Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.music.synth
Subject: Re: Microphone information ...
Message-ID: <969@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 02:26:36 EST
Article-I.D.: cadovax.969
Posted: Mon Nov 25 02:26:36 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Nov-85 23:36:46 EST
References: <131@ulose.UUCP> <1432@mtgzz.UUCP>
Reply-To: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Organization: CONTEL CADO Systems, Torrance, CA
Lines: 19

In article <1432@mtgzz.UUCP> dmt@mtgzz.UUCP (d.m.tutelman) writes:
> I tend to use acoustic piano in a lot of my recording but am not very
> satisfied with my results. Since I am far from a recording expert, I am
> probably neglecting all sorts of things by simplying using a reasonable
> quality microphone ($150 range) mounted on a boom and swung over the harp
> of my grand. Does anyone have any experience or tips to share with this
> sort of requirement?
>

I've found that using a combination of dynamic and condenser microphones
helps.  Condenser microphones have better high-frequency response, and
dynamics have better low-frequency response.  I use a relatively cheap
($39 @Radio Shack *gasp*) condenser and a Shure dynamic I've had for years, and
have been satisfied with the results.

Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
#  cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa