T.H.E. vs Shoeps [Archive] - AudioBanter.com

Ty Ford

November 23rd 03, 04:06 PM

In Article >,
(arrangeit) wrote:
>I am considering the purchase of a pair of high end small diaphragm
>condensors.
>A few questions...
>
>1) In the Shoeps line, which capsule is likely to be the best
>'workhorse' given that I am blowing the budget on this purchase and am
>not likely to add additional capsules for some time? I will be using
>the mics for stereo recording (ORTF or XY) and single point micing of
>a variety of instrumental sources (percussion-piano-strings-acoustic
>guitar).

Depends on your space and your desire to hear it. My space is a "nice
sounding" small space and many would think the mk4 cardioids would be right.
I like the mk41 hyper. If I want to hear more room I can pull back or open a
room mic.

>2) Is the Schoeps MK 5 capsule (omni/cardoid) as effective in a stereo
>configuration as say the MK 4?

I don't know.

>3) Do the T.H.E. mics compare favourably with the Schoeps line? Has
>anyone tried both?

Not in my experience.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

David Nobel

November 23rd 03, 05:14 PM

(arrangeit) wrote in message >...
> I am considering the purchase of a pair of high end small diaphragm
> condensors.
> A few questions...
>
> 1) In the Shoeps line, which capsule is likely to be the best
> 'workhorse' given that I am blowing the budget on this purchase and am
> not likely to add additional capsules for some time? I will be using
> the mics for stereo recording (ORTF or XY) and single point micing of
> a variety of instrumental sources (percussion-piano-strings-acoustic
> guitar).
>
> 2) Is the Schoeps MK 5 capsule (omni/cardoid) as effective in a stereo
> configuration as say the MK 4?
>
> 3) Do the T.H.E. mics compare favourably with the Schoeps line? Has
> anyone tried both?
>
> Thankyou in advance...
>
> -arrangeit

Some very experienced people think certain T.H.E. mics compare very
favorably with certain Schoeps mics in certain applications. I own
some T.H.E. mics, but no Schoeps mics, and have not tested mics from
the two manufacturers directly against each other. Sorry, can't help
you with your other specific questions.

If T.H.E. mics work for you, you would be saving yourself considerable
money, to keep in your pocket or to buy more capsules. However,
especially considering how critical this purchase appears to be for
you, you really ought to audition mics from both, and perhaps other,
manufacturers, at the same time, with your own equipment, in your own
environment. Mercenary sells T.H.E. and would cheerfully let you do
this by mail order; you would have to get the Schoeps stuff from
another supplier who has similar policies. You should do this
regardless of any advice anyone may give you. Buying mics blind based
on someone else's advice/experience makes no sense.

-- David

David Satz

November 24th 03, 03:33 AM

arrangeit wrote:

> 1) In the Shoeps line, which capsule is likely to be the best
> 'workhorse' given that I am blowing the budget on this purchase and am
> not likely to add additional capsules for some time? I will be using
> the mics for stereo recording (ORTF or XY) and single point micing of
> a variety of instrumental sources (percussion-piano-strings-acoustic
> guitar).
>
> 2) Is the Schoeps MK 5 capsule (omni/cardoid) as effective in a stereo
> configuration as say the MK 4?

The MK 5 capsules are Schoeps' best value-for-dollar choice if you need
the omnidirectional pattern as well as the cardioid. I used to use them
quite a lot myself--the first Colette-series capsules I bought were MK 5.

But you didn't mention any applications for omnidirectional microphones in
your message, so I'm not quite sure what you are aiming at (so to speak).
Would you care to say why you thought in terms of the MK 5 instead of the
MK 4?

Also, I agree with Scott Dorsey and Ty Ford concerning the MK 41 capsule.
But there is a real risk in giving advice that would require a person to
change his or her concept of how to work with microphones, unless that's
what is specifically being asked for, and that's not what you asked for.
(So OK, I mentioned it, and now I'll let it go.)

> 3) Do the T.H.E. mics compare favourably with the Schoeps line? Has
> anyone tried both?

I haven't tried any T.H.E. microphones, but I appreciate the ambitions
expressed on the company's Web site. By all means I think you ought to
find out for yourself whether the microphones live up to them, if you
can do that without losing your money.

I would be greatly surprised if they are in the same league as the Schoeps.
However, I think that if I had started out with Schoeps microphones (which
I have been using as my main microphones for nearly 30 years now) instead
of working my way up to them over a period of several years as I did, I
wouldn't have learned nearly as much as I did along the way--and knowledge,
as they say in the MasterCard ads, is priceless.

Peter Larsen

November 24th 03, 07:02 AM

David Satz wrote:

> But you didn't mention any applications for omnidirectional microphones in
> your message, so I'm not quite sure what you are aiming at (so to speak).
> Would you care to say why you thought in terms of the MK 5 instead of the
> MK 4?

He appears to be asking about the sub-cardioid. It is so good that DPA
had to make a sub cardioid too. And that is how good it is.

10 dB rear side attenuation has plenty mileage and it will do X-Y, a
slightly longer inter-mic distance is recommended and one should stay
"4006 close" to the sound source or only a bit further away (about 1.2
times the distance to get the same direct to reflected ratio, with
cardioids it is 1.4 times the distance used with the omni, I fail to
comprehend how come Schoeps suggests 1.7 times for a cardioid, that must
be for a supercardioid!).

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Peter Larsen

November 24th 03, 07:05 AM

arrangeit wrote:

> 1) In the Shoeps line, which capsule is likely to be the best
> 'workhorse'

Standard cardioid, not that I know the sound of that capsule, but there
are applications where the subcardiod does not have sufficient reach.
Omni is fine too, but there are applications where omnis plain can not
do the job due to limitations in where you can put your microphones.
YMMV, the mic pair you know is the best workhorse.

> -arrangeit

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********

Ty Ford

November 24th 03, 04:06 PM

In Article >,
(David Nobel) wrote:

>Some very experienced people think certain T.H.E. mics compare very
>favorably with certain Schoeps mics in certain applications. I own
>some T.H.E. mics, but no Schoeps mics, and have not tested mics from
>the two manufacturers directly against each other. Sorry, can't help
>you with your other specific questions.
>
>If T.H.E. mics work for you, you would be saving yourself considerable
>money, to keep in your pocket or to buy more capsules. However,
>especially considering how critical this purchase appears to be for
>you, you really ought to audition mics from both, and perhaps other,
>manufacturers, at the same time, with your own equipment, in your own
>environment. Mercenary sells T.H.E. and would cheerfully let you do
>this by mail order; you would have to get the Schoeps stuff from
>another supplier who has similar policies. You should do this
>regardless of any advice anyone may give you. Buying mics blind based
>on someone else's advice/experience makes no sense.

What's that I keep saying, oh, "If you can't hear the difference it doesn't
really mater."

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

David Satz

November 24th 03, 06:21 PM

Peter Larsen wrote:

> 10 dB rear side attenuation has plenty mileage and it will do X-Y, a
> slightly longer inter-mic distance is recommended and one should stay
> "4006 close" to the sound source or only a bit further away (about 1.2
> times the distance to get the same direct to reflected ratio, with
> cardioids it is 1.4 times the distance used with the omni, I fail to
> comprehend how come Schoeps suggests 1.7 times for a cardioid, that
> must be for a supercardioid!).

I think that Schoeps' figure is correct, but let me explain this, OK?
(switching into full-on tutorial mode ...) This figure is known as the
"distance factor" of a directional pattern. It's a rather artificial
figure, but still interesting and useful up to a point. Anyway, the
distance factor for any pattern can be computed by inverting its "random
energy efficiency," then taking the square root of the result. So those
two numbers are just different ways of looking at the same thing, really.

Random energy efficiency is the proportion of total sound energy which a
given pattern would pick up in a perfectly diffuse sound field, in which
the angles of sound incidence are randomly distributed. Omnidirectional
by definition means a random energy efficiency of exactly 1, while each
of the various directional patterns has some smaller, corresponding value
of random energy efficiency. The random energy efficiency of a cardioid
is exactly 1/3, for example--so its distance factor would be the square
root of 3, which is 1.73205... For a supercardioid the distance factor
is about 1.9, while for a hypercardioid it is exactly 2 (random energy
efficiency of hypercardioid = 1/4). These figures are confirmed in the
chart on page 62 of the AES volume "Microphones - An Anthology"--by now,
my copy falls open to that page by itself.

I don't often sneer at theory, but I find that distance factor is one of
the least useful theoretical values concerning microphones. For example,
it's interesting that the random energy efficiency of the cardioid and
figure-8 patterns is the same--so the distance factor for figure-8 is
likewise exactly the same as it is for cardioid. But the reverberation
picked up by a figure-8 is quite different in character from that picked
up by a cardioid at the same distance. To me it's a huge difference, and
I almost never prefer the cardioid behavior. The thing is, since more of
the reverberation picked up by the cardioid is the short-hop, confusing
kind of early reflection energy, I'm less tolerant of it--I would have to
go for a drier recording just because of that--while with a figure-8, I
could allow more total reverberant energy because the sound has to have
travelled farther in order to reach the back of the microphone--it must
have bounced off of room surfaces and undergone high-frequency losses,
which make it less confusing to the stereo image. So I don't follow the
distance factor, which is narrowly quantitative; I follow my ears.

--Finally, I don't see how wide-angle cardioids can be used for general
X/Y recording, since there is so little difference information even when
the capsules are angled 180 degrees from each other. Thus spacing them
apart would seem to be rather necessary in most instances.

However, a "hypocardioid" (a name which I don't like, but "wide cardioid"
is like saying "short mile" vs. "long mile") can certainly be used as the
"M" microphone in an M/S pair. Given the right setting it could be a very
good choice for that application, because it can have very smooth high
frequency response at all angles of sound incidence. In this respect a
good "wide cardioid" has one of the main virtues of a good figure-8.

arrangeit

November 24th 03, 09:03 PM

Gentlemen,

Many thanks for your responding to my questions...much appreciated.

David Satz wrote: 'But you didn't mention any applications for
omnidirectional microphones in your message, so I'm not quite sure
what you are aiming at (so to speak). Would you care to say why you
thought in terms of the MK 5 instead of the MK 4?'

Simply 'bang for the buck'. Say for example with a pair of MK5s I
could get the following configurations: 1)spaced omnis 2)stereo
cardoid(X/Y) 3)single point cardoid and omni, as effectively as the
respective individual cardoid and omni capsules, then spending the
extra $250 per cap would be worthwhile. I don't run a recording
studio, I write music for television with a midi sampling rig and live
sweetening. I rarely record more than 1 instrument at a time but am
sometimes required to record outside of my midi studio. Last spring
for example I recorded a church organ on site and I would wager that
the the Schoeps spaced omnis would have been perfect. I will never be
spending this type of bread on mics again, so like yourself, these
will be my main tools.

