[Johnny[_3_]]

I want to buy a matched set of these mics but can't afford both at the same
time.

Would it be ok - as to the possibilities of a good match - to buy one now
and get another in a few months?
Or would it be better so buy a factory matched pair when I can afford both
in a few months.

I read somewhere that they are consistent enough that it won't matter if I
get a pair that's sold as matched or not.
Is this true?

As to their usage, I will be using them to record classical instruments
exclusively.

Thanks for any help

J

[Scott Dorsey]

Johnny wrote:
I want to buy a matched set of these mics but can't afford both at the same
time.

Would it be ok - as to the possibilities of a good match - to buy one now
and get another in a few months?
Or would it be better so buy a factory matched pair when I can afford both
in a few months.

These are good mikes. They are not crappy mikes.

When you buy good mikes, you get a plot with them, and you know that they
will meet that plot within very tight tolerances. If they don't meet that
plot, the vendor will repair them.

Until very recently, Neumann would not sell matched pairs, because any two
off the production line at any time were better matched than most other
vendors' matched pairs.

I read somewhere that they are consistent enough that it won't matter if I
get a pair that's sold as matched or not.
Is this true?

Yes. You are too used to crappy microphones where you neet to match them
to get anything useful. These are good mikes. You don't need to do all
that nonsense.

As to their usage, I will be using them to record classical instruments
exclusively.

I'm not a huge fan of these mikes for classical work, but that's a personal
thing. If you like the way they sound, by all means grab one. You might
consider buying used, although you should know these don't turn up much
on the used market.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Johnny[_3_]]

Scott,

Thanks for your reply. I value your opinion.
The reason I'm looking into buying these mics is because I need a bit more
warmth than I'm getting with my Scoepps.
I have the CMC 641 and find them a bit sharp, sometimes a bit harsh too, on
the high end.
They also seem to have a bit of a midrange to them that I don't like.
I'm keeping them but wanted the 193's because I heard a recording done with
similar equipment and the same mic pre as I have, Millennia, and they had
more "warmth" to them than when I ran the 641's through the same rig.

I am completely open for suggestions, if you have any, at that same price
range though.
It would need to be a pair.

Thanks

J



"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Johnny wrote:
I want to buy a matched set of these mics but can't afford both at the
same
time.

Would it be ok - as to the possibilities of a good match - to buy one now
and get another in a few months?
Or would it be better so buy a factory matched pair when I can afford both
in a few months.

These are good mikes. They are not crappy mikes.

When you buy good mikes, you get a plot with them, and you know that they
will meet that plot within very tight tolerances. If they don't meet that
plot, the vendor will repair them.

Until very recently, Neumann would not sell matched pairs, because any two
off the production line at any time were better matched than most other
vendors' matched pairs.

I read somewhere that they are consistent enough that it won't matter if I
get a pair that's sold as matched or not.
Is this true?

Yes. You are too used to crappy microphones where you neet to match them
to get anything useful. These are good mikes. You don't need to do all
that nonsense.

As to their usage, I will be using them to record classical instruments
exclusively.

I'm not a huge fan of these mikes for classical work, but that's a
personal
thing. If you like the way they sound, by all means grab one. You might
consider buying used, although you should know these don't turn up much
on the used market.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Johnny wrote:

Thanks for your reply. I value your opinion.
The reason I'm looking into buying these mics is because I need a bit more
warmth than I'm getting with my Scoepps.
I have the CMC 641 and find them a bit sharp, sometimes a bit harsh too, on
the high end.

Hmm... have you tried the MK4 instead?

They also seem to have a bit of a midrange to them that I don't like.
I'm keeping them but wanted the 193's because I heard a recording done with
similar equipment and the same mic pre as I have, Millennia, and they had
more "warmth" to them than when I ran the 641's through the same rig.

I'm not sure I really know what "warmth" means.... but most of my objections
to the TLM193 are going to have to do with imaging more than tonality.
They won't be as sharply defined as the MK41 tonally either, which maybe is
what you want.

I am completely open for suggestions, if you have any, at that same price
range though.
It would need to be a pair.

If you think the top end on the MK 41 is a little sharp, don't even think
of trying the DPA mikes. You _might_ like the older Sennheiser MKH-50 but
you won't like the newer MKH-8050.

You might want to audition the Gefell M300 as well, which I think is a very
good deal and less expensive than the Neumann.

