Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
... On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 23:24:36 -0400, OSPAM wrote (in article ): First review I've seen of them... too bad. They seem like they could be a viable system. -- Neil Henderson Progressive Rock http://www.saqqararecords.com Neil, Let me be VERY clear about this, again. AT THEIR PRICE POINT the hyper Taylor sent me was OK. It was not, however, a price busting challenger to the Schoeps cmc641. OK, but at the price point is it better/lower in self-noise/clearer than a KM184, for example? -- Neil Henderson Progressive Rock http://www.saqqararecords.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote:
Let me be VERY clear about this, again. AT THEIR PRICE POINT the hyper Taylor sent me was OK. It was not, however, a price busting challenger to the Schoeps cmc641. Was it a price-busting challenger to the AT 4053? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:11:27 -0400, Ty Ford
wrote: Let me be VERY clear about this, again. AT THEIR PRICE POINT the hyper Taylor sent me was OK. It was not, however, a price busting challenger to the Schoeps cmc641. Damned by faint praise! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
the 2C cardiod capsule is the best THE capsule. (not the hyper) i directly
compared it to a stereo pair of schoeps and prefered the THE. it was very similar but a touch brighter which is what i liked. I didn't hear any more noise out of THE mic compared to Schoeps. Taylor from THE is out of the country for the month of june. THE is not even shipping any mics till they reopen at the end of June. This is probably why he hasn't responded. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Boyke wrote:
How would you compare the Microtech Gefell M294/295 with the Schoeps/Senn/DPA/Josephson crowd? The nickel diaphragm would be a major difference, I would think. I have never used it. And I really should, because I really like the nickel-diaphragm Schoeps 221 and the nickel-diaphragm B&K measurement mikes. It's on the list of things I really need to try. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The sennheiser mkh 40 I used was remarkably quiet, like a whole 'nother
dimension. The scheops wasn't as quiet but felt more 'natural'. I also use neumann km140s and they are very nice too. They can be found sometimes used for around $1000/pair. If I was on a budget in the market for a serious mic, that's what i'd look for. On another track, if you don't need eye candy, the MCA mic I bought for $40 and had Jim WIlliams mod for another $125 is decidedly cool and very schoeps-like. Henry Pittsburgh, PA |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:06:42 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ): Stephen Boyke wrote: How would you compare the Microtech Gefell M294/295 with the Schoeps/Senn/DPA/Josephson crowd? The nickel diaphragm would be a major difference, I would think. I have never used it. And I really should, because I really like the nickel-diaphragm Schoeps 221 and the nickel-diaphragm B&K measurement mikes. It's on the list of things I really need to try. --scott I have used and reviewed the M294, M295 AND M296. I especially liked the omni m296. I forget which is the flatter of the M294 M295, but the flatter one was the one I liked. All were contenders in the km 184 and above class. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ty Ford wrote:
My problem with it professionally is that they seem bent on making the case for their mics being the equivalent of Schoeps. When I reported back here about the hyper Taylor sent me, they chose to make this response. But that's what marketing is all about. Mercedes made it a lot easier for Volkswagen to sell German cars. I am concerned that RAPpers with less experience might buy into their claims. I'm sure many of them will, but maybe it will teach them to actually listen to gear and do real comparisons themselves rather than believing anyone else. Don't believe the marketing glossies. Don't believe reviewers. Listen to the stuff. If more people actually listened to products we wouldn't have the screwed-up situation we've got now. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... I am concerned that RAPpers with less experience might buy into their claims. I'm sure many of them will, but maybe it will teach them to actually listen to gear and do real comparisons themselves rather than believing anyone else. Don't believe the marketing glossies. Don't believe reviewers. Listen to the stuff. If more people actually listened to products we wouldn't have the screwed-up situation we've got now. Yeah, we would. There are too many people out there who have never heard audio better than Radio Shack quality, and some of them have studios and buy gear they've been told is pro. Peace, Paul |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I own pairs of both the THE KR-2C's and the Schoeps CMC6/MK4
