Just For Grins, Outside The Box Mic For Amps

[László]

Today I was recording guitar (surprise!) and I decided to try something a little different.

My usual go-to combination is a 57 paired with either a Royer or Rode ribbon mic. The Rode actually has a better high end than the 121, but both are great. However, there are times you want something different.

I've always liked the Sennheiser MD421 for guitar cabs, but its midrange feels a bit thinner, though its high frequencies are much more extended than most dynamics (the lower mids even measure thinner, depending on placement). I also like the SM57 and Audix i5 alone, but their midranges are a little hot.

I've never been huge on condenser mics with guitar amps. I know some players love them, but...I dunno. I find the whole business too crispy-critters.

Sometimes you want a dynamic mic, not a ribbon or condenser, that is a bit more natural sounding with certain amps. But dynamic instrument mics aren't really made to be all that natural sounding, they do "a thing." So...I went outside the box.

Sennheiser makes a nice vocal mic for live work called the e935. The published frequency response specs look pretty flat out to about 10K, far beyond the range of guitar amps, and you can really focus on a particular area of the speaker cone. I thought I'd try it on guitar amps.

What a pleasant surprise -- it's really good-sounding on guitar amps - it's very warm and natural. It's easy to overload the mic preamp, though, so you have to set levels a bit more carefully than you would with, say, a 57.

But...it's very natural sounding. I really like it, and it proves once again that you just never know what's going to work until you put up a mic.

 

[Deleted member 5962]

That's nice to hear because it's also a very affordable mic. I've used it often for vocals, but never tried it on a guitar cab. Thanks for the heads up.

Mind sharing your preferred placement?

 

[László]

That's nice to hear because it's also a very affordable mic. I've used it often for vocals, but never tried it on a guitar cab. Thanks for the heads up.

Mind sharing your preferred placement?

I'll take a pic!

 

[dmatthews]

Interesting. I have been looking at the e935 for my next vocal mic to replace my beta 58. It seems to have more punch/cut through which I'd like. Must be why you have to be careful with your preamp.

 

[sergiodeblanc]

It's fun to mix things up.

When I ran my old studio there would occasionally be sessions that got bigger than our mic locker. Most often it would be because of metal bands and their huge double-bass drum kits which would require us to use some of the 57's on toms instead of the guitar amps for basic/scratch tracks.

So we always had these AKG C1000's laying around (that my engineer bought for overheads, and we hated) which wound up being used on the guitar cabinets... Sometimes the tones they captured turned out great! They'd get a ton of top and bottom end that worked really well mixed with the other post-basics guitar tracks we would eventually wind up recording. So much so that we'd later reach for 'em first on other more "indie" projects.

They sounded really nice on an old silver-faced Twin we had.

 

[László]

Interesting. I have been looking at the e935 for my next vocal mic to replace my beta 58. It seems to have more punch/cut through which I'd like. Must be why you have to be careful with your preamp.

Actually, it has more fidelity and a smoother frequency response. There isn't that upper midrange peak most guitar cab mics have.

I'm not sure it has more cut than, say, a 57, on guitar amps. I have to do more work with it on different amps.

I've never actually tried this mic before, it's a pretty good mic for a dynamic! I went there to pick up another 421, but they were out, so I figured, WTF and got this just to try something different.

It's fun to mix things up.

When I ran my old studio there would occasionally be sessions that got bigger than our mic locker. Most often it would be because of metal bands and their huge double-bass drum kits which would require us to use some of the 57's on toms instead of the guitar amps for basic/scratch tracks.

So we always had these AKG C1000's laying around (that my engineer bought for overheads, and we hated) which wound up being used on the guitar cabinets... Sometimes the tones they captured turned out great! They'd get a ton of top and bottom end that worked really well mixed with the other post-basics guitar tracks we would eventually wind up recording. So much so that we'd later reach for 'em first on other more "indie" projects.

They sounded really nice on an old silver-faced Twin we had.

Yup, I'm learning to try different things in my old age. I've mainly stuck with the tried and true mics I used early in my career, but something must have happened to me after 25 years in the biz. I lost my sense of what sounds "right" and I have started going with "whatever sounds interesting."

 

[sergiodeblanc]

Yup, I'm learning to try different things in my old age. I've mainly stuck with the tried and true mics I used early in my career, but something must have happened to me after 25 years in the biz. I lost my sense of what sounds "right" and I have started going with "whatever sounds interesting."

Yeah, well most of the time clients aren't looking for new or interesting tones, as I'm sure you know. Most of the time people want stuff that sounds like something they've already heard, so you wind up doing stuff "right", like 421's and RE-20's on toms, a 57 through a 1073 through a LA-3 for guitars, blah blah, etc. etc.. because you can't really waste somebody else's time (money) trying different stuff. It does get a bit routine.

That's why I used to love it when we'd get some of the more random projects with instruments I wasn't as familiar with, or bands that didn't want to sound like classic rock or metal or rockabilly... You'd get more of a chance to try new things.

I also prefer to hear more "interesting" tones now too. It could be because of our background in studios, and may even be why we're drawn to PRS guitars instead of just having a LP, a Strat, Tele... blah blah..Zzzzzzz.

 

[squirrel211]

Les, have you any experience with Sennheiser's e906? I wonder if it is similar to the e935...

 

[László]

I also prefer to hear more "interesting" tones now too. It could be because of our background in studios, and may even be why we're drawn to PRS guitars instead of just having a LP, a Strat, Tele... blah blah..Zzzzzzz.

Good point!

 

[László]

Les, have you any experience with Sennheiser's e906? I wonder if it is similar to the e935...

Yes, I've used it. It's a really nice mic. Sennheiser are no slouches when it comes to transducer design, and of course, they now own Neumann, another fantastic mic manufacturer.

The 906 has something of the Sennheiser "family" sound; i.e.., it's a very balanced mic. It's a little different from the 935, which I'd call a little more warm (based on my recent experimentation with it, which is limited). Of course the standard by which other guitar mics are compared is the 57. But as we know, a 57 can accentuate the honk on certain amps, and while that can be great, really great, it can also be grating.

For reference, this is the SM57 response; note the pronounced boost becoming pronounced in the upper mids at 3-4 KHz, and centering around 5-6 KHz:

Here's the e906 Frequency Response; the upper midrange frequency boost comes a little earlier than the 57, around 2KHz:

Here's the 935. You can see that the "warmth" I described in my first post, compared to the 906 and the 57, relates directly to the response curve because there's a substantially less pronounced upper-midrange, high end bump, so the response is smoother:

These curves from reputable manufacturers don't lie; in my experience, what you see is what you hear when you put these mics up.

This is borne out in experience; the 935 sounded really great on my two brighter amps, the Lone Star and the DG30, where I liked the 57 a little more on the HXDA (though this could be because I run the HXDA with the treble rolled back a bit, too).

I've always been a big fan/advocate of the 57 on guitar amps, but I've started to really like the MD421 on amps, too (it's a little more scooped sounding in the lower mids, with more extended highs, something that's nice on certain amps and speakers), I'm getting a lot of use out of a Rode NTR ribbon mic a little further from the amp than I'd use a moving coil dynamic, and I love the Royer 121 on amps that have a very bright top end. The NTR doesn't need to be run with a dynamic, it's bright enough, but the Royer sounds better paired with a 57 (to me, YMMV). I also use an Audix i5 a lot for certain things. It's an underrated mic.

You can't go wrong with a Sennheiser mic, it's just a matter of picking the one that suits your own idea of how you want things to sound. I feel the same way about Shure, Neumann, Blue, Royer, Rode, Audix, and a few other manufacturers.

 

[squirrel211]

Yes, I've used it. It's a really nice mic. Sennheiser are no slouches when it comes to transducer design, and of course, they now own Neumann, another fantastic mic manufacturer.

The 906 has something of the Sennheiser "family" sound; i.e.., it's a very balanced mic. It's a little different from the 935, which I'd call a little more warm (based on my recent experimentation with it, which is limited). Of course the standard by which other guitar mics are compared is the 57. But as we know, a 57 can accentuate the honk on certain amps, and while that can be great, really great, it can also be grating.

For reference, this is the SM57 response; note the pronounced boost becoming pronounced in the upper mids at 3-4 KHz, and centering around 5-6 KHz:

Here's the e906 Frequency Response; the upper midrange frequency boost comes a little earlier than the 57, around 2KHz:

Here's the 935. You can see that the "warmth" I described in my first post, compared to the 906 and the 57, relates directly to the response curve because there's a substantially less pronounced upper-midrange, high end bump, so the response is smoother:

These curves from reputable manufacturers don't lie; in my experience, what you see is what you hear when you put these mics up.

This is borne out in experience; the 935 sounded really great on my two brighter amps, the Lone Star and the DG30, where I liked the 57 a little more on the HXDA (though this could be because I run the HXDA with the treble rolled back a bit, too).

I've always been a big fan/advocate of the 57 on guitar amps, but I've started to really like the MD421 on amps, too (it's a little more scooped sounding in the lower mids, with more extended highs, something that's nice on certain amps and speakers), I'm getting a lot of use out of a Rode NTR ribbon mic a little further from the amp than I'd use a moving coil dynamic, and I love the Royer 121 on amps that have a very bright top end. The NTR doesn't need to be run with a dynamic, it's bright enough, but the Royer sounds better paired with a 57 (to me, YMMV). I also use an Audix i5 a lot for certain things. It's an underrated mic.

You can't go wrong with a Sennheiser mic, it's just a matter of picking the one that suits your own idea of how you want things to sound. I feel the same way about Shure, Neumann, Blue, Royer, Rode, Audix, and a few other manufacturers.

Cool! Thanks Les! I have an e906, it looks like if I switch it to the -\ setting it should sound a little closer to the e935.

I'm setting up for a show in Ocean City, MD; I'll try it now.

 

[dkilpatrick]

Yes, I've used it. It's a really nice mic. Sennheiser are no slouches when it comes to transducer design, and of course, they now own Neumann, another fantastic mic manufacturer.

The 906 has something of the Sennheiser "family" sound; i.e.., it's a very balanced mic. It's a little different from the 935, which I'd call a little more warm (based on my recent experimentation with it, which is limited). Of course the standard by which other guitar mics are compared is the 57. But as we know, a 57 can accentuate the honk on certain amps, and while that can be great, really great, it can also be grating.

For reference, this is the SM57 response; note the pronounced boost becoming pronounced in the upper mids at 3-4 KHz, and centering around 5-6 KHz:

Here's the e906 Frequency Response; the upper midrange frequency boost comes a little earlier than the 57, around 2KHz:

Here's the 935. You can see that the "warmth" I described in my first post, compared to the 906 and the 57, relates directly to the response curve because there's a substantially less pronounced upper-midrange, high end bump, so the response is smoother:

These curves from reputable manufacturers don't lie; in my experience, what you see is what you hear when you put these mics up.

This is borne out in experience; the 935 sounded really great on my two brighter amps, the Lone Star and the DG30, where I liked the 57 a little more on the HXDA (though this could be because I run the HXDA with the treble rolled back a bit, too).

I've always been a big fan/advocate of the 57 on guitar amps, but I've started to really like the MD421 on amps, too (it's a little more scooped sounding in the lower mids, with more extended highs, something that's nice on certain amps and speakers), I'm getting a lot of use out of a Rode NTR ribbon mic a little further from the amp than I'd use a moving coil dynamic, and I love the Royer 121 on amps that have a very bright top end. The NTR doesn't need to be run with a dynamic, it's bright enough, but the Royer sounds better paired with a 57 (to me, YMMV). I also use an Audix i5 a lot for certain things. It's an underrated mic.

You can't go wrong with a Sennheiser mic, it's just a matter of picking the one that suits your own idea of how you want things to sound. I feel the same way about Shure, Neumann, Blue, Royer, Rode, Audix, and a few other manufacturers.

I always use two mics when I mic an amp. An e609 and a 57, then blend them together. To my ears they fill out the sound that the other is lacking.

 

[László]

I always use two mics when I mic an amp. An e609 and a 57, then blend them together. To my ears they fill out the sound that the other is lacking.

That's kind of interesting, since the response curves are very similar except in the region 2-3 KHz. I guess one never knows how mics will blend until one tries. So sounds like you're doing some fun things!

I'd love to hear a clip of each mic solo'd vs the blend signal just to hear how that works!

I like to blend, say, a ribbon with a lot of proximity effect on the bottom, and a soft top end, say a mic like a Royer 121, with a 57 with its upper mid peak, or an MD 421 with its extended high end. This is because the frequency responses are so different.

I'll also say, though, that after fussing with this kind of thing a lot over the years, I also find that sometimes putting up a single mic gives me exactly the sound I'm looking for.

If I dial in a crispy/bright sort of slightly overdriven sound with the DG30 or the Lone Star, I find that the NTR all by itself is a great choice. And now I like the smoothness of that 935 also, and find I really don't need to blend either one.

On the other hand, a Royer 121 plus a 57 or an i5 on the HXDA is heaven.

Here's a chart of the i5; you'll see a little low-end bump that the 57 doesn't have, plus the upper-end peak at about 5K like the 57.

This is a great sounding mic for certain amps, for obvious reasons; it's got a "smile" curve that blends well with midrange-heavy distorted amps, and gives them a little extra push on the bottom end, sort of an acoustical Mesa-style "V" EQ.

 

[László]

As an aside, it's interesting that for quite a while now, some mic manufacturers have produced models that have abandoned the idea of capturing an instrument or vocal with the highest transparency and fidelity, and instead, produce mics that either mimic the so-called "classic" mics, or color the sound intentionally in other ways.

Going against this tide, I have to applaud Rode, whose NTR is absolutely, hands-down, the highest fidelity ribbon mic I've ever used, and it's not particularly expensive, either.

In fact, it's hard to categorize this mic as anything but natural sounding and neutral within the confines of what can be done with ribbon technology. Rode claims it's the best ribbon mic being made, and in absolute terms, I have to agree, but I also like the Royers even though they aren't as realistic sounding.

Record a vocal or acoustic guitar with it, and it just sounds like the vocalist or acoustic sounded in the room. However, our ears are so used to the enhanced "zing" of condenser mics, that there are times I realize that the Rode is more accurate, but I go for a condenser despite this, simply to get a little unnatural "zing" in a track.

I think that as recordists, there are times we want natural, and times we want to hear room, and yet there are times we want everything to sound wonderfully artificial, or a blend.

I have always loved the sound of the Roger Nichols Steely Dan recordings, the etched, "better than live" quality is breathtaking to me, but these days people want to go in the opposite direction, and I understand why they like that, too. For years, I wanted to eliminate the sound of the room in my drum tracks, and now if I don't hear it, I kind of miss it.

What's my favorite reverb these days? To my own surprise, it's the UAD-2 Ocean Way impulse response "rooms" that were laboriously created at Ocean Way studios. Put a drum track through this plugin, and I swear, you are in Ocean Way's studio (I've worked at big studios in LA, though not Ocean Way, however I can attest to the fact that this plug sounds like you cut instrument tracks in a million dollar studio room, as opposed to putting "reverb" on tracks in the usual way).

It's a very good thing there are no rules.

 

[dmatthews]

I always use two mics when I mic an amp. An e609 and a 57, then blend them together. To my ears they fill out the sound that the other is lacking.

Is your e609 a silver or older black face?

 

[Boogie]

...a Royer 121 plus a 57 or an i5 on the HXDA is heaven.

Would you place them identically, on different speakers? Axis? Cone location? The "pair of 57s, one on axis, other off" approach was an eye-opener for me. Wondering if an i5 + 57 would yield a similar result with both on axis and same cone location?

 

[dkilpatrick]

That's kind of interesting, since the response curves are very similar except in the region 2-3 KHz. I guess one never knows how mics will blend until one tries. So sounds like you're doing some fun things!

I'd love to hear a clip of each mic solo'd vs the blend signal just to hear how that works!

I like to blend, say, a ribbon with a lot of proximity effect on the bottom, and a soft top end, say a mic like a Royer 121, with a 57 with its upper mid peak, or an MD 421 with its extended high end. This is because the frequency responses are so different.

I'll also say, though, that after fussing with this kind of thing a lot over the years, I also find that sometimes putting up a single mic gives me exactly the sound I'm looking for.

If I dial in a crispy/bright sort of slightly overdriven sound with the DG30 or the Lone Star, I find that the NTR all by itself is a great choice. And now I like the smoothness of that 935 also, and find I really don't need to blend either one.

On the other hand, a Royer 121 plus a 57 or an i5 on the HXDA is heaven.

Here's a chart of the i5; you'll see a little low-end bump that the 57 doesn't have, plus the upper-end peak at about 5K like the 57.

This is a great sounding mic for certain amps, for obvious reasons; it's got a "smile" curve that blends well with midrange-heavy distorted amps, and gives them a little extra push on the bottom end, sort of an acoustical Mesa-style "V" EQ.

They are very similar in frequency response, but they do color the sound differently. I run them both through a presonus blue tube mic pre, and I run the gain a little hotter on the 57. I feel the 609 has a bit more clarity and sounds great on its own. Then I add in some of the 57 and it sounds "full". I can do clips of each separately and then together. I need to move mics around. I had both on the lone star, but recently set up a stereo rig with a stiletto. I've been playing around with one mic on each amp and swapping them too.
I'll set it back up so its the same amp through both.

 

[dkilpatrick]

Is your e609 a silver or older black face?

The front is silver and the back is black.

 

[László]

Would you place them identically, on different speakers? Axis? Cone location? The "pair of 57s, one on axis, other off" approach was an eye-opener for me. Wondering if an i5 + 57 would yield a similar result with both on axis and same cone location?

I think you'd get a similar result, but it wouldn't be identical. The LF bump of the i5 gives it a fuller sound that's very evident. But he blend wouldn't be all that interesting with both mics positioned identically, because they're so similar. In that case, you might as well just go with the i5.

Positioning each one differently, I think, would give you a more interesting result.

I try to pick mics that sound more different from each other anyway, just because it's hard for one person both playing and operating the gear to keep getting up and moving mics a quarter of an inch here or there. I'd rather just put two different, interesting mics in locations that I hope take advantage of what each does best, and let the chips fall where they may.

However, at some point I will get one of these remote control mic placement gizmos called a Dyna-Mount; it moves the mic along an X-Y axis and in addition, it rotates the mic, and does this all by remote control from the workstation position. So I will sit there with the headphones on, while keeping an eye on levels, and be able to move the mic without too much fuss when I don't have an assistant (trust me, it's hard having an assistant come in when I get a Big Idea on the spur of the moment, by the time he/she arrives the idea is gone):

Here's the two-arm mic boom I recently added (also posted in the studio section of the forum). I do like equipment that reduces setup and placement hassles, and in addition, reduces floor clutter!

 

[BMiller]

Many years ago when I was single and living in a two bedroom apartment (the master bedroom was my studio), I recorded some great guitar tracks with an MXL 603 placed on an ancient V30 in a single 12 PA cab with the horn disconnected. This was placed in an odd shapped closet full of clothes and spare parts. I don't know why exactly, but these overdubs would mix nicely with the full band recordings I would do at our rehearsal space where the guitars would be tracked with 57s.

Nowadays I don't do much recording (I do a lot of mixing and post production work with much nicer tools), but when the mood strikes or I am asked to do an overdub or re-amp something, the 603 typically ends up somewhere in the mix.

Now I need to find a way to get one of those Dyna Mounts! Those are seriously cool!