Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have
helped me find the flaws in my methodology grin. Hopefully this time I had all the switches in the right directions. The mics a CAD M179 Schoeps CMC64 Shure KSM44 Shure KSM141 Here are the clips: http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-F.wav http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-G.wav http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-H.wav http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-I.wav They're not in the same order, of course. Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing: http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you. Fran http://www.kaleponi.com http://www.homebrewedmusic.com |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote
(in article ): http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ "For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of the guitar while another picks up the bridge." Fran, At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really wonderful, you're recordings won't be. At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a guitar. Proximity effect is not a bad thing, it's just a thing. If it's too much, you have to reposition the mic. On this cut -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA Where's the Schoeps? Sitting on the sofa arm; a lot closer than 32" On this one -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IMIP8drZo I'm using a TLM 103 aimed back across the face. You can see it when I pull back. This guitar has a slightly muted sound, so I used the brighter TLM 103 to brighten it a bit. Both tracks have reverb added Here's what I've found with acoustic guitars. Each one projects a lobe or lobes of sound from the face. Stick a finger in one ear and move your other ears around from about two feet while the player is playing the guitar. When you find the lobe, stick a mic there and fine tune by positioning. 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 |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:03:47 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote (in article ): http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ "For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of the guitar while another picks up the bridge." Fran, At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really wonderful, you're recordings won't be. Not quite beyond proximity effect either. A cardioid at 32 inches will lift 82 Hz (bottom E on a guitar) by just over 1dB. A hypercardioid, nearly 2dB and a figure 8 by 2.5dB. The good thing about proximity effect is that it is precisely predictable, and easily corrected. d |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Ty Ford wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote (in article ): http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ "For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of the guitar while another picks up the bridge." Fran, At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really wonderful, you're recordings won't be. At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a guitar. Countering Ty's opinion here, I sometimes track solo guitar with a mic or mics as much as six feet from the instrument. Funny thing is, that's often how I hear guitars played for real in rooms of all kinds. I don't often hear a guitar from a foot or so away. I often prefer the sound when it's caught at some distance. Proximity effect is not a bad thing, it's just a thing. If it's too much, you have to reposition the mic. A room is not a bad thing; it's just a thing. And it's a thing that can often be managed by choice of mic pattern and placement, including not only the mic's position relative to the instrument, but also the mic's orientation within the room to influence what of the room is heard by the mic. Obviously, this is not an approach to be used when recording a singing guitarist and wanting separation if mic'ing the voice and instrument separately. But for strictly solo guitar tracks I find it engaging. -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Ty Ford wrote:
At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a guitar. Differentiating good from bad will be difficult, but differentiating between Mic A and Mic B may not be difficult, the difference being how each mic handles the room sound. About the best you do is say which one you prefer at that distance. At 6-10 inches, you'll hear more direct sound, but will also hear the differences in how different mics handle off-axis but direct sound. That may be a better way to just which mic is generically "best," whatever that means. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Hi Don,
I didn't realize there was a formula for projecting the amount of proximity effect on a mic during recording. Maybe this is a dumb question, but is there anywhere I can read up on this? Thanks in advance, Dean On Jun 29, 8:22*am, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:03:47 -0400, Ty Ford wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote (in article ): http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ "For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of the guitar while another picks up the bridge." Fran, At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really wonderful, you're recordings won't be. Not quite beyond proximity effect either. A cardioid at 32 inches will lift 82 Hz (bottom E on a guitar) by just over 1dB. A hypercardioid, nearly 2dB and a figure 8 by 2.5dB. The good thing about proximity effect is that it is precisely predictable, and easily corrected. d |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