cardioids. They are mostly used for classical work, generally ORTF. I've had the THE's (a Taylor matched pair) for a while and recently picked up the Schoeps (US matched boxed set). I also have some Sound Room Oktava's. Considering all the Cardioids, If I place the Schoeps at a 10, the The's get a 9 and the Oktavas about a 5 for performance. The Schoeps are perfectly matched. The THE's are close, althought I think they are doing better at matching these days. the THE's and Schoeps are both very transparent and will pick up all the details quite nicely. I have not found self noise an issue with either. I can tell the difference between them as in a number of cases I recorded the same source with the same set up. They both sound good. I think I find the Schoeps to be just a bit smoother and richer, but not much. The THE's give just a bit more high end. I've had some great results using the THE's on orchestra, band, string ensembles, Brass choirs and choral groups. ORTF with a little distance - nothing close miked. I've also thought the Schoeps sounded a bit better on all although THE's on Cello was nice. I also find the THE's quite good on percussion ensembles, particularly bells, chimes, marimba, etc., brings our the sound quite nicely, almost 3 dimensional when I get the mics in the right spot. I'm glad I picked up the Schoeps for they are great, and there is that name recognition thing. But, the THE's work very well, have their place and I'll be keeping them. That said, the Schoeps will see most of the work as my main ORTF pair and will be preferred for all but percussion and maybe cello (or celli). If I consider value as part of the equation (cost and performance), the THE's might be a 10 and the Schoeps the 9, Oktavas a 7. Of course, beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Regards, Dan |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I'd ask for proof. Side by side recordings made with the each mic run through the same mic preamps, preferrably something along the lines of Martech MSS-10, with matched gain structures in a very quiet acoustic space. I'd be willing to bet T.H.E. mics would have noticeably more self noise apparent on low SPL passages. I've made some recordings following this method with gains matched via a B&K mic calibrator. The differences are not necessarily subtle. If anyone is interested, I have one comparison readily available between a Schoeps CMC62 and an Audix TR40 to demonstrate an extreme. I think the TR-40 is a great omni at it's price point. Pay the extra and you get a stellar omni with much less self noise with the CMC62. bobs bob smith bs studios we organize chaos http://www.bsstudios.com I have the proof on my hard drive; the recordings I made here. Selfnoise is an issue. Regards, Ty Ford Well now! Bob and I swapped sound files from presumably different THE hypers and Schoeps cmc641. If the selfnoise problems of a single THE was a fluke, there are now two flukes; three if you count Bryan's Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
This is a lot of advertising for the mic. I actually tried the mic
simply because of the exposure that it got on either RAP or RAMPS last year. I figured the few naysayers were just sour grapes.,They weren't. On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 23:41:05 -0400, Ty Ford wrote: I'd ask for proof. Side by side recordings made with the each mic run through the same mic preamps, preferrably something along the lines of Martech MSS-10, with matched gain structures in a very quiet acoustic space. I'd be willing to bet T.H.E. mics would have noticeably more self noise apparent on low SPL passages. I've made some recordings following this method with gains matched via a B&K mic calibrator. The differences are not necessarily subtle. If anyone is interested, I have one comparison readily available between a Schoeps CMC62 and an Audix TR40 to demonstrate an extreme. I think the TR-40 is a great omni at it's price point. Pay the extra and you get a stellar omni with much less self noise with the CMC62. bobs bob smith bs studios we organize chaos http://www.bsstudios.com I have the proof on my hard drive; the recordings I made here. Selfnoise is an issue. Regards, Ty Ford Well now! Bob and I swapped sound files from presumably different THE hypers and Schoeps cmc641. If the selfnoise problems of a single THE was a fluke, there are now two flukes; three if you count Bryan's Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you to everyone who has contributed here.
