"Sean Conolly" wrote: > Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
Most cardiod mics have the largest lobe in response straight on-axis. Setting the mic at an oblique angle can get you that wee bit of headroom without radically altering frequency response.
> "Sean Conolly" wrote: >> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic > can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
> Most cardiod mics have the largest lobe in response > straight on-axis. Setting the mic at an oblique angle can get > you that wee bit of headroom without radically altering > frequency response.
ONLY if you have a cardioid with decent off-axis response. Good luck with that.
Richard Crowley <rcrow...@xp7rt.net> wrote: >"McSteve" wrote ... >> "Sean Conolly" wrote: >>> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
>> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic >> can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
>> Most cardiod mics have the largest lobe in response >> straight on-axis. Setting the mic at an oblique angle can get >> you that wee bit of headroom without radically altering >> frequency response.
>ONLY if you have a cardioid with decent off-axis response. >Good luck with that.
You mean, like an RE-20 or something? --scott
-- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> "Sean Conolly" wrote: >> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic > can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
The air is being funneled through the hole (actually a port). The initial impulse is much stronger there, especially if the mic is obstructing the port. Move it into the middle of the drum and the initial impulse goes way down.
I use both placements depending on the sound I'm looking for, but hit the limiter a lot harder when the mic is in the port.
Sean Conolly wrote: > "McSteve" <mcsteve13...@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:hd02ld$do5$1@aioe.org... >> "Sean Conolly" wrote: >>> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
>> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic >> can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
> The air is being funneled through the hole (actually a port). The initial > impulse is much stronger there, especially if the mic is obstructing the > port. Move it into the middle of the drum and the initial impulse goes way > down.
> I use both placements depending on the sound I'm looking for, but hit the > limiter a lot harder when the mic is in the port.
> Sean
What is there about this that is not a Helmholtz resonator? Off to the side if you want a balanced picture that doesn't sound like a basketball. Like you'd mic an acoustic guitar....
And if there's any way possible to get the drummer to invest in a closed head, he'll be rewarded with a much more useable kik track.
McSteve <mcsteve13...@verizon.net> wrote: > "Sean Conolly" wrote: > > Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic > can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
I think he has the mic in the windstream at the hole, such that apparent level is not only about SPL, but also about air blast.
> Most cardiod mics have the largest lobe in response > straight on-axis. Setting the mic at an oblique angle can get > you that wee bit of headroom without radically altering > frequency response.
True, though that won't help much if the mic is positioned right in the port.
>> "Sean Conolly" wrote: >> > Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
>> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic >> can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
>I think he has the mic in the windstream at the hole, such that apparent >level is not only about SPL, but also about air blast.
Right. It totally changes the tone. For better or worse, a lot of the actual sound of the modern rock kick drum has to do with microphone artifacts as much as the actual drum. It's a weird world.
>> Most cardiod mics have the largest lobe in response >> straight on-axis. Setting the mic at an oblique angle can get >> you that wee bit of headroom without radically altering >> frequency response.
>True, though that won't help much if the mic is positioned right in the >port.
Unless you want it to sound like Itchykoo Park. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> Sean Conolly wrote: >> "McSteve" <mcsteve13...@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:hd02ld$do5$1@aioe.org... >>> "Sean Conolly" wrote: >>>> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
>>> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic >>> can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
>> The air is being funneled through the hole (actually a port). The initial >> impulse is much stronger there, especially if the mic is obstructing the >> port. Move it into the middle of the drum and the initial impulse goes >> way down.
>> I use both placements depending on the sound I'm looking for, but hit the >> limiter a lot harder when the mic is in the port.
>> Sean
> What is there about this that is not a Helmholtz resonator? Off to > the side if you want a balanced picture that doesn't sound > like a basketball. Like you'd mic an acoustic guitar....
Quite true - but not the peak SPL issue the OP was referring too. I think he's speaking of a live sound context also.
For live work I have the mic 4 to 6 inches from the shell, and about 2/3 of the distance between the heads (closer to the reso head). It sound's acceptable but with no absorbtion in the drum you still get a bit of that 'boing' sound. As I said I only put the mic in the drum because mics in front of the kick tend to get knocked around during the show on a typical club stage.
> And if there's any way possible to get the drummer to invest in a > closed head, he'll be rewarded with a much more useable kik track.
Also true, but in a live setting I find it's usually the sound engineer who insists on stuffing the mic in through the port, and the I know several touring drummers who use ported heads just to avoid conflicts. Not only does an unported kick sound better, it's also a lot louder - enough so that it may not need to be mic'd at all in a small club.
> > Sean Conolly wrote: > >> "McSteve" <mcsteve13...@verizon.net> wrote in message > >>news:hd02ld$do5$1@aioe.org... > >>> "Sean Conolly" wrote: > >>>> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
> >>> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic > >>> can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
> >> The air is being funneled through the hole (actually a port). The initial > >> impulse is much stronger there, especially if the mic is obstructing the > >> port. Move it into the middle of the drum and the initial impulse goes > >> way down.
> >> I use both placements depending on the sound I'm looking for, but hit the > >> limiter a lot harder when the mic is in the port.
> >> Sean
> > What is there about this that is not a Helmholtz resonator? Off to > > the side if you want a balanced picture that doesn't sound > > like a basketball. Like you'd mic an acoustic guitar....
> Quite true - but not the peak SPL issue the OP was referring too. I think > he's speaking of a live sound context also.
> For live work I have the mic 4 to 6 inches from the shell, and about 2/3 of > the distance between the heads (closer to the reso head). It sound's > acceptable but with no absorbtion in the drum you still get a bit of that > 'boing' sound. As I said I only put the mic in the drum because mics in > front of the kick tend to get knocked around during the show on a typical > club stage.
> > And if there's any way possible to get the drummer to invest in a > > closed head, he'll be rewarded with a much more useable kik track.
> Also true, but in a live setting I find it's usually the sound engineer who > insists on stuffing the mic in through the port, and the I know several > touring drummers who use ported heads just to avoid conflicts. Not only does > an unported kick sound better, it's also a lot louder - enough so that it > may not need to be mic'd at all in a small club.
> Sean
I disagree, at least in the world of larger venues and big PA. The best sounding kick, at least for rock, is one where the there is little or no front head at all and the beater head is so loose it's almost wrinkled. It may sound questionable hearing it with your ear up close to the drum, but a to a good kick mic, it's like making love to it. Having a solid or very small ported resonant head tends to cause over-ring for PA reinforced kick often necessitating the need for a gate to tighten things up. This is especially true with loud full range drum monitors. An un-ported resonant head also kills the beater click if you want it and requires a mic be used on the beater side of the head which can pickup other unwanted things like snare and pedal squeaks. If you like to use a combo of mics inside the kick like a D6 and an SM91, you can't do it with an un-ported resonant head. Granted, in a small club situation with a lacking PA, a full resonant head can help fatten up the kick as was the original intention of the 'bass drum'. But in the world of high performance PA, IMHO, they tend to be more of a detriment.
Rupert wrote: > I disagree, at least in the world of larger venues and big PA. The > best sounding kick, at least for rock, is one where the there is > little or no front head at all and the beater head is so loose it's > almost wrinkled. It may sound questionable hearing it with your ear up > close to the drum, but a to a good kick mic, it's like making love to > it. Having a solid or very small ported resonant head tends to cause > over-ring for PA reinforced kick often necessitating the need for a > gate to tighten things up. This is especially true with loud full > range drum monitors. An un-ported resonant head also kills the beater > click if you want it and requires a mic be used on the beater side of > the head which can pickup other unwanted things like snare and pedal > squeaks. If you like to use a combo of mics inside the kick like a D6 > and an SM91, you can't do it with an un-ported resonant head. Granted, > in a small club situation with a lacking PA, a full resonant head can > help fatten up the kick as was the original intention of the 'bass > drum'. But in the world of high performance PA, IMHO, they tend to be > more of a detriment.
> Rupert
How does that technique work in the recording environment? Does it work on tape/cpu as well as it does in big PA?
