 GMT -6
What works works.
|
|
|
|
Post by audiospecific on Jan 10, 2024 3:26:40 GMT -6
421 is ok, e835 is better than a 57
But there is only two sure mic I like (Beta52& SM7b) even though I have to stick a mic transformer in a SM7b for it to work on all mic pres and boards.
|
|
|
|
Post by niklas1073 on Jan 10, 2024 4:00:48 GMT -6
Im kind of curios to the concept of "what works". Some sounds we have come accustomed to as "working" since we are at this point so used to them. The 57 and 421 falls into this cathegory for me. Often "it works" equals to me "it cuts it with very little effort, good enough". Sometimes industry standards become industry standards because they are extra ordinary in what they do (read 47, 67, fairchild, neve and all the nice candy derived from that sector), but i'd say more often the case is they are used widely because they are good compromises, quick and dirty, easy, less time consuming and affordable/replaceable (read the cheap use and dispose equipment). Every time i'm wowed by a sound or production and I look into what is behind. It has never ever been... of, it was a 57 on the cab and a 40 buck ldc mono overhead straight into a scarlett thru an online browser based mastering. It works... but is it interesting? It works is just not good enough i think. It should always be It wows. (despite the reality for me at least most of the time is "it sucks" and after a hell of a lot of work "it passes"  , but I try to strive for the wow) |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jan 10, 2024 10:49:17 GMT -6
Im kind of curios to the concept of "what works". Some sounds we have come accustomed to as "working" since we are at this point so used to them. The 57 and 421 falls into this cathegory for me. Often "it works" equals to me "it cuts it with very little effort, good enough". Sometimes industry standards become industry standards because they are extra ordinary in what they do (read 47, 67, fairchild, neve and all the nice candy derived from that sector), but i'd say more often the case is they are used widely because they are good compromises, quick and dirty, easy, less time consuming and affordable/replaceable (read the cheap use and dispose equipment). Every time i'm wowed by a sound or production and I look into what is behind. It has never ever been... of, it was a 57 on the cab and a 40 buck ldc mono overhead straight into a scarlett thru an online browser based mastering. It works... but is it interesting? It works is just not good enough i think. It should always be It wows. (despite the reality for me at least most of the time is "it sucks" and after a hell of a lot of work "it passes" , but I try to strive for the wow) We’re always striving for amazing, otherwise why bother booking a killer room etc. But, unless you have unlimited time, you’re also making quick intuitive decisions, often based on what has worked in the past. In my example above, we wound up with the 67 on kick out because the studio didn’t have a FET47 the Producer didn’t feel the Blue Mouse was cutting it. But, he didn’t bat an eye (ear?) at the 57 on snare, it “worked” in the sense that the drums were sounding great overall. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jan 10, 2024 12:16:30 GMT -6
I’d like to add a new angle to this…as a freelancer, waking into a new studio for a session I don’t really know what I’m going to get. New room, new monitors, new converters etc it’s a lot to take in all at once. If there’s an issue, like a weird resonance, what’s causing it? The acoustics of the room? The monitors? The instrument? So using the “standard” stuff (57 on gtr, fet47 outside kick etc) gives me a baseline that I know well and removes a bunch of variables. It gives me some type of standard that helps me make better judgements.
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jan 10, 2024 13:26:31 GMT -6
I’d like to add a new angle to this…as a freelancer, waking into a new studio for a session I don’t really know what I’m going to get. New room, new monitors, new converters etc it’s a lot to take in all at once. If there’s an issue, like a weird resonance, what’s causing it? The acoustics of the room? The monitors? The instrument? So using the “standard” stuff (57 on gtr, fet47 outside kick etc) gives me a baseline that I know well and removes a bunch of variables. It gives me some type of standard that helps me make better judgements. This is where NS10s have value, for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jan 10, 2024 14:11:49 GMT -6
I’d like to add a new angle to this…as a freelancer, waking into a new studio for a session I don’t really know what I’m going to get. New room, new monitors, new converters etc it’s a lot to take in all at once. If there’s an issue, like a weird resonance, what’s causing it? The acoustics of the room? The monitors? The instrument? So using the “standard” stuff (57 on gtr, fet47 outside kick etc) gives me a baseline that I know well and removes a bunch of variables. It gives me some type of standard that helps me make better judgements. This is where NS10s have value, for me. Completely agree! It’s so nice to have that reference in a new space. |
|
|
|
Post by niklas1073 on Jan 10, 2024 14:47:07 GMT -6
I’d like to add a new angle to this…as a freelancer, waking into a new studio for a session I don’t really know what I’m going to get. New room, new monitors, new converters etc it’s a lot to take in all at once. If there’s an issue, like a weird resonance, what’s causing it? The acoustics of the room? The monitors? The instrument? So using the “standard” stuff (57 on gtr, fet47 outside kick etc) gives me a baseline that I know well and removes a bunch of variables. It gives me some type of standard that helps me make better judgements. To me that sounds like setting yourself up for failure. Doing the homework on the environment where you will lay your tracks and making well educated decisions on gear to use, within the framework of availability, to achieve the aimed production outcome is everything, right? Possibly picking the studio from a point of view what you want to achieve. How could you produce anything coherent if your production is defined by the survival in an unknown environment rather than having the environment chosen to suite the production? |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jan 10, 2024 15:00:41 GMT -6
I’d like to add a new angle to this…as a freelancer, waking into a new studio for a session I don’t really know what I’m going to get. New room, new monitors, new converters etc it’s a lot to take in all at once. If there’s an issue, like a weird resonance, what’s causing it? The acoustics of the room? The monitors? The instrument? So using the “standard” stuff (57 on gtr, fet47 outside kick etc) gives me a baseline that I know well and removes a bunch of variables. It gives me some type of standard that helps me make better judgements. To me that sounds like setting yourself up for failure. Doing the homework on the environment where you will lay your tracks and making well educated decisions on gear to use within the framework of availability to you is everything right? Possibly picking the studio from a point of view what you want to achieve. How could you ever produce anything coherent if your production is defined by the survival in an unknown environment rather than having the environment chosen to suite the production? Thats all great in theory. But that’s not reality. You can do all the homework you want (and I typically come in very prepared) and I can pick a great studio with awesome monitors but it’s impossible for me to know the sound of the room and all the variables that come with it, and then to be able to reliably differentiate each variable from each other? And to do it “now”, as in instantly get to the root of what you’re after. It’s just not happening. Just spend some time auditioning different high end monitors and you’ll see/hear just how different they can be voiced. If the guitar is a little too woofy in the lower mids is it the guitar amp combo? Is it the boutique pre amp your using for the first time? Is it the mic? Is it just the monitors? Is it all of the above? Golden ears or not you don’t really know until you experiment but you almost never have that time. But if it’s a strat into a fender twin, with a 421 into a neve 1073…I know that sound. It gives me a bench mark with which I can better judge the rest of the signal chain. Give me some NS10’s to double check on and it’s even better. So you can think it’s a setup for failure but if you don’t have a method for mitigating these issues, that’s the real receipt for failure. It’s not using proven tools that you know like the back of your hand that is the problem. |
|
, but I try to strive for the wow) 