Sorry to 2nd guess. I wasn't there so I really don't know the context. All I'm saying is that to determine if a given studio approach was successful we have to decide whether it sounds good in the context of the mix, and more importantly, whether the sound evokes the emotion the song calls for. And if its free of any sonic distractions that pull the listener out of the "moment".
Whether we can tell what chain was used or distinguish which chains are the same/different (to my mind) is not very relevant.

That said, if (for example) you rented a U67 and recorded lead vocals. And then decided later you needed to re-track a small part. Then because you no longer had the rented U67 you were forced to use a different chain - then making sure the new piece fits into the sonic footprint of the rest of the lead vocals would be important to avoid a sonic distraction as I mentioned above.

For a practical answer.

One mic with a typical 5K bump --U67
One flat mic --in tube, not sure, non tube 170 or 89
One mic with a 10K bump C12/C800
One mic with a bump in the mid lows U47
One mic with the C37A voice
One great ribbon
One great moving coil

So: U67, C800, U47, C37A

Translate that to practical clones and copies:
CM67se
Gap C800
CM47ve
Toneluxe 37

Or upgrade from AA to Bock/Flea/Josephson

For flat and tube.....Sanken?

...its all about the bump.

now THAT's what i call a 'line of thinking'...
...which however i do not practice or share (much) yet don't dismiss (entirely) either:

i think you attribute a quality to a piece of gear which it simply doesn't have: a tube mic does NOT get across the emotional quality of a track any better than a digital mic! this would be magical thinking (which per se isn't any bad but not helpful to qualify gear)...

to decide whether the mic choice was smart you can leave up to me although in this case, it was what the producer wanted... - nevertheless, it illustrates MY approach quite well:

assuming the gear is of decent quality, i'm fairly agnostic of gear in terms of its sound (sic!) yet i'm very specific in terms of its function, meaning that i insist on using gear of my choice IF it offers me a unique set of features (such as my studer vista desks and a few other pieces of gear which i have come to like) AND which i consider mandatory for the job which in this case was that the mics had a fig8 pattern (as the musicians were standing close together yet the producer wanted to have some separation 'just in case').

___


call me a simple mind but once this requirement was covered, i did not care whether the mics (or more precisely: the mic/tube preamp combo and the tube mic) sounded 'identical': i used the u67 on the tenor sax and the rest got a tlm67 plus the reussenzehn and i was happy...

the musicians were happy just from looking at the mics as elsewhere, they mostly got to use sm57's i was told...

(which i'm somewhat reluctant to use - at least more than two at the time - but i'm sure with which i could have achieved nice results too although i probably would have preferred using a mix of re20, md441's and md421's if being forced to use dynamic mics)

...and the producer was happy too as he got his way.

am i missing something?

You know that old Fleetwood mac track
https://youtu.be/0E7rUemfC-A
I think if the gtr was recorded with a different mic than a 47, it would be less emotionally effective. Even a 67.

That was a lot of fun to hear again!

Emotion is a word I at least think in my heart when attempting to execute as a musician.

And in my limited world, specific mic choices are a part of getting me there.

Ray H.

...so i'm waiting for an 'emotional effectivity index' of tube mics and assorted gear to get published here on gs anytime soon?! :-)



meanwhile, i'll be recording gesualdo's 'responsoria' over the weekend: i'll let you know how things work out - i will mainly (if not exclusively) use digital microphones though... (which i assume are to be regarded as rather critical emotionally? - i need this index!)

so what you are saying is you already knew the answer to the question you started the thread with?

Now that is entertaining! I laughed and laughed and laughed.

It does still - after all of our correspondence the past couple years, dd - almost surprise me how consistently clinical you are on the question. I'm wondering if it is a guitarist vs. drummer perspective thing?


I've got a hard day ahead of me, today. Replaying your post in my mind will make it easier. Thanks.

Ray H.

Still, smiling. . .

My answer - i.e. what is working for me - was given up front in the very first post. It still seems like a low number. . .even though I have an explanation for it?

I don't know if that explanation will hold for me over time. We'll see as [hopefully] my skills continue to grow, I write, arrange and record more/different tunes, my gear list changes, etc. But I do now - in light of comment other's have made here - expect my own max number of effective concurrent tube mics to grow.

The reasoning certainly doesn't look to hold for many others.

Of course, I knew that some recordists always use tubes on every track - given Jim's [capsule-jfet-tube] Rule.

The Miles Davis [Little One] example @ Progger posted made that perspective more concrete for me. It was something right in front of my face that I was not appropriately appreciating.

The practices and aspirations expressed by others were also very helpful. And I'm truly grateful for their contributions. Yeah - I'm in a better place with my thinking on this now.


Best regards,

Ray H.

Oh, I forgot to ask - what is your max number? Any example[s]?

it's indeed been fun - thx goes to green needle!

i guess not but suspect it goes back to something different (in my case):

very early on in my 'audio life' (i'm reluctant to use the term 'career'), i was instructed to critically question any dogma and authorities (the latter in case they were not democ....cally and intellectually legitimised) after familiarising myself with the working mechanisms, and if necessary to protest loudly against it but more importantly, to show which other paths can be taken which have a higher degree of freedom... - short: although i'm agnostic, i'm on a mission (not neccessarily regarding things related to audio though)! :-)




p.s. heavily dissapointed by fleetwood mac these days: a show maybe 5 years ago was amongst the worst live mixes i ever experienced (and the set design was terrible too), firing lindsey buckhingham was stupid (if not unforgivable) and selling the rights of most songs to a hedge fund is unbearable...

...which doesn't devaluate their music though: the same (and even much worse behaviour...) can be said about gesualdo btw (those not familiar with his history i encourage to look it up); more importantly though, listen to his music!

Yeah you are doomed. Can you get a tube lava lamp in the room at least?

i know (but i always thought for different reasons)...

would a 1000w par can be acceptable as a substitute? i promise i'm not gonna use a led par!

The most appropriate way to capture the emotion in Gesualdo's Responsoria would doubtless be from Schoeps via pristine, ultra-clean solid-state preamps and converters - zero Big 5 tubes in this situation for me.


Bring Grace along.

Ray H.

It is indeed disturbing that we don't yet have an 'emotional effectivity index' on this site!

I think it is ultimately about creating a work flow that goes smoothly, not obstructing the main focus - the music, and sonic palette that is creatively satisfying. So it is always going to be a little subjective.

Contemplating usefulness of different tube mic models, as far as how they compliment one another, usually leads to thinking about frequency response differences. For example, many “old school” engineers tend to put C12 (and related) on overhead before a U47, while putting 47s on guitars. It can be an approach that works very well. The C12 doesn’t bring out the “note” of the pieces of the drum kit as much as a 47 does and the place the treble peak is at is usually less abrasive on cymbals. Whereas an M49 tends to be very smooth, sweeter on overhead than a 47, but more midrangey seeming than a C12.

But the differences aren’t only in frequency response. Different tube condensers tend to have unique character over the time domain, in the way they handle transients, and they have different off axis characteristics. They also have different resonance/microphonic characteristics...each part of the microphone, from tube, to body, to the electronics themselves.

The harmonic distortion of different tube mics can often seem to focus in different areas of the frequency spectrum from one another, and have different levels of subtlety.

The noise floor of various designs can vary quite a bit. One thing that some newer companies will do with their “clones” is to modify it to a cathode follower circuit, which can bring the noise floor down but winds up having a different kind of signature as far as harmonic distortion and transient response goes...frequency response as well for that matter. Not that it is necessarily BAD, but you will find many of the older guard of mic collectors, makers and techs look down upon it somewhat.

Personally, I have three UM17, which - if I am tracking an ensemble, I will usually use on guitars. I will usually put a C12CG(w Klaus Heyne tuned CK12) on overhead along with a couple SDC (usually AMI F44), or a Lucas CS1. Sometimes I will use an M49CG on overhead, which just has a very finished and old school sound, bringing out more heft of the toms.

Vocals could get any of these, room mic could be any, or maybe something funky.

Any of this could get dynamics or solidstate condensers instead, if it just feels like it will help mold the sound more desirably.

I do agree with the point that sometimes a good tube mic, or even tube compressor, can work with some solidstate mics in a very pleasing way that gives more mileage to them. I mean, I think KM184 sound EXCELLENT through tab v78M preamps. Other preamps...not always so much, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

That said, the sense of clarity can come from sounds being very distinct and different from one another. “Glue” comes from aspects being similar. So we all just have to try to find the perfect bowl of porridge when it comes to that.

You seem to a very clear idea of what you want, how it fits into your style and so on. To the point where if you were a corporation, it would be considered your "branding". When your idea is that clear, you don't need anyone's validation.

Me? I don't think I ever thought about having a "max number". Or a min number. Any answer to the question would be simply arbitrary.

How many wood snare drums do I "need"? What is the max number of Arabians I should have in my horse barn? How many bottles of Malbec in my wine cellar makes sense?

Then I give off the wrong vibe. I am not looking for anyone's validation at all - quite the opposite. . .emphatically and totally the opposite.

In a few other threads, I have occasionally argued a position [1]. Not here. It is a genuine query. All expressed notions are intended as a window into head so that others can interact on a deeper level. Of course, I may tease a bit - as is my nature.

The careful responses of most contributors here have moved my thinking throughout this thread. Such are deeply appreciated. I am growing - and will continue to grow - because of such gracious and thoughtful input.

Thank you. I find that answer slightly surprising, but only slightly. . .and still useful. Truly, thank you. I hold very many of your perspectives in very, very high regard.


Best wishes,

Ray H.

[1] But in doing so, I rarely think that I hold the key to 'truth' or even special insight. And definitely not so in this case.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This! IMHO.
Although I enjoy the other fine points you Gents are saying, much of it I don't have the expertise to judge.

But I will get the ready!
Chris

Not having a wine cellar, or any clue as to what Malbec is, my definitive answer is zero.

We want proof!
Chris

Then you should forget Malbec and buy something that says “proof” right on the label.
Correction: I just checked on a couple of hard liquor bottles. When I wasn’t paying attention (any year of my life), they changed from listing proof to listing percentage of alcohol.
So chessparov, two things: We live in an era without proof, and I learned something about hard liquor on the new Gear From Space.

It's plump, dark, fruity, with a smoky finish...

....kind of like a tube mic.

i like the mic-malbec-dichotomy (mmb)...

...just as i love malbec but there are few reasons to buy it here IF it comes from overseas, especially as i can have it virtually on my doorstep! well, almost - but there are some excellent other local vines: at this time of the year, we're having a glass of 'gewürztraminer' which goes excellently with asparagus!

same goes for microphones btw - in this respect, it's perhaps more of a mic-malbec-analogy (mma) than a dichotomy?

___


anyway, even though you might not ask yourself ray's original question, i don't think it's pointless, on the contrary - because it is linked to the fundamental question of what material, in what quality and quantity, do i need to make recordings that satisfy me (or another audience) aesthetically.

personally, i do believe that there can be too much of certain characteristics of an individual microphone or of a whole class or of a certain number of microphones:

i got the chance (once) to borrow 100+ plus mics from three leading manufacturers and although they all got me excellent results, i did clearly favour the results i got by using mics from one specific manufacturer; however, what i liked even better was when i started combining the mics from all three manufactureres and yet better, when i added a few mics from about another half a dozen manufacturers!

and then there is the experience which i'm almost sure that anyone has made (even multiple times, say when working under poor conditions) that just a few mic of the same type can be too much, in the sense that they become 'un-eq-able' and the overall soundfield getting plagued in a way that one cannot get rid of the annoyance with any technique in existence.

so is there an upper limit on how many tube mics one would want to use? i tend to think so...

...but have no idea what limit this might be!

personally, i favour an approach which uses just a few selected tube mics (if any...) but apply tube gear (or emulations...) on submixes/stems if i'm after a specific soundfield: this is not only way more affordable but also allows to dial in anything from subtle to massive amounts of colouration/harmonics/distortion etc. and not depend on the distance of the tube mic to the source, it mic's sensitivity or the volume of the source to drive the tube...


cheers everyone and happy hare hunting!

i don't give much about the so-called 'big 5' for a couple of reasons...

(tube sdc's are missing, the t-funk 269 is superfluous, there are hardly any c12's in good shape left although the same goes for the m50's which should have been added nevertheless etc.)

i had all three neumann's from the list (not because they wer on the list) but sold two of them a year ago (to stay afloat although i then spent ways more on another digital desk) - so yeah, my personal limit in terms of owning tube mics is pretty low and i own more tube preamps than tube mics; i wish i had a pair of schopes m222's though!

nope: it's gonna be the rme dmc-842 in this case.

i think we have something similar: mention any mic and it usually doesn't take long before someone goes ballistic...
...so it's just that we cannot agree on the trigger points!


i have to admit that i never owned a lava lamp (but smashed more than one in studios i used to work) - in my defence i would like to add that in the meantime, about 30 years have passed, that in my circles psychotropic substances were more popular than lava lamps (yes, classic folks are heavily into drugs!) and it's worth mentioning that i live in the city where albert hofmann made his famous discovery...

oh, and i think i have found a way to grant absolution (see pic) - I hope you won't be too disappointed if I only use it for the talkback?! :-)

@ toledo3 -

I've re-read your post several times now - as I have the other thoughtful statements from the initial @ mbvoxx reply onward.

Thanks for your thoughtful coverage of how we get to a subjective result - the music, and sonic palette that is creatively satisfying. . .and perspectives with respect to popular options.

My work as a pro musician ended in the 90's as interest and activities turned to software dev. Since refocusing on music during the past very few years, my explorations and acquisitions have been limited almost exclusively to high-end gear. . .primarily driven by the pursuit of quality, sonic characteristics that appeal to me, and an already heavily overloaded schedule.

My tracking of drum sets is limited - and the circles I ran with back in the day were not tube-mic oriented with respect drum tracking. Maybe some of that rubbed off on me? But it is something I'm looking forward to trying whenever I finally pull the trigger on a pair of 251 mics. I've thought of them as my new hammer for a world in which everything will have to prove it is not a nail. This recording stuff is fun!

It seems unlikely that I will amass a large collection of tube mics beyond the 47 & 251? Most likely extensions include the Josephson C725. I've seriously considered the U67 RI, but it seems not far enough from where my Heiserman H47Tube can take me. . .for the additional investment. I'm not overly shy about applying EQ and DSP. I was pretty certain about the Sony C800G once, but am not betting on it now. I will continue to make significant investments in Schoeps whenever the CMD 42 kits are fully released.

I'm still intrigued how some don't separate Schoeps and the like into a different category from [at least] the big 5 tube mics? But I'm getting closer to understanding shared and common perspectives.


Thanks again for your thoughts,

Ray H.

In hindsight, I'm certain your judgement was correct, orthodoxically. It is more proper to be precise with Gesualdo's Responsoria. Maybe the Schoeps CMD 42 will eventually take you closer?

Ray H.

I was not writing to expound something I could call 'my religion,' but to expound 'mere' Christianity, which is what it is and was long before I was born and whether I like it or not.

- C S Lewis, Mere Christianity.

do you mean literally, in the sense of the text?

that might be difficult: i think every text, every piece of music, every reading has to be interpreted and with regard to the old texts, i am simply not trained enough in hermeneutics to trust myself to do that - and imo an orthodox reading leads 'at best' to unfreedom, to ruin or to totalitarianism!

(kinda strange: i just posted on a very similar topic in another thread...)


the neumanns will do for the time being...

...but for sure i'll get a couple of those once they become available!


my faith is closer to the ancient heaven of the gods or to animism than to the christian faith of the occident, which however has undoubtedly rubbed off on me in many ways...

Never had a desire to smash lava Lamp myself. Computers are another story.
I quite like the lamp in the room myself, as do almost all customers. Kids love em.
They seem to be meh’d and pffshawed by the self claiming post modernists though.

Years ago, I recorded a (then popular) Indy artist for a film score I was completing. Her contract necessitated a vintage u47, so I rented one and put it up next to my charter oak 538b. She chose the latter

I’ve been privileged to have either owned or worked with just about everything there is from vintage to new and from that experience I’d be happy with a u67 and telefunken’s 251 - two of the best LDCs I’ve ever heard.

However, the best LDC I’ve heard lately is the AT 5040 (and its bro, the 5047) - just a stellar mic, transformer less and solid state - to my ears, for three grand plus, it’s killer. Just cardioid though, and no filters or attenuators. Still, it sounds better to me than a U87ai, a mic I’ve used for the past 7 years (not mine).

In the meantime, the LDC I always reach for is my 25 year old AT 4050. It still hangs with the best of them and is especially good with piano and drum “recorder man” setups. I don’t have to wait for it to warm up and it doesn’t weigh a whole lot and isn’t huge - it just performs, a real workhorse.

Otherwise, I’m like you, it’s mostly sdc in my studio, day in and day out recording live piano, acoustic guitars, percussion for production music. I like small, light mics that are easy to position and sound great - currently mostly using my km184s I’m fretting now over my next purchase, either going the DPA route, Earthworks, or Schoeps. Those new Austrian Audio mics look nice too. Also, I still think the c414s are great for piano.

One fun thing I’ve been doing lately is using the sm57 on steel string acoustic - sounds great when playing hard! Less than a hundred bucks gets you one of those.

No, the intended application is limited to audio recording. Both the reference to orthodoxy and the C S Lewis quote were allusions to the desire for the highest fidelity.

Off-Topic background info:

Way, way back, I took some New Testament Greek classes at the University of South Florida from a professor named Dr. Strange - this isn't just another one of my jokes. The classes covered some of the provenance of biblical texts. . .and how pursuit of fidelity to the [missing] original fragments were viewed.

A recurring notion was that it is generally better to live with some difficulty in the text. So, when looking at two conflicting, possible fragments of otherwise equal trustworthiness: the one that fit less well with whatever 'religion' or orthodoxy we might wish to create, carried the extra mojo [not his phrase]. According to the professor - as I recall - the least fitting was then more likely adopted. [1]

So we want things to be captured and translated as closely as possible to what they truly are [a job for the Neumann Solution D-01?] - not as we might wish them to be [as we might achieve with pretty sounding, but colorful mic options].


Ray H.

[1] These were largely viewed as very minor issues and - if the text fragments were instead mics [tube or jfet] - going either way wouldn't destroy the final mix.