| EC8010 |
Recording a snare drum, there's such a difference in timbre between the sound outside the skin and within the drum that it is conventional to place two microphones, one either side of the skin, and adjust relative levels to produce the required sound.
To avoid bass cancellation, one microphone must have its polarity inverted. Which one? And why?
This is not intended to be a trick question. If we can't answer this question, then absolute phase has to be questioned as being an anomaly in the replay system. Perhaps air linearity in small boxes... |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | To avoid bass cancellation, one microphone must have its polarity inverted. Which one? And why? |
The microphone in front of the drumskin because the impact's is higher on the rear of the skin and it's therefore more realistically being picked up by the mike on the other end.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| EC8010 |
I'd be prepared to put money [well, a fiver (£5), anyway] on most recording engineers inverting the inside microphone. Which, in a way, proves my point. You have presented a logical argument, yet I'm fairly sure it's ignored.
[edit] The distance the skin moves is the same, whichever side we observe... |
|
|
| purplepeople |
Wouldn't this also depend on the frequency of the drum's tuning, the corresponding wavelength and the distance to the skin of both mics?
:)ensen. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | I'd be prepared to put money [well, a fiver (£5), anyway] on most recording engineers inverting the inside microphone. Which, in a way, proves my point. You have presented a logical argument, yet I'm fairly sure it's ignored. |
Yes, that's what I expect most of them to do anyways...
Regarding the main topic though, no, I don't think absolute phase is nonsense at all.
Guess you noticed I'm a Blumlein fan?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Wouldn't this also depend on the frequency of the drum's tuning, the corresponding wavelength and the distance to the skin of both mics? |
Nope.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Thunau |
First, I think this is a wrong forum or at least wrong area of the forum ( Tubes?) to ask this question.
Second, there is no single correct answer to the problem.
As a recording engineer who used this technique a lot I can tell you that every snare drum responds a bit different to this way of miking. Depending on the depth of the drum itself, relative and absolute tuning of both heads and playing technique of the drummer the results of flipping the polarity of the bottom mic can be perceived as an improvement, change for worse, or just a change without a clear favorite. Also, changing the relative level of the bottom mic will sometimes change the prefered polarity setting.
The textbook/recording school method is to match both mics in level and the polarity that results in fuller sound is the correct one. Then adjust the bottom mic's level to taste. The problem is that sometimes it is impossible to tell which setting is fuller. They both sound bad or good or just different. Also, remember that 99% of the time snare mic is just one of many picking up snare's sound. Highly compressed overhead mics and room mics can carry more information about the snare in the final mix than the dedicated snare mic(s). If you consider that those can be delayed anywhere from 5-15 msec. (due to sound propagation delay) in relation to the close mic, the comb filtering effect can be greater than anything resulting from interaction of the top and bottom mic on the snare drum.
As to absolute polarity with regard to snare drum, on an isolated sample it could be audible, but the distinction could be easilly lost depending on positioning of the close mic. |
|
|
| EC8010 |
But most recordings are multi-miked, so...
Does anyone have any idea of the proportion of genuine Blumlein recordings using a pair of "figure of eight" crossed microphones that have been made, compared to the multi-miked stuff?
The Decca "tree" technique definitely didn't meet the Blumlein criterion, but it produced some cracking recordings. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Second, there is no single correct answer to the problem. |
Not to my mind but it seems a lot of sound engineers are already participating in the production process even before they're asked to.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Thunau |
| Blumlein technique is used a lot of times in addition to the standard multimiking. I have seen guys replacing spaced overheads with an M-S setup and keeping all the close mics. It works well for room miking of choirs because it reduces the amount of comb filtering present in spaced omni's. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Does anyone have any idea of the proportion of genuine Blumlein recordings using a pair of "figure of eight" crossed microphones that have been made, compared to the multi-miked stuff? |
1/1.000.000 and climbing?
