4 mics compared, Schoeps, Shure, and CAD

[Fran Guidry]

I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have
helped me find the flaws in my methodology <grin>. Hopefully this time
I had all the switches in the right directions.

The mics are:
CAD M179
Schoeps CMC64
Shure KSM44
Shure KSM141

Here are the clips:
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-F.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-G.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-H.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-I.wav

They're not in the same order, of course.

Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/

If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the
blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you.

Fran
http://www.kaleponi.com
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote
(in article
>):

> http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/

"For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from
the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully
developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of
the guitar while another picks up the bridge."

Fran,

At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really
wonderful, you're recordings won't be.

At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because
there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good
sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a
guitar.

Proximity effect is not a bad thing, it's just a thing. If it's too much, you
have to reposition the mic.

On this cut -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

Where's the Schoeps? Sitting on the sofa arm; a lot closer than 32"

On this one -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IMIP8drZo

I'm using a TLM 103 aimed back across the face. You can see it when I pull
back. This guitar has a slightly muted sound, so I used the brighter TLM 103
to brighten it a bit.

Both tracks have reverb added

Here's what I've found with acoustic guitars. Each one projects a lobe or
lobes of sound from the face. Stick a finger in one ear and move your other
ears around from about two feet while the player is playing the guitar. When
you find the lobe, stick a mic there and fine tune by positioning.


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 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:03:47 -0400, Ty Ford >
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote
>(in article
>):
>
>> http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
>"For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from
>the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully
>developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of
>the guitar while another picks up the bridge."
>
>Fran,
>
>At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really
>wonderful, you're recordings won't be.

Not quite beyond proximity effect either. A cardioid at 32 inches will
lift 82 Hz (bottom E on a guitar) by just over 1dB. A hypercardioid,
nearly 2dB and a figure 8 by 2.5dB.

The good thing about proximity effect is that it is precisely
predictable, and easily corrected.

d

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford > wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote
> (in article
> >):
>
> > http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
> "For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from
> the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully
> developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of
> the guitar while another picks up the bridge."
>
> Fran,
>
> At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really
> wonderful, you're recordings won't be.
>
> At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because
> there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good
> sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a
> guitar.

Countering Ty's opinion here, I sometimes track solo guitar with a mic
or mics as much as six feet from the instrument. Funny thing is, that's
often how I hear guitars played for real in rooms of all kinds. I don't
often hear a guitar from a foot or so away. I often prefer the sound
when it's caught at some distance.

> Proximity effect is not a bad thing, it's just a thing. If it's too much, you
> have to reposition the mic.

A room is not a bad thing; it's just a thing. And it's a thing that can
often be managed by choice of mic pattern and placement, including not
only the mic's position relative to the instrument, but also the mic's
orientation within the room to influence what of the room is heard by
the mic.

Obviously, this is not an approach to be used when recording a singing
guitarist and wanting separation if mic'ing the voice and instrument
separately. But for strictly solo guitar tracks I find it engaging.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Mike Rivers]

Ty Ford wrote:

> At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because
> there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good
> sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a
> guitar.

Differentiating good from bad will be difficult, but differentiating between
Mic A and Mic B may not be difficult, the difference being how each mic
handles the room sound. About the best you do is say which one you
prefer at that distance.

At 6-10 inches, you'll hear more direct sound, but will also hear the
differences in how different mics handle off-axis but direct sound. That
may be a better way to just which mic is generically "best," whatever
that means.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[drichard]

Hi Don,

I didn't realize there was a formula for projecting the amount of
proximity effect on a mic during recording. Maybe this is a dumb
question, but is there anywhere I can read up on this?

Thanks in advance,

Dean

On Jun 29, 8:22*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:03:47 -0400, Ty Ford >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote
> >(in article
> >):
>
> >>http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
> >"For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from
> >the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully
> >developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of
> >the guitar while another picks up the bridge."
>
> >Fran,
>
> >At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really
> >wonderful, you're recordings won't be.
>
> Not quite beyond proximity effect either. A cardioid at 32 inches will
> lift 82 Hz (bottom E on a guitar) by just over 1dB. A hypercardioid,
> nearly 2dB and a figure 8 by 2.5dB.
>
> The good thing about proximity effect is that it is precisely
> predictable, and easily corrected.
>
> d

[Scott Dorsey]

drichard > wrote:
>
>I didn't realize there was a formula for projecting the amount of
>proximity effect on a mic during recording. Maybe this is a dumb
>question, but is there anywhere I can read up on this?

It's a function of the microphone pattern and the distance, both. The
closer to a figure-8 mike, the more proximity effect, the closer to an
omni, the less.

Any given microphone should have curves on the data sheet that list
response up close and far-field, but a lot of manufacturers have stopped
doing this is part of the general attempt to dumb-down datasheets. So
you will have to use your ears.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 29 Jun 2009 10:18:38 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>drichard > wrote:
>>
>>I didn't realize there was a formula for projecting the amount of
>>proximity effect on a mic during recording. Maybe this is a dumb
>>question, but is there anywhere I can read up on this?
>
>It's a function of the microphone pattern and the distance, both. The
>closer to a figure-8 mike, the more proximity effect, the closer to an
>omni, the less.
>
>Any given microphone should have curves on the data sheet that list
>response up close and far-field, but a lot of manufacturers have stopped
>doing this is part of the general attempt to dumb-down datasheets. So
>you will have to use your ears.
>--scott

I have the maths on my web site. It is for omni, cardioid,
hypercardioid and figure 8. Patterns intermediate between these four
types can be approximated by interpolating the curves.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/mic

In fact all mics are intermediate, depending on the frequency. As far
as I know, no manufacturer has managed to make the pressure response
and the velocity response have precisely the same frequency response,
which would be needed for a non-frequency-dependent pattern.

d

[Fran Guidry]

On Jun 29, 6:22*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:03:47 -0400, Ty Ford >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote
> >(in article
> >):
>
> >>http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
> >"For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from
> >the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully
> >developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of
> >the guitar while another picks up the bridge."
>
> >Fran,
>
> >At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really
> >wonderful, you're recordings won't be.
>
> Not quite beyond proximity effect either. A cardioid at 32 inches will
> lift 82 Hz (bottom E on a guitar) by just over 1dB. A hypercardioid,
> nearly 2dB and a figure 8 by 2.5dB.
>
> The good thing about proximity effect is that it is precisely
> predictable, and easily corrected.
>
> d

Well this is what I was talking about in my first post. Every time I
post here I learn something in the responses.

Thanks, Don, and everyone else who commented.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

On Jun 28, 11:45*am, Fran Guidry > wrote:
> I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have
> helped me find the flaws in my methodology <grin>. Hopefully this time
> I had all the switches in the right directions.
>
> The mics are:
> CAD M179
> Schoeps CMC64
> Shure KSM44
> Shure KSM141
>
> Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-F.wavhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-G.wavhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-H.wavhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-I.wav
>
> They're not in the same order, of course.
>
> Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
> If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the
> blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you.
>
> Fran
>http://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com

By the way, I didn't mean to inhibit discussion of the clips
themselves by my suggestion of emailing guesses to me. I've found that
many people are more forthcoming with their selections when they can
make them in private.

But for me, these clips sound amazingly similar. My recording
education has come from the internet, with all the good and bad that
entails. When I was using a Shure SM81 through a Behringer mixer into
a Soundblaster card, I was sure (based on internet postings) that I
would hear a night and day difference when I upgraded any or all of
the chain. Each upgrade left me asking "Is that all there is?"

Still, I would not have expected a CAD M179 and a Schoeps CMC64 to
sound so similar no matter what the circumstances. Or perhaps they
only sound similar to me. I know that my ability to discriminate is
much less than others, I've done ABX testing to prove it <grin>.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

On Jun 29, 7:05*am, Mike Rivers > wrote:
> Ty Ford wrote:
> > At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because
> > there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good
> > sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a
> > guitar.
>
> Differentiating good from bad will be difficult, but differentiating between
> Mic A and Mic B may not be difficult, the difference being how each mic
> handles the room sound. About the best you do is say which one you
> prefer at that distance.
>
> At 6-10 inches, you'll hear more direct sound, but will also hear the
> differences in how different mics handle off-axis but direct sound. That
> may be a better way to just which mic is generically "best," whatever
> that means.
>
> --
> If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
> me here:
> double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
> )

Mike, I feel like I have a more even field for the mics to sample if
I'm a bit further from the guitar. I think the instrument is a non-
uniform source and I like to have the distance between source and mics
large in comparison to the distance between mics. All this for
comparison purposes only, of course, and placing mics for a recording
brings in a whole different set of criteria.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

On Jun 29, 6:03*am, Ty Ford > wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:57 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote
> (in article
> >):
>
> >http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
> "For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32? from
> the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully
> developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of
> the guitar while another picks up the bridge."
>
> Fran,
>
> At 32" the room comes into play in a major way. If the room is not really
> wonderful, you're recordings won't be.
>
> At 32", differentiating a good mic from a bad mic is very difficult because
> there's too much room sound. I've got what some folks say is a pretty good
> sounding room and I don't think I've ever had a mic that far away from a
> guitar.
>
> Proximity effect is not a bad thing, it's just a thing. If it's too much, you
> have to reposition the mic.
>
> On this cut --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA
>
> Where's the Schoeps? Sitting on the sofa arm; a lot closer than 32"
>
> On this one --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2IMIP8drZo
>
> I'm using a TLM 103 aimed back across the face. You can see it when I pull
> back. This guitar has a slightly muted sound, so I used the brighter TLM 103
> to brighten it a bit.
>
> Both tracks have reverb added
>
> Here's what I've found with acoustic guitars. Each one projects a lobe or
> lobes of sound from the face. Stick a finger in one ear and move your other
> ears around from about two feet while the player is playing the guitar. When
> you find the lobe, stick a mic there and fine tune by positioning.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

Hey, Ty, I've been sampling your Vimeo channel, nice stuff.

I probably mis-estimated the distance, and in any case usually record
somewhat closer when I'm tracking rather than comparing mics. But here
I'm trying to give each mic the "same" source for some value of
"same." I fear that when I get too close the non-uniform radiation of
the instrument will add an uncontrolled variable to the comparison.

Fran

[Geoff]

hank alrich wrote:
>
> A room is not a bad thing; it's just a thing.

Well two things really, if recorded. 1 - The room where it is recorded, and
(2) the room that is the listening environment. I prefer more of just one
room because multiple rooms gets messier, but of course that all changes if
you aere listening on hedphones !

geoff

[drichard]

Hi Fran,

I look forward to knowing which mic is which. I took a little time to
write down some observations, but since I don't own any of the four
mics listed and don't know what the instrument sounded like in the
room, I would only be guessing when trying to pick which mic made each
recording. But the differences, which seemed subtle at first, don't
seem so subtle after a few listens. Each of the four made a nice
recording.

I liked #1 best, followed by #3.

When will you post the identities?

Thanks,

Dean


On Jun 28, 1:45*pm, Fran Guidry > wrote:
> I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have
> helped me find the flaws in my methodology <grin>. Hopefully this time
> I had all the switches in the right directions.
>
> The mics are:
> CAD M179
> Schoeps CMC64
> Shure KSM44
> Shure KSM141
>
> Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-F.wavhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-G.wavhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-H.wavhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-I.wav
>
> They're not in the same order, of course.
>
> Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
> If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the
> blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you.
>
> Franhttp://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

drichard > wrote:

> Hi Don,
>
> I didn't realize there was a formula for projecting the amount of
> proximity effect on a mic during recording. Maybe this is a dumb
> question, but is there anywhere I can read up on this?

Most text books tend to gloss over the proximity effect or omit any
proper explanation. If you want to delve into the mathematics of the
process, try reading the BBC training manual "Microphones" by A.E.
Robinson. (Iliffe, London / Hayden, New York) (1951/1963)


The explanation for the proximity effect is rather convoluted:

The mic diaphragm (or ribbon) responds to pressure difference across its
faces. In an omnidirectional mic, one of the faces is enclosed, so the
pressure difference is just due to the pressure variations on the
exposed face. If the body of the mic is small enough, the response will
not depend on which direction the pressure is coming from.

In a bidirectional mic the pressure difference between the two exposed
sides of the diaphragrm or ribbon comes from the extra distance the wave
has to travel between the front and the back of the diaphragm or ribbon;
so the mic is at its most sensitive when the sound approaches at right
angles to the plane of the diaphragm or ribbon, where the distance is
greatest. There are two different effects; the first is
frequency-dependent but the second, which only occurs when the wavefront
is spherical, is not. [That sentence appears to be counter-intuitive,
but all will be explained later]

1) The frequency-dependent effect is due to the pressure difference at
two points on a plane waveform travelling past the mic. The time
difference between the two sides of the diaphragm or ribbon is fixed by
the geometry of the mic and the speed of sound, so as the frequency
increases, the difference in pressure becomes a greater and greater
portion of a cycle of the waveform. This means that the pressure
difference increases with increasing frequency (up to a point where it
falls rapidly and extinguishes when the path length is equivalent to
half a cycle).

2) The frequency-independent effect is caused by the pressure
difference between two points on the radius of a spherical wavefront,
which is dropping in pressure as it expands. The pressure drop, in this
case, is independent of frequency.


A ribbon microphone has a diaphragm which is resonant below the audio
band, so it needs a pressure difference which increases with frequency
if it is to give a flat response. The frequency-dependent effect gives
this increase with frequency, so the response of a ribbon to a plane
wave is flat and NOT frequency dependent.

When the ribbon is exposed to a spherical wavefront, it encounters a
presure difference effect which does not change with frequency, it
therefore gives a response which decreases as the frequency goes up.
Looking at it the other way around, the sensitivity of a ribbon to
spherical wavefronts increases as the frequency falls. This is where
the proximity effect comes from.

The proximity effect will only occur when the mic is close enough to a
small sound source to pick up a waveform which is effectively spherical,
If the sound source is large (e.g. the back of a double-bass), there
will be almost no proximity effect. A cardioid mic, which combines an
omnidirectional and a bidirectional response, will give approximately
half the proximity effect of an equivalent bidirectional mic.


Mathematically prediciting the changeover point where the spherical wave
begins to dominate the response is not easy (where is the effective
centre of origin of a sound which does not come from a true point
source?); but correcting it electrically is very straightforward because
it can be exactly matched by a simple single-stage RC filter. If the
filter turnover is adjustable, my advice would be to twiddle the knob
until it sounds right.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

CORRECTION:

....try reading the BBC training manual "Microphones" by A.E. Robertson.
(Iliffe, London / Hayden, New York) (1951/1963)...


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Fran Guidry]

On Jun 29, 11:49*pm, drichard > wrote:
> Hi Fran,
>
> I look forward to knowing which mic is which. I took a little time to
> write down some observations, but since I don't own any of the four
> mics listed and don't know what the instrument sounded like in the
> room, I would only be guessing when trying to pick which mic made each
> recording. But the differences, which seemed subtle at first, don't
> seem so subtle after a few listens. Each of the four made a nice
> recording.
>
> I liked #1 best, followed by #3.
>
> When will you post the identities?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dean
>
> On Jun 28, 1:45*pm, Fran Guidry > wrote:
>
> > I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have
> > helped me find the flaws in my methodology <grin>. Hopefully this time
> > I had all the switches in the right directions.
>
> > The mics are:
> > CAD M179
> > Schoeps CMC64
> > Shure KSM44
> > Shure KSM141
>
> > Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-F.wavhttp://www.homebre...
>
> > They're not in the same order, of course.
>
> > Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
> > If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the
> > blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you.
>
> > Fran
>>http://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com

Dean, I just emailed you the key.

Were you surprised by the degree of similarity, or did you find the
clips about as different as you expected?

Fran

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:59:25 -0400, Fran Guidry wrote
(in article
>):


> Hey, Ty, I've been sampling your Vimeo channel, nice stuff.
>
> I probably mis-estimated the distance, and in any case usually record
> somewhat closer when I'm tracking rather than comparing mics. But here
> I'm trying to give each mic the "same" source for some value of
> "same." I fear that when I get too close the non-uniform radiation of
> the instrument will add an uncontrolled variable to the comparison.
>
> Fran

Fran,

Right with you on that idea. My concern is that the "same" you'll be hearing
has more to do with the room.

And as for being able to calculate the P-effect, I'm thinking the different
porting of capsules would mitigate that. So, how much sound is allowed via
the rear ports of each mic does have some bearing.

I envy you the space n which you can get 32' between a mic and a guitar.

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

[drichard]

Hi Fran,

Honestly, it was about what I expected. I know there are differences
in mics, and while subtle, they are audible. (I guess I can be a
little more vocal now, since the only mic I've heard recordings of was
the Schoeps, and I was able to identify it.) But those differences are
nowhere near as dramatic as some would have you believe.

I've listened to CDs of mic preamp shootouts before, and those are
downright humbling. I remember that a few years ago 3D Audio did a mic
preamp shootout. When blind, many serious engineers preferred Mackie
preamps over much higher quality ones, and were shocked when told what
they had chosen. Many couldn't identify their own preamps.The
differences are so very subtle. I wasn't brave enough to even voice my
opinions in that shootout. Yes, humbling indeed.

I'm curious if others here can identify the mics they are familiar
with.

Anyone?

Dean



On Jun 30, 11:45*am, Fran Guidry > wrote:
> On Jun 29, 11:49*pm, drichard > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Fran,
>
> > I look forward to knowing which mic is which. I took a little time to
> > write down some observations, but since I don't own any of the four
> > mics listed and don't know what the instrument sounded like in the
> > room, I would only be guessing when trying to pick which mic made each
> > recording. But the differences, which seemed subtle at first, don't
> > seem so subtle after a few listens. Each of the four made a nice
> > recording.
>
> > I liked #1 best, followed by #3.
>
> > When will you post the identities?
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Dean
>
> > On Jun 28, 1:45*pm, Fran Guidry > wrote:
>
> > > I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have
> > > helped me find the flaws in my methodology <grin>. Hopefully this time
> > > I had all the switches in the right directions.
>
> > > The mics are:
> > > CAD M179
> > > Schoeps CMC64
> > > Shure KSM44
> > > Shure KSM141
>
> > > Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-F.wavhttp://www.homebre...
>
> > > They're not in the same order, of course.
>
> > > Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
> > > If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the
> > > blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you.
>
> > > Fran
> >>http://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com
>
> Dean, I just emailed you the key.
>
> Were you surprised by the degree of similarity, or did you find the
> clips about as different as you expected?
>
> Fran- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Fran Guidry]

On Jun 30, 3:15*pm, drichard > wrote:
> Hi Fran,
>
> Honestly, it was about what I expected. I know there are differences
> in mics, and while subtle, they are audible. (I guess I can be a
> little more vocal now, since the only mic I've heard recordings of was
> the Schoeps, and I was able to identify it.) But those differences are
> nowhere near as dramatic as some would have you believe.
>
> I've listened to CDs of mic preamp shootouts before, and those are
> downright humbling. I remember that a few years ago 3D Audio did a mic
> preamp shootout. When blind, many serious engineers preferred Mackie
> preamps over much higher quality ones, and were shocked when told what
> they had chosen. Many couldn't identify their own preamps.The
> differences are so very subtle. I wasn't brave enough to even voice my
> opinions in that shootout. *Yes, humbling indeed.
>
> I'm curious if others here can identify the mics they are familiar
> with.
>
> Anyone?
>
> Dean
>
> On Jun 30, 11:45*am, Fran Guidry > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 11:49*pm, drichard > wrote:
>
> > > Hi Fran,
>
> > > I look forward to knowing which mic is which. I took a little time to
> > > write down some observations, but since I don't own any of the four
> > > mics listed and don't know what the instrument sounded like in the
> > > room, I would only be guessing when trying to pick which mic made each
> > > recording. But the differences, which seemed subtle at first, don't
> > > seem so subtle after a few listens. Each of the four made a nice
> > > recording.
>
> > > I liked #1 best, followed by #3.
>
> > > When will you post the identities?
>
> > > Thanks,
>
> > > Dean
>
> > > On Jun 28, 1:45*pm, Fran Guidry > wrote:
>
> > > > I've posted comparison tests here before and you fine folks have
> > > > helped me find the flaws in my methodology <grin>. Hopefully this time
> > > > I had all the switches in the right directions.
>
> > > > The mics are:
> > > > CAD M179
> > > > Schoeps CMC64
> > > > Shure KSM44
> > > > Shure KSM141
>
> > > > Here are the clips:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-F.wavhttp://www.homebre...
>
> > > > They're not in the same order, of course.
>
> > > > Here's a link to a blog post demonstrating the method of testing:http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/06/25/mic-comparison-a-tutorial/
>
> > > > If you post your idea of the identity of the clips here or on the
> > > > blog, or email me with the info, I'll shoot the key back to you.
>
> > > > Fran
> > >>http://www.kaleponi.comhttp://www.homebrewedmusic.com
>
> > Dean, I just emailed you the key.
>
> > Were you surprised by the degree of similarity, or did you find the
> > clips about as different as you expected?
>
> > Fran- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

That has been a factor, it seems. Several people have mentioned that
they recognized the sound of a mic that they used often and were able
to pick it out of the collection.

I'm tinkering with a graphical representation of the responses but I'm
a lazy old retired fart so it isn't happening too fast.

Fran

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

drichard wrote:

| I'm curious if others here can identify the mics they are familiar
| with.

The third - as I recall this now - sounds like the ksm to me.

| Dean

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Fran Guidry]

On Jul 3, 7:18*am, "Peter Larsen" > wrote:
> drichard wrote:
>
> | I'm curious if others here can identify the mics they are familiar
> | with.
>
> The third - as I recall this now - sounds like the ksm to me.
>
> | Dean
>
> * Kind regards
>
> * Peter Larsen

Thanks for commenting, Peter. I emailed you the key.

Fran

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Fran Guidry wrote:

| Thanks for commenting, Peter. I emailed you the key.

It is a very interesting test because it highlights the difference in
spatial rendering between the microphones and that it is very important also
when close miking.

Somewhere in this thread it has been said ... as I remember it ... by
somebody that you can negate the influence of the room by going closer to
the guitar. Sorry ... no way, the guitars own sound is influenced by the
room as well as by sounds around it. I got a fine demonstration recording at
a chamber music concert, cello + concert grand. Before the intermission the
concert grand was almost closed, resulting in one cello sound and after the
intermission it was open, resulting in a quite different cello sound.

| Fran

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 01:21:48 -0400, Peter Larsen wrote
(in article >):

>
> Somewhere in this thread it has been said ... as I remember it ... by
> somebody that you can negate the influence of the room by going closer to
> the guitar. Sorry ... no way, the guitars own sound is influenced by the
> room as well as by sounds around it. I got a fine demonstration recording at
> a chamber music concert, cello + concert grand. Before the intermission the
> concert grand was almost closed, resulting in one cello sound and after the
> intermission it was open, resulting in a quite different cello sound.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>

Maybe in a concert hall situation, yes, but in the studio, not so much.
There, the distance between the mic and instrument make a significant
difference. The greater the distance and the wonkier the room, the wonkier
the recording.

If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction.


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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ty Ford wrote:

|| Somewhere in this thread it has been said ... as I remember it ...
|| by somebody that you can negate the influence of the room by going
|| closer to the guitar. Sorry ... no way, the guitars own sound is
|| influenced by the room as well as by sounds around it. I got a fine
|| demonstration recording at a chamber music concert, cello + concert
|| grand. Before the intermission the concert grand was almost closed,
|| resulting in one cello sound and after the intermission it was
|| open, resulting in a quite different cello sound.

| Maybe in a concert hall situation, yes, but in the studio, not so
| much. There, the distance between the mic and instrument make a
| significant difference. The greater the distance and the wonkier the
| room, the wonkier the recording.

| If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
| interaction.

What I am saying is that the room will influence the sound of the instrument
no matter the mic 2 instrument distance.

| Ty Ford

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford >
wrote:

>If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction.

A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?

[Steve King]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford >
| wrote:
|
| >If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
interaction.
|
| A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?

You can get it down to what it is, and sometimes that's what you are forced
to work with. That's why it is good to have a well-stocked mic closet. For
studio work, beyond musicianship and material, the room is often the
problem. Compensating for the deficiencies of the room is how we earn our
living.

Steve King

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford >
> wrote:
>
> >If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction.
>
> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?

Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
it in what I consider a natural manner.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:02:04 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>> >If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction.
>>
>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
>
>Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
>it in what I consider a natural manner.

Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But
if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have
pretty good ways of adding better room sound.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:02:04 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:

>>>> If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
>>>> interaction.

>>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?

>> Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't
>> hearing it in what I consider a natural manner.

> Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But
> if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have
> pretty good ways of adding better room sound.

At a chamber music recording at the New Carlsberg Glyptotek we had
everything set up and sweet sounding. Then the arranger entered the room and
noticed that the ensemble was three feet off of the center line and asked
for it to be centered. They moved 3 feet, we moved the mic stand three feet
and that should be it ... NOT: it simply sounded like a cheaper pack of
cats. Likewise in the room. The room matters for the sound of the instrument
because all instruments are microphonic and react to room sound.

And what Hank said: you can not get the sound of the instrument if you are
close than the longest dimension of the instrument, you will instead get the
sound of the closest part of the instrument. THAT may be exactly what fits
the actual recording, but you need to know what it is you choose.

The 3:1 rule can rapidly reduce the deployable number of mics if you "go
distant" .... but it is not fun to come home with a live remote that is not
mixable because of bleed, surely an experience that prompts assertive
miking; be it a pair or a bundle or whatever number that fits.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction.
>>
>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
>
>Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
>it in what I consider a natural manner.

Well, it depends on the instrument, too. It's possible to spot-mike a
flute up way close and get a good representation of the sound of the
instrument.... but not a fiddle.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Laurence Payne > wrote:
>Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But
>if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have
>pretty good ways of adding better room sound.

Not really. The problem is that a lot of instruments make different sounds
in different directions, and rely on the room to mix them. There is no
one place where you can put a microphone around a fiddle or a piano that
will give you a clean dry sound.
--scott

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

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:02:04 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >> >If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
> >> interaction.
> >>
> >> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
> >
> >Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
> >it in what I consider a natural manner.
>
> Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But
> if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have
> pretty good ways of adding better room sound.

Meaning that when one puts a directional mic very close to the guitar
the mic doesn't hear all of what's coming off of the instrument. It's
like putting one's eyeballs very close to a page: peripheral vision has
its limits, and one won't see all of the image.

Mind you, I do understand that this is sometimes absolutley necessary,
given various settings. In fact, in live use, almost all the time the
mic(s) must be very close to the instruments to counter both the room
and spill from the stage monitors.

I often have to place mics too closely. But in other situations,
whenever I can, I prefer that the mic be at least a distance from the
guitar equivalent to the full length of the instrument, including the
neck. I like that sound much better.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Peter Larsen > wrote:

> Laurence Payne wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:02:04 -0700, (hank alrich)
> > wrote:
>
> >>>> If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
> >>>> interaction.
>
> >>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
>
> >> Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't
> >> hearing it in what I consider a natural manner.
>
> > Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But
> > if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have
> > pretty good ways of adding better room sound.
>
> At a chamber music recording at the New Carlsberg Glyptotek we had
> everything set up and sweet sounding. Then the arranger entered the room and
> noticed that the ensemble was three feet off of the center line and asked
> for it to be centered. They moved 3 feet, we moved the mic stand three feet
> and that should be it ... NOT: it simply sounded like a cheaper pack of
> cats. Likewise in the room. The room matters for the sound of the instrument
> because all instruments are microphonic and react to room sound.

That might be a good example of something I mentioned in a thread about
dealing with a given room for tracking guitar, and my thoughts of
placement of the artist within the room. In the center of the room is
often the worst position in my experience. One suffers multiple
near-coincident reflection arrival times, and the resulting comb
filtering trashes the sound of the source, both in the the room and at
the mics. Room treatment can help, but even in a nicely adjusted room a
different position often helps a lot.

> And what Hank said: you can not get the sound of the instrument if you are
> close than the longest dimension of the instrument, you will instead get the
> sound of the closest part of the instrument. THAT may be exactly what fits
> the actual recording, but you need to know what it is you choose.
>
> The 3:1 rule can rapidly reduce the deployable number of mics if you "go
> distant" .... but it is not fun to come home with a live remote that is not
> mixable because of bleed, surely an experience that prompts assertive
> miking; be it a pair or a bundle or whatever number that fits.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen


--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

OK. We've got a pretty good consensus on this.

Now my follow-on question. Why vocal booths?

[Richard Webb[_2_]]

On Sun 2037-Jul-05 06:04, Laurence Payne writes:
>> >If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
>>> interaction.

>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
>>Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
>>it in what I consider a natural manner.

> Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But
> if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have
> pretty good ways of adding better room sound.

T'ain't all about the "room" sound though. Do you listen to an acoustic guitar with your head right up next to it? The
electronic box may be able to deliver "better" room sound,
but the natural tone of the instrument cannot always be had
when close micing. So, even with artificial room in a box
electronics bathrooms still suck for recording, and a poor
room is just a poor room, no matter what you do with it.

HOw to make a silk purse from a sow's ear: Start with a
silk sow.

There's only so much you can do with technology. A
recording of an instrument in a small room may have to do,
and the engineer massages it later, adding an artificial
room in a box, but the recording still won't sound natural.
But, if it serves the song as it should, go for it <g>.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Fidonet: Richard Webb 1:116/901
| Internet:
| \\---> Pull YourHead out to reply via email. <---//
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Sit

[hank alrich]

Laurence Payne > wrote:

> OK. We've got a pretty good consensus on this.
>
> Now my follow-on question. Why vocal booths?

I hate them. That's why not. <g>

Why is because in some situations it's quicker, cheaper, and more
amortization effective to stick a booth in a room that otherwise would
require very expensive work to achieve anything like comparable
isolation. If one's lease becomes untenable for the usual reasons of
real estate value appreciation one can reasonably relocate the booth
versus having to abandon costly leasehold improvements.

There is a huge and obvious downside, and that is the sound inside the
booth. It's too small to be an anechoic chamber, yet that is almost what
we are asking of it.

"Wow, that vocal sounds a bit claustrophobic..." "Yeah, well..."

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Richard Webb > wrote:

> HOw to make a silk purse from a sow's ear: Start with a
> silk sow.

LOL! That's very good, Richard! Thank you.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Richard Webb[_2_]]

On Sun 2037-Jul-05 12:11, hank alrich writes:

>> Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But
>> if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have
>> pretty good ways of adding better room sound.

> Meaning that when one puts a directional mic very close to the
> guitar the mic doesn't hear all of what's coming off of the
> instrument. It's like putting one's eyeballs very close to a page:
> peripheral vision has its limits, and one won't see all of the
> image.

Exactly my point earlier in this thread. YOur point about
live performance is also apropos.

IF all I"m wanting is the plink of the strum for a rhythm
which will be quite dense with bass drums piano etc. then
I"ll close mic possibly, and add any room I need
electronically. But, if that guitar is supposed to be full
and rich I want that microphone back where the full sound of the instrument develops by the time it arrives at the
business end of the microphone.

IT's the same reason most drum booths suck. Yah I can add
artificial rooms electronically, but if the booth and the
mic position don't allow to get that mic back far enough to let the full waveform develop then I"m screwed from the
start.
IF it works for you in the application use it, but know what you're trading away by trying the close mic in a small room
and adding room electronically. I don't care how much
processing horsepower or how carefully you built the
artificial room it isn't the real thing when it comes to
capturing the sound of the instrument.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Fidonet: Richard Webb 1:116/901
| Internet:
| \\---> Pull YourHead out to reply via email. <---//
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Sit

[Misifus[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> hank alrich > wrote:
>> Laurence Payne > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room interaction.
>>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
>> Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
>> it in what I consider a natural manner.
>
> Well, it depends on the instrument, too. It's possible to spot-mike a
> flute up way close and get a good representation of the sound of the
> instrument.... but not a fiddle.
> --scott
>

Just an observation, this has been a very useful and informative thread.
Thanks a lot.

-Raf

--
Misifus-
Rafael Seibert
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafiii
home: http://www.rafandsioux.com

[Ty Ford]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:08:15 -0400, Peter Larsen wrote
(in article >):

> What I am saying is that the room will influence the sound of the instrument
> no matter the mic 2 instrument distance.


and what I'm saying is If I stay tight with a good mic, I can dismiss a lot
of room interaction. I do it here all the time.

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 Ford]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:21:30 -0400, Laurence Payne wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford >
> wrote:
>
>> If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
>> interaction.
>
> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?

absolutely! my room isn't an "ordinary" room. It's damped, so it's tight but
not dead and it's 25' x 35' so because the sound has farther to go before it
hits my various treatments it has a lot less energy when it makes its way
back to the mic. With the cmc641 up close you don't hear much room at all. I
add reverb - two actually - to create the space.

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 Ford]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 00:02:04 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article >):

> Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
>>> interaction.
>>
>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
>
> Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
> it in what I consider a natural manner.


What YOU consider natural and what I consider natural are probably different.
My Martin sounds fine with a cmc641 pointed at the neck joint.

Watch the link breaks, but here: http://tinyurl.com/qrqbw4

You do need a really good sounding guitar. I have had a few in here that
don't sound that good and no mic or eq on the planet will improve them.

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 Ford]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 06:04:23 -0400, Laurence Payne wrote
(in article >):

> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 21:02:04 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
>>>> If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
>>>> interaction.
>>>
>>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
>>
>> Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
>> it in what I consider a natural manner.
>
> Meaning that the instrument sounds better with some room sound? But
> if we can get the BAD room sound down to a trivial level, we have
> pretty good ways of adding better room sound.

absolutely!

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 Ford]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:13:39 -0400, Laurence Payne wrote
(in article >):

> OK. We've got a pretty good consensus on this.
>
> Now my follow-on question. Why vocal booths?

Um, what is your idea of the consensus?

Regards,

Ty

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

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:13:39 -0400, Laurence Payne wrote
(in article >):

> OK. We've got a pretty good consensus on this.
>
> Now my follow-on question. Why vocal booths?

For when you're tracking vocals and instruments together to get the groove.

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

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford > wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:13:39 -0400, Laurence Payne wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > OK. We've got a pretty good consensus on this.
> >
> > Now my follow-on question. Why vocal booths?
>
> For when you're tracking vocals and instruments together to get the groove.

And you don't have the room and/or the space do do it without that type
of isolation.

OTOH, if you have a space, for example, like Fred Remmert has at Cedar
Creek Recording, you might be able to achieve remarkable isolation with
others playing in the same room while the vocal goes down. Granted, not
everybody has that kind of facility, and Fred also has rooms isolated
from yet adjoining the main room, with visual communication throughout.

This brings us full circle to mic patterns and placement within a given
space. In every case we make decisions about how to best capture what's
going down, as we interpret some version of "best".

This is part of why recording can be so much fun. There are so many ways
to go about getting a wonderful sound.

Several years ago I spent three days working to get something I liked
with Doug Harman on cello and me on guitar. I tried every angle of close
mic'ing I could imagine, and none of them worked worth a ****. Oh, yeah,
it all sounded okay, but none of it sounded quite right. On the fourth
and last day I put a pair of MD441's on a very short stand about eight
feet away from us, in a neither ORTF nor X/Y config, and bingo, there we
were, as if we were live in the room, any room in which I played-back
the tracks.

The way that worked best wasn't by the book, and wasn't like anything
I'd done before. But it _was_ what worked in that situation. I just
wished to hell I'd been smart enough to move more rapidly through the
rest of the options I tried. <g>

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford > wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 00:02:04 -0400, hank alrich wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > Laurence Payne > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
> >>> interaction.
> >>
> >> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
> >
> > Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
> > it in what I consider a natural manner.
>
>
> What YOU consider natural and what I consider natural are probably different.
> My Martin sounds fine with a cmc641 pointed at the neck joint.

Of course it does. Every good guitar "sounds fine" tracked like that.
However, when is the last time you put your _ears_ there to listen to a
guitarist? That's what I mean by "natural".

Very close mic'ing has been mightily in vogue since we got a whole lot
of tracks to work with back in the 1970's. Many folks have never heard
guitar recorded any other way. But there are other entirely viable ways,
and some of them more closely resemble presenting a guitarist in the way
we might _naturally_ hear them playing live in a room.

> Watch the link breaks, but here: http://tinyurl.com/qrqbw4

> You do need a really good sounding guitar. I have had a few in here that
> don't sound that good and no mic or eq on the planet will improve them.

Right on,Ty. The quality of the source turns out to be one of the
biggest, maybe routinely _the_ biggest factor in the qualtiy of the
recorded sound, assuming the player is worth some salt.

I always enjoy the quality of your recordings, even if I choose to
approach it differently when I can.

--
ha
shut up and play your guitar

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ty Ford wrote:

> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 12:08:15 -0400, Peter Larsen wrote
> (in article >):

>> What I am saying is that the room will influence the sound of the
>> instrument no matter the mic 2 instrument distance.

> and what I'm saying is If I stay tight with a good mic, I can dismiss
> a lot of room interaction. I do it here all the time.

No contest on the claim that you can get more direct vs. reflected sound by
putting the mic close to the instrument, but how do you dismiss the room
interaction on the instrument by putting the mic closer?

> Ty Ford

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

>> At a chamber music recording at the New Carlsberg Glyptotek ...

> That might be a good example of something I mentioned in a thread
> about dealing with a given room for tracking guitar, and my thoughts
> of placement of the artist within the room. In the center of the room
> is often the worst position in my experience. One suffers multiple
> near-coincident reflection arrival times, and the resulting comb
> filtering trashes the sound of the source, both in the the room and at
> the mics. Room treatment can help, but even in a nicely adjusted room
> a different position often helps a lot.

The center line is always a bad place to be, the more so with an A type
glass roof as in that room .... or with a vaulted ceiling, beware of getting
a mic in a focal point of those. Try singing gently while walkin around in a
room and feel its feedback-influcence on your larynx, there are good spots
and bad spots.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arkansan Raider]

Misifus wrote:
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> hank alrich > wrote:
>>> Laurence Payne > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a lot of room
>>>>> interaction.
>>>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
>>> Not without getting so close to the instrument that you aren't hearing
>>> it in what I consider a natural manner.
>>
>> Well, it depends on the instrument, too. It's possible to spot-mike a
>> flute up way close and get a good representation of the sound of the
>> instrument.... but not a fiddle.
>> --scott
>>
>
> Just an observation, this has been a very useful and informative thread.
> Thanks a lot.
>
> -Raf
>

I completely concur.

---Jeff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ty Ford wrote:

> absolutely! my room isn't an "ordinary" room. It's damped, so it's
> tight but not dead and it's 25' x 35' so because the sound has
> farther to go before it hits my various treatments it has a lot less
> energy when it makes its way back to the mic. With the cmc641 up
> close you don't hear much room at all. I add reverb - two actually -
> to create the space.

Try adding a sprinkle of reverb to the room .... an omni pair, an old
3-head taperecorder and a pair of bipolars or L200's may do just fine. Your
guitar can not respond to post factum reverb as it does to real reverb.

> Ty Ford

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message

> Laurence Payne > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 11:43:09 -0400, Ty Ford
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> If you stay tight with a good mic, you can dismiss a
>>> lot of room interaction.
>>
>> A lot. But can you get it down to trivial?
>
> Not without getting so close to the instrument that you
> aren't hearing it in what I consider a natural manner.

On the one hand, the room sound contributes a great deal of what we
perceive to be natural sound. Anything will sound unnatural without it.
OTOH, if you are close, what you record is dominated by the sound of that
side of the instrument, while most strings and percussion and many woodwinds
and brass instruments are multi-directional with distinct sonic signatures
in different directions.

There's a highly regarded local studio that has a pretty good sounding large
room, but still does most of their work by close-micing and adding in what
most find to be a natural room sound using a classic Lexicon processor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Ty Ford > wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 14:13:39 -0400, Laurence Payne wrote
>(in article >):
>
>> OK. We've got a pretty good consensus on this.
>>
>> Now my follow-on question. Why vocal booths?
>
>For when you're tracking vocals and instruments together to get the groove.

If anything, I think it kills a lot of the groove to put the vocals and
the instruments in different rooms. But sometimes you gotta do what you
gotta do in the name of isolation.
--scott


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

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 21:06:47 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in article >):

> OTOH, if you have a space, for example, like Fred Remmert has at Cedar Creek
> Recording, you might be able to achieve remarkable isolation with others
> playing in the same room while the vocal goes down. Granted, not everybody
> has that kind of facility, and Fred also has rooms isolated from yet
> adjoining the main room, with visual communication throughout.

Or the room George Massenburg had in Nashville until recently. He did the
Subdudes there and they were very happy with it.

I'm also thinking about Rudy Van Gelder in NJ. His space and careful use of
directional mics have resulted in some wonderful recordings.

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 Ford]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 06:16:47 -0400, Peter Larsen wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> absolutely! my room isn't an "ordinary" room. It's damped, so it's
>> tight but not dead and it's 25' x 35' so because the sound has
>> farther to go before it hits my various treatments it has a lot less
>> energy when it makes its way back to the mic. With the cmc641 up
>> close you don't hear much room at all. I add reverb - two actually -
>> to create the space.
>
> Try adding a sprinkle of reverb to the room .... an omni pair, an old
> 3-head taperecorder and a pair of bipolars or L200's may do just fine. Your
> guitar can not respond to post factum reverb as it does to real reverb.
>
>> Ty Ford
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

No, and that's OK for me. But "real reverb" can be extremely unattractive;
worse than the Alesis 3060. Now we're into architecture and primary/secondary
fields and near field, point source and far field.

I'm going to guess that most folks here don't get the chance to get into a
really nice sounding space where you can get far enough away to meld the
direct, early and late reflections into something that sounds nice.

Regards,

Ty

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Ty Ford wrote:

> I'm going to guess that most folks here don't get the chance to get
> into a really nice sounding space where you can get far enough away
> to meld the direct, early and late reflections into something that
> sounds nice.

Could be, could be. To few people recording chamber music perhaps ... it is
a really good place to learn.

> Ty

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Richard Webb[_2_]]

Lawrence Payne writes:
> OK. We've got a pretty good consensus on this.

> Now my follow-on question. Why vocal booths?


They work well for scratch vocals. I might do something
with flats for a microclimate for the vocalist when doing
keeper takes, but during rhythm section tracking often a
booth is the only solution.

A friend of mine in western ILlinois did it right in his
garage build out though, nice sized booth which could be
used for vocal or acoustic guitar with enough actual
physical space where you could place mics properly. Still a bit boxy for my tastes, but better than some.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Fidonet: Richard Webb 1:116/901
| Internet:
| \\---> Pull YourHead out to reply via email. <---//
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Sit

[Richard Webb[_2_]]

Hank Alrich writes:
>> HOw to make a silk purse from a sow's ear: Start with a
>> silk sow.

> LOL! That's very good, Richard! Thank you.

Don't blame me, blame Fletcher for that one, I just borrowed it.

Regards,
Richard
--
| Fidonet: Richard Webb 1:116/901
| Internet:
| \\---> Pull YourHead out to reply via email. <---//
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Sit

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:52:43 -0400, Peter Larsen wrote
(in article >):

> Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> I'm going to guess that most folks here don't get the chance to get
>> into a really nice sounding space where you can get far enough away
>> to meld the direct, early and late reflections into something that
>> sounds nice.
>
> Could be, could be. To few people recording chamber music perhaps ... it is
> a really good place to learn.
>
>> Ty
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Peter,

Absolutely. I think the reason you and I have differing perspectives on this
point is the spaces we have and what we're recording.

As it should be.

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