I want to record some voice-over stuff, and I have an inexpensive condenser mic. I was not really happy with the sound I was getting, so I started doing some EQ and looking at other microphones that people rave about...and I just don't understand what they're talking about.
Can someone address the following questions?
1. When people talk about how microphones sound, are they really not applying EQ? Like, if they say a microphone is light in the bass...that means they aren't boosting the bass? Doesn't EQ account for 90% of a microphone's sound?
2. I have a dynamic mic and some mini type condensers, and it seems to me that the source proximity and proportion of room noise is vastly more important than the actual microphone. My dynamic is an SM58, and while the sound is a bit grainy, the added room rejection compared to my large diaphragm condenser makes it sound better in practice. Am I crazy? After EQ, the condenser sounded great except for a bit of the room slap.
3. Adding on to the room-rejection, this is caused by the directivity of the microphone - shouldn't the directivity basically be identical between different diaphragm sizes/types? Like shouldn't all cardioid 1" units have the same basic pattern?
4. It seems to me that the most useful application for expensive, beautiful sounding mics would be where EQ and other processing is impractical, like a live radio show, but people use them in recording studios where everything is processed anyway? What's up with that?
5. My large diaphragm condenser has a sort of pleasant thickness to it, and produces a nice loud signal, but my tiny instrument type omni condensers (made by Niaint) and my speaker measurement microphone sound far truer to life. Does anyone use small diaphragm condensors for voice or are they using the microphone as an effect unit?
Any input into this world would be helpful. The consumer in me feels the need to buy something fancy but it seems like room treatments would be a better investment.
Can someone address the following questions?
1. When people talk about how microphones sound, are they really not applying EQ? Like, if they say a microphone is light in the bass...that means they aren't boosting the bass? Doesn't EQ account for 90% of a microphone's sound?
2. I have a dynamic mic and some mini type condensers, and it seems to me that the source proximity and proportion of room noise is vastly more important than the actual microphone. My dynamic is an SM58, and while the sound is a bit grainy, the added room rejection compared to my large diaphragm condenser makes it sound better in practice. Am I crazy? After EQ, the condenser sounded great except for a bit of the room slap.
3. Adding on to the room-rejection, this is caused by the directivity of the microphone - shouldn't the directivity basically be identical between different diaphragm sizes/types? Like shouldn't all cardioid 1" units have the same basic pattern?
4. It seems to me that the most useful application for expensive, beautiful sounding mics would be where EQ and other processing is impractical, like a live radio show, but people use them in recording studios where everything is processed anyway? What's up with that?
5. My large diaphragm condenser has a sort of pleasant thickness to it, and produces a nice loud signal, but my tiny instrument type omni condensers (made by Niaint) and my speaker measurement microphone sound far truer to life. Does anyone use small diaphragm condensors for voice or are they using the microphone as an effect unit?
Any input into this world would be helpful. The consumer in me feels the need to buy something fancy but it seems like room treatments would be a better investment.