#206

This is why I use Josephson e22s on snare drum. No clipping ever with the hardest hitting drummer imaginable. The capture fidelity is also maintained at the highest SPL. They are made out of machined brass, so they won’t break if someone hits them with a stick.

They also sound really nice on acoustic guitar and other plectrum instruments, and guitar cabs. Can’t recommend them enough. They aren’t omni, but have good bass and very smooth off-axis pickup, unlike a lot of condenser mics.

#207

Rodrigo has a special need for intimately-close miking with nicely guarded fidelity:

better for sampling all nuances that can be fed into flucoma and other tools he’s using(or will come up with in the future) to get the best results. i’m sure most already know, but just mentioning it here so folks can understand exactly what the need is for.

2 Likes
#208

4099D + a 4060 on a D mount with one or two extensions. Blend between the two: 4099 for hot signals, 4060 for quiet. If only one, then the 4099 would be the way to go. This gets him two mics with similar characteristics, mounted on the snare as he prefers both pick up all kinds of sounds. With the extreme dynamic range available to a snare being used artistically in this way, two mics is how I’d go–one for loud, one for soft, blend to taste.

In the art music scenes that I run in and which include music that would be right at home alongside Rodrigo’s work, the DPA setups are standard for live performance. Like people don’t even say “microphone” they say “DPA.”

2 Likes
#209

I realize that a gooseneck mic is preferred here and you meant your comment generally, but there are trade offs for that convenience.

@Gahlord

The DPA 4099 is a great natural live mic, that is certainly true. But the supercard pattern while convenient for live close miking can be restrictive in my view if the goal is the best capture and ensemble stage bleed is not an issue. I mean, you know this. But I feel it’s worth stressing there is a trade off to an electret condenser built for behind-bridge-mounting and rejection.

Personally if I were using two mics, I wouldn’t use one that is prone to clipping (assuming reg 4060) on the top. I would put it on the shell or once in a while the snares. But something like a stand-mounted KM84 or AKG 460B (discontinued but excellent and affordable neutral condenser with transformer) is more ideal for this. A KM84 is also great for brushes.

Likewise, if I were looking specifically for blend, I wouldn’t use two condenser mics, I would use something mounted overhead like a ribbon. You’d be surprised how much side rejection you can get from a fig 8 like a Coles, even of loud amps nearby (for live though I’d think a cheaper ribbon like a fathead would be a safer choice), but a hypercard M160 a few feet up tends to work well live too.

Most of a snare’s sound comes from the whole shell as it propagates. This is true even for brushes. So just miking a snare with a clip on is not really ideal, even if it’s convenient in this case. If you just mic the top you end up with a detached sound. This is also true of guitar amplifiers, where one might use a ribbon mic a couple feet back to get some bloom, and a closer mic for definition.

Just my opinion, though.

4 Likes
#210

i clicked the ‘reply’ button to the general thread(but saw you replying, was worried you might wonder about it :smile: )
just realizing it might help the general thread to post his specific-advancements there…all good :+1: :call_me_hand: (<-meant as ‘hang loose’ hand :grin:)

2 Likes
#211

Yeah, I figured. I’ll edit my post.

1 Like
#212

I definitely like your mic plan better on this @Joseph, especially mic on the shell or underneath. It will result in a nicer recorded drum sound. @Rodrigo noted that he prefers to keep mounted to the instrument and that he already has a couple 4060s which is why I stuck to that format.

His creative practice, linked above, looks to be more “solo performance of extended techniques on snare drum” than “drummer in a band.” I don’t think rejection is much of an issue and he mentioned he liked omni (which means my 4099 recco was off as well, my bad–4062 then?).

In omni the specs (includes legacy and Core: https://www.dpamicrophones.com/lavalier/4060-series-miniature-omnidirectional-microphone) are:

4060: Max SPL 134
4061: Max SPL 144
4062: Max SPL 154

So maybe given the following assumptions:

  • Clips to instrument (i.e. repeatability of signal levels will improve success for “and electronics” performances, similarity of setup between studio and live performance, personal preference, etc)
  • Omni (rejection not a primary consideration, unlike typical drum kit)
  • Handles complete dynamic range possibilities from a snare drum from lightly abrading the skin to smacking it. (I once saw a percussion performance of this nature by Andrew Drury which involved blowing on the drum, never expected to see circular breathing at a percussion show but there it was!)
  • Already owns 2 DPA 4060 mics

Some possibilities might include:

  1. Get drum clips and goosenecks for the existing 4060s, experiment with directing towards the lower shell and/or snares the until SPL is compatible with the mics.
  2. Get a 4062 (high SPL omni version) and pair with a 4060, one for the quietest parts and one for the loudest parts, blend to taste/flop between them with a comparator or Max patch or other means.
  3. Get different/better mics such as KM84 or AKG460B (one of my faves too) altogether and mount with clips and goosenecks for extra distance.
  4. Develop a means of recreating drum mic layouts using stands instead of clips (custom cut length of string and a protractor or other angle guide) and use nicer mics per item above.

I guess the main thing is, relevant to Improving the Signal Chain, we all agree that the issue he’s facing is that he’s hitting his current mics with too high of an SPL which is resulting in distortion. His options are to change: microphones, distance to sound source, or some combination of both.

I also like that a real discussion of mics is happening in this topic because so much of signal chain improvement is right here.

5 Likes
#213

Yep, I bought a matched pair of KM84s a few years ago (mainly for acoustic guitar) and never looked back.

#214

Yes, they are awesome. Mine are not matched, but it doesn’t seem to matter much, even in a near-coincident set up. But I wouldn’t trust a hard-hitting drummer with one on top, only shell. I think e22s is an even more universal studio mic, and they sound better on guitar cab with a smoother response and even some vocals because of the generous proximity effect, albeit the KM84 or really 86 sound more airy and better on cymbals, as heard to great effect on Damn the Torpedoes. I kind of like them both for different reasons on acoustic guitar though, but KM84 certainly the classic there.

@Gahlord

Well, clearly you know what you’re talking about. I would only say that I think adding an overhead mic will make the most difference in terms of the snare’s overall dimension.

Hey this is cool. Think Albini is using an Oktava MK12 here, although he often has used rather rare now thanks to him Altec 175 for many recordings. Talks about using snare mic to add body/definition/attack rather relying on it for entire sound.

2 Likes
#215

Ah yes, I see that now. Hope you find a solution somewhere…

#216

Wow, thanks for all the great advice all (especially @Gahlord and @Joseph, with @RABID dropping some serious knowledge early on).

The proximity thing is indeed a big factor. I’m surprised at how small a difference it makes though (in terms of cm, not tried meters). One of the 4060s in the example above are on that gooseneck telescoping away form the drum (stuck to the Naiant with blue tack). I’ve yet to test a further distance (as @RABID suggested) as I’ve been busy with getting ready to start teaching this week (remotely, thankfully(!)).

I’m eyeballing the 4099 now as well, as it can definitely handle the SPL, and I do like the DPAs. My concern (as @Joseph pointed out) is the pickup pattern. Bleed isn’t so much an issue, but I do sometimes do things above/around the drum. Not like talking a walk or anything, but holding and bowing a crotale in my hands (in the air, above the snare), or handheld electronics, etc…

Towards that end I’m going to do some testing with the DM20 (hypercard) to see how it fares in that context, to see how viable a 4099 would be.

I’d love to go with a multi-multi-mic setup. Where I have a couple DPAs (or even more, like a contact mic, etc…), but it gets a bit difficult for portable stuff. My main gigging interface (RME UCX) has only two pres, which are generally a DPA and the Naiant for friction-y stuff. Or once I start going norns with things, I only have a single portable preamp (for now). I want to make some DIY stuff as the Naiant doesn’t need a great quality preamp, but a DPA would benefit from one.

So 4060 + 4099 would be fantastic, but I generally don’t have the I/O for that.

As others have mentioned, if I want to go onto mic stands, there are loads of possibilities there (I’ve got some C214s, and MK012s), but I want to avoid stands. I do have a 3d printer, so I’m not averse to making clips and mounts and such, but that gets harder with lipstick mics, full-sized xlr cables, etc…

So in short, some great thoughts! I’ll test the DM20 “in context” and report back any findings, but at the moment it’s between a 4099 or a newer “core” 4061.

3 Likes
#217

The DPA 4062 is the high SPL omni version. That might do what you need–it’s the same as what you have but can handle higher sound levels before distorting. Thomann often has the best price (even for people in the US with shipping for DPA mics it’s cheaper to get them from Thomann).

For distances/placement you will want to think in multiples not cm. So “twice as far as it is now” vs “another couple cm.”

Perhaps consider adding a small mixer that can run 4 mics to your rig over time. Then you can leave the microphone powering and mixing at the mixer, then to your interface as a stereo line or channel 1 / channel 2 if grouping your mics that way makes more sense for processing. Another piece of gear I know. But in my own work, some of which is in the same “instrument and electronics” / physical-texture zone, having a small mixer allowed for the kind of variations in close mic techniques that allows sounds that go unheard to be collected.

3 Likes
#218

Yeah there’s the 4062, but I have a feeling that’s for like, super hardcore stuff. (I guess there isn’t much more hardcore than being 5cm away from a snare drum…).

On a quite promising note, I did some more testing today with the DM20 (acting as a proxy 4099) and it still worked really well for things that ambient and moving sounds(e.g. holding a melodica and playing it in above the snare, bowing crotales, even a tambourine shake not near the head).

So I’m definitely leaning towards the 4099 now, which is a good place to be I think, especially since it will be different enough to the 4060s to be a worthwhile addition to my overall mic collection, while at the same time working quite well in its main/intended context.

2 Likes
#219

So, I have been trying to look this up forever: unbalanced line levels from synths (both standard and modular) to outboard rack gear like eq, comps, etc that expect balanced inputs.

I don’t really need an explanation of the difference between balanced/unbalanced since that’s all anyone ever replies with and I think I got it.

