Oktava MC012 Omni with Mod?

[straightnut]

After listening here http://hermannplatzer.at/tontechnik.htm to the A/
B's of the Shoeps CMC5 MK2 and Oktava MC012 omnis, although I'm in
love with the Shoeps, I find the MC012 very nice for the price. And
I've read a lot about the mod that Scott Dorsey created for this
microphone. I can't seem to find the original article or the
information necessary to do the mod, if indeed I were capable of doing
it.

Most people seem to be using the Oktava mod with the cardioid capsule,
and I was wondering if it would do good things to the omni capsule for
recording acoustic guitar.

Thanks,
Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

straightnut > wrote:
>After listening here http://hermannplatzer.at/tontechnik.htm to the A/
>B's of the Shoeps CMC5 MK2 and Oktava MC012 omnis, although I'm in
>love with the Shoeps, I find the MC012 very nice for the price. And
>I've read a lot about the mod that Scott Dorsey created for this
>microphone. I can't seem to find the original article or the
>information necessary to do the mod, if indeed I were capable of doing
>it.

Call Recording Magazine, at 303-516-9118, and ask for the September 2003
issue.

A lot of folks seem to be doing the modification work commercially as well,
but I can't recommend anyone in particular.

>Most people seem to be using the Oktava mod with the cardioid capsule,
>and I was wondering if it would do good things to the omni capsule for
>recording acoustic guitar.

It only changes the electronics, and it's not a topology change just a
component upgrade. It will clean up the top end and bottom end a little
bit no matter what capsule you use it with.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:49:29 -0500, straightnut wrote
(in article
>):

> After listening here http://hermannplatzer.at/tontechnik.htm to the A/
> B's of the Shoeps CMC5 MK2 and Oktava MC012 omnis, although I'm in
> love with the Shoeps, I find the MC012 very nice for the price. And
> I've read a lot about the mod that Scott Dorsey created for this
> microphone. I can't seem to find the original article or the
> information necessary to do the mod, if indeed I were capable of doing
> it.
>
> Most people seem to be using the Oktava mod with the cardioid capsule,
> and I was wondering if it would do good things to the omni capsule for
> recording acoustic guitar.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff

Jeff,

I once got an RE 20 to sound like a U 87, for one moment in one position in
one studio with the right EQ on the same male voice (mine).

That's not all that unusual, given the circumstances.

I've had an MC012. I own two Schoeps CMC641. There is a difference.

Enjoy the ride, but be watchful for delusions.

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

[straightnut]

On Dec 12, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>
> Call Recording Magazine, at 303-516-9118, and ask for the September 2003
> issue.

The issue's sold out.

> A lot of folks seem to be doing the modification work commercially as well,
> but I can't recommend anyone in particular.
>
> >Most people seem to be using the Oktava mod with the cardioid capsule,
> >and I was wondering if it would do good things to the omni capsule for
> >recording acoustic guitar.
>
> It only changes the electronics, and it's not a topology change just a
> component upgrade. It will clean up the top end and bottom end a little
> bit no matter what capsule you use it with.
> --scott

All right thanks.

Jeff

[straightnut]

On Dec 12, 10:54 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
> I once got an RE 20 to sound like a U 87, for one moment in one position in
> one studio with the right EQ on the same male voice (mine).
>
> That's not all that unusual, given the circumstances.
>
> I've had an MC012. I own two Schoeps CMC641. There is a difference.
>
> Enjoy the ride, but be watchful for delusions.

Ty, I'm not sure if you're implying that I'm being deluded by the
online recordings, or that I should just be careful when comparing
mics. I know that every recording of guitar that I've heard with
Schoeps mics online, including yours, I've absolutely loved. And I did
really like one DPA 4061 recording as well.
I assume the fact that it's an omni had something to do with making it
so good on the acoustic guitar. I was just hoping to find a competent
omni in the $200 range for that purpose. I figured the Oktava with the
mod might be the answer, but perhaps I am deluding myself.

Thanks,
Jeff

[straightnut]

On Dec 12, 11:58 am, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
>
> Jeff, consider these:http://studioprojects.com/c4.html . Very possibly a
> world-beater. I am so impressed I have 4 pairs.

Do these come only in pairs? Have you used it on acoustic guitar?
Thanks,
Jeff

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"straightnut" > wrote in message ...
> On Dec 12, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >
> > Call Recording Magazine, at 303-516-9118, and ask for the September 2003
> > issue.
>
> The issue's sold out.

Scott's writing does that sometimes. ;-)

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"straightnut" > wrote in message ...
> On Dec 12, 10:54 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
> >
> > I once got an RE 20 to sound like a U 87, for one moment in one position in
> > one studio with the right EQ on the same male voice (mine).
> >
> > That's not all that unusual, given the circumstances.
> >
> > I've had an MC012. I own two Schoeps CMC641. There is a difference.
> >
> > Enjoy the ride, but be watchful for delusions.
>
> Ty, I'm not sure if you're implying that I'm being deluded by the
> online recordings, or that I should just be careful when comparing
> mics. I know that every recording of guitar that I've heard with
> Schoeps mics online, including yours, I've absolutely loved. And I did
> really like one DPA 4061 recording as well.
> I assume the fact that it's an omni had something to do with making it
> so good on the acoustic guitar. I was just hoping to find a competent
> omni in the $200 range for that purpose. I figured the Oktava with the
> mod might be the answer, but perhaps I am deluding myself.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff


Unless your recording space is simply pristine, I can't imagine using an omni.

My experience with un-modded MC012s was apalling and on record.


DM

[straightnut]

On Dec 12, 3:29 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:

>
> Unless your recording space is simply pristine, I can't imagine using an omni.
>
> My experience with un-modded MC012s was apalling and on record.
>

By pristine, do you mean isolated from outside noise or acoustically
treated?
I'd be willing to put up with a little noise to get some of the
silkiness I hear in the Schoeps recordings.

Thanks,
Jeff

[Paul Stamler]

"straightnut" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 12, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >
> > Call Recording Magazine, at 303-516-9118, and ask for the September 2003
> > issue.
>
> The issue's sold out.

They'll sell you a photocopy for a very reasonable price, I think a buck.

Peace,
Paul

[Geoff]

straightnut wrote:
> On Dec 12, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>
>> Call Recording Magazine, at 303-516-9118, and ask for the September
>> 2003 issue.
>
> The issue's sold out.

So are they going to reprint it, or make it public-domain ?

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

straightnut > wrote:
>On Dec 12, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>>
>> Call Recording Magazine, at 303-516-9118, and ask for the September 2003
>> issue.
>
>The issue's sold out.

Call them on the phone.
The website says that reprints are available in various forms. It is NOT
sold out, but it is also not available online. Call them on the phone.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff > wrote:
>straightnut wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Call Recording Magazine, at 303-516-9118, and ask for the September
>>> 2003 issue.
>>
>> The issue's sold out.
>
>So are they going to reprint it, or make it public-domain ?

They reprinted it. It is available for a phone call.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"straightnut" > wrote in message ...
> On Dec 12, 3:29 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Unless your recording space is simply pristine, I can't imagine using an omni.
> >
> > My experience with un-modded MC012s was apalling and on record.
> >
>
> By pristine, do you mean isolated from outside noise or acoustically
> treated?

Both.

> I'd be willing to put up with a little noise to get some of the
> silkiness I hear in the Schoeps recordings.

"Silkiness" created for the purpose of posting results... probably not
created in anyone's bedroom or basement, and probably not an
untouched copy of the original.

There comes a point, and it comes quite rapidly in some cases,
where a microphone is too good for it's intended application due
to other limitations.

