The EM Poll

This is not a scientific poll but a tabulation of readers responses and is purely just for fun!

See Past Poll Results

Kickin’ It

Jan 2, 1999 12:00 PM, By Brian Knave with Myles Boisen

A killer bass-drum sound is an integral part of a killer mix. It’s the foundation, the meat of the meat and potatoes (snare drum being the potatoes), the beast of burden that the other instruments ride on. The kick drum, typically the lowest “note” in a mix, sits just beneath or “inside” the bass notes, giving substance, impact, and definition to the low end.

Understandably, capturing that low note is not a job one leaves up to just any microphone. Manufacturers often dedicate at least one microphone in their product lines to recording bass drum and other low-frequency sound sources. This is usually a rugged, large-diaphragm dynamic mic with high-SPL handling and a frequency response tailored to complement or enhance the sound of the drum.

Over the years, a handful of dynamic microphones have distinguished themselves as exceptional bass-drum mics, including the AKG D 112 and its predecessor, the D 12; the Electro-Voice RE20; the Sennheiser MD 421 (also known as a great tom mic); and the Beyerdynamic M 88. (Some engineers prefer using condenser miccrophones for recording kick drum, but that’s a different story.) In recent years, the variety of bass-drum mics on the market has expanded considerably. Some of the above-mentioned companies have come out with new models, and several other manufacturers have added bass-drum mics to their catalogs.

With all those kick mics to choose from, what’s the prospective buyer to do? Short of purchasing one of each and taking them into the studio for a spin, there’s little opportunity to compare them. Even the best-equipped music stores don’t provide the proper environment and necessary gear for assessing how well a microphone records, especially when it comes to drum mics. For that reason—not to mention the fact that EM currently has four drummers on its editorial staff—we thought it was time that someone did a critical comparison of kick-drum mics.

Low Riders

We researched the market and turned up 11 dynamic mics designated for bass drum. Prices ranged from $120 on up, so we leveled the field somewhat by considering only those priced between $250 and $400, thereby eliminating the two lowest-priced models. Subsequently, two manufacturers chose not to participate in the comparison tests. This left us with seven microphones: the AKG D 112, Audio-Technica ATM25, Audix D4, Beyerdynamic TG-X 50, Electro-Voice N/D868, Sennheiser E602, and Shure Beta 52.

Even then, the playing field still was not exactly level because the manufacturers employ different designs for their bass-source microphones and aim at somewhat different markets.

The Electro-Voice N/D868, for example, is labeled “Bass Drum” right on the mic, and the accompanying literature describes it as “designed specifically for bass drums.” The AKG, Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser, and Shure mics, however, are described more generally as being suitable for low-frequency sources, including kick drum, bass-guitar cabinets, and so on.

An application booklet that comes with the Audix D4 specifies kick drum, floor tom, and bass-guitar cabinet, but extends the applications to djembe and Leslie bass cabinet. Audio-Technica describes the ATM25 as well suited for “drums (kick, tom, snare), timpani, piano, acoustic and electric bass, trombone [and] vocal pickup where low-frequency emphasis is desirable.”

These distinctions may seem negligible, but they proved relevant in our comparisons. Although we tested the seven mics on bass drums only, it became evident that, in terms of alternate applications, some of the mics were more versatile than others—or perhaps even better suited to other instruments than to bass drums.

It should be noted, too, that each of the mics is intended for live sound as well as studio applications. However, our tests were performed in the studio only (two studios, actually).

Sister Act

Our first step was to request two identical mics from each manufacturer; that way, we could compare each pair for consistency. Also, if one of the mics proved defective—a situation that has arisen in previous microphone comparisons—we would be able to proceed with the tests using the good mic.

To check the mic pairs for consistency, we recorded mono program material to two separate tracks—one through each microphone—and then compared the results. I also talked and sang through the mics. Within each pair, the mics sounded virtually identical, except for the two ATM25s, which sounded quite different from each other. (As it turned out, one of them was evidently damaged during shipping.)

Method to the Madness

We performed the comparison tests both at my own personal studio and at Guerrilla Recording in Oakland, California, a professional facility co-owned and operated by musician/engineer Myles Boisen, who kindly acted as my assistant. We recorded all tracks one at a time to a prerecorded click track, side by side on the tape, to allow easy comparison through mutes. The tracks at my studio were recorded directly to tape on an ADAT XT through a dbx 1086 mic preamp (with the dynamics section bypassed, of course). At Guerrilla we recorded to 1-inch analog tape (Quantegy 456) on a Tascam MS-16 through a Focusrite Red Series mic preamp. Care was taken to equalize levels during both recording and playback.

Altogether, we recorded five bass drums. At Guerrilla we were assisted by San Francisco Bay Area drummer John Hanes, who played two different drums: a 20-inch Pearl Masters Custom with both heads intact except for a circular pattern of holes punched in the front head (for sonic purposes) and, inside, a rectangle of foam wedged between the two heads; and a 22-inch Gretsch with a large hole cut beneath the center of the front head. For the 20-inch drum, we positioned each mic about two and a half inches from the front head with the capsule aimed directly at the head near the hoop of the drum (see Fig. 1). For the 22-incher, the microphones were positioned barely inside the hole and aimed just beneath the beater-impact point (see Fig. 2).

In my studio, I recorded three bass drums: a vintage 22-inch Ludwig with the front head removed and a cotton packing blanket lying inside and touching the batter head; a 20-inch Gretsch with a medium-size, off-center hole in the front head and a flannel baby blanket positioned inside the drum and lightly contacting each head; and an 18-inch Slingerland with both heads intact and no muffling except for a strip of felt beneath each head.

To accommodate the varying manufacturer-suggested optimal mic positions, I recorded the 22-inch Ludwig drum twice—once with each mic positioned just barely inside the drum and pointed at the beater (see Fig. 3), and again with each mic inside the drum, about three to four inches from the batter head and aimed almost directly at the beater-impact point (see Fig. 4).

For the 20-inch Gretsch drum, I positioned the microphones just inside the hole, again aimed at the beater (see Fig. 5). For the 18-inch Slingerland, I positioned the mics slightly off center and about three inches back from the front head (see Fig. 6). I also employed different beaters on the kick pedal: the Slingerland and Gretsch drums were played with a wood beater, and the Ludwig with a standard felt beater.

Drum-a-Rama

We used different drums, beaters, mic positions, and rooms, of course, to broaden the scope of the tests. The three drums recorded in my studio, for example, represent the three most commonly used sizes and respective tunings of bass drums. Each is specific to a particular style of music, a different school of thought on tuning, and a different approach to recording. Together with the two bass drums recorded at Guerrilla, this selection is fairly representative of the various sounds an engineer is likely to come across when recording bass drums.

To provide a foundation for making sense of our findings (as well as to assist those who aren’t familiar with acoustic drums), I’ll describe the sound of the different drums and their usual musical contexts. The 22-inch, one-headed, blanket-stuffed Ludwig drum produces a low note with lots of attack, few overtones, and not much resonance—basically a tight, dry thump that’s often favored for old-school rock, funk, blues, and reggae.

The 20-inch Gretsch, on the other hand, produces a slightly higher note and a rounder, more resonant tone. There’s still plenty of attack (thanks to the hole in front, the blanket inside, and the wood beater), but the resonance provided by the front head definitely fills out the sound, resulting in more of a musical note than a quick, dry thump. This more modern sound works in many musical settings, from grunge to jazz.

The 18-inch Slingerland produces the highest note, thanks to its smaller-diameter shell, and is often favored by jazz players. The curious thing, though, is just how huge a little jazz kick can sound when it’s recorded. That’s partly because 18-inch kick drums are typically tuned fairly open (that is, with both heads intact and little or no muffling inside), and therefore have lots of resonance and a long decay; but I’ve also heard the theory that small drums tend to sound bigger simply because the microphone (which is small) can hear more of the drum. At any rate, the sound of the 18-inch drum we recorded was full, round, and very resonant, with a slight “boinginess” and a fair amount of overtones.

Both of Hanes’s bass drums were tuned to produce a balanced and versatile tone. Each employed thick batter heads with some form of built-in dampening to cut down on overtones, but neither was outfitted (infitted?) with a pillow or blanket. Although I would characterize both drums as sounding more resonant than dry, the 20-incher—the drum Hanes prefers for his swing and jazz gigs—was the more resonant of the two. Yet both drums produced a well-articulated attack that clarified the thump—overall, a rather modern, rock-type sound.

Helper Tracks

To further our sense of how each mic would perform in real-world applications, we also recorded an adjacent overhead drum track (using a Neumann U 87; see Fig. 1) for each pass recorded at Guerrilla. These overhead tracks proved useful during playback for comparing the sound of the bass drum in the room with the sound captured by the kick mics.

Also, Boisen laid down bass lines alongside the drum tracks recorded at Guerrilla so that we could hear how well the kick tracks sat in a mix with the bass—an important consideration. We also tried compressing the tracks, to see how each kick-mic signal would behave in this common processing application. At Boisen’s suggestion, we used a UREI LA-4 compressor set to an 8:1 ratio, with only a touch of gain reduction. (The LA-4, a vintage-model, optical compressor with a naturally slow attack and release, is one of Boisen’s favorites for kick drum and other low-frequency sources. Bear in mind, however, that a different compressor would likely have yielded different results.)

Bottomed Out

To guard against fatigue, we did additional listening tests on separate days from the recording sessions. At my studio, we listened on Audix 1A monitors; at Guerrilla, we used Event 20/20s (the passive ones). We also made a point of listening to the ADAT tracks recorded at my studio in the control room at Guerrilla Recording. Not surprisingly, the tracks sounded somewhat different depending on the monitors and rooms we used. When played at my studio, the tracks exhibited slightly more bass content.

To expand the coverage, I enlisted the help of other ears, including those of EM Editorial Assistant Rick Weldon and Associate Editor Gino Robair. Weldon plays guitar and bass in several bands, two of which have released CDs that Weldon helped record and mix. Robair, an accomplished drummer, recordist, and producer, owns Rastascan Records, a label with more than 40 titles in its catalog, most of which are devoted to improvisational music. Also, Hanes listened to the tracks he recorded and offered comments.

But before getting into the sonic results of the tests, let’s first consider cosmetic and ergonomic issues. The latter are especially important: if a microphone can’t easily be attached to a mic stand or is difficult to position once attached, you may soon tire of dealing with it—no matter how good it sounds.

Physical Exam

AKG D 112. The D 112 is a curious-looking mic that resembles a small football (or maybe a jumbo egg) stuck in a stirrup. Its wire-mesh grille, bisected by a teal-green, metal protective band, indicates the capsule side. The polar pattern is cardioid.

The shape of the D 112 and the included nylon mic clip make for quick and easy positioning. The clip’s nylon threads compromise its durability, though. (I know this because I own a D 112, and the threads are stripped after a few years of use.)

The D 112 comes in a hard-plastic, foam-lined case with cutouts for the mic and clip. An applications booklet is included, complete with drawings of mic positioning for kick drum, bass-guitar cabinet, double bass, tuba, trombone, and sax. The unit comes with a one-year limited warranty.

Audio-Technica ATM25. As kick-drum mics go, the ATM25 is on the small side, but its chunk-o’-steel housing packs considerable heft. Finished in a low-reflecting, gun-metal gray, this little brute sports gold-plated XLR connectors and an integral stand clamp.

Generally, I’m not a fan of integral stand clamps, especially if the design impedes quick setup and positioning. Besides, if the clamps break, they’re not as easy to replace as a separate mic clip. But the ATM25’s integral clamp is a sturdy, all-steel hunker with an adjustment screw perfectly turned to fit the hand. Thanks to the microphone’s small size, I encountered no serious slowdown while attaching the ATM25 to a mic stand. I merely treated the entire assembly as a big wing nut and screwed the mic on. Once it is secure, positioning is a snap. The clamp is easy to remove, too, if you ever need to replace it.

The ATM25 has a hypercardioid polar pattern. It comes in a padded vinyl zipper pouch, which is packaged inside a foam-lined cardboard box. A one-year limited warranty is activated when you return the product registration card.

Audix D4. The smallest and lightest of the bunch, the Audix D4 is a cute mic about the size of a saltshaker. Its aluminum body has a sleek, black fusion-coat finish, and its stainless-steel-mesh grille cap seems unusually tough. The polar pattern is hypercardioid, and the XLR connectors are gold-plated.

Like the D4 itself, the included mic holder is small and lightweight. Fitted with metal threads, it’s made of a sturdy hard plastic and snaps on and off the mic quickly and easily. Thanks to its small size, the D4 is a cinch to position, and it can fit in places where some bigger microphones can’t.

The D4 comes in a padded Cordura zipper pouch inside a cardboard box. It carries a two-year warranty against manufacturing defects.

Beyerdynamic TG-X 50. The TG-X 50 is a big, side-address mic with a vintage vibe. The body looks like it’s made of black Bakelite, but actually it’s two metal halves joined together. Rather than a wire-mesh grille, this mic has vents like a radiator’s. Two teal-blue stripes and the word “Front” announce the capsule side of the mic. The polar pattern is hypercardioid.

Included with the TG-X 50 is a simple (and quite tough) metal-threaded nylon clip that snaps or slides readily on and off the mic. The clip is easy to position, but it’s not particularly snug fitting—I wouldn’t happily trust it to hold the mic high in the air over, say, the bell of a tuba, because a hearty blow to the stand could send the mic toppling. For bass drums and other low-to-the-ground applications, though, this shouldn’t be a problem.

There is, however, a slight disadvantage to the side-address design of the TG-X 50—at least if you’re looking to stick the mic inside the kick drum. Twice, while I was recording the 22-inch Ludwig drum, the TG-X 50 rolled off the foam-and-blanket bed on which I had positioned it inside the shell. I finally had to tape the mic down to get through the track.

