View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:00 am



Reply to topic  [ 431 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 22  Next
A Barely Scientific Microphone Test 
Author Message
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
Mics used:

Shure KSM27
Shure SM58
MXL 990
MXL 2001

Most of the time it is all mics running, which actually sounds decent, IMO. At 2:13 and each track/mic plays by itself through two repeats of the riff and then goes onto the next (it is fairly audible when changing). At For the moment, I will leave which sound is which mic a mystery.. Maybe you guys would like to have fun with that. Mics are about a foot and a half out, side by side trying my best to point them in a direction that makes comparing them somewhat scientific and accurate.

It is mostly just me bullshitting around with different sounds and trying to get across what sounds the amp can make. Guitar's the '72 RI Deluxe Tele Thinline. Most of the clean/semi dirty sounds are middle position, and pretty much all the really dirty stuff is bridge position.

http://soundcloud.com/cameron-heck/mic- ... -lil-night

No processing. Also: Kinda odd how much of the room the third mic picks up. I am pretty sure that I had it facing forward. :red: :lol:

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:51 pm
Profile
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
Also, I know about the fret buzz. Shit got real bad as soon as I slapped on some new strings today, but ya know. Fuckitwhatever.

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:53 pm
Profile
Simethicone
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 11625
Location: McMurdo Research Station
Yes/No: Yes
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
#3 is backwards. If it's the KSM27, the badge is the address side, the switches are on the back- and you're not the first person to do this. My friend tried to mic his snare with it once and miced the hats instead. This means #3 is pretty certainly not the 58. :lol:

#1 is the 58.

_________________
Member Of The Radium Water Gentleman's League Of Luxury.


Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:03 pm
Profile
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
Snaxocaster wrote:
This means #3 is pretty certainly not the 58. :lol:


Don't be so quick to assume I couldn't fuck this up. :lol:

I will say, it is NOT the KSM27 that is backwards, it's one of the MXLs.

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:06 pm
Profile
Simethicone
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 11625
Location: McMurdo Research Station
Yes/No: Yes
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
:lol:

The badge/logo should still be facing the source. Said friend who positioned the KSM backwards actually called MXL once wondering if he'd done the same thing with his MXL v67s as Glyn Johns-style overheads and got a response about this. And if there's no logo, there should be a little symbol showing the pickup pattern (cardioid, omni, fig. 8, etc.) on the address side of the mic. The more you know!

Also, listening back again I'm betting #1 is the 58 and #2 is the 27, then. #1 is the darkest of all of them, and #2 seems more neutral- less hyped in the top, fuller mids than #4, which I'm gonna guess is the 2001 based on how bright it is. Which means your 990 is backwards.

_________________
Member Of The Radium Water Gentleman's League Of Luxury.


Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:10 pm
Profile
Winston Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:32 pm
Posts: 11362
Location: ruining everything.
Yes/No: No
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
#3 has to either be backwards or omni. :red:

If i had to guess, i would guess #1 is the SM58 because it seems tighter in its pickup pattern and less "inexpensive condenser brightish".

I would guess that #2 is the MXL2001 because i like it. :red:

I would guess that #3 is the backwards MXL990 because i did that once. :red:

And i would guess that #4 is the KSM because i am totally unfamiliar with that mic. Though, they are supposed to be nice, so maybe i have #2 and #4 switched. Or perhaps the 2001 is backwards at #3 and #4 is actually the 990?

_________________
STOP FIXING ROCK RECORDS.

START YOUR OWN RELIGION TODAY.


Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:11 am
Profile
Simethicone
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 11625
Location: McMurdo Research Station
Yes/No: Yes
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
I wouldn't expect the KSM to be anywhere near as bright as #4 sounded to me, and the 2001's the brightest thing in the shootout, at least by specs, so that's my guess. Placement is the big variable here. Admittedly, I am very familiar with that particular KSM as that's my old mic Cam has and I've used it on a lot of things. :red:

Speaking of which, how are these all placed, anyhow? Minus the backwards one. :red: And as everything in the shootout is fixed-position cardioid, it's not in omni unless something really strange is happening. Image

We've been too busy guessing at the mics to comment on the toans! I like them, clean and dirty. The middle position on that guitar... Are those coil-tapped or out-of-phase or something? As you said they're 'buckers, but that's not sounding to me like a typical humbucker sound. Or is it just that amp/cab combination is that bright? (Granted, it's a Vox in bright mode into a Fender cab, so...)

I'd like to hear the ribbon in there, but that, like the 58- or more so- I'd think would be super-obvious. The other three at least have the advantage in a shootout of being the same sort of mic. (Well, the 990 is a bit smaller diaphragm.)

I'd also like to hear Cam's thoughts on the KSM after the guessing is through and we've established what's what. Or, maybe after he's had the chance to give it a shot on a few more sources. Vocals, too. (I strongly recommend a pop filter here with the low cut engaged, as it is sensitive to that. The improvised pop filter- pencil rubber-banded or taped to the mic breaking up the air hitting the center of the capsule) will work here too.)

_________________
Member Of The Radium Water Gentleman's League Of Luxury.


Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:42 am
Profile
Winston Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:32 pm
Posts: 11362
Location: ruining everything.
Yes/No: No
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
My experience with my MXL2001, is that it is not nearly as bright as the spec sheet makes it look. It does something serious to the midrange, but it is not overtly fizzy/unpleasant.

The 990 does have a little more fizzy unpleasant in it, but as i found with the torpair, there is a fair bit of variability between mics too. One of these sounds good, but is well suited to acoustic and lighter distortion, and the other sounds less good. Neither is IMO a great choice for heavier distortion, as the top end peak seems to be just in the wrong spot for it. As the KSM chart looks not-too-dissimilar to the 990 curve, and i have never used one, i was wondering if the same sort of sonics might be at play. :idk:

In general though, the 990s both have way more high end (the fizz part of it) than the 2001. Perhaps my 2001 is an aberration, but if i could get three more just like it, i would do so immediately.

If i didn't think it likely that the backwards mic was the 990, i would otherwise suspect that #4 was that one. Hence why i might be inclined to alternately call #4 the 990, and #3 the backwards 2001, because it is relatively easy to get the 2001 backwards too, especially if the graphics are a little faded, as they are on mine(though unlike the 990, i have never run the 2001 backwards :red: ).


Another thing which makes this sort of guessing tricky, is that only 1.5 feet out, side-by-side, these mics will really be picking up different regions of the speakers, so some may in fact be picking up more cone, while others, more dustcap. :idk:

_________________
STOP FIXING ROCK RECORDS.

START YOUR OWN RELIGION TODAY.


Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:24 am
Profile
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
The order is: SM58, KSM27, 990 backwards, 2001.

Snaxocaster wrote:
I wouldn't expect the KSM to be anywhere near as bright as #4 sounded to me, and the 2001's the brightest thing in the shootout, at least by specs, so that's my guess. Placement is the big variable here. Admittedly, I am very familiar with that particular KSM as that's my old mic Cam has and I've used it on a lot of things. :red:

Speaking of which, how are these all placed, anyhow? Minus the backwards one. :red: And as everything in the shootout is fixed-position cardioid, it's not in omni unless something really strange is happening. Image

We've been too busy guessing at the mics to comment on the toans! I like them, clean and dirty. The middle position on that guitar... Are those coil-tapped or out-of-phase or something? As you said they're 'buckers, but that's not sounding to me like a typical humbucker sound. Or is it just that amp/cab combination is that bright? (Granted, it's a Vox in bright mode into a Fender cab, so...)

I'd like to hear the ribbon in there, but that, like the 58- or more so- I'd think would be super-obvious. The other three at least have the advantage in a shootout of being the same sort of mic. (Well, the 990 is a bit smaller diaphragm.)

I'd also like to hear Cam's thoughts on the KSM after the guessing is through and we've established what's what. Or, maybe after he's had the chance to give it a shot on a few more sources. Vocals, too. (I strongly recommend a pop filter here with the low cut engaged, as it is sensitive to that. The improvised pop filter- pencil rubber-banded or taped to the mic breaking up the air hitting the center of the capsule) will work here too.)


Middle position is just the two 'buckers in parallel as far as I know? :idk:

I like the KSM from what I can tell, it is a pretty "transparent" mic or whatever the hell an engineer dude would say. Seems neutral and a pretty good representation of what that room sounds like. All mics are side by side angled to approximately hit the dead middle of the speaker from about a foot and a half out.

chris_d wrote:
My experience with my MXL2001, is that it is not nearly as bright as the spec sheet makes it look. It does something serious to the midrange, but it is not overtly fizzy/unpleasant.

The 990 does have a little more fizzy unpleasant in it, but as i found with the torpair, there is a fair bit of variability between mics too. One of these sounds good, but is well suited to acoustic and lighter distortion, and the other sounds less good. Neither is IMO a great choice for heavier distortion, as the top end peak seems to be just in the wrong spot for it. As the KSM chart looks not-too-dissimilar to the 990 curve, and i have never used one, i was wondering if the same sort of sonics might be at play. :idk:

In general though, the 990s both have way more high end (the fizz part of it) than the 2001. Perhaps my 2001 is an aberration, but if i could get three more just like it, i would do so immediately.

If i didn't think it likely that the backwards mic was the 990, i would otherwise suspect that #4 was that one. Hence why i might be inclined to alternately call #4 the 990, and #3 the backwards 2001, because it is relatively easy to get the 2001 backwards too, especially if the graphics are a little faded, as they are on mine(though unlike the 990, i have never run the 2001 backwards :red: ).

Another thing which makes this sort of guessing tricky, is that only 1.5 feet out, side-by-side, these mics will really be picking up different regions of the speakers, so some may in fact be picking up more cone, while others, more dustcap. :idk:


The way my 990 is secured is with some ghetto tape action and a regular old mic clip, which partly covers the pickup pattern indicator thing. Whilst futz'ing around with it to get into a normal-ish position I think I flipped it around and didn't even take note of what I had done. :red:

I was hoping a foot and a half would be a decent micing distance, but I guess 3 feet or so would have been better, yeah? Give the sound a little time to disperse and spread out away from the speaker, equalizing to some point what all the mics are gonna get?

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:54 pm
Profile
Winston Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:32 pm
Posts: 11362
Location: ruining everything.
Yes/No: No
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
Yarr, i would only say to pull them back further if you were going to put four mics next to each other in line, and only so that the distance between source and microphone would be ratio-wise much farther than the distance between mic capsules and each other.

If you aren't trying to draw sonic conclusions directly comparing multiple mics to each other, then you would just put one or two of the ones you like just wherever they sound best. Which may very well be 1.5' out. It certainly suits the Shure mics well there.

#4 being the MXL2001 is surprising to me, as that doesn't seem to be the type of sound that mine makes, at least on the more distorted bit. Mine is a much older version though, and decently beat up, i wonder if they changed anything over the years, like the capsule or something, or if indeed, mine if might be slightly (awesomely) damaged. :idk:

That KSM sounds very good here. :huzzah:

_________________
STOP FIXING ROCK RECORDS.

START YOUR OWN RELIGION TODAY.


Fri Sep 21, 2012 1:43 pm
Profile
Simethicone
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 11625
Location: McMurdo Research Station
Yes/No: Yes
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
It says something good about your room that you can have the mics that far back and everything still sounds upfront and present, just, with some space around it. (And the backwards 990 doesn't sound bad as a room sound!)

I'm glad you're getting on with the KSM so far. That was always my impression of it too- it sounds more or less like whatever you put in front of it. I wonder how it stacks up to a forward-facing 990, as Chris pointed out they have vaguely similar response on a spec sheet. How they actually sound and what it says on the official graph may be... er, wildly disparate.

