@@RoswellProAudio I think you missed the joke. I was admiring your voice and saying it’s similar to Liam Neeson ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--LIIf7E-qFI.html 🌹
Regarding EQing a flat-sounding mic... I bought a couple models of microphones for live use that are a bit dark on top. I use one of them (SDC) for drum overheads and the other (dynamic pencil) for snare. The thing is... The SDC captures every bit of detail of the cymbals and has fantastic dynamic range. But it's dark compared to, say, a C451 which has a lot of built-in sizzle. So I need to boost the HF on it. When I do, I get every bit of sparkle out of the cymbals that I want. And it's so smooth in its HF response that I don't get any nasty peaky frequencies stabbing me or the audience in the ears. Same with the dynamic on snare compared to the more typically-used SM57. But this dynamic gives me more body on the snare, more rejection of hi-hat, and is also smooth on top so I can boost HF and get back any sizzle I'm missing; at the same time, the extra body gives me a wonderful crack to the snare! All this is to say that there are applications in which I chose to use a mic that was darker than the sound I wanted, because it had other characteristics that I found desirable, and the darkness was easily correctable. I'd say the advice against boosting EQ was more relevant back in the days of all-analog mixing; especially to tape! In today's world of nearly-noiseless microphones, squeaky-clean mic pres, and utterly transparent converters, along with ever-more sophisticated EQ plugins, the penalty for boosting EQ is considerably less than it used to be. That said, mic selection is still important because there are other characteristics to their sound that can't be changed with EQ, or would require a lot of effort to do so.
Those Omni test mics are flat. or can be made flat because they give you a calibration file. But of course that cant be across all frequency range distances and angles right? so probably a "flat" mic is not actually possible because it can just be flat for a certain very particular situation no?
My Neumann M147 is a strange animal indeed but one I am fond of. It has a k47 capsule but it's frequency curves are like a 47 in the mids but a C12 in the highs... but as a whole, sounds like neither archetype. I'm trying to find another mic to marry the m147 with in a Singer-Songwriter acoustic/vox setup. The M147 would be considered a dark sounding mic when compared to other Condensers, so I would imagine that a brighter mic would compliment it well. But which to choose? How bright? Does a greater contrast (dark to bright) in mic types provide a more interesting mix? Are there general tips as regards which types of mic capsule type mics marry well together? In other words, I would imagine that if a 47 style is being used on male vox, a brighter mic should be used to record the acoustic guitar (in order to pick up pluck definition of the strings etc...) but how bright to record the acoustic guitar compared to the male vox? Are there ideal matches? Are there color matches that work better than others? I understand basic general guidelines like LDC's for vox and SDC's for acoustic guitar in order to pick out fast transients. But what if I want to use a figure 8 LDC on guitar (for stereo effect) and a 47 style mic on vox, should the guitar LDC be a c12, 67,.or 47Fet style capsule? and why?
Wow! Intriguing video. Thank you for this content. It gave me some clarity on the subject of microphones. I’m a singer, songwriter, guitarist and I don’t want to waste my time on hype and too much guesswork with what I’m wanting in my studio.
Hi Andi, the mic was a Mini K47, plugged into an SSL SiX (analog preamp), with direct outs to an SSL2 (ADC). The SiX might have had some channel compression turned on.
Awesome vid! Thank you for sharing your experience! I learned so much! It was so cool to get so many of my questions just answered in your one video. It is too much to rehash... Everything from I am a bass/baritone vocalist so are there microphones dedicated to vocal types....... to frequency response associated with different type of microphones...... to the infamous question of is it better to just buy a flat microphone and just E.Q. to get the sound that I want or is it better to just buy a microphone and try to get the vocal take correct in the beginning... Those are just a fraction of all the things that you addressed that I needed to hear. Nice work! It was also cool to see the physical capsules as I had just surfed over to this video from seeing part of your presentation that had the PowerPoint slides. It would have been nice to see a physical capsule of the k47, but it's all good. I did find your response to the following question interesting... 'My question for your next broadcast concerns Mic bleed. Recording a Singer Songwriter, there is Mic Bleed from vocal to guitar mic and vice versa. How do your Cardioid patterns stack up in that scenario?' I have a different interpretation of your viewer's question. I might be off-base, but I want to share my interpretation. I will begin with... Yes, it is true that life is unfair. I get that... lol... Buuuuuuuut that question to you as a manufacturer is an extremely unfair question. Here's why. The question appears to ask you as a manufacturer for if you have a cardioid microphone that is so super unidirectional that it isolates sound at a level where it only picks up sound specifically in that path and does not capture any other sound in its vicinity whatsoever. Here is what I imagined... The viewer is recording a singer songwriter. He is using two microphones. The acoustic guitar mic is at one height and the vocal mic is at one height. The viewer presses record and records the performance. Then during playback, he is trying to understand why is it that he has mic bleed from the vocal to the guitar mic and vice versa. His solution is.... Well... maybe I need super unidirectional cardioid mics that will only pick up the sound of the guitar and a super that will only pick up the sound of the vocal. Well.... as the manufacturer, my interpretation of your response is that the manufacturing process to develop such a thing would be too extensive to develop. So based on my understanding of the problem that the viewer is trying to solve, I think he has other options that may be simpler. I am not sure how effective, but to your point, he would have to experiment with these ideas to see which one works for him. Solution#1 - Just record the performance with one mic. Do some test takes to get the one mic' height right between the guitar and the vocal and see how it sounds. There would be no mic bleed because it is one mic. Solution#2 - Use one mic and record the guitar performance first and then use the playback to record the vocal performance. Again, with one vocal mic, no bleeds. Solution#3 - This is the tougher one. Let's say the singer songwriter is convinced that the performance must be captured in one take. The viewer would need to spend some money for this solution. There are microphone preamps on the market where he could plug in the guitar into the DI input which can go on one track and then use the vocal mic to go on track two. In this setup, the guitar is being recorded as an instrument so..... Whoops.... right as I was writing this.... I just realized this would not work. Although the guitar is going directly into the computer via the DI input, the finger strumming on the guitar would still be captured by the microphone. Sooooo that would lead back to the mic bleed problem all over again. Well... I thought it was such a cool potential solution that I left it in the post just in case he decides he wants to experiment with this idea. If he uses a microphone reflection filter, it could be possible to reject enough of guitar strumming into the DI input that the mic bleed would not be as bad. But really solution#1 or #2 is likely his best bet. In either case, just wanted to share my interpretation of that one particular question and to thank you for sharing your experience. Now, all I have to do is hit the lottery and I will be able to upgrade my studio with a new mic, mic preamp, and converters. Ahhhhhh.... the life of an artist! Yeah, it is a crazy one, but I love it all the same. Peace.....
Hi Matt! Thanks so much for another informative video. It is very much appreciated! Back in 2015, I purchased two MXL V250 mics when MF was running a "Stupid Deal Of The Day" promotion. I've put them up many times, but they are a bit harsh and not consistent enough to be used as a stereo pair on anything serious. I have two questions for you: 1). What options does microphone-parts.com have that can possibly get the MXL V250 into Roswell Mini K47 territory? 2). Do you offer a mod service for the MXL V250? Thanks again! chaz
Chaz, see the page of V250 mod options: microphone-parts.com/pages/mxl-v250-mods Contact me via email for service options. (In short, we can modify them, and we have some off-menu choices too.)
The sad fact is that the older electronics get the worse they become. A 70 year old Neumann with original caps has been having those cas dry out for decades. Recapping an old mic with the same/original type caps will return it to what the mic sounded like when it was new. We can't hear a factory fresh Neumann 1948 U47 unless we build a time machine.
What you say is true of electrolytic capacitors, such as would be found in any tube mic power supply, and sometimes also in microphones. But even with fresh electrolytics, a 70-year old condenser mic still won't sound factory fresh, due to a very different capacitor: the capsule! The PVC membranes used in early M7-equipped U47 mics exhibit aging effects, due to the relative instability of the PVC. Mylar diaphragm material won't deteriorate like PVC, but 70 years' worth of exposure to smoke, spit, UV light, and other environmental toxins could change its performance -- e.g. if enough grime has collected to form a conductive bridge from the gold area of any center-terminated capsule to the edge, creating a current leak to the backplate, that will definitely not sound good and could possibly short it completely.
We sell the MicParts RK-47 for exactly that reason. Putting an RK-47 into most inexpensive condensers will indeed yield a decent, usable microphone. Circuit quality varies; some are noisy, many are distorted, most of them offer relatively low performance when compared to a mic whose circuit was built properly. That said, your question correctly implies that the over-bright K67 capsule found in many inexpensive condensers is simultaneously the biggest barrier to great tracks, AND the easiest component in the mic to upgrade. Just be aware that an RK-47 upgrade for a cheap LDC is essentially the gateway drug for DIY audio. ;-) Many thousands of people, including me, started with that simple mod and were so amazed by the result that they went on to build a full collection of DIY mic kits, preamp kits, etc.
@@RoswellProAudio what about the Chinese 797 capsule? it's supposedly used in mics like the CAD M179 I have a few of the M179 mics and am wondering if it's worth modding? Do you have any experience with these mics and/or capsule I'm referring to?
@@RoswellProAudio Matt, your talks are addictive, I listen to several podcasts regularly--Phil McKnight, Tim Pierce, Beato, Dylan on Tone, etc., and I wish you had many more videos, I'm re-watching what you have available, and need more. You have an excellent dry wit, to boot. Thank you, I think I'm posting to a dormant video, but it gets it off my chest. Cheers
Very knowledgeable person. So, based on that my question is: If you could make your own capsule, what design would you use? What innovations could you envision for the ultimate capsule?
We've already made our own capsule; see the Roswell Mini K67x. It's nominally based on the K67 blueprint but tuned to reduce sibilance and not need in-circuit EQ, without sacrificing the response above 12kHz. The result is superior ambience in a neutrally voiced mic.
Matt can you please help me? I have CAD 179 mics for overheads and I would like them to be a bit more articulate in the high end. My question is...can I remove ONE layer of mesh on them? they are 2 layers. Or will this introduce HF or RF noise? can you explain about removing mic grill screens
I do not recommend grille modifications. The risk of damaging the mic is nonzero. It is unlikely that removing mesh will magically fix whatever frequency band you're trying to address. The mic would be more susceptible to plosives and EMI/RFI. Rather than hack the grille, try add highs via digital EQ in the DAW, or use a microphone that gives you the sound you want.
Discovering you and your products on mic parts has totally changed my perspective on microphones and my recording process, while also improving the sound of my recordings over the past year and a half. Your teaching has gotten me to become completely obsessed with microphones and has even helped out a few of my friends who are on their own musical journeys. I've modded some mics with your products before with great results, but I also just ordered a Roswell k67x today. It's my first Roswell microphone and I can't wait to try it, especially on my voice. I believe it will fill out my microphone locker and play a role different from all the other microphones I own. Thank you for all the wisdom freely given to aspiring musicians and recording engineers like myself.
The High Output edition has 6-7dB higher output. That's the only difference. There's no tonal change. The H.O. edition is great for voice actors and classical guitarists, where you need every last bit of signal, and the lowest possible noise floor. The mic is low-noise either way. The H.O. edition allows you to turn the preamp down, which will reduce the overall noise level in the track (because preamps contribute noise, especially consumer-grade preamps, especially when the gain is turned past about 50%).
