Microphones are the ears of your sound, capturing everything that will be reproduced. They affect your listeners' experience for better or for worse. I've spent years in the studio and on the stage using microphones of all types and all prices. One thing I've learned is that it is possible for one piece of gear to help you in one situation and hurt you in another. Experience is a great teacher—and learning to adapt in difficult situations often results in the discovery of new techniques you can implement in the future.
With this in mind, I've developed three philosophies that have made a lasting impact on my approach as a sound engineer. They are all lessons I've learned from experience and from other engineers that have unknowingly been my teachers along the way.
Minimalism
Don't use more tools than you need; it can complicate things. I've seen church sound engineers mic the inside, the outside and the front head of a kick drum. It's pretty popular to use two microphones on each guitar cabinet these days. Some bass players like to send a “clean” and “dirty” signal to pick from. These have the potential to make things sound better, but they don't guarantee it. They will definitely make set up take longer though, and you will have to concern yourself with the phase relationships of multiple microphones.
An amazing mic on a bad source is going to result in a perfect representation of that bad source, nothing more.
I was on tour one time and the house engineer at a venue outside Washington, D.C., was telling me how Daniel Lanois (musician and producer of many U2 records) performed there the night before. The house engineer told me that they used SM57s on every source on stage. Drums, vocals, bass amp, guitar amp. Why? It was this idea taken to the max. Every microphone varies in response and by using the exact same microphone it creates a consistency on phase relationship and EQ curves. I don't expect you to do this next Sunday but the idea stands: simple is good. Listen to how the drum sounds Adele's “Rolling in the Deep.” It was recorded with a single overhead mic. One mic on a great sounding source will always beat 20 mics on a bad source.
Sensibility
I'll never forget a tour stop at a church in Washington State. The room was not huge—maybe 700 seats. There was an old music store brand powered loudspeaker system hung in the ceiling. Like most churches, the drum kit sat behind a drum shield. The kit was from a respectable brand, although it was their entry level model, nothing flashy or amazing sounding. None of these factors stopped the engineer from using a set of Royer 121s on the overhead and another on the hi-hat. The kick drum had a Shure Beta 52, and a Yamaha Sub kit. The snare had two AKG 451s on top and bottom. The toms had Sennheiser 904. I quickly totaled up the cost of the mic package and realized [it] probably cost more than the PA and the drum kit combined.
I'm not complaining about any of these microphones. I use them each in different situations often, and they can be great tools. The point here is that we need a sensible approach to choosing microphones. A microphone is simply an ear to the source. It cannot recreate what is not there. Putting a sub-kick system on a source that has no low-end information will not yield a positive result. An amazing microphone on a bad source is going to result in a perfect representation of that bad source, nothing more.
Adaptability
I'll step on some toes now and say this: If you can't mix without an X microphone you need to rethink your approach. My most difficult mixing situations have ended up being the very moments that made me better. I've set SM57s in kick drums, put SM58s on guitar amps, and used the hanging choir mics as drum overheads. I've learned how to adapt to the most trying situations. The end result is knowing the wide range of possibilities that a given microphone has.
There is another benefit from adapting in this way: you learn new techniques for existing tools. I was running sound for a college event at my church. It was a bare bones setup with no microphones to spare. So when a tom microphone went down, the only option I could find was an AKG D112. I was pretty green at this point and I had never used this microphone in this situation. I didn't know if it would work, but I didn't have an option. Many of you are chuckling at this point because you know that a microphone like the D112 is a great choice to pick up the low frequency response of a tom. It turned out to be an excellence choice. I learned something new that day.
Wrap up
There is no perfect method or approach to mic'ing sources, but from my experience I can say confidently one thing—when I'm planning for a tour I am always trying to find the way to most efficiently and effectively achieve my goal. For me, the most straightforward, simple approach to mic'ing is usually the most successful. Remove the complications, learn to adapt, and you will be a better engineer than you were before. You will also be an engineer with less stress.