> Rupert wrote: > > I disagree, at least in the world of larger venues and big PA. The > > best sounding kick, at least for rock, is one where the there is > > little or no front head at all and the beater head is so loose it's > > almost wrinkled. It may sound questionable hearing it with your ear up > > close to the drum, but a to a good kick mic, it's like making love to > > it. Having a solid or very small ported resonant head tends to cause > > over-ring for PA reinforced kick often necessitating the need for a > > gate to tighten things up. This is especially true with loud full > > range drum monitors. An un-ported resonant head also kills the beater > > click if you want it and requires a mic be used on the beater side of > > the head which can pickup other unwanted things like snare and pedal > > squeaks. If you like to use a combo of mics inside the kick like a D6 > > and an SM91, you can't do it with an un-ported resonant head. Granted, > > in a small club situation with a lacking PA, a full resonant head can > > help fatten up the kick as was the original intention of the 'bass > > drum'. But in the world of high performance PA, IMHO, they tend to be > > more of a detriment.
> > Rupert
> How does that technique work in the recording environment? Does it work > on tape/cpu as well as it does in big PA?
> And would it work with distance mics as well?
> ---Jeff
In the studio, it depends on what you're looking for as it's a totally different ball of wax. For a close mic'd sound with boom and click, it works rather well. For a classic jazz session, it could suck. And for room mics, it can work ok depending on the room and mic position. I have worked in the studio numerous times with no resonant head on the kick and you can get quite a good sound for rock work both from the close mic and room mics. Then of course there are bands where in the studio you would want nothing but a kick with a resonant kick head for a more appropriate tone.
Rupert wrote: > On Nov 6, 10:58 am, Arkansan Raider <yom...@yomama.com> wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >>> I disagree, at least in the world of larger venues and big PA. The >>> best sounding kick, at least for rock, is one where the there is >>> little or no front head at all and the beater head is so loose it's >>> almost wrinkled. It may sound questionable hearing it with your ear up >>> close to the drum, but a to a good kick mic, it's like making love to >>> it. Having a solid or very small ported resonant head tends to cause >>> over-ring for PA reinforced kick often necessitating the need for a >>> gate to tighten things up. This is especially true with loud full >>> range drum monitors. An un-ported resonant head also kills the beater >>> click if you want it and requires a mic be used on the beater side of >>> the head which can pickup other unwanted things like snare and pedal >>> squeaks. If you like to use a combo of mics inside the kick like a D6 >>> and an SM91, you can't do it with an un-ported resonant head. Granted, >>> in a small club situation with a lacking PA, a full resonant head can >>> help fatten up the kick as was the original intention of the 'bass >>> drum'. But in the world of high performance PA, IMHO, they tend to be >>> more of a detriment. >>> Rupert >> How does that technique work in the recording environment? Does it work >> on tape/cpu as well as it does in big PA?
>> And would it work with distance mics as well?
>> ---Jeff
> In the studio, it depends on what you're looking for as it's a totally > different ball of wax. For a close mic'd sound with boom and click, it > works rather well. For a classic jazz session, it could suck. And for > room mics, it can work ok depending on the room and mic position. I > have worked in the studio numerous times with no resonant head on the > kick and you can get quite a good sound for rock work both from the > close mic and room mics. Then of course there are bands where in the > studio you would want nothing but a kick with a resonant kick head for > a more appropriate tone.
> Rupert
Roger that. Sounds like fertile experimentation soil.
>>> "Sean Conolly" wrote: >>>> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
>>> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic >>> can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse. >> I think he has the mic in the windstream at the hole, such that apparent >> level is not only about SPL, but also about air blast.
> Right. It totally changes the tone. For better or worse, a lot of the > actual sound of the modern rock kick drum has to do with microphone artifacts > as much as the actual drum. It's a weird world.
>>> Most cardiod mics have the largest lobe in response >>> straight on-axis. Setting the mic at an oblique angle can get >>> you that wee bit of headroom without radically altering >>> frequency response. >> True, though that won't help much if the mic is positioned right in the >> port.
> Unless you want it to sound like Itchykoo Park. > --scott
> > Sean Conolly wrote: > >> "McSteve" <mcsteve13...@verizon.net> wrote in message > >>news:hd02ld$do5$1@aioe.org... > >>> "Sean Conolly" wrote: > >>>> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
> >>> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic > >>> can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
> >> The air is being funneled through the hole (actually a port). The > >> initial > >> impulse is much stronger there, especially if the mic is obstructing > >> the > >> port. Move it into the middle of the drum and the initial impulse goes > >> way down.
> >> I use both placements depending on the sound I'm looking for, but hit > >> the > >> limiter a lot harder when the mic is in the port.
> >> Sean
> > What is there about this that is not a Helmholtz resonator? Off to > > the side if you want a balanced picture that doesn't sound > > like a basketball. Like you'd mic an acoustic guitar....
> Quite true - but not the peak SPL issue the OP was referring too. I think > he's speaking of a live sound context also.
> For live work I have the mic 4 to 6 inches from the shell, and about 2/3 > of > the distance between the heads (closer to the reso head). It sound's > acceptable but with no absorbtion in the drum you still get a bit of that > 'boing' sound. As I said I only put the mic in the drum because mics in > front of the kick tend to get knocked around during the show on a typical > club stage.
> > And if there's any way possible to get the drummer to invest in a > > closed head, he'll be rewarded with a much more useable kik track.
> Also true, but in a live setting I find it's usually the sound engineer > who > insists on stuffing the mic in through the port, and the I know several > touring drummers who use ported heads just to avoid conflicts. Not only > does > an unported kick sound better, it's also a lot louder - enough so that it > may not need to be mic'd at all in a small club.
> Sean > I disagree, at least in the world of larger venues and big PA. The > best sounding kick, at least for rock, is one where the there is > little or no front head at all and the beater head is so loose it's > almost wrinkled. It may sound questionable hearing it with your ear up > close to the drum, but a to a good kick mic, it's like making love to > it. Having a solid or very small ported resonant head tends to cause > over-ring for PA reinforced kick often necessitating the need for a > gate to tighten things up. This is especially true with loud full > range drum monitors.
I'll also disagree, to a point :-)
You can control most of the ring with head tension on the reso head just as you can the beater head. I think what drives the fashion for dead kick drums is that there's a lot of drummers who barely know how to tune a drum at all, and the safest thing for the engineer to do is just tune the whole mess down and pick up nothing but thump and click.
When you start with a properly tuned drum, a good mic & PA and a good engineer you can get a whole lot more character out of the kick than just thump and click. Bonham certainly had a legendary kick sound, but in a completely different direction than today's sound.
All just my opinions of course - it's not like I do this for a living.
>>> Sean Conolly wrote: >>>> "McSteve" <mcsteve13...@verizon.net> wrote in message >>>> news:hd02ld$do5$1@aioe.org... >>>>> "Sean Conolly" wrote: >>>>>> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches. >>>>> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic >>>>> can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse. >>>> The air is being funneled through the hole (actually a port). The >>>> initial >>>> impulse is much stronger there, especially if the mic is obstructing >>>> the >>>> port. Move it into the middle of the drum and the initial impulse goes >>>> way down. >>>> I use both placements depending on the sound I'm looking for, but hit >>>> the >>>> limiter a lot harder when the mic is in the port. >>>> Sean >>> What is there about this that is not a Helmholtz resonator? Off to >>> the side if you want a balanced picture that doesn't sound >>> like a basketball. Like you'd mic an acoustic guitar.... >> Quite true - but not the peak SPL issue the OP was referring too. I think >> he's speaking of a live sound context also.
>> For live work I have the mic 4 to 6 inches from the shell, and about 2/3 >> of >> the distance between the heads (closer to the reso head). It sound's >> acceptable but with no absorbtion in the drum you still get a bit of that >> 'boing' sound. As I said I only put the mic in the drum because mics in >> front of the kick tend to get knocked around during the show on a typical >> club stage.
>>> And if there's any way possible to get the drummer to invest in a >>> closed head, he'll be rewarded with a much more useable kik track. >> Also true, but in a live setting I find it's usually the sound engineer >> who >> insists on stuffing the mic in through the port, and the I know several >> touring drummers who use ported heads just to avoid conflicts. Not only >> does >> an unported kick sound better, it's also a lot louder - enough so that it >> may not need to be mic'd at all in a small club.
>> Sean
>> I disagree, at least in the world of larger venues and big PA. The >> best sounding kick, at least for rock, is one where the there is >> little or no front head at all and the beater head is so loose it's >> almost wrinkled. It may sound questionable hearing it with your ear up >> close to the drum, but a to a good kick mic, it's like making love to >> it. Having a solid or very small ported resonant head tends to cause >> over-ring for PA reinforced kick often necessitating the need for a >> gate to tighten things up. This is especially true with loud full >> range drum monitors.
> I'll also disagree, to a point :-)
> You can control most of the ring with head tension on the reso head just as > you can the beater head. I think what drives the fashion for dead kick drums > is that there's a lot of drummers who barely know how to tune a drum at all, > and the safest thing for the engineer to do is just tune the whole mess down > and pick up nothing but thump and click.
> When you start with a properly tuned drum, a good mic & PA and a good > engineer you can get a whole lot more character out of the kick than just > thump and click. Bonham certainly had a legendary kick sound, but in a > completely different direction than today's sound.
> All just my opinions of course - it's not like I do this for a living.
> Sean
A good sound begins with a good sound source. From my experience, few drummers know how to tune their drums well. Somewhere in this thread was mentioned that the kick resonates & sustains too long. Often, if the kick sustains too long, the beater & front heads are tuned too close to the same frequency. Tuned at the same frequency will cause them to sustain way, way, too long.
BTW, drum shells, without heads have a resonant frequency of their own. It makes sense to try to tune the drum to use, rather than 'fight', these resonances.
One thing I like is a foam ring mounted near the rim of the front head. This allows the fundamental frequency to come through while attenuating overtones, & at the same time, dampening the sustain.
I prefer a hole/port in the front head, but with a well tuned drum, it shouldn't matter much.
I've actually mic'ed the batter head, on occasion, from the beater side, if nothing else seems to work.
In article <b284f5dpue5l8ackngq1g8rqjts4qhm...@4ax.com>, b...@nospam.com wrote:
> It's a kick drum, he's obviously overdriving the mic!
> He needs to move the mic!
Given the specs of a D112 (1.8mV/PA), if there was no intentional gain from the mic pre (but assuming a minimal gain of 6dB at the bottom of the throw), it would take 144dB SPL to make a volt. I don't know the mixer, but is it a -10dBV device? Is there a crazy amount of minimal gain from the pre? Doubtful. I don't know what the D112's Max SPL is but the D6 tops out around 144dB SPL. In the end, I concur - this is wind blast issue, not a "the D112 is too sensitive" issue.
> Given the specs of a D112 (1.8mV/PA), if there was no intentional gain > from the mic pre (but assuming a minimal gain of 6dB at the bottom of > the throw), it would take 144dB SPL to make a volt.
** What about proximity effect ?? D112s *are* cardioids !!!
At close range, the mic has a 10 dB boost in the range of a bass drum's fundamental - makes it only 134 dB SPL to get your 1V rms from the mic pre.
> I don't know the mixer, but is it a -10dBV device?
** Soundcraft Spirit Live 4s are normal, live music desks.
Max input to the mic pre is speced at 3 volts rms before clipping.
> I don't know what the D112's Max SPL is but > the D6 tops out around 144dB S
** The max SPL tolerance for dynamic mic is not a single number ( like it is for condenser type) - cos it varies with frequency, ie at low audio frequencies it is far easier to bottom the diaphragm. Most mic makers pussy foot around this by quoting max SPLs at 1 kHz, or even higher.
I did a test on a Shure SM58 some time back to see how it performed at low frequencies by placing it in the port tube of a sub woofer and adjusting the drive with 40Hz sine wave input until I saw about 10% distortion in the wave coming from the mic on a scope. No mic pre was needed for this !!
I also placed a condenser mic in the same spot ( AKG CK2 omni ) and checked that the sound was reasonably free of distortion - it was. Then an SPL meter ( Rode SPL-1 with true condenser mic) set to C curve to check the actual SPL.
IIRC, the figure was 145 dB SPL.
I also confirmed that the SM58s' internal transformer played virtually no part in generating the low frequency distortion I was seeing by testing it separately from the mic at the same output level.
In article <7ls4uaF3ekub...@mid.individual.net>, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:
> > Given the specs of a D112 (1.8mV/PA), if there was no intentional gain > > from the mic pre (but assuming a minimal gain of 6dB at the bottom of > > the throw), it would take 144dB SPL to make a volt.
> ** What about proximity effect ?? D112s *are* cardioids !!!
> At close range, the mic has a 10 dB boost in the range of a bass drum's > fundamental - makes it only 134 dB SPL to get your 1V rms from the mic pre.
Ok - for the sake of argument, lets go with your number. 134dB of actual SPL that the mic perceives and transduces. The channel of the Spirit clips at...what, +20 or so?
>> > Given the specs of a D112 (1.8mV/PA), if there was no intentional gain >> > from the mic pre (but assuming a minimal gain of 6dB at the bottom of >> > the throw), it would take 144dB SPL to make a volt.
>> ** What about proximity effect ?? D112s *are* cardioids !!!
>> At close range, the mic has a 10 dB boost in the range of a bass drum's >> fundamental - makes it only 134 dB SPL to get your 1V rms from the mic pre.
>Ok - for the sake of argument, lets go with your number. 134dB of actual >SPL that the mic perceives and transduces. The channel of the Spirit >clips at...what, +20 or so?
>Paul
The 10dB boost is in any case incorrect. Bass boost at close range is not a property of the microphone, but of the air. Specifically air which has a spherical wavefront of radial dimension comparable to the wavelength, under which condition the velocity is increased with respect to the pressure. Any microphone which uses the velocity component (cardioid, figure 8 etc) will respond to that increase.
A bass drum is not anything like a point source and even at close range the wave front emerging is substantially flat and there is no velocity increase available to produce any bass lift.
> Ok - for the sake of argument, lets go with your number. 134dB of actual > SPL that the mic perceives and transduces. The channel of the Spirit > clips at...what, +20 or so?
>>> > Given the specs of a D112 (1.8mV/PA), if there was no intentional gain >>> > from the mic pre (but assuming a minimal gain of 6dB at the bottom of >>> > the throw), it would take 144dB SPL to make a volt.
>>> ** What about proximity effect ?? D112s *are* cardioids !!!
>>> At close range, the mic has a 10 dB boost in the range of a bass drum's >>> fundamental - makes it only 134 dB SPL to get your 1V rms from the mic >>> pre.
>>Ok - for the sake of argument, lets go with your number. 134dB of actual >>SPL that the mic perceives and transduces. The channel of the Spirit >>clips at...what, +20 or so? > The 10dB boost is in any case incorrect.
** Right there is the AKG spec sheet - CUNT HEAD !!!
> Bass boost at close range is not a property of the microphone,
** Right there is the AKG spec sheet - CUNT HEAD !!!
> but of the air
** Shame how pressure mics ( ie omnis) have no such boost - same goes for SPL meters.
CUNT HEAD !!
> Specifically air > which has a spherical wavefront of radial dimension comparable to the > wavelength, under which condition the velocity is increased with > respect to the pressure. Any microphone which uses the velocity > component (cardioid, figure 8 etc) will respond to that increase.
** Shame how the D112 has an actual response boost of 10 dB over the mid band level at close range.
> A bass drum is not anything like a point source
** Course it is - you FUCKING NUT CASE LIAR.
> range the wave front emerging is substantially flat
Scott Dorsey wrote: > ... For better or worse, a lot of > the actual sound of the modern rock kick drum has to do with > microphone artifacts as much as the actual drum. It's a weird world.
One in which a card board box with gloves from China may constitute an excellent realisticly sounding kick drum. I'm not even sure that a real drum should be the first choice .... O;-)
McSteve wrote: > "Sean Conolly" wrote: >> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches. > What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic > can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse.
I'm inclined to assume that Sean is right here, because exactly in the hole is where you get maximum amplitude due to the area restriction, it is easy to test for those that have suitable implements, my guess is that a cardioid will experience 10 dB less SPL inside the drum compared to the experienced SPL exactly in the hole.
> Most cardiod mics have the largest lobe in response > straight on-axis. Setting the mic at an oblique angle can get > you that wee bit of headroom without radically altering > frequency response.
Outside the drum the mic should be moved out of the direct route of the air blast.
Richard Crowley wrote: > "McSteve" wrote ... >> "Sean Conolly" wrote: >>> Or put it further in the drum, like another six inches.
>> What? If the input is already in clip range and the mic >> can't be padded, then moving closer will make it worse. >> Most cardiod mics have the largest lobe in response >> straight on-axis. Setting the mic at an oblique angle can get >> you that wee bit of headroom without radically altering >> frequency response. > ONLY if you have a cardioid with decent off-axis response. > Good luck with that.
There is no such thing as a 45 Hz cardioid (x) at best a modest sub-cardioid.
(x)cardioid defined as implying at least 20 dB attenuation in 180 degrees.
|
