Best microphones for tiny metallic squeaks

[GiuseppeS+OS]

Hi everyone,
I'm trying to record the friction sound obtained by rubbing mallets and bows against unconventional surfaces like springs, coils, hooks etc.
Here's a video of what I'm specifically recording:


As you can see, a Rode NTG2 is used to capture the detail of the friction zone, whereas an NT2A is used to capture the reverberation inside the bucket. I find that the sound is a bit washed out, I'd like to have the sound of the mallet rubbing against the metal more upfront and 'tactile'.

My guess is that I just don't have the right microphones: I've tried other configurations for the shotgun close to the coil but I have pretty much the same result, and also some very accurate EQ just doesn't create exactly the sound that I desire. I would like to have the friction sound more present, as it would allow more flexibility during the sound design stage, which is something I can't get due to this sort of 'blur' of the mids and highs.
Do have any suggestion?
Thank you very much in advance
Best
Giuseppe

Click to read more...

 

[LinusW]

NT2A is not a bad choice inside the bucket, but the NTG2 is better suited at "vocal range" rather than these crispy harsh metallic thingies.
What's your budget limit? $99? $300? $800? $1700?

 

[GiuseppeS+OS]

NT2A is not a bad choice inside the bucket, but the NTG2 is better stuited at "vocal range" rather than these crispy harsh metallic thingies.
What's your budget limit? $99? $300? $800? $1700?

Hey Linus , thank you. Well I was considering to hold my breath and go for something in the price range of 800-1000 €. I was considering the MKH line of Sennheiser, although I'm not sure if samm diaphragm could be the best choice for this task.

 

[LinusW]

I have a ME66 and NTG2. MKH50 is incredibly popular in EFP crews, but none of these three would be my choice for recording in the studio. You could pick a Neumann KM184 or a MK012 matched pair kit with three capsules. I'd pick the MK012 cardioids for your springs and plates.
(broken link removed)

 

[GiuseppeS+OS]

I have a ME66 and NTG2. MKH50 is incredibly popular in EFP crews, but none of these three would be my choice for recording in the studio. You could pick a Neumann KM184 or a MK012 matched pair kit with three capsules. I'd pick the MK012 cardioids for your springs and plates.
(broken link removed)

Thank you, I'll run a search for both

 

[wst3]

hmmm... without being in the room the best I can do is suggest small capsule condenser microphones for inside and outside the bucket. Going one step further, I would place a stereo pair in an X/Y configuration above the bucket - how far up depends a great deal on the sound of the room, if the room sounds great, and you want to capture a little bit of that room tone then maybe 6-12 inches above the bucket. If you want something dry then probably level with the top of the bucket, or a couple inches above that. Vary the distance and listen is about the best I can offer.

For the other microphone I'd also use an Small capsule microphone, and I'd aim it head on, and I'd start at maybe as close as 3 inches from the bucket and then move back to find the sweet spot.

I would choose cardiod or maybe even hyper cardiod pattern capsules. Unless the room sounds awesome, in which case I might go with omnidirectional capsules, but that changes pattern choice and distances, so forget I said that for a moment.

A better way to capture the room, if that's an option, would be a pair of large capsule condensors or maybe even long ribbon microphones (the ribbons would take some of the edge off). Pattern choice could be Mid-Side or Blumlein.

I'm hesitant to suggest specific microphone models since I don't know your room, or your bucket, or your budget. But fools tread, or whatever it is "they" say...

For the pair above the bucket my first choice would be a pair of Schoeps CMC6/MK41s, but that is seriously expensive. Second choice would be a pair of AKG C-451s with the CK1 capsules. These can be purchased used on eBay or Reverb at very reasonable prices, and they sound really good.

For the microphone outside the bucket I'd probably stick with those two choices, come to think of it. The C-451 is a really great all-purpose microphone.

If I can't find a good deal on the AKG I might use the Rode NT4 (stereo microphone) above the bucket and the NT5 outside the bucket. Another option, and one I really like, is the Audio Technica AT-4031 (only available used) or the AT-4051. Yet another option is the Telefunken C60. There are more, but I will spare you.

I like the Rode microphones, but I like my collection - mostly because I already own them. Starting over building a microphone collection I might make different choices. I'm not sure.

The other small capsule microphone that has been on my list forever, but I can't afford, is the Neumann KM-84 (not the KM-184). This is a true desert island microphone, it is almost impossible to place it in a way that doesn't sound good. Sadly these are rare, very expensive, and sometimes not in the best condition when purchased second hand.

For the room microphone, wow, there are so many choices. The Rode and Audio Technical offerings are very good. I prefer the Shure KSM-32 (cardiod) or KSM-44 (multi-pattern) over pretty much anything else for recording sounds. They are neutral, clean microphones and work really well for recording sounds.

If I were going to use ribbon microphones I'd probably use the AEA R-92 because it has the least proximity effect. If I wanted to take advantage of the proximity effect I'd use a Royer (R-101 or R-121) or maybe even the Shure KSM-313.

All this said (typed?) most of the time the best microphone for the job is the best microphone for the job that you already own. While I would shy away from a shotgun microphone for this particular application, I'm betting you can make it work, and maybe even take advantage of the exaggerated proximity effect?

I have no idea if any of this helps! "Clear as mud" as we used to say.

 

[GiuseppeS+OS]

hmmm... without being in the room the best I can do is suggest small capsule condenser microphones for inside and outside the bucket. Going one step further, I would place a stereo pair in an X/Y configuration above the bucket - how far up depends a great deal on the sound of the room, if the room sounds great, and you want to capture a little bit of that room tone then maybe 6-12 inches above the bucket. If you want something dry then probably level with the top of the bucket, or a couple inches above that. Vary the distance and listen is about the best I can offer.

For the other microphone I'd also use an Small capsule microphone, and I'd aim it head on, and I'd start at maybe as close as 3 inches from the bucket and then move back to find the sweet spot.

I would choose cardiod or maybe even hyper cardiod pattern capsules. Unless the room sounds awesome, in which case I might go with omnidirectional capsules, but that changes pattern choice and distances, so forget I said that for a moment.

A better way to capture the room, if that's an option, would be a pair of large capsule condensors or maybe even long ribbon microphones (the ribbons would take some of the edge off). Pattern choice could be Mid-Side or Blumlein.

I'm hesitant to suggest specific microphone models since I don't know your room, or your bucket, or your budget. But fools tread, or whatever it is "they" say...

For the pair above the bucket my first choice would be a pair of Schoeps CMC6/MK41s, but that is seriously expensive. Second choice would be a pair of AKG C-451s with the CK1 capsules. These can be purchased used on eBay or Reverb at very reasonable prices, and they sound really good.

For the microphone outside the bucket I'd probably stick with those two choices, come to think of it. The C-451 is a really great all-purpose microphone.

If I can't find a good deal on the AKG I might use the Rode NT4 (stereo microphone) above the bucket and the NT5 outside the bucket. Another option, and one I really like, is the Audio Technica AT-4031 (only available used) or the AT-4051. Yet another option is the Telefunken C60. There are more, but I will spare you.

I like the Rode microphones, but I like my collection - mostly because I already own them. Starting over building a microphone collection I might make different choices. I'm not sure.

The other small capsule microphone that has been on my list forever, but I can't afford, is the Neumann KM-84 (not the KM-184). This is a true desert island microphone, it is almost impossible to place it in a way that doesn't sound good. Sadly these are rare, very expensive, and sometimes not in the best condition when purchased second hand.

For the room microphone, wow, there are so many choices. The Rode and Audio Technical offerings are very good. I prefer the Shure KSM-32 (cardiod) or KSM-44 (multi-pattern) over pretty much anything else for recording sounds. They are neutral, clean microphones and work really well for recording sounds.

If I were going to use ribbon microphones I'd probably use the AEA R-92 because it has the least proximity effect. If I wanted to take advantage of the proximity effect I'd use a Royer (R-101 or R-121) or maybe even the Shure KSM-313.

All this said (typed?) most of the time the best microphone for the job is the best microphone for the job that you already own. While I would shy away from a shotgun microphone for this particular application, I'm betting you can make it work, and maybe even take advantage of the exaggerated proximity effect?

I have no idea if any of this helps! "Clear as mud" as we used to say.

Hey thank you for your insights! I've experimented with my humble Tascam Dr07 mkII and I managed to add more detail in the higher frequency range, which is what I was aiming for. Also, I removed the NT2A from the bucked and I put upfront, close to the spring. I think that probably I'll opt for a matched pair of Rode NT5, so the idea is to have the NT2A central and the two NT5 to capture the sound with more flexibility.

 

[gsilbers]

i dont think its a mic issue. although the small condenser recomendation could work.
try recording in a better room maybe? those mics you have seem excelent for the job.

also, from the video.. if you have a hand held stereo, plus the shotgun mic plus the mic on the other side of the bucket, you might get phase issues which might not give a more detailed sound.
try leaving the stereo portable mic in a steady place, then once you record everything go into your DAW and phase align everything. there are some neat plugins for that like soundradix phase align. which will ensure every audio file is being played with its phase the same way and giving a much better detailed and focused sound.

