Do You Need An Expensive Mic 

Now I see your comment, yes! We should care less about choosing the gear and get more focused in the process and joy of making music! Cuz at the end of the day, all the big names in music industry became BIG with a hit they wrote with a budget gear. Now they can try 10-20k mics and have fun.

This is just true wisdom. It doesn't get any better than this comment

@@tomrogers2790 🙏🏽🙏🏽

Wow.

Thomas, tell me more.

​@DNG Maestro The Neumann has the wonderful character and more pleasant top end over the Rode. I had the K2 and the Neumann provides more detail in the top end.

Don’t forget Chinese company Se

I relate to this so much. I just posted a comment similar to yours lol. we as artists gotta keep the main thing the main thing, and just create music. that's what we do best. I'm glad you found a setup that works well for you!!

I'm glad Diomer that I'm not the only one. Yeah, that's life, so we learn in our fails. After trying over 7 mics I found mine. And for sure, never trust any reviews or (DRAKE VOCALS SETUP/GREEN DAY SETUP), take in consideration, try it and move to the next one till you'll find one. As long as you can return the gear back, you should try! And yes, I made greater music with my TLM102 more than with U87. That says a lot!

Same here and got a free one when I bought Apollo X6!

And I have BAE 1073s, BURL B1, and API 512c preamps to accompany, and can certainly vouch for your statement that having a decent selection of quality preamps will take you up another notch when paired well with the right mic and source.

Well said! That flea though, it’s pretty special!

The Atlantis is not a Tube Mic. How can a transistor sound like a Tube? Can‘t get it.

@@FlashRocket96, I didn't say it sounds like it has a tube. I said it has a 47 vibe.

Great info here for some alternative mics to the super expensive options 😎thank you

OK - this seems strange to me honestly. Could it be the pairing with other elements in the chain?

I have a u87 and it's the most beautiful vocal sound.

@@MoreMeRecording Our recording class did a blind shootout between a genuine U47 and a CM47 on a male vocal track . There were differences but they were ever so slight. The school recently purchased a TLM 149. I can honestly say that you get what you pay for. It’s being used on vocals here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lVoa5cawsNk.html Thanks for the tip on the Stam’s.

The cardioid mode should be pretty flat on that one, so they it is a matter of EQ'ing it to fit your voice. The idea of the "right" mic, is based on the frequency response of some mics, not really allowing to boost the necessary frequncies, either because it did not capture them at enough strength, or that there was a resonance that would become audiable when a frequency is boosted, or that the resspone is so uneven that it takes hours of tuning the EQ curve, and just switching mic was then easier. Most modern sound interfaces have good enough pre-amps, and they are pretty clean, in some cases depending on the mic, they may not offer enough gain, or enough clean gain, to work with certain microphones, but there are in-line amplifiers from SE and cloudlifter that can boost the level, so the pre-amp in the interface can handle it. Many classic pre-amps, or saturated pre-amps, like the ones a lot of people are looking for, in terms of external hardware, did not have enough gain for those microphones either, and many in fact come with less gain than many modern sound interfaces. Sound engineers are very stubborn, set in their ways, and often they teach newcomers their own ways, and everyone is mislead and live in their own bubble. Most serious listening to music today takes place on headphones. And even before, nearfield monitors in a treated room did not match any home environment either. But still recording engineers keep talkig about monitors. The fact is, that you actually can't mix for headphones with monitors. You may know not to pan the low end (our hearing is mono below at least 120Hz, some say 200Hz), but there is no way to get the stereo imaging right, because of the lack of crosstalk in headphones. And then headphones are superior, because they aren't impacted by the room. Every listening position get the sam sound. And when you are off to the sides tweaking that hardware or some channels on the mixer, you still hear it the same way with headphones, but absolutely not with speakers.

@@TheJonHolstein there’s some solid insight in there

I've been in this exact camp for the past 15 years. Solid advice. If the source is good and the room is not horrible, can't go wrong.

I would.. that's just my opinion. But if you don't like it you can sell it

some of the modelling mic have had a tendency to sound a bit harsh, distorting the captured sound. If they are distorting the sound, they can't perfectly model a mic after that. But if the capture is clean, the difference in the actual mics are mostly the frequency response, and that can be modelled, or even EQ'ed. The advantage of modelling mics, is that they typically also support a clean recording, and you can they apply the modelling afterwards. But the modelling is really a lot like applying different EQ curves, you just get a number of presets from famous microphones. The cheapest modelling mics have only a single membrane for capturing, so they lack the ability to do polar patterns. But typically in a normal home studio, a studio microphone will capture too much sound pollution, so what you want is a good mic with good off-axis rejection. If you get an SM7b, you have a good mic, as long as the singer can handle the off-axis rejection of it. And if you want a bit of polar pattern emulation you can use a SM57 turned away from the singer. You could also just get a matched pair om small membrane microphones and to a stereo recording that you can then mix with the capture of the main mic. Such a collection of mics, will come in handy for other uses as well. So it will serve you better than investing a lot in a studio vocal mic. But yes, if you have the room for it (sound proofed), a higher end modelling mic can be a way to get a lot of flavor from a single microphone. It will not sound exactly like those microphones that they are supposed to model, but you can have both the pretty clean recording, and then test out different flavors, or just EQ and mix the original dual track, as you prefer, without thinking too much of what microphone it might sound like.

Do it!

I have 3 Townsend spheres. Absolutely. Check one out.

Yes it is. All my friends think I love to cook. I really don’t I’m just saving for an Apollo Twin x 😂

@@jackedkerouac4414 Hey Jack

Look into UA Sphere modelling mic - it has C800 emulations and close to the sound when compated on Audio Test Kitchen and I think actually liked UA Sphere version better.

try the Sony C-80. it just came out a few months ago. i just got one and really like it so far.

Sony c-80 and a tube tech pre amp? Lol

Hey Christian, my vocal mics are Neumann U87 and Telefunken TF29. Most of my singer mates prefer the TF29 ; at half the price. Just goes to show .....

@@KeysMcGhee Interesting! 🤔 I've heard before that these two mics are quite similar. I wonder why some people prefer the TF29. Is it the tube behaviour on high dynamic parts, the high, mid or low freq.? Anyways I never had the honor to work with a u87, but I love my TF29. I think the whole tube TF line from Telefunken is pretty awesome. 🙂

I bought that mike back when it was being crowd sourced (I also have the slate mic). The greatest advantage of that type of mic is the different flavors. I don’t know if they sound exactly like the originals but you can’t beat the price. It will also give you a chance to find out what works better on your or others voices without having to put up a bunch of mics.

Do it!

🤣

Nope

Yes you will hear a difference

If the frequency response is good, the transient response is good, and there is no internal resonances that impacts the sound, then you can just EQ your way, to fit any singer. If you use a condenser mic like those, in a room that is not soundproofed, and not treated, you might actually ruin the recording. So for home studios, and project studios, dynamic mics with great off axis rejection, is the better choice. So SE Dynacaster 8 DCM, Shure SM7b (but that may require an in-line amp from SE or Cloudlifter for your interface to be able to handle it). The downside is that the singer has to be able to stay within the recording field. If you have a decent room, you can also set up a stereo system of small membrane microphones, to add "air" to the recording, and some natural room, to compensate for the small polar pattern, and the effect can be even greater that way.

Why is this question ALWAYS asked as a response to buying garbage? So should Mozart not have composed and written symphonies because everyone would not have found classical music inaccessible or been able to make it to the theaters to witness it first hand? Geez. I am so thankful the maters of the craft did not choose this mentality.

@@PurpleMusicProductions You OBVIOUSLY have a problem with READING COMPREHENSION. Your reply doesn't make sense. Music creation and music production are two DISTINCTLY different things. The quality of your composition has NOTHING to do with the equipment used for production. Your analogy is downright STUPID. The mentality I employed is COST EFFECTIVENESS. Obviously you don't work for a financial institution. Can you ACTUALLY tell the difference in what equipment was used to record a song from a $40 pair of earbuds? Anyone who says they can is LYING. How many people do you know who listen to a song on Spotify or RU-vid and can tell you which microphone was used? The man who taught me how to record,Bud Hobgood (James Brown's producer/engineer) recorded James on either a Shure SM58 or a Sennheiser MD 421 because he kept blowing diaphragms on the Neumanns. When Spotify is only paying .00521 cents per play,and RU-vid is only paying .00175 cents per view,you need 6 MILLION views to purchase a top of the line Neumann or a Telefunken. The point is to turn a PROFIT.

Slate only has a single membrane so it can't emulate polar patterns, some other brands can do that. The issue though is that if your room is not perfect, you are in most cases better of with a dynamic mic with off axis rejection, like the SM7b, or SE Dynacaster DCM 8 (that one has flatter response curve and has a built in pre-amp to bring the level up so it should work with any interface). Some microphones have some resonances inside them, so you can't boost certain frequencies, and that has been the issue with some modelling microphones. If you have a microphone with a pretty flat frequency response, no resonances, and good transient response, you can simply EQ the recording to fit the singers voice. Having to pick microphones, comes from having microphones with resonances, that made it so you could not EQ them easily, and thus it would be easier to pick another mic. Or they had a fall off, at either end or a dip, that made it so that it wasn't possible to boost it back up without distorting the sound. What engineers should learn is how to EQ a mic, not switching mics or roughly what mic might work. If you know how to EQ the sound, you can work with many mics at many budgets. And the modelling mics, to a large extent is just applying an EQ curve to the captured signal, so that is really the same thing. For a studio wanting business, that has the budget for it, a mic cabinet makes a lot of sense, as it will attract customers. But a good engineer that can quickly get the tone right, might be able to win the client over, and get recommended anyway.

@@TheJonHolstein This makes sense to me and is great advice. It strikes me that the mic used in a modeling product like Slate's probably has a "pretty flat frequency response, no resonances, and good transient response" so, with the exception of off-axis rejection, one could eq to fit the singer's voice and ultimately the mix. So modeling mics are really just selling signal chain settings to some extent. So the question is: can you get the desired sound faster by trying presets or by manually eqing etc. thanks!

@@gkurtenbach Well, jumping presets/mic models is a bit of a hit and miss strategy, so in general it takes more time than if you have some knowledge about what you are doing. But if you have a client that knows what mics sound good on their voice, it can give you a good starting off option (however, you can also have a cheat-card, with frequency response curves of various mics, and just set it up to something similar to that). Austrian Audio and Lewitt audio makes some really good microphones, that you could work with, instead of getting a modelling mic, where you will be paying for the modelling software (presets), and may find at some point that the software is no longer supported, and thus have a lesser quality mic for the same price.

​@@TheJonHolstein you are right about preset jumping. I know with channel strip presets its generally a miss strategy. It's way more productive to know how to just record well and apply comp/eq/saturation/echo/rev/limiting to get a sound that works in context.

I feel like I need to process the heck out of it to the point that I'm better off with mic that sounds closer to the way i want off rip.

If you have a microphone with a good fequency response and good transient response, and not too much resonance, then you can just EQ your way to the sound you want. And if you think the NT1-A sound "small", because it isn't a dual membrane microphone, you can always test to either set up a microphone recording in the opposite direction, or get a couple of microphones to do a stereo recording, and then mix that in, for "air", and a stereo recording, will add more room feeling than any dual membrane microphone will. Some classic mics have an issue with the frequency response, and can't be EQ'ed to sound right, so then you might need a set of classics, to have one for each voice type. If the response curve is fine, the EQ will be able to solve the rest.

