| microphones |
|---|
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 23 Jan 2002 15:34:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Susan asked about a low
priced, entry level mic. >>
Altho they can be physically challenging, regarding placement and mounting,
there are small lavalier mics that cost very little and work well. That is,
honestly.
A couple of important points...
The best will be condensor mics, which means that they will need some sort of
power source, a battery or phantom power (from a preamp, a mixer or a direct
box). Many of the inexpensive ones have battery packs with them and will use
common batteries.
The other thing to look for is an "omni" pattern. This means that the mic
listens in a basically spherical pattern around it's little face. The good
news here is that it won't sound bassier as it gets nearer the sound source.
(Omni mics are big favorites for recording guitars in the studio.) The bad
news is that other noises can leak into it since it's not 'focused,' tho if
it's mounted -on- the guitar and close to the strings, this may not be a
problem at all.
While narrower pattern mics (cardioid and hypercardioid) will exclude more
ambient sound, the proximity effect (more bass the closer you get to the sound)
can be weird for an acoustic guitar, tho you
-can- often find a place on the guitar where it sounds good.
Most of these little mics are made for attaching to the body of a narrator.
While YMMV, in general, the more you can spend the better.
At the Cincinnati Celtic Fest last Sept., Ged Foley used a lavalier mic on a
flexy gooseneck for his Stefan Sobell OM. I think it was a Crown 100 (about
$200 list?) and he had a velcro strip on the face of the guitar ready to accept
the other side of the velcro which was mounted to the gooseneck.
It sounded great, but I thought that was a lot of goo to put on a Sobell top
... <g>
HTH,
stv
| best external mic for live performance |
|---|
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: best external mic for live performance
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 14:08:46 +1030
kevinj.fitzgerald <<kevinj.fitzgerald@ntlworld...>> wrote in message
news:W2xa8.28923$<YA2.4398151@news11-gui...>...
> Yamaha now do an internal mic that sounds truer than an under-saddle
> transducer. Don't know the model number or price, but played one earlier
> this week.
>
> Kevin
Does anyone have more information
about this. Sounds interesting.
Michael B
| Mics for use with Fishman Acoustic Matrix Natural II? [2] |
|---|
From: Mark Woollard <studio@onthelevels...>
Subject: Mics for use with Fishman Acoustic Matrix Natural II?
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:56 +0100 (BST)
Anyone here got experience of adding an internal mic to this pickup?
Looking for recommendations of mics to consider...
Thanks
Mark
Mark Woollard
email: studio at onthelevels.co.uk
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mics for use with Fishman Acoustic Matrix Natural II?
Date: 13 Apr 2002 13:29:03 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Mark Woollard srote:
<< Anyone here got experience of adding an internal mic to this pickup?
Looking for recommendations of mics to consider...
Thanks
Mark
Mark Woollard
email: studio at onthelevels.co.uk
>>You probably couldn't do much better than adding a Joe Mills mic to it IMO - I
have combined with a Natural 1........same sh*t different day.
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
| AKG vs Joe Mills [11] |
|---|
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:03:45 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
Anybody care to give their opinions on the relative merits? I've heard that
the Mills is extremely sensitive to placement and is a real PITA to install
while the AKG is over double the cost. I have my PUTW #27 in hand and am
waiting to get the mic to install them all at once. This going into the new
Larrive and will be run through an AP13.
JD
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 10:33:30 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <B3Vy8.216310$<GS6.20239787@bin3...>>, JD
Blackwell <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote:
> Anybody care to give their opinions on the relative merits? I've heard that
> the Mills is extremely sensitive to placement and is a real PITA to install
> while the AKG is over double the cost. I have my PUTW #27 in hand and am
> waiting to get the mic to install them all at once. This going into the new
> Larrive and will be run through an AP13.
>
> JD
JD,
I have experience with both the Mills mic and certain AKG products, but
the AKG mics were tried and discarded quite a long time ago, and the
conclusion way back when was that the Mills won, hands down. I don't
remember AKG model numbers, and maybe the choices were limited.
All internal mics are placement-sensitive, but of all I ever tested or
used, the Mills was the most user-friendly in EVERY regard.
I happen to believe that any soundboard transducer coupled with an
internal mic, however, is redundant sound-wise, and in some cases
asking for trouble in the area of feedback.
