Mountain bikes are different from cyclocross and road racing bikes,
for obvious reasons. Each of those categories has its own
requirements, and the bikes show it. But what is a vocal mike, and
how do the requirements for recording voice differ from recording an
instrument? So far as I can see, the distinguishing thing about a
vocal mike is that it's larger--much larger--than other mikes.
Perhaps the object is to impress the singer. I can't think of any
other reason to make a mike that large, and I can't think of anything
about the human voice that requires a special mike.

Could someone please enlighten me?

Norm Strong

normanstrong wrote:
Mountain bikes are different from cyclocross and road racing bikes,
for obvious reasons. Each of those categories has its own
requirements, and the bikes show it. But what is a vocal mike, and
how do the requirements for recording voice differ from recording an
instrument? So far as I can see, the distinguishing thing about a
vocal mike is that it's larger--much larger--than other mikes.
Perhaps the object is to impress the singer. I can't think of any
other reason to make a mike that large, and I can't think of anything
about the human voice that requires a special mike.

Mikes used for vocals on stage need:
- to have very high feedback rejection
- to be able to be worked very closely without popping
- to have extremely good internal shock mounting to avoid
handling noise.
- to avoid sibliance

All of these are much less of an issue for instrument mikes. The
"vocal" mikes you see with big balls are basically because the capsule
is surrounded by big foam pop filters to prevent close-in popping.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

All of these are much less of an issue for instrument mikes. The
"vocal" mikes you see with big balls are basically because the capsule
is surrounded by big foam pop filters to prevent close-in popping.

Assuming the OP wasn't trolling, I'm wondering about studio mic's.
The "large" part of a "large diaphraghm" mic isn't all that big, and I
suspect that some of them are big for aesthetical reasons.

I'd also add from experience that stage mic's get dropped, a lot, and
the basic design of a stick with a ball tends to survive pretty well.
It must be part of the equation.

james wrote:
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

All of these are much less of an issue for instrument mikes. The
"vocal" mikes you see with big balls are basically because the capsule
is surrounded by big foam pop filters to prevent close-in popping.

Assuming the OP wasn't trolling, I'm wondering about studio mic's.
The "large" part of a "large diaphraghm" mic isn't all that big, and I
suspect that some of them are big for aesthetical reasons.

Norm isn't a troll. He can seem a little odd sometimes, but he's a good
guy and has been here since before the Great Renaming.

It's true that some of the newer large diaphragm mikes are mostly that
way to sell mikes. But traditionally, the electronics in those things
are pretty bulky, and you need a lot of space around the capsule for
the shockmounting and to keep the grille from altering the sound too
much. It's true, though, that there are some folks selling big studio
mikes that have a couple little electret capsules inside when you open
them up.

I'd also add from experience that stage mic's get dropped, a lot, and
the basic design of a stick with a ball tends to survive pretty well.
It must be part of the equation.

Yeah, but the ball gets dented. I dunno, does an SM57 survive any
more poorly than an SM58? They are basically the same mike, less the
ball.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mikes used for vocals on stage need:
- to have very high feedback rejection
- to be able to be worked very closely without popping
- to have extremely good internal shock mounting to avoid
handling noise.
- to avoid sibliance

--scott

Very often, but not always, the mic chosen for stage vocal use will
have a presence peak built into the frequency response to help the
vocal stand out in the mix. Ideally a vocalist would have a mic.
chosen to compliment his or her voice.

Lee Salter

Scott Dorsey wrote:

james wrote:
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

I'd also add from experience that stage mic's get dropped, a lot, and
the basic design of a stick with a ball tends to survive pretty well.
It must be part of the equation.

Yeah, but the ball gets dented. I dunno, does an SM57 survive any
more poorly than an SM58? They are basically the same mike, less the
ball.
--scott

The ball always gets dented. and the foam gets impregnated with beer &
cigarette smoke. But the ball & foam are replaceable. The 57s LOOK a lot
more fragile (reputation aside), but my 57s don't seem to ever fall over as
often (for whatever reason). Granted, they get used less often live (since
I'm doing the acoustic thing mostly thee days, but even otherwise nobody
but me & my tech are usually occupying the space directly in front of my
amp). And I'm way too superstitious to even mention that I've never
dropped a mic in the studio.

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:IC%cc.92240$K91.200379@attbi_s02...
Mountain bikes are different from cyclocross and road racing bikes,
for obvious reasons. Each of those categories has its own
requirements, and the bikes show it. But what is a vocal mike?

Vocal Mikes are those Blokes or Women (usually quite inebriated ) who like
to stand up the Back in a pub gig and offer helpful Tips to the performers
such as :

' ga-arn show us yer Tits ' (surprisingly enough this is a common call of
the vocal Mike - regardless of gender)
' can youse play some chisels ?'
' Play Smoke on the water '
' Don't youse blokes know any good songs ?'
' Youse blokes suck - but the chicks alright '
' wanna come home with me and get laid ? '
' wanna buy some drugs ?'

and also Offer Useful tips to the Sound engineer such as:

' That coloured light really Sucks '
' Those Lights on the Right hand side of the stage need adjusting '
' that bright light that keep flashing is pointing the wrong way '
' I cant see the Drummer/Bass guitar/Singer '
' I cant see the Drummer/Bass guitarist/Singer's Tits '
' Couldn't you afford a Laser they look really really cool '
' I have a mate who can get you a laser cheap !'
' why Dont you have any Pyro ? '
' I have a mate who can get you some Pyro cheap !'
' wheres the smoke Machine ? '
' I have a mate who ripped off a Lighting company and can sell you a bunch
of Lights cheap '
' I have a mate who ripped off a Lighting company and can sell you a smoke
machine cheap '
' I have a mate who ripped off a Lighting company and can sell you a bunch
of Pyro cheap '
' I have a mate who ripped off a Lighting company and can sell you a bunch
of Lasers cheap '
' wanna buy some drugs ?'

and of course the ever helpful tips to the Lighting engineer :

' That sound really sucks '
' what you need here is more guitar ' (this is usually offered as advice
when/if all you can hear is the B%^&y guitar)
' That drum sound sucks '
' That singer sucks '
' The bass guitar sucks '
' The keyboard sucks '
' Your speakers Suck - I have a mate who can sell you some Bigger speakers '
' Your Mixer Sucks - I have a mate who can sell you a Bigger mixer '
' Your Microphones Suck - I have a mate who can sell you more Microphones'
' you need a bigger subwoofer '
' wanna buy some drugs ?'

They are also characterised by (if they get through the night without
collapsing in a comatose heap somewhere or getting involved in a fight and
being carted off by the police or an Ambulance) telling you during load out
about how they were the head Roadie/Engineer/Tour
manager/Groupie/Retard/Drug dealer for (pick one or more) : Midnight oil,
Cold chisel, Rolling stones, Def leopard etc etc etc and You should employ
them to manage your shows which when you consider their inability to tell
the difference between a Lighting rig and PA is likely to fill you with joy
and gladness at the thought of the help he could offer - well actually fear
and trepidation at the thought of how much gear he could stuff in his
pockets if you don't keep half an eye on him/it.

So far as I can see, the distinguishing thing about a
vocal mike is that it's larger--much larger--than other mikes.
Perhaps the object is to impress the singer.

Naaah! don't think so! I always thought their purpose was to make a complete
Pratt of themselves - but who knows what goes on in their minds.

I can't think of any
other reason to make a mike that large, and I can't think of anything
about the human voice that requires a special mike.

Hah that's what they tell you (not that I would ever want to look!) remember
these creatures live entirely in fantasy land.
I would be surprised if they could find it without a magnifying glass !
Anyway most singers find the attentions of a Vocal mike as offensive as any
normal person and are equally repulsed by their attentions.

Could someone please enlighten me?

I am sure they are not a purely Australian native but probably to be found
all over the world. Their fondness is not really for singers alone but
rather for anything that vaguely resembles a member of the opposite sex.
Contrary to their normal claims they are usually pretty lonely as most
members of the opposite sex find them pretty repulsive and in fact they are
usually singularly unsuccessful in their attempts to 'get laid'.

If you are thinking of becoming a 'vocal mike' in order to impress members
of the opposite sex DON'T bother as it will actually decrease your chances
as one thing is sure 'Vocal Mikes' sure as heck aren't enlightened ;-)

Regards
Richard Freeman

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Yeah, but the ball gets dented. I dunno, does an SM57 survive any
more poorly than an SM58? They are basically the same mike, less the
ball.

