In Article uX3Pa.21949$Ph3.1498@sccrnsc04, "Brad Harper"
wrote:
For all of the instuments you mentioned, I would suggest a ribbon over a
dynamic. Beyerdynamic M160, or M260 would be good choices if you couldn't
pop for a Royer SF-1 or Coles.

Brad Harper


"jnorman" wrote in message
. com...
i'm thinking of picking up a couple of LD dynamics for the studio,
after reading the consistently good comments on them from dorsey and
fraser and others. the RE20 and the sennheiser 421 and 441 are seem
pretty nice. which would be the best choice for mainly classical
instruments in a studio setting? violin, cello, oboe, picollo,
various ethnic instruments, etc. how would they do on piano, pedal
harp, or classical guitar? what preamps work well with dynamics like
these? thanks.

A ribbon on strings and reeds is usually fine. A ribbon on a classical
guitar, harp or piano would be my last choice.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

A ribbon on a classical
guitar, harp or piano would be my last choice.

What if you were giving any of these items as a gift?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

In article ,
jnorman wrote:
i'm thinking of picking up a couple of LD dynamics for the studio,
after reading the consistently good comments on them from dorsey and
fraser and others. the RE20 and the sennheiser 421 and 441 are seem
pretty nice. which would be the best choice for mainly classical
instruments in a studio setting? violin, cello, oboe, picollo,
various ethnic instruments, etc. how would they do on piano, pedal
harp, or classical guitar? what preamps work well with dynamics like
these? thanks.

What's wrong with an essentially flat condenser like a KM 84? The off
axis response is going to be a lot cleaner, and that makes it much
simpler to use when you're using more than one mike at a time. Many
mikes that sound great as a solo overdub sound like hell when they are
also picking up bleed from adjacent instruments. All the mikes you
listed come to mind... The KM 84 also has a very nice, mostly flat on
axis response with far less coloration than any of the mikes you
mentioned.

The KM 184 is almost as nice, but it's got a bump in the high end that
makes it less than honest. However, compared to the pretty severe
response and polar pattern colorations from any of the mikes you
mentioned, they will seem ruler flat.

As for preamps, any sort of essentially clean transformerless mike amp
will work just fine. Symetrix SX202, SX302, M-Audio DMP3, FMR RNMP
all come to mind as low cost solutions. Spend more money and you'll
generally get more depth and detail. For example, the Great River
MP-2 or MP-4 will sound fantastic in this situation. Avoid modern,
low budget fake "tube" preamps if at all possible. Most of them sound
awful for the tasks you're talking about. These are the sort of
things that are solid state throughout but have one tube thrown in
just for annoyance.

Spend some time positioning the mikes and treating the room and you'll
probably be happier than if you used a lot of expensive stuff that you
don't understand.

Finally, why is it good to have a large diaphragm? What are you
trying to achieve sonically that a large diaphragm will facilitate?
Does a 441 even have a large diaphragm? Don't get hung up on
technical mumbo jumbo.

Pick mikes that sound good, place them appropriately in a good room
with good players using good instruments, don't screw up anything
downstream and you'll get a good recording.


All the best,

Monte McGuire

In article writes:

i'm thinking of picking up a couple of LD dynamics for the studio,

"LD dynamics"? Puhleeeze! Can't we talk about microphones in normal
terminology any more?



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

OK Ty, I agree. The discussion was about picking a single dynamic mic for
all these instruments, either a MD421, MD441, or RE20. Theses are all
obtainable for under $300.00. For the instruments listed I would rather have
a similar priced ribbon (M160) than a dynamic. If I had to use only one mic
for all these it would be a Schoeps CMC64/CMC641 or perhaps a Sennheiser
MKH40. Obviously, there is no one mic that will be great on all these mixed
instruments, or we would all own one.

Brad Harper


"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...

A ribbon on strings and reeds is usually fine. A ribbon on a classical
guitar, harp or piano would be my last choice.

Regards,

Ty Ford

In article writes:

A ribbon on a classical
guitar, harp or piano would be my last choice.

What if you were giving any of these items as a gift?

How many people dumb enough to give nice dynamic mics away would be
smart enough to say "You can have these, but only if you use them on
guitar, harp, piano, and nothing else."




--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

EggHd wrote:

A ribbon on a classical
guitar, harp or piano would be my last choice.

What if you were giving any of these items as a gift?

Lanis would shoot me.

--
ha

Mike Rivers wrote:

writes:

i'm thinking of picking up a couple of LD dynamics for the studio,

"LD dynamics"? Puhleeeze! Can't we talk about microphones in normal
terminology any more?

And I don't think the diaphragm in the 441 is a biggie, either.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

How many people dumb enough to give nice dynamic mics away would be
smart enough to say "You can have these, but only if you use them on
guitar, harp, piano, and nothing else."

I'm STILL laughing!



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Mike Rivers wrote:

writes:

A ribbon on a classical
guitar, harp or piano would be my last choice.

What if you were giving any of these items as a gift?

How many people dumb enough to give nice dynamic mics away would be
smart enough to say "You can have these, but only if you use them on
guitar, harp, piano, and nothing else."

Man, the laughter meter goes to 11!

--
ha

jnorman wrote:

which would be the best choice for mainly classical
instruments in a studio setting?

As others have pointed out, I'd buy more small diaphragm condensers
first for that sort of work. Josephson C42 is pretty close to the same
pricerange.

At around half that price, I'd think about a Beyer M201--a very
versatile dynamic that's served me well on all sorts of things.

On 9 Jul 2003 16:24:11 -0700, (jnorman) wrote:

the RE20 and the sennheiser 421 and 441 are seem
pretty nice. which would be the best choice for mainly classical
instruments in a studio setting? violin, cello, oboe, picollo,
various ethnic instruments, etc.

For those instruments, I would look to a ribbon or large diaphram
condensor. The dynamic mics you mentioned are better suited to
percussion, drums, electric guitars, brass, and in some instances,
vocals.

Mark

In Article ThfPa.27640$ye4.20407@sccrnsc01, "Brad Harper"
wrote:
OK Ty, I agree. The discussion was about picking a single dynamic mic for
all these instruments, either a MD421, MD441, or RE20. Theses are all
obtainable for under $300.00. For the instruments listed I would rather have
a similar priced ribbon (M160) than a dynamic. If I had to use only one mic
for all these it would be a Schoeps CMC64/CMC641 or perhaps a Sennheiser
MKH40. Obviously, there is no one mic that will be great on all these mixed
instruments, or we would all own one.

Brad Harper


"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...

A ribbon on strings and reeds is usually fine. A ribbon on a classical
guitar, harp or piano would be my last choice.

Regards,

Ty Ford


Hi Brad,

I was responding to someone up in the string who suggested ribbons. As for
under $300, I don't know where you could get any of the dynamics you
mentioned new for under $300.

I do agree pretty much with everything else you suggest, although I do have
a friend with a pretty magical U 67.

Regards,

Ty

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Ty Ford wrote:

Call me deaf, but I tried the 121 and 122 royers on steel string acoustic
guitar and found them lacking in top end. Maybe you're right. Maybe the lack
of top end on a classical guitar would be a better match.

Isn't a classical guitar pretty lacking in top end as it is? Would you
want to reduce it even more?

Did you try turning the Royer backwards? It has more high end (nice for
guitar and vocals) if you turn it around, but it can't take the high SPLs of
a guitar cabinet backwards.

Brad Harper


"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...

Call me deaf, but I tried the 121 and 122 royers on steel string acoustic
guitar and found them lacking in top end. Maybe you're right. Maybe the
lack
of top end on a classical guitar would be a better match.

Rob Adelman wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:

Call me deaf, but I tried the 121 and 122 royers on steel string acoustic
guitar and found them lacking in top end. Maybe you're right. Maybe the lack
of top end on a classical guitar would be a better match.

Isn't a classical guitar pretty lacking in top end as it is? Would you
want to reduce it even more?

A mic that doesn't capture what isn't there might not reduce anything at
all.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

Ty Ford wrote:

In Article ,
(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:

A ribbon on strings and reeds is usually fine. A ribbon on a classical
guitar, harp or piano would be my last choice.

Oooooh, now, I sometimes like an M160 on them there sources and one day
will get to try the stereo Royer.

Hank, you dear, sweet, twisted ****, ::don't get me wrong, That's an
appelation of endearment::

(I love it when he talks like that; gets me stiffer than recycled
cardboard.)

Call me deaf, but I tried the 121 and 122 royers on steel string acoustic
guitar and found them lacking in top end. Maybe you're right. Maybe the lack
of top end on a classical guitar would be a better match.

You're not deaf... yet... I find it depends on where that instrument
is going to wind up in a mix. If presented alone I might prefer extended
top. Sometimes in a mix I might prefer less top and more middle to get
that "voice" across if it's going to stand out. If it's a texture
broadly underlying the forward portions of the mix, again, good top can
be lovely. It's a personal question of emphasis for a given voice, and
note I said "sometimes". Sometimes I say that.

I have a recently repaired (by beyer) M160. It came back with a bit more
bite than when it left. Haven't tried it on the Martin yet.

If I have to listen to that thing all by itself, please use the Scheops.

Your pal,

Ty Ford

G'night, Sweetie.

--
ha

If they can afford a U67 then that's what I would use on any of it. $300.00
is definitely eBay pricing, but you can get a M160 for the same money. If
someone is asking about $300.00 mics, then I am not going to tell them they
have to buy a $3500.00 U67. I was simply suggesting something a little
better suited in their price range. Hell, an Oktava would be a better choice
for most of those instruments than one of the listed dynamics.

Brad Harper




"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...
In Article ThfPa.27640$ye4.20407@sccrnsc01, "Brad Harper"
wrote:
OK Ty, I agree. The discussion was about picking a single dynamic mic for
all these instruments, either a MD421, MD441, or RE20. Theses are all
obtainable for under $300.00. For the instruments listed I would rather
have
a similar priced ribbon (M160) than a dynamic. If I had to use only one
mic
for all these it would be a Schoeps CMC64/CMC641 or perhaps a Sennheiser
MKH40. Obviously, there is no one mic that will be great on all these
mixed
instruments, or we would all own one.

Brad Harper


"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...

A ribbon on strings and reeds is usually fine. A ribbon on a classical
guitar, harp or piano would be my last choice.

Regards,

Ty Ford


Hi Brad,

I was responding to someone up in the string who suggested ribbons. As for
under $300, I don't know where you could get any of the dynamics you
mentioned new for under $300.

I do agree pretty much with everything else you suggest, although I do
have
a friend with a pretty magical U 67.

Regards,

Ty

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:


Isn't a classical guitar pretty lacking in top end as it is? Would you
want to reduce it even more?


A mic that doesn't capture what isn't there might not reduce anything at
all.

True. But they both go up to a point. If the response on nylon strings
start to slope down at a certain point, and the same with the ribbon
mic, they could combine and make the slope even steeper, sounding very
dull. Just a thought, I haven't tried it myself.

In Article , Rob Adelman
wrote:


Ty Ford wrote:

Call me deaf, but I tried the 121 and 122 royers on steel string acoustic
guitar and found them lacking in top end. Maybe you're right. Maybe the lack
of top end on a classical guitar would be a better match.

Isn't a classical guitar pretty lacking in top end as it is? Would you
want to reduce it even more?


A worthy question! Continuing along that line, that would make the choice of
many kick drum mics as questionable.

If you're trying to capture the true sound of the instrument and that
instrument has few high frequencies, using a brighter than normal mic would
result in an unnatural reoording.

I'm not necessarily hung on acoustic trusims, but they are a nice place to
start.


Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

In Article QprPa.28061$OZ2.4515@rwcrnsc54, "Brad Harper"
wrote:
Did you try turning the Royer backwards? It has more high end (nice for
guitar and vocals) if you turn it around, but it can't take the high SPLs of
a guitar cabinet backwards.

Brad Harper


"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...

Call me deaf, but I tried the 121 and 122 royers on steel string acoustic
guitar and found them lacking in top end. Maybe you're right. Maybe the
lack
of top end on a classical guitar would be a better match.


Yes I did turn them around. I also recorded the same gent with a U 89 on
vocal and a Schoeps CMC641 on guitar. No contest.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

In Article ,
(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:
I find it depends on where that instrument
is going to wind up in a mix. If presented alone I might prefer extended
top. Sometimes in a mix I might prefer less top and more middle to get
that "voice" across if it's going to stand out. If it's a texture
broadly underlying the forward portions of the mix, again, good top can
be lovely. It's a personal question of emphasis for a given voice, and
note I said "sometimes". Sometimes I say that.

Aha! So arrangement context IS important! That's a valuable...no an
invaluable concept.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

In article writes:

Isn't a classical guitar pretty lacking in top end as it is?

Not a good one, played properly. Your guitar may differ.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

(jnorman) wrote in message . com...
i'm thinking of picking up a couple of LD dynamics for the studio,
after reading the consistently good comments on them from dorsey and
fraser and others. the RE20 and the sennheiser 421 and 441 are seem
pretty nice. which would be the best choice for mainly classical
instruments in a studio setting? violin, cello, oboe, picollo,
various ethnic instruments, etc. how would they do on piano, pedal
harp, or classical guitar? what preamps work well with dynamics like
these? thanks.

What I'm surprised about is that with all the comments, opinions,
ideas and suggestions about what mics to use, no one has brought up
the important issues of transient response and formants. Frequency
range (which many people call "frequency response") is certainly
important, but only in a limited way. For a natural sound on acoustic
instruments, which I think the original poster is looking for, flat
amplitude response in the important band of the frequency range is
probably more important than the ultimate extension. None of these
intstruments produces fundamentals below about 80 Hz (cello) and the
harmonics of most probably don't go above 15kHz (except perhaps for
the piccolo).

But the formants of the instruments are what give them their
distinctive sound. Formants are the fixed sonic "fingerprint" of each,
regardless of what note/s they are playing. So what really makes one
mic more applicable than another for this natural acoustic sound is
usually dependant on the flatness of amplitude response across the
midband frequencies (80 Hz to 10 kHz). Mics designed for "character"
often have significant bumps or dips in the midband, which tends to
distort the formants enough to reduce the overall illusion of realism.
Related to this is the off-axis response eveness in the same frequency
range.

But one other very important criteria is transient response. In a
strange way, it is interrelated to frequency response in that a mic
capable of very good transient response can also be capable of more
extended frequency range at the high end. However, many mics, and
dyanmic mics in particular, use successive resonance points to acheive
good high frequency response, and this destroys accurate transient
reproduction by smearing the information in the resonance areas (i.e.
spreading the information out over time).

But for natural acoustic instruments, perhaps especially something
like classical guitar, transient response itself is very important.
And just by the nature of the physical capsule design, dynamic mics
have much more moving mass and therefore much worse transient response
than do ribbon mics, and to an even greater degree condenser mics
which have the smallest moving mass of the three types.

So, the ideal mic for the purpose described above, IMHO, is a
small-diaphragm condenser mic for these reasons:

1. Good off-axis response across the widest portion of the frequency
range
2. Excellent transient response
3. If well designed, good amplitude linearity across the frequency
range, especially in the critical mid band.
4. If well designed, low self noise (important for single string
instruments, especially classical guitar which has a lower acoustic
output.

There are certainly other choices, and in many cases, certain mics may
work "better" on a particular instrument or to get a particular sound
character. But I don't think any other type of mic will do as well
across the entire range of instruments to get the overall best
results.

Some excellent choices for cardioid pickup (some of which have been
mentioned) a

Neumann KM84 (a classic, and not terribly expensive if you can accept
a used mic and not 100% cosmetics)
Neumann KM184 (a tad brighter)
Schoeps CMC6+MK4 (excellent "realism", a tad bright)
Sennheiser MKH40 (perhaps the most "natural" of the group)
Josephson (I don't know the models very well)(comparable to the KM84)
Wright (are they still around?) (reported to be very good, especially
on classical guitar)

I've also found that the Oktava MC012 is OK, but seems to lack some of
the "grab" of the above mics. Something about the way the transients
sound to my ear, and the way the upper harmonics line up doesn't seem
quite right. But if you're on a tight budget, you could do worse.

There are a couple of mics that can sound very good in limited
applications, but I've found them to have proximity effect that is
tuned to provide linear bass response at much closer distances than
the mics on the above list, and thus aren't as universally useful.
This is especially important with acoustic instruments when you need
to use the mic at a greater distance in order to capture more of the
overall output of those instruments (musical instrument output polar
patterns are quite interesting, I might add).

Thus, these two sound good and may find use but not as often:

DPA4011
Earthworks cardioid mic (can't remember the model number)

Respectfully,

Karl Winkler
Sennheiser

A mic that doesn't capture what isn't there might not reduce anything at
all.

.... to be read in a Yoda voice with an accent and head twist on the word
"might".

Go ahead ... try it!

All joking aside, that's the most profound triple negative I've ever read.





Kevin M. Kelly
"There needs to be a 12-step program for us gearheads"

Rob Adelman wrote:

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

Isn't a classical guitar pretty lacking in top end as it is? Would you
want to reduce it even more?

A mic that doesn't capture what isn't there might not reduce anything at
all.

True. But they both go up to a point. If the response on nylon strings
start to slope down at a certain point, and the same with the ribbon
mic, they could combine and make the slope even steeper, sounding very
dull. Just a thought, I haven't tried it myself.

And it's all about taste in relation to a particular cut anyway, so mox
nix. I have tried it. Sometimes I like it.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

Isn't a classical guitar pretty lacking in top end as it is?

Not a good one, played properly. Your guitar may differ.

Add the "right" room to that.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Call me deaf, but I tried the 121 and 122 royers on steel string acoustic
guitar and found them lacking in top end. Maybe you're right. Maybe the lack
of top end on a classical guitar would be a better match.

Since I find most classical guitarists have a severe toxic reaction to even a
hint of high end response on their instruments that might be a good match. I
could have tried it just a few days ago but I needed my B&O ribbon for the reed
player.


Scott Fraser

A mic that doesn't capture what isn't there might not reduce anything at
all.

The opposite is also true.

Scott Fraser

Isn't a classical guitar pretty lacking in top end as it is? Would you
want to reduce it even more?

It's there, though not anything like a steel string. It's in the attack, which
most classical players go to extremes to minimize.

Scott Fraser

Ty Ford wrote:
In Article ,
(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote:
I find it depends on where that instrument
is going to wind up in a mix. If presented alone I might prefer extended
top. Sometimes in a mix I might prefer less top and more middle to get
that "voice" across if it's going to stand out. If it's a texture
broadly underlying the forward portions of the mix, again, good top can
be lovely. It's a personal question of emphasis for a given voice, and
note I said "sometimes". Sometimes I say that.

Aha! So arrangement context IS important! That's a valuable...no an
invaluable concept.

Indeed... and like so many other facets of music and recording, it is a
concept that can only be learned by doing!

This is one area where I think DAWs with unlimited tracks and plugins
are something of a step backwards... I worked a lot harder to imagine
how everything would fit into the mix when I had to commit processing
and effects to tape. I worked even harder to form that mental image when
I had to bounce tracksG!

Not having to make those sorts of decisions makes me a little lazier...
probably one of the reasons I still have my 16 track.

Bill

(ScotFraser) wrote in message ...
None of these
intstruments produces fundamentals below about 80 Hz (cello)

72Hz actually.

Missed it by *that* much. Thanks for pointing this out.

and the
harmonics of most probably don't go above 15kHz (except perhaps for
the piccolo).

Well, James Boyk has a very interesting paper on ultrasonics you should read.
It's on his web site. Especially interesting is what they found out of band on
trumpets, with & without mutes.

Yes, I'm aware of this. It was an article in Mix a few years back
where George Massenburg mentioned that a trumpet with a Harmon mute
produced a harmonic at 50kHz that was equal in amplitude to the
fundamental!

My point, though, was that in terms of instrumental tone, the critical
region for flatness is between about 80Hz and 10kHz. Problems in this
region are what changes the way instruments sound, and in some cases,
make it difficult to distinguish between instruments in certain ranges
(i.e. violin and viola, or viola and cello, or oboe and soprano sax,
for instance)

But I agree with you that extension is important. It's just that IMO
getting the basics right makes more of a difference in more cases than
not.

-Karl Winkler
Sennheiser

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...


LeBaron & Alrich wrote:


Isn't a classical guitar pretty lacking in top end as it is? Would you
want to reduce it even more?


A mic that doesn't capture what isn't there might not reduce anything at
all.


Does that mean that a mic that does capture what isn't there is superior to
a mic that doesn't capture what is?

Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com

"Karl Winkler" wrote in message

But one other very important criteria is transient response. In a
strange way, it is interrelated to frequency response in that a mic
capable of very good transient response can also be capable of more
extended frequency range at the high end. However, many mics, and
dyanmic mics in particular, use successive resonance points to acheive
good high frequency response, and this destroys accurate transient
reproduction by smearing the information in the resonance areas (i.e.
spreading the information out over time).

Karl Winkler
Sennheiser

Excellent post Karl, in particular this paragraph clears up and explains in
good engineering terms what I've been hearing on some cheaper mics.

Many thanks!
--
John Cafarella
End Of the Road Studio
Melbourne, Australia