I was trying to say that the bass enhancement seems to be the
desireable effect of the LDC that everybody likes and therefore uses
the LDC for vocals....

and I was trying to say that you could get the same desireable bass
enhancement on a non LDC mic by using a graphic EQ or parametric EQ
(ok maybe not with a simple "tone control EQ")

Mark

Steve King wrote:
"Albert" wrote in message
oups.com...


And here's the inverse question: How come some of these hotshot
Nashville studios put LDCs on every guitar, fiddle, or mandolin
(especially on that of the honcho whose name will be on the album
cover), when, in my (perhaps more limited) experience, a SDC will
almost always yield a better result - especially for plectrum oriented
instruments? I get the sense that part of it is a desire to impress the
client with the big mic. Or just a different style, different ears. The
results are not bad, I'll grant, but it don't seem like the best choice
to me.

I've seen artists request different mics for photographs than they actually
recorded with. Where are you getting your info?

Steve King

Not from photograghs. From converstaions with people who have done some
recording recently in Nashville. One guy described almost everything as
recorded in X-Y stereo with large diaghram Neumanns, though he wasn't
clear on which ones. Bluegrass record.

Albert

Mark wrote:

I was trying to say that the bass enhancement seems to be the
desireable effect of the LDC that everybody likes and therefore uses
the LDC for vocals....

and I was trying to say that you could get the same desireable bass
enhancement on a non LDC mic by using a graphic EQ or parametric EQ
(ok maybe not with a simple "tone control EQ")

Sorry I misunderstood you, but you didn't quote any of the previous post
so I didn't realise which bit you were replying to.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Albert wrote:

From converstaions with people who have done some
recording recently in Nashville. One guy described almost everything as
recorded in X-Y stereo with large diaghram Neumanns, though he wasn't
clear on which ones. Bluegrass record.

That approach can often work really well. People get all hot and
bothered about what type of mic is "supposed" to be used for whichever
source. Often they allow these predetermined attitudes to prevent them
from experimenting with other approaches.

--
ha

I've used a KM 184 on vocals a couple of times and felt I got good
tracks. Whatever the engineering pricipals are, they are very
sensitive to plosives and I have found using a popper stopper a few
inches from the grill to help a lot.

Tom Paul

I'm intrigued by the earlier posting about using KM184s for vocals.
I'm definitely going to start trying out *all* my mics on *everything*.
That's going to take a while (and does include a pair of KM184s) but
maybe it's a better way of spending time than reading newsgroups :-)

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

Yep. Try what you have around always be prepared to throw preconceived
notions out and go with what sounds best.

Some ideas:
- why not a dynamic mic instead (ever tried a SM57 on a singer, if you
haven´t go ahead and do it. Total disaster on some voices, best choice
for a select few).
- try a true pressuri omni sometime. (NOT a switchable omni). Say one
of the DPA-s, MKH20, KM183, CMC with MK20 or similar. They have two
interesting properties: quite insensitive to hand held noise and
absolutely no proximity effect -- the bass stays same regardless of
distance.

G.