I’m also not concerned with going balanced because of long cable runs since I don’t do live performances and my studio space is small. I just want to make sure I dont damage my equipment, or introduce unwanted noise, and maximize the potential of the gear I have.

What I want to know is: what the “proper” method of converting unbalanced to balanced would be without hacking up cables and rerouting the wires since I suck at that stuff. DI boxes? Active or passive? So many options to choose from and a good number of them either want rca inputs or work the other way, such as reamps.

I plan to sequence my gear, pass them through EQs, comps, and filters for character (sort of like a song-focused extension of the synth patch rather than a mix) and multitrack record all of my stuff at once. I’d like to eventually get a balanced patchbay as well. I’ll do the actual mixing in my daw once I record vocals.

1 Like
#220

Sounds similar to how I work. You’ve got it, basically. DI boxes. Active or passive, built into a mixer, preamp, or as separate boxes.

These days I just have a single stereo pair of very high quality recording inputs (my mastering chain), and the preamp within that chain has DI’s built in. I track everything line level (and mics!) through them.

In the past I had great success with the following active DI boxes:

Avenson Audio Small DI - They are cheap, tiny, and sound incredible, but need phantom power. They are small enough to connect to a guitar strap and run a balanced cable straight to your interface.

Avalon U5 - Expensive, single channel, but sounds great and has a load of incredibly handy extra features for sound (EQ and filter) and connectivity (many ins and outs).

Have never owned a standalone passive DI box but am sure they would work well too, you’d maybe get a tiny bit of extra transformer mojo there too.

I worked before without DIs, and when I got a load of the Avensons it made a really big difference to the sound quality.

2 Likes
#221

DI box will convert to mic level, which you’d the run through a mic preamp.

If you want to convert from unbalanced consumer line level (your synths are probably this, -10dBV) to balanced line level (your rackmount EQs/comps/etc. are probably this, +4dBu) they make transformer boxes to do that too. https://www.amazon.com/Ebtech-LLS-2-Level-Shifter-2-Channel/dp/B0002MSVDY

Note that the latter will probably have extremely negligible differences in your perception of the sound. The long cable runs made possible with balanced cables, or ground loop lifts are the benefits of these boxes.

Conventional wisdom is you use passive DI boxes with active instruments (like your synths), and active ones with passive pickups (guitar, piezo on orchestral instruments, etc.). Active DIs* tend to have extremely high input impedance which matches well with relatively high impedance pickups. It doesn’t matter as much with not super high output impedance active devices like synths.

EDIT: didn’t see modular…euro signals are hotter that -10dBv. so you can get something like an output module to convert down to +4dBu, or use a DI with a -20dB pad engaged…it will be about the same.

1 Like
#222

DI into preamp, then into the rest of your balanced hardware is the way to go. For a good active DI, I’ve been very impressed with the Neve RNDI.

Recently, I acquired an Avedis KeyPre for all my synths, giving my 6 simultaneous inputs at a crazy high impedance, 12 inputs overall. Highly recommended, it’s quite the well designed piece of equipment as is all of Avedis’ gear. That with a balanced patch bay makes going through all my hardware a breeze.

And speaking of Avedis since we are in a signal chain thread, I have to mention how excited I am with my current vocal chain.

First of all, my room is treated with enough absorption and diffusion to make things feel under control. My mic is an AEA R84, going into a Cloudlifter Z for extra clean gain and impedance matching, into an Avedis MA5 preamp, into an Inward Connections Brute compressor for just a touch of it’s lovely tone and control, and last a slight boost in the highs and cut of the lows with a Kush Audio Electra. This is all in the 500 series realm.

Finally feeling good about recording just about any style with this chain, highly recommended pieces of gear all around. Worked on both male and female vocals recently in very different genre contexts.

1 Like
#223

I need a few more ADs to record hardware synths in my DAW, so I’m looking for an eight channel preamp (with gain pots) to connect it to a ADAT In on my audio interface. I nailed it down to Focusrite Clarett OctoPre or a Audient ASP880. I read lots of praise about the ASP880, but I could get an OctoPre for half of the price and I’m wondering if it’s worth the investment when I’ll use it exclusively for line signals? Would it make a noticable difference? Any experiences?

#224

Hi. My setup is very simple¹. Basically a norns shield and USB audio from OP-Z, plus one single other item of gear, either one of my two teenage engineering Pocket Operators or Android smartphone going to norns input via a 3.5mm audio cable.

I have one audio cable, and it is a random, noname very skinny noodle I had laying around, maybe a meter long. It’s the rightmost of these three, next to Etymōtic headphone cord and OP-Z USB cable for scale.

IMG_20201207_233042
IMG_20201207_2330424608×2176 1.41 MB

Question is this: should I at all care about the quality of this single audio cable? Or will an investment make absolutely no improvement to my sound quality on this simple setup? My intuition is that i shouldn’t, but in a more sophisticated setup audio cable setup will start to matter.

¹ ain’t got the moneys the for modular FOMO lifestyle

#225

Looks fine to me. Does audio sound weird through it?

1 Like