What makes a good microphone?

[Andy Froncioni]

Hi all,
I wanted to ask a simple question that may have a complex, if not complicated, answer. What makes a good microphone?

I'm not trolling. I know there is no single answer to this question. But I want to understand how you all go about having a favorite mic in various instances.

What are the characteristics of a good mic?
What are the factors that shape the answer for specific applications? Voice-over, various instruments (guitar, flute, drums, tuba, full orchestra), room treatment or not, etc...

 

[Khron]

The answer is "yes".

Or the answer may well be the same as for "what makes a man / woman /whatever-you-prefer, attractive?" Or "how long is a piece of string?". I'm not trolling either, but an answer to your question may very well not exist

 

[kingkorg]

Hi all,
I wanted to ask a simple question that may have a complex, if not complicated, answer. What makes a good microphone?

I'm not trolling. I know there is no single answer to this question. But I want to understand how you all go about having a favorite mic in various instances.

What are the characteristics of a good mic?
What are the factors that shape the answer for specific applications? Voice-over, various instruments (guitar, flute, drums, tuba, full orchestra), room treatment or not, etc...

I started disassembling and measuring every aspect possible in every mic i could get my hands on in order to quantify what makes a great mic. I am much closer understanding what i like about mics, but not much closer to understanding what others like in a mic.

There is technical school of thought, what most designers of many classical mics describe in patents, research papers, etc. It's making a mic that makes recordings as true as possible to the source. So least noise, THD, flat frequency response, if directional - best off axis rejection with least off axis coloration, etc. A mic should be stable, reliable, durable, operate in wide range of conditions. It shouldn't be microphonic, ringing when hit or ringing when exposed to certain frequency at certain SPL. Without this school of thought we probably wouldn't have any microphone to speak of today. However, as no ideal microphone has ever been created, compromises have to be made somewhere. And we get to the second school of thought.

There is artistic angle, where a certain mic has it's own quirks that makes it perfect for a certain job. The mic affects a source sound in certain way that in artist's/producers opinion flatters the source, compliments it, makes it sound better, larger than life.

Sometimes even looks of a mic can inspire an artist. The effect of this is 100% real, and it doesn't matter if it's subjective or objective. This school of thought is very tricky, yet impossible to deny. It causes all kinds of discussions, controversies... The biggest issue with it is that it's pretty much impossible to quantify, and pinpoint what makes a certain mic great. Some claim it's tubes, some it's who made them, some it's the vintage factor... all possible kinds of biases, opinions.

A thing you haven't asked, yet I am very passionate ranting about, as many here would know:

Many manufacturers are aware of the impact of second, artistic school of thought and rely heavily on it especially in the marketing department. They somewhat, or totally ignore the technical part that is essential, and started all of it. Then there are serious companies that do their best to move the field further, develop the new classics, and take both angles of approach into the account. There aren't many of them, and their microphones are usually more expensive, although not necessarily as popular.

 

[k brown]

KK touched on it, but I'll expand a bit to say it depends on what kind of music you're recording; most of the non-Classical world is looking for mics with some degree of euphonic coloration, and want to have a selection of different 'colors' to choose from depending on source.

Pretty much all who record Classical music want mics with as little color of their own as possible, and want primarily a selection of different polar patterns to choose from depending on situation. Variable polar-pattern (and LDCs in general) are used far less frequently than SDCs (Decca, for instance, used M49s for brass and choirs but SDCs for everything else, for most of their history).

 

[13engrsapper]

I will say it simply, kinda.

QUESTION: "What makes a good microphone?"
ANSWER: A good engineer. Also, good mic mates well with the source material (which is also hopefully good or better) and the preamp it is driving - and it will sit well in the mix on its own.

This in and of itself will tell you there is no one great mic for everything (There are; not enough good engineers, too many sources to consider, and too many variables in what it is driving).

However, if you are on a tight budget and need to do EVERYTHING with a couple of mics and one pre... There are some mics that are fantastic at some things and are just dang good at most everything else. Look toward vintage "utility" mics for that purpose. If you are a vocal diva looking for armchair advice about what might sound good for you, you are wasting time here. Go to a good reputable studio and try a bunch of mics with a reputable engineer who is not afraid to tell you the truth, job done and well worth every penny. Be prepared to hear, "you need vocal training."

 

[EarthTone]

Depends what you’re recording and what you want to hear from it. Me recording a jazz drummer will usually select a completely different mic cabinet than “X” engineer recording “X” metal band or punk band or rap vocalist etc.

I am reminded of how Wayne Shorter answered the question “How did you get started with composing?” The answer was “I went down into the basement where my parents had their piano and I learned all 12 notes.”

It’s art. You can make a great recording with any mic if the musicianship and engineering is done well. Try every mic on every instrument & possible placement at least once, that way you’ll know what you like and don’t like, which will make your recordings sound like “you”. You ever wonder why every record engineered by Joe Ferla or James Farber sounds the way that it does? That’s why.

 

[Barry Hufker]

To my mind, a good microphone is one that gets the job done, whatever the job may be. What the job "is" is defined by the engineer/producer/artist. It's like asking a painter, what makes a good paint brush. It's whatever puts paint on the wall. It's up to the user to make sure the job is accomplished. Some tools make the job a little easier. Some make it look (sound) a little better. But a good engineer, in this case, can get at least a "good" sound out of almost any microphone.

 

[MicMan]

I suppose you need to think first about what you want the finished item to sound like.

I’m not particularly keen on ‘accurate’ representation ..that, to me, would be dull and uninviting.

It’s like taking photos: d’you want a camera and lens - and the way they’re set up - to make an accurate Xerox copy of what you’re looking at? Or do you want to create a picture which is an item ‘all to itself’ ..meaning it’s worth looking at for its *own* sake, irrespective of what the original scene, person or event looked like?

I like, for instance, the original (not the subsequent, completely different versions) three-rear-red-switches AKG C3000, because - in super-cardioid mode - recordings made with it sound ‘intimate’ ..it has a ‘dense’ quality, just like the sE 4400 mics which sound ‘denser’ than their almost-lookalike forebear AKG 414 series.

I like the M-Audio Sputnik, as it picks up deep bass as much as it picks up high tops, but others may think the bass is over-emphasised ..though, of course, you can turn down the bass with a mixer’s EQ ..but can’t build it up if it ain’t there to start with. Ditto the sE small ‘pencil’ mics.

D’you want an ‘omni’ sound, picking up everything from everywhere, or a straightforward cardioid pickup pattern? D’you want the -s-m-o-o-t-h- sound of a vintage ribbon? D’you want the Nelson Riddle sound? D’you want the ‘mystical Irish’ or Kate Bush sound?

It’s like asking “what’s your favourite tool?” Screwdriver? Saw? Hammer? Chisel? ..It depends on what you want to make. And just buying, or using, the same pen as Joanne Rowling, won’t turn what you write into anything as successful as the Harry Potter stories: it’s not the tool or instrument you use ..it’s what you DO with it!

D’you want the Ray Conniff sound, or Kraftwerk, Madonna, Alice Cooper, or the Pet Shop Boys, the Beach Boys, or Led Zeppelin, or Arthur Brown? ..The sound doesn’t come only from the mic(s), but the outboard equipment; the mixer(s), the compressor(s), the other compressors, the EQ, the tape, etc.

Neumanns don’t really have a sound of their own; they’re undistinctive, and so they’ve been ‘workhorses’ because you can use them with anything. But if you want a distinctive sound, you’ll need the mic(s) which best suit(s) what you think you want to end up with!

My go-to mic is generally one of those no-name, chrome cylindrical, neodymium, Russian, oh-so-sensitive ribbons, which give you *everything*, and then you just EQ out what you don’t want. But they’re not shotguns, so for a shotgun I’d use a Schoeps Super CMIT. But for close-mic’ed voice, or acoustic instrument, I’d use an - original - AKG C3000 or a relatively recent sE 4400. For something very clear and sharp I’d maybe use a Røde NT2a, though I also like the sound of a cheap’n’nasty Avantone CV-12 which I modded with an RK-47 capsule from Microphone Parts.

Horses for courses.

 

[Andy Froncioni]

I suppose you need to think first about what you want the finished item to sound like.

I’m not particularly keen on ‘accurate’ representation ..that, to me, would be dull and uninviting.