[straightnut]

On Dec 12, 5:16 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> geoff > wrote:
> >straightnut wrote:
> >> On Dec 12, 8:40 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >>> Call Recording Magazine, at 303-516-9118, and ask for the September
> >>> 2003 issue.
>
> >> The issue's sold out.
>
> >So are they going to reprint it, or make it public-domain ?
>
> They reprinted it. It is available for a phone call.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Oh sorry. You're right, I was going by the webpage that showed the
issue sold out.
Jeff

[straightnut]

On Dec 12, 4:37 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:

>
> Jeff, where is your general location?
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

A mic's throw over the river from you. How good is your arm?

Jeff

[straightnut]

On Dec 12, 5:41 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:

>
> There comes a point, and it comes quite rapidly in some cases,
> where a microphone is too good for it's intended application due
> to other limitations.

Point taken.

Jeff

[straightnut]

On Dec 12, 7:44 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:

>
> My arm ain't that good. My area code may be confusing. I'm in PA. You're in
> NJ ? I've been very anxious to test a bunch of mikes on a guitar. Even if
> you don't bring any, I've got a pile.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511 (yes, PA)

Yes, NJ. I'd be up for that. I'll email you with more info.
Jeff

[Chris Hornbeck]

Complaints-To:

Like stink on ****.

Chris Hornbeck

[straightnut]

On Dec 12, 11:54 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Complaints-To:
>
> > Like stink on ****.
>
> > Chris Hornbeck
>
> Chris, thanks. McCarty did not trip us up. Jeff and I set it up, and we're
> going to go through a pile of "reasonable" mikes, including AT, Rode,
> Studio Projects, Audix, and MXL, to try to answer for ourselves the eternal
> question: "What's best for acoustic guitar?"
>
> Perhaps next week we'll be able to report back with our opinions.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

Yes, looking forward to it.
Jeff

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:10:51 -0500, straightnut wrote
(in article
>):

> On Dec 12, 10:54 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>>
>> I once got an RE 20 to sound like a U 87, for one moment in one position in
>> one studio with the right EQ on the same male voice (mine).
>>
>> That's not all that unusual, given the circumstances.
>>
>> I've had an MC012. I own two Schoeps CMC641. There is a difference.
>>
>> Enjoy the ride, but be watchful for delusions.
>
> Ty, I'm not sure if you're implying that I'm being deluded by the
> online recordings, or that I should just be careful when comparing
> mics. I know that every recording of guitar that I've heard with
> Schoeps mics online, including yours, I've absolutely loved. And I did
> really like one DPA 4061 recording as well.
> I assume the fact that it's an omni had something to do with making it
> so good on the acoustic guitar. I was just hoping to find a competent
> omni in the $200 range for that purpose. I figured the Oktava with the
> mod might be the answer, but perhaps I am deluding myself.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>

Hello Jeff,

A little of both. :) and thanks for the compliment.

My online and YouTube stuff was made with the Schoeps cmc641. It's not an
omni, it's a supercardioid. I have tried other mics, as you may imagine, but
the Schoeps literally stopped me in my tracks. What it does is both subtle
and profound. For me it was a revelation, "Oh! THAT'S what this should sound
like!"

On other fronts, I have a short cut up in my archive now called:
ECM88MartinD28s.mp3

It's the same Martin I use in the YouTube video. I gaffer's taped the mic to
the face of the martin up where the fingerboard comes down across the upper
bout. You can hear the tape pull as I pull the mic off of one spot and move
it a little closer to the sound hole to get more bass. The ecm88 is an omni
lav, normally used for clipping to a person's lapel. It's brighter than the
Schoeps, and makes the martin sound a little like a Taylor. This would be
mostly for live playing. I'll stick to the Schoeps in the studio.

I have two Countryman mics I'll be experimenting with soon for live playing
to see what I can get them to do inside the Martin along with the K&K pure
western mini.

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

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:29:22 -0500, David Morgan \(MAMS\) wrote
(in article <CwX7j.8928$bW.1565@trnddc07>):

>
> "straightnut" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Dec 12, 10:54 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>>>
>>> I once got an RE 20 to sound like a U 87, for one moment in one position in
>>> one studio with the right EQ on the same male voice (mine).
>>>
>>> That's not all that unusual, given the circumstances.
>>>
>>> I've had an MC012. I own two Schoeps CMC641. There is a difference.
>>>
>>> Enjoy the ride, but be watchful for delusions.
>>
>> Ty, I'm not sure if you're implying that I'm being deluded by the
>> online recordings, or that I should just be careful when comparing
>> mics. I know that every recording of guitar that I've heard with
>> Schoeps mics online, including yours, I've absolutely loved. And I did
>> really like one DPA 4061 recording as well.
>> I assume the fact that it's an omni had something to do with making it
>> so good on the acoustic guitar. I was just hoping to find a competent
>> omni in the $200 range for that purpose. I figured the Oktava with the
>> mod might be the answer, but perhaps I am deluding myself.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jeff
>
>
> Unless your recording space is simply pristine, I can't imagine using an
omni.
>
> My experience with un-modded MC012s was apalling and on record.
>
>
> DM

Good point David. While not exactly the way I want it yet, the ECM88
omni/Martin recording was done in my new room. Still a bit more damping to
do, but close.

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

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:54:47 -0500, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Chris Hornbeck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Complaints-To:
>>
>> Like stink on ****.
>>
>> Chris Hornbeck
>
> Chris, thanks. McCarty did not trip us up. Jeff and I set it up, and we're
> going to go through a pile of "reasonable" mikes, including AT, Rode,
> Studio Projects, Audix, and MXL, to try to answer for ourselves the eternal
> question: "What's best for acoustic guitar?"
>
> Perhaps next week we'll be able to report back with our opinions.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
>

"Reasonable"? What does that mean? You don't mention Schoeps in your list.
Does that make them UNreasonable?

If you're not trying Schoeps, you're not trying hard enough.

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

[Paul Stamler]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I have two Countryman mics I'll be experimenting with soon for live
playing
> to see what I can get them to do inside the Martin along with the K&K pure
> western mini.

Try sticking the mic to the crosswise brace that runs under the fingerboard.
I put the mic under the high E string, pointing upwards when the guitar is
held in normal position, and it's stuck to the brace using 3M StripCalk
sticky goo. It does a decent job for live work, a bit of a smile curve but
manageable, and less feedback than when I clipped the mic to the front.

Peace,
Paul

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:25:49 -0500, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Ty Ford" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:54:47 -0500, Soundhaspriority wrote
>> (in article >):
>>
> [snip]
>> "Reasonable"? What does that mean? You don't mention Schoeps in your list.
>> Does that make them UNreasonable?
>>
>
> "Reasonable", as a euphemism for "cheap. I didn't want to say, "We're going
> to test a pile of cheap mikes".
>
>> If you're not trying Schoeps, you're not trying hard enough.
>>
> Much to my regret, I don't have Schoeps. Schoeps are not "reasonable",
> they're "expensive."
>
> I hope this make it "clear" :)
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

::sigh::

Bob, I know how much you enjoy being right. Unless you listen to a CMC641,
you won't know what you are missing.

If you are going to use a mic for a lifetime, a Schoeps is not expensive.
Please stop being a skin flint, low baller. It does not become you.

Rent a god damn schoeps as I have suggested in the past and get you head on
straight.

Kind 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

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message

Ty Wrote:

> > Rent a god damn schoeps as I have suggested in the past and get you head
> > on straight.

> I just checked the Philly Film Office. I don't see anybody nearby. Jeff is
> coming from over the river. Anybody over there?


If you really want to choose a mic for Acoustic, rent a KM-184 while
you're at it. It's expensive, but it will serve in numerous ways over the
long-term of ownership.

