How do YOU record your Steel ?

John Macy · Post by **John Macy** » 29 Jun 2008 12:59 pm

Hey Tommy,

That was version 1.0 of the "more me" box...

Tommy Detamore · Post by **Tommy Detamore** » 29 Jun 2008 1:18 pm

That was version 1.0 of the "more me" box... Smile

LOL! Macy, you kill me!

I think we all know the point about the

"condenser mic" is ...

"IN AN ENCLOSED STUDIO SOUNDROOM " as is the case with the photo of Loyd, not in a family room practice area or back hall area of our homes where we can hear the School Bus coming up the street. Point is, if you can hear it, so will the condenser mic.

You know, no disrespect to anyone, but this is something I'm not quite getting: the notion that somehow a dynamic mike doesn't "hear" things like hum, pedal noise, traffic, etc. Sure, a dynamic might not have the sensitivity of a condenser, but if the gain of both of them are roughly the same (ie, producing more or less the same recording level), then in my experience the dynamic will pick all that lovely stuff up too. Maybe not in quite as full a fidelity, but it will make it to "tape" nonetheless.

That said, you haven't heard 60 cycle hum in all it's glory until you've heard it through a C-12

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 29 Jun 2008 3:40 pm

Tommy, you are right, it does, but I believe a condenser in an open environment hears much more than a typical 57, at least in my experience.

I believe thats all we are saying. In a home studio ( room ) environment , it is best to have both, use the one that gives the best overall results for the conditions. If you can a only have ONE mic, for my money it would be a Shure 57. I am speaking of Large Diaphragm condensers as opposed to the 57 Dynamics.

Maybe the conversation should be..

"BE AWARE" of HOW the Large Diaphragm Condensers perform compared to the standard Dynamics. Regarding the actual recordings, I am always very pleased with the condensers when I use them, and mine are cheap !

Now hum, 60 cycle etc.., thats a totally different subject..

just my view.

tp

Tommy Detamore · Post by **Tommy Detamore** » 29 Jun 2008 4:19 pm

but I believe a condenser in an open environment hears much more than a typical 57, at least in my experience.

And polar patterns and off-axis rejection characteristics would come into play as well....Not so much with the source, but with what's going on elsewhere.

If you can a only have ONE mic, for my money it would be a Shure 57.

I would second that Tony. Truly one the great wonders of the audio world. And you could drive a nail with it...

Greg Cutshaw · Post by **Greg Cutshaw** » 29 Jun 2008 5:33 pm

If the steel volume at the mic is 90db above the level of the room noise, the room noise will be pretty inaudible. When I cut the gain back on my condenser mic, and still record with my steel at the same volume level, the condenser mic still hear's the same relative volume levels that the SM-57 hears. In other words, it doesn't hear any more room noise than the SM-57 because the steel sound is way louder.

Sure the condenser mic is much more sensitive than the SM-57, but if you reduce the gain on the mic preamp or console input to achieve the SM-57 record levels, it will not pick up any more room noise than the SM-57. I just tried this in the recording above with the A/C blasting away (very loud) and the pedals clacking. With the mic closer to the amp, than to the A/C etc, and with the amp level at it's normal SM-57 recording point, the backgorund noise is identical to that heard with the SM-57, and it's inaudible.

Greg

Bent Romnes · Post by **Bent Romnes** » 29 Jun 2008 5:43 pm

Tommy, Is there any one method used more than the other in the studio..direct or mic, and why?

Tommy Detamore · Post by **Tommy Detamore** » 29 Jun 2008 5:49 pm

Tommy, Is there any one method used more than the other in the studio..direct or mic, and why?

Gosh Bent, I wouldn't know really. That's a really good question. Might be a good one for a poll....

Brian McGaughey · Post by **Brian McGaughey** » 30 Jun 2008 5:40 am

Tony Prior wrote: In a home studio ( room ) environment , it is best to have both, use the one that gives the best overall results for the conditions.

True. In my home studio I use the large diaphram condenser when the kids are gone and an SM 57 when they're home!

Seriously though, the large diaphram condenser does seem more senstive to unwanted far away noise, and I assume it's because it's off-axis sound rejection, even though it's a cardioid pattern, isn't what a 57s is. Seems the 57 was designed to best hear a signal close to it and right in front of it. Also the condenser has a much larger diaphram than a 57. My two bits.

More two bits: Regarding micing or DI, I vote for micing. I mean, we go through all this trouble and voodoo to get a certain "sound" through our particular amps and particular speakers, why would we want to not record that "sound" we've worked to achieve?

Seems it would be a good idea to A/B mic-vs-DI in any given environment before proceeding. Truthfully I've never even tried direct.

I think I will when I next record.

All of this from a guy who loves to think he knows what he's talking about and has 1/10,000 the recording experience as Mr. Detamore!

Tommy Detamore · Post by **Tommy Detamore** » 30 Jun 2008 7:08 am

Seems the 57 was designed to best hear a signal close to it and right in front of it.

I think that's one reason it became a popular snare drum mike.

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 30 Jun 2008 7:30 am

Tommy Detamore wrote:the notion that somehow a dynamic mike doesn't "hear" things like hum, pedal noise, traffic, etc.

That would be one smart mic. How do it know?

Tommy Detamore · Post by **Tommy Detamore** » 30 Jun 2008 7:42 am

That would be one smart mic. How do it know?

The same way a thermos does..