As I have noted elsewhere, on the recent tour with El we both ended up
with (I started and ended!) simply the new B-Band 1470 AST as the
single-source pick-up that really did it all.
Let us know what you do, and how things work out.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
From: Ted Blankenship <tedb914@comcast...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:29:12 GMT
Organization: Riverbank Sound
Joe Mill's MM-1 mini mic is the best I have heard for a internal guitar
mic.I drop one inside a acoustic string bass also for a incredible
acoustic sound.I have Joe's phone number if you need it....Ted
Blankenship
JD Blackwell wrote:
> "TarBabyTunes" <<tarbabytunes@aol...>> wrote in message
> news:<20020428131043.07498.00005616@mb-cc...>...
> > << I've heard that
> > the Mills is extremely sensitive >>
> >
> >
> > JD, is there a website for these?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > steveV
> >
>
> I found something on a Google search. Not terribly definitive.
>
> JD
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: 28 Apr 2002 18:49:34 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Anybody care to give their opinions on the relative merits? I've heard that
the Mills is extremely sensitive to placement and is a real PITA to install
while the AKG is over double the cost. I have my PUTW #27 in hand and am
waiting to get the mic to install them all at once. This going into the new
Larrive and will be run through an AP13.
JD
>>I dunno about that..Joe Glaser installed my Joe Mills & he had mentioned the 2
Joes together had collaborated to come up with a mount but he didn't have it at
the time - he used a Crown mount that he converted. It looks great & doesn't
look like it was a pain to install. It's clamped to a bottom brace as opposed
to hanging from a top brace. JG's theory is that anything hanging off your top
couldn't possibly be a good thing(loosely paraphrasing). I like the mic -
You're combining witha PUTW 27??? Nevr tried an AKG mini cond.
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: JD Blackwell <jdblack@blarg...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 03:33:56 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"AMost2001" <<amost2001@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020428144934.29236.00005040@mb-mu...>...
(snip)
> You're combining witha PUTW 27???
You're the second person to express surprise at this. Since I'm running a 2
channel pre-amp (Rane AP13) that's designed to blend a mic and a piezo, by
my logic it followed that a PUTW in the piezo channel and a Joe Mills or AKG
in the other channel would be just the ticket. Am I missing something here?
JD
From: AMost2001 <amost2001@aol...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: 29 Apr 2002 03:56:03 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< "AMost2001" <<amost2001@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020428144934.29236.00005040@mb-mu...>...
(snip)
> You're combining witha PUTW 27???
You're the second person to express surprise at this. Since I'm running a 2
channel pre-amp (Rane AP13) that's designed to blend a mic and a piezo, by
my logic it followed that a PUTW in the piezo channel and a Joe Mills or AKG
in the other channel would be just the ticket. Am I missing something here?
JD >>
Nah, I just was sorta agreeing with Larry about a PUTW being similar to a mic
in function - thinking it might be a bit redundant having both - but hey if it
works. i like the Joe Mills alot though. great sounding mic.
My tunes at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:47:17 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <Ea3z8.164986$<XV5.15492778@bin4...>>, JD
Blackwell <<jdblack@blarg...>> wrote:
> "AMost2001" <<amost2001@aol...>> wrote in message
> news:<20020428144934.29236.00005040@mb-mu...>...
> (snip)
>
> > You're combining witha PUTW 27???
>
> You're the second person to express surprise at this. Since I'm running a 2
> channel pre-amp (Rane AP13) that's designed to blend a mic and a piezo, by
> my logic it followed that a PUTW in the piezo channel and a Joe Mills or AKG
> in the other channel would be just the ticket. Am I missing something here?
>
> JD
Well, ahem, yes.
The basic rule when combining two separate systems in a guitar are to
pick two that have different strengths. A saddle piezo and a piezo
soundboard element are two very different sounding pick-ups, with very
different strengths and weaknesses. For some reason you have lumped
them together in the same "category," which is not exactly the right
approach....here's some quick rule of thumb commentary, distilled from
a much lengthier post:
Good bass response:
A) magnetic pick-ups (electric sounding highs)
B) Piezo saddle elements (for piezos, quacky highs. For B-Band, a
non-piezo element, pretty darned good everywhere. I haven't tested
Enke's new Air Core saddle element.)
Good treble/woody response:
C) SBTs in general (but tend to feedback on the bass side, not so with
the 1470 AST I am using)
D) Internal mic (always will have problems with feedback on the bass
response, even the Mills, which is the best mic I have tested/used)
So if you combine one from each category, and work the EQ to reduce the
weaknesses on each, you can get a great sound. A + C, or B + D, for
example. But combining any Mic with most SBTs reinforces the
difficulties on the bass side....just like combining a piezo saddle
element with a Magnetic pick-up would give you a headache on the treble
side.
Now, this isn't to say that some folks don't get reasonably good sound
when combining systems that are incompatible in the way I have
described. All things being equal (which they never are), one should
be able to get a better sound by following these guidelines, however.
My opinions.
Hope this gives you something to chew on.
My worries about all of this are over, but I've been yapping enough
around here about MY gear on other threads. Use what works.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" LarryPattis "dot" com
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:25:16 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi JD-
I have not tried any of the AKG mini mics. But I have compared
the Mills and 5 or 6 other mini mics, including Crown, Audio-Technica,
the infamous Radio Shack 1052, raw Panasonic capsules, etc.. In
that field, I can echo what Pattis said. The Mills was the only
one that really stood out.
The Mills is an omni mic, by the way. Many other internal mics
are cardiod. This actually makes it a bit easier to install in
terms of finding a good position, because it eliminates a degree
of freedom (the sound won't change much if you rotate it at
a given place; it will if the mic is a cardiod). Depending on
where you place it vs. a cardiod, it feedback resistance could
be greater or less. I found mine to have a bit boomier of a low
end than the other mics I tried, but one typically rolls off the
low end quite heavily with any internal mic, and the AP 13 is
very good for this. It's the upper mids and highs that sounded
noticably better than competitors.
BTW, this was one of the first comparisons I did where I noticed
how important it was to audition transducers by recording and
playing back. At one point I had 4 or 5 of these mics in my
guitar at once. Flipping between them in the PA didn't show
that significant a difference. But I recorded them simultaneously
on a 4-track and listened back, and the difference was much more
apparent. It is amazing how much actually hearing and feeling
the acoustic guitar in your arms while playing colors what
you perceive listening to the PA.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 18:26:18 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
JD Blackwell wrote:
>
> Thanks Tom. Care to weigh in on the wisdom of using a PUTW and a Mills?
Nope! 8-)
Well, I'll well in a little. I just haven't had the luck with PUTW
that other folks here say they've had. The problems I had with it
are somewhat similar to problems I'd have using an internal mic
as a single source, so my reaction is a bit along the lines of
Andy's in thinking the tones are somewhat redundant. But it's
not really the same as an internal mic, so they're not really
redundant. I think you'll have to be our guinea pig!
Good luck,
Tom
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 23:05:06 +0930
>>
>Thanks Tom. Care to weigh in on the wisdom of using a PUTW and a Mills?
>
>JD
>
That's something that I'd be interested in too. My most successful
recordings have used the #27 and a Senheiser E845, but I'd like to use
an internal mic.
Michael B
From: <SPAMNOTdunwell.guitar@dorje...>
Subject: Re: AKG vs Joe Mills
Date: 1 May 2002 14:24:07 GMT
Organization: Dunwell Guitar
In article <<p78tcu01cc7frd8vjrlrku1tjuq5mq16id@4ax...>>, <rockon02@senet...> writes:
> >>
> >Thanks Tom. Care to weigh in on the wisdom of using a PUTW and a Mills?
> >
> >JD
> >
> That's something that I'd be interested in too. My most successful
> recordings have used the #27 and a Senheiser E845, but I'd like to use
> an internal mic.
> Michael B
I'm currently using a thin film from MSI that is similar to but not as good as David's PUTW units and I have it matched with a Joe Mills through an UltraJack. I like the blend of the two, they both give slightly different tonality and I find that about 2/3 thin film and 1/3 JM works well in the Padauk dred that I have. They tend to lie closer together that, say, an undersaddle and mic since they both tend to be somewhat warmer than the usual US which deliver a brighter tonality.
FWIW,
Alan D.
