Metal Guitarist Forums banner

Fredman SM57 miking technique; anyone still doing this?

23K views 48 replies 12 participants last post by  Drew 
#1 ·
#4 ·
I go two mics into the daw (actually 3, since I also use a 122 on another speaker). Having the different 57 tracks available allows you to change the tone without having to use EQ. Of course, you could just get it right and sum it to a single track when you record, but I have commitment issues :)
 
#30 ·
Depends on your style of music and your arrangements though, if the arrangements are more minimal/sparse, yeah using multiple mics for individual elements is way more viable.

What reverb are you using? Like, a touch of plate on the master bus or what? There's a pretty wide range of how much reverb people use for metal/rock. Some of the strategies for ultra dry stuff are different than lusher styles.

Friedman style is usually a melo-death kind of thing.
 
#31 ·
Depends on your style of music and your arrangements though, if the arrangements are more minimal/sparse, yeah using multiple mics for individual elements is way more viable.

What reverb are you using? Like, a touch of plate on the master bus or what? There's a pretty wide range of how much reverb people use for metal/rock. Some of the strategies for ultra dry stuff are different than lusher styles.

Friedman style is usually a melo-death kind of thing.
I don't really play or record metal, and I don't go for super ambient reverbs either.
 
#40 ·
Not really - maybe one afternoon I'll give it a shot, but I'm pretty happy with the sounds I'm getting at the moment, so the urge to experiment further hasn't been terribly high. That "fizz killing" two SM57 approach is something I've heard of as associated with SRV, for what it's worth.

would doing the two 57's but then putting a ribbon back behind them be more trouble than it's worth?

seems like best of both worlds to blend later, but also assuming that getting all the phase alignment right could be a potential deal-breaker nightmare
I mean, try everything... If you're doing something that relies on creative phase cancellation for the sound then yeah, it'll be a nightmare... But, if you have two mics that are already in phase, adding a third that's in phase with either one of them should result in a mic setup with all mics in phase.

Easiest way to get a second mic in phase with a first, IMO, is to simply flip phase on your DAW or mic pre, and then move the mic around until you get the thinnest, shittiest, most washed out possible tone... And then reverse phase to normal, and everything should sound huge. I've talked to guys who position each mic individually to sound best on their own, regardless of phase alingment, and then manually phase align the two tracks in their DAW by zooming way in and then aligning the waveforms, but that sounds like a titanic pain in the balls and IMO not worth it (and - also IMO - it's sort of hard to gauge how the two mics will compliment each other once phase-aligned, by listening to each individually.
 
#34 ·
I haven't done a ton with Fredman in particular, because I just got the second 57; but I've been doing the 57+609 for awhile, and yeah I always do two tracks of each part, usually with a different amp, and often a different guitar.

It's not to fix EQ issues, it's to blend the different locations on the cab after the fact.
 
#38 ·
would doing the two 57's but then putting a ribbon back behind them be more trouble than it's worth?

seems like best of both worlds to blend later, but also assuming that getting all the phase alignment right could be a potential deal-breaker nightmare
 
#39 ·
would doing the two 57's but then putting a ribbon back behind them be more trouble than it's worth?

seems like best of both worlds to blend later, but also assuming that getting all the phase alignment right could be a potential deal-breaker nightmare
I'm no expert, but I'd think that'd cause big phase issues. Probably easier to do that on a second cab, if that's an option.
 
#44 ·
Thanks for the responses guys. I'm familiar with the technique but never get to mess. The engineers that trained me are very big on committing to "tape"/DAW.

So the workflow I''m used to is:
  • Putting a mic up
  • Setting Gain on Preamp
  • Listening back to the signal
  • Adjusting the microphone if I think it's too bright or too dark
  • Using an equalizer that will be committed (Analog or DSP like on an Apollo or Digital Mixer)
We never did much high gain stuff so I never saw a need to try out the Fredman technique.

Matt brings up a good point of a lot of guy's using it as a way to "EQ". That would probably annoy me, so I would probably send them to a bus and EQ them as one signal going in. I would commit to the gain relationship established at recording. I probably need to mess around with this sometime and print up some graphs of what is exactly is happening.

How often do you guys use this technique versus just single mic?

Do you guys put up the on-axis mic and place it where it sounds the best and then blend the off-axis in? Or do you listen to both of them at the same time and place them together?
 
#49 ·
Thanks for the responses guys. I'm familiar with the technique but never get to mess. The engineers that trained me are very big on committing to "tape"/DAW.
For guitars I'm in the same mindset. I'm always going to do a certain amount of EQ in the mix... but I also have a pretty good idea how I want my guitars to sound solo'd to get them to work in the mix, and there are certain EQ tweaks that I'm ALWAYS going to make to guitars, so I'd rather just get 90-95% of the way there between amp setting, mic choice and position, and EQ on the way in, and then get the last 5% of the way with plugins.

Can't comment on the Fredman technique, but for electric guitars I virtually always use a SM57 and a MD421 when tracking anything I care about, setting the 57 first and then positioning the 421 to be in phase and compliment it, and track them both separately and then blend to taste in the mix. I'd commit to a blend while tracking if I could but I'd need some way to sub-mix the two tracks, which I don't really.
 
#45 ·
So I would definitely NOT recommend the Fredman clip from Wilkinson Audio. It's so plainly obvious that it's 3D printed, they didn't even take the time to smooth it out a bit. If this were $5, then fine. But $25 is a joke. Not to mention that it's an absolute pain in the ass getting the mics into it in the first place. If you're going to do Fredman, use two stands, or find another clip.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top