DM

[[email protected]]

On 2007-12-13 /Odm said:
>Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
>If you really want to choose a mic for Acoustic, rent a KM-184 while
>you're at it. It's expensive, but it will serve in numerous ways
>over the long-term of ownership.
I'd agree with that. USed them on drum oh too.



Richard webb,
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.



Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on who's for
dinner. Liberty is when the sheep has his own gun.

[straightnut]

On Dec 13, 9:35 am, Ty Ford > wrote:

> A little of both. :) and thanks for the compliment.
>
> My online and YouTube stuff was made with the Schoeps cmc641. It's not an
> omni, it's a supercardioid. I have tried other mics, as you may imagine, but
> the Schoeps literally stopped me in my tracks. What it does is both subtle
> and profound. For me it was a revelation, "Oh! THAT'S what this should sound
> like!"
>

I hadn't listened to the recording from your archive for a couple of
years, and for some reason I mis-remembered it as an omni. I just had
another listen. There's just something disarming about it, as well as
the omni version samples I found on the web. The different Scheops
seem to round the edges without obscuring the edges.
Jeff

[straightnut]

On Dec 13, 9:41 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
> "Reasonable"? What does that mean? You don't mention Schoeps in your list.
> Does that make them UNreasonable?
>
> If you're not trying Schoeps, you're not trying hard enough.
>

This testing Bob and I are doing wasn't to be an exhaustive study.
It's just a spur of the moment idea to see what a few mics will sound
like on my particular guitar with my particularly bad playing. For me
it will determine if I buy another inexpensive mic or just use what I
already have.
Jeff

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:51:42 -0500, straightnut wrote
(in article
>):

> On Dec 13, 9:35 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>> A little of both. :) and thanks for the compliment.
>>
>> My online and YouTube stuff was made with the Schoeps cmc641. It's not an
>> omni, it's a supercardioid. I have tried other mics, as you may imagine, but
>> the Schoeps literally stopped me in my tracks. What it does is both subtle
>> and profound. For me it was a revelation, "Oh! THAT'S what this should sound
>> like!"
>>
>
> I hadn't listened to the recording from your archive for a couple of
> years, and for some reason I mis-remembered it as an omni. I just had
> another listen. There's just something disarming about it, as well as
> the omni version samples I found on the web. The different Scheops
> seem to round the edges without obscuring the edges.
> Jeff

Jeff,

As nice a way to put it as I've found, for sure.

I was watching/listening to the new Pirates of The Carribean movie on my Mac
the other night and listening on the Audio technica ATH-M50 headphones. I
swear I could her the Schoeps on the voice tracks. Not an edge to be heard
and everything was there.

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

[straightnut]

On Dec 13, 9:08 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> As nice a way to put it as I've found, for sure.

Thank you.

> I was watching/listening to the new Pirates of The Carribean movie on my Mac
> the other night and listening on the Audio technica ATH-M50 headphones. I
> swear I could her the Schoeps on the voice tracks. Not an edge to be heard
> and everything was there.

Interesting. I've been picturing mics as interpreters. One may speak
with an abrasive voice and broken english. The next may mumble or
stutter. They can be jittery on caffeine or mellow on fine brandy. The
schoeps and the like I picture dressed in top hat and tails, speaking
the queens english and having an immense vocabulary.
I suppose your intimate relationship with this interpreter allows you
to hear its subtleties even through the wash of the Caribbean Sea.

Jeff

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 23:20:55 -0500, straightnut wrote
(in article
>):

> On Dec 13, 9:08 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>> Jeff,
>>
>> As nice a way to put it as I've found, for sure.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> I was watching/listening to the new Pirates of The Carribean movie on my Mac
>> the other night and listening on the Audio technica ATH-M50 headphones. I
>> swear I could her the Schoeps on the voice tracks. Not an edge to be heard
>> and everything was there.
>
> Interesting. I've been picturing mics as interpreters. One may speak
> with an abrasive voice and broken english. The next may mumble or
> stutter. They can be jittery on caffeine or mellow on fine brandy. The
> schoeps and the like I picture dressed in top hat and tails, speaking
> the queens english and having an immense vocabulary.
> I suppose your intimate relationship with this interpreter allows you
> to hear its subtleties even through the wash of the Caribbean Sea.
>
> Jeff

Good comment. I think it's more about what I don't hear with a cmc641.

I don't hear weird off-axis anomalies and beaminess. I don't hear on-axis
peaks. What I do hear with the Schoeps is the sound of whatever I'm
recording, not the sound of the mic AND what I'm recording.

So that's when I'm pretty sure I'm hearing a Schoeps; when I don't perceive
anything between me and the source.

I used a cmc641 live last month to mic a dobro (played flat with a slide).
They didn't have any real instrument mics at the venue, mostly vocal mics.

He has some sort of makeshift pickup in the dobro, but it sounded like
saltine crackers being forced up the butt of a very small parrot.

During sound check I put the cmc641 on a stand and swung it over the dobro.
HOLY CRAP! I had never heard Ken's dobro through a PA, but the upper
bass/lower mids were gumbo soupy in a really nice way and the top was clear
and cut through while remaining smooth. It sounded like a dobro with very
large...um, balls.

subject change>

I remember reviewing one of the first Gefell mics to come out of E. Germany
way back. It was reminiscent of the Neumann U 87 sound. After a LOT of
listening I came up with a description. It as like the sound was arriving in
my ears after having bounced off a very high grade card coated with a fine
linen cloth. Smooth, rich, even, pleasant to the ear. A very non-technical
description, certainly, but an aural image that I still retain and can
"hear."

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

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:18:14 -0500, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article
>):

> As I've explained before, I really on my retired father for money to live on
> and all of my esoteric "hobbies". In the last few years he's bought an Arri
> camera, lighting equipment, big industrial pumps for my failed cutting
> machine, and now sound gear. It'll be easier getting dough once I only have a

> trustee to deal with.
>
>
> Bob Morein (310) 237-6511

::Yawn:: :)

two words: rent one.

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

[straightnut]

On Dec 14, 8:21 am, Ty Ford > wrote:

>
> Good comment. I think it's more about what I don't hear with a cmc641.
>
> I don't hear weird off-axis anomalies and beaminess. I don't hear on-axis
> peaks. What I do hear with the Schoeps is the sound of whatever I'm
> recording, not the sound of the mic AND what I'm recording.

I'm trying to understand what an off-axis anomaly sounds like. I
probably hear it as unpleasantness but don't know which particular
unpleasantness it is. Can you describe what you mean by beaminess as
well?

<snip>
> I remember reviewing one of the first Gefell mics to come out of E. Germany
> way back. It was reminiscent of the Neumann U 87 sound. After a LOT of
> listening I came up with a description. It as like the sound was arriving in
> my ears after having bounced off a very high grade card coated with a fine
> linen cloth. Smooth, rich, even, pleasant to the ear. A very non-technical
> description, certainly, but an aural image that I still retain and can
> "hear."

This makes sense to me. I try to create visual analogies for all non-
visual experiences in order to fully integrate them. I may actually be
aurally challenged. My hearing is good, but I'm a visual learner. I
love music, but sound somehow gets translated visually before striking
my emotions.

Jeff

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 14, 11:22 am, straightnut > wrote:

> I'm trying to understand what an off-axis anomaly sounds like. I
> probably hear it as unpleasantness but don't know which particular
> unpleasantness it is.

Do you know what uneven frequency response sounds like? It can be
reasonably benign if just the highs or lows are rolled off, or quite
objectionable when the amplitude response with frequency is irregular.
It could sound like someone took a graphic equalizer and set a bunch
of sliders off center at random position.

Most directional mics sound different off axis than they do on axis
(some omnidirectional mics do, too, but that means they aren't really
omnidirectional). We say it has off-axis anomalies when it sounds odd
off axis compared to on axis.

Compare the sound of your favorite and your least favorite mics when
you're talking directly into them and when you're talking at 90
degrees to the axis. Adjust for the level difference. That will tell
you about off-axis anomalies.

> Can you describe what you mean by beaminess as well?

Certain off-axis anomalies are expected, but you want a reasonably
wide pickup pattern over which things sound pretty much the same, and
pretty accurately. If that pattern is too narrow and things start
getting ugly when you're not very far off axis, that's "beamy" - as if
you're illuminating your source with a tightly focused flashlight
beam.

Sometimes you want "beamy" when you want to reject things off axis,
but if that's what you want, you want the frequency response off axis
to fall off quickly and evenly, not irregularly.

[Paul Stamler]

"straightnut" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 14, 8:21 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
> >
> > Good comment. I think it's more about what I don't hear with a cmc641.
> >
> > I don't hear weird off-axis anomalies and beaminess. I don't hear
on-axis
> > peaks. What I do hear with the Schoeps is the sound of whatever I'm
> > recording, not the sound of the mic AND what I'm recording.
>
> I'm trying to understand what an off-axis anomaly sounds like. I
> probably hear it as unpleasantness but don't know which particular
> unpleasantness it is. Can you describe what you mean by beaminess as
> well?

Off-axis anomalies: Instances where the off-axis response differs from the
on-axis response, sometimes drastically. A mic with no off-axis anomalies
will have the same off-axis response as on-axis, only less of it.

Beaminess: Usually taken to mean that in a particular range of frequencies
(typically treble) the microphone will be extremely directional, while it's
less so at other frequencies. This is one type of behavior that will result
in off-axis anomalies (see above).

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
straightnut > wrote:
>On Dec 14, 8:21 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>>
>> Good comment. I think it's more about what I don't hear with a cmc641.
>>
>> I don't hear weird off-axis anomalies and beaminess. I don't hear on-axis
>> peaks. What I do hear with the Schoeps is the sound of whatever I'm
>> recording, not the sound of the mic AND what I'm recording.
>
>I'm trying to understand what an off-axis anomaly sounds like. I

The mike sounds fine on-axis, but when you move to the side, it sounds
awful. This means when you use it in an acoustical situation where you
have a lot of room sound, the room sound (which is coming from all over)
sounds awful.

Try one of the cheap Chinese large diaphragm mikes. Many sound okay up
close, but pull back a couple feet and they're just awful.

>probably hear it as unpleasantness but don't know which particular
>unpleasantness it is. Can you describe what you mean by beaminess as
>well?

Beaminess is high frequency directionality. On axis there is plenty of
top end, move off to the side a little and it all goes away but the midrange
stays there. A little beaminess can be a useful took in some stereo miking
situations. Too much is too much, and most cheap omnis have way too much.
--scott


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

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:22:53 -0500, straightnut wrote
(in article
>):

> On Dec 14, 8:21 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>>
>> Good comment. I think it's more about what I don't hear with a cmc641.
>>
>> I don't hear weird off-axis anomalies and beaminess. I don't hear on-axis
>> peaks. What I do hear with the Schoeps is the sound of whatever I'm
>> recording, not the sound of the mic AND what I'm recording.
>
> I'm trying to understand what an off-axis anomaly sounds like. I
> probably hear it as unpleasantness but don't know which particular
> unpleasantness it is. Can you describe what you mean by beaminess as
> well?

Hold the mic back from your mouth about 4-6 inches. Voice various constant
tones from a hiss to a hunh. Hold each tone and move the mic around so you're
on the edge of it's pattern if it's directional, all around if it's an omni.

Beaminess is the characteristic in which a tone suddenly pops out at you (or
withdraws) due to where the mic is placed.

Off-axis anomalies may be similar and happen outside the pattern.

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

[Ty Ford]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:22:06 -0500, Soundhaspriority wrote
(in article >):

>
> "Ty Ford" > wrote in message
> . ..
> [snip]
>>>
>
>>
>>>> Yawn:: :)
>>
>> two words: rent one.
>>
>> Ty Ford
>>
> Ty, it's a forgery! Of course, I would rent one. I just can't spend half a
> day driving for it.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
>
>

Dream Hire will send you one. Stop the madness.

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

[straightnut]

On Dec 14, 1:11 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
A little beaminess can be a useful took in some stereo miking
> situations. Too much is too much, and most cheap omnis have way too much.

Interesting. I would have guessed omnis, by design, to be least prone
to off-axis anomalies, since there should be no off-axis.
Jeff

[straightnut]

On Dec 14, 8:52 pm, Ty Ford > wrote:

>
> Hold the mic back from your mouth about 4-6 inches. Voice various constant
> tones from a hiss to a hunh. Hold each tone and move the mic around so you're
> on the edge of it's pattern if it's directional, all around if it's an omni.
>
> Beaminess is the characteristic in which a tone suddenly pops out at you (or
> withdraws) due to where the mic is placed.

I'll try that when I get all set up.
Thanks,
Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

straightnut > wrote:
>On Dec 14, 1:11 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> A little beaminess can be a useful took in some stereo miking
>> situations. Too much is too much, and most cheap omnis have way too much.
>
>Interesting. I would have guessed omnis, by design, to be least prone
>to off-axis anomalies, since there should be no off-axis.

They are. Sadly, they aren't perfect. But the smaller the omni capsule,
the easier it is to make an omni omni.

Consequently, the Behringer mike that uses a 1/4" Horn electret capsule
is a lot more omni than a Neumann M50. And the M50 is more omni than
a dual-diaphragm capsule wired for omni, like a 414EB in omni mode. But
the dual diaphragm is FAR more omni than a sealed-box ribbon omni like a
77DX in omni mode.

The thing is, sometimes you don't want an omni to be TOO omni. And when
you really do want it to be very omni, you can use an optical lens to
reduce the beaminess, like the bullet gadgets that DPA sells.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[straightnut]

On Dec 15, 11:03 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> straightnut > wrote:
> >On Dec 14, 1:11 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> > A little beaminess can be a useful took in some stereo miking
> >> situations. Too much is too much, and most cheap omnis have way too much.
>
> >Interesting. I would have guessed omnis, by design, to be least prone
> >to off-axis anomalies, since there should be no off-axis.
>
> They are. Sadly, they aren't perfect. But the smaller the omni capsule,
> the easier it is to make an omni omni.
>
> Consequently, the Behringer mike that uses a 1/4" Horn electret capsule
> is a lot more omni than a Neumann M50. And the M50 is more omni than
> a dual-diaphragm capsule wired for omni, like a 414EB in omni mode. But
> the dual diaphragm is FAR more omni than a sealed-box ribbon omni like a
> 77DX in omni mode.
>
> The thing is, sometimes you don't want an omni to be TOO omni. And when
> you really do want it to be very omni, you can use an optical lens to
> reduce the beaminess, like the bullet gadgets that DPA sells.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

So omni mics aren't truly omni, but omniesque.
Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

straightnut > wrote:
>So omni mics aren't truly omni, but omniesque.

Right, because they can't be pure pressure sensors that measure pressure at
a single point. In the real world there is no such thing as a single point,
there are only very small apertures.

You make the aperture smaller, you get closer to real pressure response
off-axis, but you also get less signal and the same Brownian noise, so
your S/N gets worse.

It's all a set of compromises. You can use trickery like the balls or
bullet noses to compensate for boundary effects, but in the end you still
have the same old rules of physics to contend with.

That said, the B&K 4006 with the bullet is pretty damn omni. More omni
than I like for Jecklin disc work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."