Do you care? I do, and I care alot, but I'm not to sure many others do...Their loss.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| PassFan |
Well, from an engineers viewpoint, when I mic the underside of a snare it is to pick up the snares as well as a different bit of tone. I may or may not invert the bottom mic depending on how it sounded. Phase would have nothing to do with it depending on the mic's that are used. SM57's are rear rejecting mic's and are what I normally use on a snare. Through proper placement phase problems can be avoided as the mic's are not picking up the same thing yet their diaphrams are reacting in the same direction at the instant of the hit. The bottom mic is for a slight tonal change only and will not represent the overall snare sound. As for placing a mic inside the shell, the tone is different inside the shell but you are now recording the same skin. There again it would be a toss up as to wether I would invert or not, depends on how it sounded. Here again the mic's diaphrams are both reacting in the same direction at the same time, the only difference being the tone inside the shell. It always boils down to how it sounds and the individuals taste. Where you run into phasing problems on a drum kit are with the overheads. If you ever hear flanging in the cymbals then mic placement is to blame. Placement would be the cure however, and not the phase button.
I realize I have not addressed the phase issue as you may have liked, just a bit of perspective from an engineer.:xeye: |
|
|
| EC8010 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thunau
First, I think this is a wrong forum or at least wrong area of the forum (Tubes?) to ask this question. |
I agree, although I would point out that you replied to the post. :D
It looks as though a "recording" section on the forum might be needed.
Coming back to the polarity question, it looks as though it could be random? I'm really not trying to be a smart-****. |
|
|
| Thunau |
| quote: | Originally posted by EC8010
I agree, although I would point out that you replied to the post. :D
It looks as though a "recording" section on the forum might be needed.
|
I just happened to look at the front page at the right time. 5 minutes later and you would have missed my input (as if anybody cared
;) ).
Everything Else would be a good section to post this topic. I look there regularly. |
|
|
| EC8010 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thunau
5 minutes later and you would have missed my input (as if anybody cared). |
Well, I thought your post was useful. |
|
|
| PassFan |
| quote: | Originally posted by EC8010
Well, I thought your post was useful. |
And, he described it in more scientific terms than me.
:D
I was never any good at walking on eggshells:smash: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Well, from an engineers viewpoint, when I mic the underside of a snare it is to pick up the snares as well as a different bit of tone. |
Those are production skills, not recording skills to my mind.
But don't despair, I'm about the most difficult customer in the world when it comes to recording things the right way....
IOW, whatever you've been taught is WRONG to my mind.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| PassFan |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,
IOW, whatever you've been taught is WRONG to my mind.
Cheers,;) |
IOW
:confused: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
IOW> In other words.
Cheers and in phase,;) |
|
|
| PassFan |
Well, fortunately for me, I don't think I'll have to worry about having you come all the way over here to be a customer of mine.
As for being taught WRONG to your mind. just add me to the bottom of your long list.:D |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | As for being taught WRONG to your mind. just add me to the bottom of your long list. |
None of which is any of your doing, I'm sure...
No offense, Shifty,;) |
|
|
| PassFan |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
Hi,
None of which is any of your doing, I'm sure...
No offense, Shifty,;) |
Oh no, you can only get so far when someone else is showing you. Eventually you'll have to go out and experiment to see what you like best.
It's all subjective when your sitting at the console next to someone with pink hair who's telling you what he wants to hear.
:D
If we all engineered the same what kind of world would we live in.:smash: |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| I moved it to Everything Else section. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
It's all subjective when you are standing at the console next to someone (my GF) who's telling you what SHE wants to hear. ;)
If she is happy with the sound then everybody is happy with the sound.
This was last night.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
This guy belongs to the system, and we did some interesting tweaks and together pulled the biggest nicest sound we have ever heard.
This is halfway into the show and he is looking real happy - my ears were pretty happy too.
Eric. |
|
|
| cocolino |
| quote: | originally posted by EC8010
Recording a snare drum, there's such a difference in timbre between the sound outside the skin and within the drum that it is conventional to place two microphones, one either side of the skin, and adjust relative levels to produce the required sound. |
First, I don`t understand why a snare drum should be or is recorded with two microphones (unless to produce a certain sound) although I do understand that the sound from the 2 sides of the skin (with one MIC inside the drum) must be different.
For instance I think that nobody would record an acoustic guitar from the inside of the resonant corpus as well (though this could produce certain sound effects too) and mix this with the sound taken from the outside. Well, maybe it`s not quite the same and not a directly comparable example but I believe You know what I mean.
| quote: | originally posted by EC8010
To avoid bass cancellation, one microphone must have its polarity inverted. Which one? And why? |
I don`t see what bass cancellation has to do which one of the MIC`s polarity is inverted as long as one MIC is inverted at all.
