"Best mic for" type questions

[[email protected]]

Not that there aren't mics you'd prefer, but if all you had to work
with were a bunch of SM-57's/58's and a crate full of Marshall MXL's
of various models all in good working order, wouldn't a talented
recording pro be able to create a kickass, perfectly good sounding
recording that wouldn't offend the sensibilities of the listening
public?

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 5, 12:20 pm, wrote:
> Not that there aren't mics you'd prefer, but if all you had to work
> with were a bunch of SM-57's/58's and a crate full of Marshall MXL's
> of various models all in good working order, wouldn't a talented
> recording pro be able to create a kickass, perfectly good sounding
> recording that wouldn't offend the sensibilities of the listening
> public?

Yes, as long as he was working with talented musicians, in a decent
sounding room, and had a reasonable set of working tools. The thing is
that it's rare, other than just to show off, that a talented recording
pro would be limited to a small selection of minimally acceptable
microphones. The usual reason why recordings made with such
microphones aren't kickass is because of a lack of talent and
experience, not a lack of gear. You can buy gear, and you can buy
talent and experience, but most people are inclined to the former and
not the latter.

[Laurence Payne]

On 5 Apr 2007 09:20:37 -0700, wrote:

>Not that there aren't mics you'd prefer, but if all you had to work
>with were a bunch of SM-57's/58's and a crate full of Marshall MXL's
>of various models all in good working order, wouldn't a talented
>recording pro be able to create a kickass, perfectly good sounding
>recording that wouldn't offend the sensibilities of the listening
>public?

Which part would be "kickass", which would be "perfectly good
sounding"? :=)

[Roy W. Rising]

wrote:
> Not that there aren't mics you'd prefer, but if all you had to work
> with were a bunch of SM-57's/58's and a crate full of Marshall MXL's
> of various models all in good working order, wouldn't a talented
> recording pro be able to create a kickass, perfectly good sounding
> recording that wouldn't offend the sensibilities of the listening
> public?

Of course! I've done so many times.

The late Peter Abbott, who mixed some of the Beach Boys while at Capitol
Records, used to say "It's a might fine craftsman who blames his poor tools
.... or is it the other way around?"

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Not that there aren't mics you'd prefer, but if all you had to work
>with were a bunch of SM-57's/58's and a crate full of Marshall MXL's
>of various models all in good working order, wouldn't a talented
>recording pro be able to create a kickass, perfectly good sounding
>recording that wouldn't offend the sensibilities of the listening
>public?

Yes, but it would take him a hell of a lot longer than it would with
better gear. If the band is being paid scale and the engineer is being
paid scale, this means in a VERY short amount of time enough money has
been wasted fooling around to have paid for good equipment in the first
place.
--scott

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

[Karl Winkler]

On Apr 5, 11:33 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> > wrote:
> >Not that there aren't mics you'd prefer, but if all you had to work
> >with were a bunch of SM-57's/58's and a crate full of Marshall MXL's
> >of various models all in good working order, wouldn't a talented
> >recording pro be able to create a kickass, perfectly good sounding
> >recording that wouldn't offend the sensibilities of the listening
> >public?
>
> Yes, but it would take him a hell of a lot longer than it would with
> better gear. If the band is being paid scale and the engineer is being
> paid scale, this means in a VERY short amount of time enough money has
> been wasted fooling around to have paid for good equipment in the first
> place.

That's my thought as well. The right tools for the job makes the job
go more quickly and easily, generally. Sure, Itzahk Pearlman can make
amazing music on a Suzuki violin. But it's far easier, and probably
better sounding, when he plays his 1704 Stradivarius.

Specific microphones have become "famous" for certain applications
because they make the job easier and provide better results. Sometimes
working quickly and efficiently helps the "vibe" and thus better music
is created. Consistency between mics can also help, so that one
doesn't have to "look around for that one mic that sounded good on the
vocals last time". Then there is the issue of reliability. Cheap mics
can't be counted on in the same way as expensive mics, and they're not
meant to be.

I'd be willing to bet that plenty of very good and even amazing
recordings have been made with microphones that are basically "cheap
stuff". But then why do the top guys insist on using their favorite
mics? Once Al Schmitt determined that Tomm LiPuma's modified U67 was
the right vocal mic for Diana Krall, he stuck with it. If Al (or any
top engineer) were forced to make a recording with nothing but SM57s
and MXL mics, I'm pretty sure the results would be better than
anything I could do with Neumanns, Brauners, DPAs, etc. But if Al had
those latter mics, the results he'd get would be even better than with
the cheap mics.

YMMV

Karl Winkler
http://www.karlwinkler.com
http://www.giovanniquartet.com

[Walt]

wrote:

> Not that there aren't mics you'd prefer, but if all you had to work
> with were a bunch of SM-57's/58's and a crate full of Marshall MXL's
> of various models all in good working order, wouldn't a talented
> recording pro be able to create a kickass, perfectly good sounding
> recording that wouldn't offend the sensibilities of the listening
> public?

Yes.

The overall quality of a recording is dependent on these four things *in
this order*:

1) Quality of the performance
2) Room acoustics
3) Engineers skill
4) Quality of the equipment

2) & 3) may be fairly close in importance, but 1) is far and away the
most important factor. Without a good performance, the rest is just so
much wasted effort.

In particular 4) is a distant fourth.

//Walt