I need a mic to record a Classical Guitar.

1.
I was thinking about either a Neumann KM 184 or AKG C414.
Getting one of these will max my budget.
Can you recommend either for my situation?

2.
I'm also wandering if it would make more sense to get two cheaper mics at
about the same price (ca 700+) for a stereo recording or if I would get
better recording results with one mic maxing my budget.
Will I miss it if I don't have two mics on a Classical Guitar or can I still
get good professional results?

Thanks for any advice.

IS

IS wrote:
I need a mic to record a Classical Guitar.

1.
I was thinking about either a Neumann KM 184 or AKG C414.
Getting one of these will max my budget.
Can you recommend either for my situation?

Pick the one that sounds better to you.

2.
I'm also wandering if it would make more sense to get two cheaper mics at
about the same price (ca 700+) for a stereo recording or if I would get
better recording results with one mic maxing my budget.
Will I miss it if I don't have two mics on a Classical Guitar or can I still
get good professional results?

Depends on the room and the guitar and the mike. What does your guitar
sound like? Go and audition a dozen mikes and pick the one that works
best for you. You may find that it's a much cheaper mike. Then again, you
might find you need something more expensive than a KM184 to make you
happy.
--scott


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

Scott, than you for your reply.
I'm wandering if there is a website that either describes the sound
characteristics of those mics or even allows for some sound samples.
Are you aware of any?
I know it still would not match my circumstances but it would give me a
decent idea.
I am replacing a set of Rode NT5. I was not happy with them for my guitar.
They're good mics but didn't work for me. The sound was a bit too brittle
and lacked depth.
Thanks.
IS


Pick the one that sounds better to you.

IS wrote:
Scott, than you for your reply.
I'm wandering if there is a website that either describes the sound
characteristics of those mics or even allows for some sound samples.
Are you aware of any?

There are a bunch of microphone sampler CDs, but to be honest they won't
really help you all that much because the sources vary so much from what
you're probably used to.

I know it still would not match my circumstances but it would give me a
decent idea.
I am replacing a set of Rode NT5. I was not happy with them for my guitar.
They're good mics but didn't work for me. The sound was a bit too brittle
and lacked depth.

If you find the NT5 brittle, you might find the 414B/ULS to be brittle
as well. But that could also be a problem with something else in your
signal chain, or with placement too, and you don't know until you try
something else.

You might look at the Josephson Series Four mikes. They are a little
cleaner on top to my ears than the KMS185, somewhat less expensive, and
you can order a pair on evaluation from Mercenary and send them back if
you aren't happy with them. In fact, Mercenary will probably let you
take a box of different mikes on evaluation so you can get a sense of
how they sound (although sadly they have stopped carrying Neumann products
because of a disagreement with the company management).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

OK, Thanks Scott. Good advice. What you've said so far is very VERY helpful.
I always thought with the NT5's the guitar never sounded warm enough and
felt I needed to cut a little bit of the high end using one of the
equalizers from the Waves bundle I bought about this time last year. But
doing that never made the over all character warmer sounding. It still
sounded too bright in the other registers of the guitar in general.
I think I may look up the people you talked about. I have heard good things
about the KM 184 and as a matter of fact many people in my profession i.e.
Classical Guitarists, use them. But they usually use them in combination
with something else.
I'll follow your suggestion and see what comes out.
Thanks again.
IS

There are a bunch of microphone sampler CDs, but to be honest they won't
really help you all that much because the sources vary so much from what
you're probably used to.


If you find the NT5 brittle, you might find the 414B/ULS to be brittle
as well. But that could also be a problem with something else in your
signal chain, or with placement too, and you don't know until you try
something else.

You might look at the Josephson Series Four mikes. They are a little
cleaner on top to my ears than the KMS185, somewhat less expensive, and
you can order a pair on evaluation from Mercenary and send them back if
you aren't happy with them. In fact, Mercenary will probably let you
take a box of different mikes on evaluation so you can get a sense of
how they sound (although sadly they have stopped carrying Neumann products
because of a disagreement with the company management).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

IS wrote:
I need a mic to record a Classical Guitar.

2.
I'm also wandering if it would make more sense to get two cheaper
mics at
about the same price (ca 700+) for a stereo recording or if I would
get
better recording results with one mic maxing my budget.
Will I miss it if I don't have two mics on a Classical Guitar or can
I still
get good professional results?

While I don't pretend to have Scott's experience, I have just recently
done a recording for a local classical guitarist. We compared quite a
few mics, preamps and mic locations for the project, in the space where
it would be recorded. Needless to say, this was a time consuming
process...but very educational.

From that experience, my personal feeling is that one mic is not going
to cut it unless you are going to add a stereo reverb to the recording.
It will always sound flat and not at all like a concert, which is the
asthetic that the guitarist wanted and my personal preference as well.
I also found that quite a bit of distance was needed to give the guitar
a natural sound without overemphasizing string squeeks, nail noise and
all those other sounds. We ended up having the mics about 5 feet away
from the sound hole, but obviously this is room dependent.

As to mics and preamps, that is going to depend so much on the sort of
sound you want. We ended up using a stereo pair of Shure KSM141s with
an Earthworks Lab 102 preamp, but I wouldn't recomand that if you are
after a really warm sound. It did provide a pretty clear recording,
though. Some of the other local classical guitarists like some of the
AT large diapharm mics. But don't take this as a recomendation of what
you should do--it is just what worked in that space with that
guitarist.

Try to find a local dealer who will let you spend a few days doing some
sound checks and see what kind of results you get in your space.

My $0.02,
Paul

"IS" wrote in message
om...
Scott, than you for your reply.
I'm wandering if there is a website that either describes the sound
characteristics of those mics or even allows for some sound samples.
Are you aware of any?
I know it still would not match my circumstances but it would give me a
decent idea.
I am replacing a set of Rode NT5. I was not happy with them for my guitar.
They're good mics but didn't work for me. The sound was a bit too brittle
and lacked depth.

Three -- no, four questions:

What are you using for a preamp?

What is your A/D convertor/sound card?

What is the shape of your room, and what sort of treatment does it have?

Where are you placing the microphones?

I ask because most of the time people who don't like the NT5s say they're
too soft-sounding, not too brittle.

Peace,
Paul

Thanks Paul.
What you said is very educational for me. Being as how I have a degree in
classical guitar performance I have spent much more time playing the guitar
than recording it. Perhaps I should stick to that . . . But I do like the
idea of being able to at least come up with a decent recording when I want
to, or need to. Sometimes I have been asked to
record the small sections of the guitar parts of certain guitar concertos
and mail the recording to conductors both in the USA and in Europe who may
be considering me playing with them.
I just have cheap stuff and may have to invest more before I can get the
results I want.
Thanks
IS


"Paul Brown" wrote in message
oups.com...

IS wrote:
I need a mic to record a Classical Guitar.

2.
I'm also wandering if it would make more sense to get two cheaper
mics at
about the same price (ca 700+) for a stereo recording or if I would
get
better recording results with one mic maxing my budget.
Will I miss it if I don't have two mics on a Classical Guitar or can
I still
get good professional results?

While I don't pretend to have Scott's experience, I have just recently
done a recording for a local classical guitarist. We compared quite a
few mics, preamps and mic locations for the project, in the space where
it would be recorded. Needless to say, this was a time consuming
process...but very educational.

From that experience, my personal feeling is that one mic is not going
to cut it unless you are going to add a stereo reverb to the recording.
It will always sound flat and not at all like a concert, which is the
asthetic that the guitarist wanted and my personal preference as well.
I also found that quite a bit of distance was needed to give the guitar
a natural sound without overemphasizing string squeeks, nail noise and
all those other sounds. We ended up having the mics about 5 feet away
from the sound hole, but obviously this is room dependent.

As to mics and preamps, that is going to depend so much on the sort of
sound you want. We ended up using a stereo pair of Shure KSM141s with
an Earthworks Lab 102 preamp, but I wouldn't recomand that if you are
after a really warm sound. It did provide a pretty clear recording,
though. Some of the other local classical guitarists like some of the
AT large diapharm mics. But don't take this as a recomendation of what
you should do--it is just what worked in that space with that
guitarist.

Try to find a local dealer who will let you spend a few days doing some
sound checks and see what kind of results you get in your space.

My $0.02,
Paul

With my "set-up" think cheap.
Preamp: M-Box, Mics: Rode NT5, + cords. That's about it.
A/D soundcard etc what ever the M-Box has.
USB directly into my computer
Shape of room: Well it's my bedroom and it is square with some large cloths,
sheets, and other stuff that covers all the walls. The difference before I
did that, bare walls, and after was huge. So that was a big help.
Mic Placement: I have them about 1.5 to 2 feet away from the guitar. I found
that if they both came in at a bout 30 degree angle with each other pointing
roughly at the bridge of the guitar. I got the best sound. Any closer to the
sound-hole and the recording was very bassy. If I kept going and got with
both or one of the NT5's towards pointing at the 12th fret and the recording
became very crisp and trebly with almost no depth and a lot of fingerboard
noise.
As far as the setup question goes. I am considering purchasing the 002. Do
you think it will give me a better sound over all than the M-Box? Not
related to microphones.
Thanks
IS


Three -- no, four questions:

What are you using for a preamp?

What is your A/D convertor/sound card?

What is the shape of your room, and what sort of treatment does it have?

Where are you placing the microphones?

I ask because most of the time people who don't like the NT5s say they're
too soft-sounding, not too brittle.

Peace,
Paul

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:38:49 GMT, "IS" wrote:

Scott, than you for your reply.
I'm wandering if there is a website that either describes the sound
characteristics of those mics or even allows for some sound samples.

Buy both mics from an outfit that will allow you to return them if you
want. Listen to both mics. Keep the one you like and return the
other... simple.

Al

"IS" wrote in message
om...
.. I am considering purchasing the 002. Do
you think it will give me a better sound over all than the M-Box? Not
related to microphones.
Thanks
IS


FYI: I use digi 002 with with two km's184's. . The preamps in the digi002
upset me enough that I should have returned the little bugger. I went back
to using my old preamps with the 002 which made a huge diffeneces for me.

I was using 002 but I thought at first it sounded really bad , I switched
to my old Fostex heaphones instead of a pair of Yamaha , and Fostex (T 20)
made things better.





--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/

IS wrote:
OK, Thanks Scott. Good advice. What you've said so far is very VERY helpful.
I always thought with the NT5's the guitar never sounded warm enough and
felt I needed to cut a little bit of the high end using one of the
equalizers from the Waves bundle I bought about this time last year. But
doing that never made the over all character warmer sounding. It still
sounded too bright in the other registers of the guitar in general.

That could be brittleness caused by distortion products in the mike,
preamps, converters, or even on the playback monitors.

It could also be you have the microphone too far up the neck and need to
move it down more toward the sound hole. Or you have a room that is too
bright at high frequencies. You'd think that with the mike this close to
the instrument that room effects wouldn't be a big deal, but they still are.

I think I may look up the people you talked about. I have heard good things
about the KM 184 and as a matter of fact many people in my profession i.e.
Classical Guitarists, use them. But they usually use them in combination
with something else.

The KM 184 is an entirely respectable mike. It's a little brighter on the
top end than some other mikes in that league but it's a mike that is well
worth trying. You may also like the older KM 84, which seems a little less
sharp on top to me. That may or may not solve your problem, though.
--scott


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

"IS" wrote in message
. com

I just have cheap stuff and may have to invest more before I can get
the results I want.


If I had a pair of Rode NT5s and my recordings were "... bit too brittle
and lacked depth." I'd think about doing some spectral shaping after
tracking before jumping into far more expensive mics.

The "lacking depth" comment is a bit puzzing because it can either suggest
an imaging or spectal shaping issue.

In article ,
"IS" wrote:

I need a mic to record a Classical Guitar.


FWIW, here's a quick recording I did of my roommate playing guitar
(untreated crappy acoustic room) using a pair of CAD E-200s in cardioid:

http://barbour-king-196.resnet.brown.edu/jason.mp3

I like the results pretty well, and these aren't super-expensive mics
like KM184s. Took a bit of wearing headphones and wiggling the mics
around before it "clicked" but it sounds OK for the circumstances. A
tiny bit tubby on the low mids, but the guitar sounded like that too.

-Todd

I interperted the "lack of depth" to mean in the tone and character and
color, not spatial depth.

The Mbox preamps and AD converters sound thin in comparison to my
better gear. Match that with somewhat thin sounding mics, and you get
alot of thin.

Though the AKG 414 was dissed by Scott, I like the microphone and I
think when it is used close to the sound source, the proximity effect
can make the instrument sound fuller. It's also a pretty versatile mic
with the multiple patterns and I find it only sounds brittle when used
for distant miking.

If you plan on staying with the Mbox inputs, you definately want to try
the mics with the Mbox. If not, you can still keep the Mbox and
eventually add external devices like microphone preamp or AD converter.

Mike

You might suggest that your roommate buy a tuner for about $15.

Also, the OP talked about classical guitar.

Sorry to be a smart-ass, but I'd rather be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass,
Paul

wrote in message
oups.com

I interperted the "lack of depth" to mean in the tone and character
and color, not spatial depth.

OK so you're talking about spectral balance. Spectral balance is one of
those things that people can manage to some degree with equalization.

The Mbox preamps and AD converters sound thin in comparison to my
better gear.

OK, I'll play skeptic since that's something I'm accused of being pretty
good at. Don't get ****ed off!

Where are your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests
that support your cliam?

This is of course a rhetorical question since almost nobody has such a
thing. Not even I, thout that's mostly due to the fact that I have no really
good mic preamps nor do I have any really good mics. However, that's the
kind of evidence that should be required to supoort this claim.

As a card-carryng skeptic, I don't think that the MBox is *that* bad. If it
is a little colored one way or the other, I don't see why that would be a
show-stopper for a resourceful person working in the 21st century on a good
DAW.

Match that with somewhat thin sounding mics, and you get
alot of thin.

Tell me about your eq collection. Is it as deep as your mic, preamp, and
converter collection?

Though the AKG 414 was dissed by Scott, I like the microphone and I
think when it is used close to the sound source, the proximity effect
can make the instrument sound fuller. It's also a pretty versatile mic
with the multiple patterns and I find it only sounds brittle when used
for distant miking.

Proximity effect being a kind of eq. Other, more flexible kinds of eq can be
very useful as well. Eq can't fix *everything* but its pretty amazing what
well-tuned eq can do, or what badly-done eq can ruin. The recording process
is full of different kinds of implicit eq. Sometimes the job is about
undoing intentionally that which happened unintentionally.

If you plan on staying with the Mbox inputs, you definately want to
try the mics with the Mbox. If not, you can still keep the Mbox and
eventually add external devices like microphone preamp or AD
converter.

I guess the sun rises and sets on churning boxes.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I interperted the "lack of depth" to mean in the tone and character and
color, not spatial depth.

The Mbox preamps and AD converters sound thin in comparison to my
better gear. Match that with somewhat thin sounding mics, and you get
alot of thin.


The OP has a M-box and shouldn't he or she at some point know if the
Preamps in the M-box sort of match the Microphones. Could they use pads to
match things better or it does'nt matter ?

I ask this as a " rookie student." who learn the hard way when I
realized my Sony stereo Mic (ECM999PR) work better on my Tascam DAP-1 than
my KM184 . Mr. Satz give me a nice lesson on "why."


Thank you
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/

I'm not attached to the M-Box at all except for perhaps financial reasons.
However I would like to ask if I were to buy a better mic preamp and would
still have to run the signal through the M-Box in order to be able to use
ProTools wouldn't that automatically defeat the purpose of getting a better
preamp?
Wouldn't the signal be brought "down" to the quality and character the M-Box
produces?

Thanks.





If you plan on staying with the Mbox inputs, you definately want to try
the mics with the Mbox. If not, you can still keep the Mbox and
eventually add external devices like microphone preamp or AD converter.

Mike

"IS" wrote in message
. com...
preamp?
Wouldn't the signal be brought "down" to the quality and character the
M-Box
produces?


no, you would use the 2 analog inserts , that's what I do with my 002.
ed

IS wrote:

I'm not attached to the M-Box at all except for perhaps financial reasons.
However I would like to ask if I were to buy a better mic preamp and would
still have to run the signal through the M-Box in order to be able to use
ProTools wouldn't that automatically defeat the purpose of getting a better
preamp?
Wouldn't the signal be brought "down" to the quality and character the M-Box
produces?

It's likely that to get significant improvement you'd want to use an
external preamp and an outboard convertor, and feed the M-Box digitally.
Maybe a Grace Lunatec v.3 with its built-in ADC would work well.

--
ha

I would recommend the KM 184. The AKG C414 is an _excellent_ mic with
a very smoth sound. However, IMHO, for CG I think this would take
away some immediacy of the sound and make it less "tactile." The KM 184
is a well known industry standard. You won't be disappointed with it.
If your sound is still not to your satisfaction with the KM 184, it is
a fair bet that the problem lies elsewhere and not with the mic.
Anyway, for CG the KM184 gives a nice tight full bass with plenty of
sparkle on top.

And no, I would not recommend you get two cheaper mics. You already
have two cheaper mics!

Best regards,
Joe

OK, I'll play skeptic since that's something I'm accused of being
pretty
good at. Don't get ****ed off!

Where are your time-synched, level-matched, bias-controlled listening
tests
that support your cliam?


You're right, the Mbox is OK, but I would only use it's AD for non
critical recording, perhaps live concerts. I did do some tests. They
don't necessarily have to be hermetically sealed to be valid. In fact
many things surprised me by the simple test I did. I compared a direct
digital copy to a Prism AD-124, to a Sony S777, to an Apogee AD-1000 to
the Mbox. The source was a Tascam Pro CDR. Transfer was made to
ProTools and levels were checked in ProTools. Dither to 16bit to record
back to CDR done with Weiss Gambit POWr. Monitoring was done with
Sennheiser HD600, HD580, Genelec 1030a and Bryston preamp, boombox and
car stereo.

Blind testing was done on ProTools with headphone monitoring. The
original digital file was thrown into the blind test. I picked out the
original file with only some small difficulty against the Prism and the
Sony. The Apogee was clearly of a different level from the above 24bit
conversions, but not too bad, certainly 'thinner' and 'dryer'
adjectives would apply, but still it was not unacceptable. The Mbox was
even more noticeably off from the original than the apogee. Which lead
me to be disappointed that I would be using it for anything other than
editing.

Off course, these are my subjective findings. However, I was surprised
that I could go from the analog output of my CDR to a 24bit AD
converter to ProTools to the Weiss Dither and back to the CDR and lose
so little quality.

By the way, I'm not offended by your skepticism, if you performed
similar tests, you may have heard the same or differently, who knows. I
do think I have pretty good ears as I have been a classical performer
for almost 30 years and a recordist for 15 years and I even been called
upon to help some violinist colleagues of mine choose which
Stradivarius sounds better. Blah blah blah


Tell me about your eq collection. Is it as deep as your mic, preamp,
and
converter collection?

The type of recording I do does not require EQ, and fortunately, I am
able to keep my recording chain to a minimum with out it. What type of
recording do I do? Minimalist engineering of classical chamber music.
Live to 2 tracks. So EQ for me is only a mastering issue, if necessary.


Proximity effect being a kind of eq. Other, more flexible kinds of eq
can be
very useful as well. Eq can't fix *everything* but its pretty amazing
what
well-tuned eq can do, or what badly-done eq can ruin. The recording
process
is full of different kinds of implicit eq. Sometimes the job is about

undoing intentionally that which happened unintentionally.

If you plan on staying with the Mbox inputs, you definately want to
try the mics with the Mbox. If not, you can still keep the Mbox and
eventually add external devices like microphone preamp or AD
converter.

I guess the sun rises and sets on churning boxes.

In article .com,
"Paul Brown" wrote:

You might suggest that your roommate buy a tuner for about $15.


As I said, it was a 5 minute recording.

Also, the OP talked about classical guitar.

And I also said that it wasn't quite the same, but would be a reference
as to how these particular LDCs sounded on acoustic guitar. The truth is
that every instrument is different, so he's never going to get an exact
answer as to what sounds best on his, so I just gave one example
recording to listen to.


Sorry to be a smart-ass, but I'd rather be a smart-ass than a dumb-ass,

And I'd rather be somewhat polite.

-Todd

wrote in message
oups.com

By the way, I'm not offended by your skepticism, if you performed
similar tests, you may have heard the same or differently, who knows.
I do think I have pretty good ears as I have been a classical
performer for almost 30 years and a recordist for 15 years and I even
been called upon to help some violinist colleagues of mine choose
which Stradivarius sounds better. Blah blah blah

If you want to see how I did it, point your browser at

http://www.pcabx.com/product/soundcard/index.htm .

My basic procedure was to produce a string of digital test files from farily
precise live recordings of simple sounds made with a resonably high quality
setup - described in more detail at
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm . I included some test
tones so that I could do what I would with the test files and then carefully
level-match and technically analyze the results at the end.

I recorded and re-recorded the test files with a number of audio interfaces,
up to 20 times. At the time these tests were done, the Card Deluxe was a
relatively high performance audio interface. You might want to take a shot
at the Card Deluxe 20 times files to start out with. You can listen to the
results for yourself using one the provided DBT test administration
programs.

If I had a lot of time to burn, I would probably redo these tests with my
LynxTWO. I suspect that 30-50 reps would probably excape detection by most
people.

Arny,
I began to sample your tests on Pro Tools and so far, the sound quality
of the samples are so poor, that it is not meaningful to me. I don't
think I would be able to tell the original file from a cassette copy.

This brings up the question for me, would I notice 20 copies from a
high quality source? Maybe not... but I think it's important to have an
original file that's clean and full in tone before I would judge the
effects of multiple generations through AD and DA.

On a positive note, you've inspired me to do some more tests here!

Mike

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny,

I began to sample your tests on Pro Tools and so far, the sound
quality of the samples are so poor, that it is not meaningful to me.

I'll bet the absence of reverb and eq kinda faked you out.

I don't think I would be able to tell the original file from a
cassette copy.

Got anything of your own that you think is better?

If so, then use it! Dooooh!

This brings up the question for me, would I notice 20 copies from a
high quality source?

I guess you're saying that you've never found a sufficiently high quality
source to hear the differences that you somehow a priori know are there.

Record much?

Maybe not... but I think it's important to have
an original file that's clean and full in tone before I would judge
the effects of multiple generations through AD and DA.

Thanks for indicting your own work by admitting that it doesn't meet your
own standards. Otherwise, you'd be using it, right? ;-)

On a positive note, you've inspired me to do some more tests here!

I think that when you get some real world experience with actually hearing
differences, you'll think twice before critiquing what you obviously aren't
understanding.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
OK so you're talking about spectral balance. Spectral balance is one of
those things that people can manage to some degree with equalization.

Hey Boss

What is "Spectral balance" I google it ,and got some stuff but . . help.. .
I just want to know the time not how the watch was made. .lol. .

http://speech.bme.ogi.edu/publications/ps/santen02.pdf is what I got

--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/

"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
nk.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
OK so you're talking about spectral balance. Spectral balance is one
of those things that people can manage to some degree with
equalization.

Hey Boss

What is "Spectral balance" I google it ,and got some stuff but . .
help.. . I just want to know the time not how the watch was made.
.lol. .

http://speech.bme.ogi.edu/publications/ps/santen02.pdf is what I got

A very narrow and technical paper from a different area. But, an "E" for
effort. ;-)

Spectral balance refers to the balance of energy in the low bass, mid bass,
lower midrange, upper midrange lower treble and upper frequency regions. Or,
in whatever frequency ranges are meaningful to you. For example, a lot of
vocal microphones have lots of peaked up response in the lower treble range.
Their spectral balance is weighted towards the lower treble. Their response
is rolled off in the bass. Their spectral balance is that they are light on
bass.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Edward Bridge" wrote in message
nk.net
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
OK so you're talking about spectral balance. Spectral balance is one
of those things that people can manage to some degree with
equalization.

Hey Boss

What is "Spectral balance" I google it ,and got some stuff but . .
help.. . I just want to know the time not how the watch was made.
.lol. .

http://speech.bme.ogi.edu/publications/ps/santen02.pdf is what I got

A very narrow and technical paper from a different area. But, an "E" for
effort. ;-)

whew, I'm glad I got a "E" instead of a "I" which is how I feel sometimes
trying to learn the world of audio ..lol .

Spectral balance refers to the balance of energy in the low bass, mid
bass,
lower midrange, upper midrange lower treble and upper frequency regions.
Or,
in whatever frequency ranges are meaningful to you. For example, a lot of
vocal microphones have lots of peaked up response in the lower treble
range.
Their spectral balance is weighted towards the lower treble. Their
response
is rolled off in the bass. Their spectral balance is that they are light
on
bass.

Arny
Thank you very much. Each day I try to learn at least one thing in this news
group.
--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/

"IS" wrote in message
. com...
I need a mic to record a Classical Guitar.

1.
I was thinking about either a Neumann KM 184 or AKG C414.


http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/msg/59201037.html he has some km184's

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:22:07 -0500, Edward Bridge wrote
(in article et):

"IS" wrote in message
. com...
I need a mic to record a Classical Guitar.

1.
I was thinking about either a Neumann KM 184 or AKG C414.


http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/msg/59201037.html he has some km184's

Schoeps cmc64 or cmc641 in a nasty room.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
...

Schoeps cmc64 or cmc641 in a nasty room.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Thanks, just made a mental note, if I see them around on sale , I'll grab
them. Maybe I keep them here (nasty room in brooklyn) and use the km184 in
my large county home, when I find one, and I'm looking !

--
Peace,
Ed Bridge
Brooklyn N.Y.
http://www.bridgeclassicalguitars.com/