recording microphones

[Scott_McCallister]

@No E

I’d be interested to hear recommendations (I’m talking 2 speakers, 4 to 8 channel board, easily transport, set-up with fairly idiot-proof operation).

I have been considering this:
The Fender Passport P-150

or its big brother

The Fender Passport P-250

I especially like the ease of transport for these units. Every thing hooks together and can be carried like a suitcase. All the peripherals can be stored in the unit too.

It looks like they even come with some decent cardioid microphones.

[Scott_McCallister]

@Kevin L. Rietmann

I asked the UP mailing list about mics and they also recommended the little Sony ECM. The cord is too short; I bought another cord which extends the length.

Holy hell! Why didn’t I think of that?!? Are you using a barrel connector or a cable with a female/male ends?

[glauber]

@Scott McCallister

@glauber

Oh and why cardioid? Cardioid is a kind of directional mike, that’s all (the name comes from the fact that when you plot the sensitivity in a polar graph, the resulting picture looks a little bit like a heart). In live performance situations cardioids are ideal because they pick up less noise from behind, and most professional microphones are cardioid. For recording in some situations you may want omnidirectional instead, but as a rule of thumb cardioid will give you better results (less noise). There’s hyper-cardioid too, but it’s generally less useful (it has a tighter angle, but unfortunately it picks up more from the back, so it has more tendency to feedback in live situations).g

Precisely my point. Cardioids rock for reinforcement. (no argument there) In recording though you have much more control over your environment sonically to begin with, making other polar patterns as viable.

Yes, you normally want omni to pick up the room ambiance. But i’ve been in situations where the room is too alive (e.g. empty church), and using a directional mike may cut off some of the excessive echo. What sounds best for flute (my instrument) doesn’t necessarily sound best for voice, or UP. I’ve always been a fan of stereo microphones for recording because as i said, they tend to pick a realistic sound with a minimum of fuss. A couple of cardioid microphones set up in a 45 degree angle also works fine. That’s one of my favourite setups for recording grand piano.

For UP, my gut feeling is that you’d either want 2 or 3 microphones pointed to the various bits and pieces, or a stero microphone located 2 or 3 meters away from the piper, to let the sound blend and develop. Some kind of overhead placement maybe combined with proximity miking on the chanter and drones (like they do with drumsets) may work well too. Through some experimentation you should be able to come up with a couple of setups that work.

[glauber]

I just thought of something else: binaural microphones set in the player’s ears, will give a good picture of what the piper is hearing! Interesting concept.

[djm]

Glauber, I don’t think binaural mics would work, as UPs actually project away from the player, i.e. they sound different to the audience than to the player, and often sound better than the player thinks.

Scott, you are still thinking in terms of a pro musician in a recording studio, whereas someone recording in their bedroom mightn’t have the kind of ambience you would want to record. This can be added later. I don’t argue your points when it comes to recording in a studio (pro or semi-pro) but if one only has limited $s, and is not doing pro recording, the cardioids give the best bang for the buck, and since the ones I recommended are excellent on the road as well, the user only has to make one purchase.

For home recording, I don’t know why you would want a mixing board at all (again, I’m going cheap here). Far better to just record into a decent interface card with multiple inputs and then do your mixing/editing/effects in software. Less degradation and more control that way.

djm

[Scott_McCallister]

@glauber

I just thought of something else: binaural microphones set in the player’s ears, will give a good picture of what the piper is hearing! Interesting concept.

Wait minute…

If you stick microphones in the players ears…

would she really be hearing… anything?

@glauber

For UP, my gut feeling is that you’d either want 2 or 3 microphones pointed to the various bits and pieces, or a stero microphone located 2 or 3 meters away from the piper, to let the sound blend and develop. Some kind of overhead placement maybe combined with proximity miking on the chanter and drones (like they do with drumsets) may work well too. Through some experimentation you should be able to come up with a couple of setups that work.

Ya, I think I would want a mic on the chanter and another on drones for reinforcement purposes, but for recording either a decent stereo mike or an X,Y pair a fair distance away to get a blended sound of the instrument. Even then, stereo may be overkill; the stereo field won’t be that impressive.(this is where you start getting back into the binaural thing ) Multi micing UPs for recording seems more trouble than its worth unless you are tracking for an album and need the extra control. To me that would seem to defeat the natural sound of the instrument though. Kind of like the difference between micing each member of a chamber orchestra vs. just setting up an X,Y pair. Anything you have control over, you have to take control of.

[Scott_McCallister]

@djm

Scott, you are still thinking in terms of a pro musician in a recording studio, whereas someone recording in their bedroom mightn’t have the kind of ambience you would want to record. This can be added later. I don’t argue your points when it comes to recording in a studio (pro or semi-pro) but if one only has limited $s, and is not doing pro recording, the cardioids give the best bang for the buck, and since the ones I recommended are excellent on the road as well, the user only has to make one purchase.

For home recording, I don’t know why you would want a mixing board at all (again, I’m going cheap here). Far better to just record into a decent interface card with multiple inputs and then do your mixing/editing/effects in software. Less degradation and more control that way.

True enough. I’m just speaking from my personal experience. I have always had better results when I am laying down a pretty hot signal rather than trying to boost it after it is recorded, even if it is going digital very early in the record path. This is where a mixer/preamp setup is valuable. Plus it affords me the ability to run outboard effects, controll EQ as the room affects it, run many more live inputs, distribute phantom power when needed and fade multiple tracks simultaneously.(very difficult in a software setting with out a dedicated control surface) But, ya, this is more on the pro-sumer edge and is more costly than running direct to a soundcard. But, you can do more with the set up as well and probably get better results in the long run and at the very least the same results faster.

[AlanB]

This stuff is taking my fancy, but it may be a little on the serious side…
http://www.focusrite.com/products/isa/430mkii.html

Check out the Octopre

Alan

[glauber]

@djm

Glauber, I don’t think binaural mics would work, as UPs actually project away from the player, i.e. they sound different to the audience than to the player, and often sound better than the player thinks.

This must be a great comfort to all pipers!