 

[GtrString]

Almost anything will be better than brittle Rode’s and SE mics for that job, imo. KSM32 or something Audio Technica could work well.

 

[ironbut]

I'm with gsilbers.
Just looking at the video tells me that the mic's are out of phase.
Love the set-up!

 

[GiuseppeS+OS]

Thank you everyone guys!
Yeah, I tried putting the Nt2a upfront, close to the spring, then I've used a stable tripod for the Tascam and yes, also used AutoAlign to make sure there is any phase issue. The sound I have now is more detailed and definitively less blurry. However, I'm considering a couple of Rode NT5 to make essentially the job currently done by the Tascam. Will post new tests!

 

[Fredeke]

I'm coming too late, but here are my 2 cents anyway -

Generally, you'll want a microphone (and mic preamp!) capable of capturing tiny but very fast transients.

Condenser mics are not the best for that. Dynamic mics are better at it. But if you want to stick to condensers, then the Shoeps MK series sounds close enough to dynamics, while the Senheiser MKH are the worst (don't get me wrong - I love them for other reasons). Among the dynamic mics, ribbon ones sound the most natural - like the Beyer M160 for example.

Now there's a tradeoff: dynamic mics are less sensitive than condenser ones. Ribbon mics are the less sensitive of all, and thus require stellar preamps.

Another consideration is mic directionality: the less directional a mic is, the more natural it will sound. I've used the dynamic omnidirectional Beyer M101 quite a lot. But its level is quite low, and it's become hard to find. Some do pop up on eBay for about $200.

 

[GiuseppeS+OS]

I'm coming too late, but here are my 2 cents anyway -

Generally, you'll want a microphone (and mic preamp!) capable of capturing tiny but very fast transients.

Condenser mics are not the best for that. Dynamic mics are better at it. But if you want to stick to condensers, then the Shoeps MK series sounds close enough to dynamics, while the Senheiser MKH are the worst (don't get me wrong - I love them for other reasons). Among the dynamic mics, ribbon ones sound the most natural - like the Beyer M160 for example.

Now there's a tradeoff: dynamic mics are less sensitive than condenser ones. Ribbon mics are the less sensitive of all, and thus require stellar preamps.

Another consideration is mic directionality: the less directional a mic is, the more natural it will sound. I've used the dynamic omnidirectional Beyer M101 quite a lot. But its level is quite low, and it's become hard to find. Some do pop up on eBay for about $200.

Hey thank you for your tips, I've heard abut the M160 and unfortunately never had a chance to test it, will keep an eye open

 

[Joe_D]

Generally, you'll want a microphone (and mic preamp!) capable of capturing tiny but very fast transients.

This is right. In fact, for the OP, please consider getting a “fast” mic preamp if you want to capture such sounds. Excellent, fast mic pre’s like Millennia (have it) and Gordon (don’t have it) can be expensive, but they react so quickly that they resolve (amplify) tiny details that other mic pre’s fail to capture. That’s why they are used by classical recording engineers.

Some fast pre’s you could get used for a reasonable price include Grace and Sytek (don’t have that those, but they’re often recommended for “fast” duties in classical circles) and DAV BG1 (have it, beautiful). A reasonably priced new pre is the Line Audio 2MP (don’t have this one).

I suggest going over to the “Remote Possibilities...” forum on Gearslutz to listen to recordings made by all of these pre’s (use your best studio monitors, and listen to the WAV files or lossless compressed files when possible).

...capable of capturing tiny but very fast transients. Condenser mics are not the best for that. Dynamic mics are better at it.

This is exactly backwards; condenser mics are far, far better at capturing tiny, fast transients than are dynamic mics. In a condenser mic, an ultra-thin tensioned membrane (that is essentially one plate of a capacitor) is vibrated by the motion of air molecules bouncing against it, and those vibrations change the capacitance of the system; that’s how it transduces sound. In a dynamic mic, a gang of air molecules must move a comparatively large and heavy diaphragm (or ribbon) past an electromagnet; the mic is essentially an electrical generator. It is much harder to move a heavier diaphragm and to move it farther than it is to vibrate a “drum.”

But if you want to stick to condensers, then the Shoeps MK series sounds close enough to dynamics, while the Senheiser MKH are the worst...

Schoeps are usually regarded as among the very best at capturing details (I use them when I can), and are widely used in classical and jazz recording sessions in halls and studios (as well as in sample library development). The Sennheiser MKH series are actually RF mics (a somewhat different category), and are less widely used but excellent.