The TG-X 50 comes in a padded nylon zipper pouch packaged in a cardboard box. The company provides a one-year warranty on parts and labor.

Electro-Voice N/D868. The N/D868 is a fat cylinder of a mic with rounded contours and a no-frills look. Its steel body has a flat-black finish and a one-piece, densely woven wire-mesh grille cap. Electro-Voice calls the mic’s polar pattern “cardioid variant”; from what I can gather, this means that it has been engineered to provide a full cardioid pickup pattern in front, but with better rear rejection than you typically get with a cardioid pattern.

The microphone holder that comes with the N/D868 is a sturdy, thick plastic affair with metal threads and a knurled metal adjustment knob. It works beautifully, providing quick, secure, and easy positioning.

The N/D868 features gold-plated XLR connectors and comes in an especially nice Cordura zipper pouch complete with a gold-monogrammed logo (and, of course, a cardboard packing box). Also included with each N/D868 is a printout of the frequency response for that particular mic. (Manufacturers often provide only a representative frequency-response plot for each model.)

The warranty is impressive: it guarantees the mic against malfunction from any cause for two years. In addition, the acoustic system contained in the mic is guaranteed for a period of ten years from the date that Electro-Voice discontinues the manufacture of the N/D868.

Sennheiser E602. The E602 is a large, modern-looking microphone that is shaped something like a shuttle craft from the starship Enterprise, but without windows. It has a tapering body with a scalloped top, a low-reflecting gray finish, and a one-piece black wire-mesh grille cap.

We found the E602’s integral stand clamp a bit bothersome. The clamp, made of nylon, is connected close to the rear of the mic, throwing off the weight distribution of the whole assembly and making it tricky to get the threads started correctly. The threads are also made of nylon, which increases the likelihood of cross-threading and makes durability a concern. (Even the European-thread adapter is made of nylon.)

On the plus side, there are little hash marks on the clamp that line up with hash marks on the mic, so it’s easy to note and repeat the angle at which the E602 is positioned. I can’t say I would ever actually use this feature, but I suppose it could come in handy for super-meticulous types.

The E602 employs a cardioid polar pattern and is notable for having the biggest diaphragm of the bunch (one and a half inches in diameter). The mic comes bubble-wrapped inside a cardboard box and has a nylon zipper pouch. A one-year limited warranty is offered.

Shure Beta 52. The Beta 52 is a big, heavy, and bulbous mic that looks sort of like a handheld blow dryer. It has sensuous, art-deco curves; a distinctive blue-gray metallic finish; and a large, one-piece wire-mesh grille cap. The polar pattern is supercardioid, and the XLR connectors are gold-plated.

The Beta 52 comes with a unique and very cool-looking integral stand clamp, complete with metal threads. Functionally, though, it leaves a bit to be desired. For one thing, the XLR-connector well is positioned less than one-eighth inch from the thread well. This prevents the use of certain mic stands (including those short Atlas stands that are so convenient for miking kick drums) because the XLR connector on the mic cable gets in the way of the clutch grip. Furthermore, the adjustment screw is small and too rounded off, making it somewhat hard to turn. Also, the size and shape of the mic and clamp together render the whole assembly a bit cumbersome.

Another minor concern is that the wires from the XLR connectors pass outside the stand clamp to reach the mic body. Although they are enclosed within a protective spring, the design would seem to complicate repairs, and the exposure of the spring doesn’t inspire confidence in the mic’s longevity.

The Beta 52 comes bubble-wrapped inside a cardboard box, along with a large vinyl zipper pouch. The cartridge and the housing are guaranteed for two years, and the transmitter parts are guaranteed for one year.

Now Hear This

The first thing we noticed when listening to our recorded tracks was just how different the mics sounded from one another. In a previous test (see “Attack of the Cardioids” in the September 1998 EM), Boisen and I had compared eight large-diaphragm condenser mics that spanned a much broader price range—and yet the differences among them were far subtler than those we heard in the kick-drum microphones. It can be said without exaggeration that these seven microphones provide seven different flavors of kick drum.

Overall, though, the mics seemed to fall into two camps: those that leaned toward a more natural sound (the Audio-Technica ATM25, Audix D-4, Beyerdynamic TG-X 50, and Electro-Voice N/D868), and those with a more tailored response (the AKG D 112, Sennheiser E602, and Shure Beta 52). But the delineations weren’t always clear, and varying degrees of “natural” and “tailored” sound were evident within both camps.

We also noticed consistent sonic differences between the analog and digital tracks, with the analog tracks sounding fatter, warmer, and punchier in most cases. (But then, it’s hardly a secret that drums and bass typically sound better when recorded to analog tape.) This somewhat complicated our findings, just as the other variables did—drums of different sizes, different recording environments, and different ears. But in the end, those same variables brought us to a better understanding of each microphone’s sonic disposition.

Tastes, of course, vary—and in music, taste rules. Obviously, when there are seven flavors to choose from, everyone isn’t going to pick the same one. (This tendency was amply illustrated by Weldon’s consistent preference for the more unusual-sounding bass-drum tones. For one of the tracks, he noted that the sound was “the most like a piece of wood with pieces of metal sticking out of it.” Then he added, “That’s good.”) Therefore, rather than simply declaring a winner, our purpose here is to describe the mics in enough detail to give a sense of how each sounds relative to the others, as well as how it handles in the studio. We hope that readers armed with this information can more easily find their way to the sound (or sounds) they’re trying to achieve.

Bottoms Up

AKG D 112. The D 112 has a signature sound with pleasantly hyped lows and low mids and distinctive-sounding—though not particularly accurate—high mids. This tailoring generally leads to a full, ready-to-mix drum sound with plenty of attack and low end; however, depending on the drum and mic placement, it can also cause the mids to sound a tad scooped out, resulting in a slightly flat or boxy sound. At other times, though, the D 112’s low-mid emphasis (around 250 to 300 Hz) results in too much shell tone, sometimes noticeably altering the note of the drum.

Overall, the D 112 was a consistently good performer in all our applications—and it was definitely the most versatile of the three “tailored” mics. It sounded awesome on the 18-inch kick drum (“like a cannon!” I wrote in my notes). On the 20-inch Gretsch, Robair described it as “powerful,” with a “strong transient” and “nice-sounding thump.”

On the 22-inch Ludwig, the sound was good in both applications, but I preferred the close-miked track, which was tighter and more controlled. Almost everyone else, though, seemed to prefer the increased resonance that emerged when the microphone was positioned farther back.

Of the seven mics we tested, the D 112 exhibited both the least rear rejection and the most off-axis coloration. The snare sound bleeding through it, for example, was always clearly present and distinctly colored, emphasizing the high, thin “crack” of the snare drum. And talk about bleed: on the 20-inch Pearl track, which was recorded in a resonant wood room with high ceilings, the D 112 captured almost enough kit for the one track to serve as the whole drum sound.

The D 112 tracks were quite complementary to Boisen’s bass-guitar tracks, offering an immediately usable mix with little or no EQ tweaking. The tracks also fared well with the LA-4 compression, which produced more tone and sustain with no damage to the attack.

Audio-Technica ATM25. The ATM25 produces a solid thud with decent transient response, but on the whole its sound is often lacking in lows and in low mids (depending on the application), resonance, and clarity of attack. The sound therefore tended to be a bit muffled and dull. Also, the ATM25 often seemed farther away from the source than the other mics did.

The ATM25 was not as easy to place in either of the camps (“natural” versus “tailored”) as some of the others we tested. Compared with the more tailored mics, for instance, it tended to produce less low end and sometimes a higher note; in contrast to the more natural-sounding mics, it seemed muffled and less immediate, with not as much definition (“click”) from the beater.

Overall, the relatively nonresonant ATM25 sounded better on the smaller drums, particularly on the 20-inch Gretsch (which is a fairly resonant drum to begin with). Also, Boisen liked it on the 18-inch Slingerland drum, noting “lots of tone, especially in the midrange” and “lots of good lows,” though “not enough attack.” Robair, too, noted “lots of very low energy” but felt that the mic “emphasized the wrong frequencies for this application.”

Of the two 22-inch Ludwig tracks (close- and distance-miked), I preferred the sound when the ATM25 was positioned closer to the head. The sound seemed almost gated, very thuddy and quick to decay, and with sufficient lows—quite usable for certain kinds of mixes.

When mixed with the bass-guitar tracks, the ATM25 sounded somewhat unfocused or indistinct, without enough of either attack or lows. In Boisen’s words, it “just couldn’t compete with the bass.” The ATM25 didn’t do so well with the LA-4 compression, either. (To be fair, the compression we applied to the bass-drum tracks worked well with only two of the mics—the AKG D 112 and the Beyerdynamic TG-X 50.)

The ATM25 provides excellent rejection, especially of high frequencies. Also, it was a bit hotter than most of the other microphones.

Audix D4. The D4 captures plenty of attack but rarely enough low end. In fact, I kept wanting to add some 60 or 80 Hz to the signal to make up for the paucity of oomph. Also, despite its fast transient response and reasonably natural tone, as compared with the other mics, the D4’s overall sound was rather small and thin, two-dimensional or flat, and not particularly exciting. Altogether, the D4 was our least favorite of the seven microphones.

The D4 definitely fared best on the smaller drums, especially the double-headed 18-inch Slingerland. Robair and I thought it sounded reasonably good on the 20-inch Gretsch, too.

A tip in Audix’s application guide advises, “When using the D4, the closer you get to the beater, the less bass you will have!” Indeed, Audix recommended that, to increase bass response, I position the D4 a bit farther back from the drum in all the applications. However, when I compared the close- and far-miked 22-inch Ludwig tracks, the close-miked track had slightly more low end and fullness and, to my ear, sounded better. (Neither track, however, had as much low end as those recorded with most of the other mics.)

Of course, low end is not always what you want from a kick-drum track, especially in some modern, nonmainstream styles of music. For example, although the sound of the D4 on the Ludwig drum wasn’t my favorite, I could imagine it working well in certain rap, hip-hop, or techno productions.

In the mix part of the tests, the D4 blended fairly well with the bass but had—not surprisingly—an overly prominent attack and not enough lows. Again, it worked better with the smaller of the two drums. The LA-4 compression didn’t do anything to help the sound.

The D4’s off-axis rejection was not very good, either. In fact, it picked up almost as much room sound as the AKG D 112, but without that mic’s peculiar high-end coloration.

Although the D4 seemed to be the least well suited to the specific task of recording kick drum, its sound did suggest that it might be a more versatile, all-around instrument microphone than most of the other mics in this comparison.

Beyerdynamic TG-X 50. The TG-X 50 has a distinctive (and not always pleasant-sounding) high-mid “presence” boost and sometimes lacks sufficient lows, but otherwise it tended to be the most natural sounding and “honest” of the seven microphones. (This was also apparent when I sang through the mics; the TG-X 50 came closest to representing my voice accurately.) Also, of the bunch, the TG-X 50 had the best transient response (“lots of drive,” as Hanes put it) and produced the most dimensional “image.” Listening to the TG-X 50 tracks with my eyes closed, I could practically see the drum being hit. And Robair said he felt as if he were being “poked in the eardrum,” so present and punchy was the sound.

Along with emphasizing attack, the TG-X 50’s high-mid boost (which starts at around 1.5 kHz and peaks at 6 kHz) tends to enhance the wood tone of the drum. But it can sound, depending on the application, either a bit “honky” or “cardboardy.” The cardboard quality was more evident on the single-headed drum, which of course sounded dry to begin with. The honky sound came out on the 20-inch Gretsch, a drum with a midrange resonance that did not need enhancing.

The TG-X 50 is not a mic for positioning inside the bass drum close to the batter head. The close-miked track sounded boxy and even mildly distorted, with a surfeit of attack (“too pointy,” Boisen said) and not much oomph to back it up. Resonance was restored, though, with the mic positioned farther from the head; still, the sound was thin compared to that of the “tailored” mics.

In many applications, the TG-X 50 sounded similar to the Audix D4 (both are in the “natural” camp); however, the TG-X 50 had consistently better transient response, was noticeably more dimensional, and generally sounded bigger.

Interestingly, the TG-X 50 elicited the most mixed—even contradictory—responses from among our testers. What some people liked about it, others didn’t. For example, I liked it on the 18-inch jazz kick, where it captured a quite natural sound with remarkable depth of field. Boisen, though, thought it sounded small and too bass-lean in this application. Also, Boisen declared that the sound was “unusable” on the 20-inch Gretsch drum, while Weldon liked it.

Also interesting to note is that initial responses to the TG-X 50 were generally on the negative side—especially when we compared it with the more bass-heavy, “tailored” mics. Yet often, the more we listened to the tracks, the more we liked this mic, due largely to its realism, exceptional presence, and clean, tight sound.

Although it was a clear candidate for some low-end boosting, the TG-X 50 mixed nicely with our bass-guitar tracks. Furthermore, it benefited from the LA-4 compression. (As an aside, Boisen and his studio partner Bart Thurber tried using the TG-X 50 to record bass-guitar cabinet. They were both pleased with the results.)

The TG-X 50 was the hottest mic of the bunch; we found that it typically required 6 to 9 dB less gain than most of the other microphones. Off-axis rejection, though natural sounding, wasn’t particularly good for a hypercardioid mic.

Electro-Voice N/D868. All things considered, the N/D868 was the most consistently pleasing performer of the seven mics we tested, and the one that most of the judges preferred most of the time. In fact, it was one of only two mics that didn’t sound inferior in at least one application. (The AKG D 112 was the other.)

Like the Audio-Technica ATM25, the N/D868 falls predominantly into the “natural” camp, although its hyped lows could also qualify the mic’s response as “tailored.” Certainly its sound is quite different from that of the Beyerdynamic TG-X 50, which was the most all-around natural-sounding mic of the bunch.

My nickname for the N/D868 was Big Thumper. This mic produced a fat, round, warm, and solid thump that was immediately likable but sometimes begged for a modest boost at around 4 kHz to make up for its understated attack and slightly covered sound. Accordingly, Robair described the N/D868’s sound as “nicely balanced” and “pleasing,” though “a bit dark,” and its transient response as “mushier” than the TG-X 50’s.

In some ways, the N/D868 resembled the Audio-Technica ATM25 tonally, except that the N/D868 provided more low end and resonance and a lower note overall. Also, the N/D868 sounded less covered and dull.

The N/D868’s hearty low end made for a slightly boomy sound in some of the applications (the far-miked 22-inch Ludwig and the double-headed 20-inch Gretsch), but usually the tone, though always resonant, was nicely balanced and the pattern tight. Weldon described the Gretsch track as having a “woody full ring” and noted that the “beater melds right into the shell resonance.”

The N/D868 tracks sounded great mixed with the bass-guitar tracks, though again a slight boost at 4 kHz helped define the attack edge. As for the LA-4 compression, it proved unflattering for this mic (as well as for most of the other mics with hyped lows), causing the signal to lose thickness and low end. However, off-axis rejection was excellent—“the least hi-hat bleed of any mic we tested,” noted Boisen.

Sennheiser E602. The E602 blends chest-thumping lows (in the 50 to 100 Hz range) with smoothly boosted highs and high mids (in the 2 to 12 kHz range) to deliver a huge and very detailed—though far from natural—sound. The result is a highly processed tone that seems perfectly dialed in for arena rock, providing that awesome “kaboom” that makes folks want to raise their Bic lighters and wave them back and forth in salute.

The E602 would probably be a great mic for live-sound engineers to have at a gig where lots of stray bands pass through, as they’d be assured of getting a monstrous kick-drum sound—no matter what lame excuse for a drum set got deposited on the stage. I christened the E602 the Great Equalizer (pun intended) due to its predictable, instantly identifiable response that coaxes from every drum a quite similar, over-the-top sound. The E602’s preponderance of lows largely obscures midrange shell tone, minimizing the distinctive voice of each drum in favor of a singular, killer tone. That’s not a bad thing if it’s consistency and reliability you’re after.

In the studio, the E602 was quick to impress, especially when the track was soloed. (“If you find yourself asking, ‘Where’s the beef?’” quipped Boisen, “here’s your answer.”) The sound is thick with gut-rumbling lows and sustain, and it packs plenty of punch and clarity without an overabundance of attack. Certainly, if you mix songs for cars that go boom in the night, this is the kick mic for you.

On the other hand, for more mainstream types of mixes, the E602’s abundant low end could be too much of a good thing. Even in our simple bass-and-drums mix, the mic’s tracks had excessive tone, causing them to compete with and somewhat mask the bass lines. Also, with all that bass going on, the clarity of the attack was compromised.

Not surprisingly, the E602 was something of a mismatch for the more resonant, double-headed kick drums. On the 18-inch Slingerland, for example, the lows were overbearing (“Who needs a bass player?” I scribbled in my notes) and the tone “tanky,” like the sound of a rubber kick ball being bounced on concrete. And on my 20-inch Gretsch, the excessive sustain reminded me of a Roland TR-808 kick.

I liked the E602 best on the 22-inch, single-headed Ludwig: whether close- or far-miked, the tracks sounded great. The E602 was also exceptional on the Pearl 20-inch drum recorded to analog tape. In this application, the tone seemed quite natural; in Boisen’s words, it had “ample lows” and an “integrated attack.”

Like most of the other bass-heavy mics, the E602’s sound was not improved by LA-4 compression. On another note, however, this mic provides exceptionally good off-axis rejection—especially considering how much high end it captures.

Shure Beta 52. The Beta 52 has a distinctive sound characterized by a big dose of “smacky” attack and ample shell tone but not always enough lows and low mids. The hit is exceptionally immediate and full of impact, and for some styles of music—say, tight funk and disco—this mic would seem ready-made; however, its very “tailored” response resulted in a slightly artificial quality that didn’t always float our boats.

A sharp, 12 dB boost around 4 kHz is evidently responsible for the Beta 52’s click-heavy attack—an exaggeration that translated better to analog tape than to ADAT, where it usually sounded excessive. On the 22-inch Ludwig tracks, the tone was definitely improved with the mic in the far position. When positioned right up next to the beater, though, the Beta 52 didn’t capture nearly enough lows, and the attack sounded rattly and faintly distorted.

The mic’s bumped-up mids (starting at around 1 kHz) and high mids didn’t always complement the more resonant double-headed drums, either. On the 18-inch Slingerland, for example, the Beta 52 enhanced the drum’s “boing” and, in Robair’s words, made the track sound “kind of hollow.” (Weldon, on the other hand, liked the sound for its quirkiness.) However, on the 20-inch Gretsch, the tone was more usable, with decent lows but still too much attack.

Again, the Beta 52 sounded better on the drums recorded to analog tape, where it captured more lows and had a better-integrated, less clicky attack. Of the two drums we used for our analog tests, the 22-inch fared better and proved the best application for this microphone. In these more favorable applications, the Beta 52 sounded similar to the AKG D 112, but with less low end and more attack. Also, its lows were similar to the Electro-Voice N/D868’s—except that there wasn’t as much of them.

The Beta 52’s tight sound worked well in the bass-and-drums mix, where it provided the necessary detail and punch. Again, though, we found ourselves reaching for the EQ to boost the lows a bit, particularly on the 20-inch kick track. The LA-4 compression didn’t help matters, either, causing a loss of valuable low end.

Off-axis rejection was decent, but the Beta 52’s characteristic response was evident in a distinct coloration on the snare drum leakage.

Kick Boxers

Well, there you have it: seven different microphones and seven different bass-drum tones. So why, in this age of conformity, would manufacturers produce such different-sounding mics? Well, largely because there’s no such thing as a “right” or “wrong” sound—especially when it comes to percussion instruments. What each of these mics embodies, then, is its manufacturer’s idea of how a kick-drum mic should sound. And clearly, each has a different idea.

Of course, because there is no right or wrong sound, it’s absurd for me to tell you which mic sounds best. After all, each is a well-made, fully professional instrument that is capable of recording pro-quality tracks. However, having gotten familiar with all seven of them, I can definitely say that there are some I would like to own more than others.

My first pick would be the Electro-Voice N/D868. Better yet, I would broaden my palette by acquiring at least two of the seven mics. In that case, my preferences would be the N/D868 and the Beyerdynamic TG-X 50—two microphones that have distinctly different sounds. But again, that’s just my opinion.

When asked the same questions—Which mic would you choose if you could afford only one, and which two of the seven would you buy?—both Boisen and Weldon also specified the Electro-Voice N/D868 as their first picks. But they would supplement it with the Sennheiser E602. Interestingly, both gave the same reason for their second choice: they felt they could rely on the E602 to deliver a consistently good sound, no matter what the bass drum itself sounded like.

Robair, on the other hand, chose the Sennheiser E602 as his first pick, and would supplement it with the AKG D 112, were he able to acquire two of the mics. His reasoning was more like mine: both mics sounded great to his ears, but they sounded different enough from each other to cover a lot of ground.

But hey, don’t just run out and buy a mic based on our preferences. Rather, consider your own particular applications and parameters (types of music, drums, room, and the like), as well as your musical tastes, and then review our detailed descriptions of each microphone. Hopefully, that will steer you in the right direction.

Brian Knave is an associate editor at EM. Thanks to Myles Boisen, Mary Cosola, Carrie Gebstadt, John Hanes, Gino Robair, and Rick Weldon.

Audio Lingo

Because the colloquial terms for frequency ranges are so commonly—and inconsistently—bandied about, I have specified the ranges below as they have been referred to in these comparison tests.

Lows 20 Hz–80 Hz

Low Mids 80 Hz–320 Hz

Mids 320 Hz–1.2 kHz

High Mids 1.2 kHz–7.5 kHz

Highs 7.5 kHz–20 kHz

Kick Drum Microphone Specifications

Microphone	Polar Pattern	Diaphragm Size	Frequency Response	Maximum SPL	Price
AKG D 112	cardioid	1.25”	20 Hz–17 kHz	unmeasurable	$382
Audio-Technica ATM25	hypercardioid	1”	30 Hz–15 kHz	not available	$275
Audix D-4	hypercardioid	1”	38 Hz–19 kHz	144 dB	$329
Beyerdynamic TG-X 50	hypercardioid	1.25”	15 Hz–18 kHz (close miked) 40 Hz–16 kHz (@ 1 meter)	150 dB	$249
Electro-Voice N/D868	cardioid variant	1.25”	20 Hz–10 kHz	157 dB	$338
Sennheiser E602	cardioid	1.5”	20 Hz–16 kHz	160 dB	$319
Shure Beta 52	supercardioid	1.1”	20 Hz–10 kHz	174 dB (@ 1 kHz)	$387.50