Stewart. Do you realise....
 

That a very large percentage of microphones
used in digital recordings are valve microphones.

Oh dear :-((

Neumann 49, 50, 56, 64 and U87 are very
popular.

Don't believe me? of course you don't:-)
Check the AES Journal (of which I am sure you are
a member, as the A stands for Audio and the E for
Engineering)

Also read some of the excellent recent
articles in Studio Sound,
to which I am sure you subscribe.


Cordially,

Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...
That a very large percentage of microphones
used in digital recordings are valve microphones.


PS. Just had an e-mail from an outside observer, of this NG
who reminds me that a large number of "state of the art"
compressors have a valve front end.

Producers of digital recordings like the sound.
I am pointing out a fact here, not offering an opinion or
a preference.

Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message


That a very large percentage of microphones
used in digital recordings are valve microphones.

So what?

Microphones are often not chosen for accuracy, but because they provide a
certain coloration. Think of them as tone controls on a stick.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message


That a very large percentage of microphones
used in digital recordings are valve microphones.

So what?

Microphones are often not chosen for accuracy, but because they provide a
certain coloration. Think of them as tone controls on a stick.

Nice twist Arny:-)

BTW: I wanted to ask you if you had facilities to measure IMD.
I thought you were in the UK, but now get the impression you might
be somewhere else.

Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
That a very large percentage of microphones
used in digital recordings are valve microphones.

Iain, it would help if you provided a reference when quoting - it's the
convention, as well as the polite thing to do.

Oh dear :-((

Neumann 49, 50, 56, 64 and U87 are very
popular.

They indeed are. Although I've never seen a valve U87. And mine certainly
aren't.

Don't believe me? of course you don't:-)
Check the AES Journal (of which I am sure you are
a member, as the A stands for Audio and the E for
Engineering)

Also read some of the excellent recent
articles in Studio Sound,
to which I am sure you subscribe.

But very large percentage? You'd have to be rather more specific.

Perhaps a fair percentage of recordings might involve the use of some
valve microphone. As a percentage of mics used in all recordings, it would
be small.

--
*Two wrongs are only the beginning *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Kurt Hamster" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:26:25 +0300, Iain M Churches used
to say...

BTW: I wanted to ask you if you had facilities to measure IMD.
I thought you were in the UK, but now get the impression you might
be somewhere else.

Cuckoo land?


As in 'One Flew Over...' ??? :-)

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Iain, it would help if you provided a reference when quoting - it's the
convention, as well as the polite thing to do.

Sorry Dave. Not intentional.

Valve mics in digital recording

Perhaps a fair percentage of recordings might involve the use of some
valve microphone. As a percentage of mics used in all recordings, it would
be small.

Neither of us can really what is going on outside our own recording
spheres with accuracy.

I had a message yesterday from a former colleague working at this moment
in LA ( I think the location is Royce Hall)
All mics on the sessions are valve. 47, 49,50, 56, 64

So, that's 100% for that project:-)))

Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Iain, it would help if you provided a reference when quoting - it's the
convention, as well as the polite thing to do.

Sorry Dave. Not intentional.

Valve mics in digital recording

I forgot to mention that there is a small firm in Munich, who do
refits for Neumann mics. (I expect its a one man outfit. a former
Neumann employee:-)

Valve conversions of 87's are possible, I am told.
Back in the 70's, many of the Neumann 40 and 50 series were
converted to FET. Some are now being changed back again.

Have you ever worked with a valve mic, and tried to set the cardioid
response? It's a lot of fun, takes a very long time, and needs three
people. One at the console, one to twiddle the control on the
psu, and one to shout "On the front.1.2.3.4." and then whisper
"On the back 1.2.3.4."

Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:50:06 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Iain, it would help if you provided a reference when quoting - it's the
convention, as well as the polite thing to do.

Sorry Dave. Not intentional.

Valve mics in digital recording

Perhaps a fair percentage of recordings might involve the use of some
valve microphone. As a percentage of mics used in all recordings, it would
be small.

Neither of us can really what is going on outside our own recording
spheres with accuracy.

I had a message yesterday from a former colleague working at this moment
in LA ( I think the location is Royce Hall)
All mics on the sessions are valve. 47, 49,50, 56, 64

So, that's 100% for that project:-)))

Iain


Do bear in mind though that the signal levels involved in mics are
minute - they don't come anywhere near the voltage swings that cause
all the problems later on in the amplification chain.

And also applying a subtle distortion to a single instrument doesn't
have anything like the same effect as applying that same distortion to
a multi-instrument mix.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain M Churches" wrote in message


That a very large percentage of microphones
used in digital recordings are valve microphones.

So what?

Microphones are often not chosen for accuracy, but because they
provide a certain coloration. Think of them as tone controls on a
stick.

Nice twist Arny:-)

BTW: I wanted to ask you if you had facilities to measure IMD.

But of course. Anybody can do it. All you need is a PC with a
halfways-decent audio interface and the freebie Audio Rightmark program.

I thought you were in the UK, but now get the impression you might
be somewhere else.

Just east of Detroit, Michigan and just north of Windsor, Ontario.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
That a very large percentage of microphones
used in digital recordings are valve microphones.

Iain, it would help if you provided a reference when quoting - it's
the convention, as well as the polite thing to do.

Oh dear :-((

Neumann 49, 50, 56, 64 and U87 are very
popular.

They indeed are. Although I've never seen a valve U87. And mine
certainly aren't.

AFAIK, and as far as my references seem to know, the U87 always came from
the factory as solid state. There have been tube retrofit kits for them,
but...

Don't believe me? of course you don't:-)
Check the AES Journal (of which I am sure you are
a member, as the A stands for Audio and the E for
Engineering)

As a rule, AES articles don't mention specific products.

Also read some of the excellent recent
articles in Studio Sound,
to which I am sure you subscribe.

But very large percentage? You'd have to be rather more specific.

How about very large percentage of tubed microphones? ;-)

Perhaps a fair percentage of recordings might involve the use of some
valve microphone. As a percentage of mics used in all recordings, it
would be small.

Agreed. It is generally understood that a very large proportion (most???) of
the *professional* microphones in the world are either Shure SM57 and close
derivatives or EV 635 and close derivatives. Both are magnetic, entirely
passive and contain no active components such as tubes.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


Do bear in mind though that the signal levels involved in mics are
minute - they don't come anywhere near the voltage swings that cause
all the problems later on in the amplification chain.

While that is a good guide, it;s not a general rule. Many condenser mics
will put out a pretty respectable line-level signal if you provide a very
loud acoustical source.

And also applying a subtle distortion to a single instrument doesn't
have anything like the same effect as applying that same distortion to
a multi-instrument mix.

Agreed. The IM effects you get with one instrument may be euphonic, while
the same levels of the same kind of distortion as applied to an orchestra
can be fairly distressing to any ear, even those belonging to tubophiles.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:50:06 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Iain, it would help if you provided a reference when quoting - it's the
convention, as well as the polite thing to do.

Sorry Dave. Not intentional.

Valve mics in digital recording

Perhaps a fair percentage of recordings might involve the use of some
valve microphone. As a percentage of mics used in all recordings, it
would
be small.

Neither of us can really what is going on outside our own recording
spheres with accuracy.

I had a message yesterday from a former colleague working at this moment
in LA ( I think the location is Royce Hall)
All mics on the sessions are valve. 47, 49,50, 56, 64

So, that's 100% for that project:-)))

Iain


Do bear in mind though that the signal levels involved in mics are
minute - they don't come anywhere near the voltage swings that cause
all the problems later on in the amplification chain.


And also applying a subtle distortion to a single instrument doesn't
have anything like the same effect as applying that same distortion to
a multi-instrument mix.

Agreed. The problems were not with the mics themselves, or their
valve front ends, but the psu, and mic preamp. As I remember they
used to come from the "box" straight into the desk at line level.
But those old mics do sound absolutely wonderful on large
string sections.

It's horses for courses. I don't think we can be too adamant either
way. I like to see a mix of technology.