Love this well said

I don't think beatles every only used 4 tracks, they recorded on to one tape, then on to another so they could record 4 tracks multiple of times, cut them and then combine them on to another tape. But yes, this is just a video feeding the GAS monster. Sound-interfaces will have a good enough pre-amp, but one might need an in-line amplifier like the ones from SE or cloudlifter to get enough clean gain, for some microphones. Good monitors is a waste for most people. The overwhelming listening to songs will be on headphones, even the overwhelming majority of engaged listening, or on phone speakers, tablet speakers, soundbar, portable speaker or something else not worth mixing for. Heaphones will be your best method of getting close to experience to any relevant situation for people listening to the music. Great headphones start at 300 dollars/euros or less, at that price point, at best, if you are lucky you can get an ok pair of monitor speakers, and then you have to deal with room acoustics. I'm quite fed up with all engineers that keep talking about monitors, as that is so out of touch with consumers. And it always was, as nearfield monitors in a treated room, never matched anything in a home, it was a recording for other recording engineers to listen to in their studios. There are parts of the process where speakers can be used, but for the critical listening, today, headphones is where it should happen. And to work with clients, get a set of matching headphones, like the ATH-M50x, and set up a talk-back system. That way everyone will be fed the same sound, something that is not possible in a room. Their hearing will impact what they hear, but at least they will have the same sound fed towards their ears. For longer sessions of mixing an mastering, they may not be the most comfortable, and there are better headphones, in terms of frequency response and transient response, so they may not be everyone's choice for the studio desk. The talk about microphones suiting different voices, is misleading. A microphone with a pretty flat frequency response will suit any singer, if you EQ the recording. If the microphone does not have a flat frequency response, and some of the most sought after mics don, well then you might end up with a microphone that one will not be able to EQ to sound good with any voice. So yes, to some degree it is true. But you don't need a specific mic for a specific voice, if you have a mic that works well universally with just some EQ'ing. What you want is flat frequency response, good transient response, and no resonances. And for most non professional studio situations, a good off-axis rejection is preferred, although that may take some time getting used to, as you have to stay within a certain field. But then like you say, it is possible to experiment. Set up a couple of stereo mics, have a mic facing the other direction, so you can partly emulate different polar patterns. But the stereo mic'ing will probably give you more "air" than any high end studio microphone. And if you want to play with analog pre-amps, well, you can always re-amp the signal, and I would probably go for stereo-equipment, that would not be able to handle every microphone, but where the pre-amp, when re-amping, will ge enoung to add some character, and by being stereo, it can be used for all sorts of tracks. Instead for getting that single mic pre-amp, that can drive almost any microphone. And to have freedom over the saturation, depending on the mic, that one with a lot of drive, might not actually add any meaningful amount of saturation with some mics, as it is typically when driven harder, that comes to play, and on some, the sound will just fall apart when turning up the gain to the levels needed for some microphones. So for a lot of cases, something like the SE Dynacaster 8 DCM, should be enough, and if you want the famous version, the Shure SM7b, that costs a little extra and may need that in-line amp. That new Audix PDX-720, could turn out to be interesting as well, but I don't think the price has been released, and no tests. And then SM57, and/or a matched pair of cheaper small membrane microphones, and one till have most of what one may need, to get different types of sound, from the singer, and also have a set of microphones that can be used for all sort of other tasks.

Very, very sibiliant

A person can find validation for any point they want to make using isolated examples. The video is for a “well rounded” “versatile” mic. They used SM57’s on the kick drum for Van Halen 1. Do you recommend that for everyone? I stand by what I said, the SMB is a very good in its price range but NOT a versatile mic. It’s great at what it was designed to do and it’s always good to have in a mic collection.

I 2nd what Bazman said. I have an u87ai and I love it. However, I recorded a duet with someone who had a tlm103. My vocals were with my 87, hers with her 103. It was eye-opening how similar they sounded. The main differences were the 103 was brighter and a tad bit harsher than the 87.

​@@MoreMeRecording thanks so much, right now my setup is (, tlm103-neve1073spx-1176lindell-warmaudio2a- ApolloTwin ,) Any recommendations ? IM Only tracking Vocals, Rnb & Rap ,I want clear smooth vocals

@@kedavis thanks my friend upgraded from the tlm103 to the u87 he said the same thing,Once he seen me Buy hardware,He now wished he would have spent the money on a compressor ,right now my setup is (, tlm103-neve1073spx-1176lindell-warmaudio2a- ApolloTwin ,) Any recommendations ? IM Only tracking Vocals, Rnb & Rap ,I want clear smooth vocals

@@brianwynn10 What does your current setup sound like?

or pick a mic with a flat as possible frequency response, good transient response, and as little internal resonance as possible, at your budget, and you will be able to EQ it to sound good with any voice. This picking mic concept comes from a workflow of the past. But for some of those expensive mics, due to their frequency response, you may have to pick a different mic, despite it being expensive. Some cheap mics have resonances or a response that may take too much time to fix, but going for a expensive mic that accidentally fit ones voice will then not be a great investemnt. Learn how to EQ, is the best mic investment. Engineers are quite stubborn, and they like to pretend that gear is more important than it is. If anyone can just get a software EQ and both emulate the nice things about a specific mic and hardware pre-amp, they bar of entry will be lowered, taking business from studios that have made investments in to a lot of hardware. This is not a balanced and objective video. This is a video promoting having to spend more than you have to. And like so many engineers, he keeps talking about monitors, like that is relevant, when most serious music listening takes place on headphones. Very very few people have a good speaker system at home, and fewer also with decent acoustics, and even then, nearfield monitors is not a good way to reference how the sound will sound in a home set-up, they are only good for referencing how it will sound in another studio. Whereas headphones much more accurately gives you a sound that will come close to match how the audience will hear it, in any scenario where they really do care how it sounds. external pre-amps are almost never needed with modern sound interfaces. If they lack a bit of gain, get an in-line amplifier from Se or cloudlifter. And many external pre-amps don't have enough gain either.

@@TheJonHolstein " its not the gear its the ear " when it comes to recording.. But the better the gear the less you gotta do to make it sound its best... But a good performance is most important thing ... But recording like everything else is an art ...

@@TheJonHolstein and I would disagree about preamps .. While most pres on interfaces are OK ... External pres can color your sound add weight , body and depth to the signal .. Especially if you do any analog summing ..

@@SeventhSonMusic Not particularly true, no matter what hardware you have, you will have to work with the signal to get it right. There is no magic box. If anything there is some software that can do all sorts of things under that hood, that are much quicker to work with. And the issue with spending a lot on pre-amp, is that the ones that are expensive typically saturate the signal, in a way that may not always be desirable, and then you have to do more work actually. The best way to work, is to get a clean signal, then learn how to process it, and most of the time, the critial part will not be using hardware, but simply know what to do, to get it to sound in a particular way, there is some argument, that some hardware saturates in a way that plugins never or rarely do, but a lot of hardware has no more special saturation compared to software, and you do not want that imprinted on everything you record, you can always send a singal that was cleanly recorde through hardware to saturate it afterwards, and then you still have the clean signal to work with, typically, a mix of saturated an clean signal will give you the best results. Good enough microphones are not that expensive, and clean pre-amps are found in about every interface these days.

It’s never that simple.

Well said. The inexpensive gear, now a days, is down to a science, for manufacturing it. They can make it inexpensive and good sounding. To some extent, the party is over for the high end stuff. People, especially in home studios, are discovering the virtues of equipment that costs far less than the expensive stuff.

Makes me wonder.

No, not at all

No, this whole video is about feeding the GAS. In most cases, your interface has a good enough pre-amp, and with some microphones you may need a in-line pre-amp like the ones from SE or cloudlifter. But then you are mostly good to go. And even with an external pre-amp, you may still need that in-line amp. If the frequency response and the transient response is good, then you can EQ your way to a curve that fits the singer. Large condenser micrphones, pick up noise, so the way to reduce that is to have a really well treated studio. So the less sound pollution from those high end mics, are from the recording room. But some cheap tube mics come with a lot of noise. Any "3D", or depth to the sound comes from the polar pattern. And if you want that, I would recommend getting a pair of micrphones and set up as stereo micrphones, to then mix in, to add room, depth and air to the sound. That avatone mic, has pretty much a flat frequency response, to it is just about EQing it. And make sure you have the room for it. That SM7b, has a good off axis rejection, so that works pretty well for less than optimal rooms, and that is the audience he supposedly is targeting, when he talk about home studios and project studios. The SE Dynacaster DCM 8, has a flatter frequency response than the SM7b, is cheaper and should not require an in-line pre-amp. Combined with a pair of SM7, or a matched pair, for that stereo image, and you can add in more room. But one has to know how to sing in to a microphone with good off axis rejection. If anything, many of the classic mics, do not have as good frequency response, and precisely therefor may not suit any voice. For a pro studio, having a mic cabinet, and some good pre-amps to get people to come there do record, can be a good investment. For the Home/project studio, there are some really good mics, that don't cost a lot, and those expensiv pre-amps are probably less clrean than the one on ones interface, so they will affect the sound more. And if you have a good clean recording, you can always re-amp it later through hardware, if you want that coloration... but then I should go with a stereo unit, that perhaps don't have as much gain, but can be used for all sorts of material, as it is stereo.

@@BarryJohns you’ll have to explain 3D space using only one mic. Unless of course you were referring to a stereo capture.

@@RobertMatichak context please, I did not mean it literally, if you want to criticize me for choosing the wrong word, then ok, but come on.

@@BarryJohns Hey Barry. I wasn’t criticizing you. Rather I was questioning what you said. I’ll criticize you now by saying that I like your videos and your personality! My post was not intended to be negative … just inviting conversation. Thanks and keep it up!