When mixing 2 MIC signals from either side of the drum skin, what concerns bass cancellation it seems to me that the relative levels of the MIC-signals do matter much more than which one of the MICs is reversed in polarity. Or do I miss here something....?:confused:
| quote: | originally posted by EC8010
This is not intended to be a trick question. If we can't answer this question, then absolute phase has to be questioned as being an anomaly in the replay system. Perhaps air linearity in small boxes... |
I know that absolute phase in the replay system does matter but I don`t think that Your given example with 2 mics placed on either side of a snare-drum skin adresses the absolute phase issue in the replay system validly.
IMO a simple test as one I participated at the High-End show in Frankfurt (don`t remember anymore when it was but long time ago anyway) adresses this more correctly.
They played different tracks with recordings from a solo bass drum and bass drum with other instruments over a good system.
The polarity of absolute phase of the recording was known.
They played the tracks with correct absolute phase respectively with the phase reversed electronically at the signal source (not acoustically as with a second mic at the other side of a drum skin!). The reversed polarity switching was done in a way that the electronic circuit in the signal path was not more complex as with correct phase (as this could have negatively affected the validity of the results).
I clearly heard a difference (to my very surprise), even when only the solo bass drum was played. I even thought one of two polarity versions of a track not only sounded different but somehow "better" .
At the beginning of the test they had handed out a question form to each participant where one could have marked which version (A or B) of the individual tracks is prefered (of course we did not know the actual absolute phase polarity of the individual tracks prior the test) .
Unfortunately we had to go before the results were disclosed. Would have been very interesting to know wether the tracks I actually prefered (and what did hear the others) were the one with correct or reversed polarity and wether I prefered the same polarity always. |
|
|
| haldor |
| quote: | Originally posted by cocolino
For instance I think that nobody would record an acoustic guitar from the inside of the resonant corpus as well (though this could produce certain sound effects too) and mix this with the sound taken from the outside. Well, maybe it`s not quite the same and not a directly comparable example but I believe You know what I mean. |
This is actually fairly common. Acoustic guitars often have a piezo pressure sensitive pickup built into the bridge. The problem is that the piezo pickup by itself tends to sound overly bright (even a bit brittle). The solution is to mount a small condensor mic inside the body and mix until you get the desired sound.
Fishman makes a couple of "Blender" preamps designed for this exact purpose http://www.fishman.com/products/index.asp
It is also not uncommon to use two or even three mics when recording acoustic guitar in the studio .
Phil |
|
|
| PassFan |
Who's the young guy?
:cannotbe:
What kind of console is that? It's not an older Neve is it? I ran into one of those down here in the home shopping clubs network facility. They found it and sent it out to be refurbished. It sounds great. |
|
|
| Thunau |
| quote: | Originally posted by PassFan
Who's the young guy?
:cannotbe:
What kind of console is that? It's not an older Neve is it? I ran into one of those down here in the home shopping clubs network facility. They found it and sent it out to be refurbished. It sounds great. |
No, it's a one of a kind Auditronics. Circa 1984. It's the last recording console Auditronics made before they decided to go exclusively broadcast. It carries serial number 001 and I understand there was never a second one made. True 24 buss in-line design. Has early Allison automation. Sounds on par with opamp based Neve designs. It has 5532 and 353 opamps on the cards and Jensen transformers on all outputs.
Not the most desireable vintage console, but a decent sounding and flexible tool nevertheless. |
|
|
| wintermute |
| quote: | Originally posted by cocolino
First, I don`t understand why a snare drum should be or is recorded with two microphones (unless to produce a certain sound) although I do understand that the sound from the 2 sides of the skin (with one MIC inside the drum) must be different.
For instance I think that nobody would record an acoustic guitar from the inside of the resonant corpus as well (though this could produce certain sound effects too) and mix this with the sound taken from the outside. Well, maybe it`s not quite the same and not a directly comparable example but I believe You know what I mean.
|
That was exactly my first thought. Shows how little I know about what really happens in the recording studio. Also makes you wonder about wanting to have a natural/accurate sounding system, if none of the recorded instruments are actually what they "really sound like" but rather what the engineers or producers thought sounded best.