I sometimes work in a studio in Stockholm where they record
analogue, Studer A80/24 and then transfer to ProTools (hard disk
multitrack with a Mac front end) for editing. Then a mix onto two tracks
of the hard disk recorder and pass in the digi
domain to DAT for the production master. Their clients are happy,
and it seems a very efficient way to work. Digital editing is like
using a wordprocessor, cut and paste. Wonderful:-))


Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:19:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message


Do bear in mind though that the signal levels involved in mics are
minute - they don't come anywhere near the voltage swings that cause
all the problems later on in the amplification chain.

While that is a good guide, it;s not a general rule. Many condenser mics
will put out a pretty respectable line-level signal if you provide a very
loud acoustical source.

I was thinking more of the tens-of-volts signals that rally hammer the
transfer curve.


d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

And also applying a subtle distortion to a single instrument doesn't
have anything like the same effect as applying that same distortion to
a multi-instrument mix.

Agreed. The IM effects you get with one instrument may be euphonic, while
the same levels of the same kind of distortion as applied to an orchestra
can be fairly distressing to any ear, even those belonging to tubophiles.


You don't need to use a mic a cable or a pre-amps either valve or SS to hear
that.
Just sit behind a French horn section of four players are hear the IM
acoustically:-)

Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
PS. Just had an e-mail from an outside observer, of this NG
who reminds me that a large number of "state of the art"
compressors have a valve front end.

As do transmitters. But most don't use either at home.

--
*If vegetable oil comes from vegetables, where does baby oil come from? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

They indeed are. Although I've never seen a valve U87. And mine
certainly aren't.

I don't think it's performance is much different to its valve predecessor,
(U67 wasn't it?)

As a rule, AES articles don't mention specific products.

I think the Royce Hall project of which I spoke has been written about
recently.


It is generally understood that a very large proportion (most???) of the
*professional* microphones in the world are either Shure SM57 and close
derivatives or EV 635 and close derivatives. Both are magnetic, entirely
passive and contain no active components such as tubes.

I like to use Beyers and Shures on drum kits, (because I can't stand the
thought
of a drummer thrashing a Neumann suspended above the top cymbals:-)
Otherwise I use condensers.

By the way. do you ever get to record live drums?. I have a feeling it
may be a dying art in studios. At the start of the digi era, we took to
recording
a full kit guide track (to a click) and then one drum at a time
:-((((((((( Deadly.
I do quite a lot of jazz, where the kit is alive and kicking:-)


Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Have you ever worked with a valve mic, and tried to set the cardioid
response? It's a lot of fun, takes a very long time, and needs three
people. One at the console, one to twiddle the control on the
psu, and one to shout "On the front.1.2.3.4." and then whisper
"On the back 1.2.3.4."

The only valve mic I have is a C12. With a remote PD selector.
The mic is rather too noisy for most modern requirements, though, despite
a recent valve change. Sounds nice if this isn't a problem.

--
*Real women don't have hot flashes, they have power surges.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Do bear in mind though that the signal levels involved in mics are
minute - they don't come anywhere near the voltage swings that cause
all the problems later on in the amplification chain.

While that is a good guide, it;s not a general rule. Many condenser mics
will put out a pretty respectable line-level signal if you provide a
very loud acoustical source.

Ah. What you *really* need is a U77. Damn near zero level on speech - and
can use an internal PP3 battery.

Embarrassment on some desks - bashes the front end into the middle of next
week...

--
*There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Agreed. The problems were not with the mics themselves, or their
valve front ends, but the psu, and mic preamp. As I remember they
used to come from the "box" straight into the desk at line level.
But those old mics do sound absolutely wonderful on large
string sections.

Of course in those days there was no DIN standard output level for mics.
But none of the valve ones I was familiar with (mainly AKG) gave line
level out under normal circumstances. Close on a trumpet etc yes.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Agreed. The problems were not with the mics themselves, or their
valve front ends, but the psu, and mic preamp. As I remember they
used to come from the "box" straight into the desk at line level.
But those old mics do sound absolutely wonderful on large
string sections.

Of course in those days there was no DIN standard output level for mics.
But none of the valve ones I was familiar with (mainly AKG) gave line
level out under normal circumstances. Close on a trumpet etc yes.

The "boxes" to which I refer were grey hammer finish, six inputs and outputs
per box, and placed strategically around the studio floorspace. They had a
triangular logo, so either Neumann or Telefunken. It may well be that they
were built for Decca, which was a fifty percent shareholder in Telefunken,
and shared a record label TelDec. Each input had the polarity selector of
which
I spoke, and the output was typically 0dBm.

We used to rig at night before a morning session. It took a long time to
set up the
polarity of the string mics, and then wind them up on their high booms.
When I
was an assistant I often sat in the control room of Decca III (which was
huge) with
the lights out all the mics open listening to the ambience. "The Stone
Tapes"
came to mind.

Iain.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message

They indeed are. Although I've never seen a valve U87. And mine
certainly aren't.

I don't think it's performance is much different to its valve predecessor,
(U67 wasn't it?)

As a rule, AES articles don't mention specific products.

I think the Royce Hall project of which I spoke has been written about
recently.


It is generally understood that a very large proportion (most???) of the
*professional* microphones in the world are either Shure SM57 and close
derivatives or EV 635 and close derivatives. Both are magnetic, entirely
passive and contain no active components such as tubes.

I like to use Beyers and Shures on drum kits, (because I can't stand the
thought
of a drummer thrashing a Neumann suspended above the top cymbals:-)
Otherwise I use condensers.

By the way. do you ever get to record live drums?. I have a feeling it
may be a dying art in studios. At the start of the digi era, we took to
recording
a full kit guide track (to a click) and then one drum at a time
:-((((((((( Deadly.
I do quite a lot of jazz, where the kit is alive and kicking:-)


Iain

I'd be interested in what Beyers & Shures you use on the drum kit. I do
sound for a regular gigging 10 piece band and use a condenser for high hat,
SM57's for snare and toms and Shure SM91 for kick. The band plans to record
soon & I'll be using my GL2200 board so would appreciate any tips you've
gained along the way.

Mike

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:53:29 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

That a very large percentage of microphones
used in digital recordings are valve microphones.

Of course I do. Not the majority, but certainly a goodly proportion of
the more carefully made recordings.

Oh dear :-((

Neumann 49, 50, 56, 64 and U87 are very
popular.

Indeed they are, and for good reason.

Don't believe me? of course you don't:-)

Why would I not?

BTW, my own personal favourite 'do it all' mic is the STC 4038, but
that wouldn't last long in the kind of close-miking hell that you
Decca guys started with 'Phase Four'! :-)

Check the AES Journal (of which I am sure you are
a member, as the A stands for Audio and the E for
Engineering)

Also read some of the excellent recent
articles in Studio Sound,
to which I am sure you subscribe.

I don't subsribe, but I read it from time to time. It's much more a
pro-audio magazine than of interest to the replay end of audio.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:50:06 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Iain, it would help if you provided a reference when quoting - it's the
convention, as well as the polite thing to do.

Sorry Dave. Not intentional.

Valve mics in digital recording

Perhaps a fair percentage of recordings might involve the use of some
valve microphone. As a percentage of mics used in all recordings, it would
be small.

Neither of us can really what is going on outside our own recording
spheres with accuracy.

I had a message yesterday from a former colleague working at this moment
in LA ( I think the location is Royce Hall)
All mics on the sessions are valve. 47, 49,50, 56, 64

So, that's 100% for that project:-)))

I'm curious as to why you'd think anyone would have problem with that?
Microphones are part of the *performance*, they all have their own
sound, and any good studio keeps a good selection of quite different
mics, if only to flatter the poorer singers!

The need for utter neutrality comes *after* the recording has been
purchased by the end user - or don't you care that some valvie has
decided to alter the balnce you carefully crafted into the recording?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Kurt Hamster wrote:
PS. Just had an e-mail from an outside observer, of this NG
who reminds me that a large number of "state of the art"
compressors have a valve front end.

As do transmitters. But most don't use either at home.

So people who receive transmissions at home aren't 'using' the
transmitters then?

Suddenly you're concerned with the signal that arrives at your home.

So why mangle it afterwards?