Seems to me that a mic with an internal shock mount like the SM58 might have
a durability edge over a mic that lacks an internal shock mount like the
SM57.

Norm Strong wrote:

I can't think of anything about the human voice that requires a
special mike.

Could someone please enlighten me?

I sympathize with your confusion. One is tempted to ask why there aren't
"moon telescopes" as opposed to "star" or "planet" telescopes. Or special
binoculars for watching football games as opposed to basketball.

As you may have surmised, "vocal mike" isn't a technical category--it's
mainly a marketing category. In practice it has to do with the context
in which vocals are typically recorded in a given time and place.

In the 1930s and 1940s in the U.S., for example, the sound that was
accepted for music recording overall was oriented to broadcast and cinema
technology of the time: a warm, rich, smooth, comforting kind of sound
that went well with the type of sentiment expressed in typical pop song
lyrics (love songs, and during World War II various songs about parting,
separation, etc.). The accompaniments were arranged skillfully to leave
room for the lead vocal to occupy the forefront of the midrange, so there
was no need for any special emphasis in the microphone to "cut through"
in that (or any other) frequency range.

This changed in the 1950s and 60s with the introduction of the electric
guitar as a lead instrument, the use of fairly constant loud drums in
typical arrangements, and the improvement in the average playback system
so that sound energy above 4 kHz mattered much more than before. Vocal
microphones then had to have presence peaks so that they could "cut
through" and be heard over competing sound from the guitars and drums.

Also, frankly, people who had little experience or concern with keeping
things in proportion (arranging for balance) were now in charge, since
recording and engineering became a little more democratic due to the
rise of small, low-budget recording companies.

So, once upon a time a "vocal" microphone was an RCA ribbon, but is now
an AKG C 1000 or an ADK or a Rode NT-whatever. Or an SM 58, or an AKG
C 535. Or a Neumann U 87 or M 149--all of which have their place, with
the place of that C 1000 or ADK being the garbage can (meow!).

Or you can use a neutral-sounding, reliable microphone and equalize its
signal as required, but that's a dying art; people would rather buy ten
different microphones than learn what those knobs on the console are for.

Similarly one could wish that music would be thought through so that its
different parts can be heard in some relationship that works organically
without extreme measures such as peaky microphones, but that's simply not
what a lot of music is about. A lot of music is apparently about the
right of people who don't have any concept of music to be making music
anyway, as an act of rebellion against the elitism of others. And those
people want to yell and be heard while the drums are banging full force
and the guitars are screaming.

Perhaps the ideal sound for that purpose would be to record white noise
that has been filtered through an A-weighting measurement filter. It has
approximately the same spectral balance as a human infant's distress cry.

On 7 Apr 2004 19:48:30 -0700, (David Satz) wrote:

That's a very well presented explaination

I sympathize with your confusion. One is tempted to ask why there aren't
"moon telescopes" as opposed to "star" or "planet" telescopes. Or special
binoculars for watching football games as opposed to basketball.

As you may have surmised, "vocal mike" isn't a technical category--it's
mainly a marketing category. In practice it has to do with the context
in which vocals are typically recorded in a given time and place.

In the 1930s and 1940s in the U.S., for example, the sound that was
accepted for music recording overall was oriented to broadcast and cinema
technology of the time: a warm, rich, smooth, comforting kind of sound
that went well with the type of sentiment expressed in typical pop song
lyrics (love songs, and during World War II various songs about parting,
separation, etc.). The accompaniments were arranged skillfully to leave
room for the lead vocal to occupy the forefront of the midrange, so there
was no need for any special emphasis in the microphone to "cut through"
in that (or any other) frequency range.

This changed in the 1950s and 60s with the introduction of the electric
guitar as a lead instrument, the use of fairly constant loud drums in
typical arrangements, and the improvement in the average playback system
so that sound energy above 4 kHz mattered much more than before. Vocal
microphones then had to have presence peaks so that they could "cut
through" and be heard over competing sound from the guitars and drums.

Also, frankly, people who had little experience or concern with keeping
things in proportion (arranging for balance) were now in charge, since
recording and engineering became a little more democratic due to the
rise of small, low-budget recording companies.

