which mic to record a gong?
unita_logica
purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
specific recording. About the price, I could go around $300 or more if
it makes a real difference.
I don't plan to use the mic for anything else honestly... I'd just
really like to capture the sound of the gong as best as I can.
Can anybody suggest a few models/types/brands?
Thanks :)
--
http://myspace.com/ustrega
"Vegetable man, where the fuck are you?" (23 11 1984)
Richard Crowley
>I have a nice 22 inch Chau Gong and I adore its sound. I was thinking to
> purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
> which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
> specific recording. About the price, I could go around $300 or more if
> it makes a real difference.
>
> I don't plan to use the mic for anything else honestly... I'd just
> really like to capture the sound of the gong as best as I can.
>
> Can anybody suggest a few models/types/brands?
For that money you could rent a good studio for an hour
and get a multi-track recording of a few whacks on ALL
their good microphones.
Scott Dorsey
>I have a nice 22 inch Chau Gong and I adore its sound. I was thinking to
>purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
>which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
>specific recording. About the price, I could go around $300 or more if
>it makes a real difference.
>
>I don't plan to use the mic for anything else honestly... I'd just
>really like to capture the sound of the gong as best as I can.
>
>Can anybody suggest a few models/types/brands?
Rent a good omni, like the Schoeps or DPA stuff. You'll find that the
sound of percussion is very hard to capture well because there is so
much high frequency information to be reproduced. Try recording in
a very live room and then in a rather more dead room.
You can rent a top notch microphone for a weekend for a lot less than
$300, but you can't buy one for anything like $300.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
unita_logica
> For that money you could rent a good studio for an hour
> and get a multi-track recording of a few whacks on ALL
> their good microphones.
Thanks for your answer.
I still wouldn't know which one to use though. And in any case, I'd like
to own one so I can experiment whenever I feel like.
Ralf R. Radermacher
> I have a nice 22 inch Chau Gong and I adore its sound. I was thinking to
> purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
> which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
> specific recording.
Hmmm... a Bell microphone perhaps?
SCNR,
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
NEW! Blog: http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com NEW!
Homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
Richard Crowley
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> For that money you could rent a good studio for an hour
>> and get a multi-track recording of a few whacks on ALL
>> their good microphones.
>
> Thanks for your answer.
>
> I still wouldn't know which one to use though.
But you would be able to LISTEN to each of the mics and
have a MUCH better idea than if you just picked one
(unheard) and were then stuck with it.
> And in any case, I'd like
> to own one so I can experiment whenever I feel like.
Then you would know which one to buy/rent when needed.
Soundhaspriority
"unita_logica" <unita_...@cubelogic.org> wrote in message
news:1iurouy.1g8uxwd1u8gtgnN%unita_...@cubelogic.org...
>I have a nice 22 inch Chau Gong and I adore its sound. I was thinking to
> purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
> which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
> specific recording. About the price, I could go around $300 or more if
> it makes a real difference.
>
> I don't plan to use the mic for anything else honestly... I'd just
> really like to capture the sound of the gong as best as I can.
>
> Can anybody suggest a few models/types/brands?
>
> Thanks :)
>
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/133910-REG/Behringer_MEASUREMENT_CONDENSER_MIC_ECM8000_Omni_Directional_Measurement.html
I have used this on percussion, still do, and it works very well. It is too
noisy for general use, but it is a gong mike.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
david correia
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
I had someone do this in my place years ago. We used a buncha mics and a
buncha mic placements. And eq. It was not the simple thing you'd think
it would be to capture it well.
He walked with recordings of them all, never found out which one he
liked best. As you would imagine, all the mics and all the placements
made it sound a bit different.
One note: you will need a very quiet space to get all those wonderful
sounds of the gong slowly going to silence. Some very interesting
resonances and ringing.
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
cedricl...@gmail.com
> "unita_logica" <unita_log...@cubelogic.org> wrote in message
>
> news:1iurouy.1g8uxwd1u8gtgnN%unita_...@cubelogic.org...>I have a nice 22 inch Chau Gong and I adore its sound. I was thinking to
> > purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
> > which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
> > specific recording. About the price, I could go around $300 or more if
> > it makes a real difference.
>
> > I don't plan to use the mic for anything else honestly... I'd just
> > really like to capture the sound of the gong as best as I can.
>
> > Can anybody suggest a few models/types/brands?
>
> > Thanks :)
>
>
> I have used this on percussion, still do, and it works very well. It is too
> noisy for general use, but it is a gong mike.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
Nothing to laugh at. It was compared favorably by another engineer who
also owned the Earthworks mic it copies. He said, "he wasted $400" by
buying the Earthworks. I own three of them and keep one permanently
mounted on the balcony rail of my theater to use with SmaartLive to
ring out problem frequencies. Buy two, they're cheap.
Paul Stamler
recommendation). The OP has about three bills to spend. If he spends them on
a session to compare a bunch of microphones, he'll wind up knowing exactly
what he wants, but now he won't have the money to buy it. Not a good
strategy.
Here's what I'd suggest: go to a place that rents gear for film and video
shoots, and rent an Electro-Voice RE20. Try it in a good acoustical
environment. If you like what you hear (and I think there's a good chance
you will), buy one. The bonus is that you'll find a lot of other things you
can use it for too.
Peace,
Paul
unita_logica
> Hey, gang, I don't think you're being realistic (aside from the Behringer
> recommendation). The OP has about three bills to spend. If he spends them on
> a session to compare a bunch of microphones, he'll wind up knowing exactly
> what he wants, but now he won't have the money to buy it. Not a good
> strategy.
Yeah... plus, $300 is really a max reference figure and I'd rather spend
much less. I put it out there because I don't know what I am looking
into exactly...
And about renting, my local music store can probably let me try some
mics and I can return them if I don't like them. I did that in the past
for other items.
> Here's what I'd suggest: go to a place that rents gear for film and video
> shoots, and rent an Electro-Voice RE20. Try it in a good acoustical
> environment. If you like what you hear (and I think there's a good chance
> you will), buy one. The bonus is that you'll find a lot of other things you
> can use it for too.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into the RE20. Today at the music
store they recommended the SE Electronics SE2200, which they will sell
me for $250. From what I read seems a very good microphone, has anybody
opinions or tried it?
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep03/articles/semics.htm
Arny Krueger
<cedricl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80ab1f4c-5111-46cc...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "unita_logica" <unita_log...@cubelogic.org> wrote in message
>
> news:1iurouy.1g8uxwd1u8gtgnN%unita_...@cubelogic.org...>I have a nice
> 22 inch Chau Gong and I adore its sound. I was thinking to
> > purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
> > which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
> > specific recording. About the price, I could go around $300 or more if
> > it makes a real difference.
>
> > I don't plan to use the mic for anything else honestly... I'd just
> > really like to capture the sound of the gong as best as I can.
> You will laugh, but if I'm wrong, you've lost fifty
> bucks:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/133910-REG/Behringer_MEASUREMEN...
> I have used this on percussion, still do, and it works very well. It is
> too
> noisy for general use, but it is a gong mike.
Nothing to laugh at. It was compared favorably by another engineer who
also owned the Earthworks mic it copies. He said, "he wasted $400" by
buying the Earthworks. I own three of them and keep one permanently
mounted on the balcony rail of my theater to use with SmaartLive to
ring out problem frequencies. Buy two, they're cheap.
I'm under the impression that the Earthworks are quieter. But for many
applications, that's moot.
Mike Rivers
> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into the RE20. Today at the music
> store they recommended the SE Electronics SE2200, which they will sell
> me for $250.
There are so many good microphones today. No matter what you get, you're
likely to get a reasonable recording of your gong. A different mic will
give you
a slightly different sound. Hitting the gong differently will give you a
different
sound. Hitting it on a different day will give you a different sound.
There is no
one "sound of your gong" other than the one that you choose from your
recordings.
Out of curiosity, what are you going to do with a recording of a gong
anyway?
--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
(mriv...@d-and-d.com)
Soundhaspriority
> Paul Stamler <psta...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>> Here's what I'd suggest: go to a place that rents gear for film and video
>> shoots, and rent an Electro-Voice RE20. Try it in a good acoustical
>> environment. If you like what you hear (and I think there's a good chance
>> you will), buy one. The bonus is that you'll find a lot of other things
>> you
>> can use it for too.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into the RE20. Today at the music
> store they recommended the SE Electronics SE2200, which they will sell
> me for $250. From what I read seems a very good microphone, has anybody
> opinions or tried it?
>
> http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep03/articles/semics.htm
>
Unita,
The Behringer ECM-8000 is a measurement mike, which means that it is
made for flat frequency response at the expense of other characteristics,
with a very small diaphragm that puts the resonances above the audible
range. The SE2200 is a large diaphragm mike, the class of which have many
frequency anomalies and resonances in the diaphragm itself. You will hear
both the gong and the diaphragm resonances.
I have an RE27N/D, which is an improved version of the RE20. Both are
"dynamic mikes", and do not approach 20 kHz with usable frequency response.
I do not understand why Paul would make that recommendation. I use my RE27
on kick drums, because it cannot be overloaded by the huge pressure wave
generated by the drum. This is not an issue for a gong. But I have found the
ECM-8000 to outperform large diaphragm mikes at any price point in capturing
percussive material with extended harmonics, which includes the gong.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Scott Dorsey
>Paul Stamler <psta...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's what I'd suggest: go to a place that rents gear for film and video
>> shoots, and rent an Electro-Voice RE20. Try it in a good acoustical
>> environment. If you like what you hear (and I think there's a good chance
>> you will), buy one. The bonus is that you'll find a lot of other things you
>> can use it for too.
>
>Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into the RE20. Today at the music
>store they recommended the SE Electronics SE2200, which they will sell
>me for $250. From what I read seems a very good microphone, has anybody
>opinions or tried it?
>
>http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep03/articles/semics.htm
All the Shanghai microphones, including the SEs, have issues in the top
octave. Go into the store with a keyring. Listen to the keys jingle,
then listen to the keys jingle through the mike and a good pair of
headphones. You'll understand instantly what I am talking about.
The RE-20 has different and less offensive top octave issues. It would
not be my first choice for the job, but it will be better than most of
the mikes you'll find in that price range. And it is very versatile.
It's a mike everyone should have.
There are actually two Behringer mikes with the same part number and you
don't know which you have until you open them. The 8000 without the
transformer is actually very clean on top, but it's noisy. That will
be a problem if you want to distant-mike the gong in a large and bright
room, which is a thing I would suggest doing. The 8000 with the transformer
again has major high frequency problems. Try doing the key jingle test
in the store again... if it passes the test, it's the one without the
transformer.
Soundhaspriority
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gmmmml$224$1...@panix2.panix.com...
A quieter, better grade alternative is the Audix TR-40:
http://www.audixusa.com/docs/products/TR40A.shtml
purchasable at
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/242622-REG/Audix_TR40_TR_40_Microphone.html
I recently used a pair of these on a Schneider disk to record
vocalist/piano, in an empty concert hall. The mikes are sufficiently quiet
that self-noise was masked by ambient.
Unita might consider recording the gong in stereo.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
0jun...@bellsouth.net
On 2009-02-08 psta...@pobox.com said:
>Here's what I'd suggest: go to a place that rents gear for film and
>video shoots, and rent an Electro-Voice RE20. Try it in a good
>acoustical environment. If you like what you hear (and I think
>there's a good chance you will), buy one. The bonus is that you'll
>find a lot of other things you can use it for too.
response to the question he posed and take Paul's advice.
HE'll get a versatile microphone that will capture his
source reasonably well and will still be satisfactory ten
years down the road. tHe ev is a tool everyone should have
in their kit if they're serious about recording or capturing
sound. sOunds good on a variety of voices, that's why it's
a broadcasting standard. sOunds good on many instrumental
sources as well. dOn't even rent one first, just buy it!
Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin, NOvember 1755 from the
Historical review of Pennsylvania
hank alrich
<snipped Behringer ECM8000 threadlet tributary>
> Nothing to laugh at. It was compared favorably by another engineer who
> also owned the Earthworks mic it copies. He said, "he wasted $400" by
> buying the Earthworks. I own three of them and keep one permanently
> mounted on the balcony rail of my theater to use with SmaartLive to
> ring out problem frequencies. Buy two, they're cheap.
>
> I'm under the impression that the Earthworks are quieter. But for many
> applications, that's moot.
I find interesting the difference in impluse response plots between the
Earthworks models, with the most costly mic having the cleanest
response. I wonder what an impulse run on the Beri looks like?
--
ha
shut up and play your guitar
Les Cargill
Somebody ran a frequency response on them ( not necessarily an
impulse response.) I've been pretty busy, or I'd get off me behind
and run one for the transformer-bearing model. I'd have
to build the spark-gap generator first. Meh. "I would
prefer not to" - Bartleby the Scrivener.
http://www.cross-spectrum.com/cslmics/001_mic_report.pdf
http://www.cross-spectrum.com/measurement/calibrated_behringer.html
They're apparently offering a calibration-series-plus-ECM8000
as a product, I would guess for audiophiles to RTA rooms
out with.
Salient detail:
"This frequency response measurement is not a NIST-traceable
calibration." Interesting..... I am guessong ONLY, but it
looks like they swept a chamber with both mics in the chamber
and published both plots, rather than doing the spark-gap
generator thing. But that's purely a guess.
No idea if the plot is for the transformer model or the
transformerless model. I believe that the plot close to the
bottom is the known-good reference mic, so all that hair
in the FFT is within the ECM8000 itself.
It's a $50 mic. Whaddaya want? :)
--
Les Cargill
Scott Dorsey
It depends a lot on the luck of the draw. If you get a good one, it can
be pretty good. The capsule the Behringer uses is a Chinese copy of the
Japanese-made capsules the Earthworks use, made by Horn.
Paul Stamler
news:FbKdneUn6vxcQBPU...@giganews.com...
> I have an RE27N/D, which is an improved version of the RE20.
Actually, it's not; it's a rather different microphone. Better for a few
things, worse for others.
> Both are "dynamic mikes", and do not approach 20 kHz with usable frequency
> response. I do not understand why Paul would make that recommendation.
Because I've actually used RE20s, and they are in fact capable of more
high-frequency response than most dynamic mics. Over and above that, I've
come to favor dynamic mics for certain kinds of percussion -- spoons,
blocks, etc. -- because the dynamic mic picks up the sound without adding
ringing in the upper range. Mike a spoon player with a typical condenser
mic, and you'll get all "clink" and no "clack", losing the essential
rhythmic drive. Mike the same player with a good dynamic, like an RE20 or a
Sennheiser MD441, and you'll hear something more like what you really hear
when the player plays in the room.
There are condenser mics which don't add exaggerated ringing, but almost all
of them are well over $1000 (Sennheiser MKH series, Schoeps, etc.). The
little Behringer measurement mic is an exception, and I mentioned it. But my
bet is that while the Behr gives okay results, an RE20 will give better
results.
An RE15 might do even better, but they're out of production, so you're
limited to used units. These change with age, so their reponse varies all
over the map; some sound magical, some quite dull. That's why I settled on
recommending the RE20 -- which, as noted, is also good for a lot of other
things.
Peace,
Paul
unita_logica
> A different mic will give you
> a slightly different sound. Hitting the gong differently will give you a
> different
> sound. Hitting it on a different day will give you a different sound.
> There is no
> one "sound of your gong" other than the one that you choose from your
> recordings.
Exactly. That's one reason the gong is so fascinating to me. And that's
also why I want to record it,
> Out of curiosity, what are you going to do with a recording of a gong
> anyway?
I play in a band (see sig) and I wanted to use those sounds in some way.
I don't know how yet though, I just love its sounds.
--
http://myspace.com/ustrega
http://ilike.com/artist/Ustr%253Fga
unita_logica
extremely valuable and you people are very informative to a novice like
myself. So thanks. :)
Soundhaspriority <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "unita_logica" <unita_...@cubelogic.org> wrote in message
> news:1iuspyz.1ut6mox90acnzN%unita_...@cubelogic.org...
>
> > Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into the RE20. Today at the music
> > store they recommended the SE Electronics SE2200, which they will sell
> > me for $250. From what I read seems a very good microphone, has anybody
> > opinions or tried it?
> >
> > http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep03/articles/semics.htm
> >
> Unita,
> The Behringer ECM-8000 is a measurement mike, which means that it is
> made for flat frequency response at the expense of other characteristics,
> with a very small diaphragm that puts the resonances above the audible
> range. The SE2200 is a large diaphragm mike, the class of which have many
> frequency anomalies and resonances in the diaphragm itself. You will hear
> both the gong and the diaphragm resonances.
I do like a flat response. About the diaphragm: the thing is that the
gong can produce very subtle sounds, which I want/need to catch, but is
also able to produce very loud volumes. So I am wondering and I'm just
using common sense and simple physics knowledge.... if the diaphragm is
too big (like maybe the SE2200?), will I lose those beautiful overtones
and subtleties of the sound? But then, if it's too small, would it
easily distort?
Of the two ends, I very much care more about catching the subtleties
rather than the loudness. So I guess the noise level of the mic would
also play an important role.
> I have an RE27N/D, which is an improved version of the RE20. Both are
> "dynamic mikes", and do not approach 20 kHz with usable frequency response.
> I do not understand why Paul would make that recommendation. I use my RE27
> on kick drums, because it cannot be overloaded by the huge pressure wave
> generated by the drum. This is not an issue for a gong.
Generally speaking, does a 22" gong still have a low SPL even when hit
hard? I can imagine a kick drum to be on the high end of the overloading
scale, I wonder where my gong stand and if I need to worry about
overloading the mic.
> But I have found the
> ECM-8000 to outperform large diaphragm mikes at any price point in capturing
> percussive material with extended harmonics, which includes the gong.
Very interesting... I need to resarch that mic more (I'm at work now...
yeah I know it's Sunday) -- for that price it imposes consideration.
Soundhaspriority
1.If the diaphragm is too big, the sound will be distorted by ringing of the
diaphragm, excited by the frequencies you want to reproduce. IMHO, the most
beautiful ones ;)
2.A smaller diaphragm will be characterized by higher harmonic distortion,
and it will overload at a lower level.
I don't think there's a formula that you can crank for the optimal choice.
But my personal observations were that the ECM-8000 got much better high hat
sound than commercial recordings I've heard that, presumably, used very
expensive Neumanns for the purpose. Here, physics seems to trump quality.
I did not hear anything that sounded like overload with the high hats. The
harmonic distortion that increases as the overload limit is approached was
masked by the naturally very rich harmonic content of the high hats. On the
other hand, a vocalist is not so harmonically rich, and it might have been
painfully obvious.
Choosing is like sleight of hand; the right mike captures the most important
things, while the deficiencies are correspondingly masked.
> Of the two ends, I very much care more about catching the subtleties
> rather than the loudness. So I guess the noise level of the mic would
> also play an important role.
>
>> I have an RE27N/D, which is an improved version of the RE20. Both
>> are
>> "dynamic mikes", and do not approach 20 kHz with usable frequency
>> response.
>> I do not understand why Paul would make that recommendation. I use my
>> RE27
>> on kick drums, because it cannot be overloaded by the huge pressure wave
>> generated by the drum. This is not an issue for a gong.
>
> Generally speaking, does a 22" gong still have a low SPL even when hit
> hard? I can imagine a kick drum to be on the high end of the overloading
> scale, I wonder where my gong stand and if I need to worry about
> overloading the mic.
>
The kick drum is baffled, which creates a huge pressure wave. The gong can
be very loud, but as it is unbaffled, it isn't going to act like a vortex
gun. The Behringer can go up to around 125 dB. Also, an omnidirectional
mike has frequency response which is independent of distance. With a
directional, ie., cardioid mike, the specified response is good only at a
specific distance. Go too close, there's a bass bump. Go too far back, it
thins out. With an omni, you can back off a bit, assuming the room is quiet.
If the space is right, you might get some marvelous ambience.
Also note that the Behringer is flat to around 20 Hz (they say 15, but hey!)
No cardioid mike can go that low if placed at a distance. You might get it
from a cardioid at a foot.
>> But I have found the
>> ECM-8000 to outperform large diaphragm mikes at any price point in
>> capturing
>> percussive material with extended harmonics, which includes the gong.
>
> Very interesting... I need to resarch that mic more (I'm at work now...
> yeah I know it's Sunday) -- for that price it imposes consideration.
>
Whatever else you get, pick up one :) I think you won't be sorry.
Let me know when "Dinner is served" :)
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
RD Jones
> I do like a flat response.
No mike is really flat responding, but the closer you get to
flat the more natural the sound will be, obviously.
Generally the flatter mics will take EQ better, if needed.
> About the diaphragm: the thing is that the
> gong can produce very subtle sounds, which I want/need to catch, but is
> also able to produce very loud volumes. So I am wondering and I'm just
> using common sense and simple physics knowledge.... if the diaphragm is
> too big (like maybe the SE2200?), will I lose those beautiful overtones
> and subtleties of the sound?
The larger diaphragm is harder to make flat responding.
Also, the off axis sound is going to vary more as compared to
the on axis which is going to color the sound of the room more.
The larger capsule also needs a bigger housing and screen
assembly which brings their resonances down further into the
audible range.
> But then, if it's too small, would it
> easily distort?
No, not really.
> Of the two ends, I very much care more about catching the subtleties
> rather than the loudness. So I guess the noise level of the mic would
> also play an important role.
The gong will have a long tail that fades out. The noise level
of the mic, the room, and the preamp will determine what the
tail fades to. Unless the mic is really noisy the room will likely
be the dominant background noise.
> Generally speaking, does a 22" gong still have a low SPL even when hit
> hard? I can imagine a kick drum to be on the high end of the overloading
> scale, I wonder where my gong stand and if I need to worry about
> overloading the mic.
The tail fade is your low SPL no matter how hard it's hit.
I don't think you'll have any (mic) overload.
rd
Jenn
<9210feeb-d21d-44ab...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Presuming that we're really speaking of a tam-tam and not a gong, the
instrument has to have the longest tail there is, no? Which also makes
it among the most difficult instruments to control properly.
hank alrich
hank alrich
> In article
> <9210feeb-d21d-44ab...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> RD Jones <ann...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> > The gong will have a long tail that fades out.
>
> Presuming that we're really speaking of a tam-tam and not a gong, the
> instrument has to have the longest tail there is, no?
So does this "long tail theory" stuff include a bunch of kickin' the
gong around?
> Which also makes
> it among the most difficult instruments to control properly.
Yeah, that follows.
Les Cargill
> Les Cargill <lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> It's a $50 mic. Whaddaya want? :)
>
> Satisfaction! <g>
>
It's matched Schoeps at ten paces then!
--
Les Cargill
Chris Hornbeck
wrote:
>So does this "long tail theory" stuff include a bunch of kickin' the
>gong around?
>
>> Which also makes
>> it among the most difficult instruments to control properly.
>
>Yeah, that follows.
Arf! Our good friends and secret masters (not to be read aloud) in
the People's Republic of China are having trouble with one of the
Gong sects, and even imprisoning some leaders hasn't helped. Comrade,
we must arise to help suppressing the Gongs.
With this purpose in mind I went to the outdoor range yesterday
and practiced striking Gong-sized targets at 7 meters. Kinda
shaky with age but I almost never miss a Gong at that distance
fast-fired from tupperware 9mm.
Ambient noise is a real problem at the range, as is monitoring
through both ear plugs and a pair of Senn 280's (good for something).
Also, International Paper targets aren't really as musical as a
real Gong being stuck in the righteous fury of the People.
Properly controlling these instruments is difficult but necessary.
Hopefully measures even harsher than 9mm hollow points won't
prove to be needed. But...
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
Eric B
> I have a nice 22 inch Chau Gong and I adore its sound. I was thinking to
> purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
> which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
> specific recording. About the price, I could go around $300 or more if
> it makes a real difference.
>
> I don't plan to use the mic for anything else honestly... I'd just
> really like to capture the sound of the gong as best as I can.
>
>
> Thanks :)
>
> "Vegetable man, where the fuck are you?" (23 11 1984)
Use an omni! dbx, bheckringer, earthworks (used). Where are you?
Record a bunch of strikes and use them as needed.
Eric B
Eric B
> <cedriclathan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:80ab1f4c-5111-46cc...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 4:17 pm, "Soundhaspriority" <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "unita_logica" <unita_log...@cubelogic.org> wrote in message
>
> > 22 inch Chau Gong and I adore its sound. I was thinking to
> > > purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
> > > which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
> > > specific recording. About the price, I could go around $300 or more if
> > > it makes a real difference.
>
> > > I don't plan to use the mic for anything else honestly... I'd just
> > > really like to capture the sound of the gong as best as I can.
> > You will laugh, but if I'm wrong, you've lost fifty
> > bucks:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/133910-REG/Behringer_MEASUREMEN...
> > I have used this on percussion, still do, and it works very well. It is
> > too
> > noisy for general use, but it is a gong mike.
>
> Nothing to laugh at. It was compared favorably by another engineer who
> also owned the Earthworks mic it copies. He said, "he wasted $400" by
> buying the Earthworks. I own three of them and keep one permanently
> mounted on the balcony rail of my theater to use with SmaartLive to
> ring out problem frequencies. Buy two, they're cheap.
