To Be Or Not To Be A Musician

Does it make you a better engineer if you also play an instrument? Does it matter how skilled you are at that instrument? Or do you just have to be knowledgeable about music theory?

It is my opinion that it does in fact matter whether or not you are able to play an instrument. I'm using the word instrument to include software instrumentation as well. I don't even think you necessarily have to be great at your instrument, just that you take an interest in it. If I had the choice of going to a studio where, audio engineering talent aside, one of the engineers played music and the other was a music enthusiast, I would probably choose the one that played music.

There are many reasons why I think that an engineer should get their feet wet and learn to play at least the basics of an instrument, if not multiple instruments.

When I was first introduced to synthesizers I had preconceived notions about what electronic music was and was apprehensive from the beginning. I decided right then that I didn't want to be the type of engineer who cut off an entire section of music because I didn't understand it properly. I went into it with the base of "I want to at least learn the terminology so that I can become a better engineer in the long run and be able to effectively communicate with someone who is really into synthesizers."

Just by opening yourself up to learning something new you may just find out you enjoy it, like I did with electronic music, and you might pick up valuable skills that will only help you in your chosen profession.

I think an engineer should always approach music and instrumentation with this type of outlook. Personally, I want to take drum lessons and pick up at least the basics on how to play. This doesn't mean I want to become a drummer, but it will help me to better understand the instrument and be able to more effectively communicate with drummers when they come to me to record something.

Tell me what you think about this topic. I know I strayed from my usual format of talking about recording tips, but this was something that has been on my mind for a while. I am interested to hear what you guys think, and what your approach to learning different instrumentation is. Do you think it is important? Are you apprehensive to learning any particular instrument or style of music? Let me know in the comments below.

Sennheiser e609 and e906

In my post about miking a guitar amp I had mentioned that one of favorite microphones to use on guitar was the Sennheiser e609 or the e906. I thought that I would take a moment to highlight some of the specifications of the microphone and talk about why I like it so much.

So, technically speaking, the e609 and e906 are not very different. They both a have a similar frequency range with the e609 producing 40-15kHz and the e906 producing 40-18kHz. They are priced pretty close to each other at 109.95 and 189.95.


Where they are different is where the e906 includes a three position switch that allows you to change the character of the sound you are capturing, offering slightly more versatility than the e609 offers. The three positions refer to bright, moderate, and dark and effect the sound as you might expect, with the bright slightly boosting the highs and the dark slightly attenuating the highs comparatively. As you can see pictured below, the e609 basically offers a fairly similar frequency response that the e906 offers in the bright setting, with a bit more boosting around 10kHz.

Sennheiser e609 Frequency Response Graph

Sennheiser e906 Frequency Response Graph

When it comes to these two microphones, I would choose the e906 because it isn't very much more expensive and it gives you some options to alter the frequency response.

Now, in my previous post I had discussed how I love using them on guitar. This is very true and almost always, I will add this in my arsenal when recording a guitar amp. Another application that is great for these, however, is using them on drums.

They have a cardioid polar pattern that allows them to stay pretty focused, which is something you definitely want when recording drums. The less leakage the better if you are trying to mic everything separately. I have had a lot of success placing these on high and mid toms when recording drums as well as placing them on the snare from time to time. They have a fast transient response which is ideal for picking up the fast transients of drum hits.

Do you have experience using this microphone? Have you had the same successes that I have had? Do you have a microphone that always tends to be your go to microphone for many different applications? Leave your thoughts and comments down below and share in the discussion.

Spaced Pair and Near-Coincident Pair

For today's post, I'd like to follow up on the last post I did concerning coincident pair miking techniques by discussing both spaced pair and near coincident pair miking techniques. These are two widely used stereo miking techniques that can offer wide stereo images.

I'll start off with spaced pair. This technique utilizes two identical microphones of any polar pattern. While you can use any polar patter, people generally fall back on omnidirectional which has more extended low-frequency response than a directional microphone.

The greater the space between the mics, the wider the stereo spread. Place the microphones too far apart, however, and you can get an over-exaggerated stereo image, and placing the microphones too close together gives you an inadequate stereo image.

This technique is used often in orchestral recordings in order to capture the entire ensemble. Generally, the microphones would be 10-12 feet apart, leaving your stereo image exaggerated. You can reduce this effect by placing a third microphone in the middle.

This technique often does not combine down to mono very well, resulting in phase issues which may be noticeable in your mix. The technique is great at capturing the ambiance of the space you are recording in.

The ORTF (Office de Radiodifusion Television Francaise) is the most common near-coincident microphone technique. It utilizes two cardioid microphones placed with the butts of the microphones close together rather than the grilles of the X/Y technique discussed earlier.

The capsules are angled 110 degrees apart and spaced 7 inches apart horizontally.  This gives a greater sense of space due to the time difference that sound reaches the capsules mimicking the way your ears pick up sound. This method gives you an accurate and wide stereo image with a good sense of depth.

Which of these two techniques do you use most often? What applications do you use them for? I know I didn't discuss every stereo miking technique available to you in the studio, so let me know what some of your favorites are down in the comment section!

Coincident Pair

When recording drum kits, pianos, string sections, or small ensembles the use of stereo miking techniques can make your job much easier. You don't have to focus in on each individual instrument or singer and can instead use a minimal microphone setup to capture the ensemble as a whole. By using these techniques you can retain the stereo image from left to right, you get a sense of depth in the recording, and get a good sense of the acoustic space it was recorded in.

There are four general techniques used in stereo recording, the one I will focus on today is coincident pair. This technique involves the use of two directional microphones placed with their grilles nearly touching and their diaphragms angled apart. The types of coincident pair techniques I will discuss are X/Y and M-S.

X/Y is one of the most common stereo miking techniques used. It utilizes two identical, or a stereo pair, of directional microphones. While you may think that the setup should look like an 'X', it actually resembles a 'V', with the capsules coming together as close as possible at a 90 degree angle.

M-S stands for mid-side and utilizes two microphones, one directional microphone pointed towards the source and another figure-8 microphone placed to pick up the sides. The microphones are placed with the capsules nearly touching just like the X/Y technique.

M-S is great for getting a good stereo image when you want the focal point to be in the center of the ensemble. This technique doesn't work as well the bigger the ensemble gets, however, because it tends to focus more on the center section due to the directional microphone being used.

This technique has no phase issues in stereo and is mono compatible, so your sense of a stereo image remains. A good use for this technique is to use it as a room microphone setup. It can often times sound more natural than a spaced pair.

To set up M-S on your mixer requires a few additional steps:

• First, create two new tracks in your session (one stereo and one mono) and label them as Side and Mid respectively. 
• Next patch from the Side Channel to a Mult and from the Mult to two channel inputs, or patch from the Insert Out of the Side Channel to the Insert In of the next channel. This will split the signal coming from the figure 8 microphone onto two separate channels. 
• Next you will flip the phase of one of the channels dedicated to the Side Microphone and run a tone generator through the channels.
• Bring one fader up and slowly bring the second up until you find the "null" point where the sound cancels 100%.
• Pan both tracks hard left and hard right. 
• Bring up the level of the Mid Microphone and you are ready to go.

Which of these setups do you prefer when choosing which stereo miking technique to use? Do you use the M-S technique as a room miking technique often? Let me know in the comments below.