Originally Posted by gundula ➡️

This is an intolerable interpretation of what I wrote but of course makes Roland happy ... OK you want the extended version and here it is as another test of reading difficulties (as you know perhaps 'reading' is not the process of picking one sequence of a post that slightly rotated gives a support to one's own opinion):

When i started my career as a sound engineer in 1976 there was no D112 (launch 1986). The microphones used for kick drum were D12, RE20, M88, MD421 that's it. In that times even the most beautifull live sound console midas pro had no sweepable but switchable filter frequencies in the early models and even with its latest extended featured input module pro40 with sweepable frequencies there was definitly no sweepable bandwidth. I had two of the D12E (horrible because the screws keeping the dynamic motor in its suspension got loose every month) and i soon prefered the RE20 using exactly the same arguments as you use today (sounding 'neutral', gives the most genuine sound of the source, gives a maximum of freedom in using EQ an so on ...).

When the D112 came out in 1986 i frequently used a Soundcraft 800B (launch 1984) with no sweepable bandwith input filters and using the two semi-sweepable mid filters in any extend allways produced the 'cardboardie' thing absolutely inacceptable for the style of music and the artists i worked for in Germany ( Earth, Wind & Fire, Chaka Khan, Mother's Finest and so on ... ) So in that time that microphone came out of my interest and i didn't do any further tests on the D112 when the XL3 (launch 1990) PM400 (launch 1992) i worked on came out.

The Beta52 (launch 1989) also was not mine and reinforced my bias on the preshaped kick microphones long before the D6 was launched.

Meanwhile i learned a lot about the physics of microphones thanks to the support of microphone manufacturers like Schoeps ( based in my home town ), Beyerdynamic and my studies in electroacoustic engineering.
One of the fundamentals about the electrodynamic transducer design is that without adding any damping and resonators to the transducer itself the frequency range of each of those microphones would be as midrangy as you never would expect from a microphone. That helped to become tolerant to the shaping and gave me the insight, that there is no dynamic microphone that can be called 'neutral'.

Today i have about 480 microphones in my inventory know the colour of each of them and know which one to use for which sound desired and needless to say also know how to process them for the desired result and the D6 is one that gives usefull results with the right treatment for a certain wanted sound as many others do you are used to work with.

Originally Posted by gundula ➡️

This is an intolerable interpretation of what I wrote but of course makes Roland happy ... OK you want the extended version and here it is as another test of reading difficulties (as you know perhaps 'reading' is not the process of picking one sequence of a post that slightly rotated gives a support to one's own opinion):

When i started my career as a sound engineer in 1976 there was no D112 (launch 1986). The microphones used for kick drum were D12, RE20, M88, MD421 that's it. In that times even the most beautifull live sound console midas pro had no sweepable but switchable filter frequencies in the early models and even with its latest extended featured input module pro40 with sweepable frequencies there was definitly no sweepable bandwidth. I had two of the D12E (horrible because the screws keeping the dynamic motor in its suspension got loose every month) and i soon prefered the RE20 using exactly the same arguments as you use today (sounding 'neutral', gives the most genuine sound of the source, gives a maximum of freedom in using EQ an so on ...).

When the D112 came out in 1986 i frequently used a Soundcraft 800B (launch 1984) with no sweepable bandwith input filters and using the two semi-sweepable mid filters in any extend allways produced the 'cardboardie' thing absolutely inacceptable for the style of music and the artists i worked for in Germany ( Earth, Wind & Fire, Chaka Khan, Mother's Finest and so on ... ) So in that time that microphone came out of my interest and i didn't do any further tests on the D112 when the XL3 (launch 1990) PM400 (launch 1992) i worked on came out.

The Beta52 (launch 1989) also was not mine and reinforced my bias on the preshaped kick microphones long before the D6 was launched.

Meanwhile i learned a lot about the physics of microphones thanks to the support of microphone manufacturers like Schoeps ( based in my home town ), Beyerdynamic and my studies in electroacoustic engineering.
One of the fundamentals about the electrodynamic transducer design is that without adding any damping and resonators to the transducer itself the frequency range of each of those microphones would be as midrangy as you never would expect from a microphone. That helped to become tolerant to the shaping and gave me the insight, that there is no dynamic microphone that can be called 'neutral'.