Dunwell Guitar
1891 CR 68-J, MSR
Nederland, Co. 80466
<dunwell.guitar@dorje...>
http://www.peaknet.org/webpages/dunwell/
| Joe Mills mic |
|---|
From: <SPAMNOTdunwell.guitar@dorje...>
Subject: Re: Joe Mills mic
Date: 3 May 2002 16:58:49 GMT
Organization: Dunwell Guitar
In article <RpgA8.155952$<in3.45109370@typhoon...>>, <awatsky@nj...> writes:
> Does any one have Joe Mills contact info ? Thanks, Al Watsky
>
>
(Music City Audio, PO Box 160371, Nashville, TN 37216; [615] 227-3542)
<jgmills@bellsouth...>
He may be a tad slow on the initial response, but builds momentum as you go along<g>. Good guy, treats me right.
Alan D.
Dunwell Guitar
1891 CR 68-J, MSR
Nederland, Co. 80466
<dunwell.guitar@dorje...>
http://www.peaknet.org/webpages/dunwell/
| Some guitars to light for internal mic? [7] |
|---|
From: vibrajet <juvenal@juvenal...>
Subject: Some guitars to light for internal mic?
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 15:04:21 GMT
Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net
Guild Mk I (mahogany back, sides, and top, nylon strings) wants to squeel
like a pig with the internal condenser mic. Tried 3 different amps,
different amp settings, different rooms, mic attached to different braces,
mic facing in different directions. Feedback is inevitable as soon as
playing stops.
The mic sounds great aimed towards the soundhole, but as soon as nlast note
dies down, feedback begins. Noticed that the feedback is tied to guitar
vibrating - especially the back. Guitar has been refinished twice (IOW,
been sanded a lot), plus has the lighter construction of a nylon string
guitar. When I press the back and top at specific points, I can get the
feedback to stop. I think the mic is picking up the vibration, so perhaps
mechanically isolating the mic, instead of just clamping it to the top
brace, will improve the situation.
Anybody have any insights into this?
Timothy "squeel like a pig" Juvenal
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Some guitars to light for internal mic?
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:39:39 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Hi Timothy,
this is something I've had a bit of experience with, and is likely
exaggerated by the guitar being thinned down for refinishing. I've not
really had good success with internal microphones on any acoustics, but they
can be tamed with a notch filter tuned to the most offending resonance's.
Nylon stringed guitars also tend to be built lighter, and there is usually
more top and back movement then what you would find on a steel string. Add
to that the thinned down wood, and you have an instrument that is difficult
to amplify.
Though contact pickups like SBT's and AST's will most always feedback less
then the internal microphone, they will be prone to the same things at
higher volumes.
I would think your best bet would be a good under the saddle pickup.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
"vibrajet" <<juvenal@juvenal...>> wrote in message
news:V9V_8.2034$<xN3.39453@nnrp1...>...
> Guild Mk I (mahogany back, sides, and top, nylon strings) wants to squeel
> like a pig with the internal condenser mic. Tried 3 different amps,
> different amp settings, different rooms, mic attached to different braces,
> mic facing in different directions. Feedback is inevitable as soon as
> playing stops.
>
> The mic sounds great aimed towards the soundhole, but as soon as nlast
note
> dies down, feedback begins. Noticed that the feedback is tied to guitar
> vibrating - especially the back. Guitar has been refinished twice (IOW,
> been sanded a lot), plus has the lighter construction of a nylon string
> guitar. When I press the back and top at specific points, I can get the
> feedback to stop. I think the mic is picking up the vibration, so perhaps
> mechanically isolating the mic, instead of just clamping it to the top
> brace, will improve the situation.
>
> Anybody have any insights into this?
>
> Timothy "squeel like a pig" Juvenal
>
>
From: vibrajet <juvenal@juvenal...>
Subject: Re: Some guitars to light for internal mic?
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 16:28:50 GMT
Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net
"David Enke" wrote...
> Though contact pickups like SBT's and AST's will most always feedback less
> then the internal microphone, they will be prone to the same things at
> higher volumes.
> I would think your best bet would be a good under the saddle pickup.
It's got a new b-band ust installed, which IMO is sounding fantastic through
an ADA MP-1. I'm going to try to mechanically isolate the pick-up with foam
tape, and see what that does. If it's a no go, I'll be content with the ust
sound, and be glad I don't need to add another preamp to the rack just for a
dual source.
BTW, I've got three other instruments in need of amplification: Fender F-50
resonantor, a cuatro, and a charango.
The F-50 is begging for a set of heavy Chromes & a P-90.
The cuatro and charango are probably good candidates for SBT's. What would
you recommend? PUTW # 17? #20?
The cuatro is tiny w/ 4 nylon strings, but the charango is micro-wee w/ 10
nylon strings.
Timothy Juvenal
From: Amostagain <amostagain@aol...>
Subject: Re: Some guitars to light for internal mic?
Date: 22 Jul 2002 16:31:35 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< "TarBabyTunes" wrote...
> I've never seen a tiny suspension mount for a miniature condensor mic,
tho, but
> I'm sure one could be built.
I was thinking of a screw & rubber grommet, but I bet 3M double stick foam
tape would do it. That stuff never lets go.
Timothy Juvenal
>>Joe Glaser had my SM 98 in a very small piece of gray foam that you velcro'd to
the inside of your guitar.....that worked pretty well..kind of shock mounted.
I have a Joe Mills attached to a bottom brace via a modified Crown clip mount
which works great. I've been able to use this mic pretty successfully..IMO of
course.
Me at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Some guitars to light for internal mic?
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 20:26:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Hojo2x" <<hojo2x@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020722160306.17766.00000086@mb-fd...>...
> Timothy Juvenal got severe feedback when using an internal microphone in a
> Guild Mark I classical guitar, and asks:
>
> >perhaps>mechanically isolating the mic, instead of just clamping it to
the top
> >brace, will improve the situation.
>
>
> Maybe. Try it. As others have stated, that grey foam material seems to
help.
>
> A bit.
>
> Honestly, though, internal microphones have always caused me far more
problems
> than they've solved, and I've used some very nice ones. Every few years I
> think: "Well, maybe the technology has improved," and I'll get whatever is
the
> latest and greatest internal microphone of the moment installed, and yet
I'm
> always hugely disappointed, and end up pulling them out.
>
> I'm come to the conclusion that internal mics are for people who play in
quiet,
> acoustically good venues. People who have nice gear and the time and
patience
> to tweak things just so.
>
> For me, internal mics are just too much like work, I'm afraid....
>
> Good luck with yours.
>
I have been constantly and reliably disappointed with internal mics both in
sound and duribility
I can not recommend any of them, nor can I recommend the internal position
as one that I would want a mic placed at
George
From: JS <jefsu@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Some guitars to light for internal mic?
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 21:41:44 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
>I'm come to the conclusion that internal mics are for people who play in quiet,
>acoustically good venues. People who have nice gear and the time and patience
>to tweak things just so.
>
>For me, internal mics are just too much like work, I'm afraid....
I agree; I also think they tend to sound an awful lot like a mic
inside a box--which is what they are.
Jeff S.
From: vibrajet <juvenal@juvenal...>
Subject: Re: Some guitars to light for internal mic?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 00:59:19 GMT
Organization: PenTeleData http://www.ptd.net
"Hojo2x" wrote...
> For me, internal mics are just too much like work, I'm afraid....
Well, I isolated the mic by attaching it with velcro. Still had to turn the
mid frequency knob all the way down on the preamp and turn the noise gate
way up to really get it to be work at all, which isn't to useful.
So I'll either keep it in there and just use it for recording with
headphones, or just take it out all together & be happy with the nice sound
of the UST.
Timothy Juvenal
| Clip-on/lav mic for acoustic guitar [3] |
|---|
From: Budman <saslqp@unx...>
Subject: Clip-on/lav mic for acoustic guitar
Date: 6 Sep 2002 10:59:00 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hi all,
This is somewhat of a sound reinforcement question, although the live
show will be recorded.
I'm looking for a clip-on/instrument mic for live acoustic guitar with
good feedback rejection for under $300.
I was wondering if anyone has tried micing the inside of the body to
reduce feedback? - however, I'm concerned that this may not sound as
good (and may boost the lower mids too much).
Any advice appreciated,
Budman
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Clip-on/lav mic for acoustic guitar
Date: 6 Sep 2002 14:44:34 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Budman <<saslqp@unx...>> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>This is somewhat of a sound reinforcement question, although the live
>show will be recorded.
