[H. Khalil]

Hi,

I am recording classical guitar using a Schoeps CMC641 through the
Metric Halo ULN2 and am pleased with the result, except that I
sometimes would have liked the sound to be a tad softer and warmer. I
remember to have read that a ribbon mic might be the way to go, and
now I would like to try one.

Which particular ribbon mic(s) would you recommend for classical
guitar? Considering Beyerdynamic in particular, which of the three
models M130, M160 and M260 would be more suitable for the instrument?

Thanks!

[Ethan Winer]

I sometimes would have liked the sound to be a tad softer and warmer.

Assuming you have an EQ, that would do the same thing for free.

--Ethan

[hank alrich]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote:

I sometimes would have liked the sound to be a tad softer and warmer.

Assuming you have an EQ, that would do the same thing for free.

--Ethan

I disagree with the concept that mere EQ really offers the difference
between a CMC641 and an M160.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

H. Khalil wrote:

Hi,

I am recording classical guitar using a Schoeps CMC641 through the
Metric Halo ULN2 and am pleased with the result, except that I
sometimes would have liked the sound to be a tad softer and warmer. I
remember to have read that a ribbon mic might be the way to go, and
now I would like to try one.

Which particular ribbon mic(s) would you recommend for classical
guitar? Considering Beyerdynamic in particular, which of the three
models M130, M160 and M260 would be more suitable for the instrument?

If wanting to use a single mic, the M160. If wanting stereo, either a
pair of M160's for X/Y, or one M160 and one M130 for M/S tracking.

I have used M160's for decades, and M260's (the original model, not the
new and unimproved model) for several years. Each has its uses, but in
general the M260 is a lower grade mic than the M160. It can sound
fabulous on certain voices, harmonicas, and amps.

Personally, I would audition one of Wes Dolley's AEA R84's before
purchasing anything.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Mike Rivers]

hank alrich wrote:

I disagree with the concept that mere EQ really offers the difference
between a CMC641 and an M160.

So do I, but he can try playing with EQ on the recording that he made
with the Schoeps mic to see if he gets what he's after. He can also try
putting the mic in a different position, recording in a different room,
using different strings, filing his nails differently . . .

If H. said he didn't like his recording, I might suggest a different
mics, but since he writes that he's pleased with it, he has a good sound
to work with. Without knowing what his present recording sounds like and
what he's after, I'd be hesitant to recommend a specific mic,
particularly a Beyer, which can be a bit tricky to work with. Maybe a
Royer, or an AEA. But like Ethan says, EQ is almost certainly available,
and it can always be undone.



--
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
)

[H. Khalil]

On 20 Jul., 00:01, Mike Rivers wrote:

he can try playing with EQ on the recording that he made
with the Schoeps mic to see if he gets what he's after. He can also try
putting the mic in a different position, recording in a different room,
using different strings, filing his nails differently

I tried all these and also found the optimal setting for me. But what
I am referring to is a certain quality of the guitar, a slight over-
brightness and harshness (typical of a new spruce top classical that
still did not fully open up, which usually takes several years), and I
thought a ribbon could smoothen it a bit. (It's a great guitar
though.)

I'd be hesitant to recommend a specific mic,
particularly a Beyer, which can be a bit tricky to work with.

Why is a Beyer particularly tricky to work with?

(I thought Beyer because they are quite easy to get in Germany where I
live.)

Thanks!

[Nick Brown]

H. Khalil wrote:
On 20 Jul., 00:01, Mike Rivers wrote:

he can try playing with EQ on the recording that he made
with the Schoeps mic to see if he gets what he's after. He can also try
putting the mic in a different position, recording in a different room,
using different strings, filing his nails differently

I tried all these and also found the optimal setting for me. But what
I am referring to is a certain quality of the guitar, a slight over-
brightness and harshness (typical of a new spruce top classical that
still did not fully open up, which usually takes several years), and I
thought a ribbon could smoothen it a bit. (It's a great guitar
though.)

I'd be hesitant to recommend a specific mic,
particularly a Beyer, which can be a bit tricky to work with.

Why is a Beyer particularly tricky to work with?

(I thought Beyer because they are quite easy to get in Germany where I
live.)

Thanks!


You might be surprised by how little difference there is between a Beyer
ribbon and the Schoeps on classical guitar. One of the reasons that I
think ribbons have the reputation for sounding soft and warm is because
of most ribbon mics' lack of high frequency response, say above 10KHz,
but there's little or no sound coming from a classical guitar at those
frequencies, so it isn't really a significant issue here.

When I compared a Beyer M260 to a Schoeps 541, if anything the Beyer
sounded a little brighter. I didn't measure it but it seemed to me that
maybe the Beyer had some mid-range peaks whereas the Schoeps is pretty
flat; that might have been the cause of it. I seem to recall Hank making
a similar observation about a Beyer ribbon a while back in this group,
but I don't remember the context.

I should say that I really do like the sound of an M260 on classical
guitar (or I would if I ever got around to playing it, which doesn't
seem to have happened for a while...), but if as you say you're looking
for something warmer and softer than the Schoeps, I'd say a Beyer ribbon
mightn't be it.

Hank mentioned the AEA 84; I'll suggest you put a Coles mic on your
short list, the 4040 is a very different thing, darker, thicker
sounding. As to 'warmer', hmmm, not sure.

Lastly, a ribbon mic with a figure-8 pattern could be used as the side
mic in an MS pair, along with your Schoeps. It doesn't produce a
dramatic stereo effect, but it's interesting, it gives you a little of
the character of each of the two mics.

Cheers,
Nick

[Arny Krueger]

"Ethan Winer" ethanw at ethanwiner dot com wrote in
message

I sometimes would have liked the sound to be a tad
softer and warmer.

Assuming you have an EQ, that would do the same thing for
free.

Point being that you don't need to use a ribbon mic to get a warm sound, and
not that eq can make two mics with vastly different pickup patterns sound
the same.

[hank alrich]

H. Khalil wrote:

On 20 Jul., 00:01, Mike Rivers wrote:

he can try playing with EQ on the recording that he made
with the Schoeps mic to see if he gets what he's after. He can also try
putting the mic in a different position, recording in a different room,
using different strings, filing his nails differently

I tried all these and also found the optimal setting for me. But what
I am referring to is a certain quality of the guitar, a slight over-
brightness and harshness (typical of a new spruce top classical that
still did not fully open up, which usually takes several years), and I
thought a ribbon could smoothen it a bit.

You could well be right.

(It's a great guitar
though.)

I'd be hesitant to recommend a specific mic,
particularly a Beyer, which can be a bit tricky to work with.

Why is a Beyer particularly tricky to work with?

The M160 and M130 in particular are quite insensitive and hence, require
a capable preamp offering lots of clean and quiet gain.

(I thought Beyer because they are quite easy to get in Germany where I
live.)

Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
might work very well for you.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[hank alrich]

Nick Brown wrote:

When I compared a Beyer M260 to a Schoeps 541, if anything the Beyer
sounded a little brighter.

IME the M260 has an edge that the M160 and M500 do not, in spite of the
M500's big peak for stage vox. I use the M260 when I don't really want
clean. Sometimes I find that little edge useful.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[H. Khalil]

On 20 Jul., 06:43, (hank alrich) wrote:

Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
might work very well for you.

I am curious why the M160 and not the M130, given that the latter has
a much flater frequency response, judging by the data sheet on the
Beyer page http://www.beyerdynamic.de/en/broadc...crophones.html

The diagram of the M160 shows a bump in the high frequency range that
scares me (a brighter mic than the CMC 641 is the least thing I want).

Do the diagrams have any practical significance?

Thanks!

[Mike Rivers]

H. Khalil wrote:

I am curious why the M160 and not the M130, given that the latter has
a much flater frequency response, judging by the data sheet on the
Beyer page

They're different animals. The M160 is a hypercardioid, the M130 is
bi-directional. The M130 will give you more room sound, which will make
much more difference than a small difference if frequency response on
axis. If the room sounds good you can use it to advantage. If there's a
reflection that you want to null out, you can do it with the
bi-directional, but the M160 is better for getting the direct sound of
the instrument while minimizing the sound of the room.

The diagram of the M160 shows a bump in the high frequency range that
scares me (a brighter mic than the CMC 641 is the least thing I want).
Do the diagrams have any practical significance?

Not much, as long as they're relatively smooth, and then only if they're
actual measurements and not created by the marketing department based
loosely on actual measurements. What's more significant when you're
getting room sound is how the frequency response looks off axis. Beyer
mics, at the time I bought mine, more than 25 years ago, came with
actual frequency response plots.



--
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
)

[hank alrich]

H. Khalil wrote:

On 20 Jul., 06:43, (hank alrich) wrote:

Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
might work very well for you.

I am curious why the M160 and not the M130, given that the latter has
a much flater frequency response, judging by the data sheet on the
Beyer page
http://www.beyerdynamic.de/en/broadc...ction/products
/microphones/studio-microphones.html

The diagram of the M160 shows a bump in the high frequency range that
scares me (a brighter mic than the CMC 641 is the least thing I want).

Do the diagrams have any practical significance?

Thanks!

M160 is cardioid and M130 is Fig. 8. Either might work for you.

I often select an M160 when I am dealing with instruments that can be
overly bright when mic'd closely, such as banjo, mandolin, fiddle.

If you're in Germany try both. They are both good mics. Part of this
comes down to which pattern works better in your own recording room.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:48:39 -0400, H. Khalil wrote
(in article
):

Hi,

I am recording classical guitar using a Schoeps CMC641 through the
Metric Halo ULN2 and am pleased with the result, except that I
sometimes would have liked the sound to be a tad softer and warmer. I
remember to have read that a ribbon mic might be the way to go, and
now I would like to try one.

Which particular ribbon mic(s) would you recommend for classical
guitar? Considering Beyerdynamic in particular, which of the three
models M130, M160 and M260 would be more suitable for the instrument?

Thanks!

Dear H,

Everyone seems to have jumped to your aid, but first lets examine what you're
asking for. That Schoeps is about as neutral as it gets. Ribbon mics are NOT
neutral.

As mentioned in this string, some ribbons may even be brighter. I'm not
convinced that a different mic would get you to where you think you want to
be.

Perhaps you could post a sample of what you don't like.

1. What preamp are you using. The mating of mic and preamp make a
considerable difference.

2. What strings are you using and would others get the sound you want?

3. What does the guitar sound like? If it's making a sound you don't like,
the use of mics is of limited help if you're looking to tone down the sound.
You'll get there but it'll sound muddy.

4. Maybe you're overplaying the guitar, causing it to sound too harsh; or too
much nail, not enough tip.

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=4RZJ9MptZmU

[H. Khalil]

On 20 Jul., 19:05, Ty Ford wrote:

Everyone seems to have jumped to your aid, but first lets examine what you're
asking for. That Schoeps is about as neutral as it gets. Ribbon mics are NOT
neutral.

Dear Ty, thanks for taking the trouble to answer in such detail.

First, rest assured everything concerning guitar technique, nails,
strings etc is ok. Also, I know my present mic and preamps (ULN2) are
ok. But that's not the issue. As I mentioned, my preferred guitar has
a slight, intrinsic harshness to its sound which I hoped - based on my
limited knowledge of recording gear - could be smoothen out with a
ribbon mic. I would be happy with such mic even if it's not perfectly
neutral, provided it's not bright.

Based on this thread I decided to get the M160, and if not pleased
send it back.

Thanks everybody here for your help, I really appreciate it.

[hank alrich]

H. Khalil wrote:

Based on this thread I decided to get the M160, and if not pleased
send it back.

Please share your impressions with us.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

H. Khalil wrote:

I am recording classical guitar using a Schoeps CMC641 through the
Metric Halo ULN2 and am pleased with the result, except that I
sometimes would have liked the sound to be a tad softer and warmer. I
remember to have read that a ribbon mic might be the way to go, and
now I would like to try one.

Which particular ribbon mic(s) would you recommend for classical
guitar? Considering Beyerdynamic in particular, which of the three
models M130, M160 and M260 would be more suitable for the instrument?

They're all good, and they are all different. I don't know what your
room is like and I don't know what your instrument and style are like,
so how can anyone recommend the microphone for you?

You need to go try some. All three are good but all three are different.
I tend to grab the M160 first, but Paul Stamler tends to grab the M260
first. The M130 is voiced to sound very much like the M160, but it's a
figure-8 so it has a deep null which can sometimes be handy.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

H. Khalil wrote:
On 20 Jul., 06:43, (hank alrich) wrote:

Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
might work very well for you.

I am curious why the M160 and not the M130, given that the latter has
a much flater frequency response, judging by the data sheet on the
Beyer page http://www.beyerdynamic.de/en/broadc...crophones.html

The frequency response of the M130 and M160 in the far field are almost
completely the same. You'll be kind of hard-pressed to tell the
difference between them once the proximity effect ceases to be an issue.

The diagram of the M160 shows a bump in the high frequency range that
scares me (a brighter mic than the CMC 641 is the least thing I want).

Do the diagrams have any practical significance?

Try the mikes. Do it. You'll like them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:31:13 -0400, H. Khalil wrote
(in article
):

On 20 Jul., 19:05, Ty Ford wrote:

Everyone seems to have jumped to your aid, but first lets examine what
you're
asking for. That Schoeps is about as neutral as it gets. Ribbon mics are NOT
neutral.

Dear Ty, thanks for taking the trouble to answer in such detail.

First, rest assured everything concerning guitar technique, nails,
strings etc is ok. Also, I know my present mic and preamps (ULN2) are
ok. But that's not the issue. As I mentioned, my preferred guitar has
a slight, intrinsic harshness to its sound which I hoped - based on my
limited knowledge of recording gear - could be smoothen out with a
ribbon mic. I would be happy with such mic even if it's not perfectly
neutral, provided it's not bright.

Based on this thread I decided to get the M160, and if not pleased
send it back.

Thanks everybody here for your help, I really appreciate it.

K,

Understand. My M160 is somewhat finnicky as to the mic pre. There are a few
it really does well with.

AEA TRP, Neve 9098, Jensen Dual Servo.

Try to get one of them and please let us know how it comes out.

Are different strings a possibility?

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=4RZJ9MptZmU

[H. Khalil]

On 21 Jul., 16:59, Ty Ford wrote:

Understand. My M160 is somewhat finnicky as to the mic pre. There are a few
it really does well with. AEA TRP, Neve 9098, Jensen Dual Servo.
Try to get one of them and please let us know how it comes out.

Unfortunately, a new pre is not an option for me right now. I've got
the Metric Halo ULN2 and can only hope it works well with the M160. It
has lots of quiet gain and presumably can drive a ribbon.

Anyway, just ordered the M160 and when it comes I'll let you know how
it fares against the MK41 on my guitar. If possible, I will post audio
samples so you can help me decide :-)

Cheers!

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

Nick Brown wrote:
[snip]

Lastly, a ribbon mic with a figure-8 pattern could be used as the side
mic in an MS pair, along with your Schoeps. It doesn't produce a
dramatic stereo effect, but it's interesting, it gives you a little of
the character of each of the two mics.

Cheers,
Nick

Ribbon (velocity) mics are 90 degrees out of phase with condensers and
dynamics (pressure). The combination Nick describes indeed would yield and
*interesting* sound.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

"H. Khalil" wrote:
On 21 Jul., 16:59, Ty Ford wrote:

Understand. My M160 is somewhat finnicky as to the mic pre. There are a
few it really does well with. AEA TRP, Neve 9098, Jensen Dual Servo.
Try to get one of them and please let us know how it comes out.

Unfortunately, a new pre is not an option for me right now. I've got
the Metric Halo ULN2 and can only hope it works well with the M160. It
has lots of quiet gain and presumably can drive a ribbon.

Anyway, just ordered the M160 and when it comes I'll let you know how
it fares against the MK41 on my guitar. If possible, I will post audio
samples so you can help me decide :-)

Cheers!

Enjoy the M160, it's a great mic. Just remember that ribbons don't like
loading. The ULN2's input impedance is 3.3K ohms, suitably above the
"2K ohms or greater" rule of thumb for ribbons. It should sound great.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[hank alrich]

H. Khalil wrote:

On 21 Jul., 16:59, Ty Ford wrote:

Understand. My M160 is somewhat finnicky as to the mic pre. There are a few
it really does well with. AEA TRP, Neve 9098, Jensen Dual Servo.
Try to get one of them and please let us know how it comes out.

Unfortunately, a new pre is not an option for me right now. I've got
the Metric Halo ULN2 and can only hope it works well with the M160. It
has lots of quiet gain and presumably can drive a ribbon.

It's in the fabulous category as a mic pre. It will deal well with the
M160.

Anyway, just ordered the M160 and when it comes I'll let you know how
it fares against the MK41 on my guitar. If possible, I will post audio
samples so you can help me decide :-)

This is all about picking the lens you need to get the picture you want,
but in the aural realm.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Nick Brown]

Roy W. Rising wrote:
Nick Brown wrote:
[snip]

Lastly, a ribbon mic with a figure-8 pattern could be used as the side
mic in an MS pair, along with your Schoeps. It doesn't produce a
dramatic stereo effect, but it's interesting, it gives you a little of
the character of each of the two mics.

Cheers,
Nick

Ribbon (velocity) mics are 90 degrees out of phase with condensers and
dynamics (pressure). The combination Nick describes indeed would yield and
*interesting* sound.


Interesting point. So when the two are combined the result would be...
comb filtering?

I'm not clear what you mean by "condensers and dynamics (pressure)" -
taken literally it would seem to imply that all condenser mics are
pressure operated, even the hypercardioid Schoeps under discussion here,
even the single-diaphram figure-8 condensers (Schoeps MK8, Sennheiser
MKH30). That can't be right, can it?

If combining air pressure and velocity information is inherently flawed,
wouldn't that flaw be manifest in every cardioid mic ever? I thought
that was how the cardioid pattern was formed.

What am I missing here?

Cheers,
Nick

[Scott Dorsey]

H. Khalil wrote:
On 21 Jul., 16:59, Ty Ford wrote:

Understand. My M160 is somewhat finnicky as to the mic pre. There are a few
it really does well with. AEA TRP, Neve 9098, Jensen Dual Servo.
Try to get one of them and please let us know how it comes out.

Unfortunately, a new pre is not an option for me right now. I've got
the Metric Halo ULN2 and can only hope it works well with the M160. It
has lots of quiet gain and presumably can drive a ribbon.

Anyway, just ordered the M160 and when it comes I'll let you know how
it fares against the MK41 on my guitar. If possible, I will post audio
samples so you can help me decide :-)

You just ordered it sight-unseen, without actually listening to it? That
is _always_ a mistake.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Nick Brown wrote:
Interesting point. So when the two are combined the result would be...
comb filtering?

Well, that always happens when you put two mikes together unless they are
in precisely the same place in space.

I'm not clear what you mean by "condensers and dynamics (pressure)" -
taken literally it would seem to imply that all condenser mics are
pressure operated, even the hypercardioid Schoeps under discussion here,
even the single-diaphram figure-8 condensers (Schoeps MK8, Sennheiser
MKH30). That can't be right, can it?

An omnidirectional microphone is sensitive to air pressure. A figure-8
microphone is sensitive to air velocity. Cardioids, hypercardioids, and
supercardioids are sensitive to both in varying degrees.

If combining air pressure and velocity information is inherently flawed,
wouldn't that flaw be manifest in every cardioid mic ever? I thought
that was how the cardioid pattern was formed.

Cardioid microphones are inherently flawed and will always have frequency
response that changes with direction. In general, the closer you get to
the edges of the spectrum (omni and figure-8), the better the off-axis
response will be.

Consequently if you compare the Schoeps cardioid and hypercardioid capsules,
you'll find the hypercardioid is actually cleaner off-axis than the regular
cardioid.

There are various tricks you can play to regularize the off-axis response
and some of them work better than others. Most microphone vendors use
a few of them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[H. Khalil]

On 21 Jul., 19:59, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

You just ordered it sight-unseen, without actually listening to it? That
is _always_ a mistake.

Not if you have the right to send it back in original condition within
30 days and get your money back.

[Nick Brown]

On 21 Jul 2008 14:07:52 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Nick Brown wrote:

[snip]

If combining air pressure and velocity information is inherently flawed,
wouldn't that flaw be manifest in every cardioid mic ever? I thought
that was how the cardioid pattern was formed.

Cardioid microphones are inherently flawed and will always have frequency
response that changes with direction. In general, the closer you get to
the edges of the spectrum (omni and figure-8), the better the off-axis
response will be.

Consequently if you compare the Schoeps cardioid and hypercardioid capsules,
you'll find the hypercardioid is actually cleaner off-axis than the regular
cardioid.

Thanks for the clarification.

So at least in terms of the effects of combining varying degrees of
pressure and velocity response, using a Schoeps 41 as a middle mic
alongside a figure-8 ribbon side mic doesn't seem to me significantly
more outlandish than say using a Beyer hypercardioid mid.

Cheers,
Nick

[Scott Dorsey]

Nick Brown wrote:

So at least in terms of the effects of combining varying degrees of
pressure and velocity response, using a Schoeps 41 as a middle mic
alongside a figure-8 ribbon side mic doesn't seem to me significantly
more outlandish than say using a Beyer hypercardioid mid.

You're talking about two totally different things.

Yes, you can combine a figure-8 and an omni together in order to get a
variety of different patterns. A lot of mikes do this, starting with the
original Altec 639. It doesn't work perfectly because the frequency response
of the two elements is never quite the same, so the response always changes
at least a little bit with the pattern control. Doing this, both microphones
are pointed straight ahead.

M-S miking is a totally different thing. It's a stereo microphone technique
using a figure-8 pointed toward the side and an omni pointed straight ahead
(which would be anywhere if it were a perfect omni, but because real world
omnis aren't pefectly omni, it's 90' from the axis of the cardioid) and a
matrix to generate right and left channels. It's actually an attempt to
get the same pattern as a coincident cardioid pair, but with microphones
that are cleaner off-axis.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nick Brown]

On 21 Jul 2008 15:22:25 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Nick Brown wrote:

So at least in terms of the effects of combining varying degrees of
pressure and velocity response, using a Schoeps 41 as a middle mic
alongside a figure-8 ribbon side mic doesn't seem to me significantly
more outlandish than say using a Beyer hypercardioid mid.

You're talking about two totally different things.

Yes, you can combine a figure-8 and an omni together in order to get a
variety of different patterns. A lot of mikes do this, starting with the
original Altec 639. It doesn't work perfectly because the frequency response
of the two elements is never quite the same, so the response always changes
at least a little bit with the pattern control. Doing this, both microphones
are pointed straight ahead.

M-S miking is a totally different thing. It's a stereo microphone technique
using a figure-8 pointed toward the side and an omni pointed straight ahead
(which would be anywhere if it were a perfect omni, but because real world
omnis aren't pefectly omni, it's 90' from the axis of the cardioid) and a
matrix to generate right and left channels. It's actually an attempt to
get the same pattern as a coincident cardioid pair, but with microphones
that are cleaner off-axis.
--scott


Scott,

My fault for not being clearer. I realize these are two different
things.

All I was meaning was:

If an MS array consisting of, say, a Beyer M160 hypercarioid and M130
figure-8 is reasonable - then an MS array consisting of a Schoeps 641
hypercardioid and Beyer M130 figure-8 isn't unreasonable, (provided of
course one accepts the differences in frequency response, sensitivity
and character between those two hypercardioids).

-Nick

[Scott Dorsey]

Nick Brown wrote:

If an MS array consisting of, say, a Beyer M160 hypercarioid and M130
figure-8 is reasonable - then an MS array consisting of a Schoeps 641
hypercardioid and Beyer M130 figure-8 isn't unreasonable, (provided of
course one accepts the differences in frequency response, sensitivity
and character between those two hypercardioids).

Yes. The problem that you get, though, is that the response between
the M and S mikes are radically different, so instruments of higher
pitch tend to move to the center of the soundstage. With high-pitched
instruments, you can hear them moving back and forth across the soundstage
with different notes.

That's why the M160 and M130 are designed to have very close frequency
responses. They are specifically designed to mate as an M-S pair.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

You need to go try some. All three are good but all three are different.
I tend to grab the M160 first, but Paul Stamler tends to grab the M260
first.

Which is because I happen to *have" an M260, while I hope to own an M160 one
of these days after I get done paying for other things.

Peace,
Paul

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Nick Brown wrote:
Interesting point. So when the two are combined the result would be...
comb filtering?

Well, that always happens when you put two mikes together unless they are
in precisely the same place in space.

I'm not clear what you mean by "condensers and dynamics (pressure)" -
taken literally it would seem to imply that all condenser mics are
pressure operated, even the hypercardioid Schoeps under discussion here,
even the single-diaphram figure-8 condensers (Schoeps MK8, Sennheiser
MKH30). That can't be right, can it?

An omnidirectional microphone is sensitive to air pressure. A figure-8
microphone is sensitive to air velocity. Cardioids, hypercardioids, and
supercardioids are sensitive to both in varying degrees.

If combining air pressure and velocity information is inherently flawed,
wouldn't that flaw be manifest in every cardioid mic ever? I thought
that was how the cardioid pattern was formed.

Cardioid microphones are inherently flawed and will always have frequency
response that changes with direction. In general, the closer you get to
the edges of the spectrum (omni and figure-8), the better the off-axis
response will be.

Consequently if you compare the Schoeps cardioid and hypercardioid
capsules, you'll find the hypercardioid is actually cleaner off-axis than
the regular cardioid.

There are various tricks you can play to regularize the off-axis response
and some of them work better than others. Most microphone vendors use
a few of them.
--scott

I think this oversimplifies the pressure vs. velocity subject. I've just
reviewed Howard M. Tremaine's discussion of mics in his Audio Cyclopedia.
In *every* case he refers to ribbon-velocity mics as contrasted to pressure
responding condenser and dynamic types. However, he acknowledges there
certainly are bi-directional condenser mics ... without explanation.
Generally, directional patterns are accomplished by controlling the phase
of sound pressure reaching the back of the diaphragm. The Altec 639 summed
the outputs of forward facing dynamic and ribbon elements in one of the
very few attempts to use the 90 degree phase difference between pressure
and velocity.

On another note, the EV RE15 and RE20 are examples of directional mics with
*very* little frequency response change with respect to direction.

--
~
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 22 Jul 2008 00:06:37 GMT, Roy W. Rising
wrote:

I think this oversimplifies the pressure vs. velocity subject. I've just
reviewed Howard M. Tremaine's discussion of mics in his Audio Cyclopedia.
In *every* case he refers to ribbon-velocity mics as contrasted to pressure
responding condenser and dynamic types. However, he acknowledges there
certainly are bi-directional condenser mics ... without explanation.
Generally, directional patterns are accomplished by controlling the phase
of sound pressure reaching the back of the diaphragm. The Altec 639 summed
the outputs of forward facing dynamic and ribbon elements in one of the
very few attempts to use the 90 degree phase difference between pressure
and velocity.

I think it's important to keep front-'n-center in mind
that radiation pattern depends *only* on how the diaphragm
is exposed to room air. Different generating mechanisms
affect this not a bit.

Of course, you're not suggesting otherwise, but a casual
reading by a newcomer might be misinterpreted.

Bitch, bitch, bitch...



Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Scott Dorsey]

Roy W. Rising wrote:

I think this oversimplifies the pressure vs. velocity subject. I've just
reviewed Howard M. Tremaine's discussion of mics in his Audio Cyclopedia.
In *every* case he refers to ribbon-velocity mics as contrasted to pressure
responding condenser and dynamic types. However, he acknowledges there
certainly are bi-directional condenser mics ... without explanation.

Nope, it's not oversimplified at all. There are bidirectional ribbon
microphones, and they are velocity microphones. Imagine a microphone with
two diaphragms, one on either side of the cartridge, and a perforated
stator between them. Air blows in one direction, and one diaphragm is
pushed toward the stator, while another is pulled away from the stator.
The degree depends on how fast the air is moving and is independant of
the air pressure at the capsule. If the air pressure at the capsule
changes, both diaphragms move the same amount with respect to the stator.

Generally, directional patterns are accomplished by controlling the phase
of sound pressure reaching the back of the diaphragm. The Altec 639 summed
the outputs of forward facing dynamic and ribbon elements in one of the
very few attempts to use the 90 degree phase difference between pressure
and velocity.

Right, although again you can look at dual-diaphragm capsules as being
something different... they can be a pressure capsule if you look at
the charge between diaphragms, or a figure-8 capsule if you look at the
difference between the charge between each diaphragm and the stator.

You can use them as a cardioid by combining the two.

On another note, the EV RE15 and RE20 are examples of directional mics with
*very* little frequency response change with respect to direction.

They both employ some really ingenious tricks. Really, really ingenious.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Roy W. Rising wrote:

I think this oversimplifies the pressure vs. velocity subject. I've just
reviewed Howard M. Tremaine's discussion of mics in his Audio Cyclopedia.
In *every* case he refers to ribbon-velocity mics as contrasted to pressure
responding condenser and dynamic types. However, he acknowledges there
certainly are bi-directional condenser mics ... without explanation.

Nope, it's not oversimplified at all. There are bidirectional ribbon
microphones, and they are velocity microphones.

Yeesh. I mean bidirectional condenser microphones.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[nebulax]

On Jul 21, 1:59 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
H. Khalil wrote:
On 21 Jul., 16:59, Ty Ford wrote:

Understand. My M160 is somewhat finnicky as to the mic pre. There are a few
it really does well with. AEA TRP, Neve 9098, Jensen Dual Servo.
Try to get one of them and please let us know how it comes out.

Unfortunately, a new pre is not an option for me right now. I've got
the Metric Halo ULN2 and can only hope it works well with the M160. It
has lots of quiet gain and presumably can drive a ribbon.

Anyway, just ordered the M160 and when it comes I'll let you know how
it fares against the MK41 on my guitar. If possible, I will post audio
samples so you can help me decide :-)

You just ordered it sight-unseen, without actually listening to it? That
is _always_ a mistake.
--scott


I agree, but it can be challenging to find a place to try out mics
before buying, as well. If it's something common like a Sennheiser
421, you can go down to a music megastore and demo it on the spot, or
even rent it from a local PA company, but something more exotic like a
ribbon would be much harder to come across. There are companies in big
recording towns like Nashville and LA who will rent you all manner of
exotic studio mics, but the expense of doing that might outweigh the
benefits after some point.

-Neb

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:39:38 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

There seems to be an association in my head like this, because the ribbon so
naturally lends itself to symmetrical construction.

Just to be contrary (and as a loudspeaker guy), ribbons
are very difficult to make because the magnets want to
sit in their "null plane", so interfere with that plane.
They don't easily scale down to sitting in the "fore-'n-aft"
plane.

And electrostatics, scaled up big (visible spacing dimensions)
are easiest to make when symmetrical. Go figure.


And:

I'm hoping that those who understand it better will comment
further about the 90 degree phase shift. This is sometimes
described as a mass limited response, but these seem (to my
poor understanding) mutually contradictory.

IOW: a ribbon's working range is designed to be above its
fundamental (massXcompliance) resonance. A "condenser"s
working range is designed to be below its fundamental resonance.
Or course these are only applicable to the stereotypes,
a velocity-sensitive dynamic and a pressure-sensitive
electrostatic.

So, why is one "90 degrees", but not the other?


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Les Cargill]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:39:38 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:

There seems to be an association in my head like this, because the ribbon so
naturally lends itself to symmetrical construction.

Just to be contrary (and as a loudspeaker guy), ribbons
are very difficult to make because the magnets want to
sit in their "null plane", so interfere with that plane.
They don't easily scale down to sitting in the "fore-'n-aft"
plane.

And electrostatics, scaled up big (visible spacing dimensions)
are easiest to make when symmetrical. Go figure.


And:

I'm hoping that those who understand it better will comment
further about the 90 degree phase shift. This is sometimes
described as a mass limited response, but these seem (to my
poor understanding) mutually contradictory.

IOW: a ribbon's working range is designed to be above its
fundamental (massXcompliance) resonance. A "condenser"s
working range is designed to be below its fundamental resonance.
Or course these are only applicable to the stereotypes,
a velocity-sensitive dynamic and a pressure-sensitive
electrostatic.

So, why is one "90 degrees", but not the other?


Is it because a pressure mic versus a pressure *gradient*
(e.g., velocity) mic represents a differentiation? In
that case, d(sin(x))/dt = cos(x) - a 90 degree shift.
(Or d(cos(x))/dt = -sin(x))

I really don't know - this is a guess - corrections
always encouraged. Apologies for the Calc I, but I
couldn't figure out another way to ask...


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:55:21 -0400, "Soundhaspriority"
wrote:


Chris, I have a general physics background, but not a mike background, so I
am naturally curious. I'll just mention a couple of things that might fit
together for a solution. With straightforward dynamics and ribbons, the
dynamic is closed-back unless someone ingeniously opens it up, and the
ribbon is open back, and symmetrical, unless someone is equally ingenious.

Ribbons are "dynamic" in the purest sense of the term (from
"dynamo", a conductor moving in a magnetic field - very, very
old school stuff, so a newer, conflicting meaning has arisen).

So I'll just shut my trap and accept your terms gracefully.
(Grrrracefully...) Arf.


I think you are looking at mass and resonance as the primary cause of phase
shift in these elements, but the primary cause is elsewhere. I think that
for the purpose of this question, the dynamic can be approximated as a
massless, zero phase shift device. It's not like a speaker, where the mass
of the driver significantly figures into it, except way up in the treble.

But, but, but, why? All real-world diaphragms are significant
compared to their surrounding air, aren't they? A ribbon has its
massXcompliance resonance *below* its working range. Can any mic be
considered to be non-interacting? At this point, I guess that
your definition of "dynamic" will need to be clearer to me. It's
clearly my stumbling point.


The ribbon has a 90 degree phase shift not because of a mass effect, but
because it indirectly samples the particle velocity as the pressure
gradient. The particle velocity is not the same as the wave velocity "c".
It is the actual movement of bulk air in an oscillating,
net-zero-displacement fashion, that creates a wave with a propagation
velocity of "c". In a simple compressible fluid like air, the particle
velocity is proportional to the pressure gradient. The gradient is a
derivative, which means that ideally, it is measured in a vanishly small
space, but it is well approximated as the difference in pressure between the
front and back of the microphone, divided by the distance between the two.

Note: The "particle" is actually fictitious. Consider it a tiny hunk of air.
The actual air molecules are moving independently of this according to
Boltzman statistics, but through some kind of averaging miracle, the
fictitious "particle" has served well.

This is amazingly clear and very helpful.

My residual confusions about why this doesn't have a complimentary
parallel in the pressure case will need to await some snooze time
and thought. I'm just a very literal, rock-on-the-end-of-a-spring guy.


Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck