Advice on getting a mic for home recording (re-posted)

[optakeover]

*On retrospect I might have posted this in the wrong section, namely the whistle section. I have deleted the original post and re-posted this here.

I know that there have been previous threads which date back quite a bit regarding microphones for stage use. However, my needs are a little different. So, instead of reviving an old topic I chose to make a new one.

I live in a two-storey apartment in Singapore. My room is upstairs. I don't have any studio set-up in my room, but recently I managed to get a Pro Tools Mbox 2 mini and now, I can record myself playing the flute and tin whistle with the software supplied by my polytechnic. However, that means I now need a microphone.
Can someone tell me the kind of frequency response I should be looking for, and any other important spec info. I don't mind spending top buck for a good mic, but other than for home I intend to bring it out so I can contribute resources for my church youth ministry. As such, I'm looking to getting a good hand-held dynamic microphone.

Thanks.

[fiddlerwill]

Its the room that counts more than the mic these days. Even a standard condenser mic like the Samson CO series will be fine. spend any extra money on the room. Read sound on sound, the industry standard mag, for info. If you want a dynamic then perhaps buy 2? a condenser for studio and dynamic for the road. otherwise a SM47 might suffice however other folk might have better recommendations specifically for your requirements.

Good head phones such as sennheiser eh2200 will make your job that much easier as well.

[SteveShaw]

I doubt that you'd be disappointed with a Shure SM57. Great for instruments and voice. I don't know where our friend gets his SM47s...same place as AK37s I presume...

[optakeover]

Sorry for being so lazy and not posting and acknowledging your help!

Well, I didn't have that much money so I went for a Shure SM58, particularly that model since I might be using it in church to give my lead singers.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51067&p=968817#p968817

[SteveShaw]

It'll do the trick.

[highland-piper]

If at some point you decide that the SM58 isn't really doing what you want, you might look into an MXL 990, which is a decent, but inexpensive condenser -- about us$50. You'll find a condenser responds to transients better, has a wider frequency response, and a flatter response curve than a dynamic. In other words, the recording is more like what you hear.

[optakeover]

But how about quality?

[highland-piper]

But how about quality?

It's very good. The MXL 990 has the same capsule and the same electronics as the MXL 603s (I've taken them apart to compare). The 603s is highly regarded (and frequently recommended) for recording acoustical instruments. I've used the 603 and the 990 on Highland pipes, smallpipes, guitar, solo violin, and string quartet. The 990 is more directional and a little warmer -- there is a large "washer" soldered to the front edge of the capsule.

When I listen to my recordings, I hear a faithful reproduction. It has more self-noise (hiss) than more expensive microphones. They don't have the kind of "crunch" that I associate with dynamic mics.

I can make a recording with tin whistle (Bb is my lowest) next week with both the 990 and a generic Shure knock-off. The real Shure would sound quite a bit better than the knockoff, no doubt, but it would still have that "dynamic" sound.

[optakeover]

Okay, thanks a lot for your input.

[oakuss]

They sound good and are nearly indestructable. I have one that is about 30 yrs old, beat all to h--l, you can't even read "Shure" on it anymore because it's all rubbed off, still works great. I hear they tested the prototype by dropping it 10 times from a 10 ft ladder to a concrete floor with no degradation in performance. As to the performance, it is no condenser mike, but you know what? It's wonderful how sensitive those condenser mikes are, but for me they pick up too much of the room. I use my SM57 more often than not.

I doubt that you'd be disappointed with a Shure SM57. Great for instruments and voice. I don't know where our friend gets his SM47s...same place as AK37s I presume...

[highland-piper]

It's wonderful how sensitive those condenser mikes are, but for me they pick up too much of the room.

For me, the solution to a poor-sounding room is to either improve the sound of the room, or to move to a different room, but if the only option is a poor-sounding room, then maybe low-resolution microphone is a good alternative?

Personally, I don't have a concrete floor, and the only way I could drop anything 10 feet would involve cutting holes in the ceiling. If I dropped a microphone once, I'd probably figure out how to avoid doing it a second time. If I was producing rock concerts or running some kind of club, I'd have entirely different needs, but I think this thread is more about quality sound recordings than indestructible gear. But I could be wrong.

The story goes that AC/DC recorded Back In Black with only SM57 microphones. If that's the sound you're looking for (and it is one of my favorite albums), then you know what microphone to use. But again I think this thread was about something different.

[MTGuru]

For me, the solution to a poor-sounding room is to either improve the sound of the room, or to move to a different room

I think oakuss is talking about the ambient transients that you find in real life - like a flat in Singapore or a concert stage, not a studio. Street noise, neighbors, HVAC, etc. "Change the room" is easy to say, but it's not always an option in your church or pub or community hall or home studio.

People like to talk about the durability of the SM57/8 because it's fun to talk about (c.f. humor) and it's a feature of the mike. There's less point to a high end studio mike if it's going to be subjected to non-optimal non-studio conditions, physically and acoustically. I've seen people plug in an expensive condenser, then have to EQ / compress / noise-reduce the heck out of it to make it sound as good as the 57 next to it. Especially on whistle (which the OP plays), the slower "averaging" dynamic transient response, 15 kHz cutoff, and proximity effect for close recording/playing can be a very good fit.

I'm sure many fine acoustic folk recordings have been made with SM57s. I've done a few myself. Conversely, you could point to a poorly-recorded result using AKG C414s or Neumanns, and conclude you know what microphone to avoid. Hardly a persuasive argument.

But hey, if someone wants to convince me with a free pair of Neumanns, I won't object ...

[highland-piper]

For me, the solution to a poor-sounding room is to either improve the sound of the room, or to move to a different room

I think oakuss is talking about the ambient transients that you find in real life - like a flat in Singapore or a concert stage, not a studio. Street noise, neighbors, HVAC, etc. "Change the room" is easy to say, but it's not always an option in your church or pub or community hall or home studio.

Good points. I've never been in Singapore at all, let alone in a flat.

I record in my house. It takes time to learn how each room sounds when recorded. When I read "pick up too much of the room" I was thinking of a typical bedroom with heavy early reflections due to being small. These types of issues are relatively easy to address.

And as you point out, many people (at least here, and I'd assume in Singapore too) have access to other spaces like churches and small auditoriums that actually sound good.

It can be possible to throw away detail (compression, eq, etc), but it's never possible to add it in if you don't record it in the first place...

Look at all those hand held field recorders that have come onto the market. They *all* have condenser mics and not dynamics. If dynamic microphones were really better at recording things out of the studio (i.e., in the field), then shouldn't field recorders come with dynamics?

I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding proximity effect though -- proximity effect is a boost in bass response when a directional microphone is placed close to a source. Whistles and flutes don't have much bass, so I'm not sure why that would be an issue, but to the extent that it is, other directional microphones would behave similarly.

I'll take your word for it that a 15khz cutoff is a good thing. I can't hear it anyway

Out of curiosity, when you record with an sm57 do you EQ the top end spikes?

[MTGuru]

Look at all those hand held field recorders that have come onto the market. They *all* have condenser mics and not dynamics. If dynamic microphones were really better at recording things out of the studio (i.e., in the field), then shouldn't field recorders come with dynamics?

I'd guess that has as much to do with miniaturization as anything else. It's hard to squeeze down a coil and magnet, but a thin film condenser can be made as small as you like and draw little current. Also, those devices tend to record to a lossy format like mp3, so having better transient response from the mike helps to compensate.

I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding proximity effect though

Well, maybe it's psycho-acoustic, and maybe I'm psycho ... There's bass and bass, and proximity effect is not either/or, but may start be noticeable below 1 kHz. It's why female vocalists can also also take some advantage of proximity. And moreso on the 57 than 58, because you can get closer to the diaphragm.

I'll take your word for it that a 15khz cutoff is a good thing. I can't hear it anyway

Yeah, really. I'm afraid my days of being able to hear those 18 kHz "secret" ringtones are long gone.

Out of curiosity, when you record with an sm57 do you EQ the top end spikes?

I haven't found problems with spiking. But I tend to EQ the top end of high whistle down a few dB anyway, even with a 57.

[oakuss]

Your lack of experience in dropping microphones clearly indicates that you are far less clumsy than me. Though I do have a large-diaphram mike that I have managed to avoid dropping. So far. I'm pretty happy about that.

Actually, your comment below suggests an interesting variation on the topic: how to improve the room without a. Spending much, and b. Making it look so crummy my wife will object. These are areas where I appear to be challenged. One time I made a temporary "vocal booth" by stretching ropes and hanging blankets over them. It improved matters somewhat, but I couldn't get the Mickey Mouse theme (a nice traditional slide) out of my head.

The stuff I record is pretty dissimilar to "Back in Black". But I like the album, too. And I use my SM57 on many things. Perhaps I should buy another one.

It's wonderful how sensitive those condenser mikes are, but for me they pick up too much of the room.

For me, the solution to a poor-sounding room is to either improve the sound of the room, or to move to a different room, but if the only option is a poor-sounding room, then maybe low-resolution microphone is a good alternative?

Personally, I don't have a concrete floor, and the only way I could drop anything 10 feet would involve cutting holes in the ceiling. If I dropped a microphone once, I'd probably figure out how to avoid doing it a second time. If I was producing rock concerts or running some kind of club, I'd have entirely different needs, but I think this thread is more about quality sound recordings than indestructible gear. But I could be wrong.

The story goes that AC/DC recorded Back In Black with only SM57 microphones. If that's the sound you're looking for (and it is one of my favorite albums), then you know what microphone to use. But again I think this thread was about something different.