Confused on which overhead mics to purchase

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:15 am

Firstly I'd like to mention that I am planning to use the microphones as overheads.
Ok I have narrowed down my choices to these, in order of price.

AT 4041
AT 4051
AKG 451
KM 184

What I really want to know is how much better the more expensive microphones are, is it a very significant difference? In general how do they stand up against each other?
I don't know how to phrase the question too well, but I think(hope) you guys know what I'm getting at.

Thanks Smile

Respected Past Moderator Joined: Mar 13, 2001 Posts: 1256

I don't know about anyone else... but any of those will work for you... all microphones are like lenses and filters to me. If the room and cymbals are really bright and I need to compensates I'll use some ribbons on the OH... out in front of the kit. If it's metal and i want bright and tight then the 451's... if i had nothing but one sm57, then it could work... i would just palce it uniquely... there are few "bests" as opposed to many options.

Maybe... get the most inexpensive pair and see how they work for you... if they do you have money for something else... i

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:03 pm

I've used everything from the $50 Octava's to my Neumann U67's & 87's. But my overall favorites have been Shure SM 81's & AKG 414's. However, my general rule of thumb is crappy sounding cymbals get the small capsule condensers. Good sounding cymbals get the large capsule condensers. Large capsules on crappy cymbals generally sound like somebody beating on metal trash can lids. Yup, not a pretty sound. The small capsule condensers make lousy cymbals a little sweeter in the high-end. And like Recorder Man indicated, placement is just as important as selection. Especially with less than desirable acoustic surroundings. And just like him, I'm also happy to use SM 57's with completely satisfying results.

Overhill. Over Dale. Never liked Dale to begin with.
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 1:09 pm

sm57's as drum overheads?

sounds dangerous.....

and my middle name is danger....

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 2:49 pm

SM 57's will work just fine as overhead's. You might want to tweak in a couple DB of extra high frequency boost. But that's it. We like the condenser microphones as overhead's since they offer an extended high frequency response with a little less rolloff. But you infect many find a higher degree of consistency & control utilizing the SM 57's. Especially since they have a more bandwidth restricted response, reduced sensitivity to extraneous trash & less chance of overloading the front ends of microphone preamps. No danger there. Only smart conservative audio engineering.

Shure one of Americans greatest microphone companies
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:12 pm

All are good, but my personal fave is the 184's. the 184's are great for acoustic guitar, piano, percussion, all kinds of things. They are the most liquid of all the nicer SDC's.

Also there is a new mic the AKG C214 which is a cardioid only version of the C414.
Way cheaper and has the pattern everybody uses 414's in most of the time.
(don't flame me on this, I know other patterns are nice to have)

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 4:38 pm

I have not tried as many different things as many here, but I've found that in my home studio with its 7' 10" ceiling I like the sound of SDC NT55s better than my C414s. The cymbals are a mix of A and K Zildjians. (I can barely stand good cymbals. Trash cans drive me nuts.)

Now I'd love to have the overheads a few feet higher. I wonder if the better off axis response of the SDCs make them work better when in a low ceiling room. One of these days I'm going to record in the church and see if I don't like the 414's better with the overheads set higher. Anyone have thoughts on this? (Of course, maybe I just like brighter mics on overheads - but that's too boring an explanation.)

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:48 am

Bob, since we're dealing in the digital world and you mathematics guys know what I mean. Try taking your overhead mic tracks and delaying those ever so slightly. It can be quite effective since we're talking time & distance. Fake it. Sort of like fudging your taxes. I don't know how to do that myself since my math is so awful. Fudging my taxes that is.

Now I want a hot fudge sundae
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:56 am

RemyRAD wrote:

Try taking your overhead mic tracks and delaying those ever so slightly. It can be quite effective since we're talking time & distance. Fake it.

Neat! kind of like increasing the pre-delay on your reverb to make it sound closer.

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:12 pm

"increasing the pre-delay on your reverb to make it sound closer."

I thought it was to make the space bigger? Or is it a knock-on effect?

Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:16 pm

Codemonkey wrote:

"increasing the pre-delay on your reverb to make it sound closer."

I thought it was to make the space bigger? Or is it a knock-on effect?

When you are closer to a source, you hear the source before the echo. Also when the space is larger, the echo lasts for longer. So a little of both.

This topic sponsored by: