[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:47:25 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Dead is dead.

Only in an an-echoic room, in real world rooms "dead" is a room with too
little treble and too much bass.

Considering whether it is nice sounding or not is a
little like asking whether a light that is switched off is better with
a blue bulb or a pink one.

As for off axis not mattering in a dead room - that is exactly why I
suggested using an omni instead. The on-axis response of an omni is
generally much better than that of its cardioid equivalent.

Just one example to counter this: the CK1 cardioid has a smoother, albeit
gently rising, response on axis than the CK22 omni based on a measurement
referencing a 4006 in a higly damped listening room, I probably still have
the raw measurement data on some harddisk.


You can always find an exception to a general rule. Doesn't make the
rule wrong.

To help clarify, it is generally true that other than omni mics designed for
measurements (e.g. the 4006), the on-axis response of normal ominis used for
recording is slightly peaked above 5-10 KHz. The usual reason given is that
the rising response overcomes the slight dulling due to rolled-off off-axis
response in normal, somewhat reverberent rooms. A highly damped room would
be your exceptional case.

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

In a live room, of course, the situation is more complex (and much
more fun). If the room sound is good, then moving an omni back a
little might be good. This is not usually the best solution with a
cardioid, because it inevitably has a much more coloured response
off-axis that will not improve things. There are many combinations,
not all of them euphonic.

Yes. But in a dead room I'll take a cardioid over an omni or a subcardiod
because of the lack of treble from the room sound that is there. It is
simpler than having to split the recording into M and S and boost the
treble
on the S.

d

Kind regards

OK, just a difference in definition of the word "dead". For me, dead
equals anechoic. If there is any kind of reverb, the room is not dead.

In the real world truely anechoic rooms are very rare. Rooms that are full
of thick rugs, wall hangings, diffusive ceilings and overstuffed furniture
are not common but are also not very rare. In such rooms, Peter's comments
may apply. Of course, you can always throw in a little treble eq during
subsequent production steps. However, eq applies to the whole mic, not just
the on-axis or off-axis response.

Most cardioids used for recording are at least as peaked up as the omnis.

[chris ruth]

On Dec 12, 2:59*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

...





On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:47:25 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Dead is dead.

Only in an an-echoic room, in real world rooms "dead" is a room with too
little treble and too much bass.

Considering whether it is nice sounding or not is a
little like asking whether a light that is switched off is better with
a blue bulb or a pink one.

As for off axis not mattering in a dead room - that is exactly why I
suggested using an omni instead. The on-axis response of an omni is
generally much better than that of its cardioid equivalent.

Just one example to counter this: the CK1 cardioid has a smoother, albeit
gently rising, response on axis than the CK22 omni based on a measurement
referencing a 4006 in a higly damped listening room, I probably still have
the raw measurement data on some harddisk.

You can always find an exception to a general rule. Doesn't make the
rule wrong.

To help clarify, it is generally true that other than omni mics designed for
measurements (e.g. the 4006), the on-axis response of normal ominis used for
recording is slightly peaked above 5-10 KHz. *The usual reason given is that
the rising response overcomes the slight dulling due to rolled-off off-axis
response in normal, somewhat reverberent rooms. A highly damped room would
be your exceptional case.

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.





In a live room, of course, the situation is more complex (and much
more fun). If the room sound is good, then moving an omni back a
little might be good. This is not usually the best solution with a
cardioid, because it inevitably has a much more coloured response
off-axis that will not improve things. There are many combinations,
not all of them euphonic.
Yes. But in a dead room I'll take a cardioid over an omni or a subcardiod
because of the lack of treble from the room sound that is there. It is
simpler than having to split the recording into M and S and boost the
treble
on the S.

d

*Kind regards
OK, just a difference in definition of the word "dead". For me, dead
equals anechoic. If there is any kind of reverb, the room is not dead.

In the real world truely anechoic rooms are very rare. Rooms that are full
of thick rugs, wall hangings, diffusive ceilings and overstuffed furniture
are not common but are also not very rare. In such rooms, Peter's comments
may apply. *Of course, you can always throw in a little treble eq during
subsequent production steps. However, eq applies to the whole mic, not just
the on-axis or off-axis response.

Most cardioids used for recording are at least as peaked up as the omnis.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well maybe i just need some help with positioning. I've tried the
usual, x-y, spaced pair, orft. But they all have one thing in common
(in my setup).
They all sound better very close to the guitar, 6-12inches from 12th
fret (way too boomy if i get near the soundhole). So that would imply
the room sucks, right? But it still sounds great in that room if i
just sit a few feet in front of the guitar (with someone else playing)

I could post some mp3 files of a simple test if anyone would oblige
me.
Maybe 1 mic, 6inches away, and 3 feet away. Then you can judge.

thanks

[Scott Dorsey]

Arny Krueger wrote:
To help clarify, it is generally true that other than omni mics designed for
measurements (e.g. the 4006), the on-axis response of normal ominis used for
recording is slightly peaked above 5-10 KHz. The usual reason given is that
the rising response overcomes the slight dulling due to rolled-off off-axis
response in normal, somewhat reverberent rooms. A highly damped room would
be your exceptional case.

The 4006 is very much not designed for measurements. The 4145 is designed
for measurements, the 4006 and the like are much less expensive designs
intended for recording work.

Some of the issue with that high end peak is that it is difficult to avoid
due to internal resonances of some capsule designs. It's not entirely
deliberate.

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

In the real world truely anechoic rooms are very rare. Rooms that are full
of thick rugs, wall hangings, diffusive ceilings and overstuffed furniture
are not common but are also not very rare. In such rooms, Peter's comments
may apply. Of course, you can always throw in a little treble eq during
subsequent production steps. However, eq applies to the whole mic, not just
the on-axis or off-axis response.

In the seventies there was a very big push for making studios dead at high
frequencies and in the midrange, in an attempt to get better isolation
for multitrack recording. Unfortunately this mostly resulted in severely
unbalanced rooms that were still reverberant at low frequencies but dead as
hell at high frequencies. When the room sound is unbalanced, pulling the
mikes back gets you more unbalanced room sound.

Most cardioids used for recording are at least as peaked up as the omnis.

Most of them are more so because of physical geometry issues. It is very,
very hard to make a cardioid that is flat in the free field.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Dec 12, 3:58*pm, chris ruth wrote:
Well maybe i just need some help with positioning. I've tried the
usual, x-y, spaced pair, orft. But they all have one thing in common
(in my setup).
They all sound better very close to the guitar, 6-12inches from 12th
fret (way too boomy if i get near the soundhole).

Again, if you've been doing ORTF or XY with omnis, you're not really
doing ORTF or XY. Try them with cardioids (at 110 degree angle) or
hypercardioids (at 90 degree angle).

So that would imply
the room sucks, right? But it still sounds great in that room if i
just sit a few feet in front of the guitar (with someone else playing)

The thing is, the human brain does amazing compensation; it can make a
room which sucks for a microphone sound great. There isn't a mic made
that can do that.

Here's a tardy question: what are the room's dimensions?

Peace,
Paul

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 12 Dec 2011 21:15:29 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

d

[Nate Najar]

On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 4:00:00 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On 12 Dec 2011 21:15:29 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

d

yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:32:10 -0800 (PST), Nate Najar
wrote:

On Tuesday, December 13, 2011 4:00:00 AM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On 12 Dec 2011 21:15:29 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

d

yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

The mk41 will do very nicely, but at 110 degrees, you get a bit of a
response dip in the middle. Somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees would
be better.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 12 Dec 2011 21:15:29 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

This is sadly true. The Oktavas are better off-axis than you'd ever
expect, though. The hypercardioids are better in that regard than the
cardioids.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[PStamler]

On Dec 13, 10:17*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On 12 Dec 2011 21:15:29 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

This is sadly true. *The Oktavas are better off-axis than you'd ever
expect, though. *The hypercardioids are better in that regard than the
cardioids.

The Neumann KM 84s are also excellent off-axis, and give great ORTF.
And I've achieved very good results with the Microtech Gefell M930s,
which is something of a surprise, since they have larger capsules. But
they're nice and uniform off-axis, and do a great ORTF.

I'd be interested to hear what a pair of Neumann TLM102s did. When I
tested one, it sounded unusually uniform off-axis, but I couldn't try
ORTF because they only sent one of them.

Peace,
Paul

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:19:47 -0800 (PST), PStamler
wrote:

On Dec 13, 10:17*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On 12 Dec 2011 21:15:29 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

This is sadly true. *The Oktavas are better off-axis than you'd ever
expect, though. *The hypercardioids are better in that regard than the
cardioids.

The Neumann KM 84s are also excellent off-axis, and give great ORTF.
And I've achieved very good results with the Microtech Gefell M930s,
which is something of a surprise, since they have larger capsules. But
they're nice and uniform off-axis, and do a great ORTF.

I'd be interested to hear what a pair of Neumann TLM102s did. When I
tested one, it sounded unusually uniform off-axis, but I couldn't try
ORTF because they only sent one of them.

I think it would be a fair generalization to say that you are more
likely to have success with a small diaphragm than a large one.
Off-axis response is a matter of geometry (provided on-axis is OK),
which is favoured by smaller dimensions.

d

[PStamler]

On Dec 13, 2:29*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:19:47 -0800 (PST), PStamler



wrote:
On Dec 13, 10:17*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
On 12 Dec 2011 21:15:29 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

This is sadly true. *The Oktavas are better off-axis than you'd ever
expect, though. *The hypercardioids are better in that regard than the
cardioids.

The Neumann KM 84s are also excellent off-axis, and give great ORTF.
And I've achieved very good results with the Microtech Gefell M930s,
which is something of a surprise, since they have larger capsules. But
they're nice and uniform off-axis, and do a great ORTF.

I'd be interested to hear what a pair of Neumann TLM102s did. When I
tested one, it sounded unusually uniform off-axis, but I couldn't try
ORTF because they only sent one of them.

I think it would be a fair generalization to say that you are more
likely to have success with a small diaphragm than a large one.
Off-axis response is a matter of geometry (provided on-axis is OK),
which is favoured by smaller dimensions.

In general that's true. But in the last few years some larger-
diaphragm mics (like the M930 and the TLM102) have arrived which seem
to defy the laws of physics by behaving more like smaller-diaphragm
mics at 90 degrees off axis. I don't know how they manage it, but I'm
not going to turn them down.

Peace,
Paul

[Ty Ford]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:07:46 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

The mk41 will do very nicely, but at 110 degrees, you get a bit of a
response dip in the middle. Somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees would
be better.

d

Don,

No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:42:57 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:07:46 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

The mk41 will do very nicely, but at 110 degrees, you get a bit of a
response dip in the middle. Somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees would
be better.

d

Don,

No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?


Absolutely not - I'm dead certain it is somewhere between ;-)

d

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:51:49 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:42:57 -0500, Ty Ford
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:07:46 -0500, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):

yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

The mk41 will do very nicely, but at 110 degrees, you get a bit of a
response dip in the middle. Somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees would
be better.

d

Don,

No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?


Absolutely not - I'm dead certain it is somewhere between ;-)

d

!

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Arkansan Raider]

geoff wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Oh yes. I've never been one to dither.


Me neither. I think .....

geoff



LOL

---Jeff

[geoff]

Ty Ford wrote:
Don,

No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?


Absolutely not - I'm dead certain it is somewhere between ;-)

d


Or not.

geoff

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:01:45 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
Don,

No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?


Absolutely not - I'm dead certain it is somewhere between ;-)

d


Or not.

No, it definitely is, probably.

d

[John Sorell[_2_]]

Ty Ford wrote in
al.NET:

On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 12:29:58 -0500, Charles Tomaras wrote
(in article ):

I've not used mine for classical guitar, nor much music for
that
matter but I do have many hours of dialog and interview
experience
with my Schoeps stuff and almost always prefer the sound of
the MK4
over the MK41 if the room sound and camera headroom will
allow.


Tried the mk4 and mk41 and went the other way. Liked the mk41
better.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA


Ty,

Sorry for bringing up a late thread. What made you like the MK41
capsule better than the MK4?

Thanks,

John

[Nate Najar]

I have a new response to this query based on recent experience. My initial response is schoeps mk41. My new response is Aea ku4. Sorry for the increase in price.

N