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 30 Jun 2008 9:29 pm

I use an AKG 414 sitting a few inches in front of the amp at home. This is in Brooklyn with trucks driving by and my dog walking around the room. Its never been a problem.

I pretty much refuse to record direct. I can't think of a producer or engineer in NYC that ever thought it was a good idea to record direct. Mostly they want my sound with fx and all coming out of my amp.

The picture is of my set up for a remote session with my laptop.

Brian McGaughey · Post by **Brian McGaughey** » 1 Jul 2008 5:17 am

C-12s...414s...I gotta get a better paying job!....

I assume from your pic Bob you don't like your amp sound from the room bleeding through your headphones...

Tommy Detamore · Post by **Tommy Detamore** » 1 Jul 2008 7:24 am

I pretty much refuse to record direct.

I'm the same way Bob, if it's the "volume pedal-->di-->preamp/console-->tape" kind of direct. But I have to say I have gotten decent results with a Pod and a Roland GP-100...

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 1 Jul 2008 8:52 am

Brian,
I keep the steel out of my headphone mix. I may pull an ear to the side on my headphones to hear it better if needed.

Tommy,
Thinking about it I have used a pod a couple times in jingle studios. It worked pretty well. I still don't like them but they do work fine.

My absolute favorite mic for steel is an old Neumann U47 FET. Any studio that has the ducats for one of those bad boys also has pretty good everything else.
I have done plenty of recordings in really nice studios where a 57 ended up being the right mic though. They are real work horses.

Brian McGaughey · Post by **Brian McGaughey** » 1 Jul 2008 9:05 am

Bob Hoffnar wrote: I keep the steel out of my headphone mix. I may pull an ear to the side on my headphones to hear it better if needed.

So you're headphones aren't an isolating type and you can hear the room with them on?

My earlier comment about not hearing the steel OTHER than the heaphones came from the fact that your guitar is clear across the room from your miced amp. Inquiring minds want to know.

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 1 Jul 2008 10:23 am

Brian,
I use sony mdr 7506 headphones (isolating) at home and keep the headphone mix quiet and the amp loud. Plus its a pretty small room.

Mike Neer · Post by **Mike Neer** » 1 Jul 2008 10:43 am

At a recent recording session, my headphone mix was non-existent and the tracks were recorded live. I listened to the live room sound and my amp was gobo'ed. It was tough, but I was surprised how in tune most of it sounded. Both my lap steel and pedal steel were both recorded through an old tweed Deluxe and sounded pretty darn good. No way I'd want to go direct on a commercial recording.

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 1 Jul 2008 12:22 pm

Bob Hoffnar wrote: I pretty much refuse to record direct. I can't think of a producer or engineer in NYC that ever thought it was a good idea to record direct. Mostly they want my sound with fx and all coming out of my amp.

On the other hand, my experience has been the opposite. I have been recording direct, clean and dry, more and more as the years go by.

Engineers like it because they want total control over efx, plug-ins, re-amping, etc. I may be horrified by the sound they like, but that is how it works.

Bill Terry · Post by **Bill Terry** » 1 Jul 2008 12:36 pm

I may be horrified by the sound they like..

Is that ever true...

Jack Stanton · Post by **Jack Stanton** » 1 Jul 2008 5:47 pm

By far the best (read: most natural) sound I've ever gotten was with my effects in line, through an amp miked with a big old Neumann condenser mike (much like the one in the picture of Lloyd). That was back in the days of reel tape, when engineers weren't afraid of a little noise in the signal chain.
Funny enough, back in the early '80's I was at the Hall of Fame Lounge in Nashville when Paul Franklin was doing several nights a week there.Another steel player and I were talking to him and the other guy asked him his favorite way to record his steel. He said "I really like those big, fat microphones; I can't remember the name, real close to my amp, just a little off center of the speaker". I said "Neumann?”He said” that’s it!" By the way, Paul was very gracious with his time and answered all questions (as he has other times I seen him).
I’ll take a condenser mike recording a speaker pushing air any day over the most expensive gear providing a direct signal any day!

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 2 Jul 2008 3:18 am

Are we talking HOME 4 track Boss studio in a rec room making a track for grandma or are we talking "A" team studio session ?

two different worlds.

At home, I record direct mainly because I do not want to disturb others in the house and the projects I work on are not actually about the final "TONE" .

When invited to do sessions, my amp is in an enclosed room with whatever mic the engineer decides to use.

t

Dave Van Allen · Post by **Dave Van Allen** » 2 Jul 2008 8:02 pm

This is from several years ago when the engineer on the session decided to try a "mic shootout" using my Vibrolux as the target.

Our singer took a picture of it and sent it to me with the caption "Vibrolux holds press conference"

The SM57 "won"

I think this is what we were working on at the time:
lth.mp3

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 2 Jul 2008 10:38 pm

On the other hand, my experience has been the opposite. I have been recording direct, clean and dry, more and more as the years go by.

Engineers like it because they want total control over efx, plug-ins, re-amping,

I wonder if its a NY/LA thing but at least with the work I tend to get engineers are not interested in manipulating my sound much at all. With all the pro tools editing they need to sort through the last thing they want to do is spend time screwing around with the steel players sound. Even in overdub sessions these days the trend is to shoot for whole live takes. All that cutting and pasting nuttiness seems to be fading out a bit.

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 3 Jul 2008 1:17 am

Dave, I am thinking, seriously, that picture could win an award !

You should really send it to all of the recording publications and industry mags...( Fender too) I could see this on the cover of the next Fender publication...

It's clearly a Kodak moment !

tp