Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford Ty Ford is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,287
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers Mike Rivers is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,744
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
drichard drichard is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Geoff Geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,562
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
drichard drichard is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] Adrian Tuddenham[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford Ty Ford is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,287
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
drichard drichard is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford Ty Ford is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,287
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne[_2_] Laurence Payne[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,267
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Steve King Steve King is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 558
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Laurence Payne[_2_] Laurence Payne[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,267
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_2_] Richard Webb[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_2_] Richard Webb[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Misifus[_2_] Misifus[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 64
Default 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

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ribbon Mics compared David@liminal Pro Audio 11 April 22nd 07 09:21 PM
FS AKG C12 and a pair of Telefunken/Schoeps 221b vintage tube mics [email protected] Pro Audio 0 August 29th 05 10:45 PM
cheap s.d. condenser mics compared? Dan Gellert Pro Audio 22 January 10th 05 02:32 AM
FA: nice pair of classic Telefunken/Schoeps M221b tube mics obuh studio Pro Audio 0 September 20th 04 09:28 PM
3-4 Schoeps mics creative arrays M. T. MacPhee Pro Audio 0 March 28th 04 08:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 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"