The latest published comparison/review is by Myles Boisen at Electronic Musician in a March 1st, 2004 article. see: http://emusician.com/mag/emusic_smokin_condensers/ Yes, we have had some production problems, self-noise problems, lack of $$ to advertise, but we're still here, working to make a fine product and deliver it to the working engineer at a reasonable cost. The Schoeps comparison comes directly from MY mouth. My intent was to convey the fact that; in my mind, and in the minds of many engineers using T.H.E. microphones, I think it a VERY important point to not only consider the labratory/mechanical measurement of the mics, but, even-more importantly, the real-world, solid - useful - great sounding and quiet tracks that are delivered under as many conditions as possible. There are many engineers out there who cannot afford $2000 for a matched pair, or even $1500 - and are glad when they find a modular system that affords them solid, quiet and (dare I say it) "luscious" tracks. The ONLY true test is for an engineer to use a mic in their recording chain for a few weeks to see if it is a useful, positive and "go-to" tool for their arsenal. If it makes their job easier and more fun, then we're doing our job. That is why we offer our mics with a 3 week return policy. Using different mics is like using different colors made by different manufacturers for one's own painting. Sometimes 5 different manufacturers will present a Deep Royal Blue" that are many shades and depths apart, each creating a different effect. I personally LOVE (and would NEVER part with) my Schoeps, and some early mic purchases that were mod'ed by Jim Williams, and some of the early stuff that my partners and I did, and some of my 1970's KM84i's and early Sennheiser 409's and 421's and ....... If you have not tried a T.H.E. unit and are actuaslly commenting on it, then perhaps you should re-consider. Warmest regards, Taylor Johnson, CEO T.H.E., Llc Taylor Hohendahl Engineering www.theaudio.com www.themics.com www.themicrophones.com --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/18/2004 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I've never tried the Hypercard capsule but I own a matched set
(Thanks, Taylor) of the KR-1F (free-field) omnis. I use my T.H.E.'s for location recording -- usually in a baffled omni configuration. I run them through an Amek 9098 dual mic pre (Ty Ford has written highly of the single channel/EQ version of this pre). No self-noise issues with these mics. (In live settings I'm far more worried about ambient noise than self-noise, anyway.) IMHO my T.H.E.s with the KR-1F capsules are excellent microphones -- at any price. One can make very good recordings with these microphones. Given all the other possible variables that influence the outcome of a given recording session -- from instruments, to pre-amps, to acoustics, to the mood of the perfomers on a given day -- one should be careful about making blanket statements about T.H.E. vs. Schoeps. I can't say whether the Hypercard configuration is noisy but I hope T.H.E. products as a whole aren't being unfairly written off. Try the KR-1Fs and you will think highly of what T.H.E. is trying to do as a company. Kelly Dueck Winnipeg |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Kelly
I'm very glad that you're happy with the THE omni's. My problem was with the hypercardoid only I found the self noise so offensive that I went out and spent more than double on a Schoeps CMC6 with MK41 capsule. I'm ordering another preamp and capsule this week. Spending $1600 per schoeps rather than $800 (Can$)can not be excuses as simple sour grapes. Say hi to Sean On 21 Jun 2004 15:50:27 -0700, (Kelly Dueck) wrote: I've never tried the Hypercard capsule but I own a matched set (Thanks, Taylor) of the KR-1F (free-field) omnis. I use my T.H.E.'s for location recording -- usually in a baffled omni configuration. I run them through an Amek 9098 dual mic pre (Ty Ford has written highly of the single channel/EQ version of this pre). No self-noise issues with these mics. (In live settings I'm far more worried about ambient noise than self-noise, anyway.) IMHO my T.H.E.s with the KR-1F capsules are excellent microphones -- at any price. One can make very good recordings with these microphones. Given all the other possible variables that influence the outcome of a given recording session -- from instruments, to pre-amps, to acoustics, to the mood of the perfomers on a given day -- one should be careful about making blanket statements about T.H.E. vs. Schoeps. I can't say whether the Hypercard configuration is noisy but I hope T.H.E. products as a whole aren't being unfairly written off. Try the KR-1Fs and you will think highly of what T.H.E. is trying to do as a company. Kelly Dueck Winnipeg |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Bryan Beasleigh wrote in message . ..
Kelly I'm very glad that you're happy with the THE omni's. My problem was with the hypercardoid only I found the self noise so offensive that I went out and spent more than double on a Schoeps CMC6 with MK41 capsule. I'm ordering another preamp and capsule this week. Spending $1600 per schoeps rather than $800 (Can$)can not be excuses as simple sour grapes. I didn't mean to imply your were munching on sour grapes -- sorry if it seemed that way -- just that it sounds like there was a problem with the Hypercardioid capsule and it would be too bad if folks didn't give the other models a try based on one possible troublesome capsule model. I haven't read any reviews ... whether in RECORDING, AUDIO MEDIA, or TAPE OP ... that cite any major self-noise issues with the other models. My Omni's are quiet. Was your Hypercardioid as noisy as any of the 1/4-inch measurement mics that use the Panasonic capsule -- like the ones from Behringer or Audix? If that is/was the case ... there must definitely be something wrong with your mics ... or that particular production run. I used to have a pair of the Behringer ECM8000s and I sold them off. They were unusable except as drum overheads. The quietest mic I own for comparison's sake is an AT4040. Sure, it's a different class of microphone entirely seeing as it's a large diaphragm cardioid, but my T.H.E.'s -- while clearly not as quiet as the 4040 -- are competitive and waaaaay more than useful. However, the Schoeps sound awesome, by all accounts. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Bryan Beasleigh wrote in message . ..
Kelly I'm very glad that you're happy with the THE omni's. My problem was with the hypercardoid only I found the self noise so offensive that I went out and spent more than double on a Schoeps CMC6 with MK41 capsule. I'm ordering another preamp and capsule this week. Spending $1600 per schoeps rather than $800 (Can$)can not be excuses as simple sour grapes. I didn't mean to imply your were munching on sour grapes -- sorry if it seemed that way -- just that it sounds like there was a problem with the Hypercardioid capsule and it would be too bad if folks didn't give the other models a try based on one possible troublesome capsule model. I haven't read any reviews ... whether in RECORDING, AUDIO MEDIA, or TAPE OP ... that cite any major self-noise issues with the other models. My Omni's are quiet. Was your Hypercardioid as noisy as any of the 1/4-inch measurement mics that use the Panasonic capsule -- like the ones from Behringer or Audix? If that is/was the case ... there must definitely be something wrong with your mics ... or that particular production run. I used to have a pair of the Behringer ECM8000s and I sold them off. They were unusable except as drum overheads. The quietest mic I own for comparison's sake is an AT4040. Sure, it's a different class of microphone entirely seeing as it's a large diaphragm cardioid, but my T.H.E.'s -- while clearly not as quiet as the 4040 -- are competitive and waaaaay more than useful. However, the Schoeps sound awesome, by all accounts. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Kelly Dueck wrote:
The quietest mic I own for comparison's sake is an AT4040. Sure, it's a different class of microphone entirely seeing as it's a large diaphragm cardioid How do you like your 4040? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:02:53 -0400, Kelly Dueck wrote
(in article ) : Bryan Beasleigh wrote in message . .. Kelly I'm very glad that you're happy with the THE omni's. My problem was with the hypercardoid only I found the self noise so offensive that I went out and spent more than double on a Schoeps CMC6 with MK41 capsule. I'm ordering another preamp and capsule this week. Spending $1600 per schoeps rather than $800 (Can$)can not be excuses as simple sour grapes. I didn't mean to imply your were munching on sour grapes -- sorry if it seemed that way -- just that it sounds like there was a problem with the Hypercardioid capsule and it would be too bad if folks didn't give the other models a try based on one possible troublesome capsule model. I haven't read any reviews ... whether in RECORDING, AUDIO MEDIA, or TAPE OP ... that cite any major self-noise issues with the other models. My Omni's are quiet. Hey Taylor, Can you send me one of these omnis? Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Kurt Albershardt wrote in message ...
Kelly Dueck wrote: The quietest mic I own for comparison's sake is an AT4040. Sure, it's a different class of microphone entirely seeing as it's a large diaphragm cardioid How do you like your 4040? I like it. The AT4040 is a clean, quiet, fairly 'hot' mic that sounds neutral on pretty much anything you put in front of it -- though I've had thin results in front of some guitar amps -- mostly smaller combos. I've never tried it in front of a bass cab. It's definitely not a "character" mic. I only have one so I've never used this mic in a stereo pair ... as drum overheads, for example ... though LD condensers wouldn't usually be my first choice in this application, anyway. I've found it most useful on acoustic guitars and mandolin. I've also gotten workmanlike bluegrass banjo tones out of it. Male vocals sound superb. Never tried it on female vocals. Given that it is quite hot, yet neutral, I hope to try it in a single mic bluegrass stage set-up sometime. The mic sounds "full" but also has a boost around 6 KHz that is surprisingly smooth, given the mic's low street price. That being said, the highs aren't exactly "silky", either. Compared to what people were paying $300 to get 3 or 4 years ago, this mic is lightyears ahead. The fit and finish is superb. The shockmount is solid (though annoying since it uses an unwieldy rubber band design). Though it has a pad and bass roll off, I never use them. I do not own any esoteric high-end pre-amps or tube gear. I use the mic successfully with an Amek 9098 dual mic pre, a Focusrite Octopre, and the pre-amps on a Soundcraft M8 mixer in a live setting (as a point of reference, Soundcraft indicates the M8 pres are basically the pre's found in the original Ghost console, if you've ever used one of those.) Hope this answers your question. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Kurt Albershardt wrote in message ...
Kelly Dueck wrote: The quietest mic I own for comparison's sake is an AT4040. Sure, it's a different class of microphone entirely seeing as it's a large diaphragm cardioid How do you like your 4040? I like it. The AT4040 is a clean, quiet, fairly 'hot' mic that sounds neutral on pretty much anything you put in front of it -- though I've had thin results in front of some guitar amps -- mostly smaller combos. I've never tried it in front of a bass cab. It's definitely not a "character" mic. I only have one so I've never used this mic in a stereo pair ... as drum overheads, for example ... though LD condensers wouldn't usually be my first choice in this application, anyway. I've found it most useful on acoustic guitars and mandolin. I've also gotten workmanlike bluegrass banjo tones out of it. Male vocals sound superb. Never tried it on female vocals. Given that it is quite hot, yet neutral, I hope to try it in a single mic bluegrass stage set-up sometime. The mic sounds "full" but also has a boost around 6 KHz that is surprisingly smooth, given the mic's low street price. That being said, the highs aren't exactly "silky", either. Compared to what people were paying $300 to get 3 or 4 years ago, this mic is lightyears ahead. The fit and finish is superb. The shockmount is solid (though annoying since it uses an unwieldy rubber band design). Though it has a pad and bass roll off, I never use them. I do not own any esoteric high-end pre-amps or tube gear. I use the mic successfully with an Amek 9098 dual mic pre, a Focusrite Octopre, and the pre-amps on a Soundcraft M8 mixer in a live setting (as a point of reference, Soundcraft indicates the M8 pres are basically the pre's found in the original Ghost console, if you've ever used one of those.) Hope this answers your question. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I haven't read any reviews ... whether in RECORDING, AUDIO MEDIA, or TAPE OP ... that cite any major self-noise issues with the other models. My Omni's are quiet. Hey Taylor, Can you send me one of these omnis? Regards, Ty Ford Hi Ty, Now let me clarify my last sentence above. What I should have stated was ... My Omnis are RELATIVELY quiet. Compared to what, you're bound to ask? Compared to an AT4040? No. Compared to an MXL603? Yes. Compared to a similar type of Schoeps product? Almost certainly not, judging by the posts on this newsgroup. (Though I have never used a Schoeps microphone, so I can't say for myself.) However, in the settings in which I have used my mics, they have been SUFFICIENTLY quiet. I use my THE omnis almost exclusively in live location recording situations -- I don't have a great sounding room at home so I stick to cardioids there. The self noise has not been a problem with the sources I've recorded with them ... namely string trios, pipe organ solos, flute/piano duets and jazz quartet (main stereo pair capturing the whole band, plus individual fill mics). Would I record a quiet solo celtic harp with them in a quiet room? Ideally, no. However, I would likely end up having to since I don't have any other small diaphragm Omni's, and I'm fond of simple stereo recording. I know you are one of this group's toughest critics, when it comes to noise specs. It also sounds like you have a very quiet studio. I also know the excuse ... "Most people will never listen to the finished product in a really quiet listening room anyway, so what difference does a little self-noise make?" ... won't cut the mustard with you, either. For this you should be thanked loudly and regularly -- as a professional product reviewer it's your job to do all you can to help keep junk off the market and out of the hands of unwitting dupes. However, for my money ... and the level of projects I record (I have no illusions I, or any of my clients, will ever win a grammy) my THE's do just fine. They may not meet your needs, I don't know By the way ... have you tried out the AT4040? Regards, Kelly |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I haven't read any reviews ... whether in RECORDING, AUDIO MEDIA, or TAPE OP ... that cite any major self-noise issues with the other models. My Omni's are quiet. Hey Taylor, Can you send me one of these omnis? Regards, Ty Ford Hi Ty, Now let me clarify my last sentence above. What I should have stated was ... My Omnis are RELATIVELY quiet. Compared to what, you're bound to ask? Compared to an AT4040? No. Compared to an MXL603? Yes. Compared to a similar type of Schoeps product? Almost certainly not, judging by the posts on this newsgroup. (Though I have never used a Schoeps microphone, so I can't say for myself.) However, in the settings in which I have used my mics, they have been SUFFICIENTLY quiet. I use my THE omnis almost exclusively in live location recording situations -- I don't have a great sounding room at home so I stick to cardioids there. The self noise has not been a problem with the sources I've recorded with them ... namely string trios, pipe organ solos, flute/piano duets and jazz quartet (main stereo pair capturing the whole band, plus individual fill mics). Would I record a quiet solo celtic harp with them in a quiet room? Ideally, no. However, I would likely end up having to since I don't have any other small diaphragm Omni's, and I'm fond of simple stereo recording. I know you are one of this group's toughest critics, when it comes to noise specs. It also sounds like you have a very quiet studio. I also know the excuse ... "Most people will never listen to the finished product in a really quiet listening room anyway, so what difference does a little self-noise make?" ... won't cut the mustard with you, either. For this you should be thanked loudly and regularly -- as a professional product reviewer it's your job to do all you can to help keep junk off the market and out of the hands of unwitting dupes. However, for my money ... and the level of projects I record (I have no illusions I, or any of my clients, will ever win a grammy) my THE's do just fine. They may not meet your needs, I don't know By the way ... have you tried out the AT4040? Regards, Kelly |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:54:44 -0400, Kelly Dueck wrote
(in article ) : I haven't read any reviews ... whether in RECORDING, AUDIO MEDIA, or TAPE OP ... that cite any major self-noise issues with the other models. My Omni's are quiet. Hey Taylor, Can you send me one of these omnis? Regards, Ty Ford Hi Ty, Now let me clarify my last sentence above. What I should have stated was ... My Omnis are RELATIVELY quiet. Compared to what, you're bound to ask? Compared to an AT4040? No. Compared to an MXL603? Yes. Compared to a similar type of Schoeps product? Almost certainly not, judging by the posts on this newsgroup. (Though I have never used a Schoeps microphone, so I can't say for myself.) However, in the settings in which I have used my mics, they have been SUFFICIENTLY quiet. Because the cmc641 Schoeps is a SD mic, it's not one of the quietest mics on the planet. Many LD mics are quieter. That's just physics. Selfnoise alone is not the reason for its success. It's just the most immediately noticeable difference. Once you get past selfnoise there's a whole nother world of why it's better; phase coherence, lack of distortion, transient response, etc.. I use my THE omnis almost exclusively in live location recording situations -- I don't have a great sounding room at home so I stick to cardioids there. The self noise has not been a problem with the sources I've recorded with them ... namely string trios, pipe organ solos, flute/piano duets and jazz quartet (main stereo pair capturing the whole band, plus individual fill mics). Would I record a quiet solo celtic harp with them in a quiet room? Ideally, no. However, I would likely end up having to since I don't have any other small diaphragm Omni's, and I'm fond of simple stereo recording. I know you are one of this group's toughest critics, when it comes to noise specs. It also sounds like you have a very quiet studio. I also know the excuse ... "Most people will never listen to the finished product in a really quiet listening room anyway, so what difference does a little self-noise make?" ... won't cut the mustard with you, either. For this you should be thanked loudly and regularly -- as a professional product reviewer it's your job to do all you can to help keep junk off the market and out of the hands of unwitting dupes. Well here's where it DOES make a difference. When the project is mastered, a lot of compression and limiting are used. They suck up the noise floor. Now that we no longer have much analog tape to mask things, selfnoise is a large part of that noise floor. Even if you only record one track and one mic at a time, by the time you mix 24, 36, whatever tracks, that selfnoise adds. You want music with impact? Impact is the result of having a very quiet background. The quieter your backgound, the more well defined your foreground. However, for my money ... and the level of projects I record (I have no illusions I, or any of my clients, will ever win a grammy) my THE's do just fine. They may not meet your needs, I don't know Um, rent a cmc641 for a week and stick your face in it. By the way ... have you tried out the AT4040? Regards, Kelly Yes, the review is on my website for everyone to read. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:54:44 -0400, Kelly Dueck wrote
(in article ) : I haven't read any reviews ... whether in RECORDING, AUDIO MEDIA, or TAPE OP ... that cite any major self-noise issues with the other models. My Omni's are quiet. Hey Taylor, Can you send me one of these omnis? Regards, Ty Ford Hi Ty, Now let me clarify my last sentence above. What I should have stated was ... My Omnis are RELATIVELY quiet. Compared to what, you're bound to ask? Compared to an AT4040? No. Compared to an MXL603? Yes. Compared to a similar type of Schoeps product? Almost certainly not, judging by the posts on this newsgroup. (Though I have never used a Schoeps microphone, so I can't say for myself.) However, in the settings in which I have used my mics, they have been SUFFICIENTLY quiet. Because the cmc641 Schoeps is a SD mic, it's not one of the quietest mics on the planet. Many LD mics are quieter. That's just physics. Selfnoise alone is not the reason for its success. It's just the most immediately noticeable difference. Once you get past selfnoise there's a whole nother world of why it's better; phase coherence, lack of distortion, transient response, etc.. I use my THE omnis almost exclusively in live location recording situations -- I don't have a great sounding room at home so I stick to cardioids there. The self noise has not been a problem with the sources I've recorded with them ... namely string trios, pipe organ solos, flute/piano duets and jazz quartet (main stereo pair capturing the whole band, plus individual fill mics). Would I record a quiet solo celtic harp with them in a quiet room? Ideally, no. However, I would likely end up having to since I don't have any other small diaphragm Omni's, and I'm fond of simple stereo recording. I know you are one of this group's toughest critics, when it comes to noise specs. It also sounds like you have a very quiet studio. I also know the excuse ... "Most people will never listen to the finished product in a really quiet listening room anyway, so what difference does a little self-noise make?" ... won't cut the mustard with you, either. For this you should be thanked loudly and regularly -- as a professional product reviewer it's your job to do all you can to help keep junk off the market and out of the hands of unwitting dupes. Well here's where it DOES make a difference. When the project is mastered, a lot of compression and limiting are used. They suck up the noise floor. Now that we no longer have much analog tape to mask things, selfnoise is a large part of that noise floor. Even if you only record one track and one mic at a time, by the time you mix 24, 36, whatever tracks, that selfnoise adds. You want music with impact? Impact is the result of having a very quiet background. The quieter your backgound, the more well defined your foreground. However, for my money ... and the level of projects I record (I have no illusions I, or any of my clients, will ever win a grammy) my THE's do just fine. They may not meet your needs, I don't know Um, rent a cmc641 for a week and stick your face in it. By the way ... have you tried out the AT4040? Regards, Kelly Yes, the review is on my website for everyone to read. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1087994387k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: However, in the settings in which I have used my mics, they have been SUFFICIENTLY quiet. That's the real answer, and it also explains why the answer to the question "how quiet is the **** mic?" isn't simple. Even if there's an accurate specified self-noise in terms of millivolts, dBu, or equivalent SPL, you need to know what that means in terms of your own signal-to-noise ratio in order to know whether the mic's noise will be a problem or not. I have never used a mike that was quiet enough for clavichord. Not even the MKH-20. I have never used a mike that was too noisy for electric guitar. Not even the Shure 315. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1087994387k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: However, in the settings in which I have used my mics, they have been SUFFICIENTLY quiet. That's the real answer, and it also explains why the answer to the question "how quiet is the **** mic?" isn't simple. Even if there's an accurate specified self-noise in terms of millivolts, dBu, or equivalent SPL, you need to know what that means in terms of your own signal-to-noise ratio in order to know whether the mic's noise will be a problem or not. I have never used a mike that was quiet enough for clavichord. Not even the MKH-20. I have never used a mike that was too noisy for electric guitar. Not even the Shure 315. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Kelly Dueck wrote:
How do you like your 4040? I like it. The AT4040 is a clean, quiet, fairly 'hot' mic that sounds neutral on pretty much anything you put in front of it ... The mic sounds "full" but also has a boost around 6 KHz that is surprisingly smooth, given the mic's low street price. That being said, the highs aren't exactly "silky", either. There are two bumps in the curve A-T publishes, perhaps the second one is responsible for the "non-silky." |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Kelly Dueck wrote:
How do you like your 4040? I like it. The AT4040 is a clean, quiet, fairly 'hot' mic that sounds neutral on pretty much anything you put in front of it ... The mic sounds "full" but also has a boost around 6 KHz that is surprisingly smooth, given the mic's low street price. That being said, the highs aren't exactly "silky", either. There are two bumps in the curve A-T publishes, perhaps the second one is responsible for the "non-silky." |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:13:57 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1087994387k@trad): In article writes: However, in the settings in which I have used my mics, they have been SUFFICIENTLY quiet. That's the real answer, and it also explains why the answer to the question "how quiet is the **** mic?" isn't simple. Even if there's an accurate specified self-noise in terms of millivolts, dBu, or equivalent SPL, you need to know what that means in terms of your own signal-to-noise ratio in order to know whether the mic's noise will be a problem or not. Hopefully some light will soon be shed. One is on the way here courtesy Taylor. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 11:13:57 -0400, Mike Rivers wrote
(in article znr1087994387k@trad): In article writes: However, in the settings in which I have used my mics, they have been SUFFICIENTLY quiet. That's the real answer, and it also explains why the answer to the question "how quiet is the **** mic?" isn't simple. Even if there's an accurate specified self-noise in terms of millivolts, dBu, or equivalent SPL, you need to know what that means in terms of your own signal-to-noise ratio in order to know whether the mic's noise will be a problem or not. Hopefully some light will soon be shed. One is on the way here courtesy Taylor. Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at http://home.comcast.net/~tyreeford |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Ferstler on Soundstaging | Audio Opinions | |||
Ferstler on recording | Audio Opinions | |||
More on Equalizers from Ferstler | Audio Opinions | |||
Power Filtration | Audio Opinions | |||
Mic Questions | Pro Audio |