>
>I'm looking for a clip-on/instrument mic for live acoustic guitar with
>good feedback rejection for under $300.
How good does the rejection need to be? How good does it need to sound?
In general, good sound and high rejection ratios are contradictory in
this sort of application so you need to find a compromise.
>I was wondering if anyone has tried micing the inside of the body to
>reduce feedback? - however, I'm concerned that this may not sound as
>good (and may boost the lower mids too much).
It sounds terrible, but it's very common in applications where you absolutely
need good rejection. Same with piezo body and bridge pickups. In a lot of
cases we wind up using a mike for recording and the bridge pickup for PA,
or use the bridge pickup for monitors and the mike for everything else.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: P Stamler <pstamler@aol...>
Subject: Re: Clip-on/lav mic for acoustic guitar
Date: 06 Sep 2002 19:05:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>>I was wondering if anyone has tried micing the inside of the body to
>>reduce feedback? - however, I'm concerned that this may not sound as
>>good (and may boost the lower mids too much).
>
>It sounds terrible, but it's very common in applications where you absolutely
>need good rejection. Same with piezo body and bridge pickups. In a lot of
>cases we wind up using a mike for recording and the bridge pickup for PA,
>or use the bridge pickup for monitors and the mike for everything else.
>--scott
Welcome back, Scott. It doesn't always sound terrible -- Martin Carthy has a
miniature condenser, from Radio Shack no less, mounted in his guitar, and it
sounds damned good -- I A/B'd it once against a KM-84, and it won. The secret
is that it's not mounted on a gooseneck, floating freely in the airspace of
the body. Instead, it's attached to the brace under the fingerboard, glued on
in fact, so that it gets a certain amount of sound by conduction. He has it
directly under the high E string, facing upwards as he holds the guitar.
I liked it enough to try it in my own guitar, which is similar to his (00
Martin; his is a 000), and it works for me too, live. Very little feedback, and
reasonably flat response if I turn the shelving bass EQ on the board to about
10:30.
The secret is the hard-mounting; I tried using velcro for some vibration
isolation, in the same position, and it sounded like dog crap. I wound up using
Strip-Calk, a 3M products similar to Mortite, but it doesn dry out near as
much.
Peace,
Paul
| Interesting tip for internal mics [5] |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Interesting tip for internal mics
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:35:45 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
I saw this interesting post on rec.audio.pro by Paul Stamler (a regular
contributor to *Audio Electronics* and Recording magazines) in regard
to using internal mics. I thought some of you might find it as intriguing
as I did. Has anyone else tried such a "hard mount" for their internal
mics?
Peace,
Tom
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul's RAP post ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject Re: Clip-on/lav mic for acoustic guitar
Date: 06 Sep 2002 19:05:36 GMT
From: <pstamler@aol...> (P Stamler)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>I was wondering if anyone has tried micing the inside of the body to
>>reduce feedback? - however, I'm concerned that this may not sound as
>>good (and may boost the lower mids too much).
>
>It sounds terrible, but it's very common in applications where you absolutely
>need good rejection. Same with piezo body and bridge pickups. In a lot of
>cases we wind up using a mike for recording and the bridge pickup for PA,
>or use the bridge pickup for monitors and the mike for everything else.
>--scott
Welcome back, Scott. It doesn't always sound terrible -- Martin Carthy has a
miniature condenser, from Radio Shack no less, mounted in his guitar, and it
sounds damned good -- I A/B'd it once against a KM-84, and it won. The secret
is that it's not mounted on a gooseneck, floating freely in the airspace of
the body. Instead, it's attached to the brace under the fingerboard, glued on
in fact, so that it gets a certain amount of sound by conduction. He has it
directly under the high E string, facing upwards as he holds the guitar.
I liked it enough to try it in my own guitar, which is similar to his (00
Martin; his is a 000), and it works for me too, live. Very little feedback, and
reasonably flat response if I turn the shelving bass EQ on the board to about
10:30.
The secret is the hard-mounting; I tried using velcro for some vibration
isolation, in the same position, and it sounded like dog crap. I wound up using
Strip-Calk, a 3M products similar to Mortite, but it doesn dry out near as
much.