So, once upon a time a "vocal" microphone was an RCA ribbon, but is now
an AKG C 1000 or an ADK or a Rode NT-whatever. Or an SM 58, or an AKG
C 535. Or a Neumann U 87 or M 149--all of which have their place, with
the place of that C 1000 or ADK being the garbage can (meow!).

Or you can use a neutral-sounding, reliable microphone and equalize its
signal as required, but that's a dying art; people would rather buy ten
different microphones than learn what those knobs on the console are for.

Similarly one could wish that music would be thought through so that its
different parts can be heard in some relationship that works organically
without extreme measures such as peaky microphones, but that's simply not
what a lot of music is about. A lot of music is apparently about the
right of people who don't have any concept of music to be making music
anyway, as an act of rebellion against the elitism of others. And those
people want to yell and be heard while the drums are banging full force
and the guitars are screaming.

Perhaps the ideal sound for that purpose would be to record white noise
that has been filtered through an A-weighting measurement filter. It has
approximately the same spectral balance as a human infant's distress cry.

normanstrong wrote:
Mountain bikes are different from cyclocross and road racing bikes,
for obvious reasons. Each of those categories has its own
requirements, and the bikes show it. But what is a vocal mike, and
how do the requirements for recording voice differ from recording an
instrument? So far as I can see, the distinguishing thing about a
vocal mike is that it's larger--much larger--than other mikes.
Perhaps the object is to impress the singer. I can't think of any
other reason to make a mike that large, and I can't think of anything
about the human voice that requires a special mike.

Could someone please enlighten me?


The term 'vocal mic' is usually used in the sense of "live performance vocal
mic", where there are particular requirements for vocals in a stage
performance scenario. Like; handling noise, ruggedness, plosive-resistance,
feedback 'immunity' , and a tonal character that will cut through in a live
performance scenario.

These things are not necessary in a studio situation, and may in fact be
contrary to the main criteria of a quality recordable sound. In the
recording situation, many types of mics can be used, and other measures
taken to avoid sonic problems (such as plovise-popping) without messing up
the fidelity of the vocal.

geoff

"David Satz" wrote in message
om...

David, I think that's an absolutely brilliant post, except for this part,
which I am confused about...

Or you can use a neutral-sounding, reliable microphone and equalize its
signal as required, but that's a dying art; people would rather buy ten
different microphones than learn what those knobs on the console are for.

Yeah I WOULD rather have ten different microphones for ten different
applications, as I am one of those guys that likes to hear different mics
posessing different "characters" or colorations, so am I wrong? I mea, I
could record everything using nothing but U-87's & EQ as necessary, and it
probably wouldn't suck, but if I can get a mic that sounds terrific on a
certain instrument or voice without using "those knobs on the console",
isn't that a good thing too?

Also, if I wanted to learn what those knobs on the console were for, what
mic(s would you consider to be a neutral-sounding, reliable microphone?
--


Neil Henderson
Progressive Rock
http://www.saqqararecords.com

In article ,
writes:

"David Satz" wrote in message
. com...

David, I think that's an absolutely brilliant post, except for this part,
which I am confused about...

Or you can use a neutral-sounding, reliable microphone and equalize its
signal as required, but that's a dying art; people would rather buy ten
different microphones than learn what those knobs on the console are for.

Yeah I WOULD rather have ten different microphones for ten different
applications,

Me too. I think there are qualities about certain mics that cannot be
reproduced with eq, especially that of a low end console such as the Soundcraft
Ghost I use. I think there's a lot to be said for having mics that are
perticularly suited to specific tasks.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

"normanstrong" wrote in message news:IC%cc.92240$K91.200379@attbi_s02...
Mountain bikes are different from cyclocross and road racing bikes,
for obvious reasons. Each of those categories has its own
requirements, and the bikes show it. But what is a vocal mike, and
how do the requirements for recording voice differ from recording an
instrument? So far as I can see, the distinguishing thing about a
vocal mike is that it's larger--much larger--than other mikes.
Perhaps the object is to impress the singer. I can't think of any
other reason to make a mike that large, and I can't think of anything
about the human voice that requires a special mike.

Could someone please enlighten me?