I always knew there was a lot of "tweaking" done when recording, but I never realised that it went to this sort of level!!!
I'm now starting to wonder if some of the CD's that I have sound bad due to my system not coping with them, or because they are simply bad!!!
Regards,
Tony. |
|
|
| Richard C |
| I love those recordings of performers with unusually large heads backed by musicians playing gigantic electric instruments. Makes me feel somehow insignificant:bigeyes: |
|
|
| Thunau |
| quote: | Originally posted by wintermute
That was exactly my first thought. Shows how little I know about what really happens in the recording studio. Also makes you wonder about wanting to have a natural/accurate sounding system, if none of the recorded instruments are actually what they "really sound like" but rather what the engineers or producers thought sounded best.
I always knew there was a lot of "tweaking" done when recording, but I never realised that it went to this sort of level!!!
I'm now starting to wonder if some of the CD's that I have sound bad due to my system not coping with them, or because they are simply bad!!!
Regards,
Tony. |
It goes both ways. Some CDs sound awesome because of the artists are just very good and all that the engineer has to do is capture the events faithfully. Some CDs sound awesome because the engineers are very good at what they are doing. They just make the artists (or should I say singing models) sound great (not real, but great nevertheless).
Some CDs sound just so-so or plain bad depending on a lot of factors. Lack of talent on both sides of the window, lack of time, lack of good gear, lack of inspiration, lack of money, lack of communication and all kinds of combinations of all those factors.
One of my personal pet peeves when reading audio related posts, reviews etc. is the assumption that recordings are made to sound "real" .
No, recordings are made to sound "good". What is "good" depends on who you ask. There are as many opinions as styles of music, times the number of producers, and even those opinions vary depending on what is popular at any given time. There are a few cases where "real" equals "good" but that's a great minority.
Believe me, you wouldn't like a lot of artists that you might find good now if you heard them recorded and mixed to sound "real".
Besides, what fun would it be for a creative and artistic person to just capture sound. Audio engineers and producers need to tweak, edit, mix, process, etc. to create art and top the next guy.
Would you like to watch an action movie that was just a stationary camera, one angle view of a set with no edits? That would be "real".
BOOORING! |
|
|
| PassFan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thunau
It goes both ways. Some CDs sound awesome because of the artists are just very good and all that the engineer has to do is capture the events faithfully. Some CDs sound awesome because the engineers are very good at what they are doing. They just make the artists (or should I say singing models) sound great (not real, but great nevertheless).
Some CDs sound just so-so or plain bad depending on a lot of factors. Lack of talent on both sides of the window, lack of time, lack of good gear, lack of inspiration, lack of money, lack of communication and all kinds of combinations of all those factors.
One of my personal pet peeves when reading audio related posts, reviews etc. is the assumption that recordings are made to sound "real" .
No, recordings are made to sound "good". What is "good" depends on who you ask. There are as many opinions as styles of music, times the number of producers, and even those opinions vary depending on what is popular at any given time. There are a few cases where "real" equals "good" but that's a great minority.
Believe me, you wouldn't like a lot of artists that you might find good now if you heard them recorded and mixed to sound "real".
Besides, what fun would it be for a creative and artistic person to just capture sound. Audio engineers and producers need to tweak, edit, mix, process, etc. to create art and top the next guy.
Would you like to watch an action movie that was just a stationary camera, one angle view of a set with no edits? That would be "real".
BOOORING! |
And then ther'es the pink haired guy sitting beside me who wants his snare to sound like a woman standing on her back porch at sunset in the middle of Kansas calling out to her young son...?????
:confused:
The real trick to engineering is knowing which mic to use to make it sound like you want it to. Consoles sound different as well, and last but not least when the final mix is expected to garner a bit of airplay it will be compressed at the studio to prepare it for broadcast.
Engineers are sought out because of their style or sound. When I think of big band I think of Al Schmidt. You can listen to Als work on Natalie Coles/Unforgetable or Diana Kralls/Look of Love. Sometimes I find myself buying music because of the engineer and not the artist.
:cannotbe:
That could be a new trend we could start right here at DIY.:D |
|
|
| wintermute |
Yes I remember the first time I saw a live band and thought "these guys don't sound anything like they do on their albums, and was quite disapointed".