Peace,
Paul
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Interesting tip for internal mics
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 20:52:43 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
Tom Loredo wrote:
> Hi folks-
>
> I saw this interesting post on rec.audio.pro by Paul Stamler (a regular
> contributor to *Audio Electronics* and Recording magazines) in regard
> to using internal mics. I thought some of you might find it as intriguing
> as I did. Has anyone else tried such a "hard mount" for their internal
> mics?
>
the same little mics can also be shoved into the standard endpin hole of
a guitar with a push-in endpin, and fit quite tightly in the hole. They
seem to work well there too.
I bought some Camco mikes like this for almost pennies each, the only
downside is they need a battery in the line. They make excellent little
instrument mikes and I use one for dulcimer. My Radio Shack one ended up
chopped up and made into a sort of mike which plugged into a preamp in
one guitar, internally, but this was in 'free air' and indeed it did
feed back a lot.
DK
From: AG <atenor@up-link...>
Subject: Re: Interesting tip for internal mics
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:08:15 -0500
Part of long post snipped:
Hey I've got one of those little Radio Shack condensers that I've used on my
Classical guitar.
It's tempting to try gluing it inside for a while.
AG
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3D8640A1.D428F72F@astro...>...
>
>Martin Carthy has a
> miniature condenser, from Radio Shack no less, mounted in his guitar, and
it
> sounds damned good -- I A/B'd it once against a KM-84, and it won. The
secret
> is that it's not mounted on a gooseneck, floating freely in the airspace
of
> the body. Instead, it's attached to the brace under the fingerboard, glued
on
> in fact, so that it gets a certain amount of sound by conduction. He has
it
> directly under the high E string, facing upwards as he holds the guitar.
>
> I liked it enough to try it in my own guitar, which is similar to his (00
> Martin; his is a 000), and it works for me too, live. Very little
feedback, and
> reasonably flat response if I turn the shelving bass EQ on the board to
about
> 10:30.
>
> The secret is the hard-mounting; I tried using velcro for some vibration
> isolation, in the same position, and it sounded like dog crap. I wound up
using
> Strip-Calk, a 3M products similar to Mortite, but it doesn dry out near as
> much.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
From: Steve Scott <squeegybug@netspace1...>
Subject: Re: Interesting tip for internal mics
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 04:21:52 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
I've used the little Radio Shack lapel mics off and on since 1985 for
around-the-house recording and amplifying. Mine came with alligator clips,
I always just clipped them outside the guitar onto the edge of the
soundhole, or internally on a top brace. Clipping on the outside worked
good for me (on an SJ-200), I could swivel it around to find the best spot
without feedback, and it didn't boom. Never used it to play out at high
volume though, maybe I'll try it again sometime now that you've reminded me,
thanks Tom.
I've also used these little mics as an ambient stereo pair in a large room
to record live music parties. They are so easy to hide, no one gets "stage
fright" from a bunch of booms and cables, just let the tape roll. You'd be
surprised (or maybe not) at how well they will cover an entire room.
However, a compressor/limiter would definitely improve this application, I
didn't have one last time I tried it and they'll overload on peaks.
Steve
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3D8640A1.D428F72F@astro...>...
>
> Hi folks-
>
> I saw this interesting post on rec.audio.pro by Paul Stamler (a regular
> contributor to *Audio Electronics* and Recording magazines) in regard
> to using internal mics. I thought some of you might find it as intriguing
> as I did. Has anyone else tried such a "hard mount" for their internal
> mics?
>
> Peace,
> Tom
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul's RAP post ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<snipped...>
> Welcome back, Scott. It doesn't always sound terrible -- Martin Carthy has
a
> miniature condenser, from Radio Shack no less, mounted in his guitar, and
it
> sounds damned good -- I A/B'd it once against a KM-84, and it won. The
secret
> is that it's not mounted on a gooseneck, floating freely in the airspace
of
> the body. Instead, it's attached to the brace under the fingerboard, glued
on
> in fact, so that it gets a certain amount of sound by conduction. He has
it
> directly under the high E string, facing upwards as he holds the guitar.
>
> I liked it enough to try it in my own guitar, which is similar to his (00
> Martin; his is a 000), and it works for me too, live. Very little
feedback, and
> reasonably flat response if I turn the shelving bass EQ on the board to
about
> 10:30.
>
> The secret is the hard-mounting; I tried using velcro for some vibration
> isolation, in the same position, and it sounded like dog crap. I wound up
using
> Strip-Calk, a 3M products similar to Mortite, but it doesn dry out near as
> much.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
From: Al Jacobs <al.jacobs@nav-international...>
Subject: Re: Interesting tip for internal mics
Date: 28 Sep 2002 05:37:52 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Greetings Tom,
For the heck of it, I went out and bought a Radio Shack lapel mini mic
#33-3013 just to play around with internal mics for the nth time. I
have never had any luck with internally mounted mics... they always
sounded boxy or just plain unnatural. This time I am completely blown
away by the results. I have a mahogany Larrivvee D02 (that I bought
for the purpose of trying to amplify) in which I had a LR Baggs Duet
II system installed. After having removed this system there are holes
in the top side of the guitar where the preamp was. Two of the holes
are about 3/8" which is just big enough to fit the mini mic in. For
whatever reason I put the tie clip on the microphone and placed the
mic facing down in one of the holes. The sound is pretty much like
playing in front of a SM57 or similar such mic but without the problem
of feedback. I don't understand how or why, maybe I just chanced on an
anomaly in the universe of sound.
Al
Tom Loredo <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message news:<<3D8640A1.D428F72F@astro...>>...
> Hi folks-
>
> I saw this interesting post on rec.audio.pro by Paul Stamler (a regular
> contributor to *Audio Electronics* and Recording magazines) in regard
> to using internal mics. I thought some of you might find it as intriguing
> as I did. Has anyone else tried such a "hard mount" for their internal
> mics?
>
> Peace,
> Tom
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Paul's RAP post ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Subject Re: Clip-on/lav mic for acoustic guitar
> Date: 06 Sep 2002 19:05:36 GMT
> From: <pstamler@aol...> (P Stamler)
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
>
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>I was wondering if anyone has tried micing the inside of the body to
> >>reduce feedback? - however, I'm concerned that this may not sound as
> >>good (and may boost the lower mids too much).
> >
> >It sounds terrible, but it's very common in applications where you absolutely
> >need good rejection. Same with piezo body and bridge pickups. In a lot of
> >cases we wind up using a mike for recording and the bridge pickup for PA,
> >or use the bridge pickup for monitors and the mike for everything else.
> >--scott
>
> Welcome back, Scott. It doesn't always sound terrible -- Martin Carthy has a
> miniature condenser, from Radio Shack no less, mounted in his guitar, and it
> sounds damned good -- I A/B'd it once against a KM-84, and it won. The secret
> is that it's not mounted on a gooseneck, floating freely in the airspace of
> the body. Instead, it's attached to the brace under the fingerboard, glued on
> in fact, so that it gets a certain amount of sound by conduction. He has it
> directly under the high E string, facing upwards as he holds the guitar.
>
> I liked it enough to try it in my own guitar, which is similar to his (00
> Martin; his is a 000), and it works for me too, live. Very little feedback, and
> reasonably flat response if I turn the shelving bass EQ on the board to about
> 10:30.
>
> The secret is the hard-mounting; I tried using velcro for some vibration
> isolation, in the same position, and it sounded like dog crap. I wound up using
> Strip-Calk, a 3M products similar to Mortite, but it doesn dry out near as
> much.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
| Onboard mics |
|---|
From: Moth <moth@ntlremoveworld...>
Subject: Onboard mics
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 23:59:27 +0100
Organization: ntlworld News Service
I recently saw a posting regarding the best position for an onboard
condenser mic but can't remember who posted it.
I've installed a variety of pickups on a variety of instruments from guitars
to dumbeks to hammer dulcimers to ...............
Anyway,....... the best position I've found for a mic in a guitar, is
between the 4th and 5th strings just back from the sound hole (toward the
fretboard and glued to the brace), pointing up towards the guitar top but
only a millimetre or two away from it. This acts a bit like a boundary mic,
the distance from the top being fairly critical. This sounds really nice
blended with a good undersaddle piezo, just make sure the phasing is
correct.
Baz
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.393 / Virus Database: 223 - Release Date: 30/09/02