I am soon for the first time to record a trumpet. It is a solo job, over a pop track, and I have two mics, A Neumann 183 small condenser and a Neumann TLM 103, which would be best ? (tho' I could use both....). Production wise, I want the solo to sound a bit distant from the rest of the track. Is there anything I need to watch out for ?

Hi, As you intimated, use both and see ( don't know your environment), but if possible try a dynamic mic a little closer. I like the effect a good dynamic has on the trumpet...even an SM57/8. Dave

--------------------
My head hurts!

103 should do the job in the right position. You may find the 184 a little bit more 'brittle' but who knows...

edit - sorry, its a 183... Which could be nice in a good room.

--------------------
http://www.loverslanestudios.co.uk

Edited by Persuazion (21/02/12 10:22 PM)

Yep try both.

What you might not want is to emphasise the high frequencies, which is why a dynamic works well. But if you use the TLM103 or KM183 use them off axis to attenuate the higher frequencies. The 183 could be 90º off axis.

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

Thanks for your help everyone...

Even tho' I will be do some trial and error on the day, any suggestions/comments re : distance would be welcome !

That'll be largely dependant on the room, i.e. crap room - keep it closer, good room - option to move away.

Best to experiment.

Bob

--------------------
www.bickerton.co.nz

My personal favourite trumpet combo is a ribbon of sorts and a Sennheiser MD441. At some point i will own both and stop having to hire them in! The 441 just seems to love trumpet (and snare, but that's a different conversation!)

As has been said, I would tend to a dynamic with brass generally, at least in a more modern pop vibe anyway. But with what you have a bit of room between the trumpet and the mic and the mic off axis should be lovely. If you've got a decent set of closed cans, get the mic on a decent boom stand (for ease of placement and movement) and move the thing about slowly until it sounds best - then lock it in place!

Don't forget to lock down the trumpeter - next to saxophonists I've found they're the worst culprits for moving away from the mic!

--------------------
www.sda-audio.co.uk

Does the room sound good? The rule-of-thumb for a brass instrument is to mic at least as far away as the length of the tubing, which for a trumpet is 4.5 ft. Otherwise just put whatever you've got close up and see what you can make of it.

Thanks again, all of you...

For the record, the room always sounds good and I have had lots of successful takes there in. I positioned both the 183 and 103 about 1m from the bell end. The 183 definitely sounded better to me, tho' quieter than the 103.. The Trumpet player was brill and played superbly, and was very easy to work with, agreeable, co-operative, good natured, willing to try all that was asked and more. worth every penny.

The only problem was, the day after when I played back all the brill trumpet takes, I realised the arrangement wasn't suited to the new trumpet part, ie it didn't work musically, so I probably wont use it. But a still a lesson worth having.

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

I positioned both the 183 and 103 about 1m from the bell end.

---

Ooh-err missus. Wouldn't it have been better pointing at the trumpet?



Sorry. I'll get my coat.

"Don't forget to lock down the trumpeter - next to saxophonists I've found they're the worst culprits for moving away from the mic!"

Ha!Some hope! I would try stereo then the movement does not resolve into a level shift quite so much?

I was interested to see in a programme about Sonny Rollins that he has a mic clipped to the bell of his sax as does Barbara Thompson. These are radio mics I would think but could be a wired jobbie. What about one of those super cheapy bullitt omnis?

Dave.

Quote ef37a:

---

"Don't forget to lock down the trumpeter - next to saxophonists I've found they're the worst culprits for moving away from the mic!"

Ha!Some hope! I would try stereo then the movement does not resolve into a level shift quite so much?

I was interested to see in a programme about Sonny Rollins that he has a mic clipped to the bell of his sax as does Barbara Thompson. These are radio mics I would think but could be a wired jobbie. What about one of those super cheapy bullitt omnis?

---

The trouble with stereo-micing just one instrument is that it might work - that instrument will sit in a nice stereo sound-field sounding much more "real" than the pan-potted electronic sounds around it. Maybe everything else is recorded "real" or you want the trumpet featured in this way?

Those clip-on mics are a prime example of something that shouldn't work at all - that just isn't where the sound comes from, especially on a sax - but somehow it's good enough for live gigs. Rather like stuffing a SM58 wrapped in foam behind the bridge of a double bass. It's crap, but better than the practical alternative varietys of crap.

I am sure you are right E.W. but if you saw that Rolllins vid' I think you might agree that clip on crap was the best of a bad job!

Oh! And Barbara Thompson has Parkinsons!

Dave.

I knew at least one of you would not be able to resist an obvious 'bell end' double entendre....hehe

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote ef37a:

---

"Don't forget to lock down the trumpeter - next to saxophonists I've found they're the worst culprits for moving away from the mic!"