_________________
Member Of The Radium Water Gentleman's League Of Luxury.


Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:25 pm
Profile
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
A quickly setup and recorded jam. Landon on drums as usual. KSM27 as mono OH, SM58 on snare, D112 in the kick, 990 on the 2x10.

http://soundcloud.com/cameron-heck/atfoab-jam

A lot of it is sloppy because well, I played it. Around 1:52 I begin to play the wrong riff and then get back on track:lol: Guitar tone/setup was not as methodical as I wanted it to be for a guitar tone test, but meh. It sounds pretty decent and gives you a basic idea of what the thing has been dialed in to sound like. A little more gain here than I intended as well, but I need the extra gain to be just audible with the drums.

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:45 pm
Profile
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
Ah! And, just a little stock preset compression on all tracks.

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:49 pm
Profile
Winston Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:32 pm
Posts: 11362
Location: ruining everything.
Yes/No: No
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
You need a bassplayer. Shit sounds goodman. :huzzah:

_________________
STOP FIXING ROCK RECORDS.

START YOUR OWN RELIGION TODAY.


Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:26 pm
Profile
Simethicone
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:00 pm
Posts: 11625
Location: McMurdo Research Station
Yes/No: Yes
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
Yeah, it does. :nods: And yeah, some sort of bassophone would be nice here.

This isn't tech-DM or prog or fusion; for the style it doesn't sound sloppy to me at all. Not in a fucked-up-bad way, at least.

I hate to use the word, but you're blessed with that room, seriously. Because the room does, in fact, fucking matter. Also, as I've mentioned before- but now about the guitars again too- if someone rolled in and said "mixed this" and I heard the raw tracks coming in totally blind, I would be very pleasantly surprised.

The guitar tone may be a little dirtier than you'd like, but I don't think it sounds off at all in the context of the song, especially with only the one guitar. Maybe doubling it up it might seem excessive for what you want, but it sounds cool here. Also, I'm not familiar with the gain structure of the LNT so I'm not sure how much of that is preamp vs. just amp-up-loud. (Or if there's even a preamp gain control on the thing.)

Drums sound nice too. The kick is very clear sounding even on the doubles. And I like the snare sound you get- it's probably more I like the sound of that drum in that room vs. anything special besides perhaps the mic placement.

_________________
Member Of The Radium Water Gentleman's League Of Luxury.


Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:41 am
Profile
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
By the way, this a different drum kit. Landon's (I think 20") bass drum, big steel snare, 12" rack and 16" floor tom. Love the floor tom, the rack is kinda dead/dull. Dig the snare too. Though mostly my cymbals. Kick drum does sound nice and punchylow while still having a clear attack. His drum is ported, was kinda weird fucking with that. Minimal dampening in the kick drum. Big blanket, but I moved it away from the head all but completely.

After listening again with fresh ears, I am very pleased with the guitar tone. I quite like the 990 for this it seems, did a good job of catching the jangliness of those quickstrums. I planned on just the one rhythm guitar track for everything but the recurring heavy riff, which may get a lot of geetarz.

And yes, this def needs bass, anyone interested? This is a song I wanted someone else to bass on, someone with a more groovy style than myself.

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Last edited by Broseidon on Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:32 pm
Profile
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
Ah and thank you for the kind words, bros. I am kinda stoked on how this turned out now that I have not been around loud drums and guitars all day. Could clean up pretty nicely, I think. :nods:

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Thu Oct 04, 2012 1:37 pm
Profile
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
AH! And also, the KSM sounds so much better as just a mono OH versus two 2001s in stereo. The 2001s are just waaaay too harsh.

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:15 pm
Profile
Winston Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:32 pm
Posts: 11362
Location: ruining everything.
Yes/No: No
Less/More: More
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
How much did you pay for those 2001s?

_________________
STOP FIXING ROCK RECORDS.

START YOUR OWN RELIGION TODAY.


Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:34 pm
Profile
Walrus meat
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 8:22 pm
Posts: 7769
Location: Cambrodia.
Post Re: A Barely Scientific Microphone Test
It was $75 for the both of them so I can't bitch too much. They might work well on other things. I've never tried them on snare or toms before. But I definitely wouldn't want that gnarly highend anywhere near my cymbals. Might work for an added texture on guitar or bass though.

_________________
President of the Radium Water Gentlemen's League Of Luxury


Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:29 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 431 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 22  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.