| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Cheap mics and small rooms
Considering the acoustical issues of a small room and off-axis
anomalies of cheap microphones, I speculate that if not handled properly this can be a deadly combination. The usual recommendation of not recording in a completely dead space appears not to apply when using microphones that have bad off-axis response. No matter how well you remove a room's resonance problems, as long as you have reflections, even pleasant ones, wouldn't it require a mic that is good off-axis? I figure that to get decent recordings from a small room, you can either keep the room somewhat live and use a mic that sounds good both on and off-axis, or if using a mic that is good on-axis but bad off- axis, you can deaden the room and rely on a good reverb. Perhaps a reason budget mic users have trouble making good recordings is their reliance on reviews of microphones that were reviewed in nice big rooms or nice dead rooms. Jeff |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
straightnut wrote:
Considering the acoustical issues of a small room and off-axis anomalies of cheap microphones, I speculate that if not handled properly this can be a deadly combination. Yes, this is true. The usual recommendation of not recording in a completely dead space appears not to apply when using microphones that have bad off-axis response. No matter how well you remove a room's resonance problems, as long as you have reflections, even pleasant ones, wouldn't it require a mic that is good off-axis? Right, but microphones that are decent off-axis are not necessarily expensive. You can get an EV 635A for $25 on the used market. It's very beamy and has no low end, but it doesn't sound bad on the side. For a little more money and a lot more directionality you can get an EV N/D 468. Hell, for $25 you can get the Behringer omni that isn't bad at all off-axis. The thing is, if you want good off-axis response and you want it to be cheap, you're probably going to wind up with an omni. And that means more room sound. I figure that to get decent recordings from a small room, you can either keep the room somewhat live and use a mic that sounds good both on and off-axis, or if using a mic that is good on-axis but bad off- axis, you can deaden the room and rely on a good reverb. Depends on the room and what you're trying for. If you want it to sound like someone playing in a small room (which is appropriate for some music), that's fine. If you track everything dead and rely on fake reverb, you can deal with some instruments, like electric guitars, very well. You might even survive with an acoustic guitar. But you will never get a good drum sound this way, and forget a cello. Perhaps a reason budget mic users have trouble making good recordings is their reliance on reviews of microphones that were reviewed in nice big rooms or nice dead rooms. Possibly, but it has more to do with their reliance on marketing bull**** and on reviews of microphones that were reviewed by people who didn't have a damn clue about how microphones work. I read some of the audio magazines and read the reviews and they just make me want to tear my hair out some of them are so awful. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
straightnut wrote:
I figure that to get decent recordings from a small room, you can either keep the room somewhat live and use a mic that sounds good both on and off-axis, or if using a mic that is good on-axis but bad off- axis, you can deaden the room and rely on a good reverb. In a small room, you can't get a decent natural reverb, never mind what mic you record it with. A small room with a reverberation time long enough to be useful will have too many irregularities in frequency response. So if you have a small room, you bass trap and wide-band absorb it as much as you can afford the space for, because the best mic in the world won't fix a flutter echo or a bass response with lumps and nulls in it. Obviously, mics with a crappy off-axis response can make things worse, and even a well acoustically treated room reflects some sound, so a good off axis mic reponse still makes a difference. When you make a recording of a concert in a hall that has a good natural acoustic that is far better than any artificial reverb, you use good mics for a main stereo pair and their off axis response matters desperately, because you're recording the whole room. But you can't do it that way in a small room. Perhaps a reason budget mic users have trouble making good recordings is their reliance on reviews You can stop that sentence right there! If they rely on their ears and have enough experience, they shoud be able to work out whether the trouble is the mic, the mic position, the room, the monitors or something else. -- Anahata -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827 |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
straightnut wrote:
Considering the acoustical issues of a small room and off-axis anomalies of cheap microphones, I speculate that if not handled properly this can be a deadly combination. The usual recommendation of not recording in a completely dead space appears not to apply when using microphones that have bad off-axis response. No matter how well you remove a room's resonance problems, as long as you have reflections, even pleasant ones, wouldn't it require a mic that is good off-axis? I figure that to get decent recordings from a small room, you can either keep the room somewhat live and use a mic that sounds good both on and off-axis, or if using a mic that is good on-axis but bad off- axis, you can deaden the room and rely on a good reverb. Perhaps a reason budget mic users have trouble making good recordings is their reliance on reviews of microphones that were reviewed in nice big rooms or nice dead rooms. A helpful approach can be the strategic placement of baffles that reduce the level of off-axis information. But yes, you're onto something here that is generally overlooked in the "do it all in our bedroom with your laptop" scenario, and that's the combo of room and mic quality. What makes a Schoeps worth its asking money? Perhaps that what arrives off-axis sounds almost exactly like what arrives on-axis, but at reduced level. The same applies to the Sennheiser MD441, also not cheap. -- ha Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
If you track everything dead and rely on fake reverb, you can deal with
some instruments, like electric guitars, very well. You might even survive with an acoustic guitar. But you will never get a good drum sound this way, and forget a cello. I think it's quite possible to record drums in maybe not dead but neutral small rooms. I find that the problem with medium rooms is that you will still get those rather annoying early reflections which makes everything sound a bit like records from the 50s. Obviously big rooms is the way to go but with them comes a higher pricetag and that is not exactly good for creativity. So neutral rooms along with a good IR reverb on the overheads can get you pretty far if you ask me. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Dec 24, 3:07*pm, "HKC" wrote:
I think it's quite possible to record drums in maybe not dead but neutral small rooms. I find that the problem with medium rooms is that you will still get those rather annoying early reflections which makes everything sound a bit like records from the 50s. Obviously big rooms is the way to go but with them comes a higher pricetag and that is not exactly good for creativity. So neutral rooms along with a good IR reverb on the overheads can get you pretty far if you ask me. How big is big? How big is small? I have for years been recording in a small room - about 11'x17' with an 8' drop ceiling. I am now moving to a new space where the main room is 15' x 36' with a 12' ceiling. I am eager to start working in this room and will be experimenting a lot. Just wondering how some of you would categorize this size space as far as ambience possibilities. Drywall walls all around. Albert |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Dec 24, 11:12*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Right, but microphones that are decent off-axis are not necessarily expensive. *You can get an EV 635A for $25 on the used market. *It's very beamy and has no low end, but it doesn't sound bad on the side. For a little more money and a lot more directionality you can get an EV N/D 468. *Hell, for $25 you can get the Behringer omni that isn't bad at all off-axis. The Behringer is one of the mics Bob Morein and I tried on my acoustic guitar. It ended up pretty high up in my rankings, perhaps for this reason. If you track everything dead and rely on fake reverb, you can deal with some instruments, like electric guitars, very well. *You might even survive with an acoustic guitar. *But you will never get a good drum sound this way, and forget a cello. Fortunately for me, the only instruments I plan to track in this room are voice and acoustic guitar. If I need a live drum track I'll be heading to a pro studio, though I plan to look into some of the drum software packages and loops for what I need. Perhaps a reason budget mic users have trouble making good recordings is their reliance on reviews of microphones that were reviewed in nice big rooms or nice dead rooms. Possibly, but it has more to do with their reliance on marketing bull**** and on reviews of microphones that were reviewed by people who didn't have a damn clue about how microphones work. *I read some of the audio magazines and read the reviews and they just make me want to tear my hair out some of them are so awful. I can certainly understand your view on this. But how does one sift through all of the Neumanns and Schoeps and B&K's, etc. to know exactly which microphone in which line by which company is worth buying for which purpose? Isn't it somewhat of a crapshoot? With so many models to choose from, how do you decide, without relying on reviews, unless someone has them in stock in a local studio? Rental prices are a small fortune from what I've seen. Do the high end manufacturers expect several exchanges until you find what you need? Are there manufacturer cd's that you can listen to that cover a bunch of models on the same source? I could see that