--
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I like to use Beyers and Shures on drum kits, (because I can't stand the
thought of a drummer thrashing a Neumann suspended above the top
cymbals:-) Otherwise I use condensers.

By the way. do you ever get to record live drums?. I have a feeling it
may be a dying art in studios. At the start of the digi era, we took to
recording a full kit guide track (to a click) and then one drum at a
time
:-((((((((( Deadly.
I do quite a lot of jazz, where the kit is alive and kicking:-)

Yes. Miking up every single part of a kit for one pass is often the law of
diminishing returns. You'll usually nead 'gates on the toms, and I'm not a
great lover of those. Often the traditional tree mic setup will sound just
fine with a decent drummer and kit. Otherwise, it's lots of time and work.
;-)

--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I like to use Beyers and Shures on drum kits, (because I can't stand the
thought of a drummer thrashing a Neumann suspended above the top
cymbals:-) Otherwise I use condensers.

By the way. do you ever get to record live drums?. I have a feeling it
may be a dying art in studios. At the start of the digi era, we took to
recording a full kit guide track (to a click) and then one drum at a
time
:-((((((((( Deadly.
I do quite a lot of jazz, where the kit is alive and kicking:-)

Yes. Miking up every single part of a kit for one pass is often the law of
diminishing returns. You'll usually nead 'gates on the toms, and I'm not a
great lover of those. Often the traditional tree mic setup will sound just
fine with a decent drummer and kit. Otherwise, it's lots of time and work.
;-)

Thanks Iain, yes I've got the time and work bit (or trial & error in my
case) I'll borrow some kit to gate the toms just to see how I get on. I've
also has a suggestion on mic'ing up the snare is to put the same type of mic
also below the snare antiphase (I've got a phasechange button on each mixer
channel) Any comments on this?

I'd like to try the tree method also... By the way did you take any M50's
home with you as I'd love to try the Decca tree ;-)

--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I like to use Beyers and Shures on drum kits, (because I can't stand the
thought of a drummer thrashing a Neumann suspended above the top
cymbals:-) Otherwise I use condensers.

By the way. do you ever get to record live drums?.

Yes. Miking up every single part of a kit for one pass is often the law of
diminishing returns.
Agreed.

You'll usually nead 'gates on the toms, and I'm not a
great lover of those.

I used to use "Aphex" I could never get them to work as I wanted.
Very time consuming.

Do you double mic the snare? I often use one over and one under
(remember the phase switch:-)

Often the traditional tree mic setup will sound just
fine with a decent drummer and kit. Otherwise, it's lots of time and work.

I don't mind it being a lot of work. We get paid by the hour:-)
(or is it a flat rate for a project now in your neck of the woods?)

But a drum track has to live, sound natural. It is my belief that it
cannot be achieved with a click track and recording one drum at a time.

I try to avoid pop music. I am a little averse to musical bricklaying:-))
Life's too short. Though I do like to listen to the finished product.

Funny you use the word "tree" that's a Decca term (do a web search) for the
classical microphone set up devised by Roy Wallis and Arthur Wilkinson, back
in the days when the British Army had muskets, and Pontius was a pilot.

Cheers


Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
Yes. Miking up every single part of a kit for one pass is often the
law of diminishing returns. You'll usually nead 'gates on the toms,
and I'm not a great lover of those. Often the traditional tree mic
setup will sound just fine with a decent drummer and kit. Otherwise,
it's lots of time and work. ;-)

Thanks Iain, yes I've got the time and work bit (or trial & error in my
case) I'll borrow some kit to gate the toms just to see how I get on.
I've also has a suggestion on mic'ing up the snare is to put the same
type of mic also below the snare antiphase (I've got a phasechange
button on each mixer channel) Any comments on this?

I'd like to try the tree method also... By the way did you take any
M50's home with you as I'd love to try the Decca tree ;-)

Heh heh. Freudian slip. I of course meant three.

--
*OK, who stopped payment on my reality check?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I like to use Beyers and Shures on drum kits, (because I can't stand the
thought of a drummer thrashing a Neumann suspended above the top
cymbals:-) Otherwise I use condensers.

Thanks Iain, yes I've got the time and work bit (or trial & error in my
case) I'll borrow some kit to gate the toms just to see how I get on. I've
also has a suggestion on mic'ing up the snare is to put the same type of
mic also below the snare antiphase (I've got a phase change button on each
mixer channel) Any comments on this?

I have just covered this in another missive.
Try without the gates. I am seldom hapy with them.
If you set them too high you get no tom at all:-))
You can put a good dynamic quite close to the top
head of the floor tom, or try from underneath too. Experiment.

At RCA we had a chap who tuned the kit. He is not much of a drummer,
but a brilliant tuner. You can't get a good sound from a poor kit.´Lots of
time, lots of gaffer tape:-))

A long long time ago, I was first assistant on an album "Baker Gurvitz
Army" with Adrian Gurvits leading the band which had two drummers,
Ginger Baker and the drummer from the Moody Blues (whos name escapes
me. I have been at the Mouton Cadet) Oh yes, Graham Edge.

Ginger Baker sent his kit on in advance. It was the most dreadful battered
Premier kit you have ever seen. We set it up, and put the mics out. As
assistant it was my job to hit each drum for the engineer to get the levels
and
put some rough EQ in place. It sounded awful. Next day, Ginger Baker
arrived.
He hit 10dB louder than I could manage, with incredible precision.
It sounded wonderful:-)


I'd like to try the tree method also... By the way did you take any M50's
home with you as I'd love to try the Decca tree ;-)

No such luck. We had to count every mic back into the cupboard.
Discipline was strict. What ever time you finished in the morning, you
had to strip down, and clear completely if you were not continuing in
the same studio. We had 200 condenser mics between three studios,
plus a few dynamics. The senior engineer was responsible for the mic
cupboard, and a detailed list was kept of the whereabouts of each and
every microphone.


Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
Often the traditional tree mic setup will sound just
fine with a decent drummer and kit. Otherwise, it's lots of time and
work.

Three, I meant three. ;-)

I don't mind it being a lot of work. We get paid by the hour:-)
(or is it a flat rate for a project now in your neck of the woods?)

Depends. Staff or freelance makes a difference, but in broadcast you
rarely get enough time - the musician costs are so high. If they are
making the record, that's a different matter.

But a drum track has to live, sound natural. It is my belief that it
cannot be achieved with a click track and recording one drum at a time.

Absolutely. IMHO you'd end up with a possibly technically good but
artistically dead track - you might as well use a machine. But that's only
a guess. I'm sure it's been done.

I try to avoid pop music. I am a little averse to musical bricklaying:-))
Life's too short. Though I do like to listen to the finished product.

I'd love to do more of both. But there's not much around these days.

Funny you use the word "tree" that's a Decca term (do a web search) for
the classical microphone set up devised by Roy Wallis and Arthur
Wilkinson, back in the days when the British Army had muskets, and
Pontius was a pilot.

Yes. It was a Freudian slip. I meant three. Overall, shared snare/high hat
and kick. Of course if it's a small band you might want two overalls to
spread it a bit stereo wise.

--
*When you've seen one shopping centre you've seen a mall.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I don't mind it being a lot of work. We get paid by the hour:-)
(or is it a flat rate for a project now in your neck of the woods?)

Depends. Staff or freelance makes a difference, but in broadcast you
rarely get enough time - the musician costs are so high. If they are
making the record, that's a different matter.

I was amazed at the cost of musicians in the UK.
They earned in a day what most people earn in a week.
The MU was incredibly strong. There was a three-hour minimum,
and one couldn't go into overtime without unanimous agreement.
If one musician was in a hurry to get home, the session was over.
Then there was the question of overdubs, one hour extra for each
IIRC

There was a brilliant percussionist, Tony Carr who could overdub
tambourine and triangle at the same time (double rate) He held
the tambourine in his left hand, with the triangle suspended in a
stand, and the beater in his right hand. Try to play fours on the inside
of a triangle. Not a simple task. He earned his money:-)

But a drum track has to live, sound natural. It is my belief that it
cannot be achieved with a click track and recording one drum at a time.

Absolutely. IMHO you'd end up with a possibly technically good but
artistically dead track - you might as well use a machine. But that's only
a guess. I'm sure it's been done.

Yes indeed. I have done it more times than I care to remember. With a
professional drummer it can take you an hour to put down a three-minute
track. Deadly:-((( That's why we used to call it musical brick-laying:-)
Have you come across the term before?

I'd love to do more of both. But there's not much around these days.

The problem is that the same few people get all the work. It is exactly
the same with promising new players. They don't get studio gigs because
they don't have experience. And they don't have experience because......
But because everyone gets the same rate, only the best get booked.
I have often thought that a tiered tariff might be better.


Funny you use the word "tree" that's a Decca term (do a web search) for
the classical microphone set up devised by Roy Wallis and Arthur
Wilkinson, back in the days when the British Army had muskets, and
Pontius was a pilot.

Yes. It was a Freudian slip. I meant three. Overall, shared snare/high hat
and kick. Of course if it's a small band you might want two overalls to
spread it a bit stereo wise.

My mentor Arthur Lilley, always went for simple microphone placings.
As far as multi-microphone he used to say: "If you are going to tell a lie,
tell a big one, and mic up every single drum"

I think you need an overheard pair, to get some stereo into the picture.
I like a tightly placed hi-hat mic too, and pull that over to one side. Do
you spread your stereo image as the drummer sees it, or as it would be
if you were standing in front of the kit?


Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Iain M Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I don't mind it being a lot of work. We get paid by the hour:-)
(or is it a flat rate for a project now in your neck of the woods?)

Depends. Staff or freelance makes a difference, but in broadcast you
rarely get enough time - the musician costs are so high. If they are
making the record, that's a different matter.

I was amazed at the cost of musicians in the UK.
They earned in a day what most people earn in a week.
The MU was incredibly strong. There was a three-hour minimum,
and one couldn't go into overtime without unanimous agreement.
If one musician was in a hurry to get home, the session was over.
Then there was the question of overdubs, one hour extra for each
IIRC

There was a brilliant percussionist, Tony Carr who could overdub
tambourine and triangle at the same time (double rate) He held
the tambourine in his left hand, with the triangle suspended in a
stand, and the beater in his right hand. Try to play fours on the inside
of a triangle. Not a simple task. He earned his money:-)

But a drum track has to live, sound natural. It is my belief that it
cannot be achieved with a click track and recording one drum at a time.

Absolutely. IMHO you'd end up with a possibly technically good but
artistically dead track - you might as well use a machine. But that's
only
a guess. I'm sure it's been done.

Yes indeed. I have done it more times than I care to remember. With a
professional drummer it can take you an hour to put down a three-minute
track. Deadly:-((( That's why we used to call it musical
brick-laying:-)
Have you come across the term before?

I'd love to do more of both. But there's not much around these days.

The problem is that the same few people get all the work. It is exactly
the same with promising new players. They don't get studio gigs because
they don't have experience. And they don't have experience because......
But because everyone gets the same rate, only the best get booked.
I have often thought that a tiered tariff might be better.


Funny you use the word "tree" that's a Decca term (do a web search) for
the classical microphone set up devised by Roy Wallis and Arthur
Wilkinson, back in the days when the British Army had muskets, and
Pontius was a pilot.

Yes. It was a Freudian slip. I meant three. Overall, shared snare/high
hat
and kick. Of course if it's a small band you might want two overalls to
spread it a bit stereo wise.

My mentor Arthur Lilley, always went for simple microphone placings.
As far as multi-microphone he used to say: "If you are going to tell a
lie,
tell a big one, and mic up every single drum"

I think you need an overheard pair, to get some stereo into the picture.
I like a tightly placed hi-hat mic too, and pull that over to one side.
Do
you spread your stereo image as the drummer sees it, or as it would be
if you were standing in front of the kit?


Iain
My best recording of drums was exactly that by using a pair of condenser
above but angled to the side - though for SR work I like snare, toms, kick &
hi-hat individually mic'd gives more 'clout' (not a techical term I'm afraid
:-)) is easier in the mix and avoids chance of acoustic feedback.

Mike

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I think you need an overheard pair, to get some stereo into the picture.
I like a tightly placed hi-hat mic too, and pull that over to one side.
Do you spread your stereo image as the drummer sees it, or as it would
be if you were standing in front of the kit?

Invariably as from the front of the kit, since near all my stuff is for TV.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Mike Gilmour" wrote in message
...
Iain
My best recording of drums was exactly that by using a pair of condenser
above but angled to the side - though for SR work I like snare, toms, kick
& hi-hat individually mic'd gives more 'clout' (not a techical term I'm
afraid :-)) is easier in the mix and avoids chance of acoustic feedback.

Mike

And if the kit is a rock kit, then "clout" is what it is all about:-))

Iain

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain M Churches wrote:
I think you need an overheard pair, to get some stereo into the picture.
I like a tightly placed hi-hat mic too, and pull that over to one side.
Do you spread your stereo image as the drummer sees it, or as it would
be if you were standing in front of the kit?

Invariably as from the front of the kit, since near all my stuff is for
TV.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Does that generally mean inconspic? i.e. Matt black no shiny stuff.

Mike

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
My best recording of drums was exactly that by using a pair of condenser
above but angled to the side - though for SR work I like snare, toms,
kick & hi-hat individually mic'd gives more 'clout' (not a techical
term I'm afraid
:-)) is easier in the mix and avoids chance of acoustic feedback.

See my earlier comment about noise gates on toms.
Of course, if it's the sort of gig where you get a chance to pull them
when needed, fine. But if they have to be left up all the time, I find
they muddy things up far too much. Especially considering how infrequently
they're used. ;-)

Of course, if you use a noise cancelling type of mic on toms, like an
SM58, you'll improve separation over my favourite U87. However, the
quality suffers so much I'd prefer to just rely on the overheads.
But as much in this game, it's purely a matter of taste. Not much is set
in stone.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
Invariably as from the front of the kit, since near all my stuff is
for TV.

Does that generally mean inconspic? i.e. Matt black no shiny stuff.

Not really - 'silver' mics and chrome stands are still used. If the
production specified all back, they'd have to pay the extra hire charges.

I'm told that in the early days of TV, no mics of any description were
allowed to be seen. Must have made miking up an in shot band fun. Although
they'd not have used anywhere near as many as these days - the mixer might
well have had only a dozen or so channels for everything. And maybe not
enough mics 'in the cupboard' to fill it. ;-)

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
My best recording of drums was exactly that by using a pair of condenser
above but angled to the side - though for SR work I like snare, toms,
kick & hi-hat individually mic'd gives more 'clout' (not a techical
term I'm afraid
:-)) is easier in the mix and avoids chance of acoustic feedback.

See my earlier comment about noise gates on toms.
Of course, if it's the sort of gig where you get a chance to pull them
when needed, fine. But if they have to be left up all the time, I find
they muddy things up far too much. Especially considering how infrequently
they're used. ;-)

Of course, if you use a noise cancelling type of mic on toms, like an
SM58, you'll improve separation over my favourite U87. However, the
quality suffers so much I'd prefer to just rely on the overheads.
But as much in this game, it's purely a matter of taste. Not much is set
in stone.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried
before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Thanks but I wouldn't dream of taking a U87 on gigs - especially near
drummers, the '58's are mostly unbreakable but I've had a drummer break the
casing just below the head, Shure repaired it free of charge (thanks guys if
you read this). Now for recording (not live) its a different matter, things
seem to be a bit more civilised somehow :-)

Stewart. Do you realise....
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:
Invariably as from the front of the kit, since near all my stuff is
for TV.

Does that generally mean inconspic? i.e. Matt black no shiny stuff.

Not really - 'silver' mics and chrome stands are still used. If the
production specified all back, they'd have to pay the extra hire charges.

I'm told that in the early days of TV, no mics of any description were
allowed to be seen. Must have made miking up an in shot band fun. Although
they'd not have used anywhere near as many as these days - the mixer might
well have had only a dozen or so channels for everything. And maybe not
enough mics 'in the cupboard' to fill it. ;-)

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman London SW

To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Jules Holland wouldn't leave many spare mic's I guess?