I also remember seeing something on telly years ago about a guy who recorded a song. He played all the instruments and sang, and it showed how each was recorded and then mixed, was quite an eye opener.
All very good points.....
Sorry for getting a bit off topic here.
Regards,
Tony. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
My assistant engineer (GF) is a whole lot better looking than your assistant engineer. :D
Eric. |
|
|
| Thunau |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
My assistant engineer (GF) is a whole lot better looking than your assistant engineer. :D
Eric. |
Yes, but my "assitant engineer" knows more about music and can play guitar pretty well. ;)
In case you don't recognise the man (you could be a bit too young or just not care for his music), that's Steve Howe of Yes beside me.
 |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thunau
Yes, but my "assistant engineer" knows more about music and can play guitar pretty well. ;)
In case you don't recognise the man (you could be a bit too young or just not care for his music), that's Steve Howe of Yes beside me.
|
My GF can be quite picky about sound and is not backward in coming forward in saying so.
She listens in terms of pleasing overall sound and bop factor and if her hips are moving I know she is happy with the bass.
If there is any wrong harshness especially in vocals and tops she is quick onto it and will tell me so.
My job is to convert her descriptions and terms into mixing desk movements - a feedback loop of sorts.
I am good friends with the band (and fix and mod all their gear) and Justin and I did some serious equipment tweaks to the PA and worked together in tuning (eq), mixing and critiquing our sound - we got the PA sitting just great quickly, and did not need to do much after that all night except for gain riding solos and reverbs for effect.
We pulled a huge hifi killer sound that had the whole room smiling and dancing - quite a few people came up to the desk and complimented the sound - Justin's smile and thumbs up are genuine.
I have heard plenty of Yes stuff in the past but never got deeply into it, so please pardon me for not recognising your colleague/mentor ?.
What was the project that you two worked on ?, and what kinds of things did you learn ?
The band members in the pics are long known in Aus music.
Eric. |
|
|
| Thunau |
It was a one evening session. Steve was in town recording tracks at another studio for one of his solo records. A good friend of mine - an awesome percussion player in his own right- asked Steve to guest appear on his album that I was recording. Steve agreed, and I got to work with one of my heroes. Yes was my favorite band as I was growing up and I learned to play a few of their tunes on guitar.
What I learned is what I tried to explain a few posts above. There is no substitution for talent. I didn't have to do much engineering beyond the basics of miking up an amp, dialing in a good headphone mix and running the tape. It came out sounding unmistakable Steve Howe. He played a few takes without listening back between them, came out of the studio and layed out the comp map for me from memory. He was like: " give me the first 3 bars from Take 2, switch to Take 1 for 7 bars, then go to Take 4 for the first part of the lead, and ride it out on the remainder of Take 3." You get the idea. A total pro.
I worked with a few other "big time" musicians, but Steve totally deserves the place he holds in history of Rock music. All in all a great experience. |
|
|
| john curl |
| You folks make me nostalgic for the old days. I had pictures of me like this, once, made while mixing the movie 'Fillmore' with lots of rock bands back in '72. Mixing is different from circuit design. I am a lousy recording engineer. I am too pure. :xeye: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | I am a lousy recording engineer. I am too pure. |
Allow me to disagree.
Nowadays, as far as most pop recordings go you do not record, you produce as you record.
The goal is to sell product not to record the artist's playing.
With some exceptions of course...
It does show in my vinyl collection; about 60% of it is recorded in the late fifties to late sixties.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Recordings of modern live rock bands are not all that different to their live performances - tons of limiting, compression etc and every individual band member trying to make as much noise as possible.
This is what the youngsters are hearing live and what they expect on record.
Combine this with them listening on rough sounding shelf systems or even worse car audio systems and rough sound is what they expect.
It is normal for them to walk out of a modern disco or live show with their ears 'cooked' and ringing, and I expect a lot of industrial deafness in the future.
The success that we had Friday night is that we were able to pull a big clean clear hifi and loud sound without ear shutdown or ringing - band breaks were outside in the beer garden and night sounds were perfectly clear to our hearing despite having just walked out from a wall of glorious blues/rock sound.
