Which commonly used mic changes the cab tone the least?

L

Lilarcor

Inspired
Hey guys,

first off, I know no studio mic is completely flat and the positioning of the mic drastically influences the sound. In a recorded mix these influences by the mic are often useful and therefore desired. And reference mics aren't commonly used when recording or shooting IRs.
But what commonly used mic captures the sound of a cab most realistically (when put close to the cab)? I'm not necessarily talking about the "in the room" feel. Just which mic influences the tone the least in an IR?
So far I've had the experience that different mics or IRs of the same cab with different mics in almost the same position with almost the same, mostly flat frequency response (according to the manufacturer) can still sound drastically different although they should sound almost the same according to the response chart.
 
This really depends upon the room, the mic preamp, and your ears regarding which mic will be deemed most accurate or transparent.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but unless you are recording in a near anechoic chamber, the room and the mic preamp will affect how "non-colored" a mic will be perceived versus how you hear a particular cabinet as sounding, no matter how close you mic the cab or even if you throw a blanket over the mic/cab combo or set up gobos too.

The same mic in the same position on the same cab using the same mic preamp recorded in a different room will pick up a different character, even if all the source coming through the cab is exactly the same.

That said, there are camps of people that will fight to the death over this topic, especially over at the hardcore recording engineering forums. Here are some of the different mics that people will call transparent or most lifelike:

  • Coles 4038
  • Schoepps (I forget the model number off the top of my head)
  • Neumann u87
  • Beyerdynamic M130
  • Earthworks TC 30 or M50
I hope this helps.
 
Thx for your answer. It sure helps a lot.
What about the most commonly used mics like the R121, MD160, e906 etc.? Is any of these to be considered fairly flat?
 
I wouldn't call the Coles or U87 transparent. Here we go! LOL. Coles is a ribbon, as is 121. They aren't transparent, not to me anyway. They soften the harshness and smooth out the transients. That's why I prefer them on certain sources. Earthworks is very neutral but it's an omni.
 
Generally I would say that ribbons are more the "dark side" of the mic universe. Often along with phase problems, due to its pattern, a ribbon can add a lot of bottom to a sound. But compared to a e906 (dynamic)
or a U87 (emphasis in the upper mids/high) all the ribbons I know and use (sE VR1, sE RNR1 Rupert Neve Design) are "dark".
But....I'm not the guy looking for a "transparent" mic for a guitar sound ;-) I want "charakter".
 
Lilarcor said:
Thx for your answer. It sure helps a lot.
What about the most commonly used mics like the R121, MD160, e906 etc.? Is any of these to be considered fairly flat?
Click to expand...
No mic is truly "flat" except for the mics used for room measurement and EQ'ing, but most people don't record or use them for making ir's as they are not considered "musical'.

All those mics you mentioned are fine choices.

A good analogy is think of the cabinet like the wilderness landscape spread out before you. Think of your Axe FX 2 or computer being used to capture the ir as the top of the line Hasselblad or Leica camera. The mics you use are like the lenses used to capture that view. The mic angles & distances used to record are like the photo filters used to further refine that capture of the reality.

Will the picture captured ever truly equal the reality of the vista at that moment in time? That is all in the eye of the beholder or, for the cab, in the ear of the listener as it is subjective as an artistic endeavor, no matter how much science we apply to the methodology of each.
 
They definitely are dark. Most good ribbons take EQ very well. I have 5 ribbons. But you know trumpet and alto sax, wich I record a fair amount, require ribbons in my humble opinion. And if you want to smooth the edges of a guitar amp.
 
Lilarcor said:
Hey guys,

first off, I know no studio mic is completely flat and the positioning of the mic drastically influences the sound. In a recorded mix these influences by the mic are often useful and therefore desired. And reference mics aren't commonly used when recording or shooting IRs.
But what commonly used mic captures the sound of a cab most realistically (when put close to the cab)? I'm not necessarily talking about the "in the room" feel. Just which mic influences the tone the least in an IR?
So far I've had the experience that different mics or IRs of the same cab with different mics in almost the same position with almost the same, mostly flat frequency response (according to the manufacturer) can still sound drastically different although they should sound almost the same according to the response chart.
Click to expand...

The answer is none of the mic's routinely used to record guitar and bass amplifiers are neutral.

They all impart a fairly radical change to the sound due to the mic itself, mic position, speaker, speaker cabinet, room, and also as mentioned everything else in the recording chain changes the sound too.

IMO, these changes are actually desirable to the people doing the tracking. The mic's, position, recording chain etc. are chosen because they DO change the sound.
 
A lot of the mics commonly used are specifically made not to be flat, with each adding it's signature to the sound.
If you really want flat, why not try a high quality small diaphragm condensor like a neumann KM184, or a km185 if the room sound is influencing things. They are pretty neutral without being stagnant and would probably fit the bill assuming you manage proximity and room effects.

Thanks
Pauly
 
pauly said:
A lot of the mics commonly used are specifically made not to be flat, with each adding it's signature to the sound.
Click to expand...
Yes. This is why I've often said the quest to copy the sound of your fav guitarist on whatever album, is a bit confusing. You have the guitarist and his recording or live rig. Then you have the engineer and the mics he/she chose and mic position. mic pre, any direct EQ, compression, etc. THEN you have the mixing engineer and whatever EQ, leveling, compression, sweetening he may choose. Then the mastering engineer might have an effect. VERY often the finished product is not the sound the guitarist had in mind, particularly if he's not the leader or producer.
 
What those guys said. And this...


Lilarcor said:
...what commonly used mic captures the sound of a cab most realistically (when put close to the cab)?
Click to expand...
Which sound of the cab are you trying to capture? The sound of the cab when it's six feet behind you, in a small club, and aimed at your knees? The sound of the cab to the guy sitting in the 17th row of a 4000-seat theater, twelve seats toward stage left? The sound of the cab heard straight on, from 25 feet out at an outdoor gig? Those are very different sounds, all from the same cab, and no mic pressed up to the grill cloth will ever come close to capturing them. The sound will be off by a mile, and re-positioning your mic will change that landscape by 1000 feet. IMO, there's nothing to be gained by figuring out which mic brings you half an inch closer to your goal. :)

Choose a mic whose sound you like with your cab.
 
henryrobinett said:
Yes. This is why I've often said the quest to copy the sound of your fav guitarist on whatever album, is a bit confusing. You have the guitarist and his recording or live rig. Then you have the engineer and the mics he/she chose and mic position. mic pre, any direct EQ, compression, etc. THEN you have the mixing engineer and whatever EQ, leveling, compression, sweetening he may choose. Then the mastering engineer might have an effect. VERY often the finished product is not the sound the guitarist had in mind, particularly if he's not the leader or producer.
Click to expand...
there is also the brand of analog tape, the nW alignment used on the machines for both tracking and mixing in the analog domain, and if any noise reduction was used on the machines in an analog domain. For digital it comes down to the brand and model of converters, tracking/mix down machines, bit depth truncation, sample rate conversion, dither, jitter, dc offset presence, possibly pre-emphasis, and whether there was a Sony 1630 involved somewhere in the mastering replication process. I have seen all those things subtly change a sound too.
 
dr bonkers said:
A good analogy is think of the cabinet like the wilderness landscape spread out before you. Think of your Axe FX 2 or computer being used to capture the ir as the top of the line Hasselblad or Leica camera. The mics you use are like the lenses used to capture that view. The mic angles & distances used to record are like the photo filters used to further refine that capture of the reality.

Will the picture captured ever truly equal the reality of the vista at that moment in time? That is all in the eye of the beholder or, for the cab, in the ear of the listener as it is subjective as an artistic endeavor, no matter how much science we apply to the methodology of each.
Click to expand...

Great analogy!

I think, OP`s question is problematic:
Lilarcor said:
But what commonly used mic captures the sound of a cab most realistically (when put close to the cab)?
Click to expand...
Quick and easy: Measurement mic. But they are Omni, so room influences increase. That said: Also OMNI mic results depends extremely on the mic position in front of the speaker. There is no really convenient answer on that. It may be tragic, but you will always record just a excerpt from reality, whatever your method will be, IMO.
 
Thank you for all your answes. It's a very interesting discussion.
I just made the switch from a real cab to FRFR and I'm quite overwhelmed by the possibilies I have with cab + mic combinations. That's why I asked how I could get the most realistic result even though it might not be the most pleasant. Just to have a reference point.
I've been switching back and forth between various single mics and mic combinations and seem to prefer a different one each day. Right now I like the SM57 + R121 combo the most, I guess.
 
As i said above my favorites are constantly changing. Right now I'm mostly using a M160 + MD421 or SM57 combination. So many possibilites, so little time... :)
 
dr bonkers said:
No mic is truly "flat" except for the mics used for room measurement and EQ'ing, but most people don't record or use them for making ir's as they are not considered "musical'.
\.
Click to expand...

Most Earthworks are pretty damn flat. The drummer from umphrey's mcgee uses earthworks on his kit. Because if you have to EQ the kit.. You didn't tune it right. and its def an amazing drum sound he makes.
 
Lilarcor said:
Thank you for all your answes. It's a very interesting discussion.
I just made the switch from a real cab to FRFR and I'm quite overwhelmed by the possibilies I have with cab + mic combinations. That's why I asked how I could get the most realistic result even though it might not be the most pleasant. Just to have a reference point.
I've been switching back and forth between various single mics and mic combinations and seem to prefer a different one each day. Right now I like the SM57 + R121 combo the most, I guess.
Click to expand...

Previous posters have alluded to this, but the problem here is that you are close mic'ing a guitar speaker/cab. This is not the same as hearing the cabinet from any other position or distance. There is no mic that will capture what you hear in the room. It can capture what you hear when you put your ear up to the speaker about 1 or 3 inches away, but your ears are not designed to hear clearly and accurately at that dB level. Plus you will go deaf quickly doing that.

When you experiment with close mic'd IRs you are you are simulating being in a control room and having an assistant move mics around in front of a guitar speaker in an iso booth. Every slight change of angle or position can alter the frequency and harmonic content that you are hearing. This is a bit of an art form in itself. You can't put a reference mic in front of a guitar speaker and hear "the truth". It is the subtlety of positioning of the mic that brings out the character that you are searching for. There is no objective truth in that.
 
fromthebark said:
Most Earthworks are pretty damn flat. The drummer from umphrey's mcgee uses earthworks on his kit. Because if you have to EQ the kit.. You didn't tune it right. and its def an amazing drum sound he makes.
Click to expand...
mathematics never lies. The frequency plots, even in lab conditions which is how all mic manufacturers author their curves, show the mics not to be 100% flat.

Regarding needing EQ on drums because the drums "were not tuned right", many engineers and drummers would disagree with that statement. Drums can be tuned perfect with themselves and even within a basic song arrangement, but once you add more parts or mixing effects, you may have to punch frequency adjustments in those perfect drums in order for the mix to sing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom