@svart "Mix engineers have applied psychoacoustics by cutting the low frequencies but using devices to generate the 2nd/3rd harmonics of the frequencies they cut..."

Your post is intriguing because I've never heard of it being applied to mixing before - and not sure exactly how you'd do it - but it makes perfect sense in principle. Sounds similar to what musicians do sometimes. For example, I'm working on an Einaudi piece that requires some bass notes that go lower than my harp can play, so where the notes get too low I modify what I'm doing and play some upper parts of the harmonic series which effectively creates low notes beyond what's physically possible on the harp. Organists have done this trick for generations to create pseudo-32 foot pitches in an instrument that doesn't have 32-foot stops.

@svart Mic looks tasty! I guess analogue EQ is different as it will have different phase shifts than you get with digital EQ - apart from anything else. Is that why you prefer it?

I like the 460 because it's a cheap mic and the circuit is actually close to the original C12 design. It's pretty easy to mod: replace 2 capacitors, remove 2 capacitors, replace the tube and replace the capsule.

This is the mod I prefer but I elected to get a C12 edge-terminated capsule instead because I wanted a different frequency response:

http://www.foxaudioresearch.ca/The460secret.htm

Which seems fairly close to the Oktavamod one.


@Mark_the_Harp: Digital EQ always seems to get harsh when you use a lot of it. I'm not exactly sure why though. I find that plug-ins, no matter how awesomely designed, also tend to lose detail in the audio. I've never really investigated but I believe it to be related to word multiplication in the algorithm. Eventually if you multiply enough, you have to truncate back to your bit width (16/24/32 bit), etc. So every time you truncate, you lose more and more original data. This is also why people who mix "in the box" will avoid digital bussing and elect to mix down through an analog mix bus. In any case, I found that I would need a lot more plug EQ to make things sound OK. When I finally got back to my roots with a proper console, I found that a whole lot less EQ was needed and that fidelity was increased. I even asked a number of my friend/associates to take a listen and the decision was rather unanimous that the console just had more life to it.

While there is a lot I can post here when I have more time (though it has been difficult to find it for several months now), I will say a few things in terms of resources for finding out more. Also, my list of mics I like at the end run in price from 400 to 10,000 dollars MSRP in the U.S.

Find a good listening environment and get some CDs (or the digital downloads) from the 3daudioinc.com comparisons before you buy ANY mic, unless you have a friend (or personally are) an engineer with access to lots of mics in person in a studio setting (not just a store or trade show). Here is a link to the comparisons I am talking about, current as of the time of writing. They were conducted a few years ago but several of the mics tested are still VERY popular.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/catalog/index.php/cPath/21?osCsid=9fa04f64c5a19bd802558aa2c0dacede

The two to focus on there are the "Ribbon Mic Roundup" and the "3D Mic CD".

If you use listen to those on a good system, you will know EXACTLY what you are getting into, instead of relying on the biases that others have.

But in terms of biases, here are a few microphones I have loved using on sessions.

Small Diaphragm Condenser:
Neumann KM184D (which I used to record a Grammy winning classical vocalist because she preferred it to her usual vocal mics)

That microphone has some killer other features in terms of the signal path so read up on it.

Ribbon:
AEA R92
Royer R122V

These two mics really have a different sound from most of the others, though I would enjoy a chance to try the Tannoys one day as well.

Large Diaphragm Condenser:
Neumann U87
Neumann TLM103
Telefunken ELAM 251-E
Rode NT2A

I also have lots of colleagues that love the Rode NT1A, favoring the lower noise floor over the flexibility and features of the NT2A.

Yeah, the nice thing about a good small diaphragm mic like the KM184D is just how clear and natural it sounds. I think that's part of the reason why some of the strongest vocalists I work with are so intrigued by them - they don't color and flatter (which is often good) but rather give that really direct sense of what's there.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Great links to the SOS articles for production and marketing tips - thanks.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev Also, the ABX comparator plug-in for Foobar2000 is a great tool I've been using the last year or two for blind test comparisons.

Also, every time I have had a vocalist pick their microphone, it's been by listening back to playback of themselves from different mics (typically with the files identified only after their performance choice have been made).

I'm not a microphone snob, but I know there is a BIG difference between "pretty good" and "really great", and that difference isn't just from source to source or performer to performer, but also from song to song.

On the album "Stream" by Joanna St. Claire we switched between at least 5 different microphones for her vocals alone depending on the song. On "Listen to the Sound" we preferred the sound of one of the less expensive ones to the ones costing two to seven times as much. On the next song we worked on, the situation reversed. Nothing on that album was done based on reputation alone. :)

I like that the article actually picks a wide range of favorite vocal mics and not just the ones that usually show up in articles (read: paid to advertise in the form of a review..).

For example the Gefell mic. I have a couple Gefell mics and some day I plan on getting more. I simply can't state how underestimated these mics are. They don't get a lot of publicity even though they were actually part of Neumann back before WW2 and actually continue on with designs that are more authentic to Neumann than modern Neumann mics are today.

I can honestly say that although I enjoy reading SOS, I would never rely on their gear reviews. I rely on them for a quick explanation of features. I would not place those mics there, and so the results have no use for me.

@Mark_theHarp IMHO the KM140 is better than subsequent designs including the 184--Hang on to it.
I'm surprised to hear a vocalist wanted the 184, I would never use that mic for voice. But that's taste, of course. I guess Beyer MCD100 is a mic that rocks on vocals that you never see anymore. Anyone has one let me know.

@DrDave

Mics and loudspeakers are like religion.
Some guys settle early and live happily.
Some search perfection whole life...

@DrDave Also, you lumped ALL the solution Ds together, but there are several D range mics. :) You can pick the KM184D with a starter kit up for under $2k, not the $8k you mentioned earlier.