Hi all,

I just saw the CAD Equitek E200. CAD put confidence curves (I'm assume 95%)
on their frequency response graph, but the center line was impressive.
Also, the price seems nice at less than $300 on the street.

Any comments, issues, or known better competitors?

Thanks for your help.

I'm really curious. Why avoid condensers?

On a bass amp, I'd tend to grab an RE-20 or a 421L first, personally.
My first choice would probably not be any condenser.

TNKS wrote:

On a bass amp, I'd tend to grab an RE-20 or a 421L first, personally.
My first choice would probably not be any condenser.

I'm really curious. Why avoid condensers?

I wouldn't avoid them per se, but most of the real advantages of a condenser
mike (low diaphragm mass and therefore excellent transient response... the
ability to get very accurate pattern control, etc.) aren't particularly
important here. And the compression effects you get from a dynamic mike
being hit hard at high levels can be a good thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"TNKS" wrote:

Hi,

I have a tone coming out of my bass speaker cabinet that I'd like to mic
for
recording

snip
After a little investigation, I found two possibilities. The
first, A Designs Audio's MP-1, is in the highest price bracket I'm
comfortable affording. The second, Grace Designs' Model 101, certainly
closer to what I'll probably afford myself. Any criticisms or notable
acclaim for either of these systems? Any alternatives between these price
brackets that match my interests/intent?

I haven't heard the MP-1, but the Grace would be fine for this this. You
might also consider looking at a single channel of Hardy M1, FMR RNP and
also the Great River MP1-NV.

snip

The price difference between a Neumann TLM-170 and an Electro-Voice RE20
is
considerable, so out of curiousity I screen-captured their published
frequency response curves, scaled them to the same size, and pasted them
top/down on the same GIF image (attached). Take a look at it. The Y-axis
on both spans from -10dB to 5dB and the X-axis goes from 20Hz to 20kHz.
First off, the TLM-170's graph is obviously smoothed a lot, the RE20 seems
a
bit more honest. On the high end, the TLM-170 has a -2dB dip centered at
3.5kHz. But this dip down is relatively similar to the EV20's 2dB rise
centered at 8.5kHz. Overall, the frequency response of the TLM-170 might
be
more stable than the EV20's at the high end, but I don't think the
magnitude
of deviation is all that better. However I found on the internet
(http://airandnoise.com/NoiseTech.html) that "the average person will not
be
able to distinguish a 3 dB difference in sound level in a laboratory
condition." This is interesting, because if true, it suggests that
quibbling over the high end of these two graphs is a moot point. However,
on the low end, the EV20 reaches -3dB at around 50Hz, whereas the TLM-170
reaches -3dB at around 30Hz. So, am I safe in saying that sonically, I'm
really only getting better bass response from the Neumann? I know there
are
many other perqs to the Neumann, but for now, I'd like to focus on sonic
properties. Are the people in this forum buying that 3dB is all a person
can perceive? How well can these published frequency responses be
trusted?
Am I missing something obvious?

Yes. On axis frequency response doesn't really tell you what the mic is
going to sound like at all. A huge part of what makes a mic sound the way it
does is off axis response (and those plots are really seriously smoothed
over anyway). And then there's issues such as transient response, pick up
pattern, proximity effect (or lack thereof), differences in electronics, not
mention methods of tranduction, ie: the TLM 170 is a condensor and the RE 20
is a dynamic, so it's an apples to oranges comparason. You really need to
listen to the mics.

While a TLM 170 would be a alright choice for micing a bass, so is an RE 20.
So are a lot of mics. The only way to tell if one or the other is right for
you is to listen.

Anything else compete with Neumann flatness
and claim to true 20Hz to 20kHz?

I think that Behringer measurement mic claims to be flat from 20-20 but
would be among my last choices. There's a lot of other factors you need to
consider.

You might do a google search for "recording bass".

-jw

I haven't heard the MP-1, but the Grace would be fine for this this. You
might also consider looking at a single channel of Hardy M1, FMR RNP and
also the Great River MP1-NV.

Hey, thanks for not ignoring the "pre-amp" portion of my initial query.
Hopefully I'll get more feedback on pre-amp units.

Yes. On axis frequency response doesn't really tell you what the mic is
going to sound like at all. A huge part of what makes a mic sound the way
it
does is off axis response (and those plots are really seriously smoothed
over anyway). And then there's issues such as transient response, pick up
pattern, proximity effect (or lack thereof), differences in electronics,
not
mention methods of tranduction, ie: the TLM 170 is a condensor and the RE
20
is a dynamic, so it's an apples to oranges comparason. You really need to
listen to the mics.

While a TLM 170 would be a alright choice for micing a bass, so is an RE
20.
So are a lot of mics. The only way to tell if one or the other is right
for
you is to listen.

I know. This posting will very likely not commit me to any one microphone.
However, I'm learning a lot, and also, I am narrowing my choices down a
little. Also, I'm getting a wonderful feel for what people are tending to
use.

Thanks again.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Any comments, issues, or known better competitors?

On a bass amp, I'd tend to grab an RE-20 or a 421L first, personally.
My first choice would probably not be any condenser.

I'd add the M88 to that list, as sometimes it's the cat's meow there.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

"TNKS" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
I'm really curious. Why avoid condensers?

On a bass amp, I'd tend to grab an RE-20 or a 421L first, personally.
My first choice would probably not be any condenser.

Scott

The variable rolloff on the 421 is really nice for bass amps. A 441 works
very well too.
--
John Cafarella
End Of the Road Studio
Melbourne, Australia

"LeBaron & Alrich" wrote

Add the Speck MicPre 5.0, which is proving to be a very capable little
preamp.

Hey Hank

What are you liking it on? What are you choosing it over, say, yer Great
River? Also, is there anything which you're not loving it on?

-jw

TNKS wrote:

Because my setup provides a very satisfactory tone, my
goal for a mic and pre-amp is pretty much transparency.

"Transparency", is an unattainable goal until they invent a microphone that
hears the same way your ear hears... so the new goal [or at least an attainable
goal] would be to hear something that you find musically pleasing... a good
sounding representation of the original event.



As far as the pre-amp is concerned, I don't want any compression or
equalization features (I'll get external units later if I have to). What I
need is low-noise, transparency, and only a single channel (I'll only have
one mic so I'd rather invest in better technology than in multiple
channels). After a little investigation, I found two possibilities. The
first, A Designs Audio's MP-1, is in the highest price bracket I'm
comfortable affording. The second, Grace Designs' Model 101, certainly
closer to what I'll probably afford myself. Any criticisms or notable
acclaim for either of these systems? Any alternatives between these price
brackets that match my interests/intent?

Unfortunately... things that sound good ain't cheap. In the realm of getting a
tone that is complimentary to a bass event... I have found that you really need
transformers in the signal path somewhere... unfortunately, good transformers
are anything but inexpensive... so, you will have to aim your sites a tad higher
in the expenditure department to walk away with something that comes a bit
closer to sounding like the original.

On the bright side... seeing as this is probably your first experience with this
sort of thing... you're going to be so amazed that music can actually travel
through wire that the differences afforded you by some of the more expensive
units will very likely not be noticed with your current level of ear training
[not a cut on you... it takes a good amount of years to train your ears to hear
subtle differences in tone and texture. Realize you're learning a new
instrument called 'recording studio'... you didn't pick up the bass and
instantly start playing like Flea did you? Same thing for learning how to
operate a recording studio].



I posted a similar message in a few other newsgroups and they recommended I
come to this newgroup instead. However, they did leave me with a lot of
microphone options. There were "standard" mics such as the Electro-Voice
RE20, a Sennheiser MD421, AKG D12 or D112, Beyer M88, or Shure SM57. But
one poster noted that these microphones were used largely in light and
sometimes because of their non-transparent properties. For a real
transparent response, he recommended the Neumann TLM-170.

He's right about the 'non-transparent properties' of the aforementioned
microphones... but at the end of the day what you're really looking for is to
hear a musically pleasing tone coming from the speakers... a tone that either
sits on it's own, or works or plays well with other tones in the context of an
ensemble presentation. How you get there is no where near as important as
actually getting there... so seriously, I'd recommend you drop this
"transparent" preconception and strive for 'musically pleasing'.

At least 'musically pleasing' is an attainable goal.



The price difference between a Neumann TLM-170 and an Electro-Voice RE20 is
considerable, so out of curiousity I screen-captured their published
frequency response curves, scaled them to the same size, and pasted them
top/down on the same GIF image (attached). snip happens

'Frequency response curves' are very nice little pieces of fictional artwork...
some are actually suitable for framing... but will give you about as much of a
representation of how something will sound in actual application as the chemical
formula for artificial strawberry flavoring will tell you how the ice cream is
going to taste...

Bro, they have to fill out the 'cut sheets' somehow... why not do it with
meaningless charts and graphs.

However I found on the internet
(http://airandnoise.com/NoiseTech.html) that "the average person will not be
able to distinguish a 3 dB difference in sound level in a laboratory
condition." This is interesting, because if true, it suggests that
quibbling over the high end of these two graphs is a moot point.

snip happens again

The average person will probably be able to distinguish less than a 3db
difference... 3db is a lot. Human hearing perception is quite good with proper
training... without proper training, it's still good, but not necessarily
distinguished. The 'average person' isn't really all that relevant to a
discussion of audio engineering practices... they are the consumers, it's not
their job to be able to hear the subtle differences that comprise a recording...
it's the job of the engineer/production team to distinguish the subtle
differences in tone and texture and to apply those differences as they are
perceived relevant to the final presentation of the musical event...


Also, I'd love to hear any other relevant comments you people might have
regarding this process (mic-ing a cabinet) and the options available. Am I
doing anything terribly offensive in insisting on transparency?


Offensive? No. Naive, absolutely... but that's OK. My daughters still can't
wait for "Santa" to come... so you can play a similar game in your quest for
'transparency'. It's a noble quest, many design engineers, equipment
manufacturers, audio engineers, and "audiophile" users have followed this quest
since the beginning of the recording process... it is certainly a goal... much
like setting up camp on Jupiter... it may even be an attainable goal sometime in
the future... and if folks don't strive for that goal now and always there will
be no hope that science will ever achieve that goal.

Best of luck with the quest... don't let it drive you too nuts.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"

In Article ,
(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:
John Washburn wrote:

"TNKS" wrote:

I have a tone coming out of my bass speaker cabinet that I'd like to mic
for recording

snip
After a little investigation, I found two possibilities. The
first, A Designs Audio's MP-1, is in the highest price bracket I'm
comfortable affording. The second, Grace Designs' Model 101, certainly
closer to what I'll probably afford myself. Any criticisms or notable
acclaim for either of these systems? Any alternatives between these price
brackets that match my interests/intent?

I haven't heard the MP-1, but the Grace would be fine for this this. You
might also consider looking at a single channel of Hardy M1, FMR RNP and
also the Great River MP1-NV.

Add the Speck MicPre 5.0, which is proving to be a very capable little
preamp.

Add the Jensen dual 990 made by John Hardy.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Try a Beyerdynamic M380. This mic has real low end with a nice
proximity boost. Plus it looks really unique and isn't in every
studio and you can probably find one cheap. I've been using it in
conjunction with a Sansamp DI and it sounds great.

"TNKS" wrote in message arthlink.net...
Hi all,

I just saw the CAD Equitek E200. CAD put confidence curves (I'm assume 95%)
on their frequency response graph, but the center line was impressive.
Also, the price seems nice at less than $300 on the street.

Any comments, issues, or known better competitors?

Thanks for your help.

John Washburn wrote:

"LeBaron & Alrich" wrote

Add the Speck MicPre 5.0, which is proving to be a very capable little
preamp.

Hey Hank

What are you liking it on? What are you choosing it over, say, yer Great
River? Also, is there anything which you're not loving it on?

It hasn't diasppointed me on anything I've tried it with yet. I wouldn't
necessarily choose it over the GR, might sometimes take it ahead of the
GTQ2 if I don't want that halo of romance added, might put it ahead of
the Millennia when that one seems a little too revealing, definitely put
it ahead of the Peavy VMP2 unless I need some serious softening, and so
forth.

The Great River MP2-MH is my favorite preamp overall. Questions of
transparency, signal degradation from transformers g, etc., aside, the
GR just most often gets me something I am happy to listen to, delighted
to work with. But straight out, if all I had was a pair of Speck MicPre
5.0's I'd be looking to the source(s) for problems, not worrying if my
preamp could cut it.

One of these days Kurt A. and I will get together with his RNP and form
some ideas about how these compare. At the moment as much as I love FMR
kit I want more wallwarts about like I want regularly recurring
headaches. That the Speck pre feeds the Speck ASC EQ and eliminates the
EQ's wart just makes it all juicier.

Given that some many folks are tracking right into their DAW, I think a
nice front end pre + EQ combo could well be a tool of choice for those
more interested in getting at good sound the old fashioned way, by
feeding good sound to storage instead of capturing unfortunate
occurrences and hoping to straighten them out in the computer. Plenty of
old farts had to work that way before technology enticed folks to try to
put life into wax museum inhabitants, and I think there is real value in
that approach. It puts focus on the music, as Bob O. says, concentration
on the input side of the microphone, and when it's good there it's good
everywhere somebody fails to **** it up. IMO, the Speck kit is a nicely
flexible rig, able to deliver subtle or severe tonal manipulation where
needed, and clean enough to suffice when no medicine need be prescribed.

How bad can it be if Mercenary sells it? g

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"