Do You Need The Most Expensive Microphone Money Can Buy?
I’ve known many studio owners who tell me that they can’t attract good client’s unless their studio has an ample supply of big-name, very expensive microphones. Call me anti-elitist, but I think this is a shame, and a bit short sighted. Let there be no doubt that these high-price ($2500 & up) microphones can certainly sound wonderful when well matched to a particular sound source. It’s been my experience, however, that they work very well on roughly a third of the sound sources encountered, and can present some serious drawbacks on sources where they’re not so well matched.
Throughout the mid to late 90s, I did a lot of mic auditioning to get a general sense of which microphones worked best for which sources. I also noticed a strong preference among the clients to go for the most expensive mic. And why shouldn’t they? But, the sonic results didn’t always pan out, so I took on an experiment, where each time I’d begin a project with a vocalist, I’d set up three microphones in close proximity of one another and do a test audition of the same vocal pass for a playback evaluation.
The ongoing evaluations were not rigid in a scientific way, but they were nonetheless, quite revealing in the artistic and intuitive sense. Here’s how it worked:
The studio mic test -
At the start of each vocal overdub session, I’d put up three microphones: Neumann U-87 or U-47 FET ($3400), AKG 414 ($800), and EV-RE-20 ($450). We’d record one pass of the singer using all three mic’s simultaneously. Whoever was present at the session would listen back and simply choose which mic they thought sounded the best for that singer. The group of folks doing the assessment would usually include the singer, the producer, a band member or two, and myself.
In every case where the crew in the control room would ask and associate the brand and cost of the mic to the track being auditioned, they would without fail, choose the most expensive microphone. Later in the project this choice would often bite us in the foot, with some problems I’ll describe below. Objective listening was essentially, postponed until it was too late.
In almost every case where the crew had no interest or knowledge of mic brands, prestige names, or cost, they would of course, choose the microphone that presented the most flattering image of the singer’s voice. Simple. Without any knowledge of brands and costs the listening was purely objective, and better choices were consistently made. While I didn’t keep accurate logs as to which microphone consistently made the winner’s circle, my general observation was that the split was fairly even across all three.
To me this experiment served as ongoing proof of several things: First, the purchase price of the microphone was not the sole determinant for the best match between the mic and the artist or the best sonic outcome. Secondly, objective listening is difficult and is often influenced, or even tainted by preconceived beliefs. Third, at some point in the project, objective listening does indeed start to take place, and a hasty choice of tracking mic’s can lead to disappointing results.
The consistent difficulty encountered with the most grand and glorious brands of mic’s would be that they presented far too much detail and nuance to be flattering to the artist or sound source. Let’s look at a few of the problems encountered:
Problems with excessive detail and nuance -
Mouth noises - not so noticeable to the ear, the the inside of the mouth squirms and squishes to shape notes, vowels and consonants. This can make clicking noises when the mouth is a little dry, or the singer a little nervous, and squishing sounds that can stand out in a mix once everything is compressed. Many of the big name mic’s will capture these sounds like you’re listening through some kind of audio microscope, rather than listening to a song.
Breath noises - breathing sounds from an acoustic guitarist, even one who had a whistling sound in his nose as he breathed. It’s impressive to witness a microphone that can “hear” this much detail, but again, these sounds are not the song or the music.
Clothing rustles - the swishing sound of clothing as the player moved his arms to play an instrument. One problematic noise turned out to be the sound of the players wristwatch band moving against the skin of his wrist as he played.
Piano dampers - the sound of the felt dampers returning to the string each time a note was released, making a swish, swish, swish sound with each note release.
Headphone bleed - the sound of a click track or scratch track that was not meant to be part of the final mix, but was “heard” by an ultra-sensitive microphone.
Orchestra and choir sessions - every nuance of a page turn or a pencil placed on a music stand, the sliding of a foot against the floor, or the slightest creak of a choir riser. In these settings, the focus of the session became more aimed at keeping noises to a minimum than it did on having the musicians pour forth an inspiring performance. Overemphasized detail had become an annoying distraction in all of the above scenarios.
There are more examples, but you get the picture. By this point in the discussion, you may get the impression that I have no use for high price microphones. But, let’s recall that in the ongoing audition tests, the expensive mic was a good choice for roughly a third of the sound sources. High end microphones can sound beautiful, intimate, flattering to the source, and stunningly present in a recording. But for those wonderful qualities to be realized, the artist or sound source must be, essentially flawless before the sound reaches the mic diaphragm. This, of course, is a difficult achievement on the part of the artist, and either happens by way of a natural gift or by a process of difficult, purposeful refinement of performance capabilities.
Alternatives to the high price spread
Okay, so far we’ve generally benched the high price mic for roughly a third of the sound sources the artist or engineer will encounter. This should be good news to anyone growing their own studio, or artists shopping for a more mid-price studio to work in. It means both could save some serious expense and still expect very good results.
Good alternatives to expensive microphones are not real easy to find, but they’re certainly out there. You may even own one. Among the other articles on this web site is one on finding and choosing microphones, and another where I describe the behaviors of the microphones I use the most in my own studio. I hope you’ll find them helpful.
As with all things related to studio recording, one important point of this article should be that objective listening is difficult, and can often be compromised or tainted by expectations of what the equipment can do. Developing a good objective ear will always improve your results and in many cases save you some money. |
