Forum - SOUND ON SOUND : Microphones + Miking

Reading all these posts, I feel compelled to make the following comments:
Quote: "Ditto. I have an old-school belief in getting things as right as you can at source, and minimising further processing downstream which can create artefacts."
This is gonna be an endless debate; one has to figure out that any kind of modification of the frequency response has artefacts, whether done acoustically (position), mechanically (diaphragm resonance/damping) or electrically (EQ). Personally, I have NEVER ascertained the myth that says that something recorded "flat" sits better in the mix than something processed with EQ. Many respected sound engineers concur with me on this aspect (George Massenburg, Dan Lavry are ones). And many respected engineers say the contrary...

Quote: "Unless you want artefacts as a special effect."
The plural on artefacts is an exaggeration, because ther is only one "artefact", and even the word artefact is an exaggeration. A normal EQ (that is a standard minimum-phase biquad) produces only two things of note: modification of the frequency-response (which is what we expect) and modification of the phase-response. Some claim this phase-response modification is a major problem. It just isn't, for two reasons:
A ) Phase-shift is not audible because the hearing process does not respond to phase (phase modifications become audible only when they change the crest factor in such a way that it creates distortion in the chain.
B ) Bi-univocal phase-shift vs. frequency-response is an inportant part of naural sound. So-called linear-phase EQ's replace phase-shift with delay in a way that just doesn't exist in nature, and as such is unnatural (but not unpleasant)
Any other noticeable artifact is the result of poor design.

Quote: Back in the day consoles didn't even have any EQ...
They didn't have BUILT-IN EQ's, but outboard EQ's were used all the time; just check "Recording the Beatles" or look at the set-up of Bill Putnam's rig. Did you know that in the 50's, many american studios had pre-emphasis built in the mic pre's in order to compensate for the sagging frequency response of ribbon mics? And when they started using condenser mics, they had forgotten about this, so they had a supplement of "air" that european sound engineers were jealous of.
Now I'm not saying that any mic can emulate any other with a copious dose of EQ (contrary to what some DSP and plug-in manufacturers would lead us to believe), because there are some other aspects (THD, damping, directivity) that cannot be modified by EQ'ing.

Quote: " Interesting discussion but from my own perspective a mic which may be suitable as a person's main vocal mic may well be unsuitable as a general recording mic."
I've done sessions in Dallas three years ago, as a musician, and I was a tad disappointed to see the same 414's (B-TL, IIRC) used for piano, acoustic guitar and vocals, but in the end, nobody could really complain about the result. That reminds me of a time when my best mics were a pair of C451's (the originals, how I miss them!) and I would use them on everything, overheads, piano, guitars, vocals, flute, sax...

As to the possibility of choosing one single 414 as an all-rounder, my personal choice would be the flattest one, ALL THINGS BEEN EQUAL, which is unfortunately rarely the case. I have no problem using some EQ to brighten a vocal take (with the added facility of choosing the exact range instead of being tied with one setting). In the end the result may not be as optimal as choosing the best mic for each happenstance, but given the economic constraints, it is a good answer.
Comparing two similar microphones with different frequency response, the one with the treble boost will also have a sharper roll-off after the boost, so it will be more difficult to compensate its low-pass response, unless it is desired.