Studio Notes

on

I purchased a pair of Cascade Fat Head II ribbon mics sometime in 2011. Some of the studios I had recorded in used ribbon mics on guitars and drum overheads. They always sounded pleasant and accurate. The Fat Heads I purchased came with a Blumlein stereo bar for mounting. I used the Fat Heads on a few drum recordings and a guitar recording or two. After their novelty wore off, I left them in their flight case for the better part of a decade. That is, until recently.

Back in December, I wrote 60 production prompts. The purpose of the prompts is to spark creativity. By limiting choices when working in a studio setting, new ideas emerge. At least, that’s the theory. One of the first prompts I drew was “record a song where everything must pass through a Fat Head II ribbon mic.” That type of limitation raised all kinds of questions for me. The first, and most relevant, was, exactly what is a ribbon mic and what does it do?

A ribbon microphone uses a ribbon of aluminum to capture sound. It serves as the microphone diaphragm, which captures changes in pressure. It’s also a transducer, which converts those changes into an electrical signal. By contrast, a dynamic microphone (think the regular stage mics that have a ball on the end), uses a metal coil as a transducer. The condenser microphone (think studio vocal mic that looks like a tube) uses a conductive membrane as a transducer. All three of these microphones have different general characteristics. A ribbon is usually warm, yet accurate. A dynamic mic is usually able to handle loud sources well. A condenser mic is usually bright and accurate–excellent for vocals, strings, and drum overheads.

Ribbon mics are delicate. If, for example, you accidentally leave the phantom power on when you plug in a ribbon mic, you may pop the ribbon from the energy in the line. Ribbon mics are not a panacea for recording ills, either. Sometimes, a ribbon mic is a bad choice on a given audio source, particularly if you don’t like the natural sound of what you are recording.

Using only a Fat Head II on a recording was a tremendous challenge. I look forward to eventually sharing songs that come from these creative prompts.

on

Over the past year, in between workdays and perhaps while occasionally procrastinating, I’d sometimes surf over to the Slate Digital page and salivate over the ML-1 microphone and its many emulations. The Slate Virtual Microphone System self-describes as a “hybrid system that utilizes an extremely transparent condenser microphone, a sonically-neutral preamp, and state-of-the-art digital processing suite that recreates the tone of classic microphones and preamps.” I’ve always enjoyed the recording sessions where I’ve been able to use a 1073 Neve pre-amp or a Neumann microphone that’s more expensive than my car. But, can an emulation system approach the quality of expensive reality?

I picked up an ML-1 last month because they were on sale. I have been using the Slate Virtual Mix Rack for a number of projects, but I hadn’t yet ventured into using Slate hardware. Lately, my go-to microphone has been the Shure SM-7B. How does the ML-1 compare?

The Slate Virtual Microphone System Graphic User Interface

This past week, I tried the ML-1 on three different projects. I’m recording vocals on a new collaboration called “Anchors,” I’m revisiting some older songs on the piano, and I’m prepping this month’s podcast. I was very pleased with the ML-1 on straight singing applications. One of the emulations is the SM-7 and, honestly, I couldn’t tell the difference between the emulation and my own SM-7B. If anything, the ML-1 is constructed differently than the SM-7B and sound arrives at its capsule differently, but that affects the mechanics of things more so than the actual sound. While I liked all of the emulations, I particularly admired the Neumann 67 model on my voice. The top is much clearer than the Neumann TLM 103 I have in my mic locker.

I also tried the ML-1 on spoken word. I didn’t prefer the ML-1 on spoken material. Here is where the broadcast pop filter of the SM-7B comes in handy. I’m sure I could put the huge foam filter over the ML-1, but I didn’t try that. In the ML-1’s defense, I wouldn’t use a tube condenser on spoken word either. I bet the ML-2–the Slate mic designed for “instrument” applications–would produce a more favorable result for spoken word.

Bravo to Slate Digital for creating a wonderful piece of gear. I’m sure audiophiles could nitpick the ML-1 and tell us all why the originals are so much better. But for most of us who have lives, families, and a limited budget, emulation systems like the Slate VMS are a dream come true.