Workhorse Dynamic Microphones
by Rob Tavaglione and Strother Bullins with Lynn Fuston and Frank Wells, 01.22.2010
by Rob Tavaglione
If an engineer was forced to pick a “desert island” microphone,
most would choose the ubiquitous Shure SM57. Considering all
performance-based needs — ability to handle high SPL, durability,
resistance to moisture, consistency in difficult environmental
conditions, ease of use, lack of self-noise, and frequency
response — then the wisdom of using such a cardioid dynamic
transducer choice is clear. But are there other viable choices in
the realm of “workhorse” dynamic microphones? Let’s consider
some alternatives.
Here, in the sixth installment of the PAR Session Trial (our
ongoing series of in-depth, comparative and “real
world” pro audio gear evaluations), we
employed six dynamic microphones
purpose-built
for use on instruments,
ones that have
been notably endorsed
by PAR reviewers in the
past — our industry-standard
SM57 alongside the AKG
D 40, Audio-Technica ATM650,
Audix i5, Electro-Voice N/D478,
and Heil PR 20 — to capture what
dynamics can capture best: rock ‘n’ roll.
With Jason Cooper on drums; Asher Griffis on
bass (with his wonderful Ampeg SVT rig); Andy Cauble
on guitar (with his thick Les Paul/Mesa Boogie tone); and me too
(with my thinner PRS/Mesa Boogie tone), we were prepared to
throw some serious SPLs, smacking transients, and tube-y distortion
at the mics via our crunchy brand of Southern Rock.
The band laid down six takes of the same 90-second song,
each time with the six Session Trial contenders doing a rotation
through six key microphone positions. Please note that this was
no clinical test, but we got levels as close as we could in the
form of a normal studio recording environment, consciously
making “consistent performances” on each take a top priority.
Then, each participating session musician listened to the tracks,
both mixed and soloed, and helped me choose the ideal mics for
our demo recording session.
The Transducers
Our six “workhorses” may look different, but they share a feature
list nearly to the letter; they are all dynamic cardioid microphones
(except for the hypercardioid A-T) with no pads, no filters,
no switches, high SPL handling ability, and frequency
response realistically up
to around 15 kHz.
In true rock ‘n’ roll style,
the mics were positioned close to the sources (not unlike common
live sound techniques) and combined with the rest of a typical rock
recording setup. This included a beyerdynamic M 201 hypercardioid
dynamic on snare top (to compare with our SM57 and others);
Shure Beta 91 condenser inside the kick (oft combined with a large-diaphragm
dynamic); Sennheiser MD
421 dynamic on rack tom;
Neumann’s new TLM 102 condensers on ride and hat; a Neumann TLM 103
condenser pair on overheads; Sansamp Bass Driver DI; and a
SM57 on each guitar amp (again, for contrast).
Kick Drum
Cooper’s 22-inch kick drum was sounding good and full, with an
Evans EQ Pad dampener/pillow and four-inch hole in the resonant
head. A Millennia Media HV-3R mic preamp was utilized for
its neutrality (and hopefully its sonic familiarity among our
readers). Each mic was positioned inside the drum, approximately
a foot back from the beater, and approximately on axis
with the beater.
Of the six, we all preferred the AKG D 40 because of its large
sound with lots and lots of punch. There was nice crack to the
top end, some slightly scooped mids that were flattering, and a
tight bottom that definitely needed some low shelving boost EQ
to get that modern, deep kick sound.
Meanwhile, we all also liked the Audix i5 for the same qualities: definition, punch, and a scooped midrange. Yet as nice as
the i5 was, it wasn’t quite as powerful as the D 40.
The A-T ATM650 had a familiar sound that was quite usable, if
a bit thin: Imagine an AKG D112 with lots more top end and some
compression. The E-V N/D478 was quite mid-rangey with a
sound that emphasized the shell of the drum, not unlike the
SM57. The SM57 had good punch in comparison, but needed lots
of low-boost EQ and was suitable for a punk rock-ish sound. The
Heil PR-20 was also punchy but too thin.
It should be noted that all six mics handled kick drum SPL
with no problems; all needed some EQ help to gain enough bottom
end and none of these are “kick drum-specific” mics, like
the AKG D-112, Shure Beta 52A or Audix D-6.
Snare
We ended up using a 13” x 4” brass piccolo (that actually has
some decent bottom end) to get the cracking, exciting sound we
needed. We also miked the drum with a beyerdynamic M 201,
which is “flatter” than the traditional SM57 and generally good
for higher-pitched drums such as this. Again the Millennia HV-3R
was the preamp, a natural for this application.
It should be noted that each of us commented on how
“classic” the sound of the SM57 was, yet none of us picked it
as our top pick. We all truly liked the SM57, but I think there
was a certain bias inherent in each of us (whether positive or
negative) about this trademark sound that colored our findings,
as if our ears were searching for an alternative to counter
the familiar. ‘Nuff said.
We were equally divided between the A-T ATM650 and the EV
N/D478 for our top pick. The ATM650 was really tight and lively
sounding, with good focus that would feed a splash of reverb
nicely. The N/D478 was nicely balanced, yet it featured the
midrange of the snare. We all were fond of the Audix i5 quite a
bit, too, with its “smiley face” EQ curve that helped fill our slightly
thin snare. The PR 20 sounded a little flat. We weren’t too fond
of the D 40 on snare, either; its mid scoop was at the wrong place
and hi-hat leakage was a bit unpleasant.
Floor Tom
Cooper’s floor tom wasn’t big (14” x 16”), but it had a nice,
focused sound with a good punch to its mids, aided again by the
Millennia HV-3R preamp. Both he and I picked the D 40 hands
down as our favorite, with a bigger “more accurate” sound that
excelled on the tom much like it did on kick. Sometimes it can be
hard to get the “top-to-bottom ratio” of a floor tom just right. The
D 40 nailed it, with just the right mid-scoop to boot, with no EQ.
The PR 20 was also a favorite of ours on floor tom, with a deep
and plump sound that sounded colored, but in a nice, musical
way. I personally liked the ATM650 quite a bit, with its really tight
punch. I didn’t like the i5, N/D478, or SM57 on floor tom that
much; they all were a little too pronounced in the mids. Don’t get
me wrong: All three would work in a pinch with a low shelving
boost and a parametric to scoop the mids out.
Bass Guitar Cabinet
Asher’s all-tube SVT bass head amp was complemented by the
SVT-410HLF cabinet with its extended low frequencies and
pleasantly defined mids; it’s an easy cabinet to mic and get
great sounds from, especially with a DI to complement it. As I
typically do, I used a Manley TNT preamp — its tube side on
the DI and solid-state side on the mic — reversed polarity on
the DI, and compressed both signals with an Empirical Labs
Fatso, which tamed peaks but was set for clarity and not its
optional “gritty” color.
Opinions were flying all over the room as we embraced a
number of distinctly different options here, especially considering
we found some great sounds that just weren’t quite
right for our particular project’s sound. The SM57 got top
votes for a sound called “focused, tight, and defined” — a little
bottom EQ made it just right. The D 40 received equally
impassioned support for a sound that was more “balanced,”
“wider,” and generally thicker through the lower registers.
Here, the PR 20 offered a nice musicality that was accurate
and smooth. We all liked the i5, which was clean and altogether
usable. We all found both the N/D478 and the ATM650 to be
a bit “clacky,” pronouncing pick and fret noise in an unmusical
way. Asher mentioned he might prefer them both if he
were slapping and popping for a funky approach.
Guitar Cabinets
Against Andy’s dirty tones, grinding chords, and
Gibson/Rectifier low-mid thickness, I countered with single
notes with floating-bridge Paul Reed Smith clarity and a very little
scoop to the mids; this contrast would make for good mic
selection fodder, we thought. I went with a True Precision 8 preamp
on all four mics (two mics per cabinet, always utilizing one
SM57 per cabinet as a baseline), for consistency and that little
touch of True Grit (sorry, couldn’t resist the allusion) and color.
Upon listening back, everybody loved the SM57 on Andy’s
guitar. It’s simple: An SM57 on Andy’s cab gives you the
sound of rock, over and done with. We all also liked the D 40,
where its mid-scoop helped tighten up some of Andy’s loose
low-mids. The i5 was appreciated in the same way, with a mid
sculpt that was working well for us. Truth be told, we liked all
the mics for various qualities on Andy’s rig: the smooth
PR20, the aggressive N/D478, and the respectable ATM650
rounding out the lot.
My guitar rig was (predictably) quite different. My personal
favorite was the ATM650 because of the way it made my upper
harmonics sparkle; my “third octave bell-tone with echo” performance
was more lively and ethereal with the ATM650. The
guys also liked the D 40 on my guitar because its mid-scoop
and smooth top end were flattering, especially on chords.
Rather open-minded about guitar tones, I found desirable
qualities on all the others, including a buttery smoothness
from the PR 20, an edgy sculpting from the N/D478, and that
classic SM57 sound that I still love and probably always will.
Summary
When many condensers or ribbons would overload and go
“splat,” these workhorse dynamics took the abuse and churned
out impactful transient response and distortion-free reproduction
that even sounded good when monitored loudly. What made
these contenders winners in the studio translates very easily to
success in live sound reinforcement, too.
Overall, the AKG D 40 got the most top votes with its big,
robust sound that is ridiculously punchy and clean. I am so in
love with the sound of this mic on floor tom that I’m going to buy
a couple for some floor-tom options beyond my trusted
Sennheiser MD 421s.
Though very different-sounding, both the Shure SM57 and
Audix i5 received many top votes, tying them for second in this
evaluation. We really liked the straight-ahead, “mids-up” clarity
of the SM57 on snare, bass guitar, and Andy’s guitar tone (the
latter of which is where the 57’s presence boost was a perfect
fit). We enjoyed the i5 on snare and kick, too; its bigger bottom
and carved mids made for less need to EQ.
The Audio-Technica ATM650 was a little different — with its
hyper-cardioid polar pattern — and it proved to be a little less
versatile than the others, too. However, it was really nice on
snare with a defined, crispy “thwack” and very good at grabbing
those upper harmonics on guitar cabinet. I was also fond of its
sturdy construction and seemingly “drummer proof” windscreen
basket.
At times, the Heil PR 20 seemed like the odd man out, with a
large windscreen and a physical design that seems best suited
for handheld vocals. Despite this, the PR 20 sounded notably
smooth and pleasant on bass guitar and floor tom. Its big, plump
bass response was full of color, best suiting it for filling up the
bottom of smaller drums and instruments, especially with some
proximity effect, to taste.
The Electro-Voice N/D478 had the leanest bottom end of the
group and, consequently, offered the most forward midrange;
these are qualities that were just right on snare. The N/D478 had
no undesirable qualities and was quite good everywhere, but
floor tom; paired with an EQ, it could get the job done on any of
the above tests.
And that’s the beauty of this Session Trial. For right around
$99, you can have any of these straight-forward dynamic microphones
close to the source, handling the SPL, grit, and grime of
your next rock session — and they’ll all survive, ready for the
next one!
Rob Tavaglione has owned and operated Catalyst Recording in Charlotte, NC since 1995.
Workhorse Dynamic Microphones
Take Two: A Snare Drum Comparison
by Strother Bullins
To complement Rob Tavaglione’s findings for this Session Trial,
the PAR editorial staff thought it would be an interesting second
step to focus on the aural variances from each microphone
using the exact same musical performance, measured as practically
as possible using common tools (voltmeter, SPL meter,
and 1 kHz test tone generator).
So, volunteering to construct this evaluation in my own studio,
I arranged our half-dozen contenders in an arc around a 14-
inch Gretsch birch snare drum, opposite of the player (me). The
snares underneath the drum ran parallel to the mic lineup. All
windscreens were removed to determine the position of each
mic’s diaphragm; all were placed precisely over the top rim of the
snare. (See the photo for the full thousand words.)
The signal chain was as follows: each microphone went to a
channel of the Aphex Model 188 8-channel remote mic pre
(which offers a LED reading of gain per channel in 1 dB increments),
then DB-25 output to TRS input on the Alesis HD24 harddisk
recorder (where each mic was brought to -15 dBFS input on
its first six channels). Initial amp gain was determined via a 1
kHz test tone at 105 dB, provided by replacing the snare with a
amplified speaker, its center at precisely the same position as
the center of the drum head. The mics — right to left (player’s
perspective), one through six — were as follows: Heil PR 20 (#1
@ 39 dB of gain from mic preamp); Audix i5 (#2 @ 43 dB); AKG
D 40 (#3 @ 38 dB); Electro-Voice N/D478 (#4 @ 36 dB); Audio-
Technica ATM650 (#5 @ 41 dB); and Shure SM57 (#6 @ 44 dB).
Next, I checked the closeness of the mic amps’ outputs to the
HD24 with a voltmeter. Translated to dBu, the steady state tone
was within 1 dB across the six channels used, finer adjustment
not being possible with the Aphex’s 1 dB gain steps. With the
snare returned as the source, the peak levels of the captured
tracks varied just over 5 dB, the Audix being the hottest and the
E-V N/D478 having the lowest output, indicating the differences
in mic performance with a dynamic source.
At this point, steady 2 and 4 snare hits at 120 BPM (with varying
single strokes and flams) were recorded in six sets, via all
mics at 16-bit/44.1 kHz. After recording, the files were transferred
to my MacBook Pro via the Alesis FirePort 1394 FireWire
interface, then distributed to our blind test participants — PAR’s
technical editor Lynn Fuston and editorial director Frank Wells
— via YouSendIt, the web-based digital content delivery service.
I also participated via these files, just renumbered, finding out which were which well after writing my own thoughts.
Read on for what we discovered.
Strother Bullins is the reviews and features editor for PAR.
LYNN FUSTON’S COMMENTS:
“All the tracks were loaded into Pro Tools and adjusted so that
the peak values were identical. After listening through all six
sets of drum hits, I decided to use the fifth set. Monitoring was
via Mytek 8x96 DAC to ADAM A-7 monitors at approximately 86
dB SPL. Below are my blind evaluations.”
Mic 1 (Heil PR 20): “Natural-sounding, forward, but lacking in
low-end punch. Since the
ear uses the first thing it
hears as the benchmark
for comparing to subsequent
sounds, I also did
the test backwards from
Mic 6 to 1 to undo that
bias. For instance, if the
first mic is very bright
the next mic might seem
dull even though it’s really
not. After repeated listening,
my conclusions
stayed the same regardless
of sequence. This
mic would be my fourth
choice.”
Mic 2 (Audix i5): “This
one seemed very natural
as well with a lot more
body. It accented the 5-7K range, yielding a nice
sound on the snares
without being scratchy.
This mic brought out the
musical third an octave
up from the fundamental
tuning of the snare,
which gives it a bright
sound but it might
clash musically in the
arrangement because
of where it sits in the
upper midrange.”
Mic 3 (AKG D 40): “This one seemed the fullest of them all
while highlighting the 3-4K range, an octave lower than Mic 2’s
5-7K peak. The difference in voicing was very pronounced. While
Mic 3 seemed fuller in the lows, it was an aural illusion with my
impression being heavily influenced by the 3-4 dB differences
in the upper midrange compared to 2. Mic 2 actually has more in
the 250-500 range than Mic 3 but the brighter upper midrange
masks that low end.”
Mic 4 (E-V N/D478): “This one sounds like it’s in a completely
different place, a different proximity to the drum, almost like it’s
4-6 inches farther away than all the others, though I can’t imagine
that Strother did that. There is more room sound in the signal.
Though the midrange is roughly the same, the low end in the
150-250 range is a full 10 dB less than all the others, completely
gutting the fundamental of the snare sound. It sounds to me
like the sonically suggested increased distance from the drum
eliminates whatever boost the proximity effect would yield.”
Mic 5 (A-T ATM650): “The first word that came to mind was
‘snap.’ This mic accents
the ring of snare head with
a nice presence, but it
sounds a bit pinched. It
doesn’t have the meat
that Mics 2 or 3 did but I
think it would be usable. It
would be my third choice.”
Mic 6 (Shure SM57):
“This mic yields a much
darker, drier sound. It has
nice definition on the top
but not much ring from the
snares. This mic accents
the octave up from the
fundamental. It would be
my fifth choice.”
“Overall, I would pick
either Mic 2 or Mic 3 out of
the mic locker with the
choice depending on the
musical style and the
arrangement and the snare
drum itself. While Mic 2
sounds more processed,
pre-EQ-ed, there was a naturalness
that kept me coming
back to Mic 3. The best
thing about listening to
mics in a blind comparison
is when you find out which
mics are which and maybe
realize that there’s a mic
out there that you really like but didn’t know about. In this test, I’m
familiar with only two of the six mics.” [After finding out which mic
was which, Fuston was shocked that the SM57, his main snare mic
for the past 10 years, was his next to least favorite. His two
favorites here were ones he has never used before —Ed.]
FRANK WELLS’ COMMENTS:
“On my first run through, just lining ‘em up and going track to track,
Mic 1 (Heil PR 20) sounded full range. The resonant ring of the drum was obvious, perhaps a tad towards overbearing. There didn’t
appear to be a lot of detail from the snare wires on kit bottom.
“Mic 2 (Audix i5) was deeper, thicker than Mic 1, the resonant
overtones a bit more intrusive on the primary sound. I heard lots
of presence from the snare wires without a lot of detail. The stick
clicks between snare hits had a touch more snap.
“Mic 3 (AKG D 40) sounded duller than the first two, the stick
clicks thicker as well, again with presence in the snare wires
without a lot of detail.
“Mic 4 (E-V N/D478) was softer and less full bodied, thinner
snaps in the stick clicks. The resonance rings seemed a bit overbearing,
and I thought I heard more of the drumhead with the
snare wire presence pushed back.
“Mic 5 (A-T ATM650) was back to a full-bodied sound with less
intrusion from the drum resonances, and a louder apparent volume
than the previous couple of tracks.
“Finally, Mic 6 (Shure SM57) was again thicker, making me
think dull. The stick clicks were clear and there was decent detail
from the snare wires.
“I listened again around the tracks several times, beginning
to adjust for level differences, and received Lynn’s helpful peak
adjustment numbers, which dovetailed with my adjustments. I
settled on Mic 5 as my preferred track: good snare wire detail
and a full-bodied sound, and the stick clicks sounding very natural.
Comparing 1 and 5, Mic 1 was clear and brighter; I could see
myself preferring it depending upon the application, and it would
likely stand out better in the average mix. Mic 2 had darkersounding
stick clicks, and a touch of overall muddiness. Mic 3
was rounder in the mids, with less of the stick-to-head attack
than with Mic 5 and less of the full-bodied sound. Mic 4 was
open with a more obvious top end, natural-sounding and a touch
warmer than Mic 5. Finally, Mic 6 was a touch duller than #5 and
a touch muddied.
“Final score, Mic 5 wins as a subjective preference, while I
lean towards Mic 1 and Mic 4.”
STROTHER BULLINS’ COMMENTS:
“I asked a third party to randomly re-number the file names (so
that, for example, 1 would become 4) and write down the changes
they made; thus, I also did blind listening with these six files, only
finding out their true identities after writing my thoughts, documented
below. Listening back in Apple Logic and monitoring via
KRK VXT 8 powered monitors, clicking randomly back and forth
through the files, I made the following observations.”
Mic 1 (Heil PR 20): “Possibly more ‘open,’ a bit ‘hollowed out’
in comparison to the others; a nice high-end response, if a bit
rolled off compared to others. It’s overall realistic to the snare
sound in the room; it seems to translate more ‘sing’ of the drum
(which may not be desirable).”
Mic 2 (Audix i5): “Throaty and thick (similar to Mic 5 and
comparable to Mic 6), slightly crispy, and it emphasizes the
note of the shell more than the others. I would probably carve
a bit in its low-mids with EQ in getting most common rock
snare sounds.”
Mic 3 (AKG D 40): “It’s giving me a bit chesty/slightly honky
translation of this particular snare, in direct comparison to others;
its nicely forward, though. I would probably carve a bit of its
chesty emphasis out of the track.”
Mic 4: (E-V N/D478) “Detailed on the top end; it’s open. It
would work well on more intricate snare work, not necessarily
rock’s 2 and 4; it’s quite lacking in lower frequencies, compared
to others.”
Mic 5 (A-T ATM650): “This one is throaty and thick (similar to
Mic 2 and comparable to Mic 6), a bit more ‘finished’ and forward-
sounding than snare 2, and slightly crispier compared to
the others (in a good way).”
Mic 6 (Shure SM57): “Impactful; slightly ‘bucket-y,’ and only
slightly crispy, but overall desirable; it’s similar in ways to Mic
2 and Mic 5.”
“I find myself going back and forth mostly between 2, 5, and 6,
most likely because they strike me as being similar; I’ve been trying
to determine which I prefer. In the end, for a typical rock snare
sound that I would personally choose; I’m pretty evenly torn
between 5 and 6 for the sound, yet I may just choose 2 because
it seemed to offer more frequency information than 5 and 6, if
not as refined/ focused on what a rock snare typically is.”
“If I were to choose a mic matched with this snare, knowing
that there would be more ghost notes, rolls, and overall detail
involved in the snare track, I would likely choose Mic 4; 2, 5,
and 6 may be a bit too power-oriented of a sound, resulting in
less snare emphasis. However, 2, 5, and 6 would work well on
just about any typical snare drum apps. Frequency-wise, 3 was
on its own; not necessarily bad, but just different. Next to the
others, I tended to lean away from it. Mic 1 sounded very realistic,
and I found myself wondering what it would sound like with
some compression applied to it; that may make it a bit less finished
sounding. In the end, though — just judging ‘em all raw
and naked — my favorite will have to be Mic 5.”