It’s like taking photos: d’you want a camera and lens - and the way they’re set up - to make an accurate Xerox copy of what you’re looking at? Or do you want to create a picture which is an item ‘all to itself’ ..meaning it’s worth looking at for its *own* sake, irrespective of what the original scene, person or event looked like?

I like, for instance, the original (not the subsequent, completely different versions) three-rear-red-switches AKG C3000, because - in super-cardioid mode - recordings made with it sound ‘intimate’ ..it has a ‘dense’ quality, just like the sE 4400 mics which sound ‘denser’ than their almost-lookalike forebear AKG 414 series.

I like the M-Audio Sputnik, as it picks up deep bass as much as it picks up high tops, but others may think the bass is over-emphasised ..though, of course, you can turn down the bass with a mixer’s EQ ..but can’t build it up if it ain’t there to start with. Ditto the sE small ‘pencil’ mics.

D’you want an ‘omni’ sound, picking up everything from everywhere, or a straightforward cardioid pickup pattern? D’you want the -s-m-o-o-t-h- sound of a vintage ribbon? D’you want the Nelson Riddle sound? D’you want the ‘mystical Irish’ or Kate Bush sound?

It’s like asking “what’s your favourite tool?” Screwdriver? Saw? Hammer? Chisel? ..It depends on what you want to make. And just buying, or using, the same pen as Joanne Rowling, won’t turn what you write into anything as successful as the Harry Potter stories: it’s not the tool or instrument you use ..it’s what you DO with it!

D’you want the Ray Conniff sound, or Kraftwerk, Madonna, Alice Cooper, or the Pet Shop Boys, the Beach Boys, or Led Zeppelin, or Arthur Brown? ..The sound doesn’t come only from the mic(s), but the outboard equipment; the mixer(s), the compressor(s), the other compressors, the EQ, the tape, etc.

Neumanns don’t really have a sound of their own; they’re undistinctive, and so they’ve been ‘workhorses’ because you can use them with anything. But if you want a distinctive sound, you’ll need the mic(s) which best suit(s) what you think you want to end up with!

My go-to mic is generally one of those no-name, chrome cylindrical, neodymium, Russian, oh-so-sensitive ribbons, which give you *everything*, and then you just EQ out what you don’t want. But they’re not shotguns, so for a shotgun I’d use a Schoeps Super CMIT. But for close-mic’ed voice, or acoustic instrument, I’d use an - original - AKG C3000 or a relatively recent sE 4400. For something very clear and sharp I’d maybe use a Røde NT2a, though I also like the sound of a cheap’n’nasty Avantone CV-12 which I modded with an RK-47 capsule from Microphone Parts.

Horses for courses.

That's a really great reply. It goes broad and it goes narrow.

Thanks so much!

 

[micolas]

What makes a good microphone?

Define 'good microphone' !
If you succeed, then you have the most important part of the answers.

 

[Andy Froncioni]

Define 'good microphone' !
If you succeed, then you have the most important part of the answers.

That's the essence of what I was asking.
How do *you* define what a good microphone is?

What's your process for finding one?


For example, I worked in an untreated room, close to a wall. I chose a dynamic mic, pop filter, and a bit of EQ on a Shure SM-58. For my voice and my environment, that was what I called a good mic.

 

[ubxf]

What's good , the performance. Anything that can capture it is fine

 

[13engrsapper]

I suppose you need to think first about what you want the finished item to sound like.

I’m not particularly keen on ‘accurate’ representation ..that, to me, would be dull and uninviting.

It’s like taking photos: d’you want a camera and lens - and the way they’re set up - to make an accurate Xerox copy of what you’re looking at? Or do you want to create a picture which is an item ‘all to itself’ ..meaning it’s worth looking at for its *own* sake, irrespective of what the original scene, person or event looked like?

I like, for instance, the original (not the subsequent, completely different versions) three-rear-red-switches AKG C3000, because - in super-cardioid mode - recordings made with it sound ‘intimate’ ..it has a ‘dense’ quality, just like the sE 4400 mics which sound ‘denser’ than their almost-lookalike forebear AKG 414 series.

I like the M-Audio Sputnik, as it picks up deep bass as much as it picks up high tops, but others may think the bass is over-emphasised ..though, of course, you can turn down the bass with a mixer’s EQ ..but can’t build it up if it ain’t there to start with. Ditto the sE small ‘pencil’ mics.

D’you want an ‘omni’ sound, picking up everything from everywhere, or a straightforward cardioid pickup pattern? D’you want the -s-m-o-o-t-h- sound of a vintage ribbon? D’you want the Nelson Riddle sound? D’you want the ‘mystical Irish’ or Kate Bush sound?

It’s like asking “what’s your favourite tool?” Screwdriver? Saw? Hammer? Chisel? ..It depends on what you want to make. And just buying, or using, the same pen as Joanne Rowling, won’t turn what you write into anything as successful as the Harry Potter stories: it’s not the tool or instrument you use ..it’s what you DO with it!

D’you want the Ray Conniff sound, or Kraftwerk, Madonna, Alice Cooper, or the Pet Shop Boys, the Beach Boys, or Led Zeppelin, or Arthur Brown? ..The sound doesn’t come only from the mic(s), but the outboard equipment; the mixer(s), the compressor(s), the other compressors, the EQ, the tape, etc.

Neumanns don’t really have a sound of their own; they’re undistinctive, and so they’ve been ‘workhorses’ because you can use them with anything. But if you want a distinctive sound, you’ll need the mic(s) which best suit(s) what you think you want to end up with!

My go-to mic is generally one of those no-name, chrome cylindrical, neodymium, Russian, oh-so-sensitive ribbons, which give you *everything*, and then you just EQ out what you don’t want. But they’re not shotguns, so for a shotgun I’d use a Schoeps Super CMIT. But for close-mic’ed voice, or acoustic instrument, I’d use an - original - AKG C3000 or a relatively recent sE 4400. For something very clear and sharp I’d maybe use a Røde NT2a, though I also like the sound of a cheap’n’nasty Avantone CV-12 which I modded with an RK-47 capsule from Microphone Parts.

Horses for courses.

I think you need to come listen to some of our Neumanns.

 

[micolas]

That's the essence of what I was asking.
How do *you* define what a good microphone is?

Our group has over 25,000 members. Let's say only a few thousand are interested in microphones.
Do you want to know what each of them means by a good microphone?
OK.

For me, a good microphone is: a tool, a musical instrument, a friend that has a soul, is alive, lives, has its own personality, sometimes capricious, sometimes it elevates me artistically, it inspires me. It can act as a preamp with different sound colors, it can be an equalizer, a compressor. Most of the time I love him, sometimes I hate him. And he too: he loves my voice, sometimes not.
I don't just have one good mic, (for me) I have quite a few. Different. Each one fits a musical context, a mood.
All my favorite microphones are labeled, with as suggestive descriptions as possible.
Importantly:
I started naming them:
Wonder, Blue, Smokie, Joy, Happy, Silk, Honey, Velvet..etc

The most important:
To help me convey emotion to the listener.

 

[MicMan]

"..What's your process for finding one?.."

Read reviews about every mic, bearing in mind that magazine reviewers don't want to upset their advertisers, so they may not mention poor aspects of a mic ..so really read between the lines!

Read old online RecordingHacks reviews, many (or most) of them show frequency response charts, which give a better idea of a mic than words like 'warm', 'capable', 'shrill', 'uninvolving'. What looks good, judging by its chart? Then borrow and rent several mics for a week each. Try a U87. Try a Senn 421. Try a 441. Buy a few cheap but decent mics on the Bay ..consider what each does ..will it give you what YOU want - disregarding its history or supposed pedigree.

Many online mic demos or reviews don't really tell you much: maybe the reviewer has a 'thin' voice, so you've no idea how much bass, or not, the mic could otherwise pick up. Maybe the reviewer who raves about a particular mic is just a beginner themselves, and doesn't actually know much of what other mics can do. Maybe the guitar they play can't deliver the fuller tone which other mics might pick up better. Borrowing and renting is the best way to go.

"..I worked in an untreated room, close to a wall. I chose a dynamic mic, pop filter, and a bit of EQ on a Shure SM-58. For my voice and my environment, that was what I called a good mic." Try the same with another dynamic; a Sennheiser 441: less echo, more 'targeted' sound (it has a narrower pickup angle), it's what Bowie used. Like the SM58, it doesn't need phantom power, so plug it into anything. It has a knob on the bottom to cut down bass (it can pick up lots of bass). But it won't be as 'sharp' (emphasising high frequencies and 'S' sounds) as a condenser (which generally need phantom power, though some - usually older - condensers are powered just by an AA cell or a PP3 battery in the handle).

The key thing is KEEP LISTENING. If you hear a track you like, ask what mic(s) was (or were) used ..and why. Bear in mind, though, what's *done* with a mic (reverb, multi-track, compressing) has given the sound which you hear. Nobody just sings into a mic and that's it. Everything gets *processed*, one way or another. Listen to what's been done to the voice and then think "did the specific mic really matter, or could I do that with ANY mic plus similar processing?"

Listen and try. That is the process for finding one ..or two, or three.

 

[MicMan]

I think you need to come listen to some of our Neumanns.

But I wouldn't be listening to just your Neumanns, would I? ..I'd be listening to your Neumanns thro' your preamps, your mixer, and the rest of your audio chain.

 

[13engrsapper]

Take your pick of pres, I doubt you will find all of them "colorless" is my point. Perhaps read my first post.

 

[MicMan]

I chose a ... Shure SM-58. For my voice and my environment, that was what I called a good mic.

The Shure SM (Stage Microphone) 58 was designed to be an outdoor, open air stage mic - it first appeared at Woodstock - which could withstand any amount of wind, rain, being shrieked into at close range, being dropped by stage staff, being dumped into boxes ..and still keep on working. It's a 'utilitarian' mic.

It's not a studio mic, meant handle any kind of nuance, clear and gentle highlights or sensuous bass.

It's the VW Beetle of mics, it's a Renault 4, it's a Jeep. I don't know American cars, but it's not a Mercedes, it's not even an Audi. It's a breakdown truck: it'll go anywhere, in any weather, and won't break down. It's engineered to always keep going, but it has no refinement.

It's a starting point, it's the point from which you go searching for something with more sensitivity, with a better range of highs, mids and lows.

When you've driven a Jeep or a clunky basic Land Rover for a while, you want to move on to something with better suspension, softer seats, power steering, improved noise insulation, a -s-m-o-o-t-h-e-r- engine and better steering.

 

[MicMan]

A final thought: you're using a 'dynamic' SM58 ..in other words, it works without needing any power being supplied UP the mic cable from a mixer or recorder, etc.

Try to get hold of - beg, borrow, or buy 3rd-hand on the Bay, or wherever - a Beyerdynamic 'M201' (older ones are called M201 TG, but there's no difference). That's a brilliant narrow-pickup-angle 'dynamic' mic which needs no power ..but is like chalk vs. cheese when compared with the SM58. It has a really FULL sound, like a powered condenser mic..

 

[joulupukki]

I was just wondering this same question yesterday (what makes a good microphone?) after receiving a couple Takstar CM-60 mics in the mail which I’m planning to use as donor bodies for a KM84-style build (using GraemeWoller’s PCB and 3U capsule & transformer). I’ve got a stereo pair of MicParts SDC-84 and curiosity got the best of me to see whether I could build something similar.

I took one of each and recorded a short song yesterday to compare those two mics and I was really surprised how well the CM-60 sounds in comparison. Both are more natural and less high-end hyped than the sE5 pencil mics I was previously using. But, I still feel pretty new to understanding all this stuff.

I picked up the CM-60 mics on Aliexpress for around $22 each, about 1/20th the cost of the MP SDC-84. I made a recording using one of each of the mics at the same time, positioned as closely as possible. After listening more critically, the SDC-84 sounds to me as more flat, more natural, and accurate to real life, but the CM-60 didn’t seem too far off. I did have to boost the CM-60 about 1.5dB in post to get it to match the SDC-84, though the noise floor seemed just as good, if not better with the CM-60 (the SDC-84 had a louder higher frequency noise floor).

I’m now really curious how much of an “improvement” the DIY KM84 build will make over the stock CM-60. …and of course, that’s what made me think of what really does make one mic “better” or “best?”

Here’s a link to the recordings. The solo guitar tracks are without any EQ/etc, just gain matched. The description I wrote on sound cloud describes more about the other tracks. Anyhow, if you hear differences or “better” qualities in one vs the other, please school me (us) and help me understand what I should be listening for to understand why it’s better.