being very helpful. Even more helpful if produced by a third party. I've found the few mic comparison samples that some people post on their websites as a big help. You read something fantastic about a mic and expect it to work miracles only to find in these samples that you can't stand it or that the differences are too subtle to matter for your purpose. And with the low priced mics, how does one test out 20 mics in the less than $500 range or less than $200 range? I haven't spent much money yet on microphones. I have 2 MCA SP-1, a Studio Projects C-1, AT2020, and AT2021. I realize at this point that if I were to do it all over again I would probably spend a little more money and have only 3 really good mics. Two specifically for guitar and one colored to help my particular voice. Thanks, Jeff |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 10:42:00 -0500, straightnut wrote
(in article ): Considering the acoustical issues of a small room and off-axis anomalies of cheap microphones, I speculate that if not handled properly this can be a deadly combination. The usual recommendation of not recording in a completely dead space appears not to apply when using microphones that have bad off-axis response. No matter how well you remove a room's resonance problems, as long as you have reflections, even pleasant ones, wouldn't it require a mic that is good off-axis? If your completely dead space is equally dead at all frequencies, it helps. Few are. If they are, it's very tough on the performer because they can't hear themselves enough. I figure that to get decent recordings from a small room, you can either keep the room somewhat live and use a mic that sounds good both on and off-axis, or if using a mic that is good on-axis but bad off- axis, you can deaden the room and rely on a good reverb. see above. Perhaps a reason budget mic users have trouble making good recordings is their reliance on reviews of microphones that were reviewed in nice big rooms or nice dead rooms. Jeff Always a consideration. I'm thinking there probably aren't many nice dead rooms these days. I think, more likely, it's about the crappy budget mics (not to be confused with the uncrappy budget mics) crappy preamps and crappy mic placement. Had a chat with a recordist recently who was asking me about my YouTube recording and other acoustic guitar samples on my site. How do I get the sound. Well the guitar itself has a lot to do with it. I was at the Wilmington, DE guitar show last month and heard some pretty underwhelming guitars. And they were far from cheap. I was thinking, "Boy, that guys really looks as though he likes the sound of that guitar. I can't say I agree. Too thin, sort of raspy. Not my cup of tea. Regards, Ty Ford Merry Xmas, BTW --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 22:37:06 -0500, Albert wrote
(in article ): On Dec 24, 3:07*pm, "HKC" wrote: I think it's quite possible to record drums in maybe not dead but neutral small rooms. I find that the problem with medium rooms is that you will still get those rather annoying early reflections which makes everything sound a bit like records from the 50s. Obviously big rooms is the way to go but with them comes a higher pricetag and that is not exactly good for creativity. So neutral rooms along with a good IR reverb on the overheads can get you pretty far if you ask me. How big is big? How big is small? I have for years been recording in a small room - about 11'x17' with an 8' drop ceiling. I am now moving to a new space where the main room is 15' x 36' with a 12' ceiling. I am eager to start working in this room and will be experimenting a lot. Just wondering how some of you would categorize this size space as far as ambience possibilities. Drywall walls all around. Albert Hello Albert, Congrats on the bigger room. That sounds exciting. I'd probably try to zone a room that big with different amounts of reflective and absorptive surfaces to allow me to get different sorts of sounds. A hard floor on one end, carpet on the other. Angled walls (or furniture) to break up room modes. adjustable hung ceiling panels to breakup ceiling bounce and make it more interesting. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:05:58 -0500, straightnut wrote
(in article ): I can certainly understand your view on this. But how does one sift through all of the Neumanns and Schoeps and B&K's, etc. to know exactly which microphone in which line by which company is worth buying for which purpose? Isn't it somewhat of a crapshoot? No. You buy one or two CMC641 Schoeps mics and never look back. I use them on acoustic guitar, guitar amp, sax, bckd vocal, percussion, drum overheads, dialog and VO; just about anything. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
Please do not let not haveing"the right stuff" stop you from recording
I am currently grooveing on a 1950''s recording of Rev Gary Davis done in his living room (long before he was"famous") with a hand held carbon mic and something akin to a kids toy recorder The recording is wonderful and is missing nothing I doubt it would have been done any better by Abbey Road studios George |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Dec 25, 4:25*pm, wrote:
Please do not let not haveing"the right stuff" stop you from recording I am currently grooveing on a 1950''s recording of Rev Gary Davis done in his living room (long before he was"famous") with a hand held carbon mic and something akin to a kids toy recorder The recording is wonderful and is missing nothing I doubt it would have been done any better by Abbey Road studios George Oh no, I wouldn't let it stop me. Just want the best I can afford. Jeff |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Dec 25, 8:14*am, Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:05:58 -0500, straightnut wrote (in article ): I can certainly understand your view on this. But how does one sift through all of the Neumanns and Schoeps and B&K's, etc. to know exactly which microphone in which line by which company is worth buying for which purpose? Isn't it somewhat of a crapshoot? No. You buy one or two CMC641 Schoeps mics and never look back. I use them on acoustic guitar, guitar amp, sax, bckd vocal, percussion, drum overheads, dialog and VO; just about anything. Yes, but how did you discover that the CMC641 was the right Schoeps? How many in their line and others did you have access to before you made that decision? I'm just saying that at some point you have to go with the best of the ones you've had access to. For people like me, that's very few. So we rely on reviews and advice from people who have heard a ton of mics, like you guys. I just wish there were a cd with tons of recorded samples of various sources through many mics. I'd pay for that. That would obviate the need for reviews or hearsay. Jeff |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
"straightnut" wrote in message ... On Dec 25, 8:14 am, Ty Ford wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:05:58 -0500, straightnut wrote (in article ): I can certainly understand your view on this. But how does one sift through all of the Neumanns and Schoeps and B&K's, etc. to know exactly which microphone in which line by which company is worth buying for which purpose? Isn't it somewhat of a crapshoot? No. You buy one or two CMC641 Schoeps mics and never look back. I use them on acoustic guitar, guitar amp, sax, bckd vocal, percussion, drum overheads, dialog and VO; just about anything. Yes, but how did you discover that the CMC641 was the right Schoeps? How many in their line and others did you have access to before you made that decision? I'm just saying that at some point you have to go with the best of the ones you've had access to. For people like me, that's very few. So we rely on reviews and advice from people who have heard a ton of mics, like you guys. I just wish there were a cd with tons of recorded samples of various sources through many mics. I'd pay for that. That would obviate the need for reviews or hearsay. Jeff if you have the money to buy what Ty recommends, he is the go to guy for mic advice george |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Dec 25, 10:09*pm, straightnut wrote:
I just wish there were a cd with tons of recorded samples of various sources through many mics. I'd pay for that. That would obviate the need for reviews or hearsay. Jeff I forgot about this site: http://www.thelisteningsessions.com/sessions.htm Something like this. Jeff |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
|
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
|
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
straightnut wrote in
: Yes, but how did you discover that the CMC641 was the right Schoeps? How many in their line and others did you have access to before you made that decision? I'm just saying that at some point you have to go with the best of the ones you've had access to. For people like me, that's very few. So we rely on reviews and advice from people who have heard a ton of mics, like you guys. I just wish there were a cd with tons of recorded samples of various sources through many mics. I'd pay for that. That would obviate the need for reviews or hearsay. I auditioned the 641 based on recommendations from this group and then never looked back. I can say with reasonable assurance that, if used correctly, it will sound natural just about anywhere. I have used them in small spaces, huge, close in, far away, noisy environments and quiet. They are remarkable in their ability to capture a sound very much like you hear with you own ears. They don't like wet. They don't like cell phones (what does?). They must be treated with the same care you'd give any microphone. And they don't perform miracles. You can't make a sound better than it is. And they are a fixed patter. If you need an omni, they won't do. Furthermore, there are other excellent microphones out there as well. I not touting these above all others. I'm just saying that they are about the safest bet on the market. Whereas you could record an entire rock band with SM-57's, using just that one sound, and you could record nearly every solo voice (and many other things) with the bright, clear sound of a U-87, then you could record most uncolored sources with the 641. My comparisons include a few Neumann, DPA, AKG, BLUE, Rode, and MXL. Only one or two of each (I seldom borrow mics and my locker is small). |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
straightnut wrote:
Fortunately for me, the only instruments I plan to track in this room are voice and acoustic guitar. If I need a live drum track I'll be heading to a pro studio, though I plan to look into some of the drum software packages and loops for what I need. Unfortunately those are two others that really benefit from a good room. I can certainly understand your view on this. But how does one sift through all of the Neumanns and Schoeps and B&K's, etc. to know exactly which microphone in which line by which company is worth buying for which purpose? Isn't it somewhat of a crapshoot? With so many models to choose from, how do you decide, without relying on reviews, unless someone has them in stock in a local studio? Rental prices are a small fortune from what I've seen. You have to try them. There is no shortcut. And yes, most of the standard microphones you want will be in stock in a local studio. You go into a reasonably well-equipped studio, you'll find a U87, a couple RCA ribbon, lots of SM-57s, at least one good neutral-sounding small diaphragm condenser, a bunch of 421s, etc. They may have some oddities too, but things like typical Neumann and Schoeps mikes are standard studio items that you just expect to see when you go in the door. Do the high end manufacturers expect several exchanges until you find what you need? Yes, that's true. You can call Mercenary, have them send you a bunch of microphones on a credit card, and send back most of them. Folks expect that. Are there manufacturer cd's that you can listen to that cover a bunch of models on the same source? I could see that being very helpful. Even more helpful if produced by a third party. There are a bunch of these, and Mercenary made one. Neumann has one too. For the most part I am not sure how useful they really are because you don't have the original experience to compare with the recording. I've found the few mic comparison samples that some people post on their websites as a big help. You read something fantastic about a mic and expect it to work miracles only to find in these samples that you can't stand it or that the differences are too subtle to matter for your purpose. You really want to be able to hear the live instrument in the room to compare with the recording, if possible. I know that's not always possible, but it helps a lot, especially with area miking. And with the low priced mics, how does one test out 20 mics in the less than $500 range or less than $200 range? I haven't spent much money yet on microphones. I have 2 MCA SP-1, a Studio Projects C-1, AT2020, and AT2021. I realize at this point that if I were to do it all over again I would probably spend a little more money and have only 3 really good mics. Two specifically for guitar and one colored to help my particular voice. I'd probably go to a studio with a decent mike closet, offer them half their normal hourly rate to get an hour of time wedged in between scheduled sessions, and record yourself with everything you can get your hands on. Then take the tape home and play it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
Peter Larsen wrote:
wrote: if you have the money to buy what Ty recommends, he is the go to guy for mic advice Ty, Scott and Mike are well worth reading, but not the only guys here worth reading. MXL 603's do occasionally get favourable mention as highly cost efficient small membrane microphones, and are good starter toys. There is also a 604, at a glance the difference is a 10 dB attenuator. The response plots on mxl's site look reasonably honest .... Don't believe us. Don't believe the vendors. Don't believe anything anybody says on the Internet. Go out and listen to microphones. That said, I should have found the money and purchased the KM84's referred to in another post. It is with recording as with learning to play an instrument: the newbie has enough to combat and does not need to also conquer a mediocre instrument (Bracony, in his Guitar School). Things Schoeps are not mediocre, it can be difficult to hear the difference between their stuff and the local brand (DPA) on violins. You like the KM84 more than the DPA 4006, for example? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Things Schoeps are not mediocre, it can be difficult to hear the difference between their stuff and the local brand (DPA) on violins. You like the KM84 more than the DPA 4006, for example? Scott, I don't mind answering, but I don't see the chain of logic that leads to the question, I was specifically comparing the Schoeps sub-cardioid with the 4006, the most obvious difference is 6 dB less audience noise with the sub cardioid, there is also a subtle difference, the Schoeps has a bit too much around 7 kHz and the 4006 with silver grid has a slight elevation of the two upper octaves. Both are however very smooth and very good. I much prefer the 4006 with the nosecones attached rather than with silver grid, linearity suffers, but can be fixed in post because it gets the same ""flawed"" response on all angles of incidence. And the audience as well as ambience does not sound dull with the nosecones in place. It is unfair to answer based on having items 1 (one) two track 19 cm/s recording made with an ex works revox in 1975 with a mezzo and an organ. I need to include in the answer that quite many people in my context here in Denmark have 4006's and that just making the same recordings is not my recording concept, especially as I have had favorable comments on the results I get with the CK1's that I almost always use on my CK452EB's. I also have CK22's, but they only rarely get used. It is basen on the above wider sets of reasons, not just quality per se, but also my recording style, that a KM84 pair is higher on my "2buy if possible" list than a 4006 pair based on my recollection of Jaegersborg Church and its organ and that recording thereof. Interestingly the choice - if so inclined - seems to be between Røde NT5 (I think() and KM184. I already have one pair of small capsule condensers with treble boost, and I am mostly inclined to go in the direction of not having to eq the main pair in post. USD 3200 for a 30 years old pair of KM84's is why I wrote to Neumann as posted recently and asked them to resume manufacturing them .... O;-) ... more microphones are however not in the immediate budget, there are other needs and recording and restoring still costs me money rather than make me money. --scott Kind regards Peter Larsen |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:09:15 -0500, straightnut wrote
(in article ): On Dec 25, 8:14*am, Ty Ford wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 23:05:58 -0500, straightnut wrote (in article ): I can certainly understand your view on this. But how does one sift through all of the Neumanns and Schoeps and B&K's, etc. to know exactly which microphone in which line by which company is worth buying for which purpose? Isn't it somewhat of a crapshoot? No. You buy one or two CMC641 Schoeps mics and never look back. I use them on acoustic guitar, guitar amp, sax, bckd vocal, percussion, drum overheads, dialog and VO; just about anything. Yes, but how did you discover that the CMC641 was the right Schoeps? How many in their line and others did you have access to before you made that decision? I'm just saying that at some point you have to go with the best of the ones you've had access to. For people like me, that's very few. So we rely on reviews and advice from people who have heard a ton of mics, like you guys. I just wish there were a cd with tons of recorded samples of various sources through many mics. I'd pay for that. That would obviate the need for reviews or hearsay. Jeff There are CDs with comparisons, but they don't usually put each mic in exactly the right place, so you get what you get. The mic preamps used also can make a big difference. A cmc641 sounds a lot better through a better preamp than through a Mackie mixer. I had both the cmc64 cardioid and cmc641 supercardioid capsules here for review. The cmc64 was too wide for my room. I heard too much room. With the 641 I hear less of the room and I really like the sound. You can hear and see the CMC641 in use by clicking on the Guitar player link below. Even with the massive amount of data compression, I get good comments on the audio quality. There are also cuts in my on line sampler. http://tinyurl.com/2tknqg Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
. .. On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:25:24 -0500, wrote (in article ): Please do not let not haveing"the right stuff" stop you from recording I am currently grooveing on a 1950''s recording of Rev Gary Davis done in his living room (long before he was"famous") with a hand held carbon mic and something akin to a kids toy recorder The recording is wonderful and is missing nothing I doubt it would have been done any better by Abbey Road studios George Recorded by whom? (and you know where I'm going with this.) John Cohen. I have that recording too, and it's good, but it can't hold a candle to Rudy Van Gelder's recording of the Reverend a couple of years later. Peace, Paul |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
"Ty Ford" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:25:24 -0500, wrote (in article ): Please do not let not haveing"the right stuff" stop you from recording I am currently grooveing on a 1950''s recording of Rev Gary Davis done in his living room (long before he was"famous") with a hand held carbon mic and something akin to a kids toy recorder The recording is wonderful and is missing nothing I doubt it would have been done any better by Abbey Road studios George Recorded by whom? (and you know where I'm going with this.) Regards, Ty Ford I will have to check the liner notes, but from my casual reading I am guessing it was just a fan not a skilled recordist the Cd is called"If I had my way" George |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 06:55:38 -0500, wrote
(in article ): "Ty Ford" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 16:25:24 -0500, wrote (in article ): Please do not let not haveing"the right stuff" stop you from recording I am currently grooveing on a 1950''s recording of Rev Gary Davis done in his living room (long before he was"famous") with a hand held carbon mic and something akin to a kids toy recorder The recording is wonderful and is missing nothing I doubt it would have been done any better by Abbey Road studios George Recorded by whom? (and you know where I'm going with this.) Regards, Ty Ford I will have to check the liner notes, but from my casual reading I am guessing it was just a fan not a skilled recordist the Cd is called"If I had my way" George Well, OK, I'll be the first to admit that content tops technical sound in certain situations and the Reverend meets those criteria, but the average person on this newsgroup will probably never get a chance like that. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
... Please do not let not haveing"the right stuff" stop you from recording I am currently grooveing on a 1950''s recording of Rev Gary Davis done in his living room (long before he was"famous") with a hand held carbon mic and something akin to a kids toy recorder The recording is wonderful and is missing nothing I doubt it would have been done any better by Abbey Road studios Recorded by whom? (and you know where I'm going with this.) I will have to check the liner notes, but from my casual reading I am guessing it was just a fan not a skilled recordist the Cd is called"If I had my way" Well, OK, I'll be the first to admit that content tops technical sound in certain situations and the Reverend meets those criteria, but the average person on this newsgroup will probably never get a chance like that. John Cohen is a skilled recordist...now. (His many field recordings in Appalachia and South America are testimony to that.) Back then he was still learning, and recording with consumer-quality equipment (which in 1954 was pretty terrible), in Rev. Davis's small Harlem apartment. Peace, Paul |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
Peter Larsen wrote:
Scott, I don't mind answering, but I don't see the chain of logic that leads to the question, I was specifically comparing the Schoeps sub-cardioid with the 4006, the most obvious difference is 6 dB less audience noise with the sub cardioid, there is also a subtle difference, the Schoeps has a bit too much around 7 kHz and the 4006 with silver grid has a slight elevation of the two upper octaves. Both are however very smooth and very good. The tonal difference is what I mean, yes. I much prefer the 4006 with the nosecones attached rather than with silver grid, linearity suffers, but can be fixed in post because it gets the same ""flawed"" response on all angles of incidence. And the audience as well as ambience does not sound dull with the nosecones in place. Hmm... see, I like the slight beaminess of the grid. In fact, I like the old B&H 4145 even more, because it's even beamier. On a Jecklin disc it gives you a little more separation... and even though the stuff on the side sounds a little dull, it doesn't sound bad. It is basen on the above wider sets of reasons, not just quality per se, but also my recording style, that a KM84 pair is higher on my "2buy if possible" list than a 4006 pair based on my recollection of Jaegersborg Church and its organ and that recording thereof. Interestingly the choice - if so inclined - seems to be between Røde NT5 (I think() and KM184. I already have one pair of small capsule condensers with treble boost, and I am mostly inclined to go in the direction of not having to eq the main pair in post. USD 3200 for a 30 years old pair of KM84's is why I wrote to Neumann as posted recently and asked them to resume manufacturing them .... O;-) ... more microphones are however not in the immediate budget, there are other needs and recording and restoring still costs me money rather than make me money. Yeah, I think the prices for KM84s right now is crazy. But then, I think the prices for U47s is even crazier. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Cheap mics and small rooms
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: [4006 silver grid] Hmm... see, I like the slight beaminess of the grid. In fact, I like the old B&H 4145 even more, because it's even beamier. On a Jecklin disc it gives you a little more separation... and even though the stuff on the side sounds a little dull, it doesn't sound bad. Makes a lot of sense, the Jecklin disk decorrelation differs in imaging from omni's that are decorrelated by wider horisontal separation, possibly also by having a more terse bass response. Yeah, I think the prices for KM84s right now is crazy. But then, I think the prices for U47s is even crazier. No contest, an ex works new KM84 at KM184 price would be at the top of my wishlist. Used those money for getting the Skoda dipped in Dinitrol instead, made more sense to me from a long term perspective. --scott Kind regards Peter Larsen |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Small diaphragm bi-directional mics? | Pro Audio | |||
| small mics | Pro Audio | |||
| Small mics for Windows | Tech | |||
| FS: THE small cap mics | Pro Audio | |||
| Small, wireless stereo mics? | Tech | |||
Linear Mode
