On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:12:04 +0100, "fredbloggstwo"
wrote:

If you are keen on singing together with your partner at the mic and like
the intimacy of that, I would suggest that you get a mic that has an
omni-directional pattern rather than a cardioid. You will pick up some of
the room as well (obviously), but that will add to the atmosphere and you
will tend to get a response with less bumps in it. This will widen your
choice of available devices to do the job.

He specifically said he wanted to record two separate tracks.


You could also try a PZM microphone, (or a pair of them for stereo) although
you will have to give it a boundary (ies) to get any decent bottom end.

What advantage do you feel PZMs would bring? Generally, they're a
neat idea desperately looking for an application :-)

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 16:12:04 +0100, "fredbloggstwo"
wrote:

If you are keen on singing together with your partner at the mic and like
the intimacy of that, I would suggest that you get a mic that has an
omni-directional pattern rather than a cardioid. You will pick up some of
the room as well (obviously), but that will add to the atmosphere and you
will tend to get a response with less bumps in it. This will widen your
choice of available devices to do the job.

He specifically said he wanted to record two separate tracks.


You could also try a PZM microphone, (or a pair of them for stereo)
although
you will have to give it a boundary (ies) to get any decent bottom end.

What advantage do you feel PZMs would bring? Generally, they're a
neat idea desperately looking for an application :-)


Hi Lawrence,

I was trying to suggest an alternative to saving the OP some cash.
Multimiking/multitracking is one of the worst things to happen to recording
IMHO, both quality and psychologically. The OP wanted to sing with his
partner at the mic so I took that line to help him. A good single omni mic
is probably more honest and give a better sound than a pair of eq'd
mulitracked. If his cash would go to it, I would have suggested a good
figure of 8 so as to sing opposite at the same mic, but they start to get
pricey. :-)

As for the PZMs, have an experiment sometime if you haven't already: with a
good baffle, you can get some very good recordings.

Regards

Mike

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:20:35 +0100, "fredbloggstwo"
wrote:


I was trying to suggest an alternative to saving the OP some cash.
Multimiking/multitracking is one of the worst things to happen to recording
IMHO, both quality and psychologically. The OP wanted to sing with his
partner at the mic so I took that line to help him. A good single omni mic
is probably more honest and give a better sound than a pair of eq'd
mulitracked. If his cash would go to it, I would have suggested a good
figure of 8 so as to sing opposite at the same mic, but they start to get
pricey. :-)

I might agree with you. But as he specifically said he wanted two
mics, not to share one with his partner...

In article ,
fredbloggstwo wrote:
I was trying to suggest an alternative to saving the OP some cash.
Multimiking/multitracking is one of the worst things to happen to
recording IMHO, both quality and psychologically.

Possibly, but for the home musician it opens up all sort of possibilities
otherwise impossible. Not many can afford to hire a studio and orchestra -
let alone one which is internally balanced. ;-)

The OP wanted to sing
with his partner at the mic so I took that line to help him. A good
single omni mic is probably more honest and give a better sound than a
pair of eq'd mulitracked.

Omnis are ideal as hand held vocal mics. Where you don't need deafening
levels of foldback and PA. But used more distantly will pick up more room
acoustic/background sounds. Which you probably won't want if working at
home.

If his cash would go to it, I would have
suggested a good figure of 8 so as to sing opposite at the same mic,
but they start to get pricey. :-)

Well of course the traditional large diaphragm condenser mics were all
switchable between omni, cardiod and fig eight due to having two
diaphragms one on each side of the capsule. By matrixing these you get the
various DPs.

As for the PZMs, have an experiment sometime if you haven't already:
with a good baffle, you can get some very good recordings.

They can have their uses - but these tend to be rather restricted.

--
*You can't have everything, where would you put it?*

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

"Dave Plowman (Rabid Nutcase)


Omnis are ideal as hand held vocal mics.


** Only true for film and TV interview work.

When sound reinforcement is in place, the extra gain before
feedback of a cardioid ** VOCAL MIC ** is almost essential.

The proximity effect also adds to that extra gain very significantly.


Well of course the traditional large diaphragm condenser mics were all
switchable between omni, cardioid and fig eight due to having two
diaphragms one on each side of the capsule.

** True.

By matrixing these you get the various DPs.


** Totally FALSE !!!!!!

No matrixing of two signals is involved, a far simpler and more
technically elegant method is used.

See the schematic of any famous " variable pattern " condenser
mic for the details.

Cos this know nothing, PIG IGNORANT pommy ****

HAS NO ****ING IDEA !!




...... Phil

In article ,
Phil Allison wrote:
Omnis are ideal as hand held vocal mics.


** Only true for film and TV interview work.

********. The finest sounding hand held vocal mics are all omnis. Used for
vocalists - not 'interviews'.

When sound reinforcement is in place, the extra gain before
feedback of a cardioid ** VOCAL MIC ** is almost essential.

Which is pretty well what I said in the next line which you snipped, you
shiftless worm.

But only for deaf audiences - like you, clearly. You can get pretty
respectable levels with a properly used omni without...

The proximity effect also adds to that extra gain very significantly.

which can be most unpleasant.


Well of course the traditional large diaphragm condenser mics were all
switchable between omni, cardioid and fig eight due to having two
diaphragms one on each side of the capsule.

** True.

By matrixing these you get the various DPs.


** Totally FALSE !!!!!!

Easier to understand. Add a fig of eight to an omni and you get a cardiod.

No matrixing of two signals is involved, a far simpler and more
technically elegant method is used.

How it's achieved in practice is irrelevant.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

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

"Dave Plowman (Rabid Nutcase)


Omnis are ideal as hand held vocal mics.

** Only true for film and TV interview work.

For all other recoding and broadcast use, cardioids are
much preferred for a more " intimate" sound quality.

When sound reinforcement is in place, the extra gain before
feedback of a cardioid ** VOCAL MIC ** is almost essential.

The proximity effect also adds to that extra gain very significantly
- without any penalty to the chance of feedback.


Well of course the traditional large diaphragm condenser mics were all
switchable between omni, cardioid and fig eight due to having two
diaphragms one on each side of the capsule.

** True.

By matrixing these you get the various DPs.


** Totally FALSE !!!!!!

No matrixing of two signals is involved, a far simpler and more
technically elegant method is used.

See the schematic of any famous " variable pattern " condenser
mic for the details.

Cos this LYING, know nothing, BULL****TING

PIG IGNORANT pommy ****

HAS NO ****ING IDEA !!




...... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (Rabid Nutcase)


Omnis are ideal as hand held vocal mics.

** Only true for film and TV interview work.

For all other recoding and broadcast use, cardioids are
much preferred for a more " intimate" sound quality.

When sound reinforcement is in place, the extra gain before
feedback of a cardioid ** VOCAL MIC ** is almost essential.

The proximity effect also adds to that extra gain very significantly
- without any penalty to the chance of feedback.


Well of course the traditional large diaphragm condenser mics were all
switchable between omni, cardioid and fig eight due to having two
diaphragms one on each side of the capsule.

** True.

By matrixing these you get the various DPs.


** Totally FALSE !!!!!!

No matrixing of two signals is involved, a far simpler and more
technically elegant method is used.

See the schematic of any famous " variable pattern " condenser
mic for the details.

Cos this LYING, know nothing, BULL****TING

PIG IGNORANT pommy ****

HAS NO ****ING IDEA !!




..... Phil



In this particular case Phil, I think you are speaking from your major
orifice and should take council from those who do recording as a living and
have built up years of experience in using the right tool for the job.

There are many white papers and articles on the Internet that show, as Dave
Plowman said, how a dual diaphragm capsule can be matrixed to give a wide
range of response patterns by changing the capsule polarisation voltage that
effectively adds or subtracts each capsule pattern. It might be fruitful to
look them up - I think there are some on the Neumann and AKG web sites.

Mike

In article ,
Laurence Payne wrote:
What advantage do you feel PZMs would bring? Generally, they're a
neat idea desperately looking for an application :-)

Indeed. I've played with them without much success. Only time I do use
something like that is to mic up the front of a car for filming - a small
mic mounted on the windscreen behind the mirror can sometimes work very
well. But I'm not certain if this is pressure zone or parabola effect.

--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

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