Eric. |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
| quote: | Originally posted by Thunau
.............What I learned is what I tried to explain a few posts above. There is no substitution for talent. |
Yes, and the same aplies live.
The band shown above are totally pro, and they sound like it too.
Many years ago I saw one of my favorite bands and I noted that the live engineer was all over the desk for about 1 1/2 songs, and by the end of the second song stood up and moved to his stool six feet back from the desk, folded his arms and did not go near the desk for the rest of the show.
I asked him about this after the show and his reply was that the band on stage are so professional and their sound so good that once intial levels are set there is no need to keep adjusting.
He pointed out that if the desk is initially set and then 'locked', then the band will modify their playing to get their desired in room sound, and that the band preferred to work that way.
This I have always considered good advice and I try to do the same when possible.
Conversely the worst mix I have heard was of a high profile band where the engineer would not leave any fader or knob alone for more than about 8 seconds, and the sound just got progressively worse right up to the end.
If I have ever wanted to slap a live sound guy, this was it.
Eric. |
|
|
| dhaen |
Back to the original posters question:
Yes. the mic'ing probably is usually done wrong.
So, absolute phase is not preserved in many amplified performances or recordings.
Perhaps that is another reason why even the best reproducing systems I've heard, make noises that are nothing like the naked instruments.
Of course there are instruments that make no natural noises of their own. I exclude those from my comments ;) |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | So, absolute phase is not preserved in many amplified performances or recordings. |
We're not getting any younger, John...:cannotbe:
EC8010 never really confirmed whether my response to his question was correct....the little fox. :D
| quote: | | Perhaps that is another reason why even the best reproducing systems I've heard, make noises that are nothing like the naked instruments. |
Enough to drive you crazy when you do have a polarity switch, let me tell you.
Cheers,;)
P.S. Having a perfectly chilled Keizer Karel beer as I type...:) |
|
|
| mrfeedback |
Microphones are not always internally wired for correct output polarity, and this is something that needs to be checked.
Eric. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Microphones are not always wired in correct output polarity, and this is something that needs to be checked. |
Just a Q, how would you record a snare drum in a multi-miked set up?
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Thunau |
| quote: | Originally posted by mrfeedback
Microphones are not always internally wired for correct output polarity, and this is something that needs to be checked.
Eric. |
All the decent manufacturers usually provide that information in the spec sheet. It goes something like:" positive sound pressure on the diaphragm results in positive voltage on pin no. 2 of the XLR connector".
As to absolute polarity, I believe that I have heard the difference but only on some speakers. Usually anything with electro-acoustic crossover slopes other than 1 st, 4th, 8th, etc. results in inverse polarities between tweeter and woofer over large frequency ranges. Three-way systems or two-way plus sub can get so mangled as far as phase shift goes that it doesn't matter anymore what absolute polarity is the system .
Another factor is mastering which can also inadvertently invert the polarity. Some digital plugins invert polarity by adding a single sample to the beginning of a file for some technical reasons (I'm not 100% sure why, it's a math thing. I bet DSP savy participants here can fill us in).
Another big factor is the use of multiband compressors/limiters so prevalent today. They use IIR filters which scramble the phase just like an analog crossover. After it's all said and done, the frequency domain might stay unaffected or affected in desireable ways, but the time domain and the transient response (same thing more or less) of the recorded events is all over the place. The very high frequencies might exhibit a proper polarity but associated low and mid frequencies might not. So don't expect to be able to tell reliably when listening to modern pop and rock music which polarity is the correct one.
If you have a set of Maggies or Vandersteins and listen to Steely Dan circa 1977 there is a good chance that the correct polarity will be somewhat more "right" sounding. |
|
|
| PassFan |
| Just to share an odd mic up for a drum kit... You can get a surprisingly good sound with a couple of overheads set about 2 to 3 feet apart peeking over either shoulder of the drummer at head height. Works good with a more sensitive condenser ala C414 or some of the larger diaphramed AT's. At times it may require an extra mic for the snare depending on how agressive the drummer is and naturally, it will not work for live sound, it's for studio only. Next time your in session and have some time try it out.:D |
|
|
| EC8010 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PassFan
Works good with a more sensitive condenser ala C414 or some of the larger diaphragmed AT's. |
Works with ribbons too! |
|
|
|
