|
|
Post by watchtower on Mar 31, 2015 0:19:15 GMT -6
Recording metal 99% of the time here, I've been using a spaced pair of SDC mics for overheads for many years. It's basically a cymbals-only mic for me, so I high-pass it pretty high up. Always been pretty happy, but as of 10 minutes ago, I became really curious to see if I could get an even wider sound. In other words, I want to get the ride almost 100% on the right, and the opposite for the hi-hat.
I tried XY only one time on overheads, and it was way too narrow for my taste. I much preferred a spaced pair on the next project, and all subsequent projects from then on. I'm thinking about trying out ORTF for overheads now. I have a theory that it would actually sound wider than a spaced pair. I'm thinking that with ORTF, the left side of the kit will be much more in the null of the right-pointing mic, and have way less level, resulting in a very wide stereo image. With a spaced pair, the left side might be more delayed, but it's still very much in the front of the mic's polar pattern.
Do you ever use ORTF for overheads? Have you found it to be wider sounding than a spaced pair? I'm going to test it out tomorrow
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 31, 2015 1:10:19 GMT -6
what about a spaced pair of fig 8 mics wide apart and with the nulls pointed at the snare/toms?
am thinking the less bleed you can get in your overheads the wider they will sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 31, 2015 6:13:32 GMT -6
XY. There is more than the 90º option. 110º will give you a much better stereo image. Height above the kit is also a consideration. 3' above the cymbals seems ideal.
AB. How wide are the spaced pair? How high are the spaced pair? 2X1 ratio seems to work well. 8' apart and 4' above. Even better for metal is ABC. Yes, a center mic in addition to hard left and right. Especially if there are center cymbals.
ORTF. There is also a sizeable center overlap of the two cardioid patterns, and this is heavily dependent on the microphones used. Gefell M930s are brilliant in this application, as are Beyer MC930s. AKG C series? Not so good. Same goes for a lot of LDCs. I wish I had time to take pictures of what to do and what not to do for this application... but I'm not in the studio this morning and then I'm slammed from 2PM til midnight. I'll try to follow up on this.
MS. I consider this 'artificial' stereo... and gets a big yuck from me as if you aren't listening on headphones or directly between the monitors, the entire stereo field collapses and on top of that, tonally changes drastically off-axis. An important consideration if your clients are not sitting in your chair on playback. Also important to note that most guys listen to their metal in their cars. Very few guys sit in the middle of the car to listen.
Blumlein. Absolutely beautiful but has considerably more room tone to it than most metal guys like and can mess with the tightness of the shells.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 31, 2015 7:14:04 GMT -6
I use a "wide ORTF" for mine (Gefell M930 LDC as well, and these are the cat's ass for overheads). Do an ordinary ORTF and then move them to about 15" apart. I have mine on a specially made metal rod so I can move them back and forth and tilt the rod. This makes sure the mics are always aligned in some form.
Make sure the capsules generally point to a place in the middle of the groups of drums/cymbals you want to record. Also, make sure the mics are around 2 drumsticks away from each drum and cymbal. Move the mics a bit if you have to get this balance. The balance is important so that you don't get too much of anything in the mic.
I've tried SDC mics, the KM184 are pretty OK for overheads, but I keep going back to LDC for overheads since they just have more meat to work with.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 31, 2015 7:15:26 GMT -6
XY. There is more than the 90º option. 110º will give you a much better stereo image. Height above the kit is also a consideration. 3' above the cymbals seems ideal. AB. How wide are the spaced pair? How high are the spaced pair? 2X1 ratio seems to work well. 8' apart and 4' above. Even better for metal is ABC. Yes, a center mic in addition to hard left and right. Especially if there are center cymbals. ORTF. There is also a sizeable center overlap of the two cardioid patterns, and this is heavily dependent on the microphones used. Gefell M930s are brilliant in this application, as are Beyer MC930s. AKG C series? Not so good. Same goes for a lot of LDCs. I wish I had time to take pictures of what to do and what not to do for this application... but I'm not in the studio this morning and then I'm slammed from 2PM til midnight. I'll try to follow up on this. MS. I consider this 'artificial' stereo... and gets a big yuck from me as if you aren't listening on headphones or directly between the monitors, the entire stereo field collapses and on top of that, tonally changes drastically off-axis. An important consideration if your clients are not sitting in your chair on playback. Also important to note that most guys listen to their metal in their cars. Very few guys sit in the middle of the car to listen. Blumlein. Absolutely beautiful but has considerably more room tone to it than most metal guys like and can mess with the tightness of the shells. Gefell M930 ORTF love, Mid-side hate.. You sure we aren't brothers? |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 31, 2015 7:35:26 GMT -6
Recording metal 99% of the time here, I've been using a spaced pair of SDC mics for overheads for many years. It's basically a cymbals-only mic for me, so I high-pass it pretty high up. Always been pretty happy, but as of 10 minutes ago, I became really curious to see if I could get an even wider sound. In other words, I want to get the ride almost 100% on the right, and the opposite for the hi-hat. Hey man, since you're mainly trying to get cymbals and string separation, why not do individual cymbal mics? That's a pretty common technique with metal guys right? |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 31, 2015 8:44:53 GMT -6
This is something worth listening to...
This is where drums are in metal now. Very difficult to distinguish from programmed drums and samples.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 31, 2015 9:26:32 GMT -6
Very difficult to distinguish from programmed drums and samples. Totally agree. Can't trust anything these days. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Mar 31, 2015 9:32:01 GMT -6
This is something worth listening to... This is where drums are in metal now. Very difficult to distinguish from programmed drums and samples. Tons of metal drums are just triggered samples nowadays since humans will always find the easiest way to become lazy.. |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Mar 31, 2015 9:36:32 GMT -6
metal in my neck of the woods sounds nothing even remotely close to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchtower on Mar 31, 2015 10:51:30 GMT -6
This is where drums are in metal now. Very difficult to distinguish from programmed drums and samples. Yeah, most metal drums are like that, but some of us have been rejecting that sound more and more. I've been trying to return to a much more natural sound, and I avoid using samples unless a band asks me for a very specific sound that I can't get from the mics. Here's something I recorded with all natural drums. Anyway, what inspired this thread was listening to Carcass's Heartwork. The first thing I noticed was how wide the cymbals were. Then I listened to this and realized my cymbals were pretty much just as wide haha |
|
|
|
Post by watchtower on Mar 31, 2015 10:55:50 GMT -6
Recording metal 99% of the time here, I've been using a spaced pair of SDC mics for overheads for many years. It's basically a cymbals-only mic for me, so I high-pass it pretty high up. Always been pretty happy, but as of 10 minutes ago, I became really curious to see if I could get an even wider sound. In other words, I want to get the ride almost 100% on the right, and the opposite for the hi-hat. Hey man, since you're mainly trying to get cymbals and string separation, why not do individual cymbal mics? That's a pretty common technique with metal guys right? I've read about this technique, but never actually heard of anyone using it. Seems like it would cause all sorts of phase issues to me. I like a mic on the Ride to supplement the overheads, though |
|
|
|
Post by junior on Mar 31, 2015 17:32:08 GMT -6
Do you ever use ORTF for overheads? Have you found it to be wider sounding than a spaced pair? I'm going to test it out tomorrow I loved ORTF on overheads the times I've heard/used them. Not sure if I'd say it sounded wider - just more natural, IMO. Not sure if that makes sense... Definitely try it! Good luck  BTW, another M930 user here. Totally feeling the love in this thread! |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 31, 2015 17:44:01 GMT -6
Blumlein is set up the same way as M/S, just both figure 8, right? How do you pan?
