What microphones do you prefer to use for either recording sessions (professional studio, home studio, field recording) or on stage?

I've done little recording so my suggestion will carry little weight, but I have used the mic a number of times for live performances. That mic is the Rode NT3.

http://www.rodemic.com/microphone.php?product=NT3

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/R0D...hone?sku=271575

Besides being a very nice sounding mic, it has dual power supply capability. If you have a phantom power source, it works just like any other condenser mic. But if you find yourself without phantom power, it has an internal 9 volt battery that allows you to use it without phantom power.

Excellent topic, as I am starting to get more involved in the nuances of mics... condenser, passive, etc. etc. Thank you for starting this!

I have two Behringer XM8500A mics that are relatively inexpensive but that sound very good on the wire. They have a nice, even response that doesn't diminish during the peeks or valleys that I can notice . Granted, I am sure this could be verified with the right equipment. I am pretty happy with them, which is all that matters. They do have decent reviews too. They are in the $30-40 range. I was also recently gifted with the Pick Up The World mini mic that, once plugged into a preamp, sounds very nice!

I would say that my favorite condenser mic would be the Shure SM57 as a close second, which seems to be better for instruments in contrast to the SM58. Granted, I am still not clear on the differences other than the 58 has a windscreen and the 57 is often used for mic'ing amps, etc. Maybe someone can chime in on this.

My first personal choice, however, would be the AKG C 1000 (for live) because you don't have be close to the mic to get great sound... in fact, you can be several feet a way and it sounds just fine. The drawback might be that due to the mic being so hot, if you are recording at home without the protection of good sound insulation, you might accidentally record your neighbor's toilet flushing between the solo and the bridge . The price is decent, and I have seen new ones on ebay for about a hundred clams.

I am not a mic expert, and can only speak for my personal use and application. Any variance in either could change my mind dramatically.

Great topic! Very close to my heart

Cryss, please exuse my shoving in the editorial "oar"...the Shure SM57 (and SM58) are dynamic mics as opposed to condensors. That may have been a typo, but I just wanted to clarify in case someone were cruising the posts to learn about mics. The C-1000S is a condensor microphone (it needs either a battery or phantom power from the mixer). Dynamics, of course, are not powered.

I have some C-1000S mics (which are really nice for the money) and great all around studio mics (good for stage too). They are a "small diaphragm" condensor mic which makes them shine on things like acoustic guitars and drums, though they can be used very effectively for flute and vocals.

For flute (and this is all in-the-studio stuff since I don't perform) I use either a Neumann TLM-103 (really nice large diaphragm condensor mic) or a Telefunken M-16 mkII (large diaphragm tube mic). This is a new acquisition and I'm hoping to do a side by side test of each of them for the flute. The Telefunken is a real "tube" mic as opposed to a solid state mic. Tube powered gear (both mics and preamps) tend to have a warmer, silkier sound, generally speaking.

For non-flute sources (if I'm playing guitar, for example) I have a stereo pair of Russian made Oktava MK-102 small diaphragm condensor mics that were modified by a guy named Michael Joly. He is a technician who specializes in aftermarket upgrades to these amazing Russian mics, turning them into the "deal of the century" The quality to price ratio on all of his mics are amazing. I've included some links if anyone is interested in reading more techno stuff. If you want to get a top quality large diaphragm condensor mic for recording, you might want to check out his website--if his large diaphragm mics are anything as good as my MK-102s then you'll be happy.

Michael Joly's site: http://www.oktavamod.com/
Neumann TLM-103: http://www.zzounds.com/item--NEUTLM103
Telefunken M-16 mkII: http://www.mercenaryaudio.com/teusarm16mk.html

I have also found by mounting a condenser choir mic on a short wire, it can be attached to the flute and gives a very nice sound. Just make sure the wind from the TSH does not hit the element.

I have gotten some very good sound from mounting an Audio Technica 853A to my flute. I used the wire hanger that comes with it. Bent over the end, stuck that in foam then I velcro it to my flute with a velcro strap.

You can move around and play and still stay "on mic".

For recording, I have a nice pair of condenser mics. I tend to record everything in stereo. Most of us hear in stereo, why shouldn't recordings also be made that way. Here is a URL for a good primer on stereo mic techiques.

I switch between the X/Y and the ORTF occasionally adding a center mic to the ORTF as a kind of modified Decca tree thing..

It all depends on what is being recorded and the location.

http://www.xowave.com/doc/recording/mic-pair.shtml

Doh! Of course! Don't I just feel silly.

Yes, a definite typo as I own these mics... I did some last minute cut/ paste editing since I had several ideas on one page in MS Word before upload. That will teach me

Of course, I could just order some toast to go with the egg on my face and it will all be good .

Thanks for the correction!

Since I'm starting to look seriously at condenser mics for recording, I'd like to revisit this topic. Reading reviews can be confusing because for any given mic people will love or hate it, and hardly anyone it seems has tested them specifically on NAF. Barry Higgins (White Crow Flutes) puts in a plug for the Blue Blueberry, but his review was seven years ago and limited to six mics--and the mic he recommends runs about $950 new. I'm not opposed to waiting longer and saving more money, but I'm also kind of anxious to complete my recording set-up. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm using a MacBook Pro with Studio Logic (and Garage Band), an Apogee Duet audio interface, and a Studio Projects VTB1 preamp. (No monitors yet, but I took Geoffrey's recommendation and bought a pair of Audio-technica ATH-M40fs studio headphones ... great, by the way, especially for the price .)

Geoffrey, going back through your posts on this subject, I see that you have recorded flutes using a Neumann TLM-103 (eBay has used ones for about $750), but in one post preferred a small-condenser mic, a modified Oktava MK-012 -- or was it a pair? Will I need two? You also mentioned contacting Michael Joly about large-condenser mics, which I intend to do ... just want to go in with as much info as possible. Even his site provides more options than specific advice. I guess my question to you, and everyone, is what will be best for NAF (I want to record high-quality CDs) at something like a reasonable price point? I know ... reasonable is subjective, but I'm willing to make some sacrifices for quality. What's "best" is subjective, too, but from what I've read so far a flat or warm response is desirable. The issues for NAF will be mid-range presence and high end "brittleness." Ideally, one mic would work well for both bass and treble flutes (though I rarely stray outside high B to low A.

So ... any additional advice on how to narrow my search (and increase my confidence level)?

Paul

Hmmm ... no responses yet. Oh well, been researching the last couple days about mic placement and recording flutes in general (mostly silver -- not much on NAF out there, though Barry Higgins' article is helpful and the others can be adapted). And waiting to hear back from Michael Joly about selecting the most appropriate, and "affordable," mic(s).

One question that has arisen from the research and still doesn't have a definitive answer: record with one mic (mono) or two (stereo)?

Cost aside, seems to be a trade-off either way ...

Stereo -- more depth and texture to sound (Barry recommends placing one high, angled down toward mid barrel; and placing the other low, angled up toward the foot end -- in particular for longer bass flutes), but also potential phase issues and less flexibility in mixing, especially if other instrument tracks are present.

Mono -- flatter, more focused sound (which can be doubled for stereo effect and adjusted for room ambience -- reverb, delay, etc. -- in mixing), but also with some loss of "natural" presence. Consider panning, for instance. With two mics, one can be panned hard left and the other panned hard right during recording -- a very different effect than if one mic is used, the track then doubled in mixing, and one track subsequently panned left while the other (identical track) is panned right. Some of the dynamics will be lost.

Obviously, mono is a cheaper option and may be a limiting factor -- but cost aside, I wonder if anyone would care to share their thoughts on this subject.

Paul

I have a AUDIX CM2- it is crystal clear

Couldn't find this one on the Audix website. Is it a dynamic or condenser mic? Large or small diaphragm?

Dynamic/ hypercardioid, this is an older model , about 3 years, there are more models, CM4, 5 ,8 BUT IT KICKS BUTT


Audix OM-2 Microphone Features:
Transducer Type: Dynamic
Frequency Response: 50 Hz- 16kHz
Polar Pattern: Hypercardioid
Output Impedance 250 ohms
Sensitivity: 71.5dB
Capsule Technology VLM Type B
Off axis rejection >25dB
Maximum SPL: >140dB
Cable/Connector: 3 pin gold plated male XLR
Polarity: Positive voltage on pin 2 relative to pin 3 of output XLR connector
Housing: Zinc alloy
Accessories: adjustable mic clip with 5/8" 27 thread stand adapter, zippered carrying pouch
Dimension: (L x D): 6.73" x .944" (shaft)
Weight: 10.5oz/298 grams

DELETE BUTTON NEEDED

I love this mic. And, it has it's own internal power supply (a replaceable 9 volt battery) for those times you don't have access to phantom power.

http://pro-audio.musiciansfriend.com/produ...hone?sku=271575

Thanks, Brother Cavefish, but I already have a great dynamic mic for performance -- two, in fact. One is listed for sale in the classifieds only because I don't need them both. I'm looking here for advice on a condenser mic for CD-quality recording. As I understand it, dynamics are typically more rugged for "on-the-road" purposes and, because they are usually plugged into an amplifier, don't have the same sensitivity requirements. Condensers are typically more fragile, more sensitive, and are plugged into an audio interface or preamp.

Paul

The NT3 (as are other Rode mics) is certainly a good choice. From what I've read, though, a cardioid pattern might be better for a home studio, where room noise can become an issue. Even so, I would seriously consider sending it to Michael Joly for modification. It's worth a trip to his site just to listen to comparisons between his Rode NT1/NT1a mod and a Neumann U87.

Plus for recording purposes only, I don't really have any need for battery power. The mic I choose will always be plugged into a preamp connected to my MacBook Pro. I also have a PUTW mic that plugs directly into my battery-powered Roland MicroCube.

All this research is starting to make me (almost ) sound like I know what I'm talking about, but seriously I do still have a few unanswered questions .

Paul

Brother Cavefish ... to hear how a dynamic microphone (in this case, a Shure SM57) stacks up to condensers in a recording situation, check out this YouTube video (link found on Michael Joly's website). Side by side, the difference is pretty astounding. Of course, without a direct comparison most of us probably wouldn't notice.

Paul

Yes the condenser has alot more clarity,
I am an amateur , and i just use it for personal echo effect and such but yes , i would definitely go for the condenser if recording,

live performance , i dont really think the dynamic would be a bad thing, nice Vid and thanks

In live performance or practice sessions, the dynamic is great. I use one -- an EV Raven.

Thought I'd get more response/discussion on this topic. Even my email to Michael Joly came back as undeliverable , so based on my own continued research I've decided to take a 3-stage gradual approach (subject as always to change):

Primary mic

1) Stock Rode NT1A
2) Joly mod upgrade of the Rode

Secondary mic

3) Oktava MK-012 mod

In side by side comparisons to the Neumann U-87, I keep coming back to the samples on this page.

An alternative for a similar sound is a pair of matched and modded Okatava MK-012s, with one of them further upgraded to include a MJE-K47H capsule.

Hi Paul,
I'm not an expert in any way. The Rode NT1A especially with the Joly mods sounds awesome and the price is pretty good too. $229 at amazon for the stock mic and the mic holder/pop filter/cable. Not sure how much the Joly mods cost though. If I'm readying it right it looks like one already mod'd is $379?

Looking at the webpage, what about this MJE-K47H "Solo". It's got all the mods done for $329 and seems to have some great reviews. The YouTube review from the NYC recording studio really is a great comparison. Not only does the mic seem to stand up nicely with the U47 but it was VERY interesting to hear the "good" mics compared the the "standard" SM57. It's amazing how much low end the SM57 drops.

Like I said, don't know much about these things but it certainly sounded good.

Later!

-Mark

Oops, like I said, not an expert. Just read that again and that MJE-K47H is just the head. You gotta have a mic body to go with it. Given that, the mod'd NT1a sounds pretty good to me.

-Mark

Thanks for the response, Mark. I don't know much, either, but am trying to change that as best I can through reading and comparing at least online recorded clips. Unless I misunderstand, the Joly mod of the NT1A is $379 on top of the cost of the mic, which you supply to him. Makes for a pretty hefty price tag, but when you consider how it sounds next to a $3400 Neumann U-87 it doesn't look so bad.

Likewise with the K47 capsule. For $349 you get only the capsule. You have to supply the pencil mic (e.g., Okatava MK-012 or something cheaper) either modded or not modded. I don't really see the point of putting an expensive capsule on the not modded version. Anyway, he sells the modded version of the MK-012 for $349 ... so total cost would be $698. But again, you have to compare this to the $3400 Neumann U-87.

The bigger question is whether this is overkill for an amateur home studio ... yeah, probably, but I'm interested in getting the best sound I possibly can, and the price doesn't seem to me totally unreasonable given comparisons to the industry standard. One reason I thought I might try to approach the purchase in stages, besides being able to spread out the cost, is that I can start using the NT1A right away as a stand-alone recording mic. It might turn out that I'm perfectly happy with it and can save myself $500.

Recording space is a big issue, too. A more sensitive mic will pick up more room sounds (refrigerators, clocks ticking, etc.). I have a fairly good-size walk-in closet that I hope will work if I drape it with blankets. We'll have to wait and see. Unless plans change, I hope to have the NT1A in a couple weeks.

Paul

PS -- Looks like we posted about the same time.

Hi Paul,
Just ran across this on ebay. Not sure what he does compared to Joly but there are alot of good reviews and happy customers. Go to ebay and search for this item number:
170417480543

Later!

-Mark

Thanks, I've seen that ... will have to check further into it.

Paul, is your ambition to record strictly flute, or will you be recording vocals or other instruments as well?

If you are looking to record flute and you have potential issues with room noise, then you might do very well with a single, modded MK-012. You don't need a stereo pair unless you have a special need to do a stereo recording. I got a stereo pair for a classical guitar session I recorded (it allows for a nice spread to get the body and neck at the same time). However, when I record flute I use the single MK-012. The smaller diaphragm picks up noticeably less room tone than my Telefunken MKII (LDC).

Certain mics seem popular based upon their value as a "do-it-all" workhorse studio mic for folks on a budget. The Rode is one of the popular mics for home recordists, as is the AT4050, the Neumann TLM-103, etc.. I had a TLM-103 before the Telefunken, and it was a great mic for recording most everything. However, unless you have a need for a real general purpose mic you can narrow your search to something that will do particularly well for your specific circumstances (especially since you might have issues with room noise).

For flute, if you buy the Joly version of the MK-012 and a really nice preamp, you'll never need anything else--you'll get fantastic flute recordings. You can take the money that you might have spent on the capsule upgrade (K47) and put it toward that preamp. Then you'll have a serious "front end" to your recording set up that will sound amazing.

Thanks, Geoffrey ... was hoping you'd have a chance to chime in, since I've still been going back and forth on this. What you say makes sense. At least initially I'll only be recording flute -- in a closet where room noise will likely be an issue. I might want to add voice for a guided meditation project down the line, but that won't be for awhile ... strictly the flute for now.

I saw one comment on eBay from someone selling their MK-012 due to weak signal strength. Any validity to that, or do you suppose something other than the mic was to blame?

Shouldn't be a problem with a MK-012 unless its defective.

Honestly, flutes are VERY easy to record. Most descent condenser mics will give you a very good result. I have some slightly modded MXL 603's that sound fantastic. I picked them up for $100 a pair, spent $15 to buy some different resistors and made them sound very good. Many of the MXL mics sound pretty good and they are not expensive.
I got lucky and on a whim bought KAM instruments mic kit. It is a pencil with 3 different heads. Luckily I did not get burned. The mic sounds very good. There are many descent mics out, some from small companies.

One I have seen grown and have heard the results is Karma Mics. Fantastic sound, small company.
Karma Mics. Some people on a recording site I haunt have used them with very good results.

One of the best deals out are people getting rid of older CAD E-100 mics, good mic. The new "S" model is an improvement but expensive. Of course I am going to toss in Shure SM-81. Not cheap but if you want a classic fantastic pencil microphone, this is one to get. I doubt you will find any studio that doesn't have at least one pair in their cabinet. Cardiod, flat 20-20000hz. Best mic Shure ever made.

Having a good pre-amp is great but if your mixer has descent pre amps in it you are OK without a separate unit. Pre-amps are kind of the "next step" up in quality. they make marginal mics sound even better, usually. Occasionally they will make a lesser mic sound even worse since you hear more of the "bad". I have produced some very good recordings of pianos, flutes, guitars, vocals etc. with just the pre-amps in my recording unit(Roland 2000CD).

As Jeff G said, if someone was having a problem, it was probably the mic, or it could be their preamp. The MK-012 is supposed to be a very nice mic even before modification by someone like Michael Joly. Post mod, it is nothing short of amazing (I've heard some engineers who compare the modded version to the old Neumann KM84, which you probably won't find anymore for less than $1000 each if you can find them at all).

A signal chain (mic+cable+preamp+audio interface) is only as strong as its weakest link. A cheap preamp will compromise the sound, as will a faulty cable or a cheesy mic. I have a Shure SM57 that I plugged into a preamp on my audio interface and I thought is sounded okay (the SM57 is happier with a decent amount of gain). I had heard people rave about the SM57 in some studio situations, but I just didn't see what all the fuss was about. When I got the FMR Really Nice Preamp and plugged it in to that....wow! What a difference! Cranked up the gain and the mic came to life and sounded amazing. It just needed a bit of "oomph".

Having a decent preamp, be it external or built into your recording chain (mixer, audio interface) is important. Some mixers are famous for their built in preamps (some of the Mackie mixers, for example) as are some of the audio interfaces (RMEs Fireface units leap to mind). But Jeff G is right, recording just flute you can get nice recordings with just a good mic and a clean preamp--nothing fancy. He posted that recording he made of that young lady singing, which he recorded with his KAM mic and his recording units preamp and it sounded great, and that is vocals (which are a touchier thing to record than the flute).

It's all about budget and timing. If you have money and you know that you are going to want to make recording a serious interest, then get the best equipment you can afford. It will only make everything sound better (knowing how to use it is factor as well). If you are on a budget, then do lots of research. I built a studio on a budget, saving up for key pieces of gear and really trying to find the best quality to price ratio that I could. I settled on a couple of preamps and a couple of mics, and that is all I have. But used in combination they would not shame themselves in a world class recording studio.

And of course, at the risk of being redundant (since I've said this in about 3 other threads), the gear is actually secondary to the space you record in. As many wise engineers have said, if your room is a disaster (acoustically), you can have a $10,000 signal chain and the recording will still sound awful. Room treatment is very important, unless you can achieve a "dead" room (like a closet full of clothes) that absorbs all reflections. Then you will have to bring your recording back to life with the correct application of reverb and/or delay, but at least your original signal won't be all muddy.

I agree with Geoffrey about the having a good room. It makes a difference. There are things you can do to get great recordings in your home. There are certain techniques that I use to get good recordings in a home. I highly recommend that you read "Mixing with your mind" by Michael Paul Stavrou. A great book for someone who wants to get into the recording and mixing. Or subscribe to Tape op magazine which is FREE!!! alot of good stuff in that mag about artist that record in their home studio.

Yes!! Geoffrey is right. The room is a major component that must be considered. I am lucky, I have a few great spaces I can use for recording, including a theater that I run. Each space definitely gives you a different sound.

Thanks to all ... just the sort of discussion I was hoping to generate. Mixing With Your Mind looks interesting ... pricey, though. The Tape Op website apparently has some problems and is listed as an "attack" site potentially harmful to your computer.

When I first started doing home recording, I was clueless about the importance of the room. I had two different recording spaces, and each one of them was a rectangular box, with hardwood floors and a flat ceiling. No room treatment. Basically, about the worst possible place to record.

I used to mic my flute and I was dismayed at how muddy it was--just a mess. I tired every thing I could think of, bought better mics, moved them around, tried to clean up the signal...hopeless. I had no idea that I was sitting in the middle of a bunch of standing waves that were reflecting off the walls of this box I was in. Nothing on earth was going to make that flute sound good in there. I just didn't know it.

Later I got wise and I had a professional studio design consultant work up a remodel plan for me. I put in Hemholtz resonators that changed the room into a trapezoid shape, bass traps, and I turned the ceiling into a big high frequency absorber. I left a hardwood floor and a big glass window so the room wouldn't be completely dead. It was like magic! Everything changed completely and the room was golden. I even had a professional analysis done of the space (using a tone generator and a reference mic) and it was pretty much acoustically perfect.

It took time, effort and money, but it was 100% worth it. Now the modest gear that I have sounds totally top end, because the source is clean.

Just for fun I'll throw in a couple of pics here. The slatted, wooden surfaces are broad-band frequency absorbers (trapezoid shaped boxes filled with loose fiberglass insulation and covered with fabric and randomly sized slats of wood). You can see that the ceiling has panels of 2" thick, rigid fiberglass covered in linen. Above them are open rafters that have 12" of loose fiberglass insulation in between them. The monitors are soffit-mounted Dynaudio BM5As (for all of you gear heads out there). Soffit-mounting speakers is an art in itself and that was probably the most difficult part of the remodel--lots of fussy stuff going on behind the wooden facing around those speakers.

The back of the room is filled with bass traps (16" deep, high density cotton acoustic insulation sealed behind 2" rigid fiberglass panels). They are behind that hammered dulcimer. Notice how they are set into the corners so there are no 90 degree angles? Behind that tapestry is more of the same, covered with a plywood panel. There is enough hard surface in the room to give it some life, but there is absolutely no way that a reflection can travel more than one way. No sound waves ping-ponging across the room.

I think the Tapeop web site is infected. That Sucks!!!

A nice studio setup Geoffrey.

Thanks for the description and pics! It'll be interesting to see what results I can get from a walk-in closet lined with clothes and blankets.

You might be surprised. I have a friend who is a serious classical guitarist (he is part of the Benedetti/Svoboda duo on Domo Records) whose tracks on one of their albums were recorded in his closet, exactly as you described. This was about 15 or 16 years ago, and he was using an DAT machine, but it was just him, his guitar, a mic and bunch of coats and shoes...

Thanks! It is small but effective. It is about 7' wide by 11' long, and if I have anyone over to do recording I have to fold up the hammered dulcimer and put it outside. Then there is just room for two people to work, though you can't really record more than one person at a time without serious mic bleed (discreet tracks are pretty much impossible). It is primarily a solo-artist studio, and for that it is perfect. The only thing I'd really like is more closet space! I have a machine room where I keep the computer (no noise in the control room) and I have a lot of peripheral stuff stored there, but I'm pretty hemmed in by udus, moyo drums, various stringed instruments, a couple of didgeridoos and flutes. Cozy...that's the word.

WOW, that is a Super setup, nice and clean. Great work space, thanks for uploading the photo's.
bill

The studio design consultant I used sort of specialized in small, home studios where the recording room and the control room (aka mixing room) have to be the same room due to limits of space.

So this room was designed to be an acoustically neutral environment for recording, but also it had to have a completely reflection-free space when you sit right in front of the near-field monitors for mixing. It has the added advantage of not being in my house--it is an outbuilding. So I go outside (I live in the forest with no neighbors within three hundred yards of me or more) and into the space, where there are no outside noises to contend with. If I crank the gain up on my large diaphragm condenser (the one that will pick up fly farts at half a mile) I can hear the hum of the computer in the machine room, but under normal recording conditions it can't be heard at all.

WOW that is a nice set up

Okay, I did it ... just ordered a single, modded Oktava MK-012 (black) and shock mount directly from Michael Joly. Couldn't resist including a few stock photos below.

Guess I better start cleaning out the closet ... er, recording studio .

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

I like the shock mount! I didn't get one for mine, but they are really cool.

You found you didn't need it? I just figured it was a given that I did.

That's very nice Paul. I'll have to come to your house to do some recording too. But you'd have to let me go in the closet by myself. I do require a LITTLE privacy PLEASE!!!

Not a given, per se. So far I've never needed a shock mount for those mics. Mind you, my studio is isolated from outside vibrations and such. At the same time it is a wooden building that is up on pilings with a plywood floor, so I have to make sure I'm not thumping around on the floor when I play. Any sort of vigorous foot-tapping is out of the question

I use a shock mount for my Telefunken mic, but it is a LDC mic that came with a mount, and in fact there is no other way to mount it. Prior to that I used a Neumann TLM-103 but I didn't have a shock mount for that one and never really needed it.

The shock mounts are to protect the mic from low-frequency rumble caused by anything that can transmit vibrations up the mic stand, thereby getting picked up by the mic. My own experience has been that you have to have the mic cranked up pretty high to pick that sort of stuff up. But it sounds like your environment might justify it. If you live on a street where a big, heavy truck might come rumbling by, or if any giants frequent your neighborhood then you might be glad to have it. Try it both ways and see what you think.

The occasional truck, but no giants I'm aware of . I did read one comment online from a guy who said he could hear sounds transmitted from the pad rubbing beneath the carpet he was standing on. Sometimes it's hard to know what can be taken seriously.

I think a lot depends upon what you are trying to record. If the source is quiet and the mic needs to have a lot of gain on it, then you might easily get unwanted background noises. That is why when you see vocalists in recording studios they are often singing about 6 to 12 inches from the mic. Being close means they don't have to have the gain on the mic way up.

The flute is a pretty penetrating source to record, so even with the mic being a couple of feet away, you won't need the same amount of gain that you might need for recording something like a guitar (though with a guitar you'd probably have the mic closer to the source). The flute is so dynamic that being able to move slightly toward and away from the mic allows you to control the dynamics a bit. If you know you are going to be playing some penetrating high notes, you might back off from the mic by a foot. It will sort of normalize your recorded signal in a natural way without having to compress it.

Your mic is certainly sensitive enough to pick up stuff like breathing, your clothes brushing against themselves, a foot dragging on the carpet, etc., but I think you will be able to find a happy medium between a nice strong recorded signal and minimal background noise.

Geoffrey, out of curiosity ... when recording solo flute with a directional mic would you tend to place it high, pointing down; more or less level; low, pointing up; etc.? Pointed directly at the sound hole, or somewhere mid barrel? I know I'll have to experiment, but just wondering if there is any conventional (or unconventional) wisdom.

Thanks.

My method for studio miking is to place the mic about 24" to 30" above the flute, pointing at the space between the sound hole and the topmost finger hole. I try to keep the mic more or less perpendicular to the body of the flute. That way you pick up the tone from both the sound hole and the finger holes, and the distance from the mic to both the sound hole and finger holes is about the same.

I know that Peter Phippen once told me that when he was recording at Canyon, the engineer put the mic way up high in the room near the ceiling. He chose to mic the room rather than just the instrument. If you are recording in a space that is ultra quiet and has good acoustics, this will give a really natural sound because it will get more of the room reflections. I've done that to a lesser extent in my own studio using a LDC mic. However, my ceiling is only about 7', so I have to sit under the mic and move it at about a 45 degree angle away from me. That way the flute is about 6' away from the mic. Because my space was so small, there was no advantage to this in terms of sound, and I'm sure the same would be true in your case (recording in a closet). In such instances, close miking the instrument is the way to go.

Curious now about how much consideration anyone gives to mic cables. In reading about them online, I find that some people swear by expensive high-end cables to improve signal, while others dismiss this as a bunch of marketing hype. Some say they hear little or no difference in A/B tests, while others say they hear a difference but prefer the "more natural" sound of lower-cost cables to the increased clarity of higher-cost cables.

I've got a couple of 10-ft Monster P500s, which seem fine for the stage and should be okay for my recording set-up, but I need to get a longer one--probably a 20-footer. Is something like a $150 Evidence Lyric cable really worth the extra money above a $60 Monster P500?

What cables do you use? Any thoughts or recommendations?