>
> I'm under the impression that the Earthworks are quieter. But for many
> applications, that's moot.
The Earthworks have greater headroom, which for a gong may relevant.
But they cost more.
hank alrich
david correia
Chris Hornbeck <chrishornbe...@att.net> wrote:
"May I see your passport, please."
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
Fletch
> I have a nice 22 inch Chau Gong and I adore its sound. I was thinking to
> purchase a microphone to record it, but alas I have no real knowledge on
> which kind of mic and which brands/models are better suited for this
> specific recording. About the price, I could go around $300 or more if
> it makes a real difference.
>
> I don't plan to use the mic for anything else honestly... I'd just
> really like to capture the sound of the gong as best as I can.
>
>
> Thanks :)
>
> --http://myspace.com/ustrega
> "Vegetable man, where the fuck are you?" (23 11 1984)
Okay, stupid thought...
On The Moody Blues album "Days Of Future Past" there is a gong at the
end that rings forever.
What mic was used on that particular session to capture that gong?
One may be surprised by the answer... which i don't actually know.
Just a thought... stupid or otherwise.
--Fletch
unita_logica
> "unita_logica" <unita_...@cubelogic.org> wrote in message
> news:1iutjmk.lv3q5z11ud7bqN%unita_...@cubelogic.org...
> >> The Behringer ECM-8000 is a measurement mike, which means that it is
> >> made for flat frequency response at the expense of other characteristics,
what are these other characteristics that you think are missing in the
ECM-8000?
> >> with a very small diaphragm that puts the resonances above the audible
> >> range. The SE2200 is a large diaphragm mike, the class of which have many
> >> frequency anomalies and resonances in the diaphragm itself. You will hear
> >> both the gong and the diaphragm resonances.
>
> 1.If the diaphragm is too big, the sound will be distorted by ringing of the
> diaphragm, excited by the frequencies you want to reproduce. IMHO, the most
> beautiful ones ;)
Is the ringing of the diaphragm caused by bad design of the SE2200 or by
that typology (large diaphragm) of mikes? Or additionally, do they
happen only in certain application circumstances, and if so which ones?
> 2.A smaller diaphragm will be characterized by higher harmonic distortion,
> and it will overload at a lower level.
Maybe this is less of a problem. I don't plan to strike the gong as hard
as I can, that's not the sound I like. I do like a round big sound
though, just not the most extreme. Like I said my objective is more to
capture the subtleties, and that's probably more difficult because it
also involves dealing with environment noise. Speaking of this, the
ECM-8000 seems more indicated in one way, but probably the SE2200 deals
betters with environment noise by being a cardioid? (if I position it
properly)
> I don't think there's a formula that you can crank for the optimal choice.
> But my personal observations were that the ECM-8000 got much better high hat
> sound than commercial recordings I've heard that, presumably, used very
> expensive Neumanns for the purpose. Here, physics seems to trump quality.
Do you know if it covers bass just as well? I know it has a flat
response, I was wondering if you tried it with a fuller sound source
also.
> The kick drum is baffled, which creates a huge pressure wave. The gong can
> be very loud, but as it is unbaffled, it isn't going to act like a vortex
> gun. The Behringer can go up to around 125 dB. Also, an omnidirectional
> mike has frequency response which is independent of distance. With a
> directional, ie., cardioid mike, the specified response is good only at a
> specific distance. Go too close, there's a bass bump. Go too far back, it
> thins out. With an omni, you can back off a bit, assuming the room is quiet.
> If the space is right, you might get some marvelous ambience.
Very clear. Thank you so much Bob. :)
unita_logica
unita_logica
> Over and above that, I've
> come to favor dynamic mics for certain kinds of percussion -- spoons,
> blocks, etc. -- because the dynamic mic picks up the sound without adding
> ringing in the upper range. Mike a spoon player with a typical condenser
> mic, and you'll get all "clink" and no "clack", losing the essential
> rhythmic drive. Mike the same player with a good dynamic, like an RE20 or a
> Sennheiser MD441, and you'll hear something more like what you really hear
> when the player plays in the room.
what other dynamic mikes would you suggest? BTW I can't afford the RE20
or the MD441 you mentioned. :)
Paul Stamler
> Paul Stamler <psta...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> Over and above that, I've
>> come to favor dynamic mics for certain kinds of percussion -- spoons,
>> blocks, etc. -- because the dynamic mic picks up the sound without adding
>> ringing in the upper range. Mike a spoon player with a typical condenser
>> mic, and you'll get all "clink" and no "clack", losing the essential
>> rhythmic drive. Mike the same player with a good dynamic, like an RE20 or
>> a
>> Sennheiser MD441, and you'll hear something more like what you really
>> hear
>> when the player plays in the room.
>
> what other dynamic mikes would you suggest? BTW I can't afford the RE20
> or the MD441 you mentioned. :)
Well, I did mention the RE15, which shows up pretty frequently on e-bay. It
is something of a gamble, since they vary, but it's a reasonably ow-cost
gamble, and if it doesn't work out you can sell it and get your money back.
You also might look into a used RE20; they do show up, although not nearly
as often. MD441s never show up used.
Also look into a Beyer M201.
Peace,
Paul
Scott Dorsey
>Soundhaspriority <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> "unita_logica" <unita_...@cubelogic.org> wrote in message
>> news:1iutjmk.lv3q5z11ud7bqN%unita_...@cubelogic.org...
>> >> The Behringer ECM-8000 is a measurement mike, which means that it is
>> >> made for flat frequency response at the expense of other characteristics,
>
>what are these other characteristics that you think are missing in the
>ECM-8000?
Noise floor, linearity (ie. low level distortion because of the way they bias
the front end), and overload level. But it's still a very useful mike
_because_ the constraints that went into the design are very different than
those that went into other cheap mikes.
>> 1.If the diaphragm is too big, the sound will be distorted by ringing of the
>> diaphragm, excited by the frequencies you want to reproduce. IMHO, the most
>> beautiful ones ;)
>
>Is the ringing of the diaphragm caused by bad design of the SE2200 or by
>that typology (large diaphragm) of mikes? Or additionally, do they
>happen only in certain application circumstances, and if so which ones?
Okay, there are really a bunch of different things going on here. As the
diaphragm gets to be larger, it no longer acts like a piston at high
frequencies but begins to develop breakup modes. This can be a bad thing
but it can also be used to add high-frequency peakiness that a lot of people
like for some things (but which can be bad news on a gong).
