Looking for some thoughts on specific production techniques

G

Gorilla King

Well-known member
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm working on an animated film and I was about to get a Neumann u87Ai but then I had some second thoughts. For only a bit more money I could get a Sennheiser 416 AND a Schopes MK41. I realize that neither of these are large condensor mics, but exactly what advantages do I get from a u87 versus using these two in conjunction? Particularly for this kind of work.

In other words, why wouldn't I want to use field production microphones for doing an animated film?

I figured since I'd be working a controlled environment I could get the mics VERY close to the talent. Basically I just want to know if this is flawed methodology and if so how come and if not, why not?

I really appreciate the help. This is a whole new kind of filmmaking for me.
 
I don't really know the answer, but I can see your dilemma. You could use the other two mics every day and U87 is only "in studio". Have you thought of hiring some kind of pro sound person to act as a consultant (or just to record it)? I know that the preamps and consoles you are going to go through are just as important as the mic. Do you have all of the other stuff already?

I would say hold off buying for a few more days/weeks/months, as long as you can and find out for darn sure before you buy that neumann.

For the record I LOVE my schoeps, if you ever have a chance to blow that kind of money, do!!
 
I have a fair amount of experience in field recording techniques, I'm just new to large condensors. I've never used one and honestly don't know what to expect soundwise.

At the moment I'm very much leaning towards a Blue Kiwi rather than the U87 IF I end up going with a large condensor. See the thing is this animated film I'm working on is actually a trilogy. I'll be working on this for the next six years. That's why I'm not so much concerned about having mics to use on other jobs because as far as I'm concerned, right now this is my only job. I just want to have the right tools to get the right sounds. Chances are I'll be adding mics over the next 18 months, but right now what I need most is a solid mic for recording the male and female vocal tracks. Later I'll be doing a ton of foley work.
 
I'm looking at the preamp made by Blue, Robbie. Then I'm also looking at the Mackie Onyx 1220 with the firewire card to run into my macbook pro. I do not have a sound booth though which is why I'm kind of scratching my head as to the best mics. I got some great tips for sound dampening from the guys here so I think I'd be alright, but I know it wouldn't be the same as a booth.
 
You can always make a booth out of a walk-in closet. Kind of embarrassing to have your actors in there though. They make collapsable booths.
 
If you're not familiar with different audio properties of large condensers vs. shotguns, I would rent both for an afternoon and record (anyone) in whatever space you decide on using for the next six years. I think it will be pretty obvious if you go back and listen to the results through good headphones which you'll want to base your income on.
 
Dude...

Seriously.

Don't get any BLUE mic except a Bluebird as your only mic. With a nice flat mic, placement will be the critical factor. Your main worries should be technique and good monitoring, with recording equipment a distant second. You are asking too many questions, and getting too many answers, dealing with equipment.

Get a flat mic... you'll be thankful. If you get a mixer with some EQ, that can help you color/clean as necessary, but you can also do that later, or with software... worry first about recording a clean signal. Normal voice dialog does not place a lot of stress on a preamp in a studio situation, so the differences may not be extremely critical as long as you get something fairly decent. But, my advice would be as always, get a decent general mic (Bluebird? C414?) and interface that's not ultra-expensive, and build up experience so you can know better what your specific needs are when you spend the big bucks later. Remember, great technique with an SM58 and a crappy DAT recorder willl trump a novice with a Neuman and a studio's worth of equipment.

P.S., Shotgun mics and other mics designed for field use are not that great for studio use... they tend to optimize reach rather than transparency, and have strange off-axis response.
 
Yeah I keep going back and forth. Now I'm back to the Blueberry and possibly the Bluebird along with it. Judging by what I'm reading, the first is good for male vocals and the second is good for female vocals.

Have you had a chance to use the Robbie preamp by any chance?
 
Dude!

Stop judging by what you read. Start slow, keep some $$$ in reserve. YOU DON'T KNOW if any of these specific tools are right for you, and you need to develop your ears and skills a bit. Get an 8-Ball and learn how to make the most out of THAT. Or get the Bluebird which will remaon one of your go-to vocal mics forever. Get a C414 which will do ANYTHING competently. But don't cripple yourself with an expensive mic that doesn't suit your needs because you don't want to spend time developing basic skills. Why are you in such a hurry to buy the priciest things you can find? How would you even know if it's good, bad, or if you're the problem? When you hear about mics good for "male or female vocals", they're not usually judging dialog,m they're talking about singing, and have usually only tested a very limited number of singers and styles. Stop listening to hype, get an un-hyped (sorry for the pun) mic, and lear to trust your ears, and how to work a mic. When you're ready to buy a $1500 mic, you won't agonize over the choice - you'll know exactly what you need, and why. When you need a $1000/channel preamp you'll know exactly what you need, and why. Noone can tell you that. What we can tell you is what tools are generally competent, to get you started. But boutique equipment, and special purpose equipment, is something you have to know how to evaluate yourself, and you'll need to have a few around to try on each situation.
 
The Bluebird is only a 500 dollar mic. I wouldn't agonize over picking that one up to supplement the Bluberry. In fact, it's my intention to pick up the entire line of Blue mics over the next five years. And don't worry, I'm not doing this all at once. I have a specifc buying plan and I'll be using the Blueberry for at least 8 months before I buy the next mic.

I would agree that I'm not knowledgable enough to know whether to go with one preamp over another, but I'm not green when it comes to audio. I've been making films for a decade now and doing audio on films for six years. Just don't think that my desire for the higher priced mics is me thinking that I can throw money at audio issues. Mainly it's just good old fashioned simple gear lust going a little bit out of control.
 
saneproductions said:
You can always make a booth out of a walk-in closet.
Click to expand...
Just be sure to provide plenty of ventillation. Seriously, you don't want the actors to get light-headed after hours of voice work.

Also, if you opt to renovate small spaces you'll really need to use accoustic foam rather than blankets or other improvised solutions.
 
Gorilla, I say if you have the money go for the best mic out there. In long term, you will save money by not having to resell and then rebuy again. Do it right the first time and save money the first time round.
 
Yeah I do have the money to buy basically whatever mic I need (except those 10,000 dollars ones). The Blueberry is a sure thing for me, BUT I can either get 1 other really great mic or 2 lesser quality mics. I found the Blue Kiwi new for only 1,600 and I'm very tempted to go that route for my high end mic. On the other hand though I could go with a used U87, BUT virtually all the reviews I'm reading say the U87Ai (the newer model) just isn't as good as the old U87. I could have gotten one last night, but I decided against it because of what I've read.
 
If money is less an issue I would be focused on creating a good studio. The level/type of mic you get will make a difference but acoustic space is 10 times as important. Also, if you are looking to get good performances out of your actors then you need to create a comfortable space for them to do their craft. The poor man's closet studio is not a place someone wants to spend all day in, much less feel inspired to give a free and open reading.

You can easily spend $10,000 on improving your recording space that you will "hear" more in the final product then using the next best level of mic.

I really think it's time for you to contact a local pro to help set you up. Forums like this can only answer direct questions, a pro can direct you specifically on how best to set up within your budget.

Good luck
 
Do Not Buy A U87

Do Not Buy A U87

It would be a grave mistake buying a U87 because you don't have the need or application for it...in your case a total waste of money. This mic is strictly for recording studio use and the reason it cost so much is because it is probably the flatest true response condensor there is. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT A GREAT MIC! It simply means that it has a general all round useage. For recording, especially music you want a microphone that captures the unique tonality or 'signature' of the instrument. Thus 'personality' mics will sound better in certain applications, but not neccessarily on every thing-- The opposite of a U87. So in part to your question...two heads are often more useful than one.

A U87 for example sounds good on general speech but, excellent to horrible on singing. Example: fabulous for some singers like Kate Bush and Carly Simon...horrible on Mic Jaggar. A U87 sounds great on toms and horrible on rock guitar. U87's in a matched stereo pair are often used to capture entire symphonic orchestras. It is usually not a great mic (so so) for acoustic guitar or grand piano. I own a U87 along with a number of studio condensors so my opinion is not based on hear say. Where I find a U87 really useful is in 'matched pairs' general application.

Just my opinion but, I also have owned an AKG 414 and it is one of my least favorite mics period. A 414 has a thin sound due to a sharp presence peak, thus it falls under the category of personality mic, which also means for some applications it is great. Certain vocals in conjuntion with proximity effect work really well. This mic has a lot of presence and instruments "stick out' of the mix due to it's sonic characterisics. The flip side is that it can sound thin and harsh under the wrong conditions. A far superior mic (IMO) which has a wide variety of uses and at a slightly cheaper price is an AT4050 by Audio Technica. This mic has articulation and a softer lush musical sound. It sounds great on vocals, especially female singers, horns, reeds, acoustic intruments and general useage.

ABOVE ALL: Do not assume that $$$ equals better sound especially in the field of microphones. Mics often have little basis in sonic quality over price. Name brand has a lot to do with price point. There are some really good mics out there for a modest price. Where microphones gain infamy is when they achieve a certain reputation for producing excellent results under specific conditions. Example: Everyone knows the value of an MKH416

No microphone sounds good in every application. It is a matter of finding the right mic for a specific application.
 
Last edited:
And that kind of brings me back to my original question. What reason are there to NOT use a 416 and a Schoeps for this kind of work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top