Which do you prefer?

[Nate Najar]

Which do you prefer and why?

3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.

The room is reasonably neutral, but ultimately not the same room in which I would be doing any serious recording. It is my mix room and so some of the ambient sound you hear is the fan from the computer.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mbvo0s5xubjlqxi/AABwaaljPquTz7YkvnwhhxFwa?dl=0

Then I'll tell you which mics they are.

N

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 9/30/2014 3:46 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> Which do you prefer and why?
>
> 3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front
> of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will
> say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound
> extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be
> acceptable.

The least expensive one, because it can be made to sound close enough to
either of the others.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Nate Najar]

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:46:39 PM UTC-4, Nate Najar wrote:
> Which do you prefer and why?
>
>
>
> 3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.
>
>
>
> The room is reasonably neutral, but ultimately not the same room in which I would be doing any serious recording. It is my mix room and so some of the ambient sound you hear is the fan from the computer.
>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mbvo0s5xubjlqxi/AABwaaljPquTz7YkvnwhhxFwa?dl=0
>
>
>
> Then I'll tell you which mics they are.
>
>
>
> N

I forgot to mention, please disregard the playing.... I was paying more attention to other things than the actual playing for obvious reasons, and I was also wearing short sleeves and playing my practice guitar (which has a bigger neck and higher action) so there's a good deal more "extraneous" noise than there would be in a proper recording/performance. Not to mention my being distracted by the recording process....

[Luxey]

On Tuesday, 30 September 2014 21:59:40 UTC+2, Nate Najar wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:46:39 PM UTC-4, Nate Najar wrote:
>
> > Which do you prefer and why?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The room is reasonably neutral, but ultimately not the same room in which I would be doing any serious recording. It is my mix room and so some of the ambient sound you hear is the fan from the computer.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mbvo0s5xubjlqxi/AABwaaljPquTz7YkvnwhhxFwa?dl=0
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Then I'll tell you which mics they are.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > N
>
>
>
> I forgot to mention, please disregard the playing.... I was paying more attention to other things than the actual playing for obvious reasons, and I was also wearing short sleeves and playing my practice guitar (which has a bigger neck and higher action) so there's a good deal more "extraneous" noise than there would be in a proper recording/performance. Not to mention my being distracted by the recording process....

I was sure I responded to this, now I can not remember the numbers... well anyway ... I'll give sample's ordering numbers later today when I get home.

I did not particularly like any of them.

The first to listen was somehow weak in sensitivity, like highs were dropping to fast over time. They'd be there for a moment, but that moment would end too soon.

The second one lacked definition, but overall had the most beefy sound. Reminded me of SM58. I'd probably go with that one.

The 3rd one sounded as if it was turned away from guitar.

[gareth magennis]

"Nate Najar" wrote in message
...

Which do you prefer and why?

3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my
guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that
with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar.
Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.

The room is reasonably neutral, but ultimately not the same room in which I
would be doing any serious recording. It is my mix room and so some of the
ambient sound you hear is the fan from the computer.


https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mbvo0s5xubjlqxi/AABwaaljPquTz7YkvnwhhxFwa?dl=0

Then I'll tell you which mics they are.

N



I am not a recording engineer, but I feel I have enough life and work
experience to comment on those 3 samples.


mictest1: Tonally the only one with enough bottom end/warmth. Not
particularly natural sounding, sounds kind of clumsily coloured, but
actually warm and pleasant.

mictest2: Kind of harsh, very unnatural, no bass/ lower mid. Sounds
really rather nasty to me.

mictest3: Although not enough bottom end, it sounds nicely balanced, and
gives a good impression of someone actually playing a guitar in front of
you.





I am prepared to be very embarrassed once you reveal the mics.




Gareth.

[Gray_Wolf]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Nate Najar
> wrote:

>Which do you prefer and why?
>
>3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.
>
>The room is reasonably neutral, but ultimately not the same room in which I would be doing any serious recording. It is my mix room and so some of the ambient sound you hear is the fan from the computer.
>
>
>https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mbvo0s5xubjlqxi/AABwaaljPquTz7YkvnwhhxFwa?dl=0
>
>Then I'll tell you which mics they are.
>
>N

They sound similar. FWIW Here's my take:

# 3 first choice. Has best balance and sound

# 1 Second choice. Bottom seems slightly heavy

# 2 Last choice. A bit thin.

Gray_

[gareth magennis]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

On 9/30/2014 3:46 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> Which do you prefer and why?
>
> 3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front
> of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will
> say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound
> extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be
> acceptable.

The least expensive one, because it can be made to sound close enough to
either of the others.






Erm, I'm scratching my head here thinking these 3 samples are actually very
dissimilar.


Gareth.

[Matt Faunce]

On 9/30/14, 3:46 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> Which do you prefer and why?
>
> 3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.
>
> The room is reasonably neutral, but ultimately not the same room in which I would be doing any serious recording. It is my mix room and so some of the ambient sound you hear is the fan from the computer.
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mbvo0s5xubjlqxi/AABwaaljPquTz7YkvnwhhxFwa?dl=0
>
> Then I'll tell you which mics they are.
>
> N

I prefer 3, 2, 1 in that order. 1 sounds fat and bloated in the bass.
The other two are very close to my ears but I keep thinking 3 is better,
maybe it's psychological. I do think 2 and 3 are tinny in the trebles
though.

--
Matt

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Nate Najar" > skrev i en meddelelse
...

> Which do you prefer and why?

3, 1, 2. Sequence of sounding like I think your guitar sounds. Weighted in
favour of correct scratch and finger noises. 1 is too bassy and 3 has metal
wound strings sounding like they were made of brittle plastic.

So far so good, but before someone says "slamming", no, the question is what
works with the guitar in question, 3 would probably suit a Levin very very
well and 1 might be the favoured one for a steel string guitar or dobro.
None of the microphones are bad, 3 just suits this instrument very well.

> 3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28"
> in front of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and
> unprocessed.

Average level should have been aligned. Didn't bother, but it is a possible
source of error.

> Then I'll tell you which mics they are.

Waiting and chancing saying 3 = Schoeps, 1 = Neumann and 2 = 4011, risking
ridicule, but we need to talk audio here.

> N

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Nate Najar]

this is getting good. I really appreciate you guys taking the time to comment. I'll leave it another day or so and then reveal....

I will say that on mic 1 if you do a shelf at about 500hz of -5 or 6 db it cleans right up.

And on mic 2 if you take out 1.8khz, about 4db Q of 1 it is really close to mic 3 in sound. Mic 2 is my favorite, but you have to take out some of those mids that don't appear in some other mics....

Mic 3 is probably the most natural but it is a little bass light....

these are all directional miss, by the way. I did another test later with just mic 2 and a DPA omni in the same position and the DPA was the clear winner of the whole lot, but it sounded remarkably similar to mic 2 with the EQ.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/1/2014 3:46 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> Erm, I'm scratching my head here thinking these 3 samples are actually
> very dissimilar.

I'm only taking Nate's word on this because he's the one who has tried
to see if he could make them sound close enough to the same so he could
use any one of them. I didn't even listen to them, but he did. And you
probably didn't try to tweak them to sound more alike.

That's not the same as "they're dissimilar."

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[gareth magennis]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ...

On 10/1/2014 3:46 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> Erm, I'm scratching my head here thinking these 3 samples are actually
> very dissimilar.

I'm only taking Nate's word on this because he's the one who has tried
to see if he could make them sound close enough to the same so he could
use any one of them. I didn't even listen to them, but he did. And you
probably didn't try to tweak them to sound more alike.

That's not the same as "they're dissimilar."






Mike, listen to the three samples you haven't listened to, yet still comment
upon, and THEN make a valid comment.


Gareth.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/1/2014 6:01 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> Mike, listen to the three samples you haven't listened to, yet still
> comment upon, and THEN make a valid comment.

I already did. If I heard three mics that all worked, I'd probably use
the cheapest one and that was my suggestion. What you think shouldn't
matter to Nate. He knows what he's looking for. The fact that you can
identify differences in mics doesn't impress me. I'm sure I could, too.
But this is clearly a "don't care" situation. And I don't care what you
think about my approach.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Gary Eickmeier]

Gareth -

I offer you a solution to your quotation problem in your responses. I
believe this site has a number of free programs, or apps, that can "fix" the
designation of quoted text as such so it is not confused with your response.

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

This particular link is to the Outlook Express Quotefix, but there are a few
more, like for Mac and other mail programs.

Gary Eickmeier


"Gareth Magennis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Nate Najar" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Which do you prefer and why?
>
> 3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my
> guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that
> with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar.
> Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.
>
> The room is reasonably neutral, but ultimately not the same room in which
> I would be doing any serious recording. It is my mix room and so some of
> the ambient sound you hear is the fan from the computer.
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mbvo0s5xubjlqxi/AABwaaljPquTz7YkvnwhhxFwa?dl=0
>
> Then I'll tell you which mics they are.
>
> N
>
>
>
> I am not a recording engineer, but I feel I have enough life and work
> experience to comment on those 3 samples.
>
>
> mictest1: Tonally the only one with enough bottom end/warmth. Not
> particularly natural sounding, sounds kind of clumsily coloured, but
> actually warm and pleasant.
>
> mictest2: Kind of harsh, very unnatural, no bass/ lower mid. Sounds
> really rather nasty to me.
>
> mictest3: Although not enough bottom end, it sounds nicely balanced, and
> gives a good impression of someone actually playing a guitar in front of
> you.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am prepared to be very embarrassed once you reveal the mics.
>
>
>
>
> Gareth.
>
>
>
>

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nate Najar wrote:
> Which do you prefer and why?
>
> 3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.
>
> The room is reasonably neutral, but ultimately not the same room in which I would be doing any serious recording. It is my mix room and so some of the ambient sound you hear is the fan from the computer.
>
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mbvo0s5xubjlqxi/AABwaaljPquTz7YkvnwhhxFwa?dl=0
>
> Then I'll tell you which mics they are.
>
> N
>

3 has a presence peak that sounds plastickey - almost like a good peizo.

2 seemed the most balanced but bass-shy. My first choice.

1 is nice, but there's something a bit dissonant about it. There's
a bit of a lo-mid peak to it.

I imagine any of the three would sound different when being moved an inch.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
>Gareth -
>
>I offer you a solution to your quotation problem in your responses. I
>believe this site has a number of free programs, or apps, that can "fix" the
>designation of quoted text as such so it is not confused with your response.

I think anybody who is top posting has NO cause to call anyone else's
quoting in need of fixing. Perhaps if you formatted your postings the
way Gareth does you might be better off.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar > wrote:
>this is getting good. I really appreciate you guys taking the time to comment. I'll leave it another day or so and then reveal....
>
>I will say that on mic 1 if you do a shelf at about 500hz of -5 or 6 db it cleans right up.

I can believe that, but it doesn't sound like it has much real top end
extension either. It also has a hollowness that the others don't have.
That may be the room or the instrument, but either way it's a thing I
don't like.

>And on mic 2 if you take out 1.8khz, about 4db Q of 1 it is really close to mic 3 in sound. Mic 2 is my favorite, but you have to take out some of those mids that don't appear in some other mics....

I am inclined to agree that I prefer mike 2.

>Mic 3 is probably the most natural but it is a little bass light....

I'd say that it sounds more clangy to me. That might be a mike resonance
but it might be just how the guitar sounds, too. Something is definitely
going on.

>these are all directional miss, by the way. I did another test later with just mic 2 and a DPA omni in the same position and the DPA was the clear winner of the whole lot, but it sounded remarkably similar to mic 2 with the EQ.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nate Najar]

The mics were about 28" in front of the instrument, just above the sound hole, pointing straight toward the guitar. They weren't dead cener on the sound hole, rather laterally they were toward the neck from the sound hole just a bit.... And they were all in the same position as best as could be considering mic size, etc... The guitar is a mid 60's ramirez which is actually pretty powerful with nice clear trebles but it's a very warm sounding instrument.

Mic 1 is a Coles 4038. The extra room sound you hear is of course the rear lobe. With a proper low shelf to compensate for the proximity boost it is a very pleasing sound to me- slightly more forward and less "real" but it's a sound i do like very much.

Mic 2 is an EV RE15. certainly the cheapest of the bunch. It isn't bass light at all, it's just a little more forward around 1.5-2k, but if you compensate for that with eq it's a really terrific sound.

Mic 3 is schoeps mk41. I love it but this capsule isn't the best for the classical guitar. I've used it a lot on steel string strumming way up close and it's terrific, and of course here this sound is very good, but with the classical guitars if you get it too close the bass tip up is too great and when you pull it back it gets a little bass light. The omni or wide cardioid are really gorgeous here though (i've demoed but don't own those!) Still, this mk41 has the least amount of room as any and it's a very natural sound, though I don't love the sound of the treble strings with this mic. The dynamic and ribbon are more pleasing. Then again, I only know what the instrument sounds like when I'm playing it, I don't know what it really sounds like a few feet in front!

I want to get and try a 441 and see how that does. RE20 also is terrific- it sounds much like the re15 but with a little sweeter top end and it doesn't have the forward midrange.

[Scott Dorsey]

Nate Najar > wrote:
>
>Mic 1 is a Coles 4038. The extra room sound you hear is of course the rear=
> lobe. With a proper low shelf to compensate for the proximity boost it is=
> a very pleasing sound to me- slightly more forward and less "real" but it'=
>s a sound i do like very much.

I think there's a room problem going on which is turning up in the rear lobe
and I'd bet that you might get less boom by moving around to another place in
the room.

For me, though, the lack of top end detail is a killer.

>Mic 2 is an EV RE15. certainly the cheapest of the bunch. It isn't bass l=
>ight at all, it's just a little more forward around 1.5-2k, but if you comp=
>ensate for that with eq it's a really terrific sound. =20

This is a great microphone. I am not sure that forwardness is bad.

>Mic 3 is schoeps mk41. I love it but this capsule isn't the best for the cl=
>assical guitar. I've used it a lot on steel string strumming way up close =
>and it's terrific, and of course here this sound is very good, but with the=
> classical guitars if you get it too close the bass tip up is too great and=
> when you pull it back it gets a little bass light. The omni or wide cardi=
>oid are really gorgeous here though (i've demoed but don't own those!) Sti=
>ll, this mk41 has the least amount of room as any and it's a very natural s=
>ound, though I don't love the sound of the treble strings with this mic. T=
>he dynamic and ribbon are more pleasing. Then again, I only know what the =
>instrument sounds like when I'm playing it, I don't know what it really sou=
>nds like a few feet in front!

As I said, there is something going clang here. Get out the parametric, set
the Q very tight, set it to boost, and sweep back and forth in the 1kc region
until you find the where it is, then move from boost to cut. Does it sound
better?

I suspect it might be some body resonance of the guitar that is getting
emphasized by the tight microphone pattern and where the mike is pointing,
but I bet you can get it out transparently. What I don't know is whether
you'll like it when you do.

>I want to get and try a 441 and see how that does. RE20 also is terrific- =
>it sounds much like the re15 but with a little sweeter top end and it doesn=
>'t have the forward midrange.

You might try an EV 664 also. It won't be as good as the re15 but, hell, they
show up for under $50.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Nate Najar]

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 2:34:36 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:

>
> As I said, there is something going clang here. Get out the parametric, set
>
> the Q very tight, set it to boost, and sweep back and forth in the 1kc region
>
> until you find the where it is, then move from boost to cut. Does it sound
>
> better?
>
>
>
> I suspect it might be some body resonance of the guitar that is getting
>
> emphasized by the tight microphone pattern and where the mike is pointing,
>
> but I bet you can get it out transparently. What I don't know is whether
>
> you'll like it when you do.
>
>
> --scott
>
> --
>
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


like this?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v23aruk1idphirq/mictest3-1.wav?dl=0

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/2/2014 1:27 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> Mic 2 is an EV RE15. certainly the cheapest of the bunch. It isn't
> bass light at all, it's just a little more forward around 1.5-2k, but
> if you compensate for that with eq it's a really terrific sound.

Yaaaay for the RE-15. Like I said, use the cheapest one. ;)

But one reason why it works well without any futzing around is because
it's not picking up as much of the room as the Coles or Schoeps. The
detail, is, as they say, just details.


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Nate Najar" > skrev i en meddelelse
news:e1ba8207-1fe9-4cf9-b3c1-
...

> Mic 1 is a Coles 4038.

> Mic 2 is an EV RE15.

> Mic 3 is schoeps mk41.

And my choice was 3, 1, 2, I am very happy. I am of course less happy with
my guesses being half a continent off of the proper postcode of manufacture,
but that's OK, they were partly provocative.

> I love it but this capsule isn't the best for the classical guitar.

We get to disagree, plain wonderful.

> I want to get and try a 441 and see how that does.

I think a black MD421, NOT 421 version 2, will outdo it, the 441 has a bit
of tweesizzl in the top range, I think it will be less precise.

> RE20 also is terrific- it sounds much like the re15
> but with a little sweeter top end and it doesn't have
> the forward midrange.

You have never recorded with a MD211? - mostly they are n's, but I think
have seen U's on ebay? - it is a very charming implement to use. Omni, so it
comes with caveats, there are things that omni's just can not do. Not gonna
write more, don't want to talk their ebay price up O;-) (I still only have
one, aint even tested it yet but the model is known to be extremely good for
speech at one foot).

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Matt Faunce]

On 10/2/14, 1:27 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
> The mics were about 28" in front of the instrument, just above the
> sound hole, pointing straight toward the guitar. They weren't dead
> cener on the sound hole, rather laterally they were toward the neck
> from the sound hole just a bit....

I blame the mic position for the tinny trebles of 2 and 3. To my taste,
you're getting too high of a ratio of string to soundboard sound, i.e.,
too much bare string sound. For your taste, you might not be willing to
sacrifice the presence you get from this position for some wood-warmth
by moving your mics to the other side of the soundhole somewhere, but
which will unfortunately be biased toward some other frequencies in a
way you might not like.

Matt

[geoff]

On 3/10/2014 1:30 p.m., Matt Faunce wrote:
> On 10/2/14, 1:27 PM, Nate Najar wrote:
>> The mics were about 28" in front of the instrument, just above the
>> sound hole, pointing straight toward the guitar. They weren't dead
>> cener on the sound hole, rather laterally they were toward the neck
>> from the sound hole just a bit....
>
> I blame the mic position for the tinny trebles of 2 and 3. To my taste,
> you're getting too high of a ratio of string to soundboard sound, i.e.,
> too much bare string sound. For your taste, you might not be willing to
> sacrifice the presence you get from this position for some wood-warmth
> by moving your mics to the other side of the soundhole somewhere, but
> which will unfortunately be biased toward some other frequencies in a
> way you might not like.
>
> Matt


A better test would have been to find the optimum (to your preference)
mic position for each mic.

geoff

[Luxey]

среда, 01. октобар 2014. 10.36.01 UTC+2, Luxey је написао/ла:
> On Tuesday, 30 September 2014 21:59:40 UTC+2, Nate Najar wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:46:39 PM UTC-4, Nate Najar wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Which do you prefer and why?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The room is reasonably neutral, but ultimately not the same room in which I would be doing any serious recording. It is my mix room and so some of the ambient sound you hear is the fan from the computer.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mbvo0s5xubjlqxi/AABwaaljPquTz7YkvnwhhxFwa?dl=0
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Then I'll tell you which mics they are.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > N
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I forgot to mention, please disregard the playing.... I was paying more attention to other things than the actual playing for obvious reasons, and I was also wearing short sleeves and playing my practice guitar (which has a bigger neck and higher action) so there's a good deal more "extraneous" noise than there would be in a proper recording/performance. Not to mention my being distracted by the recording process....
>
>
>
> I was sure I responded to this, now I can not remember the numbers... well anyway ... I'll give sample's ordering numbers later today when I get home.
>
>
>
> I did not particularly like any of them.
>
>
>
> The first to listen was somehow weak in sensitivity, like highs were dropping to fast over time. They'd be there for a moment, but that moment would end too soon.
>
>
>
> The second one lacked definition, but overall had the most beefy sound. Reminded me of SM58. I'd probably go with that one.
>
>
>
> The 3rd one sounded as if it was turned away from guitar.

Funny psycho thing.
The other day, being in recording mode due ongoing session, and being instructed by OP all 3 clips sounded very simillar, I found them to differ drastically.

Today, on reevaluation, being in casual/ editing mode and after reading all the posts indicating the difference was rather big, just as I found them to be on first listen, I could not believe how similar those same samples were.
I had hard time finding elements that made me write my first post.

Moral of the story, having extreme expectations make the differences apear greater than they really are.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> Gary Eickmeier > wrote:
> >Gareth -
> >
> >I offer you a solution to your quotation problem in your responses. I
> >believe this site has a number of free programs, or apps, that can "fix" the
> >designation of quoted text as such so it is not confused with your response.
>
> I think anybody who is top posting has NO cause to call anyone else's
> quoting in need of fixing. Perhaps if you formatted your postings the
> way Gareth does you might be better off.
> --scott

√

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 10/3/2014 12:01 PM, Luxey wrote:
> Today, on reevaluation, being in casual/ editing mode and after reading all the posts indicating the difference was rather big, just as I found them to be on first listen, I could not believe how similar those same samples were.
> I had hard time finding elements that made me write my first post.
>
> Moral of the story, having extreme expectations make the differences apear greater than they really are.

Amazing, isn't it? I take comments like "sounds really warm and vibey"
and "like a great curtain was lifted from in front of the speakers" with
a grain of salt. I realize that there are some mics that just don't work
on certain things, but most any decent mic is capable of making a
perfectly reasonable recording of anything reasonable, under reasonable
circumstances.

Of course if you take the effort to try several mics, you'll hear
differences, but unless something is really wrong, usually with a little
dab of EQ here or there, any one will work fine. Trying lots of mics
makes for good articles, though, and keeps some of the lesser known mic
manufacturers in business.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Luxey]

петак, 03. октобар 2014. 22.24.38 UTC+2, Jeff Henig је написао/ла:
> Luxey > wrote:,,
>
> > Funny psycho thing
>
> What did you just call me?
>
> o.O
>
> (X^D
>
> --
>
> ---Jeff

He, he,
Doctor: Does anybody in your familly suffer from mental ilness?
Patient: No, they all seem to enjoy it.

[Gray_Wolf]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:46:39 -0700 (PDT), Nate Najar
> wrote:

>Which do you prefer and why?
>
>3 mics, all more or less in the same spot approximately 28" in front of my guitar. The files are 24 bit 48k mono and unprocessed. I will say that with very minimal EQ I was able to make them all sound extremely similar. Similar enough that any of the three would be acceptable.

[snip]

Nate, Does the song have a name? After listening to it several times I
find it very enjoyable. Reminds me somewhat of Baden Powell.

Thanks,
Gray

[Trevor]

On 4/10/2014 5:25 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
> On 10/3/2014 12:01 PM, Luxey wrote:
>> Today, on reevaluation, being in casual/ editing mode and after
>> reading all the posts indicating the difference was rather big, just
>> as I found them to be on first listen, I could not believe how similar
>> those same samples were.
>> I had hard time finding elements that made me write my first post.
>>
>> Moral of the story, having extreme expectations make the differences
>> apear greater than they really are.
>
> Amazing, isn't it? I take comments like "sounds really warm and vibey"
> and "like a great curtain was lifted from in front of the speakers" with
> a grain of salt. I realize that there are some mics that just don't work
> on certain things, but most any decent mic is capable of making a
> perfectly reasonable recording of anything reasonable, under reasonable
> circumstances.
>
> Of course if you take the effort to try several mics, you'll hear
> differences, but unless something is really wrong, usually with a little
> dab of EQ here or there, any one will work fine.


Not quite true IMO. The biggest difference between mics that cannot
easily be fixed in post is the polar pattern. Except for true omnis, all
patterns vary widely, so if you can't control all reflections and
extraneous sounds, (and you never can outside an anechoic chamber) there
will always be a difference in sound that cannot be made the same with
EQ etc. How much that bothers you personally though is another matter.

Trevor.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

>> Of course if you take the effort to try several mics, you'll hear
>> differences, but unless something is really wrong, usually with a little
>> dab of EQ here or there, any one will work fine.

On 10/6/2014 3:50 AM, Trevor wrote:
> Not quite true IMO. The biggest difference between mics that cannot
> easily be fixed in post is the polar pattern. Except for true omnis, all
> patterns vary widely, so if you can't control all reflections and
> extraneous sounds

Of course. I know that. The greater the difference between the mic and
the source and the mic and reflective surfaces, the less you can do
about the reflections. If you're recording an organ in an empty church
with a pair of mics 20 feet in front of the pipes, you'll be recording
the reverberant field which may sound significantly different between
mics with different polar response. But if the mic is six inches from
the source and the nearest wall is 12 feet away, the reflections won't
contribute a whole lot to the basic tone, so you'll hear pretty much
what the mic is hearing.

When EQ-ing the mic output, change in the direct sound or the
reverberant sound will be collateral damage, whichever way you look at
it. Effects of the pattern will be more significant in the near field as
you move the mic relative to the direction(s) where sound is radiating
from the source. Not all sources are omnidirectional. A mic with a dip
in the polar pattern that you can aim toward an overtone that isn't very
pleasant will sound "warmer" than a mic with a polar response that's
flatter at that angle, and you may not need EQ.

You need to be aware of everything that gets into the mic, but you need
to be practical, too, unless you're just playing around.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com