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Mar 31, 2015 17:49:20 GMT -6
Recording metal 99% of the time here, I've been using a spaced pair of SDC mics for overheads for many years. It's basically a cymbals-only mic for me, so I high-pass it pretty high up. Always been pretty happy, but as of 10 minutes ago, I became really curious to see if I could get an even wider sound. In other words, I want to get the ride almost 100% on the right, and the opposite for the hi-hat. I tried XY only one time on overheads, and it was way too narrow for my taste. I much preferred a spaced pair on the next project, and all subsequent projects from then on. I'm thinking about trying out ORTF for overheads now. I have a theory that it would actually sound wider than a spaced pair. I'm thinking that with ORTF, the left side of the kit will be much more in the null of the right-pointing mic, and have way less level, resulting in a very wide stereo image. With a spaced pair, the left side might be more delayed, but it's still very much in the front of the mic's polar pattern. Do you ever use ORTF for overheads? Have you found it to be wider sounding than a spaced pair? I'm going to test it out tomorrow Usually I use two Shure KSM 313 Ribbons (used to be called Crowley and Tripp Naked Eyes before Shure Bought them out.) They're Figure 8, but I actually use them as underheads more often than overheads, alla Greg Wells/Eric Valentine. Somtimes I'll throw a third Ribbon or an LDC as a mono overhead in the middle if I'm using them as strict overheads in a larger room (Usually a Shure 353 AKA Crowley and Tripp El Diablo, or my Soundelux e49.) If I'm going with three mics the good part about it is that I can rely on that mono mic for kick and snare reinforcement. If you're doing the Eric Valentine thing strictly by the book you can sub the mono overhead with an LDC in Omni and place it above the kick drum and to the right the snare (from Drummer's perspective.) In similar fashion this will pick up that kick and snare in a big way. With the right EQ you can get most of the drum kit this way using one mic. The first ten/fifteen minutes of this video will really illustrate the importance of that EQ and at the 15 minute mark he shows how his compressor (Distressor in this case) is set up on the mono mic...I've found though that Figure 8 and Omni pattern mics are not to be undervalued if you really want to use the acoustics of the space your in to your advantage and incorporate musical reflections into your drum sound. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107 
|
Post by ericn on Mar 31, 2015 18:04:18 GMT -6
Some times it's just about throughing the rules out the window and move the mics till it sounds right!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Apr 1, 2015 9:13:36 GMT -6
Blumlein is set up the same way as M/S, just both figure 8, right? How do you pan? No, they are two totally different techniques. Blumlein is two figure of 8 set microphones with their capsules at coincident 90º angles, on axis (plural, axes, actually) to each other. The fron of A picks up the left side direct and right side ambient tone. The front of B picks up the right side of direct, and thus the left side of ambient tone. IT creates a pure stereo image to human ears upon relistening and not through a psycho-acoustic effect. MS is a psycho-acoustic effect. One microphone is set to figure of 8 and is the 'S' (sides) whilst the other is cardioid facing forward to the direct signal. On the right 'side' you have the center mic plus the figure of 8 in phase. On the other 'side' you have the center mic and the figure of 8 OUT OF PHASE. Two entirely different techniques. And the results are VERY different also. In Blumlein, when you sum to mono, everything is in phase and the result becomes one great big figure of 8 microphone. The direct signal is approximately 6db hotter than the room tone, and the sense of space is maintained. In MS, when you sum to mono, the two figure of 8 'sides' cancel each other out and the entire stereo image collapses. The result is just the direct mic that was aimed at the source. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Apr 1, 2015 9:17:48 GMT -6
Some times it's just about throughing the rules out the window and move the mics till it sounds right! Yeah, but over time you learn and you figure out that you threw out rules that you knew, but you happened upon rules you didn't know were rules! Chances are that someone has already done it and it hasn't lasted because it doesn't hold up. I figured out the hard way (after spending years stroking my ego trying to find "my own way") that the "old" ways of doing things are the best. Not simply because they are old or classic or some famous person used them, but because they have been honed out of all the ways that people have thrown out the rules before, and thus became rules themselves. The cream rises to the top they say. It's the same reason that there are 100000 different mics to choose from, but the same 10 are used by every top engineer. Because they do the job and you know what to expect. Same goes for mic placements, you do the same ones because they just work and you know what you are getting in the end. That said, experimentation is fun, but it's rare that it opens new doors to undiscovered territory. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107
