Are multiple mics just a selling point? And "What I would like a profile pack to contain".

    This...and sometimes my favourite position works not...different cab, different amp..different settings but another positions that sounded not so good before works than maybe...sometimes also the other speaker on the cab fits better even the same type of speaker

    I think Andy is right on the money here.
    The SM57 - while an extremely versatile all-rounder - always seemed like a bit of a lazy choice.


    I can't see how - with a well treated room and amp - you can't find use for anything other than a dynamic mic -
    an SM57 will never capture the 'air' or roominess of an LDC, nor will it get the 'body' of a ribbon mic. If you'd rather lose those 'qualities', there might be something wrong with the room or amp.


    If you get it sounding perfect in the room, you're undoubtedly going to need more than close-mic'ing with a dynamic on the edge of the dustcap to capture that, at least in my experience.

    "But dignity is difficult to maintain
    stamina requires constant upkeep
    repetition is boring
    and you pay for grace."

    I really don't get the "lazy" comments regarding the sm57. It's a staple because a lot of the time, it works. Similarly for the R121, for which the same comment about "laziness" could be made (I don't think using a R121 is "laziness" either). Adding multiple mics could also be perceived as "laziness" by the same token - i.e. "too lazy to tweak the sm57 enough to get a satisfactory sound". Again, this is not my own perception of the matter, I'm just being rhetorical here.


    It stands to reason that a number of people doing profiles just prefer multi-mic'ing, which I don't have a problem with. It just seems there are very few that prefer to keep the setup simple (which, in my view, is just as valid). And that is a bit confusing to me, because so many records are done with an sm57. Issue of laziness aside, it is a big part of the sound many of us are used to hearing. And it just seems to me that the supply is very limited of these profiles (at least commercial ones).


    I'm also wondering a bit what the focus of the profiles usually is; lead guitar vs rhythm, bedroom vs live vs practice vs recording, etc etc...


    Another thing I'm thinking about is: what does multi-mic'ing do? I guess it goes something like "OK, sm57 is set up, and put in the right spot. Sounds good, but there is something missing, it doesn't have the full bottom end, I'll add a ribbon... Hmm, still not there. Maybe a nice condenser. OK, perfect..." Totally valid, of course, but what is the goal behind it? For a recording, you DON'T always want the full sound of a cab. Sometimes, you need JUST the sm57 for the guitar track to lie nicely between the bass, vocal and synth or whatever. If the full spectrum of the amp is captured in the profile, I will (often/sometimes/whatever) have to EQ that bastard severely to get it to fit :-). And with a kemper profile, the blend between the mics is baked into the profile, I can't adjust it after the fact.


    Look, I'm not criticizing anyone for profiling amps with several mics. I guess I'm just calling for more profiles with JUST a sm57, JUST an MD421 JUST a R121 or whatever... :)

    you wont catch room or air in a Profile anyway ;)


    you wont believe how many records were done with a SM57...and not because of lazyness
    yes like Michael says you dont need more in a mix...even i dont like more in a mix..gives you much more problem.
    Also live...in the last decades a ribbon or a condenser was not possible live...the sound was always awesome..so why do we need it now?
    I´m not talking only about metal...i prefer it on clean and crunch also


    But like always - sure everything belongs to taste :)

    I think you got me wrong.
    It's not that a 57 is easier to set up and hence a 'lazy' choice - but it is a very convenient choice.
    I'd say the same for any rock track layered by a JCM800 and a LP - of course it works, it is tried and true, but i'd be left wondering if i'm maybe not challenging myself enough. 'Lazy'.

    "But dignity is difficult to maintain
    stamina requires constant upkeep
    repetition is boring
    and you pay for grace."

    Like 1
    Quote from Quitty

    I think you got me wrong.
    It's not that a 57 is easier to set up and hence a 'lazy' choice - but it is a very convenient choice.
    I'd say the same for any rock track layered by a JCM800 and a LP - of course it works, it is tried and true, but i'd be left wondering if i'm maybe not challenging myself enough. 'Lazy'.


    Cool, thanks for the clarification.


