Best way to record mandolin?

Hi, everyone! I've been away from this forum for wayyyy too long. I'm glad to still see so many of the people here that I used to nag all the time for help! 

Can someone offer some quick advice on how to best record a mandolin using some basic gear? The mando is nice...good tone, nice and warm. I've tried using an AT4033, SM58, SM57, and even one of those AKG "egg" mics that are popular with kick drums. The AT was way too bright. The 58 was ok I guess, as was the 57, and the egg was just sorta dull. I tried moving the mic position all over the body while it was being played, but it just sounded so dull.

Am I just a victim of the wrong mics for the job here? If so, what's an acceptable, affordable substitute?

Thanks. Great to be back!

I usually use a small diaphragm - AKG C391b would be the first pick from my kit.  Very even-tempered mic - detailed without being bright.  I sometimes use a little multiband compression to reduce pick noise.

I think that I'd try a SD mic first as well, and it would also be an AKG. Not the blueline series though, because I don't own any of those, but either a C451 with an appropriate capsule (probably a CK1), or my new 'quieter' version, a C480 with the appropriate (but bloody expensive!) adaptor - which lets you use the original CK capsules.

Thanks, gents. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of those mics, but it may be time to make an investment if I'll be doing a lot of mando recording.

Cheers.

If you can afford to rent for a day, you'll at least know that you like or dislike the given mic. 

I'm not surprised that the four mics didn't thrill you, because they all have a fairly distinct sonic footprint and a fairly specific range of purpose.  Steve's idea of a 451 makes sense not only because its a condenser, but because these kinds of flatter-response mics make most anything sound good.

Would any of the inexpensive Chinese condensers help dawgman?

I hear what you're saying, which is why I really thought the AT would be perfect for this...but it was so bright and I could just hear everything. I use this AT for vocals, and it's good there. Maybe I just didn't spend enough time trying to do some creative eq-ing with it.

What Chinese condensers are you talking about? I'm willing to try anything here. (I need to find a place where I could rent a 451 for a day)

Yes, SD condensor mics are the way to go with most mandolins.

I play bluegrass, and specialize in recording it in my little studio. The one caveat I have found with the mandolin is to deaden the ambient as much as possible. Most mandolins, especially F-styles, have an abundance of high-end harmonic content, and any ambient reverb tends to really cause some of the "brightness" of which you speak. My low cost solution, even though my room has good acoustic treatment, is to surround the player with a lot of damping material. I typically run a boom mic stand up to full height, extend the boom to make a "T", and then throw a heavy padded blanket, such as the type that furniture movers use, over the T. A number of these surrounding the player and mic will make it sound really "dead!" You can lessen the effect to whatever you desire, by leaving gaps of various sizes between the T stands. (I have a bunch of these movers' blankets that I got for 5 bucks apiece. Heavy, sewn-through, quilted material which acts as an excellent damper in a reverberating space.) The most important place is BEHIND the musician, facing the mic.

My favourite mic for mando is a Neumann KM 184. I realize that not everyone has one of these at their disposal, but I've also used the Rode NT 5 to my satisfaction. They are available for a little more than 250 dollars in Canada. I used to use one of the (now discontinued) TOA SD mics that I still have at the back of the mic closet. The K2 and K4 models worked well. They are available on eBay and other auction sites from time to time at reasonable prices, albeit you run the usual hazards of buying a used microphone...

BTW, I got to jam with the "Dawg" last summer when both our bands played the same festival. David Grisman is a MONSTER mandolin player!!! 

For the risk of being beaten by Steve as I know his love for that brand, I propose to use Behringer B-5 SD, which, depending on the environment, might be fitted by the cardiod or even the omni capsule. This is certainly a low cost solution but unlikey to be inappropriate. My experience in using these types as universal mics are consistently good, except that one died suddenly during a session. It is for sure that a LD type might have some 6 db lower noise, but in this case, I think that is no problem.

A professionally working friend of mine dealing  with top classical performers and orchestras has an admirable collection of different Neumanns, AKG's and other famous and expensive mics, I envy him for. Recently, I was very surprised to find out that he had added a number of B-5 to his material. He told me there was no problem in most cases to replace a small Neumann by a B-5 ! I had also the chance to discuss with Juerg Jecklin and he also told me, he has no barrier to use  B-5's.

The trouble with B-5's is that like most if not all Behringer stuff, they come from China. And the problem with the cheap Chinese mics is that no two of them are the same - some being distinctly worse than others. So you have to choose your mics carefully if you use anything from that brand.

My experience in using these types as universal mics are consistently good, except that one died suddenly during a session.

During roughly 35 years of using AKGs I've never had a single one fail, ever. I can't afford to use Behringers... 

My experience is as Steve's. I haven't had that much experience with many of Behringer's products, but what little I do have has been hit-and-miss.

I wouldn't want to expend the time and effort to go down to one of the local shops and buy a mic, bring it home and evaluate during a session, Then run back the next day and proclaim, "This one's not good enough." and repeat the process until I got a good one. It certainly wouldn't earn me any points with the proprietor either!

I have no doubt that there ARE some cheap mics that will get the job done. But the experience of sorting through a wagonload of coal in order to find a diamond, is vastly over-rated! I like knowing that I can go to my cupboard, choose a mic for a particular purpose, and that it will perform exactly as I expect it to.

As a coincidence to all of the above, I just scored a couple of 451Bs that were on sale as "rep's demo models." They are supposed to be slightly used, but the cellophane wrap was still intact around the boxes, and they look and sound flawless....?

At any rate, for 300 CAN plus change, with a year's warranty, I'm not sure I can go wrong.

Cheap like borsch!

At any rate, for 300 CAN plus change, with a year's warranty, I'm not sure I can go wrong.

Unless the value of the $CAN has altered significantly, that looks like a good bargain, since it's for two of them.

All the C451s I have are not the 'new' ones like that, but the interchangeable capsule original ones, and most of them have been upgraded to get around one or two little problems - mainly with noisy/odd-sounding capacitors. Not that this ever stopped them working, as I noted above - it was more to do with getting rid of a tantalum in the signal path, and changing a couple of decoupling caps.

As a cheaper option SD mic that would at least be consistent, I'd consider the Rode NT5, which has the possibility of exchangeable cardioid/omni capsules and has a good reputation. You can, for a little more moohlah, get the NT55 - basically the same, only with roll-off filters and attenuator in the mic body. But I'd definitely spring for spending slightly more money on the Rodes rather than the Behringer B-5. Incidentally, the B-5 appears to be heading towards being a MD mic, not a SD - it appears to have an 18mm capsule. In theory, that's a good compromise size - but not, I suspect, if Behringer make it, simply because it won't be consistent.

If you want to go for something really cheap and Behringer, then probably the C-2's are the ones to go for. You get a pair of more-like SD mics, supposedly matched, for - well, pretty much small change. In fact it's almost tempting to get a pair and find out how many of their claims for them are met. I'll think about it...

I thought that the ECM8000s they did (but didn't make) were cheap, but they are now saying that I can have a pair of 'genuine condenser' C-2s for less than the cost of a single one of those!

I am not surprised that my statement in favour of  B-5 microphones opened a can of worms. Before I continue, I like to state that I am neither an advocate of Behringer equipment nor do I have a close affinity to chinese electronics. I have some reserve toward both. But I am an advocate of fairness.

The story about the lack of consistence of chinese microphones and the B-5‘s as special case is an old one and I do not even doubt that initially it was true. But instead of spreading it repeatedly, I rather took the pain to check the truth of it by myself, since I do not exclude that the chinese are able to learn fast.

I started to compare the behaviour of my collection 5 B-5‘s in a test setup. First, I prepared a sequence (20s each) of 9 equidistant frequencies in the range of 1kHz to 16 kHz, and a 400 Hz reference in AA1.0. Then I set up a (lousy) PC speaker and played back this sequence to feed the B-5 on a stand in 0.5 m distance. The output level was measured behind a microphone preamp using an (analogue) audio frequency VM. It is obvious that such an arrangement suffers from standing waves in a room without absorbers and other anomalies. Therefore such an equipment is not at all appropriate to evaluate an amplitude plot on the frequency axis, yet it may well show a difference in behaviour when the capsules are exchanged. The small size of the speaker also was the reason to exclude the low frequency range, which I suppose to be less sensitive to deviations.

Doing so, I used the body of microphone 1 and fit the capsules for cardioids (C-1 ... C-5) and omnis ( O-1 ... O-5) one after the other. The results are as shown attached in the full table.

A short summary is that the deviations from the mean values in most cases are below 1 dB. A few exceptions are slightly above 1 dB.

I leave it to the reader to rate the consistency as claimed by Steve. I have no doubt a similar check on AKG or Neumann types will show up much closer tolerances. But I also hope someone is going to take the pain to make a similar investigation. I am very eager to get the results !

The B-5’s under test were purchased in the period from 2005 to 2008 randomly in a big Zurich music store. They may rarely originate from a single production lot, although I cannot check it since they have no production numbers. I stand aside of making a statement about the sound they deliver. I have a number of samples in the showcase all done with B-5‘s. So far nobody has claimed bad quality although such remarks may emerge now.

I think the situation has some parallels in photography. Some 40 years ago, it was mandatory that a professional did rely on a Leica. Japanese imitations were given a mild smile. In between, the professionals use Canons and Nikons and it is rather the Leicas that are given a smile, no matter that they are still excellent cameras. But this remark may open one more COW!

I would like to make a comment also on Steve's remark:

At any rate, for 300 CAN plus change, with a year's warranty, I'm not sure I can go wrong.

If you want to go for something really cheap and Behringer, then probably the C-2's are the ones to go for. You get a pair of more-like SD mics, supposedly matched, for - well, pretty much small change. In fact it's almost tempting to get a pair and find out how many of their claims for them are met. I'll think about it...

I own also a pair of C-2's. I rate them reasonably good, but less neutral than the B-5's. I use them for speech as well as as support for single instruments such as banjo or even piano.  Don't forget that the B-5's offer the choice of using omni or cardiod capsules - the C-2 do not. This prevents them for use in a Decca tree or for a Jecklin disc as I often like to do. There is no objection to use them in a ORTF arrangement. It is somewhat boring that the capsules are signed by a hypercardioid sign but declared as cardioids. I cannot check it.

I leave it to the reader to rate the consistency as claimed by Steve. I have no doubt a similar check on AKG or Neumann types will show up much closer tolerances. But I also hope someone is going to take the pain to make a similar investigation. I am very eager to get the results !

No, I think that the reader needs a little more information, otherwise they'd be making a rather uninformed comparison...

...because most mics can manage that sort of performance on-axis - I don't think that your test proves a lot. What marks mics out as better or worse amongst other things is the accuracy of their cardioid response (assuming that they are cardioid of course!) and very much their response below 1kHz - that's where a lot of capsule construction variations come into play.

Really, you should test mics against a known reference as far as flatness is concerned, and it's not generally too difficult to do a directivity test - although to be comprehensive it has to be done at a number of frequencies, as this varies a lot in different mic types. Also it helps to do this in an anechoic chamber, or outside away from buildings, although there are gating techniques that can get around a lot of location problems.

Doing accurate meaningful mic tests isn't particularly easy.