[hank alrich]

H. Khalil wrote:

On 20 Jul., 00:01, Mike Rivers wrote:

he can try playing with EQ on the recording that he made
with the Schoeps mic to see if he gets what he's after. He can also try
putting the mic in a different position, recording in a different room,
using different strings, filing his nails differently

I tried all these and also found the optimal setting for me. But what
I am referring to is a certain quality of the guitar, a slight over-
brightness and harshness (typical of a new spruce top classical that
still did not fully open up, which usually takes several years), and I
thought a ribbon could smoothen it a bit.

You could well be right.

(It's a great guitar
though.)

I'd be hesitant to recommend a specific mic,
particularly a Beyer, which can be a bit tricky to work with.

Why is a Beyer particularly tricky to work with?

The M160 and M130 in particular are quite insensitive and hence, require
a capable preamp offering lots of clean and quiet gain.

(I thought Beyer because they are quite easy to get in Germany where I
live.)

Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
might work very well for you.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[H. Khalil]

On 20 Jul., 06:43, (hank alrich) wrote:

Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
might work very well for you.

I am curious why the M160 and not the M130, given that the latter has
a much flater frequency response, judging by the data sheet on the
Beyer page http://www.beyerdynamic.de/en/broadc...crophones.html

The diagram of the M160 shows a bump in the high frequency range that
scares me (a brighter mic than the CMC 641 is the least thing I want).

Do the diagrams have any practical significance?

Thanks!

[Mike Rivers]

H. Khalil wrote:

I am curious why the M160 and not the M130, given that the latter has
a much flater frequency response, judging by the data sheet on the
Beyer page

They're different animals. The M160 is a hypercardioid, the M130 is
bi-directional. The M130 will give you more room sound, which will make
much more difference than a small difference if frequency response on
axis. If the room sounds good you can use it to advantage. If there's a
reflection that you want to null out, you can do it with the
bi-directional, but the M160 is better for getting the direct sound of
the instrument while minimizing the sound of the room.

The diagram of the M160 shows a bump in the high frequency range that
scares me (a brighter mic than the CMC 641 is the least thing I want).
Do the diagrams have any practical significance?

Not much, as long as they're relatively smooth, and then only if they're
actual measurements and not created by the marketing department based
loosely on actual measurements. What's more significant when you're
getting room sound is how the frequency response looks off axis. Beyer
mics, at the time I bought mine, more than 25 years ago, came with
actual frequency response plots.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[hank alrich]

H. Khalil wrote:

On 20 Jul., 06:43, (hank alrich) wrote:

Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
might work very well for you.

I am curious why the M160 and not the M130, given that the latter has
a much flater frequency response, judging by the data sheet on the
Beyer page
http://www.beyerdynamic.de/en/broadc...ction/products
/microphones/studio-microphones.html

The diagram of the M160 shows a bump in the high frequency range that
scares me (a brighter mic than the CMC 641 is the least thing I want).

Do the diagrams have any practical significance?

Thanks!

M160 is cardioid and M130 is Fig. 8. Either might work for you.

I often select an M160 when I am dealing with instruments that can be
overly bright when mic'd closely, such as banjo, mandolin, fiddle.

If you're in Germany try both. They are both good mics. Part of this
comes down to which pattern works better in your own recording room.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

H. Khalil wrote:
On 20 Jul., 06:43, (hank alrich) wrote:

Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
might work very well for you.

I am curious why the M160 and not the M130, given that the latter has
a much flater frequency response, judging by the data sheet on the
Beyer page http://www.beyerdynamic.de/en/broadc...crophones.html

The frequency response of the M130 and M160 in the far field are almost
completely the same. You'll be kind of hard-pressed to tell the
difference between them once the proximity effect ceases to be an issue.

The diagram of the M160 shows a bump in the high frequency range that
scares me (a brighter mic than the CMC 641 is the least thing I want).

Do the diagrams have any practical significance?

Try the mikes. Do it. You'll like them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."