Topic: What do I need to read

[hemiolacadence]

I purchased a C 414 XLS, and two stereo paired C451 B microphones.

After opening the 414 XLS I know that I can return the stereo paired microphones and one will suffice with my needs.

I need to understand frequencies, and pickup patterns. I want to look at diagrams and understand them. The frequency response is consistent on this mic regardless of pickup pattern, and I'm not going to open the 451 B that are paired because I only need one for my purposes.

I realize with a condenser like this or these you have to be a poor performer to produce a bad recording but I would like to pursue a career in entertainment law. At the very least pursuing a performance degree, and recording will allow me to communicate between the departments.

If the mod approves the threads the first one is before I opened the 414 XLS manual. I will read whatever dense material or videos you can provide. I have a rudimentary understanding of this, I learned on AKG c1000s many years ago, and always read what tapers had to say.

I feel like in order to deserve these mics I have to understand everything they are capable of which if it is anything like guitar will require experimentation as well as scientific understanding.

Thank you

[aaronji]

A pretty good place to start is the Microphone University section of the DPA website (http://www.dpamicrophones.com/en/Mic-University.aspx).  It's not too complicated, but does a good job of explaining a lot of the basics.  Once you have read through that, you'll probably have a pretty good idea of things you want to research further...

[DSatz]

> The frequency response is consistent on this mic regardless of pickup pattern

Well, that isn't really quite true even according to AKG's published graphs (see http://www.akg.com/C414+XLS-788.html?pid=1024), but (a) ordinary graphs of microphone frequency response describe only the on-axis response--an infinitesimal angle of sound arrival which, by itself, doesn't characterize the microphone's behavior in a three-dimensional space--and (b) these are large-diaphragm, dual-diaphragm microphones, a type which never has (because it cannot possibly have) similar frequency response on- and off-axis. The more off-axis sound the pattern allows in, the less the sound you will hear is determined by the microphone's on-axis response. And the off-axis response of this type of microphone varies even more in the different patterns than it does on axis.

So the first goal that I would suggest in your laudable quest for self-education about microphones is to learn how to read polar response graphs that show the actual directional pattern at various frequencies--and then the real payoff is to coordinate that ability with reading the frequency response graph. Only then (assuming that the graphs are honest and accurate) can you possibly predict the real-world pickup characteristics of the microphone from anything that you see on paper.

As an alternative, it's also possible to overlay onto one graph the frequency response curves of a microphone taken at various angles. There's no standard way to do this, but when it's done responsibly it can bring all this information together into a single graphic, and spare some people some confusion. (The thing people most often fail to grasp about polar diagrams is that they're all "normalized" at 0 degrees to form the basis for the rest of the curve at that frequency. So polar plots are relative to the 0-degree response at the given frequency--which is why you need to combine their information with the 0-degree frequency response curve.)

Just as a note, you will probably come across quite a few people on the Internet who claim that these diagrams tell you nothing about the sound of the microphone. In my experience, almost none of the people who say that have really learned how to read a multi-frequency polar diagram. And no one claims that a bunch of curves can substitute for trying out the microphone in real situations--but they can help you rule out a lot of false starts, so that you use the microphone to its best advantage a lot sooner than you would if you simply plugged it in and started using it without knowing its characteristics in any detail.

--best regards

[DiggerinVA]

> The frequency response is consistent on this mic regardless of pickup pattern

Well, that isn't really quite true even according to AKG's published graphs (see http://www.akg.com/C414+XLS-788.html?pid=1024), but (a) ordinary graphs of microphone frequency response describe only the on-axis response--an infinitesimal angle of sound arrival which, by itself, doesn't characterize the microphone's behavior in a three-dimensional space--and (b) these are large-diaphragm, dual-diaphragm microphones, a type which never has (because it cannot possibly have) similar frequency response on- and off-axis. The more off-axis sound the pattern allows in, the less the sound you will hear is determined by the microphone's on-axis response. And the off-axis response of this type of microphone varies even more in the different patterns than it does on axis.

So the first goal that I would suggest in your laudable quest for self-education about microphones is to learn how to read polar response graphs that show the actual directional pattern at various frequencies--and then the real payoff is to coordinate that ability with reading the frequency response graph. Only then (assuming that the graphs are honest and accurate) can you possibly predict the real-world pickup characteristics of the microphone from anything that you see on paper.

As an alternative, it's also possible to overlay onto one graph the frequency response curves of a microphone taken at various angles. There's no standard way to do this, but when it's done responsibly it can bring all this information together into a single graphic, and spare some people some confusion. (The thing people most often fail to grasp about polar diagrams is that they're all "normalized" at 0 degrees to form the basis for the rest of the curve at that frequency. So polar plots are relative to the 0-degree response at the given frequency--which is why you need to combine their information with the 0-degree frequency response curve.)

Just as a note, you will probably come across quite a few people on the Internet who claim that these diagrams tell you nothing about the sound of the microphone. In my experience, almost none of the people who say that have really learned how to read a multi-frequency polar diagram. And no one claims that a bunch of curves can substitute for trying out the microphone in real situations--but they can help you rule out a lot of false starts, so that you use the microphone to its best advantage a lot sooner than you would if you simply plugged it in and started using it without knowing its characteristics in any detail.

--best regards

I enjoy your posts. That is a skill or maybe a talent. Or a bit of both.

[hemiolacadence]

Thank you.

I am strongly considering keeping the stereo paired, being that I can afford them now.

That said can you give me some reading for pairing patterns (I was told x y would work for classical).

Let's say I want to record a jazz gig.

Thanks guys and I will leave you alone after that. If I can afford them, and pay them off now and keep them forever I think maybe I should make the purchase now.

Real busy working to pay off these mics, practicing, and gathering materials. A little every day 

edit: the link explains stereo patterns excellent thank you very much

[acidjack]

^ not knowing exactly what you're doing, I think you need a stereo pair, not three mics. A pair of 414s would be great, but a pair of 451s is also great. Having a third mic gives you some more options, but if you are a beginner and watching what you spend, the options you get are not worth the cost in time and money.

I personally dislike XY for just about everything. For a recording of jazz or classical up close (e.g. on stage) I'd go with ORTF; for anything further back, DIN or narrower (for amplified music, point at the stacks or just outside them)  Once you are no longer very close to the source, in my view "patterns" are just a suggestion and not really based on any science of recording, since the people who made them weren't contemplating recording, say, rock or jazz bands from halfway back in a room.

Classical is its own beast, so I won't opine on that, since the venues that plays in tend to be acoustically correct as well. Though I will say when I have recorded classical in non-normal venues (i.e., playing somewhere other than a concert hall) the same rules that applied to rock applied to classical, for me.

[stevetoney]

I don't have any specific advice other than to suggest that you should not feel different or on your own.  All of us that have become 'committed' (addicted?) to this started with a similar quest for knowledge and, the universal experience is that, although there's lots information available on the net, there's no universal single resource available where you can go to learn what you want to know.  That said, there's really no better place than taperssection to learn.  This site is a fantastic source, especially of practical experience from like-minded people.  The search function on this site is usually more effective in getting me answers to detailed questions than if I do general google searches...and in lots of cases if I google a question, google sends me here anyway.

[Gutbucket]

(The thing people most often fail to grasp about polar diagrams is that they're all "normalized" at 0 degrees to form the basis for the rest of the curve at that frequency. So polar plots are relative to the 0-degree response at the given frequency--which is why you need to combine their information with the 0-degree frequency response curve.)

I've long wondered why this is the case, and I know we've discussed this somewhat previously.. but what is the reasoning for doing it that way?  Why normalize on-axis?  A series of overlaid polar-plots for various frequencies showing absolute, non-normalized response information would more closely reflect the microphone's real-world behavior in the horizontal plane, would be easier to interpret, and be far more useful for comparison purposes with other microphones.  One would not need to refer to the on-axis response graph.  One could read the response off that single diagram for any angle of arrival, at least with a granularity equal to the number of frequencies plotted.  One could get a better understanding of the frequency response behavior all the way around the microphone.

On-axis (or various off-axis angle) response curves would still be useful as they are easier to read for a single axis, and provide higher resolution.  But they would not be necessary to interpret the overlaid polars.

[stevetoney]

I'm an engineer, so analytics tend to stimulate my gray matter more than it does some.  When it comes to analyzing polar pattern differences, I tend to get lost in the analytical information, at least in the context of evaluating how, in a given recording scenario, the information can be used for determining the better choice between options.  I suppose it gets back to the fact that in my own recording scenario's, I have control over very few variables so it's difficult to evaluate the impact of changes to one variable (e.g. polar pattern) has on the overall sound.  I usually fall back on general rules of thumb, such as using progressively wider patterns as you get closer to the stage.  To Mr. Satz's point, over the years I've tended to trust the 'sounds better...sounds worse' method, but I know that this method is very subjective and prone to placebo effect.

[hemiolacadence]

^ not knowing exactly what you're doing, I think you need a stereo pair, not three mics. A pair of 414s would be great, but a pair of 451s is also great. Having a third mic gives you some more options, but if you are a beginner and watching what you spend, the options you get are not worth the cost in time and money.

I personally dislike XY for just about everything. For a recording of jazz or classical up close (e.g. on stage) I'd go with ORTF; for anything further back, DIN or narrower (for amplified music, point at the stacks or just outside them)  Once you are no longer very close to the source, in my view "patterns" are just a suggestion and not really based on any science of recording, since the people who made them weren't contemplating recording, say, rock or jazz bands from halfway back in a room.

Classical is its own beast, so I won't opine on that, since the venues that plays in tend to be acoustically correct as well. Though I will say when I have recorded classical in non-normal venues (i.e., playing somewhere other than a concert hall) the same rules that applied to rock applied to classical, for me.

Well I hope to audition to finish a music performance degree. You know I wish I would have recorded all the classical pieces I had in the past when I was really at it.

Here is the only real classical recording I did with a decent setup (AKG c1000s but LTO Mictube sounded great).

https://soundcloud.com/hemiolacadence/bach-bourree

The 451s may be less bright. As soon as I started playing classical I found I was playing it with feel, paying attention to the little things. My technique isn't back but the feel is so I want to record.

Is there any reason the larger diaphragm isn't preferred? I've seen some people put one off kind of far from a guitar.


I was wondering if you wanted to conduct an experiment. My technique isn't 100% but nobody here wants to hear me play an entire piece before a different setup.

So I was thinking this double it starts 2:51 it sounds like a different recording setup. But anyone's opinions for that with what I have how would I record that piece. That sound. My guess is the mics ORTF fairly close to the guitar. Or maybe closer with XY?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlnkw2DKxss

Also Jason Vieaux and everyone seems to record the Prelude BWV 998 (listen to sample on iTunes the lute suites) now some of that we control the timbre bright or less bright. But there's some reverb I can't tell if it's added by computer, the room that's another variable. Are those the biggest variables or does it seem to be mic placement? I would guess go in a small wooden room but I would almost throw a third mic on the floor or something.


In other words are there two different mic distances that would produce this or is it going to be situational?

I'm not trying to be disrespectful by guessing, just picking brains.

Thanks

[bombdiggity]

^ Based on your choices of samples to my ear it sounds like you prefer a little distance from guitar to mic. 

Often one sees mics right up close to the guitar which will provide a brighter sound with more attack (and to my ear clarity). 

The more reverberant softer sound you seem to prefer would be achieved by moving the mics back a bit. 

On the Williams piece at the point you note it sounds to me like it switched from a very close mic setup to another set further back (or that part was another take recorded differently or in a different room and spliced).  None of that may not be the case but one could readily achieve that sort of shift by moving the mics. 

I'd suggest testing with the same mics in the same room and varying the distance to get the result you personally like.  It may be a little bit different in every room but a general test in fairly controlled conditions should give you a feel for the placement distance you prefer.  In a larger more open room you might need to vary a little further to get the same reflections you would in a small room. 

Recording a single instrument you can take a highly directional approach (mic pattern and positioning) to aim or obtain an angle that is focused on the instrument.  However with what I take to be your preference for a more reverberant sound you might prefer a wider angle more open configuration that provides more feel of the room. 

There is a thread somewhere here that provides a link to a site that shows the coverage area from various angles and configurations.  That would be very useful for you to spend some time with, then test. 

[capnhook]

There is a thread somewhere here that provides a link to a site that shows the coverage area from various angles and configurations.  That would be very useful for you to spend some time with, then test.

Here's the link:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/Visualization-Blumlein-E.htm