The Steel Guitar Forum

Some of you may be interested in this,
I finished some microphone testing for now, just with two common mics for the steel.
A Seinheiser 421 and Shure 57 , the results
were pretty interesting.

Franklin D10 going directly in to Nashville 400. Pick-ups BL 705's. No added efects,
just a bit of verb from the amp.

The 421 yielded more mids , fuller tone,
punchier , the guitar sounded maybe
more "Modern Sounding".

The 57 had better note seperation ,sweet high's and almost made the guitar sound like
it had single coils on it " without the hum".

Conclusion... The difference in tone was so
apparent that it sounded like two different
guitars, as much as changing from E66 to 710's , yes to that degree. Also if I were
recording a sweet ballad the 57 would be
my choice, however the 421 would sit better
in the mix with punchier mixes or songs.

Any comments about some tests you have done?
Also mic placement on this test was precise,
going through a stereo Tube Mic- Pre with
no EQ during Recording or Playback.
I think this is a overlooked area even by
some pro's that just grab any mic at hand,
these mic's have different EQ curves and can
enhance or destroy tone, take time when your
doing your next recording, and listen closely
to the different EQ's Mics & compressors
have. I am learning how valuable our ears are if we just listen. Greg

I'll bite on this one!

Great mics! One thing to remember is this: No two channels on a pre-amp or channel strip sound the same. Nor due two identicle cables. You should unplug each mic and plug it into the others cord, with the same settings on the board and pre-amp.

Also I record on several different tracks for each mic. Sometimes the A-D converters sound different on the tape decks. If it was an analog deck sometimes head position sounds different.

As a last comment, I would always choose the 57 in the field. In the Studio I would opt for the 421 unless I was recording ROCK or Southern Rock.

Just my opinion.

------------------
Joe

"76" Fender Artist S-10

Did you ever tried old ribbon mics?? I have some sort of collection and the best guitar sound that I ever recorded was with a RCA Varacoustic which could be found between $200-400.

Considering the price of a SM57 it's the perfect mic in my opinion. Everyone could afford one and your recordings won't sound little crappy home productions.

------------------
Fender Dual Professional
Sho~Bud D-10 Professional

Man, Tele, what don't you have? When it wasn't kool to have this gear, I sold all that stuff. Now with all the digital crap out there, I have nightmares about the gear I've sold.

Joe, thats a good tip about the channel
strips, One thing I didn't mention was I also
tried the SM58 and to my ears it lacked some
of the high end presence of the 57.

Just a note also ,the best tone I have ever gotten was SM57 and 421 miking the Nashville
into stereo Tube Mic Pre that had a Manley
Tube compressor in the insert of each channel. It had the quick clean attack of
the Nashville and the Tube warmth from the
outbourd gear. Now if I can get a T.C.
Electronic M3000 Reverb in there I will be
as close to audio heaven as I care to be!
I may be turning into a gear hound! Greg

The TC 3000 is a bit of audio heaven--love it.

I love the sound of ribbon mics on both electric guitars and steel. I am using the newer generation of them, pairs of Coles and Royers.

I always try different mics. Condensors like a 414 sound great, too. I cut a steel overdub the other day through my classic tube U47, and man, was that fine!

I would appreciate some opinions as to placement of the SM 57 to the amp speaker. I place it dead-center with the edge of the voice coil close as I can get it.
Also, a couple of you guys mentioned that you have old vintage ribbon mics. I have a Turner ribbon mike with a screen wire type cover front and back with a chrome band wrapping around the top. My Dad bought it for me new in 1955 and I was going to a "gig" at the local Worldburger Drive Inn with the top down on my red and white '50 Ford Convertible and the wind broke the ribbon. I replaced the ribbon with Christmas tree "icesickle" material but it never worked too good after that. If any of you vintage mic techs are interested in this mic send me an E-mail.
I believe it is all there and could be fixed with the proper ribbon material.
Thanks<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jerry Roller on 13 April 2000 at 04:45 PM.]</p></FONT>

Just a reminder on't let the Phantom Power
in a mixer or pr-amp get to your ribbom mics.
Jake Doell

Hi Jerry I e-mailed you about the mic. As far as placement goes, theres another thread on electronics on this same thing.

But for waht its worth: I always point the mic 90 degrees to the face of the cabinet. Right at the speaker. I point it toward the first inch or so after the dust cap. In other words, on a 15" speaker if the cap is 4" around I point the mic a inch past that on the cone.

Some guys like to angle it toward the cone a little more. If the cone slants to the center cap at 30 degrees they point the mic at this same angle. I don't like the sound as much as the previous way. I like the ways the sound waves hit a mic thats at a 90 to the face of the cab. JMO<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Joe E on 13 April 2000 at 05:21 PM.]</p></FONT>

Jerry, I fooled with Mic placement alot
and generally found that about half way from
the centre of the speaker sounded balanced,
not to bright (centre), not to dull ( edge).
However like Alan Holdsworth has stated
it can get down to slight angles and moving
the mic .25" one way or another if you really
want to be picky.
To John Macy, Is there anything the U47
can sound bad on ? Greg

Good info on mike stuff guys.

One thing I would like to add is to turn everything up as loud as possible ! I use a massive tube power amp and crank that sucker way up for recording. Big difference in what makes it to the track.

Bob

Jake,

The cool thing about the new Royer Ribbons is not only will they take a lot of level, but they can handle phantom power. But it's the only one that will.

And Greg, you are so right about the 47--even bad playing at least sounds good.

Jerry,

For what it is worth I use an SM57 and I love it. I place it straight on, very close to the surface cover, toward the bottom of the speaker. I did this on the advice of the guitar player I work with who is pretty knowledgeable about that stuff. His rational is that the speaker is moving more “air” at that point, allowing the mic to pick up more of the “true” sound. He also mentioned that you should never hang a mic down the face of an amp allowing the sound to cross at whatever angle that is. 90 degrees, 180???…whatever!! ( I never took geometry in high school!!). He told me that defeats the action of the diaphragm in the mic.

B. Bailey Brown
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by B Bailey Brown on 14 April 2000 at 06:13 PM.]</p></FONT>

This is just for general info. We just finished making two precision ribbon foil fixtures to crinkle the ribbons for Royer mikes. They are small hand operated things but extremely high precision. One of the principles in the company came to us for the project and his insight into how these mikes are made and the particular how to's were extremely interesting. No free samples tho.
Ken

All I know is someday I want a U67 at a
garage sale within walking distance, cheap.
Darn that Diana Krall record is sweet!
Greg

In regards to this post, what I have to add doesn't directly refer to the "mic" issue, but I thought I'd pass it on because some of us might be doing this: A few days ago my dad (who's retired now and has "a few" dollars at his disposal) plays a telecaster and through the months purchased various effects (and microphones). Before too long, the Telecaster was going through 3 or 4 different effects such as delay, compression etc, etc, to the point where the true tones were lost. The "perfect tone" came in sight when he realized to go back to using the tones that the guitar itself had to offer, by the way of hand placement (and in our case, bar placement) without all these space- age tone gadgets salesmen sling on us today. I tried this method and I use a 57 on my Nashville 400, trying to use my hands to make up for the tones that I'm looking for. It's a nice challenge. It might not apply to much here, but I thought I'd mention it anyhow.

Mark I think what you said applies to a
great amount.
The engineer AL SCHMITT who records Diana
Kralls , points out how little EQ
he uses, also how careful he is with
compression.
Her CD called " When I look in your eyes"
can be listened to over and over without
getting fatigued, He really is a master at
his craft.Mic placement is everything to him.
Interesting note, in the new EQ Magazine they talk with six top mastering engineers and
their frustrations with compression and
A & R guys always asking for more volumn.
Their remarks were it , some of the material sent to them cannot be any louder its
compressed so much, dynamics gone , Thats
one of the reasons why 5.1 Suuround is fun
to master, they don't have to worry about Radio. The radio squishes more again, believe
it or not.
I really think people should do themselves
a favor and listen to some music other than
Top 40, its really starting to sound like a
Beer commercial, and there is so much good
music available and created everyday, if we
would look. Greg

Is there anything the U47 can sound bad on ?
.....
B@njo ?

But seriously, I have an old EV 664 that must have been made wrong, because I get excellent results from it on Mandolin and Acoustic Guitar. Theoretically it shouldn't be that great, but it works! I did replace the original transformer in it with a XFMR out of a Switchcraft adapter, because the original connector in the housing was ripped out and the transformer was ruined. Could be that a different impedance seen by the diaphram coil
is altering the freqency response without producing any unacceptable characteristics.

I was taught in a 24 track recording class at a Univerity Exrension program to try everything, until you get the sound you think you want. The 12 week course was taught by a retired engineer who had been the head engineer in A&R at Columbia in L.A. He was very good, even at teaching. He had a definate knack for focusing his instruction and supervision, so as to greatly eliminate wasted time and any tendency for a task to grow and use all available time, "fastracking", I guess it's called.

The lab setting was in a privately owned, but fully decked-out 24 Track studio based around a 24 track machine on 2" tape, located just outside Woodland Hills, Ca., which belonged to Jeff Porcaro. Not surprisingly, the studio was extremely well designed & set up for its "legendary" drum sound, and a lot of drum tracks on albums were replaced there after a master tape was brought in with a scratch drum mix on it. So they actually made some money there, but wasn't an advertised commercial facility per se, but more for special projects and of course Toto material. I could list a lot of other major groups at the time who had the drum work done there, but this post is already too big.
Ken Lang... it was off Pleasant Valley Road between Camarillo and Moorpark. You know the area.
I never saw Jeff there, but every week the was a new stack of the latest & greatest studio gear, waiting to be installed. Even us greenhorns got some really nice productions out of there.<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Rich Paton on 17 April 2000 at 11:23 AM.]</p></FONT>