Re: which sounds best...? (firium)

Teddy Kumpel <kumpkin...>

sorry for the longish post...

>> On Wednesday, December 31, 2003, at 10:16 pm, Anders
Elverhøy wrote:
>> 
>> If you are particularly anal about your mic placement, you will be
>> amazed of how little EQ you need.

> Bob Vandiver wrote:
> I have to say I disagree. I have heard the advice for years but there
is a
> major flaw in its reasoning. The anal approach to mike placement works
when
> you have a clear concept of how you want everything to sound from start
to
> finish. There is implicit here a certain rigidity, which may work well
for
> those engineers/producers who want to give recordings their unique but
> recognizable stamp to all they do. Jeff Lynne, anyone? David Hentshell
(sp)?
> Roy Thomas Baker?

Who wouldn't want to give their recordings their own recognizable stamp? Is
it possible not to do that? I think even if you purposely DON"T put
what you
think is a personal stamp on the recording you are puttina a stamp on it.

Terry Manning, Gene Paul, Tchad Blake anyone? These guys are the kings of
mic placement/choice eq IMO... all the engineer/producers you mentioned
sound to me like pretty heavy eq-ers when I listen to their records.

So you think by placing a mic where it sounds like it won't need eq it locks
you in to not using eq? You can always eq if your micing wasn't exactly what
you wanted. Or even replace/trigger samples with Logic. How does good mic
placement lock you into anything? I don't see how you can disagree with
Ander's mic placement statement. It's just smart...
> 
> I suppose you might use this approach to get you into a certain
ballpark but
> you should not remain locked into it.

exactly, we agree. 

Attention Newbies:
In my world, it's still important to get sounds quickly, but that doesn't
stop us from experimenting. After a while you develop a vocabulary of mics
and placement and your starting point is closer so experimenting is not a
time consuming thing. When you're just starting out it's really smart to ask
pros a lot of questions and take notes of what works for the music you do.

> Many Beatle-ey guitars sound anything
> but neutral but work well for the song and it is the song that matters,
not
> purity of technique.

Purity of technique... what is that? Never heard of it. I don't think Anders
(correct if I'm wrong) meant to say things have to sound "pure" or
the
purity of technique was the important thing when he said to be anal
retentive about mic placement.

The point isn't for the mic placement to sound "neutral" either.
It just has
to sound right for the song like it would in a mix, like you said. Sometimes
that means radical. Who knows what that is till you hear the sound you're
micing, the song, the vocalist, the people playing together, the overdubs in
your head? Everything changes all the time even when you think it's the
same. 

Example: My friend and I both have Gretsch 20" kik drums from the early
60's. One would think the same mic would sound pretty much the same on both
with the same heads, similar tuning, both with the front head off. Not so,
we found out. To get a similar sound from both, one required a Senn'421 just
outside the head about half way up the drum and the other worked better with
a U147 close to the bottom of the drum (both were about the same distance
from the drum, about 3 inches out from the front shell pointed at the
beater). By taking the time to investigate the actual sound of each drum,
even though they're basically the same, we avoided a lot of eq in the mix
for the tracks that used the other drum kit (one kit had been rented out, so
we had to use the other on some songs). The replacement drum sounded very
thin with the 421 where the original had good useable bottom. Lesson: use
your ears not your knowledge.
> 
> In my not-so-humble opinion a good engineer should observe, respect and
> practice the technique of maximum placement/minimum EQ but not be
trappedby
> it. 

how can you get trapped by it?

Some sounds just need eq no matter what mic you put on it, but then I'd try
a different amp or guitar or whatever if it ain't working in the song. Have
you ever tried a contact mic on the headstock of an electric guitar? I like
that one... maybe throw it through and amp after... or a Leslie... but I
digress...

> One does not always know the sound a song will need when beginning an
> acoustic guitar part early one Monday morning and the placement may
sound
> groovy in isolation but suck on the finished project.

In isolation? like when you solo it? I don't get it... it has to sound good
with everything else that's there, not when it's soloed, right(?) Maybe you
mean that you're recording an acoustic guitar alone or with a click and
you're going to track to it and you have no idea what the song will sound
like when you're done? That I get.

Teddy Kumpel