I think that there's a difference between "diminishing returns" and "over-engineering". There are things like speakers where it's evident that there's still room for improvement and innovation. It's quite rare to see people monitoring on 30+ years old speakers, because the newer designs are just so much better.

For mics however, unless you want some very specific off-axis rejection, ultra-low self noise, or ultrasonic bandwidth, even 70 years old design work perfectly, because the technology is simple. The video points this out clearly, you just need a good capsule, and not fuck it up when designing the body and the electronics. And a good capsule doesn't have to be expensive, just like the one he used in his cheap DIY 251.

When I see manufacturers putting out 8k$ mics these days, that are just ordinary capsules with some simple electronics attached to it, I don't call it "diminishing returns", I call it "over-engineering" or "scam".

 

Recipe for modern pop vocals. Take an 18 year old singer, teach them to sing nasally and without consonants, record them with a $2000 mic fed through $10,000 of outboard kit. Then EQ and Autotune the hell out of it until they sound like a Munchkin. You could probably get the same result recording them on a phone but then the engineer would have nothing to talk about in magazine interviews.

 

Very interesting video from a guy I'd not come across until now.

It backs up what I've been saying to people for many years. The way people lust after the most expensive mics is laughable (same goes for all other gear for that matter). There's a definite difference between cheap and mid-range mics (though 57s etc are cheap of course and we all use them) but hardly any between mid and high. I've done plenty of shootouts over the years myself with various mics and pre's and the results are always all over the place. One thing is certain, a half decent mic pre will make more of a difference compared to a low end one than mics of similar response.

It's ironic that I've just got off the phone with a pal of mine that has a vintage equipment hire company. I'd completely glazed over by the time I'd finished speaking to him and listening to anecdotes about the "expense" of all his latest acquisitions, which is the nub of the matter, monetary value over functionality. He's supplying a show down the road to me today so I'm gonna wander over later and see what junk he's brought over for it.

Some great mics from Sontronics at affordable prices. SE are another UK company that I would recommend for good quality affordable mics.

 

You still see NS10s. Although they're in the "if it sounds good on these it should sound good on anything" category. Just checked, NS10s came onto the market 45 years ago. Holy crap.

 

That's true, and there's also guys like Serban Ghenea still mixing on ProAc Studio 100, that came out 30 years ago. They learned these speakers to the point that they're another set of limbs to them. Both are terrible on speakers on paper, but if someone tames them like they did, I guess it does the job perfectly.

But if you tell someone designing something like a spatial audio control room, where a speaker's technical performance is much more important, that you want to use NS-10... he's not going to be happy

Sony, who are a little bit more technically rigorous than Dolby for their spatial audio format, pretty much limits the choice of speakers in their studios to Genelec and Geithain. That's why you see Blackbird Studio C switching their ENTIRE speaker setup to Genelecs every time they work on Sony 360RA, but keeping grandpa ATC for Dolby Atmos, probably because the in-house engineer is used to working on them.

 

Last edited: Oct 11, 2023

Yeah...I think,"Well, everyone understands that and keeps it in mind when considering..."
...and the I scan the threads and realize I assume too much.

 

Your speakers are also a microphone.
Try to connect your headphones to your mic in, and speak or sing trough your headphones.

 

Used 414s and u87, those two were superb. Also the sanken beauties that go to 100k and earthworks that capture the finest transients.. These mic are utterly delicious.

However, all these mics were owned by studios I worked for. I mourn loosing them.

However, the one mic I own, the Rode Nt1.. Well, nobody spotted I'd switched from the beauties to this old stick. I just EQ.

You get as much clarity and range into the DAW and then shave it here and there to get what you're after. The old Rode is more than capable of this.
It's not as forgiving, you get more ess up front, it's more unruly.. So watch your levels and look at the capture like a block of ice.. Sculpt and define until you have what you want.

Honestly I've not found myself unable to achieve a sound I'd got with the u87 using the NT1

 

Last edited: Dec 16, 2023

Interesting...
Well, do you think that the plugin from AA can do the job?

 

Yeah, those mic modelling tools can do that pretty well. I remember the Antares mic modeller (released about a quarter of a century ago) was quite radical at the time!

I don't personally use these techniques because I'm not attempting to emulate any particular microphone. I just go for the sound that the track needs. EQ, compression and a little saturation are usually the only flavours required to shape something captured with the NT1 into whatever is needed.

After all, the colouration of a mic is normally just a combination of those things. That and transient response/detail. But I find for 90% of applications those cheaper large diaphragm mics are totally sufficient.

One thing to consider though is the effect that a really decent mic preamp has on the tone. If you are using a u87, for example, it's likely that you are using a decent preamp and the combination will sound great, of course. But if you've got an NT1 it's not a given that you are using the same level of quality for the preamp. So it's more likely that your NT1 will sound 'okay' but not superb.
I'm fortunate to have one of the finest preamps ever designed so the NT1 sounds great.

 

Last edited: Dec 17, 2023

Well, what is it?

 

Forssell Smp 2

 

Clean as a whistle. From what I remember, you can't use both preamps if you need 48 volts of phantom power for a condenser mic. Maybe I'm wrong about that though.

 

You can use both channels simultaneously with phantom power. It's extremely clean yes, very neutral.

 

Last edited: Dec 17, 2023

'Tone' is when the microphone changes the signal with something that wasn't there originally.
In other words, what you get is not what was actually performed. Which to me is incomprehensible.
I want the singer to sound like the singer (if it's vocals).
Then once I have it recorded clean, I may or may not treat it in some way.
I want no 'tone', no added 'character', no room sound, no nothing. Clean.

 

Indeed. The effect that a mic has on the signal can be quite complex. EQx saturation, compression and any number of quirky character emphasis or deemphasise traits. Sometimes the recipe of these elements is a golden one, like with the u87.. It just so happens to sound great to a, lot of people. So you record through it's character and it's committed.

I agree though, personally I'd rather have something that is as close to neutral as possible and decide on the flavour afterwards. That's the most flexible option for sure.

But I can understand that many a great engineer will have a variety of, for example, vocal mics because the character of each of those mics is a shortcut to get where things need to be with a given source.

Still though, you can imagine instead a perfectly neutral mic (or as close as possible) paired with a clean path to the recording medium. Then choosing the colour by inserting Plugins or outboard. To me that seems optimal.