    I'm still a bit at a loss, though... I get what you're saying in the context of laying down some tracks - sometimes you need to shake things up a bit. But in the context of making profiles for others to use, maybe the potential users would be better served with the majority being "tried and true", broadly usable setups, while providing the say 20% more specialty options that just might be what the doctor ordered in more special cases?

    If I was doing commercial profiles alone, then I would certainly go for a multi-mic setup because with 3 carefully positioned mics, I can easily get the sound and feel I'm after using the mixing desk. I'd rather focus on the tone shaping in the control room than spend my time rushing between studio and control room a hundred times to reposition this one balky microphone. ;)
    What I'm trying to say: Basically both approaches are "lazy" in some way and "not lazy" in some other way. Personally I'm more interested in well shaped tone and I really don't care much how it was achieved. If someone like Andy feels more comfortable to use multiple mics to get the tones ... brilliant. If someone else uses just one mic ... brilliant. I will judge with my ears and not with a look at the gear list.

    Quote from Michael_dk


    I'm still a bit at a loss, though... I get what you're saying in the context of laying down some tracks - sometimes you need to shake things up a bit. But in the context of making profiles for others to use, maybe the potential users would be better served with the majority being "tried and true", broadly usable setups, while providing the say 20% more specialty options that just might be what the doctor ordered in more special cases?


    Shaking things up is a brave decision. I think brave is always better than safe -
    and while i see how 'classic' techniques might achieve sounds that are more sell-able, i can also see how a multi-mic setup with expensive mics is a selling point, if only because it's not something you can easily do at home.

    "But dignity is difficult to maintain
    stamina requires constant upkeep
    repetition is boring
    and you pay for grace."

    Quote from Quitty


    Shaking things up is a brave decision. I think brave is always better than safe -
    and while i see how 'classic' techniques might achieve sounds that are more sell-able, i can also see how a multi-mic setup with expensive mics is a selling point, if only because it's not something you can easily do at home.


    Yeah, I think that is also part of the allure - and I have been swayed as much by multiple expensive mics as much as the next guy :) But I've also had massive problems finding a fitting profile for some of my songs. It finally clicked last night with one of the factory rigs (though, for full disclosure, I don't know if that is a single mic, multiple mics or whatever...).


    What it comes down to for me is this: where are all the single sm57-profiles (or whatever mic might be suitable)? :)
    I would also add that in a market that in my view (which might be skewed, I don't know) contains mostly 2-3+ mics on the cabs - the "brave" choice might be to keep it simple? ;)


    I am going to take a much closer look at the factory content in the future, which of course is a good thing since it is free :)

    Well Andy did qualify that comment with saying it made the mixing engineer's job harder with just an SM57.


    I don't think multiple mic's is a "selling point" as the OP suggests. I've NEVER read "New Profile Pack Using 5 Mics" and thought "Oh, this MUST be a better pack".


    I just buy certain packs, gravitate towards certain profiles, and when I ask the profile creators what they did, they're often multi-mic profiled.


    If a single mic can sound as good as the multi mic's, I keep it too, just less of them for my ears.





    Agreed...In fact, I often shy away from people who use multiple mics, they often just sound wrong, and don't fit well, to me atleast. They also often sound phasey. I think there is more of an art to this than people realize, and is harder to make sound "right" than it seems...


    We are all probably looking at this alittle closed minded as well. Producers/engineers will often use what is right for the sound and vibe of the record they are trying to obtain, and will use whatever is necessary to do so accordingly: this is why I definitely don't agree with the "lazy" comments, but I see that was retracted and was expanded on. Many a records have just used a single sm57 carefully micd and have had huge tones, and huge success.


    This is why I personally DO care how the profile was made. There are certain mics/combinations I will shy away from just because of personal preference, and this is nice to know ahead of time. Not that I am against trying new things, but sometimes I just don't have the time to do all of that: i want to use things that I know will work for me and my use. I also very much care and wish people would reference more what they intended these profiles to be made for (in the profilers opinion of course). Some profiles people make to sound like the "in the room" sound, which, I personally don't care about or have a need for.


    In mixes with loud, distorted guitars, crazy double bass, loud screaming vocals etc: yes, a single sm57 is often a great choice, because of reasons already stated: it just CUTS and tends to sit right in the mix. a ribbon will NOT get you that sound with that much cut for a mix like that.

    Just my opinion... I like using different mics because they sound different. And you get more options that way. Multiple mics (or even just using different mics) give a variety of tones.


    To say using just one mic (or multiple mics at once) is always the best way is leading down the same path that says THIS amp is the best and the only good amp. If I have a great amp, I want to capture as many sides of it as I can. Plus you can get an incredibly fat sound on a recording by using the same amp but different mic profiles. I would rather provide A, B and C mic profiles of the same amp and be sure more people can use them than just have one, even if some people get my profiles and discard some mics since they don't work for THEIR use.


    Pete

    Quote from okstrat

    Just my opinion... I like using different mics because they sound different. And you get more options that way. Multiple mics (or even just using different mics) give a variety of tones.


    To say using just one mic (or multiple mics at once) is always the best way is leading down the same path that says THIS amp is the best and the only good amp. If I have a great amp, I want to capture as many sides of it as I can. Plus you can get an incredibly fat sound on a recording by using the same amp but different mic profiles. I would rather provide A, B and C mic profiles of the same amp and be sure more people can use them than just have one, even if some people get my profiles and discard some mics since they don't work for THEIR use.


    Pete


    This is a great post from Pete! Totally agree here!

    Put simply, I think it is a MUCH harder task to get a good result with multiple mics. Those that do it well are few and have a good understanding of how the two sources interact and what frequencies might be over represented or cancel each other out. Every time I try to record a massive guitar sound combining many or mics, I end up giving up and simplifying it

    For those of us that aren't commercial profilers, we usually have to rely on the ears of the guys doing the profiles to get it right. In that sense, I really appreciate it when profilers post takes of the same amplifier with different settings. Perhaps it would make as much sense to break those multiple mic setups into individual profiles and leave it to the user to blend it, something like the recent Ace of Skunk Anansie profiles that were posted, i.e. stuff that works well together.


    That would be my idea for recording, but for live? I want to capture as many of the characteristics of the original amplifier as possible. In that sense, multiple micing might be the only way to capture the whole spectrum of tone from an amplifier, though again, the results would be coloured by placement, EQing, etc. Then again, I don't have the amplifier and have no idea how it sounds: it is in my best interests to use the profiles created by guys that can say, "This is the authentic sound of the amplifier".


    If the end justifies the mean, I'm not going to nitpick and say, "Only this works" or "Only that works". Perhaps the one thing that could be drawn from this thread for commercial profilers is that we want more flavours, which gives us a better say in how the guitar parts sit in the mix, rather than having to complicate things by modifying a sound to suit the mix, or being forced to base our entire mix on that sound. Means more work, but it also means more satisfied customers.

    Mics, like speakers are one of the most important aspects of recording tone, it defines it, if you limit this by design then your not really capturing the amp, your just focusing on some of the freq it offers. and hey, that's absolutely fine as this has been teh way since time begun to record amps, but for me its how those freq are captured, one mic, two or three. matters not, but what does matter if you can re-create the sound of the transmission faithfully. - no need to make this into science, its whatever the engineer wants to hear is how he then chooses the better mic to do the job,


    Nowadays in big studios, the engineers have already chosen the mics before the session has started or even equipment arrived, this is what I meant as lazy. they just choose the "normal" tried and tested way. and then leave it all to the EQ afterwards... hmm not my style.


    If I hear the amp has warm lows and lower mids I wont use a dynamic mic for it. use a ribbon or LDM, if it has a tight bottom then a SDM mic, then the highs will be prob with a dynamic or a active ribbon. and sometimes a mixture of all of them, there can never be one rule..


    The end of the day, 1 mic can be equally as effective as 5. but the 5 will be seperated into sections and would of taken you 5 times longer to sort out!.. pointless really when one would of done!.. but that can also work in reverse, sometimes you can struggle for ages with one. soon as you put the 2nd and start the blending.. bang..what a difference it can make!.


    I think the choice in styles, people, ears etc are all very different, and one I thankfully accept as a good thing, else music today would be robotic and awfull..


    Power to the people!.