Norm Strong

The true classic 'large body' mics were designed out of the need to
house
the tube, transformer, and electronics while still allowing for proper
shielding and heat disipation.
Others such as the RE/PL20 for DJ/broadcast use have a special design
to
reduce the proximity effect while remaining very directional and
immune from
studio rumble. (yeah, there's a transformer in there too)
The current fad is simply to copy that visual appeal (or blight, as
the case may be). I'll bet there's a lot more empty space inside a
chinese LDC than
any Neumann Ux7.

RD

David Satz wrote:

Or you can use a neutral-sounding, reliable microphone and equalize
its signal as required, but that's a dying art; people would rather
buy ten different microphones than learn what those knobs on the
console are for.

I've been trying to follow that approach, but IME it's not a 100% solution,
or even a 30% solution.

Even with effective use of equalization, you end up wanting mics with
different pickup patterns and different mechanical properties like built-in
shock isolation.

At this point in my journey as a sound/recording guy it seems to me that
there are three distinct pickup patterns that have day-to-day use, even
completely ignoring refinements like X/Y, MS, and etc. Those
bread-and-butter pickup patterns are omni, wide cardioid, and narrow
cardioid. The only common pattern not on the list is figure-8. They're all
distinct and they are all good for different things that come up all the
time.

Therefore, even if you followed the path of picking a neutral-sounding
reliable microphone and equalized it to suit, you still need at least 3 or 4
very distinct mics:

(1) Omni, no internal shock mounting. (used for both vocals and area pickup)
(2) Wide cardioid, no internal shock mounting. ("instrument mic")
(3) Narrow cardioid, internal shock mounting. ("vocal mic")

(4) Figure-8, no internal shock mounting.

The alternate fourth or fifth would be:

(5) Narrow cardioid, no internal shock mounting.

This begs the question why all mics don't have internal shock mounting. It's
my impression that the structures and mechanisms for internal shock mounting
tend to compromise the smoothness of the mic's frequency response. But, I'm
not sure why this absolutely has to be so. Perhaps there is a cost
trade-off. Internal shock mounting does tend to make mics bulkier and
heavier.

The mics that benefit from internal shock mounting the most are vocal mics,
but it seems like their users would be the most critical of mics that are
heavy and bulky.

In article IC%cc.92240$K91.200379@attbi_s02 writes:

Could someone please enlighten me?

Me, too. It seems that a "vocal mic" is either an SM58 if it's live
sound, or a large diaphragm cardioid condenser mic if it's the studio.
Looks are important. It's a principle of psychoacoustics.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

So, once upon a time a "vocal" microphone was an RCA ribbon, but is now
an AKG C 1000 or an ADK or a Rode NT-whatever. Or an SM 58, or an AKG
C 535. Or a Neumann U 87 or M 149--all of which have their place, with
the place of that C 1000 or ADK being the garbage can (meow!).

Or you can use a neutral-sounding, reliable microphone and equalize its
signal as required, but that's a dying art; people would rather buy ten
different microphones than learn what those knobs on the console are for.

I think that some reports about a console's EQ not being "musical,"
and articles about famous recordings by engineers with plenty of time
in session saying that they get the sound by mic placement (they
usually didn't talk much about selection) rather than equalization has
scared people away from using those knobs. If, when you turn an EQ
knob and the sound gets brittle or harsh, that's not necessarily the
fault of the EQ, it's the fault of the signal going into the EQ.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article OSPAM writes:

I
could record everything using nothing but U-87's & EQ as necessary, and it
probably wouldn't suck, but if I can get a mic that sounds terrific on a
certain instrument or voice without using "those knobs on the console",
isn't that a good thing too?

Sure, that's a valid approach, but it requires money, storage space,
time, and experience. If you know the sound you're going for, can
listen to the source (with no microphone) and pick the most likely
candidate mic pretty reliably, you can work efficiently. But if you
have to try six mics on every vocalist, it can get very tiring.

Also, if I wanted to learn what those knobs on the console were for, what
mic(s would you consider to be a neutral-sounding, reliable microphone?

It really doesn't matter. It's not a matter of learning what those
knobs do, it's a matter of recognizing that you've achieved the sonic
goal that you're after. You don't have to use a particularly flat mic,
just one that isn't so screwed up that it sounds bad no matter what.

Another thing to remember (and this isn't just about vocals) is that
you can get a full, warm, round, painful, sexy, violent or whatever
vocal sound when you're listening to just the vocal track, but find
when you mix the song (unless the vocal is the last thing you record)
you still have to EQ either the vocal or other things, or everything
in order to get the overall sound the way you want it.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

I think that some reports about a console's EQ not being "musical,"
and articles about famous recordings by engineers with plenty of time
in session saying that they get the sound by mic placement (they
usually didn't talk much about selection) rather than equalization has
scared people away from using those knobs.

Seems like. And, it's a tragic loss given the proliferation of highly
effective virtual eq knobs implemented by DAW software.

There's nothing for creating impatience with highly limited EQ such as on my
Mackie console, like remixing the same performance in Audition's multitrack
editor.

Audition's virtual eq knobs have a little more delay between when I turn the
knob and hear the change, but there's a heck of a lot more of them and they
all have 1,000 dB or more dynamic range. Seems like they might be clean
enough!

If, when you turn an EQ
knob and the sound gets brittle or harsh, that's not necessarily the
fault of the EQ, it's the fault of the signal going into the EQ.

Or, the fault of the person turning the knobs. Operating an Eq is a basic
study in hand-and-ear coordination. All you have to do is turn the knobs
until you get the sound that is closest to the one you were hoping for... Of
course you have to know what can be accomplished with Eq and what should be
accomplished with other tools like dynamics processing...

In article ,
Lee Salter wrote:

Mikes used for vocals on stage need:
- to have very high feedback rejection
- to be able to be worked very closely without popping
- to have extremely good internal shock mounting to avoid
handling noise.
- to avoid sibliance

Very often, but not always, the mic chosen for stage vocal use will
have a presence peak built into the frequency response to help the
vocal stand out in the mix. Ideally a vocalist would have a mic.
chosen to compliment his or her voice.

This is true, but I think it's often a problem. I hear too many inexpensive
PA systems with mikes that have peaks in the presence region, combined with
speakers that have peaks in the same region, resulting in a very artificial
sound. Some of my favorite vocal mikes don't have that much of a peak at
all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Lee Salter wrote:

Very often, but not always, the mic chosen for stage vocal use will
have a presence peak built into the frequency response to help the
vocal stand out in the mix.

IMO a lot of vocal mics seem to be chosen to compensate for weak
non-existent or damaged tweeters, poorly designed arrays, incompetent system
equalization and the like.

Ironically, these mics are often matched-up with what are otherwise fairly
competent systems, yielding unnatural *electronic* sound.

Ideally a vocalist would have a mic. chosen to compliment his or her voice.

What does this mean given now that's its pretty easy to get
reasonably-priced vocal mics that are reasonably accurate reproducers of the
human voice?

Neil Henderson wrote:

Yeah I WOULD rather have ten different microphones for ten different
applications, as I am one of those guys that likes to hear different
mics posessing different "characters" or colorations, so am I wrong?

What I wrote wasn't meant as a "right vs. wrong" type of statement. If
a certain microphone will give you exactly what you want, without your
having to mess around with the signal, then by all means use it! I'd have
to be a total idiot to tell you any different--and I don't think that my
idiocy is that complete just yet. In fact if there's a twelve-step group
for people who buy too many microphones, I should be a charter member.

But a surprising amount of good can be done with EQ, and I often see a
kind of "purist" prejudice against it that is misinformed and misplaced.
I think people sometimes imagine that when a microphone puts out a signal,
that _this signal itself_ is a kind of "absolute sound" (to coin a phrase),
even if the microphone is one with a pronounced sonic signature.

That viewpoint completely overlooks what the acoustical mechanisms of the
microphone are doing to the sound waves themselves. It is by no means a
one-way interaction (no studio microphone acts merely as a "sensor"), and
the distorting effects are often worse than what comparable external EQ
would cause. In most cases, though, the side effects are similar or at
least comparable--and EQ has the advantage of being adjustable after the
fact, while "character" built into a microphone isn't.

My preference is to keep microphones on the neutral side, so that any
desired "pretty colors" can be added in post production to the exact
degree that is desired, and undone later on if one grows tired of them.
(Which, in many cases, one damn well ought to, judging by what I hear.)

But I agree, too, that different types of microphones can produce sounds
that "feel" very different--especially if you compare pressure transducers
(what I call "pure" omnidirectional microphones) with pressure gradient
transducers (directional microphones, especially figure-8s). It isn't
just the on-axis frequency response; it's also other stuff, which we could
talk about if you want; there have been many such discussions here.

But my main point is to agree that no one single microphone can possibly
be The One, so there is justification for owning at least a few different
types--praise the appropriate deity.


Also, if I wanted to learn what those knobs on the console were for, what
mic(s would you consider to be a neutral-sounding, reliable microphone?

I have a working relationship with a company that makes some of the most
neutral-sounding, reliable studio condenser microphones, so I don't think
that it's right for me to answer this question too specifically (Schoeps).
Look for the smoothest directional patterns across the widest frequency
range, and the smoothest frequency response characteristics, and I think
that you'll find these mainly in small condenser (Schoeps) and ribbon-type
microphones. I wish you good luck in your search (Schoeps), and simply
urge you to keep an open mind (Schoeps).

--In all seriousness, the question is far too complex to boil down to one
type or brand. I think the models to consider would include some from AKG,
Beyer, DPA, Earthworks, Microtech Gefell, Neumann, Royer, Sanken, Schoeps
and Sennheiser at least--and I've probably left someone out, for which I
apologize in advance.

--If you read German you may be interested in an essay, "How 'Universal'
Can a Microphone Be?" which was written by Joerg Wuttke, the chief engineer
of a certain German manufacturer of neutral-sounding, reliable studio
condenser microphones. It's available for download as a PDF on this URL:
http://www.schoeps.de/D/PDFs/Mikrofonbuch_Kap7.pdf -- and if I ever get a
chance to finish the translation of it that I started last year, and if
they decide to post it, I'll tack on another reply to this thread about it.

--best regards

From: (RD Jones)


The true classic 'large body' mics were designed out of the need to
house
the tube, transformer, and electronics while still allowing for proper
shielding and heat disipation.

Also, the large diaphram of the condensor element maximises signal-to-noise
ratio; a benefit less important now, due to super-quiet modern amplifier design
topologies, and components. Simply, large diaphram condensors were chosen for
vocals because they were the most quiet and most wide-band transducers they
had.

So, before "vocal mic" (in the studio sense) got identified as a marketing
catagory, most engineers were trying to do as David Satz suggested, use the
best and most neutral mic in the closet.

phillip sztenderowicz

On 8 Apr 2004 07:19:45 -0400, (Mike Rivers) wrote:

It seems that a "vocal mic" is either an SM58 if it's live
sound, or a large diaphragm cardioid condenser mic if it's the studio.
Looks are important. It's a principle of psychoacoustics.

Tech riders for folks who come to our theater seem to always specify
an SM58, if they specify anything. Sometimes even for instrument
mic's.

From a touring musician's POV, I can see it: Better the devil you
know.

Besides, when you look at it, it's obvious how it works.

Chris Hornbeck

"normanstrong" wrote in message ...

But what is a vocal mike, and
how do the requirements for recording voice differ from recording an
instrument? So far as I can see, the distinguishing thing about a
vocal mike is that it's larger--much larger--than other mikes.
Perhaps the object is to impress the singer.
Could someone please enlighten me?

Norm Strong




My best guess is, whatever mic is used to track a voice.

What might make one more preferable to another, has many variables.

--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s.com
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Tech riders for folks who come to our theater seem to always specify
an SM58, if they specify anything. Sometimes even for instrument
mic's.

From a touring musician's POV, I can see it: Better the devil you
know.

Besides, when you look at it, it's obvious how it works.

Won't be mistaken for an electric shaver.

--
ha

In article writes:

Besides, when you look at it, it's obvious how it works.

Won't be mistaken for an electric shaver.

Unlike the Sennheiser MD421, which is occasionally used as a vocal mic.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article , "Arny Krueger"
writes:

IMO a lot of vocal mics seem to be chosen to compensate for weak
non-existent or damaged tweeters, poorly designed arrays, incompetent system
equalization and the like.


Yeah, the state of the art. bg

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

here ! here! bob!
shmusicmusic.
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1081455966k@trad...

In article
writes:

Besides, when you look at it, it's obvious how it works.

Won't be mistaken for an electric shaver.

Unlike the Sennheiser MD421, which is occasionally used as a vocal mic.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo