@J.W.C:
could you explain a little bit more please? I didn't get all that. Where does latency come in?
Here's an explanation from my interface's manual:
You will frequently hear the term “latency” used in connection with digital audio systems. In the case of the simple DAW recording application described above, latency will be the time it takes for your input signals to pass through your computer and audio software, and back out again via your audio interface. While not an issue for most simple recording situations, under some circumstances, latency can be a problem for a performer who wishes to record while monitoring their input signals. This might be the case if you need to increase the size of your DAW’s recording buffer, which could be necessary when you record overdubs on a particularly large project using many DAW tracks, software instruments and FX plug-ins. Common symptoms of too low a buffer setting include audio glitching (clicks and pops) or an unusually high CPU overhead within your DAW (most DAWs show current CPU usage). Buffer size may be increased on Macs from within the DAW application itself, while on PCs it is usually accessed on the DAW Setup Preferences page.
The Scarlett 18i8, in conjunction with Focusrite Control, allows “low latency monitoring”, which overcomes this problem. You can route your input signals directly to the Scarlett 18i8’s headphone outputs. This enables the musicians to hear themselves with ultra-low latency – i.e., effectively in “real time” – along with the computer playback. The input signals to the computer are not affected in any way by this setting. However, note that any effects being added to the live instruments by software plug-ins will not be heard in the headphones in this case, although the FX will still be present on the recording.
So basically, if you have a USB mic plugged into your computer, there will be some degree of latency imposed by going into the computer, the computer processing the audio, and the computer routing it back out (e.g., ultimately to your headphones). Such latency is usually measured in milliseconds, but it can be noticeable in some recording situations.
If you use a mic plugged directly into the interface (e.g., an XLR mic) along with headphones plugged into the interface, you can take advantage of lower-latency input monitoring that effectively eliminates the possible issue. And if you have an interface, anyway, I don't see any reason to prefer a USB mic. Just my opinion, of course. YMMV.
What is a large diaphragm condenser mic and why would it be the preffered mic?
Well, first there's the difference between dynamic and condenser mics. In general, dynamic mics are more durable and can usually handle higher volumes without clipping (which are reasons they're a go-to choice for live performances and mic'ing loud guitar amps). Condenser mics have a clearer and smoother and (usually) wider frequency response. They usually "sound better." They also usually require "phantom power" from your interface or mixer (which isn't a problem -- almost all interfaces can provide phantom power). Dynamic mics are excellent for live vocals and for mic'ing loud instruments like drums and guitar amplifiers. Condenser mics tend to be more sensitive, and are excellent for "studio/recording" vocals, acoustic guitars, et cetera. A single condenser mic is also sensitive enough to capture both guitar and vocal at the same time, if you want.
Large vs. small diameter has to do with the size of the diaphragm within the mic, but there's more to it than that. Small diameter condensers are good microphones. They usually have a
better frequency response (especially at the high end), and usually a more consistent polar pattern across frequencies. Consequently, they sound very "natural." They're often used for recording classical instruments, for example. And I think they're frequently used for things like drums recorded in the studio, as well.
The main "on paper" advantage of large diaphragm condenser mics is that they tend to have better noise floor characteristics than small diaphragm condensers. They also tend to have a reduced proximity effect compared to small diaphragm condensers. The technical "shortcomings" of a large diaphragm condenser kind of add up to give it a certain "lush" or "rich" sound. They work really well for vocals, and for acoustic guitar (or other solo instruments), and for recording a guitar + vocal performance. For a "home studio," I think the combination of good noise characteristics and lush/rich sound is a very solid combination.
As a side note, most large diaphragm condensers are "side addressed" (you record into the side of the mic), and most small diaphragm condensers are "end addressed" (you record into the end of the microphone).
There's not a single "best" choice. It's more of a right tool for the job kind of thing. But if you only have one or two mics, a large diaphragm condenser is a solid choice. If I had one mic (for recording), it would be a large diaphragm condenser. Again, opinions can vary and there isn't a single "correct" answer.
Topic: Recording yourself (Read 1217 times)