Ha!Some hope! I would try stereo then the movement does not resolve into a level shift quite so much?

I was interested to see in a programme about Sonny Rollins that he has a mic clipped to the bell of his sax as does Barbara Thompson. These are radio mics I would think but could be a wired jobbie. What about one of those super cheapy bullitt omnis?

---

The trouble with stereo-micing just one instrument is that it might work - that instrument will sit in a nice stereo sound-field sounding much more "real" than the pan-potted electronic sounds around it. Maybe everything else is recorded "real" or you want the trumpet featured in this way?

Those clip-on mics are a prime example of something that shouldn't work at all - that just isn't where the sound comes from, especially on a sax - but somehow it's good enough for live gigs. Rather like stuffing a SM58 wrapped in foam behind the bridge of a double bass. It's crap, but better than the practical alternative varietys of crap.

---

The trumpet is really an incredibly directional instrument though. I think when you use a clip-on mic, the bigger issue is room interaction (or lack thereof), rather than capturing the broader tone of the instrument. Though the body itself does resonate, I have a quite heavy horn which puts a huge majority of sound out through the bell (to a point of being a hearing issue behind the mouthpiece).
Just another thought.

--------------------
http://www.pfernandes.com

No reason why a clipon radio mic should be cheap and nasty?

And reading the Stereo Micing pages in the new "special" it seems a clipon and a couple of spaced omnis could cut it?

Dave.

Quote ef37a:

---

No reason why a clipon radio mic should be cheap and nasty?

---

Certainly. But right on the bell is far from the optimum position to mic a brass instrument. THAT'S the crap element of it.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote ef37a:

---

No reason why a clipon radio mic should be cheap and nasty?

---

Certainly. But right on the bell is far from the optimum position to mic a brass instrument. THAT'S the crap element of it.

---

But you don't have to stuff it down the bell! An omni clipon could point back at the performer or the sky FCS!

The idea is to eliminate the relative motion twixt sax and mic and you can have other, more distant mics which will be less affected by the motion. One could even imagine surrounding the player with a dozen mics at about 2mtrs and all summed to mono. Thus no matter how he moved the resultant average signal would be about the same. 12 mics is clearly impractical but three should not be.

Dave.

If the clip-on is omni then it's probably not such a big deal - it'll get a reasonable amount of the sound from the valves as well. And of course it doesn't have to be pointed straight down the bell.

Main problem I've seen with clip-ons is that a good player will ride a fixed mic like a vocalist, and that's lost with a clip-on. Although of course you do gain the ability to wander around the stage.

Sorry ... I was late in on this one and missed the event... but to throw some numbers into the pot...

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

I have two mics, A Neumann 183 small condenser and a Neumann TLM 103, which would be best ?

---

The KM183 has slightly higher maximum SPL capability (140dB SPL) compared to the TLM103 (138dB SPL), so it could cope with a closer placement -- and that might help since it's an omni and will pick up more room sound thatn the 103.

However, it also has a stronger and narrower 'presence' peak which could make the trumpet sound harsher -- although as an omni you could turn the mic 90 degrees which would tame that peak quite well. In both cases, place the mic slightly off to the side of the trumpet bell -- not directly in front -- and experiment with rotating or tilting the mic to tame the extreme HF.

In short, the two mics have very similar capability but with tonal differences and different amounts of room sound pickup, so you'll have to try both to decide which you favour in your situation.

Quote:

---

Production wise, I want the solo to sound a bit distant from the rest of the track. Is there anything I need to watch out for ?

---

No. You can introduce some 'distance' very easily with some reverb and EQ.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Gone To Lunch:

---

The 183 definitely sounded better to me, tho' quieter than the 103.

---

That'll be because its output level is 12.0mV/Pa compared to the TLM103's 21.0mV/Pa -- which is about 5dB louder!

Also, I think the 'phase purity' of an omni mic becomes quite obvious when compared to the inherently phasey sound of a cardioid on revealing sources like a trumpet.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote ef37a:

---

No reason why a clipon radio mic should be cheap and nasty?

---

None at all... unless you buy a cheap and nasty clip-on radio mic system! There are plenty of good radio mic systems around, and good clip-on mics, but they aren't cheap, adn they do require careful setting up to optimise the gain structure and mic position.

Quote:

---

And reading the Stereo Micing pages in the new "special" it seems a clipon and a couple of spaced omnis could cut it?

---

It depends what you're trying to achieve, but I would have thought it was an either/or situation. I don't see what benefit having both would bring... and I'd suggest it's more likely to cause comb filtering cancelaltion problems than bring any real benefits.

As you say, the benefit of a clip on is that the mic stays in a fixed position relative to the plumpeter or saxist -- which is great if they wander about a lot (and most do), or if you need to maintain a very close position to minimise spill.

The downside is that it's hard to achieve a realistic tonal balance with a clip-on (they tend to emphasise bell sound at the expense of the rest of the body) -- and that means lots of EQ (although the modern 'rock sax' sound is that achieved with a mic stuffed down the bell end!). Also, the player can't 'play' the mic to achieve artistic level control -- something that the more experienced players often want to do.

As always, lots of pros and cons, and it's all a matter of compromises.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote ef37a:

---

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

Quote ef37a:

---

No reason why a clipon radio mic should be cheap and nasty?

---

Certainly. But right on the bell is far from the optimum position to mic a brass instrument. THAT'S the crap element of it.

---

But you don't have to stuff it down the bell! An omni clipon could point back at the performer or the sky FCS!

The idea is to eliminate the relative motion twixt sax and mic and you can have other, more distant mics which will be less affected by the motion. One could even imagine surrounding the player with a dozen mics at about 2mtrs and all summed to mono. Thus no matter how he moved the resultant average signal would be about the same. 12 mics is clearly impractical but three should not be.

Dave.

---

An omni doesn't POINT anywhere. It just IS somewhere!

Yes, the point of a clip-on is to negate player movement. The downside is that it isn't where you'd WANT to put a mic for the best sound. On stage I'd consider a clip-on. In the studio I might credit the player with some mic technique and go for a better sound.

Would you put a headset mic on a singer on stage? Would you use one for vocals in the studio? (Maybe, with an undisciplined performer!)

"An omni doesn't POINT anywhere. It just IS somewhere!"

It is still subject to attenuation by distance! And not belting in on the axis will soften the extreme HF.

Re the movement. A sax player who is also band leader is perforce going move about a bit, see the Babs T concert!

Dave.

Quote Exalted Wombat:

---

An omni doesn't POINT anywhere. It just IS somewhere!

---

If I may be a little pedantic... again... Most omnis do have a degree of directionality at HF, the amount and the frequencies affected are largely determined by the physical size of the microphone and the design of the capsule. So omnis can indeed 'point' and it can be quite a significant factor. Check out the Neumann M50's HF polar pattern, for example!

In the case of the clip-on trumpet mic, a trumpet itself is quite directional at different frequencies and moving a mic from directly on axis at the centre of the bell, towards the edge, and then outside the bell flare will affect the tonality quite dramatically.

So while 'point' might not have been the most accurate turn of phrase, I think Dave's general point was a valid one.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Thank you Hugh!

If you can come up with a succinct "more accurate turn of phrase" let's have it?

Dave.

hi all,

this may the most OT response in the history of SoS but the title of this thread reminded me of one of the most famous divorce cases in American history. in the 1930s the millionaire playboy james (?) vanderbilt brought a divorce proceeding against his wife in which a trumpet figured prominently under 'alienation of affection' or whatever the legal phrase was. google it and you'll find the details. also a famous case among lawyers for never asking a question to which you don't already know the answer first.

all this probably goes some way to explaining why anderson cooper is the way he is.

cheers,

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"

Quote dubbmann:

---

in the 1930s the millionaire playboy james (?) vanderbilt brought a divorce proceeding against his wife in which a trumpet figured prominently under 'alienation of affection' or whatever the legal phrase was. google it and you'll find the details.

---

No, you've got me. Link, please?

There's Peter and Roxanne Pulitzer in the 1980s. But what was the particular question during the divorce proceedings, which got an unanticipated reply?

(No, I haven't got anything better to do today :-)

actually, EW, you might have caught me mixing up two cases. i think the trumpet-as-co-respondent was the the pulitzer divorce case after all. it's hard to keep salacious divorces straight ;-)

but the vanderbilt case in the 30s definitely is famous for the "question that shouldn't have been asked moment". mrs. vanderbilt was being sued by her hubbie for divorce due to infidelity. one of his witnesses was a parlor maid who was on the stand testifying about shenanigans she'd heard about, but not herself witnessed, and so was successfully discredited by mrs. vanderbilt's attorney as just knowing hearsay. the attorney, however, made the fatal mistake of asking, dismissively, if the maid had in fact seen ANYTHING untoward by mrs. vanderbilt. well, the maid said, i did come into her bedroom one morning and she was in bed with a woman. (these were more innocent times, and this in itself was seen as any big deal for two same-sex adults even to share a bed - stan laurel and oliver hardy, not to mention the 3 stooges, routinely shared beds in their movies.) sneeringly, the attorney said to maid, "there's nothing unusual about what you saw, was there?". "well, the two women *were* kissing". and that is how mr. vanderbilt won the divorce case.

and that is why they routinely teach that episode to first year law students in the US to stress the importance of not asking questions you don't know the answer to ;-)

cheers,

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"