Secondly, as the diaphragm gets larger, it becomes more directional at
high frequencies. It's possible to compensate for this in some ways by
using acoustical filters (as some classic large diaphragm mikes have done),
but it's also part of what people like about the microphones for close
miking. In the case of a cardioid microphone, the beaminess due to the
diaphragm size can be part of the pattern control.
BUT.... many of the problems with Chinese mikes don't have to do with the
capsule at all, but have to do with the body and grille design. If you
have flat surfaces inside the grille which reflect sound, you can set up
standing waves at high frequencies inside the mike. If you have metal
parts which are not well supported, they can vibrate when excited at their
resonant frequency, and create huge narrowband spikes in the response.
I can't give you details about particular problems in that mike for legal
reasons but I suggest you look very strongly at the grille basket and the
way the capsule is supported.
>> 2.A smaller diaphragm will be characterized by higher harmonic distortion,
>> and it will overload at a lower level.
This is not accurate.
>Maybe this is less of a problem. I don't plan to strike the gong as hard
>as I can, that's not the sound I like. I do like a round big sound
>though, just not the most extreme. Like I said my objective is more to
>capture the subtleties, and that's probably more difficult because it
>also involves dealing with environment noise. Speaking of this, the
>ECM-8000 seems more indicated in one way, but probably the SE2200 deals
>betters with environment noise by being a cardioid? (if I position it
>properly)
In general, it's a lot easier to make a good cheap omni than a good cheap
cardioid. If you want good transient response and you don't want to pay
a lot of money, you probably want an omni. Again, do the key jingle test
and you will see what I mean.
>> I don't think there's a formula that you can crank for the optimal choice.
>> But my personal observations were that the ECM-8000 got much better high hat
>> sound than commercial recordings I've heard that, presumably, used very
>> expensive Neumanns for the purpose. Here, physics seems to trump quality.
>
>Do you know if it covers bass just as well? I know it has a flat
>response, I was wondering if you tried it with a fuller sound source
>also.
It does, if you get a good one (ie. not the model ECM-8000 with the
transformer).
The key jingle test will tell you maybe 75% of what you want to know about
a microphone, and it will tell you everything you need to know about the
top octave and the impulse response.
Shameless Plug:
Note that the DIY microphone article in this month's Recording magazine
is a similar design to the ECM-8000... except that it has a higher quality
capsule which costs $3 instead of the $0.30 capsule the ECM-8000 uses.
You can build the whole thing for $15 in a half hour if you're good at fine
soldering. It's not a Schoeps, but for $15 it doesn't have to be.
Soundhaspriority
> Soundhaspriority <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> "unita_logica" <unita_...@cubelogic.org> wrote in message
>> news:1iutjmk.lv3q5z11ud7bqN%unita_...@cubelogic.org...
>> >> The Behringer ECM-8000 is a measurement mike, which means that it is
>> >> made for flat frequency response at the expense of other
>> >> characteristics,
>
> what are these other characteristics that you think are missing in the
> ECM-8000?
>
>> >> with a very small diaphragm that puts the resonances above the audible
>> >> range. The SE2200 is a large diaphragm mike, the class of which have
>> >> many
>> >> frequency anomalies and resonances in the diaphragm itself. You will
>> >> hear
>> >> both the gong and the diaphragm resonances.
>>
>> 1.If the diaphragm is too big, the sound will be distorted by ringing of
>> the
>> diaphragm, excited by the frequencies you want to reproduce. IMHO, the
>> most
>> beautiful ones ;)
>
> Is the ringing of the diaphragm caused by bad design of the SE2200 or by
> that typology (large diaphragm) of mikes? Or additionally, do they
> happen only in certain application circumstances, and if so which ones?
>
They compute the modes of two diaphragms. Judging by the age of the problem,
it seems to have been inspired by Neumann mikes. It turns out that the
diaphragm is the modal equivalent of a drum head. It has modes. Any time it
is excited by anything, it will exhibit standing waves. In consequence, the
frequency response of any large diaphragm mike is a jagged mess. The
original purpose of microphones with these large diaphragms was to provide
enough signal for the primitive electronics that then existed. These
microphones continue to exist because of the peculiar association of the
buyer with heft and size with a "good" microphone. The performer needs to be
flattered as well; hence we have chrome grills and lollipop designs. Most of
these mike give "designer" impressions of voices. As such, they are an
important part of the arsenal of a studio, but not for this.
As the size of the diaphragm is reduced, the modes shift upwards in
frequency. With a diaphragm size of 6mm, as opposed to 25 or 30mm, the modes
are shifted up by around a factor of 6, mostly out of the audible range, and
certainly, out of the sensitive midrange. This is how physics trumps
quality; the 6mm capsule may cost $.30, but it doesn't have the same modal
problems.
Scott appears to have some kind of consulting relationship that gives him
specific insight into the microphone of your interest. Large diaphragm mikes
can be made worse than the technically have to be by unwise choices such as
those he hints at. I would listen to him carefully.
>> 2.A smaller diaphragm will be characterized by higher harmonic
>> distortion,
>> and it will overload at a lower level.
>
> Maybe this is less of a problem. I don't plan to strike the gong as hard
> as I can, that's not the sound I like. I do like a round big sound
> though, just not the most extreme. Like I said my objective is more to
> capture the subtleties, and that's probably more difficult because it
> also involves dealing with environment noise.
You won't hear the mike harmonics, because the source is so rich in
harmonics.
> Speaking of this, the
> ECM-8000 seems more indicated in one way, but probably the SE2200 deals
> betters with environment noise by being a cardioid? (if I position it
> properly)
>
This is true. If you must record your gong in a noisy location, it could be
a factor. However, the noise attenuation of a cardioid is not that great.
You can get roughly the same ratio of wanted to unwanted sound by using the
omni at 1/2 the distance.
>> I don't think there's a formula that you can crank for the optimal
>> choice.
>> But my personal observations were that the ECM-8000 got much better high
>> hat
>> sound than commercial recordings I've heard that, presumably, used very
>> expensive Neumanns for the purpose. Here, physics seems to trump quality.
>
> Do you know if it covers bass just as well? I know it has a flat
> response, I was wondering if you tried it with a fuller sound source
> also.
>
Omnidirectional microphones roll off only to the extent that the designer
intended; they can be very flat. While I have not tested the mike for bass
response, there has been no public commentary indicating that the ECM-8000
has a bass rolloff. If it did, they could not sell it for the primary
purpose of most users, which is to fiddle with room bass response. On the
other hand, theory demands that a cardioid roll off at low frequencies.
There is no escape in general. The only thing you can do is position the
cardioid at the single distance that provides the bass you want. But built
into the cardioid mike also is a "hump" in the bass frequency response. You
can't control this.
>> The kick drum is baffled, which creates a huge pressure wave. The gong
>> can
>> be very loud, but as it is unbaffled, it isn't going to act like a vortex
>> gun. The Behringer can go up to around 125 dB. Also, an omnidirectional
>> mike has frequency response which is independent of distance. With a
>> directional, ie., cardioid mike, the specified response is good only at a
>> specific distance. Go too close, there's a bass bump. Go too far back, it
>> thins out. With an omni, you can back off a bit, assuming the room is
>> quiet.
>> If the space is right, you might get some marvelous ambience.
>
> Very clear. Thank you so much Bob. :)
>
Welcome.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Fletch
> "unita_logica" <unita_log...@cubelogic.org> wrote in message
>
> news:1iuy0jg.1pk4aba14uwvztN%unita_...@cubelogic.org...
>
> > Paul Stamler <pstam...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> Over and above that, I've
> >> come to favor dynamic mics for certain kinds of percussion -- spoons,
> >> blocks, etc. -- because the dynamic mic picks up the sound without adding
> >> ringing in the upper range. Mike a spoon player with a typical condenser
> >> mic, and you'll get all "clink" and no "clack", losing the essential
> >> rhythmic drive. Mike the same player with a good dynamic, like an RE20 or
> >> a
> >> Sennheiser MD441, and you'll hear something more like what you really
> >> hear
> >> when the player plays in the room.
>
> > what other dynamic mikes would you suggest? BTW I can't afford the RE20
> > or the MD441 you mentioned. :)
>
> Well, I did mention the RE15, which shows up pretty frequently on e-bay. It
> is something of a gamble, since they vary, but it's a reasonably ow-cost
> gamble, and if it doesn't work out you can sell it and get your money back.
>
> You also might look into a used RE20; they do show up, although not nearly
> as often. MD441s never show up used.
>
> Also look into a Beyer M201.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
I got a couple of the RE15s last year for about 80 bucks each, I
think. Great shape and very smooth sounding. Good purchase option.
Test if you can first, though.
--Fletch
nebulax
> Paul Stamler <pstam...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Over and above that, I've
> > come to favor dynamic mics for certain kinds of percussion -- spoons,
> > blocks, etc. -- because the dynamic mic picks up the sound without adding
> > ringing in the upper range. Mike a spoon player with a typical condenser
> > mic, and you'll get all "clink" and no "clack", losing the essential
> > rhythmic drive. Mike the same player with a good dynamic, like an RE20 or a
> > Sennheiser MD441, and you'll hear something more like what you really hear
> > when the player plays in the room.
>
> what other dynamic mikes would you suggest? BTW I can't afford the RE20
> or the MD441 you mentioned. :)
>
A ribbon mic might give you the full-bodied sound you're looking for,
without any added ringing on the high frequencies. Sometimes ribbons
can be dark sounding, but they usually respond well to having a little
top-end EQ boost There are so many affordable ribbon mics out there
now that I don't really know what to recommend, but maybe others could
chime in with their favorites.
-Neb
Scott Dorsey
>
>A ribbon mic might give you the full-bodied sound you're looking for,
>without any added ringing on the high frequencies. Sometimes ribbons
>can be dark sounding, but they usually respond well to having a little
>top-end EQ boost There are so many affordable ribbon mics out there
>now that I don't really know what to recommend, but maybe others could
>chime in with their favorites.
Well, here we are back to the question about what kind of sound you want.
1. A good small diaphragm condenser microphone will have an accurate top
end and clearly reproduce the high frequencies. It accurately reproduces
transients.
2. A cheap condenser microphone with top end problems will tend to make
the top end artificial and shrieky. It has poor control when trying to
reproduce transients.
3. A ribbon mike (and to some extent an RE-20) will tend to smooth over
transients and mellow out the top end. This is a good thing or a bad
thing depending on the sound you want.
It's kind of ironic that the reason why ribbon mikes became popular in the
first place is that in the thirties and forties they had better transient
response than anything else available. Today they are popular because of
their poorer transient response.
In the ribbon range, I'd try a Beyer M-160 before anything else, but
again... do the key jingle test and listen to what the top end sounds like.
Either it's a sound you want or a sound you don't, and you'll know when you
hear the keys.
unita_logica
>
> A ribbon mic might give you the full-bodied sound you're looking for,
> without any added ringing on the high frequencies. Sometimes ribbons
> can be dark sounding, but they usually respond well to having a little
> top-end EQ boost There are so many affordable ribbon mics out there
> now that I don't really know what to recommend, but maybe others could
> chime in with their favorites.
I'd be interested in hearing a few names. I guess I didn't really
consider them so far...
Fletch
I love the key test for this application. It's immediate and telling
of what is going on. Simple and elegant. Oh, if most things were such.
--Fletch
Soundhaspriority
> nebulax <neb...@earthling.net> wrote:
>>
>> A ribbon mic might give you the full-bodied sound you're looking for,
>> without any added ringing on the high frequencies. Sometimes ribbons
>> can be dark sounding, but they usually respond well to having a little
>> top-end EQ boost There are so many affordable ribbon mics out there
>> now that I don't really know what to recommend, but maybe others could
>> chime in with their favorites.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing a few names. I guess I didn't really
> consider them so far...
>
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
unita_logica
> nebulax <neb...@earthling.net> wrote:
> >
> >A ribbon mic might give you the full-bodied sound you're looking for,
> >without any added ringing on the high frequencies. Sometimes ribbons
> >can be dark sounding, but they usually respond well to having a little
> >top-end EQ boost There are so many affordable ribbon mics out there
> >now that I don't really know what to recommend, but maybe others could
> >chime in with their favorites.
>
> Well, here we are back to the question about what kind of sound you want.
the sound I want is a faithful reproduction of the rich sound of the
gong... so as far as the frequencies, I consider them all important if
that's possible. Probably if I had to choose, I prefer the medium low.
However, I think you're asking for something different but I don't know
how to respond other than this. I can tell you I won't be hitting the
gong extremely hard, I actually like the sound it makes when lightly
touched with the mallet. I'm also looking to record the long tail of
the soundwave. I'm not sure I responded your question: I'm not a sound
technician unfortunately.
> 1. A good small diaphragm condenser microphone will have an accurate top
> end and clearly reproduce the high frequencies. It accurately reproduces
> transients.
My understanding is that transients are an important part of the sound
of a gong (correct me if I'm wrong) so I'd guess that's important.
> 2. A cheap condenser microphone with top end problems will tend to make
> the top end artificial and shrieky. It has poor control when trying to
> reproduce transients.
I know I shouldn't ask but... does the SE2200 fall into this category?
(you can also email me directly) What about the ECM-8000?
> 3. A ribbon mike (and to some extent an RE-20) will tend to smooth over
> transients and mellow out the top end. This is a good thing or a bad
> thing depending on the sound you want.
This is confusing to me... what I'm reading here is that in someway it
"changes" or color the sound... how can this be good? Because it makes a
rounder sound? Still...
> do the key jingle test and listen to what the top end sounds like.
> Either it's a sound you want or a sound you don't, and you'll know when you
> hear the keys.
I will try to do the key test. Meanwhile thanks Scott, I really
appreciate your insights.
Soundhaspriority
"nebulax" <neb...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:281fc780-64eb-4110...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
A ribbon mic might give you the full-bodied sound you're looking for,
without any added ringing on the high frequencies. Sometimes ribbons
can be dark sounding, but they usually respond well to having a little
top-end EQ boost There are so many affordable ribbon mics out there
now that I don't really know what to recommend, but maybe others could
chime in with their favorites.
-Neb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unita_logica,
A couple of things about ribbon mikes:
1. They have very low output, which means that whatever preamp you have may
exhibit inherent noise that it would otherwise not. There are actually
special preamps optimized for these mikes, with facilities like variable
impedance.
2. They are delicate. Drop them, and they are irrevocably dead. Plug them
into phantom power, irrevocably dead. Blow into them, irrevocably dead. Look
at them the wrong way and...you'll get off.
3. People are finding them less and less useful. Ty Ford, a leading
contributor here, and a studio owner, finds he uses his little.
4. The high priced ones can be destroyed merely by blowing into them, or
carrying them around the studio. The low priced ones have a thick woven
blast shield that protects enough for the non-initiate to use. However, this
interferes with sound quality. Some people take apart the low priced ones
and remove the blast shield, but this makes them delicate.
These mikes are such "boutique" items, I have practically every other type
of mike, but I skipped these.
Please, buy the $47.95 Behringer, and play with it.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
nebulax
> nebulax <nebu...@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> > A ribbon mic might give you the full-bodied sound you're looking for,
> > without any added ringing on the high frequencies. Sometimes ribbons
> > can be dark sounding, but they usually respond well to having a little
> > top-end EQ boost There are so many affordable ribbon mics out there
> > now that I don't really know what to recommend, but maybe others could
> > chime in with their favorites.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing a few names. I guess I didn't really
> consider them so far...
Here's a link to an article about the various cheap ribbon mics out
there these days:
http://recordinghacks.com/2008/11/01/chinese-ribbon-microphone-designs/
-Neb
hank alrich
> A couple of things about ribbon mikes:
>
> 1. They have very low output, which means that whatever preamp you have may
> exhibit inherent noise that it would otherwise not. There are actually
> special preamps optimized for these mikes, with facilities like variable
> impedance.
>
> 2. They are delicate. Drop them, and they are irrevocably dead. Plug them
> into phantom power, irrevocably dead.
Bzzzt... Incorrect. Please see the archives for discussion of conditions
under which a ribbon mic might be damaged by phantom power, for those
conditions are rare, and there is no need to alarm the youngsters.
Soundhaspriority
"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1iv3pvx.1t9dv8l110pkh4N%walk...@nv.net...
I stand corrected. Interesting video here by the owner of Shinybox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmHgPbSqhAE
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, here we are back to the question about what kind of sound you want.
>
>the sound I want is a faithful reproduction of the rich sound of the
>gong... so as far as the frequencies, I consider them all important if
>that's possible. Probably if I had to choose, I prefer the medium low.
>However, I think you're asking for something different but I don't know
>how to respond other than this.
There is no such thing in this world as faithful reproduction, there
are only compromises. And if you are cutting tracks that you are going
to be using as part of a complex mix, you may soon discover that faithful
reproduction isn't what you want at all, because it results in a sound
that steps on other elements of the mix, or one what isn't overwhelming
enough (to talk about the other direction).
>> 1. A good small diaphragm condenser microphone will have an accurate top
>> end and clearly reproduce the high frequencies. It accurately reproduces
>> transients.
>
>My understanding is that transients are an important part of the sound
>of a gong (correct me if I'm wrong) so I'd guess that's important.
Yes, and it's more important with percussion than with anything else out
there. But, you have a couple problems. First of all, if you are up close
to the gong, the transients can be exaggerated, so a mike that reduces them
can help in that situation. And secondly, the bright sound may be a problem
when you go to mix it with other instruments.
>> 2. A cheap condenser microphone with top end problems will tend to make
>> the top end artificial and shrieky. It has poor control when trying to
>> reproduce transients.
>
>I know I shouldn't ask but... does the SE2200 fall into this category?
>(you can also email me directly) What about the ECM-8000?
I would tend to put any of the Shanghai-capsule microphones into this
category. The ECM-8000 doesn't really fall into this category so much...
it's got some top end issues but a whole lot less than anything else in
that price range.
>> 3. A ribbon mike (and to some extent an RE-20) will tend to smooth over
>> transients and mellow out the top end. This is a good thing or a bad
>> thing depending on the sound you want.
>
>This is confusing to me... what I'm reading here is that in someway it
>"changes" or color the sound... how can this be good? Because it makes a
>rounder sound? Still...
All microphones change and color the sound. There is no way to get around
that. It is an unfortunate part of life. Add to this the fact that due to
room issues, you are usually putting the microphone in a place where you
never would put your ear directly, so you get additional coloration due to
placement.
>> do the key jingle test and listen to what the top end sounds like.
>> Either it's a sound you want or a sound you don't, and you'll know when you
>> hear the keys.
>
>I will try to do the key test. Meanwhile thanks Scott, I really
>appreciate your insights.
The key test is one of the most powerful tools anyone has, and it's something
you can do in five minutes in the store or on the trade show floor.
Les Cargill
And it doesn't poo-poo on all Shanghai mics. MARS used to have a
testing bay, with a TLM103 and a Marshall V67 in it. The V67 wasn't
far off of the TLM103 for the key test.
--
Les Cargill