Among the dynamic mics, ribbon ones sound the most natural - like the Beyer M160 for example.

The M160 and M130 are great mics, but will struggle a bit to record the tiniest sounds without background noise.

To the OP, this is another case where borrowing or renting a few good mic pre’s and condenser mics (small diaphragm condensers capture transients best, but at a very slight noise-floor penalty) would be the best course of action; try several pre’s and mics before deciding which would best serve your needs. And, yes, consider recording location and acoustical treatment of the space as well.

 

[Fredeke]

This is exactly backwards; condenser mics are far, far better at capturing tiny, fast transients than are dynamic mics. In a condenser mic, an ultra-thin tensioned membrane (that is essentially one plate of a capacitor) is vibrated by the motion of air molecules bouncing against it, and those vibrations change the capacitance of the system; that’s how it transduces sound. In a dynamic mic, a gang of air molecules must move a comparatively large and heavy diaphragm (or ribbon) past an electromagnet; the mic is essentially an electrical generator. It is much harder to move a heavier diaphragm and to move it farther than it is to vibrate a “drum.”

This certainly makes sense. My experience seems to contradict it, but then again I'm not exactly a mic guru. So I may be wrong. However, don't condenser mics contain a pre-preamp in their body?... Maybe that's where the failure at capturing those transients happen (in some models anyway) ?

 

[GiuseppeS+OS]

This is right. In fact, for the OP, please consider getting a “fast” mic preamp if you want to capture such sounds. Excellent, fast mic pre’s like Millennia (have it) and Gordon (don’t have it) can be expensive, but they react so quickly that they resolve (amplify) tiny details that other mic pre’s fail to capture. That’s why they are used by classical recording engineers.

Some fast pre’s you could get used for a reasonable price include Grace and Sytek (don’t have that those, but they’re often recommended for “fast” duties in classical circles) and DAV BG1 (have it, beautiful). A reasonably priced new pre is the Line Audio 2MP (don’t have this one).

I suggest going over to the “Remote Possibilities...” forum on Gearslutz to listen to recordings made by all of these pre’s (use your best studio monitors, and listen to the WAV files or lossless compressed files when possible).



This is exactly backwards; condenser mics are far, far better at capturing tiny, fast transients than are dynamic mics. In a condenser mic, an ultra-thin tensioned membrane (that is essentially one plate of a capacitor) is vibrated by the motion of air molecules bouncing against it, and those vibrations change the capacitance of the system; that’s how it transduces sound. In a dynamic mic, a gang of air molecules must move a comparatively large and heavy diaphragm (or ribbon) past an electromagnet; the mic is essentially an electrical generator. It is much harder to move a heavier diaphragm and to move it farther than it is to vibrate a “drum.”



Schoeps are usually regarded as among the very best at capturing details (I use them when I can), and are widely used in classical and jazz recording sessions in halls and studios (as well as in sample library development). The Sennheiser MKH series are actually RF mics (a somewhat different category), and are less widely used but excellent.



The M160 and M130 are great mics, but will struggle a bit to record the tiniest sounds without background noise.

To the OP, this is another case where borrowing or renting a few good mic pre’s and condenser mics (small diaphragm condensers capture transients best, but at a very slight noise-floor penalty) would be the best course of action; try several pre’s and mics before deciding which would best serve your needs. And, yes, consider recording location and acoustical treatment of the space as well.

Wow, this is very interesting. At the moment I record straight in my RME Fireface UFX, and I have always been happy about it but yeah, sooner or later I'll give a try to a hi-end pre-amp to raise the bar. Same thing for the mics Thank you very much!

 

[wst3]

This certainly makes sense. My experience seems to contradict it, but then again I'm not exactly a mic guru. So I may be wrong. However, don't condenser mics contain a pre-preamp in their body?... Maybe that's where the failure at capturing those transients happen (in some models anyway) ?

I skipped over this earlier, but since you asked...

A condenser microphone has a buffer stage, it isn't a true preamplifier, and all of them are based on maybe three different circuit ideas. As a rule they use FETs (Field Effect Transistors), and they are minimally filtered, so they are very fast, this will not be the bottleneck.

A mentioned previously, a condenser element is extremely light weight, allowing it to react very quickly, which is why they are known for their detail. Some designs use a single diaphragm and a back plate, some use two diaphragms - the principle remains the same, the capacitance changes based on the distance between the two elements. Which is used to derive a voltage which is buffered and sent on its way.