But the first thing I'd do in your situation is try a little bit of EQ, just
cutting and not boosting. Can you get the sound you want with a little bit
of cutting somewhere? If so, you now know what to start looking for in a
different mike. If not, you've at least eliminated a bunch of possibilities.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:39:39 -0500, Johnny wrote
(in article ):

Scott,

Thanks for your reply. I value your opinion.
The reason I'm looking into buying these mics is because I need a bit more
warmth than I'm getting with my Scoepps.
I have the CMC 641 and find them a bit sharp, sometimes a bit harsh too, on
the high end.
They also seem to have a bit of a midrange to them that I don't like.
I'm keeping them but wanted the 193's because I heard a recording done with
similar equipment and the same mic pre as I have, Millennia, and they had
more "warmth" to them than when I ran the 641's through the same rig.

I am completely open for suggestions, if you have any, at that same price
range though.
It would need to be a pair.

Thanks

J

J,

what preamp are you using? I've never heard my cmc641 sound harsh.

I would expect you'd find the TLM193 a bit brighter than the cmc641.

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[hank alrich]

Johnny wrote:

I have the CMC 641 and find them a bit sharp, sometimes a bit harsh too, on
the high end.
They also seem to have a bit of a midrange to them that I don't like.

What preamp are you using with the Schoeps?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Johnny[_3_]]

I'm using the Millennia HV-3D.
I like it.

Thanks


"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Johnny wrote:

I have the CMC 641 and find them a bit sharp, sometimes a bit harsh too,
on
the high end.
They also seem to have a bit of a midrange to them that I don't like.

What preamp are you using with the Schoeps?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Johnny[_3_]]

what preamp are you using? I've never heard my cmc641 sound harsh.

The Millennia HV-3D.
Perhaps "harsh" is not a good word but they do sound quite bright, to me,
and seem to have a bit of a midrange bite to them.
By that I mean, every instrument I've recorded using the CMC 641 sound
brighter and have slightly more midrange kick to them in the recording than
they do live.


I would expect you'd find the TLM193 a bit brighter than the cmc641.

Wow........pretty amazing you would say that.
So far I've actually read about people complaining about the 193's sounding
too dark if anything.
Maybe I am on the wrong path in considering them.

The bottom line is that when using the CMC 641's all instruments always have
that upper midrange kick that I don't like and sound brighter than they do
live.
This might be good on certain voices but it doesn't work when I'm trying to
be as transparent as I can.

Thanks



Regards,

Ty Ford

[Johnny[_3_]]

I'm not sure I really know what "warmth" means.... but most of my
objections
to the TLM193 are going to have to do with imaging more than tonality.
They won't be as sharply defined as the MK41 tonally either, which maybe
is
what you want.

Basically what I want is as close as I can get to an absolute transparency.
I don't want the instruments I record to sound brighter, with
stronger/weaker midrange or bass.
I also want as little a difference in the instrument's overall sound
character in live vs. the recorded sound.


You _might_ like the older Sennheiser MKH-50 but
you won't like the newer MKH-8050.

I'll see if I can audition the MKH-50. I'm somewhat familiar with them but
haven't heard them in a while.
Nor have I compared them to the Schoeps I have.


You might want to audition the Gefell M300 as well, which I think is a
very
good deal and less expensive than the Neumann.

I'll try those too.


But the first thing I'd do in your situation is try a little bit of EQ,
just
cutting and not boosting. Can you get the sound you want with a little
bit
of cutting somewhere? If so, you now know what to start looking for in a
different mike. If not, you've at least eliminated a bunch of
possibilities.


I've done so much eq-ing I'm about to loose my mind.

[genericaudioperson]

If you had a 193 and a u-87, you could do mid-side micing. Do you
have an 87 hanging around?

[Johnny[_3_]]

If you had a 193 and a u-87, you could do mid-side micing. Do you
have an 87 hanging around?


Nope.
Not sure I'd like an 87 on a classical instrument anyway.
Be worth the try though.
I've never tried that.

[hank alrich]

Johnny wrote:

I'm using the Millennia HV-3D.
I like it.

I have one of those. I like it sometimes on some things, but not always
on everything, and when I don;t like it I ascribe to it the
characteristics you have mentioned regarding the Schoeps.

Have you ever tried the Gordon preamp?

http://www.gordonaudio.com/

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Johnny wrote:

I have the CMC 641 and find them a bit sharp, sometimes a bit harsh too,
on
the high end.
They also seem to have a bit of a midrange to them that I don't like.

What preamp are you using with the Schoeps?

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Dieter Michel]

Hi Johnny,

Basically what I want is as close as I can get to an absolute transparency.
I don't want the instruments I record to sound brighter, with
stronger/weaker midrange or bass.

do you have the chance to try the Sennheiser MKH800?

I recently had the chance to use the new MKH800 Twin
(should be very similar in sound) for a recording and
had the impression that they were very neutral/analytical.

Best regards

Dieter Michel

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:36:52 -0500, Johnny wrote
(in article ):

I would expect you'd find the TLM193 a bit brighter than the cmc641.

Wow........pretty amazing you would say that.
So far I've actually read about people complaining about the 193's sounding
too dark if anything.
Maybe I am on the wrong path in considering them.

The bottom line is that when using the CMC 641's all instruments always have
that upper midrange kick that I don't like and sound brighter than they do
live.
This might be good on certain voices but it doesn't work when I'm trying to
be as transparent as I can.

Thanks

Sure. Here's my suggestion, though. I don't have an HV-3D here to check it
out, but I do have a STT-1 and don't think it makes my cmc641 sound harsh. I
have no idea whether or not the STT-1 and HV-3D have a similar sound, but if
your cmc641 sounds as you say it does, I'd try another preamp. Rent one to
see if the problem goes away. GML, John Hardy, Jensen, off the top of my
head.

Also, what monitors are you using to make this judgement?

Regards,

Ty Ford



--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[genericaudioperson]

That's good stuff. HV-3's rule. You'll probably want some different
stuff as you go along... a multi-pattern mic, an omni or two.

Have you thought of renting some stuff from dreamhire.com?

[Johnny[_3_]]

I have one of those. I like it sometimes on some things, but not always
on everything, and when I don;t like it I ascribe to it the
characteristics you have mentioned regarding the Schoeps.

Have you ever tried the Gordon preamp?

http://www.gordonaudio.com/



No, I have never tried those.
I've heard good things though.
I may try that if I exhaust my mic choices.
Thanks for your recommendation.

[Johnny[_3_]]

do you have the chance to try the Sennheiser MKH800?

I recently had the chance to use the new MKH800 Twin
(should be very similar in sound) for a recording and
had the impression that they were very neutral/analytical.

Best regards

Dieter Michel


Nope, never tried those.
That mik, especially two, is too much money for me at the moment.
Maybe I could find a place to rent it but that's about as far as I could go
with that.

[Johnny[_3_]]

Also, what monitors are you using to make this judgement?

Regards,

Ty Ford



On my final test I usually burn a cd and run it in my home stereo system.
That consists of rather old Martin Logan Sequel II, also somewhat old VTL
power and pre amps and McCormack CD player.

As I listen I usually make notes of what could be better and about possible
tweaks.
Things like more or less reverb, and brighter or darker reverb are quite
common.
Not to mention things having to do with the performer's performance and the
good ole' over-all character of his/her instruments.

So to answer your question my judgement is mostly based on what my home
stereo system tells me.

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford wrote:

Rent one to
see if the problem goes away. GML, John Hardy, Jensen, off the top of my
head.

Gordon...

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:32:08 -0500, Johnny wrote
(in article ):


Also, what monitors are you using to make this judgement?

Regards,

Ty Ford



On my final test I usually burn a cd and run it in my home stereo system.
That consists of rather old Martin Logan Sequel II, also somewhat old VTL
power and pre amps and McCormack CD player.

As I listen I usually make notes of what could be better and about possible
tweaks.
Things like more or less reverb, and brighter or darker reverb are quite
common.
Not to mention things having to do with the performer's performance and the
good ole' over-all character of his/her instruments.

So to answer your question my judgement is mostly based on what my home
stereo system tells me.

With all due respect, I totally understand that you are very familiar with
your system. I've just never encountered anyone describe a cmc641 as harsh or
edgy.

I have worked with one or two clients who had problems with a mix on their
systems, only to find that their systems had some really radical EQ stuff
going on. Once we got that sorted out, they we very OK with the mixes.

I could post a short track of a cmc641 recorded here (non-harshly) and you
could play it back over your system to see if it was harsh.

Our subjective ears may differ, of course, but it might throw some light on
the recording process.

Regards,

Ty Ford




--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich wrote:
Johnny wrote:

I have the CMC 641 and find them a bit sharp, sometimes a bit harsh too, on
the high end.
They also seem to have a bit of a midrange to them that I don't like.

What preamp are you using with the Schoeps?

He's using the Millennia.... and I use the same combination at times and
wouldn't describe it as harsh, so I am curious what he's aiming for.

On the other hand, sometimes the _room_ is harsh and the Schoeps is not
the way to go...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Johnny[_3_]]

On the other hand, sometimes the _room_ is harsh and the Schoeps is not
the way to go...
--scott


Funny you would say that.
I'm spending all day today, and maybe tomorrow, redoing my recording room.
Calculating, testing, recording, all that stuff.
All in effort to get a smoother sound from my recordings.

Thanks, will be in touch.

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:45:33 -0500, Johnny wrote
(in article ):


On the other hand, sometimes the _room_ is harsh and the Schoeps is not
the way to go...
--scott


Funny you would say that.
I'm spending all day today, and maybe tomorrow, redoing my recording room.
Calculating, testing, recording, all that stuff.
All in effort to get a smoother sound from my recordings.

Thanks, will be in touch.



I just did a mastering job for a client who recorded and mixed his project.
When he heard it here he was surprised by all the edges he heard. I'm not
totally sure about all of the causes, but adding a little HF EQ to tracks was
part of it.

I suggested he go back and take those plugins out or reduce the boost. When
he came back he said he'd also pulled down some of the foam he had up to get
a more balanced sound.

I've not been in his studio, so I have no idea what it might have sounded
like before, but, in this case, it could be the opposite of what you have.

Point being: don't overdo the foam in search of smoothness.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

Johnny wrote:

Funny you would say that.
I'm spending all day today, and maybe tomorrow, redoing my recording room.
Calculating, testing, recording, all that stuff.

What about listening? The listening is the hard part. Stick a finger in
one ear, walk around the room while someone is playing. If it doesn't sound
good in the room, it won't sound good on tape.

All in effort to get a smoother sound from my recordings.

What is the room like?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Karl Winkler]

On Nov 27, 3:08*pm, "Johnny" wrote:
I want to buy a matched set of these mics but can't afford both at the same
time.

Would it be ok - as to the possibilities of a good match - to buy one now
and get another in a few months?
Or would it be better so buy a factory matched pair when I can afford both
in a few months.

I read somewhere that they are consistent enough that it won't matter if I
get a pair that's sold as matched or not.
Is this true?

As to their usage, I will be using them to record classical instruments
exclusively.

Thanks for any help

J

There is already a lot of good info in this thread. But one thing I
don't see is mention of the fact that with classical recording (where
the mics are further away from the instruments) a supercardioid
microphone may not give you the best results, and may indeed sound
"bright" or even harsh in some situations. The reason for this is that
all directional mics exhibit proximity effect. Usually, this is
expressed as "as you get really close, there is a bass buildup" but
the reciprocal is also true: as you get further away, the bass drops
off. The plot you see with any directional microphone is expressed as
"at one meter distance" except for a few oddballs that are expressed
as "at .3 meter distance". So in other words, the flat response you
see (or the gentle drop-off in most cases) is at one meter. At greater
distances, there is more bass loss. Closer, say a few inches away,
there begins quite a bit of bass buildup - just think radio
announcer.

A microphone like the TLM193 which has a broader cardioid pattern may
help somewhat with this problem. And the fact that the K89 capsule
used in that mic exhibits a slight dip in the upper mids may help
provide a "smoother" sound overall. But it is still a cardioid mic.
I'm generally a fan of using omni mics (true omnis, that is, like the
MK2, 2s, 2H, etc.) to get the main part of your sound when doing
classical recordings. Then directional mics can be added as spot mics
to highlight certain sections of the orchestra, etc. But since you
start with omnis (they do not have proximity effect) your bass
response is natural, open, and extended. With omnis, it's the high
frequency response you have to worry about as you get further away,
which is why you have "free field equalized" and "near field
equalized" omni capsules. Something like the MK2s is a good compromise
because it has a gentle rise in the highs but not too much. I always
wished Neumann had something between the KM130 and the 131.

Karl Winkler
http://www.lectrosonics.com