Today i have about 480 microphones in my inventory know the colour of each of them and know which one to use for which sound desired and needless to say also know how to process them for the desired result and the D6 is one that gives usefull results with the right treatment for a certain wanted sound as many others do you are used to work with.

Originally Posted by gundula ➡️

OK Sam I unterstand. Too many words for someone who writes much but reads less. Strongly simplified my strange time lack results from:
Not enough EQ in the ancient consoles inputs to do it to taste with D112 in 1986 -> no need and no interest to do it on that single microphone later. But after all i was able at least to observe and understand what the colleague did. Are you completely free from making such "mistakes"?

Originally Posted by Samc ➡️

I'm pretty sure the other people who used it and made it the most popular bass drum mic in 1986 were using the same consoles as you were back then...just sayin'.

Originally Posted by Samc ➡️

... the usual microphone choices are SM57 on snare top and bottom, MD 421 on toms and EV RE20 or a combination of SM91 and a B52 on kick. ..... a boost in 4k-5k region for the "click" on the kick plus a rediction of the low mid centered at around 200Hz and a wide Q boost at around 63Hz (I've seen this technique credited to Metalica but was already being used in the early 70's in Jamaican Dub) ...

Originally Posted by Wyllys ➡️

I, too, have hundreds of mics including a couple of D-6's. I'd rank them in the lowest 5% of the inventory for usability. They live in the barn with the rest of the horses, but they really are a one-triCK pony.

Originally Posted by trashman ➡️

Im keeping both mics.

I like the sound of both mics.

Thanks everyone!

Originally Posted by Samc ➡️

Again: this particular discussion started because I said I don't care what the audience thinks, as long as the band is happy, I'm happy. This is NOT about my relationship with the band which is my only concern when I'm mixing.

Originally Posted by Samc ➡️

Ultimately, I hope the audience like the show, but that is not my concern, and it shouldn't be the concern of any sound mixer. It's not part of our job description and any mixer who get caught up with that is being presumptuous and is trying to make the job about himself or herself. That's my opinion of course.

Originally Posted by Aisle 6 ➡️

Having said the above, I will simply agree to disagree with you here. It is certainly not about the Engineer to care about the sustainability of the act. At least not beyond future employment.

Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️

Any ensemble I've ever played with have tried to moderate the stage experience to make the PA sound better.

Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️

Who said anything about the sustainability.

Originally Posted by trashman ➡️

Im keeping both mics.

I like the sound of both mics.

Thanks everyone!

Originally Posted by OneEng ➡️

Yea, but they also have that goofy mic clip going on making it a PITA to get into a drum hole if you want to close mike the drum head. They also rumble more that the other mics mentioned here IME.

Yes, the D6 gives a consistent sound on all kicks. If you simply want the kick to sound good all the time, it is a good mic to use. If you actually get the sound the kick is making, you frequently find that all you are amplifying is crap and will struggle to get anything good at all to come through the PA with most drummers in typical bar bands.

If you are working with great talent, then I agree. Other mic choices will bring out the nuances of the artists kit much better than a D6.

Wouldn't it be great if every drummer in every bar band was a great artist

Originally Posted by Roland ➡️

I've used all the above and a lot of others too boot. I've made D112's work when that was the only choice, generally I use the boring Beta 52, if you can't get a reasonable sound out of that the problem is with the drum and the tunning. I would echo the Sennheiser 421 that Samc suggested, though I'm not so keen on the RE20 for me this either works really well or is hopeless and needs to be swapped out so not that versatile. The D6 is the most unimaginative BD mic I've ever come across, so I would only use it if that was all available. Breyer M88 is also a good choice, however, they eventually get destroyed by using them on BD. If the drummer has a double headed drum without a port, think about positioning, particularly in relationship to how the drum is damped and the way the player plays it.

Originally Posted by chris661 ➡️

The last time I worked with a Beta-52 on kick, I found the isolation was pretty terrible. It wasn't a loud show, but I could clearly hear footsteps on-stage. It stopped as soon as I muted that mic.

Originally Posted by chris661 ➡️

PS - The last time I worked with a Beta-52 on kick, I found the isolation was pretty terrible. It wasn't a loud show, but I could clearly hear footsteps on-stage. It stopped as soon as I muted that mic.