drichard wrote:
I didn't realize there was a formula for projecting the amount of proximity effect on a mic during recording. Maybe this is a dumb question, but is there anywhere I can read up on this? It's a function of the microphone pattern and the distance, both. The closer to a figure-8 mike, the more proximity effect, the closer to an omni, the less. Any given microphone should have curves on the data sheet that list response up close and far-field, but a lot of manufacturers have stopped doing this is part of the general attempt to dumb-down datasheets. So you will have to use your ears. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Jun 29, 6:22*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:03:47 -0400, Ty Ford wrote: On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote (in article ): http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ "For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of the guitar while another picks up the bridge." Fran, At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really wonderful, you're recordings won't be. Not quite beyond proximity effect either. A cardioid at 32 inches will lift 82 Hz (bottom E on a guitar) by just over 1dB. A hypercardioid, nearly 2dB and a figure 8 by 2.5dB. The good thing about proximity effect is that it is precisely predictable, and easily corrected. d Well this is what I was talking about in my first post. Every time I post here I learn something in the responses. Thanks, Don, and everyone else who commented. Fran |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Jun 28, 11:45*am, Fran Guidry wrote:
I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have helped me find the flaws in my methodology grin. Hopefully this time I had all the switches in the right directions. The mics a CAD M179 Schoeps CMC64 Shure KSM44 Shure KSM141 Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio...20090626-I.wav They're not in the same order, of course. Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you. Fran http://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com By the way, I didn't mean to inhibit discussion of the clips themselves by my suggestion of emailing guesses to me. I've found that many people are more forthcoming with their selections when they can make them in private. But for me, these clips sound amazingly similar. My recording education has come from the internet, with all the good and bad that entails. When I was using a Shure SM81 through a Behringer mixer into a Soundblaster card, I was sure (based on internet postings) that I would hear a night and day difference when I upgraded any or all of the chain. Each upgrade left me asking "Is that all there is?" Still, I would not have expected a CAD M179 and a Schoeps CMC64 to sound so similar no matter what the circumstances. Or perhaps they only sound similar to me. I know that my ability to discriminate is much less than others, I've done ABX testing to prove it grin. Fran |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Jun 29, 7:05*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
Ty Ford wrote: At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a guitar. Differentiating good from bad will be difficult, but differentiating between Mic A and Mic B may not be difficult, the difference being how each mic handles the room sound. About the best you do is say which one you prefer at that distance. At 6-10 inches, you'll hear more direct sound, but will also hear the differences in how different mics handle off-axis but direct sound. That may be a better way to just which mic is generically "best," whatever that means. -- If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers ) Mike, I feel like I have a more even field for the mics to sample if I'm a bit further from the guitar. I think the instrument is a non- uniform source and I like to have the distance between source and mics large in comparison to the distance between mics. All this for comparison purposes only, of course, and placing mics for a recording brings in a whole different set of criteria. Fran |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Jun 29, 6:03*am, Ty Ford wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote (in article ): http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ "For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of the guitar while another picks up the bridge." Fran, At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really wonderful, you're recordings won't be. At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a guitar. Proximity effect is not a bad thing, it's just a thing. If it's too much, you have to reposition the mic. On this cut --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA Where's the Schoeps? Sitting on the sofa arm; a lot closer than 32" On this one --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IMIP8drZo I'm using a TLM 103 aimed back across the face. You can see it when I pull back. This guitar has a slightly muted sound, so I used the brighter TLM 103 to brighten it a bit. Both tracks have reverb added Here's what I've found with acoustic guitars. Each one projects a lobe or lobes of sound from the face. Stick a finger in one ear and move your other ears around from about two feet while the player is playing the guitar. When you find the lobe, stick a mic there and fine tune by positioning. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA Hey, Ty, I've been sampling your Vimeo channel, nice stuff. I probably mis-estimated the distance, and in any case usually record somewhat closer when I'm tracking rather than comparing mics. But here I'm trying to give each mic the "same" source for some value of "same." I fear that when I get too close the non-uniform radiation of the instrument will add an uncontrolled variable to the comparison. Fran |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
hank alrich wrote:
A room is not a bad thing; it's just a thing. Well two things really, if recorded. 1 - The room where it is recorded, and (2) the room that is the listening environment. I prefer more of just one room because multiple rooms gets messier, but of course that all changes if you aere listening on hedphones ! geoff |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Hi Fran,
I look forward to knowing which mic is which. I took a little time to write down some observations, but since I don't own any of the four mics listed and don't know what the instrument sounded like in the room, I would only be guessing when trying to pick which mic made each recording. But the differences, which seemed subtle at first, don't seem so subtle after a few listens. Each of the four made a nice recording. I liked #1 best, followed by #3. When will you post the identities? Thanks, Dean On Jun 28, 1:45*pm, Fran Guidry wrote: I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have helped me find the flaws in my methodology grin. Hopefully this time I had all the switches in the right directions. The mics a CAD M179 Schoeps CMC64 Shure KSM44 Shure KSM141 Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio...20090626-I.wav They're not in the same order, of course. Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you. Franhttp://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
drichard wrote:
Hi Don, I didn't realize there was a formula for projecting the amount of proximity effect on a mic during recording. Maybe this is a dumb question, but is there anywhere I can read up on this? Most text books tend to gloss over the proximity effect or omit any proper explanation. If you want to delve into the mathematics of the process, try reading the BBC training manual "Microphones" by A.E. Robinson. (Iliffe, London / Hayden, New York) (1951/1963) The explanation for the proximity effect is rather convoluted: The mic diaphragm (or ribbon) responds to pressure difference across its faces. In an omnidirectional mic, one of the faces is enclosed, so the pressure difference is just due to the pressure variations on the exposed face. If the body of the mic is small enough, the response will not depend on which direction the pressure is coming from. In a bidirectional mic the pressure difference between the two exposed sides of the diaphragrm or ribbon comes from the extra distance the wave has to travel between the front and the back of the diaphragm or ribbon; so the mic is at its most sensitive when the sound approaches at right angles to the plane of the diaphragm or ribbon, where the distance is greatest. There are two different effects; the first is frequency-dependent but the second, which only occurs when the wavefront is spherical, is not. [That sentence appears to be counter-intuitive, but all will be explained later] 1) The frequency-dependent effect is due to the pressure difference at two points on a plane waveform travelling past the mic. The time difference between the two sides of the diaphragm or ribbon is fixed by the geometry of the mic and the speed of sound, so as the frequency increases, the difference in pressure becomes a greater and greater portion of a cycle of the waveform. This means that the pressure difference increases with increasing frequency (up to a point where it falls rapidly and extinguishes when the path length is equivalent to half a cycle). 2) The frequency-independent effect is caused by the pressure difference between two points on the radius of a spherical wavefront, which is dropping in pressure as it expands. The pressure drop, in this case, is independent of frequency. A ribbon microphone has a diaphragm which is resonant below the audio band, so it needs a pressure difference which increases with frequency if it is to give a flat response. The frequency-dependent effect gives this increase with frequency, so the response of a ribbon to a plane wave is flat and NOT frequency dependent. When the ribbon is exposed to a spherical wavefront, it encounters a presure difference effect which does not change with frequency, it therefore gives a response which decreases as the frequency goes up. Looking at it the other way around, the sensitivity of a ribbon to spherical wavefronts increases as the frequency falls. This is where the proximity effect comes from. The proximity effect will only occur when the mic is close enough to a small sound source to pick up a waveform which is effectively spherical, If the sound source is large (e.g. the back of a double-bass), there will be almost no proximity effect. A cardioid mic, which combines an omnidirectional and a bidirectional response, will give approximately half the proximity effect of an equivalent bidirectional mic. Mathematically prediciting the changeover point where the spherical wave begins to dominate the response is not easy (where is the effective centre of origin of a sound which does not come from a true point source?); but correcting it electrically is very straightforward because it can be exactly matched by a simple single-stage RC filter. If the filter turnover is adjustable, my advice would be to twiddle the knob until it sounds right. -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
CORRECTION:
....try reading the BBC training manual "Microphones" by A.E. Robertson. (Iliffe, London / Hayden, New York) (1951/1963)... -- ~ Adrian Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Jun 29, 11:49*pm, drichard wrote:
Hi Fran, I look forward to knowing which mic is which. I took a little time to write down some observations, but since I don't own any of the four mics listed and don't know what the instrument sounded like in the room, I would only be guessing when trying to pick which mic made each recording. But the differences, which seemed subtle at first, don't seem so subtle after a few listens. Each of the four made a nice recording. I liked #1 best, followed by #3. When will you post the identities? Thanks, Dean On Jun 28, 1:45*pm, Fran Guidry wrote: I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have helped me find the flaws in my methodology grin. Hopefully this time I had all the switches in the right directions. The mics a CAD M179 Schoeps CMC64 Shure KSM44 Shure KSM141 Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio...://www.homebre... They're not in the same order, of course. Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you. Fran http://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com Dean, I just emailed you the key. Were you surprised by the degree of similarity, or did you find the clips about as different as you expected? Fran |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:59:25 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote
(in article ): Hey, Ty, I've been sampling your Vimeo channel, nice stuff. I probably mis-estimated the distance, and in any case usually record somewhat closer when I'm tracking rather than comparing mics. But here I'm trying to give each mic the "same" source for some value of "same." I fear that when I get too close the non-uniform radiation of the instrument will add an uncontrolled variable to the comparison. Fran Fran, Right with you on that idea. My concern is that the "same" you'll be hearing has more to do with the room. And as for being able to calculate the P-effect, I'm thinking the different porting of capsules would mitigate that. So, how much sound is allowed via the rear ports of each mic does have some bearing. I envy you the space n which you can get 32' between a mic and a guitar. 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 |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Hi Fran,
Honestly, it was about what I expected. I know there are differences in mics, and while subtle, they are audible. (I guess I can be a little more vocal now, since the only mic I've heard recordings of was the Schoeps, and I was able to identify it.) But those differences are nowhere near as dramatic as some would have you believe. I've listened to CDs of mic preamp shootouts before, and those are downright humbling. I remember that a few years ago 3D Audio did a mic preamp shootout. When blind, many serious engineers preferred Mackie preamps over much higher quality ones, and were shocked when told what they had chosen. Many couldn't identify their own preamps.The differences are so very subtle. I wasn't brave enough to even voice my opinions in that shootout. Yes, humbling indeed. I'm curious if others here can identify the mics they are familiar with. Anyone? Dean On Jun 30, 11:45*am, Fran Guidry wrote: On Jun 29, 11:49*pm, drichard wrote: Hi Fran, I look forward to knowing which mic is which. I took a little time to write down some observations, but since I don't own any of the four mics listed and don't know what the instrument sounded like in the room, I would only be guessing when trying to pick which mic made each recording. But the differences, which seemed subtle at first, don't seem so subtle after a few listens. Each of the four made a nice recording. I liked #1 best, followed by #3. When will you post the identities? Thanks, Dean On Jun 28, 1:45*pm, Fran Guidry wrote: I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have helped me find the flaws in my methodology grin. Hopefully this time I had all the switches in the right directions. The mics a CAD M179 Schoeps CMC64 Shure KSM44 Shure KSM141 Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio...://www.homebre... They're not in the same order, of course. Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you. Fran http://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com Dean, I just emailed you the key. Were you surprised by the degree of similarity, or did you find the clips about as different as you expected? Fran- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Jun 30, 3:15*pm, drichard wrote:
Hi Fran, Honestly, it was about what I expected. I know there are differences in mics, and while subtle, they are audible. (I guess I can be a little more vocal now, since the only mic I've heard recordings of was the Schoeps, and I was able to identify it.) But those differences are nowhere near as dramatic as some would have you believe. I've listened to CDs of mic preamp shootouts before, and those are downright humbling. I remember that a few years ago 3D Audio did a mic preamp shootout. When blind, many serious engineers preferred Mackie preamps over much higher quality ones, and were shocked when told what they had chosen. Many couldn't identify their own preamps.The differences are so very subtle. I wasn't brave enough to even voice my opinions in that shootout. *Yes, humbling indeed. I'm curious if others here can identify the mics they are familiar with. Anyone? Dean On Jun 30, 11:45*am, Fran Guidry wrote: On Jun 29, 11:49*pm, drichard wrote: Hi Fran, I look forward to knowing which mic is which. I took a little time to write down some observations, but since I don't own any of the four mics listed and don't know what the instrument sounded like in the room, I would only be guessing when trying to pick which mic made each recording. But the differences, which seemed subtle at first, don't seem so subtle after a few listens. Each of the four made a nice recording. I liked #1 best, followed by #3. When will you post the identities? Thanks, Dean On Jun 28, 1:45*pm, Fran Guidry wrote: I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have helped me find the flaws in my methodology grin. Hopefully this time I had all the switches in the right directions. The mics a CAD M179 Schoeps CMC64 Shure KSM44 Shure KSM141 Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio...://www.homebre... They're not in the same order, of course. Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/ If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you. Fran http://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com Dean, I just emailed you the key. Were you surprised by the degree of similarity, or did you find the clips about as different as you expected? Fran- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That has been a factor, it seems. Several people have mentioned that they recognized the sound of a mic that they used often and were able to pick it out of the collection. I'm tinkering with a graphical representation of the responses but I'm a lazy old retired fart so it isn't happening too fast. Fran |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
drichard wrote:
| I'm curious if others here can identify the mics they are familiar | with. The third - as I recall this now - sounds like the ksm to me. | Dean Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Jul 3, 7:18*am, "Peter Larsen" wrote:
drichard wrote: | I'm curious if others here can identify the mics they are familiar | with. The third - as I recall this now - sounds like the ksm to me. | Dean * Kind regards * Peter Larsen Thanks for commenting, Peter. I emailed you the key. Fran |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Fran Guidry wrote:
| Thanks for commenting, Peter. I emailed you the key. It is a very interesting test because it highlights the difference in spatial rendering between the microphones and that it is very important also when close miking. Somewhere in this thread it has been said ... as I remember it ... by somebody that you can negate the influence of the room by going closer to the guitar. Sorry ... no way, the guitars own sound is influenced by the room as well as by sounds around it. I got a fine demonstration recording at a chamber music concert, cello + concert grand. Before the intermission the concert grand was almost closed, resulting in one cello sound and after the intermission it was open, resulting in a quite different cello sound. | Fran Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 01:21:48 -0400, Peter Larsen wrote
(in article ): Somewhere in this thread it has been said ... as I remember it ... by somebody that you can negate the influence of the room by going closer to the guitar. Sorry ... no way, the guitars own sound is influenced by the room as well as by sounds around it. I got a fine demonstration recording at a chamber music concert, cello + concert grand. Before the intermission the concert grand was almost closed, resulting in one cello sound and after the intermission it was open, resulting in a quite different cello sound. Kind regards Peter Larsen Maybe in a concert hall situation, yes, but in the studio, not so much. There, the distance between the mic and instrument make a significant difference. The greater the distance and the wonkier the room, the wonkier the recording. If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. 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 |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Ty Ford wrote:
|| Somewhere in this thread it has been said ... as I remember it ... || by somebody that you can negate the influence of the room by going || closer to the guitar. Sorry ... no way, the guitars own sound is || influenced by the room as well as by sounds around it. I got a fine || demonstration recording at a chamber music concert, cello + concert || grand. Before the intermission the concert grand was almost closed, || resulting in one cello sound and after the intermission it was || open, resulting in a quite different cello sound. | Maybe in a concert hall situation, yes, but in the studio, not so | much. There, the distance between the mic and instrument make a | significant difference. The greater the distance and the wonkier the | room, the wonkier the recording. | If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room | interaction. What I am saying is that the room will influence the sound of the instrument no matter the mic 2 instrument distance. | Ty Ford Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote: If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. A lot. But can you get it down to trivial? |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
... | On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford | wrote: | | If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. | | A lot. But can you get it down to trivial? You can get it down to what it is, and sometimes that's what you are forced to work with. That's why it is good to have a well-stocked mic closet. For studio work, beyond musicianship and material, the room is often the problem. Compensating for the deficiencies of the room is how we earn our living. Steve King |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford wrote: If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. A lot. But can you get it down to trivial? Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing it in what I consider a natural manner. -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:02:04 -0700, (hank alrich) wrote: If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. A lot. But can you get it down to trivial? Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing it in what I consider a natural manner. Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have pretty good ways of adding better room sound. At a chamber music recording at the New Carlsberg Glyptotek we had everything set up and sweet sounding. Then the arranger entered the room and noticed that the ensemble was three feet off of the center line and asked for it to be centered. They moved 3 feet, we moved the mic stand three feet and that should be it ... NOT: it simply sounded like a cheaper pack of cats. Likewise in the room. The room matters for the sound of the instrument because all instruments are microphonic and react to room sound. And what Hank said: you can not get the sound of the instrument if you are close than the longest dimension of the instrument, you will instead get the sound of the closest part of the instrument. THAT may be exactly what fits the actual recording, but you need to know what it is you choose. The 3:1 rule can rapidly reduce the deployable number of mics if you "go distant" .... but it is not fun to come home with a live remote that is not mixable because of bleed, surely an experience that prompts assertive miking; be it a pair or a bundle or whatever number that fits. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
hank alrich wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford wrote: If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. A lot. But can you get it down to trivial? Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing it in what I consider a natural manner. Well, it depends on the instrument, too. It's possible to spot-mike a flute up way close and get a good representation of the sound of the instrument.... but not a fiddle. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Laurence Payne wrote:
Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have pretty good ways of adding better room sound. Not really. The problem is that a lot of instruments make different sounds in different directions, and rely on the room to mix them. There is no one place where you can put a microphone around a fiddle or a piano that will give you a clean dry sound. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Laurence Payne wrote:
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:02:04 -0700, (hank alrich) wrote: If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. A lot. But can you get it down to trivial? Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing it in what I consider a natural manner. Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have pretty good ways of adding better room sound. Meaning that when one puts a directional mic very close to the guitar the mic doesn't hear all of what's coming off of the instrument. It's like putting one's eyeballs very close to a page: peripheral vision has its limits, and one won't see all of the image. Mind you, I do understand that this is sometimes absolutley necessary, given various settings. In fact, in live use, almost all the time the mic(s) must be very close to the instruments to counter both the room and spill from the stage monitors. I often have to place mics too closely. But in other situations, whenever I can, I prefer that the mic be at least a distance from the guitar equivalent to the full length of the instrument, including the neck. I like that sound much better. -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Peter Larsen wrote:
Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:02:04 -0700, (hank alrich) wrote: If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. A lot. But can you get it down to trivial? Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing it in what I consider a natural manner. Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have pretty good ways of adding better room sound. At a chamber music recording at the New Carlsberg Glyptotek we had everything set up and sweet sounding. Then the arranger entered the room and noticed that the ensemble was three feet off of the center line and asked for it to be centered. They moved 3 feet, we moved the mic stand three feet and that should be it ... NOT: it simply sounded like a cheaper pack of cats. Likewise in the room. The room matters for the sound of the instrument because all instruments are microphonic and react to room sound. That might be a good example of something I mentioned in a thread about dealing with a given room for tracking guitar, and my thoughts of placement of the artist within the room. In the center of the room is often the worst position in my experience. One suffers multiple near-coincident reflection arrival times, and the resulting comb filtering trashes the sound of the source, both in the the room and at the mics. Room treatment can help, but even in a nicely adjusted room a different position often helps a lot. And what Hank said: you can not get the sound of the instrument if you are close than the longest dimension of the instrument, you will instead get the sound of the closest part of the instrument. THAT may be exactly what fits the actual recording, but you need to know what it is you choose. The 3:1 rule can rapidly reduce the deployable number of mics if you "go distant" .... but it is not fun to come home with a live remote that is not mixable because of bleed, surely an experience that prompts assertive miking; be it a pair or a bundle or whatever number that fits. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
OK. We've got a pretty good consensus on this.
Now my follow-on question. Why vocal booths? |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Sun 2037-Jul-05 06:04, Laurence Payne writes:
If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. A lot. But can you get it down to trivial? Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing it in what I consider a natural manner. Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have pretty good ways of adding better room sound. T'ain't all about the "room" sound though. Do you listen to an acoustic guitar with your head right up next to it? The electronic box may be able to deliver "better" room sound, but the natural tone of the instrument cannot always be had when close micing. So, even with artificial room in a box electronics bathrooms still suck for recording, and a poor room is just a poor room, no matter what you do with it. HOw to make a silk purse from a sow's ear: Start with a silk sow. There's only so much you can do with technology. A recording of an instrument in a small room may have to do, and the engineer massages it later, adding an artificial room in a box, but the recording still won't sound natural. But, if it serves the song as it should, go for it g. Regards, Richard -- | Fidonet: Richard Webb 1:116/901 | Internet: | \\--- Pull YourHead out to reply via email. ---// | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Sit |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Laurence Payne wrote:
OK. We've got a pretty good consensus on this. Now my follow-on question. Why vocal booths? I hate them. That's why not. g Why is because in some situations it's quicker, cheaper, and more amortization effective to stick a booth in a room that otherwise would require very expensive work to achieve anything like comparable isolation. If one's lease becomes untenable for the usual reasons of real estate value appreciation one can reasonably relocate the booth versus having to abandon costly leasehold improvements. There is a huge and obvious downside, and that is the sound inside the booth. It's too small to be an anechoic chamber, yet that is almost what we are asking of it. "Wow, that vocal sounds a bit claustrophobic..." "Yeah, well..." -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Richard Webb wrote:
HOw to make a silk purse from a sow's ear: Start with a silk sow. LOL! That's very good, Richard! Thank you. -- ha shut up and play your guitar |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
On Sun 2037-Jul-05 12:11, hank alrich writes:
Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have pretty good ways of adding better room sound. Meaning that when one puts a directional mic very close to the guitar the mic doesn't hear all of what's coming off of the instrument. It's like putting one's eyeballs very close to a page: peripheral vision has its limits, and one won't see all of the image. Exactly my point earlier in this thread. YOur point about live performance is also apropos. IF all I"m wanting is the plink of the strum for a rhythm which will be quite dense with bass drums piano etc. then I"ll close mic possibly, and add any room I need electronically. But, if that guitar is supposed to be full and rich I want that microphone back where the full sound of the instrument develops by the time it arrives at the business end of the microphone. IT's the same reason most drum booths suck. Yah I can add artificial rooms electronically, but if the booth and the mic position don't allow to get that mic back far enough to let the full waveform develop then I"m screwed from the start. IF it works for you in the application use it, but know what you're trading away by trying the close mic in a small room and adding room electronically. I don't care how much processing horsepower or how carefully you built the artificial room it isn't the real thing when it comes to capturing the sound of the instrument. Regards, Richard -- | Fidonet: Richard Webb 1:116/901 | Internet: | \\--- Pull YourHead out to reply via email. ---// | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Sit |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD
Scott Dorsey wrote:
hank alrich wrote: Laurence Payne wrote: On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford wrote: If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction. A lot. But can you get it down to trivial? Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing it in what I consider a natural manner. Well, it depends on the instrument, too. It's possible to spot-mike a flute up way close and get a good representation of the sound of the instrument.... but not a fiddle. --scott Just an observation, this has been a very useful and informative thread. Thanks a lot. -Raf -- Misifus- Rafael Seibert Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii home: http://www.rafandsioux.com |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ribbon Mics compared | Pro Audio | |||
FS AKG C12 and a pair of Telefunken/Schoeps 221b vintage tube mics | Pro Audio | |||
cheap s.d. condenser mics compared? | Pro Audio | |||
FA: nice pair of classic Telefunken/Schoeps M221b tube mics | Pro Audio | |||
3-4 Schoeps mics creative arrays | Pro Audio |