Re: condensor vs. dynamic (analysis+confusion)
Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:50 pm
But still, frequency response is not generally what makes these two mics different.
creating music freely
That's wrong. Instrument condenser microphones have smaller membrane than dynamic ones. The larger membrane is, the better low frequencies can be captured.42low wrote:Don't get me wrong. I am NOT speaking of bad quality for condensors or whatever. A condensor mosly has a bigger membrame so to me it's clear that catches some more and most likely clearer sound.
That's wrong. It's application-dependent. I wouldn't prefer to record extreme vocal with condenser microphone. Also I wouldn't prefer to record toms/kick/snare with condenser microphones.42low wrote:I doubt the advices that condensor always should be better than dynamics.
That's true. But only partially. You should have at least condenser, dynamic and (probably) ribbon microphone. The more different microphones you have the more abilities you have. And that's silly to have only condensers or only dynamic microphones.42low wrote: "condensor is what you must have"
I've never seen sound engineers that could said so. Different problems - different solutions and different microphones used for the result.42low wrote:so "waste your money on that without any questions as i'm telling the only truth".
Really? You still rely on advices from people that didn't held more than two studio microphones in their hands? I've noticed that I'm currently having already about 20 microphones and... just want more because they all are different and sound different.42low wrote:It's what all the advisers all over the internet state that and those on forums linking it.
Fuck them man. Some years ago I've done a mix. I've used pretty cheap basswood-body guitar and crappy Hughes&Kettner WARP-T amplifier. If you want to record modern metal - I never will advice to use this crappy amplifier. I fought with the captured result for the long time while another medium-priced alder-body guitar was sounding just fine with Peavey 5150. Anyway, I've completed with the mix. And one guitarist that was listening this mix found my basswood guitar sounding like a mahogany-body guitar ))). What's the conclusion? The regular myth about how the wood is affecting electric guitar's sound was not broken but seriously shaked up.42low wrote:They hear something, and immediately copy it without thinking, and spread it like that's the only true option.
No problem, I'm not getting hot under the collar or anything, I just feel the need to clarify what I am an am not saying, since discussions tend to get polarized and we all get pushed into a "side".42low wrote:First. I'm not discussing to pick a fight or whatever.
I discus for a good discussion with argumented reasons were we can all (re) shape our oppionions and we all can become better.
I have no problem at all with a good teaching discussion as long as it's not made personal and kept with the subject.
I agree completely. Music, recording, and the music business can get very cargo-cult. I think we all rankle a bit when we hear those things and they contradict our experiences and knowledge. So while I would argue against someone who says "Condensers are required for a good sound", I'd also argue against saying "Condensers are useless and dynamics are good enough".IMHO within the world off homerecording there are many 'believes' which are adored too much as the only good option.
I too think it can be done with good quallity without the always adviced 'only good condensor mic' and the 'studio must be fully sound proof'. Those ultimate beliefs are highly overestimated and te opposite options are highly underestimated.
I agree; I'm a big proponent of using the simplest/cheapest tool that gets the job done until you understand why a more complex/expensive tool is required. Acquiring gear one doesn't understand or gain an appreciable benefit from is silly and wasteful.And the most importend argument here.
We have to keep in perspective that we are homerecorders who most likely never will have that perfect professional setting.
So at the end it's our goal to get the best results out of less.
And then i also remind that less many times is more, were we most likely must be more creativ and will not fall back on 'how they all do'. IMO a huge benefit.
See, I'm less interested in how hit songs are made, and more about how I get the sound I want to hear, and I assume that others are as well. If someone says, "What's the best mic under $XXX for recording (thing)", then either I have to ask more clarifications or just assume the person wants "thing" to sound like most "things" sound in the average professional recording. We can give examples of professional vocals recorded on dynamics, but I'd be willing to bet these are exceptions to the rule or only popular within certain genres.Many worldwide hitsongs are made otherwise. Like in simple basements and so. Many artists grabed a dynamic mic. And their wonderfull song were greatest hits.
Many older first albums weren't made in professional studio's.
Why do you think that $100 condenser microphones are shitty? I don't think so. Current technologies allow to easily produce pretty good microphones for this price.42low wrote:No sound engineers indeed.sadko4u wrote:I've never seen sound engineers that could said so. Different problems - different solutions and different microphones used for the result.42low wrote:so "waste your money on that without any questions as i'm telling the only truth".
But how many do you guess wasted their budget because the must have a condenser blindly following the advice that it's "always the best", and ended up with a $100 lacking shitty thing?
I agree. Good microphones can be found for actually even half of that price.sadko4u wrote: Why do you think that $100 condenser microphones are shitty? I don't think so. Current technologies allow to easily produce pretty good microphones for this price.