I do wonder if the MK5 cardoid has enough rear rejection for 'iffy'
spaces...

David Nobel wrote: 'Some very experienced people think certain T.H.E.
mics compare very favorably with certain Schoeps mics in certain
applications'

David...In your own experience, which T.H.E. mics in which
applications?

Cheers,
arrangeit

Bill Thompson

November 24th 03, 10:25 PM

Ty Ford wrote:
> What's that I keep saying, oh, "If you can't hear the difference it doesn't
> really mater."

Hi Ty,

I think about this concept a lot... I think it is some of the best
advice a person can give or receive when it comes to pretty much any
audio topic... be it buying a stereo or a microphone or preamplifier or
even an instrument. And then I think hmmm... is it?

Is this really true? I'm in the market for a pair of small capsule
condensor cardiod microphones. I have some of the usual suspects, but I
need something a little better. At the suggestion of many (your little
snippet included) I checked out the Schoeps... and yeah, they are really
spectatular, but whew... they would put a real dent in the budget, and
for the work I do, mostly demos, I don't think I need them just yet.
When I get album work maybe. So I'm going to order a pair of the
Josephson C42s, and give them a spin. My guess is they are probably
going to be better enough at the right price point. We'll see.

So, I can tell the difference, but I still opt not to spend the bucks.

Conversely, I've messed around with some of the budget microphones that
are out there (no names please), and well, in some cases the differences
are not as great as I thought they would be. If I were just starting out
would they be good enough? When is is smart to buy budget gear to at
least get started, and when is it wise to wait until you can buy at the
nominal "entry level"?

This can get just a bit complicated!!

Not that I think T.H.E vs. Schoeps is a particularly fair comparison,
and I am sure there are folks who will tell the difference first time
every time, and some that won't... doesn't change the fact that one is a
time proven champion that probably most folks would be comfortable
finding on their desert island.

Another issue - I've found that if the giver provides a little more
background it is more likely to be received, cause sadly, a lot of the
time it simply isn't received at all.

So how can one craft the message to make it more "friendly"?

It's easier with my guitar students... I hand them a guitar and let them
play for a bit (this is usually 6 months or more after they start, and
they are playing songs, so suddenly they need a new guitar - and don't
laugh, some of them do!)... anyway, after playing their own guitar,
which is usually a decent student model a la Seagull, Takamine, etc, and
my Larrivee OM-10 I ask them to tell me about each instrument... how it
sounded, how it played.

The VAST majority of them can tell the difference in playability, though
some prefer their own instruments. A minority can hear the difference,
and that surprises me.

Well anyway, I then tell them the relative costs, and that usually
settles them down a bit for a few months. The difference they perceive
(assuming their guitar is properly set up - which I urge as strongly as
possible) is so small they can't fathom why I spent so much money on a
guitar. And this is not some hand made one-off instrument... though I'd
love one!!!!

Of course this is not a direct analog, since I do set certain baseline
requirements for the student's instruments.

Anyway, it's quiet here for a Monday, so I'm rambling!

Mike Rivers

November 25th 03, 02:40 AM

In article > writes:

> I rarely record more than 1 instrument at a time but am
> sometimes required to record outside of my midi studio. Last spring
> for example I recorded a church organ on site and I would wager that
> the the Schoeps spaced omnis would have been perfect. I will never be
> spending this type of bread on mics again, so like yourself, these
> will be my main tools.

For a once-a-year occasion, wouldn't it make sense to get the mic you
need 95% of the time and then rent what you need the other 5% of the
time? You might be able to make a better choice that way and save some
money. You shouldn't really think about saving money over the course
of a lifetime (although with mics it's a better bet than most), think
about what you actually use them for and get what's appropriate.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

David Nobel

November 25th 03, 05:18 AM

> David Nobel wrote: 'Some very experienced people think certain T.H.E.
> mics compare very favorably with certain Schoeps mics in certain
> applications'
>
> David...In your own experience, which T.H.E. mics in which
> applications?
>
> Cheers,
> arrangeit

This will not be my own experience, but I can pass some things on
second hand FWIW.

At less than half the price, the T.H.E BS-3D binaural sphere holds up
well against the Schoeps KFM 6 recording small ensemble and chamber
music, though not as flexible and somewhat more colored. But the real
giant killer in the T.H.E. line is the TT-3M 1/2" titanium reference
omni which can stand up to other omnis cost not withstanding,
including those from Schoeps, and shines particularly brightly in
micing pianos, to the extent that some people feel it is uniquely
excellent.

Another T.H.E. standout is the KR-2C 1/2" cardiod capsule with the
KA-04 amp module; this would be the closest in design and
functionality to the Schoeps MK4, and if you add a KR-1F omni capsule,
could take the place of the MK5. I have use the KR-2C to mic acoustic
guitar--it is fabulous--but have not used the Schoeps and have no
feedback from anyone on how they compare. I was kind of hoping that
you might try them out and report back!

-- David

Charles Tomaras

November 25th 03, 05:24 AM

Could someone provide a URL link to T.H.E. microphones?

Thanks!

"David Nobel" > wrote in message
om...
> > David Nobel wrote: 'Some very experienced people think certain T.H.E.
> > mics compare very favorably with certain Schoeps mics in certain
> > applications'
> >
> > David...In your own experience, which T.H.E. mics in which
> > applications?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > arrangeit
>
> This will not be my own experience, but I can pass some things on
> second hand FWIW.
>
> At less than half the price, the T.H.E BS-3D binaural sphere holds up
> well against the Schoeps KFM 6 recording small ensemble and chamber
> music, though not as flexible and somewhat more colored. But the real
> giant killer in the T.H.E. line is the TT-3M 1/2" titanium reference
> omni which can stand up to other omnis cost not withstanding,
> including those from Schoeps, and shines particularly brightly in
> micing pianos, to the extent that some people feel it is uniquely
> excellent.
>
> Another T.H.E. standout is the KR-2C 1/2" cardiod capsule with the
> KA-04 amp module; this would be the closest in design and
> functionality to the Schoeps MK4, and if you add a KR-1F omni capsule,
> could take the place of the MK5. I have use the KR-2C to mic acoustic
> guitar--it is fabulous--but have not used the Schoeps and have no
> feedback from anyone on how they compare. I was kind of hoping that
> you might try them out and report back!
>
> -- David

Kurt Albershardt

November 25th 03, 06:07 AM

Charles Tomaras wrote:
> Could someone provide a URL link to T.H.E. microphones?

Try http://www.theaudio.com/

Ty Ford

November 25th 03, 01:54 PM

In Article >, Bill Thompson
> wrote:
>Ty Ford wrote:
>> What's that I keep saying, oh, "If you can't hear the difference it doesn't
>> really mater."
>
>Hi Ty,
>
>I think about this concept a lot... I think it is some of the best
>advice a person can give or receive when it comes to pretty much any
>audio topic... be it buying a stereo or a microphone or preamplifier or
>even an instrument. And then I think hmmm... is it?
>
>Is this really true? I'm in the market for a pair of small capsule
>condensor cardiod microphones. I have some of the usual suspects, but I
>need something a little better. At the suggestion of many (your little
>snippet included) I checked out the Schoeps... and yeah, they are really
>spectatular, but whew... they would put a real dent in the budget, and
>for the work I do, mostly demos, I don't think I need them just yet.
>When I get album work maybe. So I'm going to order a pair of the
>Josephson C42s, and give them a spin. My guess is they are probably
>going to be better enough at the right price point. We'll see.
>
>So, I can tell the difference, but I still opt not to spend the bucks.

You really have to look at the investment as THAT, an investment. This is
not the same buying decision as which radial tires to get for your car. They
wear out and you'll have to replace them. A friend was talking to me about
wireless mics. He said, over the lifetime, I'd spend more in bateries than
for the mic itself.

Well if you amortize the cost of the mic you buy today over your lifetime
(What's the actuarial table say these days, 76?), the difference will be
minimal. Also, you'll have been making better recordings.

>Conversely, I've messed around with some of the budget microphones that
>are out there (no names please), and well, in some cases the differences
>are not as great as I thought they would be. If I were just starting out
>would they be good enough? When is is smart to buy budget gear to at
>least get started, and when is it wise to wait until you can buy at the
>nominal "entry level"?

Well you don't mention which mics and which preamps. The mic/preamp
connection is scarosanct, complicated and messy. And then there's your
subective affective state and where you were on the listening comprehension
learning curve when you did the comparison.

The "Differences" you expected may not have been as great. This is not
unusual. It's also true that after reaching 80% of quality, you often have
to spend another 100% of money to reach 85% or 90% quality.

>This can get just a bit complicated!!
>
>Not that I think T.H.E vs. Schoeps is a particularly fair comparison,
>and I am sure there are folks who will tell the difference first time
>every time, and some that won't... doesn't change the fact that one is a
>time proven champion that probably most folks would be comfortable
>finding on their desert island.

Persactly! When I first heard the CMC641 about four years ago, I said, "Oh!
Of Course! That's what things SHOULD sound like." For me the instantaneous
difference was profound. For others, maybe not so much. Maybe ten years ago,
I wouldn't have heard the degree of difference.

>Another issue - I've found that if the giver provides a little more
>background it is more likely to be received, cause sadly, a lot of the
>time it simply isn't received at all.

Is that like me saying Schoeps cmc641 are astounding and people responding,
"Huh?" or "You elitest pig, how dare you **** on my Oktavas!" I'll take the
heat for any comment I make. To do otherwise simply isn't in me.

>So how can one craft the message to make it more "friendly"?

Putting one's dick in one's back pocket before responding helps a lot. Not
speaking in gross generalities is also a good idea. Offering one's specific
experiences with the thought that other universes exist is also a good
strategy. I find that 95% RAP posters do that now.

>It's easier with my guitar students... I hand them a guitar and let them
>play for a bit (this is usually 6 months or more after they start, and
>they are playing songs, so suddenly they need a new guitar - and don't
>laugh, some of them do!)... anyway, after playing their own guitar,
>which is usually a decent student model a la Seagull, Takamine, etc, and
>my Larrivee OM-10 I ask them to tell me about each instrument... how it
>sounded, how it played.
>
>The VAST majority of them can tell the difference in playability, though
>some prefer their own instruments. A minority can hear the difference,
>and that surprises me.

Having played electric and acoustic guitar since 1965 (and I still do), I
perfectly understand your anecdote. But playablity only conforms to the
microphone discussion as it regards the physical use of the device. That
only a few can hear a difference at a student level doesn't really surprise
me. I hear a LOT more now than I used to. That is, I make more sense out of
what I hear; EQ, phase, distortion, space, etec.. That's partly experiential
and partly physical. Your students have to learn to hear that as well, if
they haven't destroyed their hearing by exposure to overly loud SPLs.

>Well anyway, I then tell them the relative costs, and that usually
>settles them down a bit for a few months. The difference they perceive
>(assuming their guitar is properly set up - which I urge as strongly as
>possible) is so small they can't fathom why I spent so much money on a
>guitar. And this is not some hand made one-off instrument... though I'd
>love one!!!!
>
>Of course this is not a direct analog, since I do set certain baseline
>requirements for the student's instruments.
>
>Anyway, it's quiet here for a Monday, so I'm rambling!

And a lovely ramble it was. Thanks for sharing. Not everyone is a Carlos
Santana. He and many experienced guitar players can spot in a second what
yeomen will never hear. That's all I'm saying.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Ty Ford

November 25th 03, 02:02 PM

In Article >,
(David Nobel) wrote:
>> David Nobel wrote: 'Some very experienced people think certain T.H.E.
>> mics compare very favorably with certain Schoeps mics in certain
>> applications'
>>
>> David...In your own experience, which T.H.E. mics in which
>> applications?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> arrangeit
>
>This will not be my own experience, but I can pass some things on
>second hand FWIW.

Sorry David, I don't mean to offend, but if it's second hand info. it's
pretty worthless.

>At less than half the price, the T.H.E BS-3D binaural sphere holds up
>well against the Schoeps KFM 6 recording small ensemble and chamber
>music, though not as flexible and somewhat more colored. But the real
>giant killer in the T.H.E. line is the TT-3M 1/2" titanium reference
>omni which can stand up to other omnis cost not withstanding,
>including those from Schoeps, and shines particularly brightly in
>micing pianos, to the extent that some people feel it is uniquely
>excellent.

Some people...?

>Another T.H.E. standout is the KR-2C 1/2" cardiod capsule with the
>KA-04 amp module; this would be the closest in design and
>functionality to the Schoeps MK4, and if you add a KR-1F omni capsule,
>could take the place of the MK5. I have use the KR-2C to mic acoustic
>guitar--it is fabulous--but have not used the Schoeps and have no
>feedback from anyone on how they compare. I was kind of hoping that
>you might try them out and report back!
>
>-- David

My experience with the THE KA-04 with hyper capsule is that it in no way
gets close to what a Schoeps does. Maybe the one sent me was broken. I've
spoken to them about it. The selfnoise alone put the THE out of the running.

Incidentally, words like "fabulous" are not really appropriate in describing
a mic on this forum.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Kurt Albershardt

November 25th 03, 03:38 PM

Ty Ford wrote:
>
> It's also true that after reaching 80% of quality, you often have
> to spend another 100% of money to reach 85% or 90% quality.

And once you move to 95% or 97% the cost *really* starts to go up.

Dave Martin

November 25th 03, 08:20 PM

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...

> Incidentally, words like "fabulous" are not really appropriate in
describing
> a mic on this forum.
>
I saw a touring company of "The Full Monty" on Friday - is 'fabulous'
appropriate to describe that?

It was a wonderful show, but I don't know if either THE or Shoeps mics were
used in the production...

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

Mike Rivers

November 25th 03, 08:46 PM

In article > writes:

> Well if you amortize the cost of the mic you buy today over your lifetime
> (What's the actuarial table say these days, 76?), the difference will be
> minimal. Also, you'll have been making better recordings.

Yeah, but what's the recording lifespan? There are a few of us who
will probalby be doing it until we die, but many will lose interest
after a few years and will be looking to sell off their gear.

Here, value as an investment is of some significance. Unless a mic
turns "vintage" in the short period you might own it, you won't make
any money when you unload it, but you're likely to lose less of a
percentage of your original cost with a high quality mic from a
manufactuer whose reputation is based on a long history of making
great mics. Still, if you lost 75% of the value of a $100 mic, you've
lost $75. If you lose 20% of the value of a $1000 mic, you've lost
$200. Some economists would see it that way. All investment bankers
(and some wives) would.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

David Nobel

November 25th 03, 10:53 PM

(Ty Ford) wrote in message >...
> In Article >,
> (David Nobel) wrote:
> >> David Nobel wrote: 'Some very experienced people think certain T.H.E.
> >> mics compare very favorably with certain Schoeps mics in certain
> >> applications'
> >>
> >> David...In your own experience, which T.H.E. mics in which
> >> applications?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> arrangeit
> >
> >This will not be my own experience, but I can pass some things on
> >second hand FWIW.
>
> Sorry David, I don't mean to offend, but if it's second hand info. it's
> pretty worthless.

No offense taken, Ty, but I disagree. The info may, indeed, be "worth
less," but I don't think it is *necessarily* worthless, any more than
pointing somebody to a review would be. At any rate, it is a
relatively brief paragraph, it is clearly identified as second hand
reports, and readers can draw their own conclusions about relative
worth. Apologies, though, to any who think it a gross waste of space.
Now here are the attributions:

> >At less than half the price, the T.H.E BS-3D binaural sphere holds up
> >well against the Schoeps KFM 6 recording small ensemble and chamber
> >music, though not as flexible and somewhat more colored.

Refers to a review by Robert Auld in "Recording"

>>But the real
> >giant killer in the T.H.E. line is the TT-3M 1/2" titanium reference
> >omni which can stand up to other omnis cost not withstanding,
> >including those from Schoeps, and shines particularly brightly in
> >micing pianos, to the extent that some people feel it is uniquely
> >excellent.
>
> Some people...?

That would be David Seymour from Benchmark Media Systems, who stated
as much on a thread over on gearslutz.com (screen name, "atticus"):
"If you're doing piano I personally think the mic to have is a TT-3m.
There is nothing like it."

Author, jazz buff, audio engineer, and academic Jim Merod raved about
the T.H.E. KR-04 system he used to record a series of jazz piano and
ensemble performances at Birdland in 2002, mainly on the strength of
the KR-F1 omni capsule. The article appeared in the July 2002 issue of
"On Sound and Music," and he directly compares T.H.E. to Schoeps and
other high-end systems in general terms:

"THE microphones accomplished exactly the same "take no wounded home"
results as before. At several important moments in a remarkable
two-set evening of complex, harmonically-intricate charts, the KA-04s
held Arturo O'Farrill's stunning piano work up to the full light of
day (within the glow of Birdland's subtle ambience) as if no
intrusion, no impingement or contradiction to their mission were
remotely possible. In truth, I have seldom or never heard a piano
sound so authentically present*so fully manifested as a "real
instrument" in real three-dimensional space on a recording—as the
sound of this particular well-used keyboard under the promptings of
Maestros Hicks and O'Farrill on Birdland's proud stage.

"I have had the great fortune of hearing, and recording with, a
matched omni pair of the nearly unrivaled DPA (formerly B&K) 4-series
microphones. I have used and listened closely to various Neumann mics
and B.L.U.E. as well as Schoeps microphones. One might list a
veritable who's who (or what's what) of state of the art microphones
that have contributed to this or that (or many) recordings under one's
supervision. The bottom line is that, in my estimation, THE
microphones will present a brilliant sonic impact upon any recording
console or carefully-crafted recording set up. They are among the most
astoundingly vivid and accurate microphones I have ever heard. They
may, in fact, be the most accurate as well as the most beautiful
microphones I have ever employed in recording pianos. This is a
possibility that I will continue to explore."

Here is the link to the full article/review:
http://www.onsoundandmusic.com/index.html?http://www.onsoundandmusic.com/issues/0306/0306-THE.html&2

Bob Ross In his review in the Oct/2001 "Recording," Bob Ross also
enthused wildy about the TT-3M in particular, and went on to say:
"Do I think T.H.E. mics sound better than the world-class mics from
Schoeps, Neumann, DPA, or Josephson? No.
"Do I think they could be in the same league? Yes, absoutely."
As I recall, it was bold statements like this throughout that review
that seemed to prompt a few respected members of this forum to post
some pretty caustic remarks about the deplorable state of the
integrity of audio magazine reviews in general, and Bob Ross's in
particular, when that review came out. Taylor Johnson from T.H.E. came
on and raised hell about the posts, then stormed off, seldom
returning. I sense issues there still.

>
>> I have use the KR-2C to mic acoustic
> >guitar--it is fabulous--but have not used the Schoeps and have no
> >feedback from anyone on how they compare.

> Incidentally, words like "fabulous" are not really appropriate in describing
> a mic on this forum.

O.K., point taken. I got lazy at the end of the post. I, in fact, ran
the KR-2C through my standard RNP/RNC setup I use for acoustic guitar,
then through a Lucid AD9624. I was floored by the 2C's smoothness,
balance, and detail, the ability to accurately resolve the low-end of
my big, Guild concert-body 12, even in dropped tunings, without
letting that bass go boomy/mushy or become overpowering.

-- David

Bob Ross

November 26th 03, 12:32 AM

I'm going to humbly but confidently disagree with Scott, Ty, & David's
all-to-quick dismissal of the T.H.E. microphone line. I got to spend 3 or
4 months using 6 different models of T.H.E. microphone extensively when I
was reviewing them for Recording Magazine (October 2001 issue), and I've
used the Schoeps CMC6/MK4 mic often enough to be familiar with its
performance in a good number of situations.

Of course, this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison: none of the
T.H.E. mics I used happened to be a small diaphragm cardioid (I had 2
different large diaphragm cardioids, a small diaphragm subcardioid, and 2
different measurement omnis), whereas the CMC6/MK4 (only Schoeps I've
used) is a small diaphragm cardioid. So bear with me.

And then let me say that as far as I'm concerned, there are 2 and only 2
ways an expensive microphone can be of value: #1, it can realistically
capture what it is transducing with such extreme accuracy that it renders
itself invisible; it disappears and all you hear is the instrument you're
trying to record. Or #2, it lends a euphonic coloration that so
wonderfully compliments the signal you are transducing that it
practically defines the iconic sound of that instrument...this coloration
is either so coveted that it allows you to forgive any inaccuracies, or
it is so subtle that it does not interfere with the perception of the
mic's accuracy.

If an expensive mic can't pull off either of those tricks, it's "not in
the league with" any other mic that can. (Plus it's overpriced.)

In my experience, a Schoeps CMC6/MK4 is a textbook example of #2
above...or more specifically #2b: its euphonic coloration is so subtle
that it does not interfere with the perception of the mic's accuracy.
Especially on woodwinds, acoustic guitars, drum overheads, certain voice
applications, and certain coincident pair ensemble applications, this
particular Schoeps mic is enviably accurate, and yet even more lusciously
über-realistic. There's something dreamily surreal about how real it is,
if that makes any sense. IOW, if you step back & try to compare it to the
source objectively, you conclude that it is adding something that's not
"really" there...but man does it sound good!

And on some instruments -- most notably close-miked grand pianos, I'm
sure there are other examples -- the CMC6/MK4 has just never worked for
me. YMMV, obviously.

In comparison, several of the T.H.E. mics fall squarely into the #1 camp:
the KR-25A 1" cardioid capsule on the KA-04 body is one of the most
neutral, invisible, hyper-accurate microphones I've ever had the pleasure
to use...perhaps only superseded by T.H.E.'s TT-3M measurement omni. Now
*there's* a mic that just disappears, gets out of the way & leaves
nothing between you and the instrument.

And I absolutely fell in love with the KR-2W subcardioid on acoustic
steel string guitar. It's not "accurate" by a long shot, but what it
contributes to that instrument is so perfectly complimentary to the way
you ideally want that instrument to sound in a pop/rock recording that
the notion of "realism" is rendered moot. #2A, in spades.

So...are apples "in the same league" as oranges? Depends where you draw
those league boundaries. I've certainly had occasion to hear the Schoeps
mic do some total fairy-dust magic that I never quite got from the T.H.E.
mics, so maybe in that regard they're not in the same league? But I'm
trying to think of a mic that's remotely as close in terms of achieving
those objectives (#1 & 2 above) without costing more....uh... nope,
drawing a blank. Okay, so what mics do #1 or #2 reliably and with
certainty at *any* price point? Well, Schoeps, of course...Josephson
Series Six, yep, DPA 4000 series (on *most* applications), some Neumann
KM84's (emphasis on some), some M-G SMS2000's (emphasis on some),
and...uh, well, some T.H.E.'s.

That's it. All done, game over. *There's* your league.

AKG? Shure? Audio-Technica? Minor league, dude...those are the Pawtucket
Sox in comparison.

Hey, I don't work for T.H.E. or get a kickback, I just loved the **** out
of those mics. One of these days I hope to actually buy a few of them!
But regardless of where you draw your personal league lines, they are
contenders. Check 'em out.

/Bob Ross

Bob Ross

November 26th 03, 01:08 AM

David Nobel wrote:

> Bob Ross In his review in the Oct/2001 "Recording," Bob Ross also
> enthused wildy about the TT-3M in particular, and went on to say:
> "Do I think T.H.E. mics sound better than the world-class mics from
> Schoeps, Neumann, DPA, or Josephson? No.
> "Do I think they could be in the same league? Yes, absoutely."
> As I recall, it was bold statements like this throughout that review
> that seemed to prompt a few respected members of this forum to post
> some pretty caustic remarks about the deplorable state of the
> integrity of audio magazine reviews in general, and Bob Ross's in
> particular, when that review came out.

Oh yeah, I don't get no respect. Sheesh! (tugs collar)

/Bob Ross

Steve Hilmy

November 26th 03, 03:19 AM

> 2) Is the Schoeps MK 5 capsule (omni/cardioid) as effective in a stereo
> configuration as say the MK 4?

I rented a pair of MK21's (sub-cardioid) and bought them later. My
next Schoeps capsule was the MK8 figure 8 for M-S (with the MK21's
this equals X-Y.) Then I bought the MK5's (also after renting them.)

I would say that the MK5's are every bit as "effective" as the MK4's
as cardioids. I have used these for a year and have grown to like them
very very much. I've used the MK5's in ORTF and as the M channel in
M-S configurations (both omni and cardioid.)You will likely find them
a bit brighter than the MK4's in the cardioid setting.

I know nothing about THE mics however!

Cheers,
Steve Hilmy

Icarus Sound

Stephen Boyke

November 26th 03, 03:33 AM

Bob,

I certainly appreciate the time you have taken to actual describe the
Schoeps and T.H.E. Mics (or at least some of them). Thanks. You¹re the
first and only poster to this long thread that actually spoke to the
original question: anybody want to compare these two lines? Thanks again.
--
Stephen Boyke

in article , Bob Ross at
wrote on 11/25/03 4:32 PM:

> I'm going to humbly but confidently disagree with Scott, Ty, & David's
> all-to-quick dismissal of the T.H.E. microphone line. I got to spend 3 or 4
> months using 6 different models of T.H.E. microphone extensively when I was
> reviewing them for Recording Magazine (October 2001 issue), and I've used the
> Schoeps CMC6/MK4 mic often enough to be familiar with its performance in a
> good number of situations.
>
> Of course, this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison: none of the
> T.H.E. mics I used happened to be a small diaphragm cardioid (I had 2
> different large diaphragm cardioids, a small diaphragm subcardioid, and 2
> different measurement omnis), whereas the CMC6/MK4 (only Schoeps I've used) is
> a small diaphragm cardioid. So bear with me.
>
> And then let me say that as far as I'm concerned, there are 2 and only 2 ways
> an expensive microphone can be of value: #1, it can realistically capture what
> it is transducing with such extreme accuracy that it renders itself invisible;
> it disappears and all you hear is the instrument you're trying to record. Or
> #2, it lends a euphonic coloration that so wonderfully compliments the signal
> you are transducing that it practically defines the iconic sound of that
> instrument...this coloration is either so coveted that it allows you to
> forgive any inaccuracies, or it is so subtle that it does not interfere with
> the perception of the mic's accuracy.
>
> If an expensive mic can't pull off either of those tricks, it's "not in the
> league with" any other mic that can. (Plus it's overpriced.)
>
> In my experience, a Schoeps CMC6/MK4 is a textbook example of #2 above...or
> more specifically #2b: its euphonic coloration is so subtle that it does not
> interfere with the perception of the mic's accuracy. Especially on woodwinds,
> acoustic guitars, drum overheads, certain voice applications, and certain
> coincident pair ensemble applications, this particular Schoeps mic is enviably
> accurate, and yet even more lusciously über-realistic. There's something
> dreamily surreal about how real it is, if that makes any sense. IOW, if you
> step back & try to compare it to the source objectively, you conclude that it
> is adding something that's not "really" there...but man does it sound good!
>
> And on some instruments -- most notably close-miked grand pianos, I'm sure
> there are other examples -- the CMC6/MK4 has just never worked for me. YMMV,
> obviously.
>
> In comparison, several of the T.H.E. mics fall squarely into the #1 camp: the
> KR-25A 1" cardioid capsule on the KA-04 body is one of the most neutral,
> invisible, hyper-accurate microphones I've ever had the pleasure to
> use...perhaps only superseded by T.H.E.'s TT-3M measurement omni. Now
> *there's* a mic that just disappears, gets out of the way & leaves nothing
> between you and the instrument.
>
> And I absolutely fell in love with the KR-2W subcardioid on acoustic steel
> string guitar. It's not "accurate" by a long shot, but what it contributes to
> that instrument is so perfectly complimentary to the way you ideally want that
> instrument to sound in a pop/rock recording that the notion of "realism" is
> rendered moot. #2A, in spades.
>
> So...are apples "in the same league" as oranges? Depends where you draw those
> league boundaries. I've certainly had occasion to hear the Schoeps mic do some
> total fairy-dust magic that I never quite got from the T.H.E. mics, so maybe
> in that regard they're not in the same league? But I'm trying to think of a
> mic that's remotely as close in terms of achieving those objectives (#1 & 2
> above) without costing more....uh... nope, drawing a blank. Okay, so what mics
> do #1 or #2 reliably and with certainty at *any* price point? Well, Schoeps,
> of course...Josephson Series Six, yep, DPA 4000 series (on *most*
> applications), some Neumann KM84's (emphasis on some), some M-G SMS2000's
> (emphasis on some), and...uh, well, some T.H.E.'s.
>
> That's it. All done, game over. *There's* your league.
>
> AKG? Shure? Audio-Technica? Minor league, dude...those are the Pawtucket Sox
> in comparison.
>
> Hey, I don't work for T.H.E. or get a kickback, I just loved the **** out of
> those mics. One of these days I hope to actually buy a few of them! But
> regardless of where you draw your personal league lines, they are contenders.
> Check 'em out.
>
> /Bob Ross

Ty Ford

November 26th 03, 03:51 AM

In Article >, "Dave Martin"
> wrote:
>"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Incidentally, words like "fabulous" are not really appropriate in
>describing
>> a mic on this forum.
>>
>I saw a touring company of "The Full Monty" on Friday - is 'fabulous'
>appropriate to describe that?
>
>It was a wonderful show, but I don't know if either THE or Shoeps mics were
>used in the production...
>
>--
>Dave Martin
>Java Jive Studio
>Nashville, TN
>www.javajivestudio.com

The appropriate word there would be Fab-a-roo!, not fabulous.

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Ty Ford

November 26th 03, 03:56 AM

In Article >,
(David Nobel) wrote:
SNIP

Nice reporting job David!

>>> I have use the KR-2C to mic acoustic
>> >guitar--it is fabulous--but have not used the Schoeps and have no
>> >feedback from anyone on how they compare.
>
>> Incidentally, words like "fabulous" are not really appropriate in describing
>> a mic on this forum.
>
>O.K., point taken. I got lazy at the end of the post. I, in fact, ran
>the KR-2C through my standard RNP/RNC setup I use for acoustic guitar,
>then through a Lucid AD9624. I was floored by the 2C's smoothness,
>balance, and detail, the ability to accurately resolve the low-end of
>my big, Guild concert-body 12, even in dropped tunings, without
>letting that bass go boomy/mushy or become overpowering.
>
>-- David

Just imagine how you would have felt had you used a Schoeps. :)

BTW, what mics do you usually use? A lot of "reports" come from folks who
have been using dynamic mics. They hear their first condenser and get all
wet. Then they go through the 5 stages of disillusionment.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Ty Ford

November 26th 03, 04:02 AM

In Article >, Bob Ross > wrote:
>
>--------------A02D0B652582FB436CB3ADBE
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
>I'm going to humbly but confidently disagree with Scott, Ty, & David's
>all-to-quick dismissal of the T.H.E. microphone line. I got to spend 3 or
>4 months using 6 different models of T.H.E. microphone extensively when I
>was reviewing them for Recording Magazine (October 2001 issue), and I've
>used the Schoeps CMC6/MK4 mic often enough to be familiar with its
>performance in a good number of situations.

Bob,

Great post. My experience with the hyper was to directly compare it to the
CMC641. In that comparison, the selfnoise of the THE hyper immediately took
it out of the running. I can only go on what I hear.

Taylor thought the diaphragm might have been in need of a hair dryer
treatment. In my experience, a contaminated diaphragm doesn't make the kind
of noise I was hearing. I tried it, there was no improvement. So for me, the
jury is still out on THE. I have only my direct experience. I'm hoping to be
convinced otherwise, and maybe I'll get the chance.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

arrangeit

November 26th 03, 10:30 AM

I was hopeful of a few insights, but the response to my questions has
certainly exceeded my expectations.

To David Nobel and Bob Ross: Thanks for taking the time to relay your
experiences with the T.H.E line. I had heard a few reports of the
kind, but these mics are certainly an unknown quantity here in
Halifax, NS. BTW Bob...it was your article that originally piqued my
interest.

To Steve Hilmy: Thanks for a very direct answer to my question
regarding the MK5 capsule.

To Ty: I appreciate your stand on a mic which you obviously feel is
'top of the heap'. Perhaps someone representing the T.H.E line will
respond to your comment about their product 'I'm hoping to be
convinced otherwise, and maybe I'll get the chance.'

Cheers,
arrangeit

Bill Thompson

November 26th 03, 04:35 PM

Hi Bob,

excellent post... thanks! Just a couple of comments:

I like your categories, though I have to admit to being "stuck" in the
second camp. I've not worked with a microphone/preamplifier combination
(yet) that really disappeared... nor, do I think that's what I want it
to do... I really like that "it is so subtle that it does not interfere
> with the perception of the mic's accuracy" description, as I think it
nails the objective of most folks who record popular music styles. There
are "iconic" sounds, and some of us old folks really like them.

Ironically, if I coupld find a microphone that delivered that magic that
a "good" KM-84 delivers, I'd be all over it. That is my grail for
recording acoustic guitars.

And I haven't had a chance to play with the T.H.E microphones yet, I
keep waiting for someone I know to buy a pair<G>, but I have heard the
Schoeps hypercardiod, and well, that was truly one of the saddest days,
cause I really can't swing the purchase right now.

Which, is where my post came from... I can swing the C42 pair from
Josephson, and that is rumored to be a very nice replacement for the
KM-84 in terms of that coloration (fortunately, I can get them on
approval, and I've heard recordings made with them, so I have a certain
comfort level that I am not wasting my time or the vendor's) Or should I
wait?

If the C42 and the CMC6/MK41 are two completely different animals, well
then it would probably be good to have both in the arsenal, but if they
are two takes of the same idea, then it's more complicated. (And I know
that one is cardiod and one is hyper-cardiod, which pushes in the own
both direction)

Then there is the fact that I have owned only one microphone that I
really couldn't find a use for. I have a couple of oddballs that
probably shouldn't be useful, but in fact they are. The first is a Teac
PE-120, which is just perfectly suited to my D-18. It is the only
microphone I can stick in close and not get boom boom boom... something
about the curve compliments that guitar. The second is an AT-4031, and
I've discovered that it works when none of my other choices work,
especially on percussion instruments. In fact, I check eBay every once
in a while looking for a second one.

Anyway, your fervent reviews here and in the magazine did get my
attention... not sure if I'll get a pair on approval or not - since I
prefer microphones in your category 2, but they did get my attention.

Thanks!

David Nobel

November 26th 03, 04:37 PM

(Ty Ford) wrote in message >...
> In Article >,
> (David Nobel) wrote:
> SNIP
>
> Nice reporting job David!
>
Thanks! However, I am very glad Bob Ross showed up here when he did;
it was beginning to feel like a slow news day.

> Just imagine how you would have felt had you used a Schoeps. :)

You know, I am going to have to try one or two now, just to satisfy my
curiosity!

>
> BTW, what mics do you usually use? A lot of "reports" come from folks who
> have been using dynamic mics. They hear their first condenser and get all
> wet. Then they go through the 5 stages of disillusionment.

That wouldn't be me, but I did start out with budget condenser stuff
that wasn't doing it for me. First mics were an AKG C3000B for vocals
and a C1000S for the guitar, bought blind; took me a couple of weeks
to figure out that they weren't going to cut it. Before I settled on
the THEs, I demoed a very large range of condenser mics extensively
together, all in the sub-$1000 range.

I loved the THE 1/2" KR-2C--the "fabulous" one--but I loved the lrge.
diaph. KR-25A more and bought one for vocals and one for guitar. On
guitar, it retains the clarity and definition of the KR-2C while
better capturing my instrument's big personality and full sound. (I
think the KR-2C might work better, though, for positioning the guitar
among many voices in a larger mix.) I also bought the TLM-103 as an
alternate mic, but have rarely used it; as I have upgraded the rest of
my gear, I am increasingly less impressed with the 103 compared to the
THEs for my music. Will probably sell it soon. Recently, I added a U99
through a Phoenix Audio pre/Speck EQ as a vocal channel and am using
both KR-25As through the RNP/RNC to stereo-mic the guitar. Things are
starting to sound pretty good. :-)

Am currently waiting for my guitar to get back from the luthier after
a major overhaul before I can resume recording.

-- David

Bill Thompson

November 26th 03, 04:47 PM

Hi again,

thanks for some interesting thoughts!

Ty Ford wrote:

> You really have to look at the investment as THAT, an investment. This is
> not the same buying decision as which radial tires to get for your car. They
> wear out and you'll have to replace them. A friend was talking to me about
> wireless mics. He said, over the lifetime, I'd spend more in bateries than
> for the mic itself.

Yes, the business side of the equation is the one I am wrestling with...
If I buy a really good, but not quite Schoeps, pair of small capsule
condensor microphones today I can make recordings I'm not yet capable of
making, and that will bring in more money, which will eventually cover
the cost of the CMC6/MK41... or at least that is the plan.

Which is pretty much what I've done all along, get the gear I need for
the projects I can bring in today, and upgrade as my skills and clients
allow.

In terms of microphones, I've only ever bought one turkey, the rest are
still in the locker, and still see daylight frequently.

In the electronics camp, there's been lots of gear that's been replaced,
and sometimes that gets a little painful. So, with this new-found
appreciation for the business side, purchases get trickier<G>!

> Well if you amortize the cost of the mic you buy today over your lifetime
> (What's the actuarial table say these days, 76?), the difference will be
> minimal. Also, you'll have been making better recordings.

Ah yes, a very strong argument!

> Well you don't mention which mics and which preamps. The mic/preamp
> connection is scarosanct, complicated and messy. And then there's your
> subective affective state and where you were on the listening comprehension
> learning curve when you did the comparison.

I left out the brands and models cause I was trying to be more general.

And hey, I don't know where I am on the curve either<G>!!! I know I can
hear the difference between certain microphones and certain
preamplifiers, and while they don't club me over the head, they are there.

> The "Differences" you expected may not have been as great. This is not
> unusual. It's also true that after reaching 80% of quality, you often have
> to spend another 100% of money to reach 85% or 90% quality.

Yup... the 80/20 rule... I am well aware of it!

> Persactly! When I first heard the CMC641 about four years ago, I said, "Oh!
> Of Course! That's what things SHOULD sound like." For me the instantaneous
> difference was profound. For others, maybe not so much. Maybe ten years ago,
> I wouldn't have heard the degree of difference.

I had a similar experience many years ago at a friends studio. He traded
an old Dokoder tape deck for a U-67... neither party knew the value of
the microphone, so both were quite happy. Anyway, up until this time the
main large diaphram condensor was an older C-414, and we did good work
with it. Well he asked me to set up the U-67, so I did, and I must have
been talking to myself in the studio cause when I looked through the
glass he had this dumbfounded look on his face... we spent the rest of
the night taking turns listening to the other talk or play. It was
incredible.

> Having played electric and acoustic guitar since 1965 (and I still do), I
> perfectly understand your anecdote. But playablity only conforms to the
> microphone discussion as it regards the physical use of the device. That
> only a few can hear a difference at a student level doesn't really surprise
> me. I hear a LOT more now than I used to. That is, I make more sense out of
> what I hear; EQ, phase, distortion, space, etec.. That's partly experiential
> and partly physical. Your students have to learn to hear that as well, if
> they haven't destroyed their hearing by exposure to overly loud SPLs.

It's even more than that though, I think... I include responsiveness in
the playability category, so I'm always pleased when the students notice
the responsiveness of the better instruments.

And you are quite correct, listening is a never ending lesson in how to
hear...

Ty Ford

November 27th 03, 03:06 PM

In Article >,
(David Nobel) wrote:
(Ty Ford) wrote in message >> BTW, what mics do you
usually use? A lot of "reports" come from folks who
>> have been using dynamic mics. They hear their first condenser and get all
>> wet. Then they go through the 5 stages of disillusionment.
>
>That wouldn't be me, but I did start out with budget condenser stuff
>that wasn't doing it for me. First mics were an AKG C3000B for vocals
>and a C1000S for the guitar, bought blind; took me a couple of weeks
>to figure out that they weren't going to cut it. Before I settled on
>the THEs, I demoed a very large range of condenser mics extensively
>together, all in the sub-$1000 range.

Funny thing is, the C1000 is exactly the kind of mic that results in the
FIVE STAGES OF DISILLUSIONMENT. The 3000 is not far behind. So you did go
through the stages, perhaps without realizing it.

> I loved the THE 1/2" KR-2C--the "fabulous" one--but I loved the lrge.
>diaph. KR-25A more and bought one for vocals and one for guitar. On
>guitar, it retains the clarity and definition of the KR-2C while
>better capturing my instrument's big personality and full sound. (I
>think the KR-2C might work better, though, for positioning the guitar
>among many voices in a larger mix.) I also bought the TLM-103 as an
>alternate mic, but have rarely used it; as I have upgraded the rest of
>my gear, I am increasingly less impressed with the 103 compared to the
>THEs for my music. Will probably sell it soon. Recently, I added a U99
>through a Phoenix Audio pre/Speck EQ as a vocal channel and am using
>both KR-25As through the RNP/RNC to stereo-mic the guitar. Things are
>starting to sound pretty good. :-)

I agree that the THE are upwards of the C1000. There's room still above the
THE without hitting the $1k mark. I haven't had time or opportunity to hear
the entire line of THE, but would look forward to that in the future, or
atleast enough to know where they generally stand. Maybe Talor can make that
happen.

The TLM 103 does not like certain preamps; th Focusrite RED , for example.
It does like my GML and others I have here. What do you NOT like about it
and what preamp are you using?

>Am currently waiting for my guitar to get back from the luthier after
>a major overhaul before I can resume recording.

Just got my 1965 Harmony Soverign 12-string tweeked and back. It's like
finding a new girlf riend.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

ScotFraser

November 27th 03, 05:15 PM

<< The TLM 103 does not like certain preamps; th Focusrite RED , for example.>>

Gee, I use a 103 with a RED preamp all the time & quite like it, though not on
guitar where I find I don't like the 103 with any preamp. For mono drum
overhead it's working real well into a DVC too.

Scott Fraser

David Satz

November 27th 03, 07:11 PM

David Nobel wrote:

> [ ... ] I did start out with budget condenser stuff that wasn't
> doing it for me. First mics were an AKG C3000B for vocals
> and a C1000S for the guitar, bought blind; took me a couple of weeks
> to figure out that they weren't going to cut it.

Gosh, I've worked with people who were using these same two microphones,
and I thought that their sound would cut just about anything--up to and
including solid steel.

(Sorry, just messing with you ... Happy Thanksgiving!)

Ty Ford

November 28th 03, 03:58 AM

In Article >,
(ScotFraser) wrote:
><< The TLM 103 does not like certain preamps; th Focusrite RED , for example.>>
>
>Gee, I use a 103 with a RED preamp all the time & quite like it, though not on
>guitar where I find I don't like the 103 with any preamp. For mono drum
>overhead it's working real well into a DVC too.

The two channel Focusrite RED? That's the one I've heard with a TLM 103 and
have NOT been happy with.

Regards,

Ty

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Luke Kaven

November 28th 03, 09:58 PM

Don't know, but they can both take the skin right off a cat...proving
again that there is more than one way...

(David Satz) wrote:

>David Nobel wrote:
>
>> [ ... ] I did start out with budget condenser stuff that wasn't
>> doing it for me. First mics were an AKG C3000B for vocals
>> and a C1000S for the guitar, bought blind; took me a couple of weeks
>> to figure out that they weren't going to cut it.
>
>Gosh, I've worked with people who were using these same two microphones,
>and I thought that their sound would cut just about anything--up to and
>including solid steel.
>
>(Sorry, just messing with you ... Happy Thanksgiving!)

ScotFraser

November 30th 03, 06:33 PM

<< >Gee, I use a 103 with a RED preamp all the time & quite like it, though not
on
>guitar where I find I don't like the 103 with any preamp. For mono drum
>overhead it's working real well into a DVC too.>>

<The two channel Focusrite RED? That's the one I've heard with a TLM 103 and
have NOT been happy with.>

No, I use the RED 7, single channel pre w/compressor. What don't you like about
it? Not clean enough?

Scott Fraser

Ty Ford

December 1st 03, 02:44 PM

In Article >,
(ScotFraser) wrote:
><< >Gee, I use a 103 with a RED preamp all the time & quite like it, though not
>on
>>guitar where I find I don't like the 103 with any preamp. For mono drum
>>overhead it's working real well into a DVC too.>>
>
>
><The two channel Focusrite RED? That's the one I've heard with a TLM 103 and
>have NOT been happy with.>
>
>No, I use the RED 7, single channel pre w/compressor. What don't you like about
>it? Not clean enough?
>
>Scott Fraser

Scott,

maybe that's the difference. With the TLM 103, however, the 2-channel RED
was just sort of nasty, edgy sounding. I've heard a Neumann U 87 through a
two channel RED and it makes me sound nekkid. EXTREMELY CLEAN. This was NOT
what I was hearing through the RED 2 channel.

I recall the "lava front" green focusrite preamp/processor a few years back
was sort of edgy as well.

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

ScotFraser

December 1st 03, 04:41 PM

<< With the TLM 103, however, the 2-channel RED
was just sort of nasty, edgy sounding. I've heard a Neumann U 87 through a
two channel RED and it makes me sound nekkid. EXTREMELY CLEAN. This was NOT
what I was hearing through the RED 2 channel.>>

I was thinking maybe compoared to your GML the RED might be too transformer-y.
Maybe you don't care much for the TLM103?

<<I recall the "lava front" green focusrite preamp/processor a few years back
was sort of edgy as well. >>

The Green stuff was a whole different non-Rupert Neve design, & although I
haven't heard any of those I gather it didn't sound like the Reds & Blues much.

Scott Fraser

Ty Ford

December 2nd 03, 04:30 AM

In Article >,
(ScotFraser) wrote:
><< With the TLM 103, however, the 2-channel RED
>was just sort of nasty, edgy sounding. I've heard a Neumann U 87 through a
>two channel RED and it makes me sound nekkid. EXTREMELY CLEAN. This was NOT
>what I was hearing through the RED 2 channel.>>
>
>I was thinking maybe compoared to your GML the RED might be too transformer-y.
>Maybe you don't care much for the TLM103?

No I like the TLM 103, especially through the GML and Aphex 1100.

Regards,

Ty

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

ScotFraser

December 2nd 03, 06:00 AM

<< No I like the TLM 103, especially through the GML and Aphex 1100. >>

Well then, must just be that you don't like the 103 into a RED pre, while I do
like a 103 into RED pre. No other explanation I can see.

Scott Fraser

Stephen Boyke

December 3rd 03, 02:44 AM

in article , Ty Ford at
wrote on 12/1/03 8:30 PM:

> In Article >,
> (ScotFraser) wrote:
>> << With the TLM 103, however, the 2-channel RED
>> was just sort of nasty, edgy sounding. I've heard a Neumann U 87 through a
>> two channel RED and it makes me sound nekkid. EXTREMELY CLEAN. This was NOT
>> what I was hearing through the RED 2 channel.>>
>>
>> I was thinking maybe compoared to your GML the RED might be too
>> transformer-y.
>> Maybe you don't care much for the TLM103?
>
> No I like the TLM 103, especially through the GML and Aphex 1100.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty

Ty, I'm with you. I like the TLM 103 too, although I only use it for a
center (third) channel on fingerstyle acoustic guitar. I also have an AEA
R84 and Neumann M 149 for this purpose. The TLM 103 competes, and I prefer
it with certain guitars.
--
Stephen T. Boyke

Ty Ford

December 3rd 03, 03:29 PM

In Article >,
(ScotFraser) wrote:
><< No I like the TLM 103, especially through the GML and Aphex 1100. >>
>
>Well then, must just be that you don't like the 103 into a RED pre, while I do
>like a 103 into RED pre. No other explanation I can see.
>
>
>Scott Fraser

How about the possibility that the RED 2 channel is different than the RED 8
channel?

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

ScotFraser

December 3rd 03, 05:49 PM

<< How about the possibility that the RED 2 channel is different than the RED 8
channel? >>

Might could be, but I believe all the RED units are re-packages of the original
Neve designed ISA modules.

Scott Fraser

EganMedia

December 3rd 03, 10:02 PM

At some point someone ought to consider changing the subject heading of this
thread. I keep hoping to read something about T.H.E. or Schoeps.

Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

Dave Martin

December 4th 03, 04:31 PM

"EganMedia" > wrote in message
...
> At some point someone ought to consider changing the subject heading of
this
> thread. I keep hoping to read something about T.H.E. or Schoeps.
>
That was days ago, Joe. We're about to get to barbecue and beer on this
thread...

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

ScotFraser

December 4th 03, 05:33 PM

<< We're about to get to barbecue and beer on this
thread... >>

Bring on the tofu!

Scott Fraser

LeBaron & Alrich

December 4th 03, 07:48 PM

Dave Martin wrote:

> "EganMedia" wrote...

> > At some point someone ought to consider changing the subject heading of
> > this thread. I keep hoping to read something about T.H.E. or Schoeps.

> That was days ago, Joe. We're about to get to barbecue and beer on this
> thread...

But first everybody should go have sex so that we'll be able to
concentrate on the food and drink without distracting thoughts of what's
really important.

--
ha

Ty Ford

December 5th 03, 04:02 PM

In Article >,
(ScotFraser) wrote:
><< We're about to get to barbecue and beer on this
>thread... >>
>
>Bring on the tofu!

Ewwww! More burgers.

Ty

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Dave Martin

December 5th 03, 05:32 PM

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...

> ><< We're about to get to barbecue and beer on this
> >thread... >>
> >
> >Bring on the tofu!
>
> Ewwww! More burgers.
>
It takes a sick man to think of burgers (or any real food) after reading the
word 'tofu'.

--
Dave Martin
Java Jive Studio
Nashville, TN
www.javajivestudio.com

Kurt Albershardt

December 5th 03, 07:26 PM

Dave Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Bring on the tofu!
>>
>> Ewwww! More burgers.
>
>
> It takes a sick man to think of burgers (or any real food) after reading the
> word 'tofu'.

Some of us must be truly sick--eschewing burgers yet enjoying both wild
game and tofu.

Nate Najar

September 30th 12, 08:32 AM

I realize I am resurrecting an old and dead thread, but I noticed a few things and have something to add.....

When Ty Ford expresses his extreme dislike for the T.H.E. mic, he is specifically talking about the hyper cardioid capsule and no other. He states politely he has not heard the rest of the line but would like to at some point. Bob Ross only heard the omnis and sub cardioid, and did not hear the hyper cardioid.

The main thing to take away from this is that in this thread, everyone seems to be arguing (*ahem* discussing) about different microphones.

I own a T.H.E. hyper cardioid capsule. I bought it years ago hoping to have a less expensive mic to do what the schoeps cmc641 does. It sucks. It is just awful. I may be being harsh, I compared it directly to a schoeps cmc641. I bought a pair of them less than a year after I tried the T.H.E. and they have been my go to mics for nearly everything for a number of years now.

So I agree with Ty.

But I may also agree with Bob Ross.....

I have not used most of the capsules Bob mentions. But I do own a T.H.E. kr-25a 1" lollipop capsule. It is fantastic. Extremely natural sounding, with a smooth top end and a clear and clean bottom and midrange. I usually use it as a general utility microphone on any given source, or specifically it is my go to for tenor sax and some vocals. I never thought to try it on my guitar because that is the single reason I bought the schoeps....

Today I compared it to my schoeps cmc641 on my classical guitar. I am shocked at the outcome. The schoeps still has the ability to "turn down the room" better, but the pattern is pretty tight on the kr25a and the off axis sound is pretty clean. What surprised me is that the lower midrange on the T.H.E. was more clear and less thick than the schoeps- a lower midrange I usually find myself trying to eq some out... But the T.H.E. wasn't thin. It was quite full in the bottom and the top was a little more present but very smooth- it didn't feel extended, just better represented. In this particular application and placement, the T.H.E. actually sounded better than my schoeps. I could not believe what I was hearing. Keep in mind we are talking about the kr25a capsule. It reminded me very much of a Neumann u89. And that's a good thing.

So just to be sure I popped on the T.H.E. hyper cardioid capsule. It still sucked. Really bad.

Scott Dorsey

September 30th 12, 10:10 PM

Nate Najar > wrote:
>
>The main thing to take away from this is that in this thread, everyone seem=
>s to be arguing (*ahem* discussing) about different microphones.=20

Everybody who tries to have a complete product line always has a couple little
gaps here and there. Schoeps, which is really the pre-eminent manufacturer of
high end mikes for distant field use, also sells some stage vocal mikes that
are kind of boring, and a "shotgun" that is really a sort of unlikely
compromise between a real shotgun and a hypercardioid.

>I own a T.H.E. hyper cardioid capsule. I bought it years ago hoping to hav=
>e a less expensive mic to do what the schoeps cmc641 does. It sucks. It i=
>s just awful. I may be being harsh, I compared it directly to a schoeps cm=
>c641. I bought a pair of them less than a year after I tried the T.H.E. an=
>d they have been my go to mics for nearly everything for a number of years =
>now. =20

The hypercardioid is one of the most difficult types of capsules to make, and
Schoeps is one of only a few companies that really have it down. So I would
not be surprised that a run of the mill hypercard is going to be a big step
down from the Schoeps.

>I have not used most of the capsules Bob mentions. But I do own a T.H.E. k=
>r-25a 1" lollipop capsule. It is fantastic. Extremely natural sounding, w=
>ith a smooth top end and a clear and clean bottom and midrange. I usually =
>use it as a general utility microphone on any given source, or specifically=
> it is my go to for tenor sax and some vocals. I never thought to try it o=
>n my guitar because that is the single reason I bought the schoeps....
>
>Today I compared it to my schoeps cmc641 on my classical guitar. I am shoc=
>ked at the outcome. The schoeps still has the ability to "turn down the ro=
>om" better, but the pattern is pretty tight on the kr25a and the off axis s=
>ound is pretty clean. What surprised me is that the lower midrange on the =
>T.H.E. was more clear and less thick than the schoeps- a lower midrange I u=
>sually find myself trying to eq some out... But the T.H.E. wasn't thin. It=
> was quite full in the bottom and the top was a little more present but ver=
>y smooth- it didn't feel extended, just better represented. In this partic=
>ular application and placement, the T.H.E. actually sounded better than my =
>schoeps. I could not believe what I was hearing. Keep in mind we are talk=
>ing about the kr25a capsule. It reminded me very much of a Neumann u89. A=
>nd that's a good thing.

And this, in short, is why there are so many different companies making so
many different microphones. They are all good for different things.

>so just to be sure I popped on the T.H.E. hyper cardioid capsule. It still=
> sucked. Really bad.

That's how these things go. I bet you can find something that it's useful
for... even if it is unpleasant and unnatural it still might be a useful
sound in some kind of mix.
--scott

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

Nate Najar

October 1st 12, 01:56 AM

Ty,

I don't have much use for omnis in most of the rooms and situations I find myself. How do you like the MG295?

It's weird- with my mk41 I always felt I really dug how thick and full it sounds, but nearly every time I have to eq out this low mid thickness...... So maybe on my guitar it is time to find something else..... Which would be great because then I could use the schoeps pair for drum overheads.....

N

hank alrich

October 1st 12, 05:00 AM

Nate Najar > wrote:

> Ty,
>
> I don't have much use for omnis in most of the rooms and situations I find
> myself. How do you like the MG295?
>
> It's weird- with my mk41 I always felt I really dug how thick and full it
> sounds, but nearly every time I have to eq out this low mid
> thickness......

Proximity effect - stronger in the hyper than in the card. Nonexistent
in the omni. You might be amazed how closely you can place an omni.

When we can use mics on stage I mostly use the CMC6 + Mk4, because
usually the butt end is pointing right at a floor monitor.

> So maybe on my guitar it is time to find something else..... Which would
> be great because then I could use the schoeps pair for drum overheads.....
>
> N

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Nate Najar

October 1st 12, 01:53 PM

Most of the time these days I am just using a mic onstage- I may start bringing the schoeps. I currently use the little dpa omni clipped just outside the sound hole. It works fine but I don't particularly care for the sound- it is a little thin sounding.... I want to try the dpa 4051 and see if it's better but I don't know how to mount it.

hank alrich

October 1st 12, 03:03 PM

Nate Najar > wrote:

> Most of the time these days I am just using a mic onstage- I may start
> bringing the schoeps. I currently use the little dpa omni clipped just
> outside the sound hole. It works fine but I don't particularly care for
> the sound- it is a little thin sounding....

Well, there ya go: no bass boost from proximity effect. <g>

> I want to try the dpa 4051 and see if it's better but I don't know
> how to mount it.

DPA now has a complete system for mounting some of their mics to
instruments.

http://tinyurl.com/7d6ujgv

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Nate Najar

October 1st 12, 03:27 PM

Well it isn't the proximity effect I am missing. I am grateful for the absence of it because the low end is so right. But the top strings get this thin sort of sound I cannot really explain. For all intents and purposes it is fine but I think I can do better and so I would like to!

Scott Dorsey

October 1st 12, 03:33 PM

Nate Najar > wrote:
>Most of the time these days I am just using a mic onstage- I may start brin=
>ging the schoeps. I currently use the little dpa omni clipped just outside=
> the sound hole. It works fine but I don't particularly care for the sound=
>- it is a little thin sounding.... I want to try the dpa 4051 and see if i=
>t's better but I don't know how to mount it.

Try moving the DPA before you do anything else. Since you have all those
body resonances plus the string sound plus the stuff coming out of the sound
holes, sometimes moving the mike by a quarter inch can make a huge difference
in the sound.

Also, invariably when I do that sort of thing I encounter at least one weird
body resonance that I can't get rid of with placement, and I have to use the
parametric and notch it out.

But that's what happens when you get in that close.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

hank alrich

October 1st 12, 07:13 PM

Ty Ford > wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:27:26 -0400, Nate Najar wrote
> (in article >):
>
> > Well it isn't the proximity effect I am missing. I am grateful for the
> > absence of it because the low end is so right. But the top strings get this
> > thin sort of sound I cannot really explain. For all intents and purposes it
> > is fine but I think I can do better and so I would like to!
>
> You're using light gauge strings?

Nate plays a classical guitar, strung with nylon.

http://www.natenajar.com/

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Nate Najar

October 1st 12, 08:05 PM

Ty,

The is nothing I "don't like" about the mk41. But I do find myself consistently trying to eq out some lower midrange "girth" for lack of a better word. I would leave it in- it sounds great- but it gets in the way of the bass and I would rather not turn the bass into a rumble to better fully represent my guitar. I want to hear a full sounding guitar and the actual notes the bass player is playing. So I am thinking about finding something a little more open to be my go to mic for my instrument. Maybe a dpa 4011? Mk4? I just emailed my dealer about getting the cut filter for the schoeps- maybe that will make the difference. But since you mentioned that nickel befell I thought I would ask about the cardioid one.

This last date I took it too far- I close miked both guitar and bass with the mk41's and it was a fight to the death in the 100-400hz range. So I am actually considering trying something a little more "open" on my guitar than the schoeps, which has been my go to since you recommended it to me a number of years ago. For that matter I am going to use something else on the bass too- I think I want to try a dpa 4052omni attached to the strings.... The 4061 works so well live in the same spot but there's something I cannot quite articulate about the mic in general that I don't like, and in my head I am attributing it to the cheaper electronics and ultra small capsule.

My last label project I used an RCA 44 on the bass and AEA KU4 on the guitar, and besides the extreme low end of the 44, the results were quite nice. But I do not own those mics nor can I justify buying them. But I do want to own something for these applications since it was what I record most- and I want it to be the best I can do. I recently got a prism Orpheus and am currently working a proper treatment of my room, so all points in the chain are now clearly represented. Except I need to practice more and stop spending so much time reading about mics online! But I'm playing alright these days and each day gets a little better!

My next project is a trio date that I will be recording myself- classical guitar, upright bass and vibes. On the last date I used an aea r88 on the vibes and it was perfect but I don't want to try it on this one because the room where I will be recording has low ceilings. And I don't own the aea- I had borrowed it.

And this particular bass player likes to move around a lot so I need to pull the stand mic back quite a bit, or better, mount something. So I am really thinking about trying from dpa that 4052 and using my mk41's on the vibes and then what do I do about my guitar?

Sorry for the ramble- my ears are getting so much better these last few years I am really starting to hear minute differences in things like frequency and intonation, and really it's driving me nuts. But I like learning about how it all works so I can make better decisions.

As always, thanks for the advice.

That thank you is also to Scott and Hank, et al....

N

hank alrich

October 1st 12, 10:13 PM

Nate Najar > wrote:

>
> This last date I took it too far- I close miked both guitar and bass with
> the mk41's and it was a fight to > > the death in the 100-400hz range.

How close was the mic?

If I were you, and using the mic within say six to ten inches of the
guitar, I'd try the Mk4 cap on the Schoeps. Honestly, I think proximity
effect from the hyper might be eating your lunch.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Scott Dorsey

October 2nd 12, 02:27 PM

In article >,
hank alrich > wrote:
>Nate Najar > wrote:
>
>>
>> This last date I took it too far- I close miked both guitar and bass with
>> the mk41's and it was a fight to > > the death in the 100-400hz range.
>
>How close was the mic?
>
>If I were you, and using the mic within say six to ten inches of the
>guitar, I'd try the Mk4 cap on the Schoeps. Honestly, I think proximity
>effect from the hyper might be eating your lunch.

Agreed. But also... don't be afraid of using EQ.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

hank alrich

October 2nd 12, 06:44 PM

Ty Ford > wrote:

> How about just pulling the mic bac a bit or
> tilting it away from the sound hole a degree or two. That works for me as a
> "mechanical equalizer."

What TY said. Close micing of the soundhole of a guitar has never
pleased me. Don't understand why folks do that. It's not as if that's
where all the sound comes from.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Nate Najar

October 2nd 12, 07:55 PM

On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 10:13:43 AM UTC-4, Ty Ford wrote:

>
> Thanks for the thorough reply. How about just pulling the mic bac a bit or
>
> tilting it away from the sound hole a degree or two. That works for me as a
>
> "mechanical equalizer."
>

yeah I have been trying lots of different placements. I don't like miking near the neck like a lot of guys do because it doesn't sound full enough. So I have been trying it pointed directly at the lower edge of the sound hole but about 12-15" out. This sounds very natural and like a guitar. The low low end is no problem- there's no boom here, it's just that lower midrange. I can't really pull the mic back even more or I'll get too much room or other instruments. Maybe a regular cardioid is better in this case. Or just try it even further out? The eq does solve it, but this is still good topic for discussion.

when I used it on the upright, it was great in some circumstances but way too close in others- because he moves around a lot and unpredictably. With most bass players there would be no issue but with this guy I need to do the omni mounted under the strings. Or pull it much further out so his movement doesn't matter. lesson learned.

Les Cargill[_4_]

October 2nd 12, 11:33 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> Ty Ford > wrote:
>
>> How about just pulling the mic bac a bit or
>> tilting it away from the sound hole a degree or two. That works for me as a
>> "mechanical equalizer."
>
> What TY said. Close micing of the soundhole of a guitar has never
> pleased me. Don't understand why folks do that. It's not as if that's
> where all the sound comes from.
>

The soundhole is topologically equivalent to where* beer comes out of a
bottle, so....

*yes, it's the beerhole, if you must ask...

--
Les Cargill

Don Pearce[_3_]

October 3rd 12, 01:44 PM

On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Nate Najar
> wrote:

>Well it isn't the proximity effect I am missing. I am grateful for the absence of it because the low end is so right. But the top strings get this thin sort of sound I cannot really explain. For all intents and purposes it is fine but I think I can do better and so I would like to!

Have you tried moving the mic away? I find that to get the true sound
of a guitar, I want the mic no closer than about 6 feet. Any closer
and you find yourself selecting bits of the sound - which is never
right. The sound doesn't actually coalesce into the whole thing for
several feet. Of course it means you either have a very good, or a
very dead room, But that is all doable.

d

hank alrich

October 3rd 12, 02:59 PM

Les Cargill > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Ty Ford > wrote:
> >
> >> How about just pulling the mic bac a bit or
> >> tilting it away from the sound hole a degree or two. That works for me as a
> >> "mechanical equalizer."
> >
> > What TY said. Close micing of the soundhole of a guitar has never
> > pleased me. Don't understand why folks do that. It's not as if that's
> > where all the sound comes from.
> >
>
> The soundhole is topologically equivalent to where* beer comes out of a
> bottle, so....
>
> *yes, it's the beerhole, if you must ask...

I like to press my ear up against the hole in ported speakers so I can
hear how the mix really sounds.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Scott Dorsey

October 3rd 12, 03:02 PM

hank alrich > wrote:
>Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> hank alrich wrote:
>> > Ty Ford > wrote:
>> >
>> >> How about just pulling the mic bac a bit or
>> >> tilting it away from the sound hole a degree or two. That works for me as a
>> >> "mechanical equalizer."
>> >
>> > What TY said. Close micing of the soundhole of a guitar has never
>> > pleased me. Don't understand why folks do that. It's not as if that's
>> > where all the sound comes from.
>> >
>>
>> The soundhole is topologically equivalent to where* beer comes out of a
>> bottle, so....
>>
>> *yes, it's the beerhole, if you must ask...
>
>I like to press my ear up against the hole in ported speakers so I can
>hear how the mix really sounds.

Don't do it! When the crescendo comes and the cat sleeping inside the
cabinet wakes up, you'll be badly injured!
--scott

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

Nate Najar

October 3rd 12, 03:11 PM

On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:59:39 AM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>
>
> > hank alrich wrote:
>
> > > Ty Ford > wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >> How about just pulling the mic bac a bit or
>
> > >> tilting it away from the sound hole a degree or two. That works for me as a
>
> > >> "mechanical equalizer."
>
> > >
>
> > > What TY said. Close micing of the soundhole of a guitar has never
>
> > > pleased me. Don't understand why folks do that. It's not as if that's
>
> > > where all the sound comes from.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > The soundhole is topologically equivalent to where* beer comes out of a
>
> > bottle, so....
>
> >
>
> > *yes, it's the beerhole, if you must ask...
>
>
>
> I like to press my ear up against the hole in ported speakers so I can
>
> hear how the mix really sounds.
>
>

you guys can be a riot sometimes

hank alrich

October 3rd 12, 04:22 PM

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> hank alrich > wrote:
> >Les Cargill > wrote:
> >
> >> hank alrich wrote: > Ty Ford > wrote: > >> How
> >> about just pulling the mic bac a bit or >> tilting it away from the
> >> sound hole a degree or two. That works for me as a >> "mechanical
> >> equalizer." > > What TY said. Close micing of the soundhole of a guitar
> >> has never > pleased me. Don't understand why folks do that. It's not as
> >> if that's > where all the sound comes from. >
> >>
> >> The soundhole is topologically equivalent to where* beer comes out of a
> >> bottle, so....
> >>
> >> *yes, it's the beerhole, if you must ask...
> >
> >I like to press my ear up against the hole in ported speakers so I can
> >hear how the mix really sounds.
>
> Don't do it! When the crescendo comes and the cat sleeping inside the
> cabinet wakes up, you'll be badly injured!
> --scott

I throw catnip in through the port first, and then I get really stoned,
too, just to level the playing field and still hear a very dynamic mix.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

hank alrich

October 3rd 12, 04:22 PM

Nate Najar > wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:59:39 AM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
> > Les Cargill > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > hank alrich wrote:
> >
> > > > Ty Ford > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >> How about just pulling the mic bac a bit or
> >
> > > >> tilting it away from the sound hole a degree or two. That works for
> > me as a
> >
> > > >> "mechanical equalizer."
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > What TY said. Close micing of the soundhole of a guitar has never
> >
> > > > pleased me. Don't understand why folks do that. It's not as if
> > that's
> >
> > > > where all the sound comes from.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The soundhole is topologically equivalent to where* beer comes out of
> > a
> >
> > > bottle, so....
> >
> > >
> >
> > > *yes, it's the beerhole, if you must ask...
> >
> >
> >
> > I like to press my ear up against the hole in ported speakers so I can
> >
> > hear how the mix really sounds.
> >
> >
>
>
> you guys can be a riot sometimes

That's what the cops said last time we got together.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

Scott Dorsey

October 3rd 12, 06:35 PM

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Nate Najar
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Well it isn't the proximity effect I am missing. I am grateful for the absence of it because the low end is so right. But the top strings get this thin sort of sound I cannot really explain. For all intents and purposes it is fine but I think I can do better and so I would like to!
>>
>> Have you tried moving the mic away? I find that to get the true sound
>> of a guitar, I want the mic no closer than about 6 feet. Any closer
>> and you find yourself selecting bits of the sound - which is never
>> right. The sound doesn't actually coalesce into the whole thing for
>> several feet. Of course it means you either have a very good, or a
>> very dead room, But that is all doable.
>
>6 ft? You'd better be in a very *quiet* room with nothing else going
>on.

Yes... but... that's the point of having a studio.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Les Cargill[_4_]

October 3rd 12, 06:35 PM

Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Nate Najar
> > wrote:
>
>> Well it isn't the proximity effect I am missing. I am grateful for the absence of it because the low end is so right. But the top strings get this thin sort of sound I cannot really explain. For all intents and purposes it is fine but I think I can do better and so I would like to!
>
> Have you tried moving the mic away? I find that to get the true sound
> of a guitar, I want the mic no closer than about 6 feet. Any closer
> and you find yourself selecting bits of the sound - which is never
> right. The sound doesn't actually coalesce into the whole thing for
> several feet. Of course it means you either have a very good, or a
> very dead room, But that is all doable.
>
> d
>

6 ft? You'd better be in a very *quiet* room with nothing else going
on.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill[_4_]

October 3rd 12, 06:37 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> Nate Najar > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:59:39 AM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
>>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> hank alrich wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ty Ford > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> How about just pulling the mic bac a bit or
>>>
>>>>>> tilting it away from the sound hole a degree or two. That works for
>>> me as a
>>>
>>>>>> "mechanical equalizer."
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>> What TY said. Close micing of the soundhole of a guitar has never
>>>
>>>>> pleased me. Don't understand why folks do that. It's not as if
>>> that's
>>>
>>>>> where all the sound comes from.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> The soundhole is topologically equivalent to where* beer comes out of
>>> a
>>>
>>>> bottle, so....
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> *yes, it's the beerhole, if you must ask...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I like to press my ear up against the hole in ported speakers so I can
>>>
>>> hear how the mix really sounds.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> you guys can be a riot sometimes
>
> That's what the cops said last time we got together.
>

now now - that's been stricken from the record and there you
go putting it on Google Froups.

--
Les Cargill

Les Cargill[_4_]

October 3rd 12, 07:00 PM

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Nate Najar
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well it isn't the proximity effect I am missing. I am grateful for the absence of it because the low end is so right. But the top strings get this thin sort of sound I cannot really explain. For all intents and purposes it is fine but I think I can do better and so I would like to!
>>>
>>> Have you tried moving the mic away? I find that to get the true sound
>>> of a guitar, I want the mic no closer than about 6 feet. Any closer
>>> and you find yourself selecting bits of the sound - which is never
>>> right. The sound doesn't actually coalesce into the whole thing for
>>> several feet. Of course it means you either have a very good, or a
>>> very dead room, But that is all doable.
>>
>> 6 ft? You'd better be in a very *quiet* room with nothing else going
>> on.
>
> Yes... but... that's the point of having a studio.
> --scott
>

You couldn't do that in any studio I have ever been in.

--
Les Cargill

david gourley[_2_]

October 3rd 12, 08:44 PM

Les Cargill > said...news:k4hu2u$uv9$3@dont-
email.me:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 07:27:26 -0700 (PDT), Nate Najar
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well it isn't the proximity effect I am missing. I am grateful for
the absence of it because the low end is so right. But the top strings get
this thin sort of sound I cannot really explain. For all intents and
purposes it is fine but I think I can do better and so I would like to!
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried moving the mic away? I find that to get the true sound
>>>> of a guitar, I want the mic no closer than about 6 feet. Any closer
>>>> and you find yourself selecting bits of the sound - which is never
>>>> right. The sound doesn't actually coalesce into the whole thing for
>>>> several feet. Of course it means you either have a very good, or a
>>>> very dead room, But that is all doable.
>>>
>>> 6 ft? You'd better be in a very *quiet* room with nothing else going
>>> on.
>>
>> Yes... but... that's the point of having a studio.
>> --scott
>>
>
> You couldn't do that in any studio I have ever been in.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Yikes, you should visit some better rooms in that case.

david

hank alrich

October 3rd 12, 09:11 PM

Les Cargill > wrote:

> hank alrich wrote:
> > Nate Najar > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 9:59:39 AM UTC-4, hank alrich wrote:
> >>> Les Cargill > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> hank alrich wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Ty Ford > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> How about just pulling the mic bac a bit or
> >>>
> >>>>>> tilting it away from the sound hole a degree or two. That works for
> >>> me as a
> >>>
> >>>>>> "mechanical equalizer."
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> What TY said. Close micing of the soundhole of a guitar has never
> >>>
> >>>>> pleased me. Don't understand why folks do that. It's not as if
> >>> that's
> >>>
> >>>>> where all the sound comes from.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> The soundhole is topologically equivalent to where* beer comes out of
> >>> a
> >>>
> >>>> bottle, so....
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>> *yes, it's the beerhole, if you must ask...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I like to press my ear up against the hole in ported speakers so I can
> >>>
> >>> hear how the mix really sounds.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> you guys can be a riot sometimes
> >
> > That's what the cops said last time we got together.
> >
>
>
> now now - that's been stricken from the record and there you
> go putting it on Google Froups.

Not to worry. I'll pull it back off the record and encrypt it onto a
Hardtofigureout Drive.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri