Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
"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. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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." |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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." |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
geoff wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: Oh yes. I've never been one to dither. Me neither. I think ..... geoff LOL ---Jeff |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
mics for classical guitar
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Classical Guitar Website | Pro Audio | |||
how do I record my classical guitar? | Pro Audio | |||
MK 41 on classical guitar? | Pro Audio | |||
advice on mics/recording classical guitar | Pro Audio | |||
Classical guitar mics? | Pro Audio |