In contrast dynamic microphones generate a voltage by moving an element within a magnetic field. The magnetic field has quite a bit of influence over the movement of the magnet, which is why they tend to be a little slower. A moving magnet dynamic microphone has a magnet attached to the diaphragm and that assembly moves within a coil of wire. A ribbon microphone uses a very lightweight diaphragm - actually a ribbon - that moves within the field created by a stationary magnet. These can react to transients as quickly as a condenser (depending on the design), but there are other factors which tend to roll off the high frequencies. Early ribbon designs were also very sensitive to extreme disturbances in the air - hence the rule to never blow into a microphone. Royer, AEA, and a couple others have figured out ways to minimize that "feature".

That's the five cent version. If you are really curious (and I think everyone should be) John Eargle has an excellent text on microphone design and use, and Bruce Bartlett has an excellent text on using microphones. Both are available from Amazon.

Another excellent text is "Microphones: Design and Application" by Lou Burroughs - the man behind many of the Electrovoice designs, the other is "Applied Acoustics" by Harry Olson - the man behind RCA microphones. The Olson book is only available used, unfortunately, and commands a very high price. The Burroughs book appears to have been re-issued, at a reasonable price no less.

More than you wanted to know, but I've had too much coffee this morning!

 

[Fredeke]

I skipped over this earlier, but since you asked...

A condenser microphone has a buffer stage, it isn't a true preamplifier, and all of them are based on maybe three different circuit ideas. As a rule they use FETs (Field Effect Transistors), and they are minimally filtered, so they are very fast, this will not be the bottleneck.

A mentioned previously, a condenser element is extremely light weight, allowing it to react very quickly, which is why they are known for their detail. Some designs use a single diaphragm and a back plate, some use two diaphragms - the principle remains the same, the capacitance changes based on the distance between the two elements. Which is used to derive a voltage which is buffered and sent on its way.

In contrast dynamic microphones generate a voltage by moving an element within a magnetic field. The magnetic field has quite a bit of influence over the movement of the magnet, which is why they tend to be a little slower. A moving magnet dynamic microphone has a magnet attached to the diaphragm and that assembly moves within a coil of wire. A ribbon microphone uses a very lightweight diaphragm - actually a ribbon - that moves within the field created by a stationary magnet. These can react to transients as quickly as a condenser (depending on the design), but there are other factors which tend to roll off the high frequencies. Early ribbon designs were also very sensitive to extreme disturbances in the air - hence the rule to never blow into a microphone. Royer, AEA, and a couple others have figured out ways to minimize that "feature".

That's the five cent version. If you are really curious (and I think everyone should be) John Eargle has an excellent text on microphone design and use, and Bruce Bartlett has an excellent text on using microphones. Both are available from Amazon.

Another excellent text is "Microphones: Design and Application" by Lou Burroughs - the man behind many of the Electrovoice designs, the other is "Applied Acoustics" by Harry Olson - the man behind RCA microphones. The Olson book is only available used, unfortunately, and commands a very high price. The Burroughs book appears to have been re-issued, at a reasonable price no less.

More than you wanted to know, but I've had too much coffee this morning!

I understand.

Maybe condensers only seem to work badly on cristaline sounds when connected to slow preamps, because they convey more transients than the preamp can handle? But it'd actually be the preamp's fault?

I'm trying to understand why I occasionally got awful distortion when trying to record glass breaks and the like (with the very old Nagra III we had at school, for example)...

 

[Joe_D]

At the moment I record straight in my RME Fireface UFX, and I have always been happy about it but yeah, sooner or later I'll give a try to a hi-end pre-amp to raise the bar.

The UFX preamps are actually pretty good as built-in preamps in an audio interface go (I have and use them also). I think you’d notice a difference between them and the best stand-alone preamps (Forssell is another one to check out) if you listen in a controlled environment, but you’re starting with a pretty good set of pre’s.

If you had a cheap interface, the difference when compared to high-end pre’s would be larger.

 

[Joe_D]

Maybe condensers only seem to work badly on cristaline sounds when connected to slow preamps, because they convey more transients than the preamp can handle? But it'd actually be the preamp's fault?

You could be overloading the circuitry in the mic (overloading the buffer or saturating a transformer, for instance). Does it have a pad? If so, engage it when recording louder sounds like glass breaking.

You could also be overloading the input stage of a pre. Some have a pad or a two-way input sensitivity switch (in addition to the gain knob; lots of pre’s have two gain stages) or a multi-way input sensitivity switch.

Every circuit has a maximum amount of voltage it can handle. With high end gear, that limit is typically much higher than with cheap gear, but if you exceed it, you will get distortion.