The folks that make the SD Systems STM99 mic (small diaphragm condensor mic
tailored for brass/reed instuments) have a comparison of their mic vs the
Neumann M-147. They basically recorded a sax with both mics simultaneously.
The result is a stereo recording, the STM99 on the left channel and the
M-147 on the right.

I imported the stereo file into Sonar and then bounced it to two separate
mono tracks, panned dead center. I set one track to solo, and then grouped
the solo buttons on each track so that one click would reverse the solo,
effectively giving me a one-click A/B comparison. I monitored via a Delta
1010 audio card to a headphone amp to a pair of mid-range AKG cans.

At first, I thought that possibly the STM99 sounded a little fuller, and a
little truer, whereas the M-147 seemed to meld the sound into a smoother,
more velvety palet. However, every so often, the true nature and sweetness
that makes the sax so nice to listen to would exhibit itself on the M-147
track, yet when A/B-ing it with the STM99, that sweet sax character was
totally missing from it's track.

At times, I was absolutely amazed at how differently the mics performed
dynamically. The Neumann was "hearing" a dynamic fluctuation that the STM99
was not. Indeed, I could have believed that some of the phrases were
recorded separately, even though the timing proved beyond doubt that this
really was a stereo recording.

The next experiment was to add the exact same reverb to each track at
exactly the same level. I did this by adding an Aux bus and inserting a
Sonitus reverb (one of the best sounding plugin reverbs IMHO) into the bus.
A send was then inserted into each of the tracks to feed the bus with the
send levels carefully set to match. Listening to individual phrases by
A/B-ing with the reverb online revealed even more differences between the
characters of the two mics. Many intricate phrases were, to use a cliché,
just "more musical" on the M-147. In fact, the Neumann came to life with
the reverb, where the STM99 turned to mud.

The interesting thing here is that the site is trying to show off the STM99.
I came across the site because I saw the STM99 for sale on a local internet
auction site. I was really hoping that the STM99 was going to sound great.

I'm a passionate, but novice home recordist with around 10 years experience.
I own the likes of Rode, Audio Technica, Studio Projects mics - I've never
owned a Neumann. I come away from this feeling like I just learned
something.

If you want to play, the link to the recording is he
http://www.sdsystems.com/Soundtest/soundSTM99_1.htm

Hope I didn't bore to many of you,
Bill Ruys.

"Bill Ruys" wrote in news:vZngd.677
:


If you want to play, the link to the recording is he
http://www.sdsystems.com/Soundtest/soundSTM99_1.htm

The two channels of the mp3 were not recorded simultaneously.

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message

The folks that make the SD Systems STM99 mic (small diaphragm
condensor mic tailored for brass/reed instuments) have a comparison
of their mic vs the Neumann M-147. They basically recorded a sax
with both mics simultaneously. The result is a stereo recording, the
STM99 on the left channel and the M-147 on the right.

I imported the stereo file into Sonar and then bounced it to two
separate mono tracks, panned dead center. I set one track to solo,
and then grouped the solo buttons on each track so that one click
would reverse the solo, effectively giving me a one-click A/B
comparison. I monitored via a Delta 1010 audio card to a headphone
amp to a pair of mid-range AKG cans.
At first, I thought that possibly the STM99 sounded a little fuller,
and a little truer, whereas the M-147 seemed to meld the sound into a
smoother, more velvety palet. However, every so often, the true
nature and sweetness that makes the sax so nice to listen to would
exhibit itself on the M-147 track, yet when A/B-ing it with the
STM99, that sweet sax character was totally missing from it's track.

At times, I was absolutely amazed at how differently the mics
performed dynamically. The Neumann was "hearing" a dynamic
fluctuation that the STM99 was not. Indeed, I could have believed
that some of the phrases were recorded separately, even though the
timing proved beyond doubt that this really was a stereo recording.

The next experiment was to add the exact same reverb to each track at
exactly the same level. I did this by adding an Aux bus and
inserting a Sonitus reverb (one of the best sounding plugin reverbs
IMHO) into the bus. A send was then inserted into each of the tracks
to feed the bus with the send levels carefully set to match. Listening to
individual phrases by A/B-ing with the reverb online
revealed even more differences between the characters of the two
mics. Many intricate phrases were, to use a cliché, just "more
musical" on the M-147. In fact, the Neumann came to life with the
reverb, where the STM99 turned to mud.
The interesting thing here is that the site is trying to show off the
STM99. I came across the site because I saw the STM99 for sale on a
local internet auction site. I was really hoping that the STM99 was
going to sound great.
I'm a passionate, but novice home recordist with around 10 years
experience. I own the likes of Rode, Audio Technica, Studio Projects
mics - I've never owned a Neumann. I come away from this feeling
like I just learned something.

Given the obvious flaws in the test recording, I'm not sure what can be
learned from it.

If you want to play, the link to the recording is he
http://www.sdsystems.com/Soundtest/soundSTM99_1.htm

It's an interesting comparison but it has an obvious flaw that leads to
questions about how it was made.

It appears that the comparison was made by micing the same instrument with
two different mics, recording each mic on a separate channel. If this was a
high quality digital recorder, so far so good.

If you examine the MP3 file carefully, the channels are not in synch. The
right channel leads by about 14 milliseconds at the beginning of the file.
If you look at the end of the file, where the sound fades out, there is a
very clear echo in the right channel that follows the main sound by about
133 milliseconds.

If you translate these delays into distances using the speed of sound, you
come up with acoustical differences that have no place in a reasonable mic
comparison.

Is one mic about 15 feet closer to the source than the other?

Is one mic oreiented with its tail pointed into a room with a reflective
back wall that is about 72 feet away, while the other mic has its tail
pointed at a fairly dead area?

Hmm, interesting. What could be the reason for doing this? Were they
loading the results in a attempt to make their mic sound better?

Bill.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bill Ruys" wrote in message

The folks that make the SD Systems STM99 mic (small diaphragm
condensor mic tailored for brass/reed instuments) have a comparison
of their mic vs the Neumann M-147. They basically recorded a sax
with both mics simultaneously. The result is a stereo recording, the
STM99 on the left channel and the M-147 on the right.

I imported the stereo file into Sonar and then bounced it to two
separate mono tracks, panned dead center. I set one track to solo,
and then grouped the solo buttons on each track so that one click
would reverse the solo, effectively giving me a one-click A/B
comparison. I monitored via a Delta 1010 audio card to a headphone
amp to a pair of mid-range AKG cans.
At first, I thought that possibly the STM99 sounded a little fuller,
and a little truer, whereas the M-147 seemed to meld the sound into a
smoother, more velvety palet. However, every so often, the true
nature and sweetness that makes the sax so nice to listen to would
exhibit itself on the M-147 track, yet when A/B-ing it with the
STM99, that sweet sax character was totally missing from it's track.

At times, I was absolutely amazed at how differently the mics
performed dynamically. The Neumann was "hearing" a dynamic
fluctuation that the STM99 was not. Indeed, I could have believed
that some of the phrases were recorded separately, even though the
timing proved beyond doubt that this really was a stereo recording.

The next experiment was to add the exact same reverb to each track at
exactly the same level. I did this by adding an Aux bus and
inserting a Sonitus reverb (one of the best sounding plugin reverbs
IMHO) into the bus. A send was then inserted into each of the tracks
to feed the bus with the send levels carefully set to match. Listening to
individual phrases by A/B-ing with the reverb online
revealed even more differences between the characters of the two
mics. Many intricate phrases were, to use a cliché, just "more
musical" on the M-147. In fact, the Neumann came to life with the
reverb, where the STM99 turned to mud.
The interesting thing here is that the site is trying to show off the
STM99. I came across the site because I saw the STM99 for sale on a
local internet auction site. I was really hoping that the STM99 was
going to sound great.
I'm a passionate, but novice home recordist with around 10 years
experience. I own the likes of Rode, Audio Technica, Studio Projects
mics - I've never owned a Neumann. I come away from this feeling
like I just learned something.

Given the obvious flaws in the test recording, I'm not sure what can be
learned from it.

If you want to play, the link to the recording is he
http://www.sdsystems.com/Soundtest/soundSTM99_1.htm

It's an interesting comparison but it has an obvious flaw that leads to
questions about how it was made.

It appears that the comparison was made by micing the same instrument with
two different mics, recording each mic on a separate channel. If this was
a high quality digital recorder, so far so good.

If you examine the MP3 file carefully, the channels are not in synch. The
right channel leads by about 14 milliseconds at the beginning of the file.
If you look at the end of the file, where the sound fades out, there is a
very clear echo in the right channel that follows the main sound by about
133 milliseconds.

If you translate these delays into distances using the speed of sound, you
come up with acoustical differences that have no place in a reasonable mic
comparison.

Is one mic about 15 feet closer to the source than the other?

Is one mic oreiented with its tail pointed into a room with a reflective
back wall that is about 72 feet away, while the other mic has its tail
pointed at a fairly dead area?

Actually, Arny, looking more closely, in some places the right channel is
early and in others it's late - very strange...

Bill Ruys.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Bill Ruys" wrote in message


It's an interesting comparison but it has an obvious flaw that leads to
questions about how it was made.

It appears that the comparison was made by micing the same instrument with
two different mics, recording each mic on a separate channel. If this was
a high quality digital recorder, so far so good.

If you examine the MP3 file carefully, the channels are not in synch. The
right channel leads by about 14 milliseconds at the beginning of the file.
If you look at the end of the file, where the sound fades out, there is a
very clear echo in the right channel that follows the main sound by about
133 milliseconds.

If you translate these delays into distances using the speed of sound, you
come up with acoustical differences that have no place in a reasonable mic
comparison.

Is one mic about 15 feet closer to the source than the other?

Is one mic oreiented with its tail pointed into a room with a reflective
back wall that is about 72 feet away, while the other mic has its tail
pointed at a fairly dead area?

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message

Actually, Arny, looking more closely, in some places the right
channel is early and in others it's late - very strange...

The instrumentalist was walking around?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:JtmdndYhkYnzuR_cRVn-
:

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message

Actually, Arny, looking more closely, in some places the right
channel is early and in others it's late - very strange...

The instrumentalist was walking around?




Look at (listen to) the file between 22 & 25 seconds (for a very obvious
difference) and at many other points in the file. The two channels are
*NOT* recordings of the same 'performance' as it were. Seems extremely
bogus to me.

"Forty Winks" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in news:JtmdndYhkYnzuR_cRVn-
:

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message

Actually, Arny, looking more closely, in some places the right
channel is early and in others it's late - very strange...

The instrumentalist was walking around?




Look at (listen to) the file between 22 & 25 seconds (for a very obvious
difference) and at many other points in the file. The two channels are
*NOT* recordings of the same 'performance' as it were. Seems extremely
bogus to me.

The spectrograph view shows that there are three clear sections with breaks
at 43 and 1:24. It also shows that the two channels don't break at the same
time. If you line up the tracks in each section to compensate for the basic
delay you get a drift of a couple of milliseconds, which I think could be
the player shifting around as he plays.

I figure it was the same performance but there were some recording
conditions that really screwed up the comparison, in addition to the two
channels being edited in separate processes and combined later. "Amateurish"
is the best description to me.

Sean

"Sean Conolly" wrote in news:hfrgd.232858
:

figure it was the same performance but there were some recording
conditions that really screwed up the comparison,

Absolutely no way. there's a note that begins at 22.5 seconds that decays
to nothing on the right channel but sustains at roughly the same level on
the left channel. It's just not the same performance. Strange because some
bits (bar the timeshift and perhaps mic tonal differnences) look the same.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:22:34 -0400, Bill Ruys wrote
(in article ):

The folks that make the SD Systems STM99 mic (small diaphragm condensor mic
tailored for brass/reed instuments) have a comparison of their mic vs the
Neumann M-147. They basically recorded a sax with both mics simultaneously.
The result is a stereo recording, the STM99 on the left channel and the
M-147 on the right.

I imported the stereo file into Sonar and then bounced it to two separate
mono tracks, panned dead center. I set one track to solo, and then grouped
the solo buttons on each track so that one click would reverse the solo,
effectively giving me a one-click A/B comparison. I monitored via a Delta
1010 audio card to a headphone amp to a pair of mid-range AKG cans.

At first, I thought that possibly the STM99 sounded a little fuller, and a
little truer, whereas the M-147 seemed to meld the sound into a smoother,
more velvety palet. However, every so often, the true nature and sweetness
that makes the sax so nice to listen to would exhibit itself on the M-147
track, yet when A/B-ing it with the STM99, that sweet sax character was
totally missing from it's track.

At times, I was absolutely amazed at how differently the mics performed
dynamically. The Neumann was "hearing" a dynamic fluctuation that the STM99
was not. Indeed, I could have believed that some of the phrases were
recorded separately, even though the timing proved beyond doubt that this
really was a stereo recording.

The next experiment was to add the exact same reverb to each track at
exactly the same level. I did this by adding an Aux bus and inserting a
Sonitus reverb (one of the best sounding plugin reverbs IMHO) into the bus.
A send was then inserted into each of the tracks to feed the bus with the
send levels carefully set to match. Listening to individual phrases by
A/B-ing with the reverb online revealed even more differences between the
characters of the two mics. Many intricate phrases were, to use a cliché,
just "more musical" on the M-147. In fact, the Neumann came to life with
the reverb, where the STM99 turned to mud.

The interesting thing here is that the site is trying to show off the STM99.
I came across the site because I saw the STM99 for sale on a local internet
auction site. I was really hoping that the STM99 was going to sound great.

I'm a passionate, but novice home recordist with around 10 years experience.
I own the likes of Rode, Audio Technica, Studio Projects mics - I've never
owned a Neumann. I come away from this feeling like I just learned
something.

If you want to play, the link to the recording is he
http://www.sdsystems.com/Soundtest/soundSTM99_1.htm

Hope I didn't bore to many of you,
Bill Ruys.



And you didn't even mention the selfnoise differences!

Regards,

Ty Ford



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

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message ...
The folks that make the SD Systems STM99 mic (small diaphragm condensor mic
tailored for brass/reed instuments) have a comparison of their mic vs the
Neumann M-147. They basically recorded a sax with both mics simultaneously.
The result is a stereo recording, the STM99 on the left channel and the
M-147 on the right.

Bill,
I have Studio Projects C-1 that I use in my home studio for vocals and
such.
For the money, it's pretty decent. I've also done some vocals in
local studios
using a TLM-103 and a U87 with various pres. The Neuman tracks always
sound better, mix easier, reverb better, everything! Sure, critics
pick on the Germans for their old technology and expensive mics. But,
in my "real world" experience, they always come out on top.

DaveT

"Forty Winks" wrote in message

"Sean Conolly" wrote in news:hfrgd.232858
:

figure it was the same performance but there were some recording
conditions that really screwed up the comparison,

Absolutely no way. there's a note that begins at 22.5 seconds that
decays to nothing on the right channel but sustains at roughly the
same level on the left channel. It's just not the same performance.
Strange because some bits (bar the timeshift and perhaps mic tonal
differnences) look the same.

Bottom line, the comparison is far from clean. We can't esactly agree about
why or how it is dirty, but we do agree that it is trash.

The folks that make the SD Systems STM99 mic (small diaphragm condensor
mic
tailored for brass/reed instuments) have a comparison of their mic vs
the
Neumann M-147. They basically recorded a sax with both mics
simultaneously.
The result is a stereo recording, the STM99 on the left channel and the
M-147 on the right.

Bill,
I have Studio Projects C-1 that I use in my home studio for vocals and
such.
For the money, it's pretty decent. I've also done some vocals in
local studios
using a TLM-103 and a U87 with various pres. The Neuman tracks always
sound better, mix easier, reverb better, everything! Sure, critics
pick on the Germans for their old technology and expensive mics. But,
in my "real world" experience, they always come out on top.

There's plenty of daylight between a C1 and a U87 though. The C1 uses a
SoundKing Chinese-made diaphram, like most budget condensers -
cost-effective, but easily out-classed. People pick on the Germans because
in several cases they charge 4x what Rode does for comparable quality.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:58:43 +0100, wrote:


Where are good web pages to explain different mic types?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...dioid+glossary
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 16:19:26 -0500, Ben Bradley wrote
(in article ):

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:58:43 +0100, wrote:


Where are good web pages to explain different mic types?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...dioid+glossary
-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

I have a library of mic reviews on my site. Help yourself.

Regards,

Ty Ford



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