|
Post by ericn on Apr 1, 2015 11:33:05 GMT -6
Some times it's just about throughing the rules out the window and move the mics till it sounds right! Yeah, but over time you learn and you figure out that you threw out rules that you knew, but you happened upon rules you didn't know were rules! Chances are that someone has already done it and it hasn't lasted because it doesn't hold up. I figured out the hard way (after spending years stroking my ego trying to find "my own way") that the "old" ways of doing things are the best. Not simply because they are old or classic or some famous person used them, but because they have been honed out of all the ways that people have thrown out the rules before, and thus became rules themselves. The cream rises to the top they say. It's the same reason that there are 100000 different mics to choose from, but the same 10 are used by every top engineer. Because they do the job and you know what to expect. Same goes for mic placements, you do the same ones because they just work and you know what you are getting in the end. That said, experimentation is fun, but it's rare that it opens new doors to undiscovered territory. The funny thing is everytime I've been in the studio with any of the guys responsible for what stuff we all view as classics, influential or top selling records, it's been stressed to me that the classic techniques are starting points. Even in the world of classical, just like mic choice it's about finding what works that day in that room on that instrument on that song ! But then again if Geoff Emrick and company had followed the rules everytime most of our modern "rules" would exist. I don't want my recordings to sound like everybody else's or anybody in particular, if somebody comes to me they come to me for what I can do, if they don't like it they go somewhere else. Of course I' ll do my best to get what they want they are the customer and I'm not going to tell them can't do it because it breaks the tradition rules of where I put a mic! I learned what I have learned by doing everything in pro audio, by reading and listening to recordings sharing with peers and legends, I once asked a guy who has more gold and platinum on his wall " how would you describe what I do at FullCo ?" His answer was this "Eric your the guy I call when I need to pull off something I don't know how to pull off, and 99 times out of a hundred you nail it" That meant rather than make records like yours, I helped make records that everybody has heard! Again first lesson in any lecture the old rules are where you start, not end! |
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Apr 1, 2015 12:29:56 GMT -6
Some times it's just about throughing the rules out the window and move the mics till it sounds right! Yeah, but over time you learn and you figure out that you threw out rules that you knew, but you happened upon rules you didn't know were rules! Chances are that someone has already done it and it hasn't lasted because it doesn't hold up. I figured out the hard way (after spending years stroking my ego trying to find "my own way") that the "old" ways of doing things are the best. Not simply because they are old or classic or some famous person used them, but because they have been honed out of all the ways that people have thrown out the rules before, and thus became rules themselves. The cream rises to the top they say. It's the same reason that there are 100000 different mics to choose from, but the same 10 are used by every top engineer. Because they do the job and you know what to expect. Same goes for mic placements, you do the same ones because they just work and you know what you are getting in the end. That said, experimentation is fun, but it's rare that it opens new doors to undiscovered territory. Honestly I think smart use of EQ in multiple stages does more for a well recorded live drum sound than relying too much on a strict drum mic placement. First off the more mics you add into an equation, the more phasing that's going to occur...so typically if the mics and front end being used for close miking every drum winds up feeling thin and cheesy I'll start sound replacing using Slate Trigger without a second thought. In 2001-2003 when sound replacement was starting to become more commonplace people frowned on it publicly as it became a dominant force in top 40 music over the next decade...so being a "purist" about this stuff is a bit anachronistic. I love getting a GREAT live drum sound, but it's rare when budget, talent, and the space you're in add up to a well recorded track. As for classic mic placement...yes and no. The older I get, the less I want to use things I typically wouldn't use...even if they're perfectly fine for the job. For instance...my tastes tend to gravitate towards ribbon mics for drums...(yes even for "metal"), I've tried all manner of Ribbons and the Shure KSM313 and KSM 353 are the two I keep buying up. Why? They fall between Royer 121's and Coles 4040 style mics in tone...they're practically indestructible, and I tend to prefer them most over other Ribbon microphones on nearly all sources (with few notable exceptions if given other ribbon mic options source to source.) Because both of these ribbons are made of Roswellite, which is a ribbon material that's virtually indestructible...I can mic a kit up as if these mics were dynamics...at close range. IE: I can place a KSM 353 directly on the beater of a kick drum...and since it's in figure 8...the rear rejection will get me the reflections of the room....but my ribbon can handle the high SPL of the kick just fine...meaning I don't need multiple mics on the kick drum to get a 3D sound. No phasing occurs...and clever use of EQ rounds things out depending on which bandwidth information I need more of in the context of the mix. I also favor LDC's over SDC's in most cases with drums...so if I run out of ribbons...I typically go there next. Usually with overheads / underheads...a mono overhead...or an omni "kit" mic...I can get a 3D "image" of the kit without having to close mic everything...and if I do spot mic the toms and snare, etc...from there, it's probably so I have something I can again replace with trigger so I can layer samples underneath the natural sound of the kit without having to apply additional EQ. Everyone has different tastes...but usually I'm trying to simplify...and reduce the number of mics as much as possible in order to keep phase consistent track to track. I EQ on the way in lightly...and again during mixing so I'm never pushing an EQ too hard at any one step...all in all, by taking this approach, even in a drum room that's not so great, usually I can make the space work in my favor...but standard ORTF and XY pattern SDC setups usually don't do it for me when overheads are concerned...the mics just aren't big enough to capture all the information I'm after...and usually not dark enough to round out the sibilant freqs I wouldn't want for any genre of music...so I stick with what works for me. However for Metal tracks I might favor API style preamps over Neve style preamps in terms of a sonic "flavor" for the kit as a whole. (I do tend to track drums with ONE type of preamp typically to make it feel more like a singular instrument.) |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Apr 1, 2015 12:52:16 GMT -6
knob twisted eq is the DEVIL! at least I treat it as such, and consider it mostly as a necessary evil. If you CAN get damn near dead on the sound you want with instrument, pre, mic and placement, you'll only need eq twists of 1-2db here and there, doing wonders for the tracks phase coherence, clarity and beef. Anything more than a couple db here or there is for fixing mistakes IME, and usually ends up jamming a mix up and down, trapping it between the speakers, with low midrange slog, and a top with slice and zing all over it.
I also apply this exact philosophy to compression, which can be even worse as gets applied at exponential rates.
|
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Apr 1, 2015 13:22:03 GMT -6
knob twisted eq is the DEVIL! at least I treat it as such, and consider it mostly as a necessary evil. If you CAN get damn near dead on the sound you want with instrument, pre, mic and placement, you'll only need eq twists of 1-2db here and there, doing wonders for the tracks phase coherence, clarity and beef. Anything more than a couple db here or there is for fixing mistakes IME, and usually ends up jamming a mix up and down, trapping it between the speakers, with low midrange slog, and a top with slice and zing all over it. I also apply this exact philosophy to compression, which can be even worse as gets applied at exponential rates. Same here man...same here. At least with a lot of modern compressor designs (analog and plugin) you have built in parallel compression now, enabling a blend of unaffected signal with a compressed one. With EQ it's far easier to overdo it. So subtle and musical EQ boosts and cuts for dominant frequencies and mud-range low mids usually when tracking go first for me...followed by additional light boosts and cuts to similar or the exact same bandwidths again during mixing. This is my typical MO on just about every session these days. This way I'm not really applying all that much gain to get the freqs I want to highlight front and center (people forget that EQ's add gain to bandwidths...and this is why they overuse them.) With compressors that don't have parallel compression built in I treat things exactly the same...small amounts where less is more, and typically AFTER EQing first in order to cut away a bit of the mud I don't want to compress and bring up. This is probably why most compressor designs I favor tend to have parallel compression built into them these days...you can really go after something and dial it all to taste, but you don't have to set up additional tracks just to run compressors on heavier settings without killing your transient response. However...the more I can get accomplished with light EQ...the less I seem to have to compress in general. Very few EQ's in my little black book can get pushed hard without things getting weird. The Buzz REQ2.2 being the best I've tried (And what I'm saving for as a result.) |
|
|
|
Post by carymiller on Apr 1, 2015 13:24:08 GMT -6
*Somehow I quoted myself again, can a mod delete this?! Sorry! |
|
