Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Nate Najar Nate Najar is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default microphone question

So I have this schoeps mk22 I recently bought to record my guitar. I have 2 mk41's so I like to use those as drum overheads since I have the pair of them, and I still needed something for the guitar. I really like the mk22, I can bring it in closer than the mk41 (to reduce spill) and it has a very natural sound but still some rejection.

I wanted to compare it to the 87 this morning (I know, completely different animals, that's the point of this post) and I noticed something interesting. The schoeps is hyper-real- like having your ear in that spot listening to the instrument. So I hear an extremely detailed capture of finger on strings etc.... The 87 of course has a completely different tonal picture, but it also has a less "in your face" capture. Still very detailed but more "notes" and less "fingers on strings." The 87 also sounds very good here but the schoeps tonal picture is much more natural.

I wouldn't really call the 87 "softening transients" but maybe that's what it is... It's definitely realistic and detailed, but it sounds more like a guitar in a room than "my ear 24" from a guitar."

What causes this particular type of difference? Is it the fact that the 87 is a large diaphragm? or is it the transformer? Or both? Or something else? What I'm wondering is if there is a microphone that sounds as natural tonally as the schoeps, also with clean off axis sound, but has this sort of glossing or softening effect of the deep deep details. Because I am close miking, not area miking....

I keep thinking maybe I should try an 89? Or a gefell 930? I have no idea. Am I making any sense here? It is difficult to put these things into words and I'm talking micro details here.

What do you think?

Thanks,

N
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] makolber@yahoo.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 614
Default microphone question



I keep thinking maybe I should try an 89? Or a gefell 930? I have no idea. Am I making any sense here? It is difficult to put these things into words and I'm talking micro details here.

What do you think?

Thanks,

N


are you adverse to starting with a mic that has the directional qualities you want and then using EQ to get the tonal qualities you want?

Mark
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tobiah Tobiah is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 666
Default microphone question


more like a guitar in a room than "my ear 24" from a guitar."


parse error

Ready




I was wondering what an ear 24 was and how you got it from
a guitar.






  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford Ty Ford is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,287
Default microphone question

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 3:41:06 PM UTC-4, Nate Najar wrote:
What causes this particular type of difference?


Where to start. Yes to pretty much everything you said.

Neumann put some special mojo in the 87 to tame the low end a bit. They engineered in a pretty noticeable present peak. The U 89 is less so.

See if you can rent a Gefell M296 omni. I found it the most "real" sounding of any mic I've heard so far. Gefell sent me M294, m295 and m296 when I got curious about nickel membranes. The m296 was stunning.

Wait. I have a track on dropbox, I think........

Yeah. https://www.dropbox.com/home/Ty%20Fo...ew=M296_01.wav

Regards,

Ty
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default microphone question

Nate Najar wrote:
I wouldn't really call the 87 "softening transients" but maybe that's what =
it is... It's definitely realistic and detailed, but it sounds more like a =
guitar in a room than "my ear 24" from a guitar."


Some of this has to do with impulse response.

Some of it has to do with the off-axis response and I know that you're in a
dead room and up close so there isn't a whole lot coming from off-axis,
but really you'd be surprised.

What causes this particular type of difference? Is it the fact that the 87 =
is a large diaphragm? or is it the transformer? Or both? Or something else?=


It's all of the above. The large diaphragm means that high frequencies are
inherently kind of screwy because the diaphragm is a large fraction of a
wave. At very high frequencies, it can ripple instead of having that one
mode where the diaphragm moves like a piston.

And, the larger diaphragm means you get more serious diffraction effects from
the pressure wave passing around it.

But the added mass of the larger diaphragm also changes things.

And, to be honest, the grille of the U87 changes the sound character a lot
and at high frequencies there are standing wave issues inside the grille.
The combination of the perfed metal opening pattern and the shape of the
grille can change this a lot (which is something the clones seldom get
right.)

What I'm wondering is if there is a microphone that sounds as natural tona=
lly as the schoeps, also with clean off axis sound, but has this sort of gl=
ossing or softening effect of the deep deep details. Because I am close mi=
king, not area miking....


If you're close miking, you likely don't care so much about off-axis sound.
But I'd suggest that what you want isn't necessarily possible by itself but
might be possible with EQ. And I might suggest the 441 might give you some
of what you want also, because it also has considerable slowing of transients.

I keep thinking maybe I should try an 89? Or a gefell 930? I have no idea. =
Am I making any sense here? It is difficult to put these things into words=
and I'm talking micro details here.

What do you think?


I think you worry too much. But time spent trying out different microphones
is never wasted.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default microphone question

I think Scott is om target here, but if you're wanting to try things, I definitely recommend the Gefell M930 (keep it off the soundhole, and definitely use the shockmount). It might also be worth trying a Neumann TLM 193, which uses a variant of the U 89 capsule.

Peace,
Paul
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default microphone question

PStamler wrote:
I think Scott is om target here, but if you're wanting to try things, I def=
initely recommend the Gefell M930 (keep it off the soundhole, and definitel=
y use the shockmount). It might also be worth trying a Neumann TLM 193, whi=
ch uses a variant of the U 89 capsule.=20


All of these are great microphones which sound good up close and aren't super
exaggerated on top. But I think your problem is best solved by meditation.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Nate Najar Nate Najar is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default microphone question

Meditation is probably good advice but I *need* to find the source of that magnetic field so I can actually use the 441! But I'm in Europe at the moment, so detective work has been put on hold....

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Matt Faunce Matt Faunce is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default microphone question

Nate Najar wrote:

The schoeps is hyper-real- like having your ear in that spot listening to
the instrument. So I hear an extremely detailed capture of finger on strings etc....


I'm sure you know this, but everyone could use a reminder on some things
sometimes: You can file your left-hand calluses a bit to lessen the noise
coming from them, and soak your right-hand nails in lotion for a couple of
minutes to lessen the noise from there.

--
Matt
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microphone recording question: "Tube" sound from a microphone? [email protected] Pro Audio 106 January 22nd 07 06:25 AM
microphone question heathdwatts Pro Audio 44 July 25th 06 10:06 PM
Microphone Question John Pro Audio 7 December 22nd 05 06:40 PM
Here is a Microphone question APOHStudio Pro Audio 5 March 31st 05 03:23 PM
Microphone Question David Fabian Pro Audio 7 July 26th 03 02:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"