| Acoustic guitar sound musings... |
|---|
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar sound musings...
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 99 12:20:58 GMT
Organization: www.jagunet.com/~tford
In Article <<3690190F.263F@concentric...>>, Bob <<bnkstark@concentric...>> wrote:
>D. Stern wrote:
>>
>> I am still ever searching for an acoustic sound that I can be satisfied
>> with. I would like a balanced, rich, strong, clear sound (sorry for the
>> marketing words). I like the acoustic sounds of Led Zeppelin, old Yes,
>> Roy Harper, Bert Jansch, etc. I don't like the overly "glassy",
>> high-endy-type acoustic sounds which seem to be all over the place now. I
>> am recording digitally and wanted to ask for suggestions as to what I
>> might try to do or purchase.
>>
>> My stuff: Peavey VMP-2, Sytek
>> RNC
>> AT4033, SM81, 421 & SM57
>>
>
>> Thanks, any suggestions would be appreciated.
>>
>> DStern
>
>D Stern,
>
>Get down on your knees! String up your mic and
>a) listen to the guitar with your ears and find the spot the is most
>like what you would like to hear.
>
>b) place the mic (probably the 4033 in your case) at the point your ear
>thinks it best
>
>c) have your limiting just catch the peaks. You don't absolutely need
>to kill it with compression.
>
>d) if your not happy with the placement of the mic ... move it. The
>are no rules as to where the sweet spot is with any acoustic
>instrument. Put on a pair of headphones that you trust and listen while
>you are moving the mic.
>
>e) have a notch filter around if possible. There is always a note or
>two that reacts with the resonance of the instrument. If you can, notch
>the note so the compression doesn't knock the whole instrument down.
>
>Best of Luck!
>
>Bob Stark
Good suggestions from Bob! Back in 1972-3 when John Prine was touring to
support his first Atlantic LP, he came to WHFS-FM in DC where I worked. I
had always been intrigued by the sound of his guitar, thinking it was due to
some studio/mic magic. He unpacked his Gibson Roy Smeck (name isn't quite
right, is it?) Stage Deluxe and began to play. It sounded just like it did
on the record.
The moral: the guitar itself makes a hell of a difference.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty's commercial and narration demos are available at
http://www.jaguNET.com/~tford
You'll also find copyrighted reviews of pro audio gear and a list of production
music and SFX libraries.
| Adding Pickup to Acoustic Guitar |
|---|
From: Sweet98261 <sweet98261@aol...>
Subject: Re: Adding Pickup to Acoustic Guitar
Date: 27 Jan 1999 04:36:50 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I have a better solution for your guitar and
uke. I purchased a wonderfull guitar mic
which just clamps on to thew side of the whole
guitar, so it does not hurt the guitar. The sound is amazinly natural. I think
they make
one uke also. I heard Paul Simon uses it.
It is manufactured by Applied Microphone
technology. You can e-mail me and I will
tell you want where I bought it.
| Mic patterns in small studio/control room [5] |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Mic patterns in small studio/control room
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:11:50 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Irwin Shur <<ishur@earthlink...>> wrote:
> Stupid question, maybe. My setup is a one room affair, with instruments
> recorded in the same place as all the control room stuff. I would like
> to get a better small diaphragm condensor for use mostly on acoustic
> guitar (mostly a D-28) and also on piano at some point.
>
> Here's the issue--I've heard everyone talk about mics like the Wright
> omnis, but because I'm in one room, I'm afraid that an omni will pick up
> too much noise from tape machines, PC fans, etc. Using a cardioid
> pointed away from all that stuff works fine, so I've been thinking about
> a KM-184 perhaps. Is there any way to use an omni in this sort of
> environment short of building a wall or closet and stuffing gear in it?
> The room is only 12 x 14 so structural changes, iso booths, etc. aren't
> practical.
>
> Any ideas, or should I just stick to the plan and get a cardioid?
Working on a singer-songwriter's project, and thinking we were in the
sketching stage, I cut some mandolin tracks while sitting in the control
room about 18 inches from the DA88, which makes noise, unattractive
noise. I'd double-sticky-taped a Countryman EM101 omni electret
condensor, which is only slightly larger than a piece of Dentine chewing
gum, onto the backside of a little extension of the Gibson F-series'
fingerboard which protrudes out over the oval soundhole. So the mic was
"looking" at the back of the instrument and was only about 5/8" away
from the strings. The sound was really quite lovely and I inadvertently
cut some cool parts while sketching, such that the artist wanted to keep
them, and we did. It worked because the mic was so much closer to the
signal source than to the noise. The lack of proximity effect from an
omnidirectional mic allows placement ridiculously close without inducing
a bunch of mud, as long as the sound pressure level that close to the
instrument is within reason for the mic in question.
So using an omni in such a circumstance is possible, and can sometimes
deliver tremendous presence, as long as you don't blow it away by
overdriving it. Whether or not it will actually deliver the sound you
want from a given instrument for a specific part is another question
entirely, but to attempt it is within reason, in my experience.
--
hank alrich secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: StoMoAudio <stomoaudio@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mic patterns in small studio/control room
Date: 28 Jan 1999 06:17:29 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Irwin wrote:
(snip here.)
<Here's the issue--I've heard everyone talk about mics like the Wright
omnis, but because I'm in one room, I'm afraid that an omni will pick up
too much noise from tape machines, PC fans, etc. >
(snip there.)
My 2 cents...
I've got the Wright omnis and a one-room affair. So far I've only used them
"inside" a grand piano. The piano has blankets covering the lid & opening and
the isolation is suprisingly good. Before the blankets were placed, the mics
picked up a good bit of room sound which, for now, I didn't want. I turn off
the computer next to the piano and have never heard the ADAT-XTs running 8'
from the mics.
My guess is you could use gobos or blankets to shield unwanted noise or
reflections...but I don't know how picky you are.
Side question:
A small disappointment with the Wrights is that there is no spec sheet or ANY
printed info with them - but that was another thread. ;-)
Has anyone tested these mics for their "actual" pattern? I haven't had a
chance to yet, and I ask because they don't LOOK like omnis. They have
openings around the sides like most cardioids, etc. In actuality, it doesn't
really matter cuz they do the job just fine, but thot someone might know.
Lyle?
Best...
Rich
Stolen Moments Audio
<StoMoAudio@aol...>
http://members.aol.com/stomoaudio
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Mic patterns in small studio/control room
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 07:49:00 -0600
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article <<36AF651D.12F5@earthlink...>> <ishur@earthlink...> writes:
>
> > Here's the issue--I've heard everyone talk about mics like the Wright
> > omnis, but because I'm in one room, I'm afraid that an omni will pick up
> > too much noise from tape machines, PC fans, etc.
>
> It's not likely to be too much of a problem. Unless you take care to
> put the noisest stuff right in the deepest null of the cardioid, you
> probably aren't really knocking it down more than about 6 dB. You can
> toss a towel or blanket over the tape deck or computer and quiet it
> down that much.
>
> Omni mics are cool. They're flatter than cardiods of about the same
> price, and because of their lack of proximity effect, you can get them
> closer to the source than cardioids and not change the sound
> appreciatively. I'd say give it a try. But, as advised in another
> thread, buy some that you can return, or borrow some before you buy.
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (<mrivers@d-and-d...>)
Thanks for all the replies, guys. First I'm going to try an experiment
I should have thought to do before now. I've got a Rode NT-2; I'm going
to try recording an acoustic guitar part using it in omni mode and see
how bad the noise is. I can (and do) use some old moving blankets to
muffle the PCs, but unfortunately my MDMs are in a rack that's in a
stack of racks and can't easily be covered. I've got them high enough
up so I can read the meters, which means they're in the middle of a 6.5'
stack. I'm going to try it anyway, and if it seems acceptable, maybe
I'll try a shootout between, say, a Wright, a KM-184, and maybe an
Earthworks. Any thoughts on that? As I said, mainly acoustic guitar
and piano.
Irwin Shur
<ishur@earthlink...>
From: Mark McQuilken <mark@fmraudio...>
Subject: Re: Mic patterns in small studio/control room
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:51:23 GMT
Organization: FMR Audio
Irwin Shur wrote:
>
>
(snip)
> I'm going to try it anyway, and if it seems acceptable, maybe
> I'll try a shootout between, say, a Wright, a KM-184, and maybe an
> Earthworks. Any thoughts on that? As I said, mainly acoustic guitar
> and piano.
>
> Irwin Shur
Irwin:
FWIW, been there, done that! My biased and very opinionated summary
(remember...I went to the Helen Keller School of Modern Recording
Techniques):
* Earthworks: most "natural" and noisiest. Sounds on playback most like
what I hear when I'm playing the guitar. Not suitable for my setup (lots
of overdubs) due to excessive noise.
* Wright: second most "natural", but quiet. Not really an omni (W-I-D-E
cardiod). Almost an Earthworks without the noise. Killer with Great
River mic pre.
* KM-184: Smooth response (watch proximity effect!) with hyped presence
peak (I'm REAL sensitive to that). Good for pop acoustic sound. KM84 is
much better...
Depending upon the piano sound you're going after, I'd choose something
else...
Cheers,
McQ
--
Mark McQuilken FMR Audio http://www.fmraudio.com (800) 343-9976 (512) 280-6557
From: Rick Stone <jazzand@inch...>
Subject: Re: Mic patterns in small studio/control room
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 11:21:05 -0500
Organization: The Internet Channel
Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article <<36AF651D.12F5@earthlink...>> <ishur@earthlink...> writes:
>
> > Here's the issue--I've heard everyone talk about mics like the Wright
> > omnis, but because I'm in one room, I'm afraid that an omni will pick up
> > too much noise from tape machines, PC fans, etc.
>
> It's not likely to be too much of a problem. Unless you take care to
> put the noisest stuff right in the deepest null of the cardioid, you
> probably aren't really knocking it down more than about 6 dB. You can
> toss a towel or blanket over the tape deck or computer and quiet it
> down that much.
I bought some "sound blankets" from Markertek and they work great for
stuff like this. They're much more acoustically "opaque" than packing
blankets or other things I tried. Just be careful if you're covering up
equipment that you don't let it overheat.
I'm actually building a box right now for the computer to tone down some
of the fan noise. If anyone's done this already and knows where I can
get some plans or something, it would be greatly appreciated.
/=====================================================\
|RICK STONE guitarist/composer/teacher |
|email: <jazzand@inch...> |
|Check out my CD the Rick Stone Quartet "Far East" |
|with Kenny Barron at: http://www.inch.com/~jazzand |
\=====================================================/
| Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax [12] |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:48:03 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Timothy H. Evans wrote:
> Next time you guys are buying SM81's for $200 let me in on the deal.
You might have noticed that we both said look for a used SM81. They
appear regularly in the $200 to $250 range on the newsgroups and in
Pro Audio Marketplace.
> I'd
> suggest the AKG C1000S. It is in the posters stated price range and does
> a very nice job on guitar, as well as the other applications mentioned
> (woodwinds).
This is a good suggestion, given his budget. I'm a bit embarassed it
slipped my mind! It has a reputation of being harsher sounding than
the SM81, etc., but it's also about half the price.
Harold adds:
>> I vote for Harvey's suggestion---used SM81. Or save up another $50
>> or so and go for a Crown CM700 or Oktava MK012 (don't know how these
>> two work on brass/winds, but they work well on many acoustic guitars).
>
> If you save up the extra $50 you're getting pretty close to what you can get a
> new SM81 for.
Many reviewers prefer the Crown and Oktava for acoustic guitar recording; see,
for example, Paul Stamler's review of the Oktava in Recording magazine.
Another Recording author, Scott Dorsey, has also spoken highly of
the Crown vs. SM81 in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup. I have a large
archive of opinions from the newsgroups on good mics for recording
acoustic guitar. It's all in raw news format (headers and all), but if
anyone wants to see it (dozens of pages), email me.
> I have heard many people speak highly of the SM81 for recording guitar. I
> sometimes play at a club that uses SM81's sometimes for acoustic instruments
> and sometimes for vocals as well. Seems to be a pretty good vocal mike for
> live situations.
The SM81 is an industry standard, and you can't really go wrong with it for
instrument amplification/recording.
I've never seen it used for live vocals, though. Small diaphragm condenser
mics are really bad with plosives, so I would have thought the SM81 would
be a poor choice for live vocals unless you use a good pop filter.
Dave hinted to me in private that my "joke" comment about the SM58 suggestion
may not have been appropriate. I must admit it was uncharacteristically
flippant of me, so let me publicly apologize if it appeared to be insulting
to anybody. Let me also explain a bit further. The SM58 is a dynamic vocal
mic designed for live vocal use. It has a "presence peak" in its frequency
response that hypes the upper mids so that vocals can be better heard in
the less-than-optimal mixes typical of live productions. This makes it quite
a bit less than ideal for recording guitar. (I should confess that when
I wear my occassional live sound engineer hat, I also hate the sound of SM58s
for most artists' vocals, as do several other engineers I know; but they are
industry standards for live vocals.) If you have nothing else around, an
SM58 will probably sound better than, say, an undersaddle piezo used by itself.
But it is not a good choice for recording instruments (I don't even want to
imagine what that presence peak would do to a sax sound). If you are set
on a $100 dynamic mic, a better choice would be the SM57, another Shure
mic intended for live sound applications, but designed specifically for
instruments rather than vocals. It omits the SM58's pop filter, and has
a flatter response (but still has a peak that can be flattened further
with an accessory from Shure that Adrian Legg recently mentioned here:
the A15RS response shaper).
In general, condenser mics are preferred for recording acoustic guitar
because the lower mass of the transducer (compared to that in dynamics)
allows better transient response and flatter frequency response at high
frequencies, characteristics most engineers deem important for faithfully
capturing the acoustic guitar. I strongly suspect that the budget condensers
put out by Shure and Audio-Technica (the Shure BG series has one, I think),
while not quite of the SM81 class, will do a noticably better job for this
application than an SM58 or 57.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 02:28:39 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:
>Timothy H. Evans wrote:
>
>> Next time you guys are buying SM81's for $200 let me in on the deal.
>
>You might have noticed that we both said look for a used SM81. They
>appear regularly in the $200 to $250 range on the newsgroups and in
>Pro Audio Marketplace.
>
>> I'd
>> suggest the AKG C1000S. It is in the posters stated price range and does
>> a very nice job on guitar, as well as the other applications mentioned
>> (woodwinds).
>
>This is a good suggestion, given his budget. I'm a bit embarassed it
>slipped my mind! It has a reputation of being harsher sounding than
>the SM81, etc., but it's also about half the price.
It is harsher. Not the best choice for vocals or sax, imho, and some guitars may
sound a little gritty.
>Harold adds:
>>> I vote for Harvey's suggestion---used SM81. Or save up another $50
>>> or so and go for a Crown CM700 or Oktava MK012 (don't know how these
>>> two work on brass/winds, but they work well on many acoustic guitars).
The Crown 700 would be a better second choice, but more costly and I haven't
seen many used. The Oktava is a good third choice, but close-up vocals don't
work well - very easy to bottom the capsule up close, and the QC is a bit
inconsistent on the Oktava.
>> If you save up the extra $50 you're getting pretty close to what you can get a
>> new SM81 for.
>
>Many reviewers prefer the Crown and Oktava for acoustic guitar recording; see,
>for example, Paul Stamler's review of the Oktava in Recording magazine.
>Another Recording author, Scott Dorsey, has also spoken highly of
>the Crown vs. SM81 in the rec.audio.pro newsgroup. I have a large
>archive of opinions from the newsgroups on good mics for recording
>acoustic guitar. It's all in raw news format (headers and all), but if
>anyone wants to see it (dozens of pages), email me.
I agree on the Crown - not quite as sure on the Oktava.
>> I have heard many people speak highly of the SM81 for recording guitar. I
>> sometimes play at a club that uses SM81's sometimes for acoustic instruments
>> and sometimes for vocals as well. Seems to be a pretty good vocal mike for
>> live situations.
>
>The SM81 is an industry standard, and you can't really go wrong with it for
>instrument amplification/recording.
>I've never seen it used for live vocals, though. Small diaphragm condenser
>mics are really bad with plosives, so I would have thought the SM81 would
>be a poor choice for live vocals unless you use a good pop filter.
A good pop filter is essential for any small condensonr mic in a vocal
situation.
>Dave hinted to me in private that my "joke" comment about the SM58 suggestion
>may not have been appropriate. I must admit it was uncharacteristically
>flippant of me, so let me publicly apologize if it appeared to be insulting
>to anybody. Let me also explain a bit further. The SM58 is a dynamic vocal
>mic designed for live vocal use. It has a "presence peak" in its frequency
>response that hypes the upper mids so that vocals can be better heard in
>the less-than-optimal mixes typical of live productions. This makes it quite
>a bit less than ideal for recording guitar. (I should confess that when
>I wear my occassional live sound engineer hat, I also hate the sound of SM58s
>for most artists' vocals, as do several other engineers I know; but they are
>industry standards for live vocals.) If you have nothing else around, an
>SM58 will probably sound better than, say, an undersaddle piezo used by itself.
>But it is not a good choice for recording instruments (I don't even want to
>imagine what that presence peak would do to a sax sound). If you are set
>on a $100 dynamic mic, a better choice would be the SM57, another Shure
>mic intended for live sound applications, but designed specifically for
>instruments rather than vocals. It omits the SM58's pop filter, and has
>a flatter response (but still has a peak that can be flattened further
>with an accessory from Shure that Adrian Legg recently mentioned here:
>the A15RS response shaper).
In complete agreement here, the 57 would be better for sax, guitar, and "some"
vocals.
>In general, condenser mics are preferred for recording acoustic guitar
>because the lower mass of the transducer (compared to that in dynamics)
>allows better transient response and flatter frequency response at high
>frequencies, characteristics most engineers deem important for faithfully
>capturing the acoustic guitar. I strongly suspect that the budget condensers
>put out by Shure and Audio-Technica (the Shure BG series has one, I think),
>while not quite of the SM81 class, will do a noticably better job for this
>application than an SM58 or 57.
>Tom Loredo
The SM-81 is a truly unique mic. There are a few mics, made by different
manufacturers, that have earned the term "workhorse" - in other words, they
don't "suck bad on anything". They're the mics you grab first: the 421, the SM7,
the SM-81, the big Neumanns, the small Neumanns, etc.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 04:30:06 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<dcconklin@aol...> (Dcconklin) wrote:
>Thanks everyone for the input - it sounds like I need to save up some more
>"brownie points" with the wife until I can spring for the SM81.
>In the meantime, my AKG large diaphram dynamic is just not giving me the
>intimate sound that I want - anyone have any great tips on how to maximize what
>I get out of this while I'm waiting for permission to get the SM81 (I'm
>currently running it thru ART MP preamp and direct to hard disk on my pc).
Dennis,
Try this: put up some mic stands to form a box around you, about 4 feet by 4
feet (or 6 feet by 6 feet), leaving one side of the box open. String some
clothes line between the stands and drape some heavy blankets over the clothes
line. You've just made a 3 sided "gobo" (a technical term that nobody remembers
the origin, or meaning, of). Think of it as a very dead, portable room.
Set the mic in front of the open side, about 30 inches from your guitar,
pointing into this open box. Experiment with the exact placement. A few inches
in or out, left or right, will change the sound dramatically.
A few words about large diaphragm condensor mics (and why it's sometimes
difficult to get a good acoustic guitar sound with one): All microphones have
resonant frequencies - the smaller condensor mics have higher resonances. An
acoustic guitar has a wide (and varied) radiation pattern - finding the one
perfect spot is near impossible. Trial and error, move and listen, is the key to
good mic placement for guitar.
Some of the low resonances in large diaphragm mics can and will interact with
the guitar - sometimes producing good results, but they can also produce harsh,
non-related tones. You can have a great sound on one song, change the key for
the next song - and your great sound is gone as well. At that point, you have to
either change mics, or move the mic around, so that the mic resonances are
minimized.
It's not magic, just physics. But that explains why sometimes a mic sounds good
on one song (or vocalist), and terrible on the next. It's also why studios have
so many mics available.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:29:30 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<hedberg@my-dejanews...> wrote:
>Do you think that different mics, or classes of mics work better with
>particular classes of guitars? For contrast I am thinking about a Taylor
>612C which is small and maple and Martin D28 12 fret which is big -- very
>very big. I have an AT 4055 (or whatever the number is) and can get it to
>work pretty well with the 612C but a large rosewood guitar -- it sucks bad.
>I have suspected that the small diaphragm condensors would have less tendency
>to turn the sound into low frequency mush but I don't have any to play with.
>Using omni seems to help some but it still booms so it's not all proximity
>effect.
Harold,
Every guitar, every song, and every key, is different, if you're talking about
optimum (or ideal) sound. Smaller parlor guitars tend to record more evenly than
their dreadnaught cousins. Smaller diameter condensor mics will sometimes
produce more bass than large diameter condensor mics. Moving the mic toward the
bridge will often reduce the boom factor (as will changing the area of the port
hole in the guitar or stuffing towels into the hole to reduce the volume of the
chamber. D28s have a jangle, depending on the key, that is just part of the
nature of a D28. Sometimes you just hafta learn to live with it.
If Rick Ruskin ever jumps into this thread, he will be able to supply a lot more
information on the recording of acoustic guitars. He and Dick Rosmini spent
years searching for the ideal acoustic sound and how to get it.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou <NEWSmother@gnv...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:35:38 GMT
Organization: Motherheart
Hi All.
I've been looking for a good acoustic guitar and vocal mike for recording
and occasional stage use. I've done a bunch of research and reckon the
best bet for around that price is the AKG low-cost large diaphram mic, the
C300. Up until last September, the retail on these was $800+. Then they
halved it to $400+ and you can get them for around $270 or so in stores.
Full Compass offers them for $233. Check out:
http://www.fullcompass.com/hot/c3000a.html
and call the 1-800 number for their pricing.
That's a helluva deal!
This mic is significantly better than all the small diaphragm and dynamic
mics discussed recently.
Regards
Elizabeth
Remove NEWS from email address before replying
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:45:02 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<dcconklin@aol...> (Dcconklin) wrote:
>In light of the other post, which discusses different mics for different
>guitars, I should say that I am mostly trying to record fingerpicking stuff on
>a Seagull cedar top (my favorite guitar for this type of music). I have tried
>pointing my AKG large diaphragm DYNAMIC at the 12th fret angled away from the
>body, but the signal is VERY small, even after maxing out the Art MP preamp,
>and despite the cardioid pattern, there is a disturbing amount of wheezy breath
>sounds in it (and still a VERY boomy bass). This is with the mic about 6
>inches from the guitar - I'm afraid if I move back 30 inches as you say, I
>won't get a signal much above noise level. Is there something I'm doing wrong
>(other than having the wrong mic - D3600)?
A guitar has a "near field" and a "far field" sound. A good rule of thumb,
unless you want a particular effect is to keep the microphone as far away from
the body of an instrument as the longest dimension of the body of the
instrument. For a dreadnaught, that works out to around 20" or so. Anything
closer than that, and you're in the near field (which will pickup only "part" of
the sound.
A cardioid, hypercardioid, or figure 8 mic pattern setting exhibits proximity
effect (bass boost) as the microphone approaches within 3 feet or so of the
sound source. You add the proximity effect to the near field effect of a mic
close to the sound hole, and it's an instant recipe for too much bass.
I don't remember if the ART MP preamp is a starved plate design or not. One of
their models is designed more for adding tube sounds than as an actual mic
preamp. Moving the mic from 6" to 24" will result in a 6 dB signal loss, but the
sound will improve dramatically.
If Rick Ruskin decides to jump into this thread, he can add a lot more. He and
Dick Rosmini spent years searching for the holy grail of acoustic guitar miking.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:59:11 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
<hedberg@my-dejanews...> wrote:
>
> As for the Oktava I have not really been considering one for fears about
> quality control etc. Do you have any information about that? Not that I
> have heard anything specific, just a sort of nagging feeling. I know they
> appear to be pretty inexpensive for what they are.
I have to qualify all my statements with the fact that most of my experience
is with live sound, not recording (and almost all of the latter with
non-golden-eared 4-track cassette recording!).
Regarding the small-diaphragm Oktavas (MC012), I've collected a bunch of
posts on them from rec.audio.pro that may interest folks who are
particularly interested in them. I bought a pair for $400 from
Harris Broadcasting when they stopped distributing them several years
ago. I'm happy with them, but not thrilled; one of them is definitely
noisier than the other, with one capsule occassionally "spitting." At
the time they were retailing for about $500+ each, so I still felt
happy with the deal (they come with 3 capsules, by the way: cardiod,
hyper, omni; and a 10dB pad). Also, at the time Paul Stamler had reviewed
them for Recording and raved about them, considering them comparable
to Neumann KM84's ($700 mics on the used market). He continues to
think highly of them.
On the newsgroup, however, reviews were more mixed. My impression of
them overall is that many people liked the sound many MC012's are
capable of (though not all agreed they were of KM84 quality), but there
were numerous early complaints of quality control problems---one would
not infrequently get a mediocre mic (as I did). However, a Russian
Oktava distributor is on the newsgroup (you can but the mics direct
from him for about $225), and claims the factory overhauled its process
a couple years ago, and that the more recent MC012's are consistently
of high quality. Several recent independent posts support this claim,
and all of the complaints I've seen recently have been from folks who
tried them several years ago. They seem to me to be a safe investment
if you buy them direct from Michael Vladimirsky in Russia or from
their official US dealer http://www.oktava.com/ (a bit more expensive,
I believe). Guitar Center has been known to dump them at a low price,
but reports imply that these are older models with the aforementioned
quality control problems.
For a photo of the mic, see: http://www.klay.com/datasheets/oktmc12.html
(but ignore the price at that page!).
You're wife may hate me for saying this, but a big draw for me toward
the MC012 at the time was the fact that when I spoke to engineers about
guitar sounds I loved on recordings, they were almost all stereo
recordings (with my all-time favorite guitar tone---Phil Keaggy's
on *Beyond Nature*---done with an ORTF array). The low (relatively)
price of the MC012 let me get a fairly high quality pair of mics.
I had to calibrate them myself (roughly, I admit). Vladimirsky will
sell you a matched pair for a bit more if you are interested specifically
in stereo recording.
I don't want to sound like I'm pushing the MC012's; many of the other
mics mentioned in this thread are probably safer bets. I have limited
experience, and much of it happens to be with this mic.
I hope y'all are saving Harvey's posts in this thread as I am. He's
a frequent and highly respected contributor to the rec.audio.pro
newsgroup (where I'm mostly a lurker), and he's given us a nice little
course on recording the acoustic right in this thread! Thanks, Harvey.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:13:57 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<NEWSmother@gnv...> (Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou) wrote:
>I've been looking for a good acoustic guitar and vocal mike for recording
>and occasional stage use. I've done a bunch of research and reckon the
>best bet for around that price is the AKG low-cost large diaphram mic, the
>C300. Up until last September, the retail on these was $800+. Then they
>halved it to $400+ and you can get them for around $270 or so in stores.
>
>This mic is significantly better than all the small diaphragm and dynamic
>mics discussed recently.
Elizabeth,
Be very careful when making blanket statements like that. First of all, you mean
the AKG C3000, not C300. Second, it has a great deal of high end harshness which
doesn't work well on many guitars. I had great success with mine (which was
purchased when the going rate was $800+for the C3000) on a 1956 Martin D-18 with
a very thin top. It hasn't worked as well as other mics on any guitars I've
tried it on since then.
It's nowhere near as smooth as a SM-81 or Crown 700. It may be better for your
guitar, but not everyone plays your guitar. Sure, give the AKG C3000 a listen -
if you get lucky and it works for you, that's great. But listen closely to the
treble and make sure you don't hear a harshness that will become very annoying
to you over time.
Trebley microphones tend to sound great when you first hear them ("Wow, listen
to all that detail!!"), but that wears off really fast when you're trying for a
good mix and the damn guitar keeps sticking out like a sore thumb. Then you have
to start rolling off the treble eq, till the damn thing sounds like it's wrapped
in a furniture moving pad.
I won't sell mine, simply because I might need it for that one session where it
might work better than anything, but it mainly just sits in the mike closet.
It's not a good general purpose choice. I have only 1 AKG C3000, but I have 3
Shure SM-81s.
YMMV (which means "Your Milage May Vary").
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 19:48:55 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<dcconklin@aol...> (Dcconklin) wrote:
>Any informed comments on this last johnny-come-lately mic suggestion of the AKG
>3000 large diaphragm condenser??
Aaarrrggghhh, nobody told me it had to be "informed comments". Ok, how this?
Here is a list of things I've successfully used both mics for. In every case,
I've tried both the AKG C3000 AND the SM-81 on the instruments, and let the
artist make the choice.
AKG SM-81
Woman's Voice on 12 different singers (Male/Female)
1 vitamin tape
1 1956 Martin D-18 about 15 different acoustic guitars*
Mandolin* 2 different Fiddles* Classical Harp Drum Overheads Banjo Tamborine 8 Background vocals*** 2 Choirs Bodhran (sp?)** 3 Cowbells 4 sets of Congas Sax** Trumpet** Trombone**The SM-81 DIDN'T work on EVERY guitar that's come thru the studio. The asterisks
indicate there were sometimes better choices available for other instruments in
these categories, or for a particular song.
* The other mic that worked was a Neumann TLM-103
** The other mics that worked were a Neumann TLM-103 & a Sennheiser 421
*** The other mics that worked were a Neumann TLM-103 & a Coles 4038
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou <NEWSmother@gnv...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:44:30 GMT
Organization: Motherheart
| Be very careful when making blanket statements like that. First of all,
you mean
| the AKG C3000, not C300. Second, it has a great deal of high end
harshness which
| doesn't work well on many guitars. I had great success with mine (which was
| purchased when the going rate was $800+for the C3000) on a 1956 Martin
D-18 with
| a very thin top. It hasn't worked as well as other mics on any guitars I've
| tried it on since then.
|
Hey Wade - sorry I hurried my offering, mis-numbered the C3000 and made a
blanket statement that, really, relates to my needs. I use TI Plectrum
strings so my highs are very warm anyway. Sure the C3000 has something of
a brittle rep., but no more so than many significantly more expensive
large diaphram mics. How about with a nice tube mic pre - like a Demeter?
How about for vocals, too? Or (completely irrelevent, paired overhead drum
mikes? Many people swear by them as an all-round large dia. condensor
and, also, many can't stand SM81s. We all have our preferences. I bow to
your greater experience, Wade, but many others, as you say, get different
mileage. If I get fed up with it in any way, I promise I'll own up to it
here. :>
Regards
Elizabeth
Remove NEWS from email address before replying
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:19:36 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<NEWSmother@gnv...> (Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou) wrote:
>| Be very careful when making blanket statements like that. First of all,
>you mean
>| the AKG C3000, not C300. Second, it has a great deal of high end
>harshness which
>| doesn't work well on many guitars. I had great success with mine (which was
>| purchased when the going rate was $800+for the C3000) on a 1956 Martin
>D-18 with
>| a very thin top. It hasn't worked as well as other mics on any guitars I've
>| tried it on since then.
>Hey Wade - sorry I hurried my offering, mis-numbered the C3000 and made a
>blanket statement that, really, relates to my needs. I use TI Plectrum
>strings so my highs are very warm anyway. Sure the C3000 has something of
>a brittle rep., but no more so than many significantly more expensive
>large diaphram mics. How about with a nice tube mic pre - like a Demeter?
>How about for vocals, too? Or (completely irrelevent, paired overhead drum
>mikes? Many people swear by them as an all-round large dia. condensor
>and, also, many can't stand SM81s. We all have our preferences. I bow to
>your greater experience, Wade, but many others, as you say, get different
>mileage. If I get fed up with it in any way, I promise I'll own up to it
>here. :>
Elizabeth,
First of all, I'm Harvey, not Wade. I'm the person that posted the stuff you
just quoted. I basically wanted to make sure everyone understands that just
because the C3000 works for you, they may not have the same results. As I
pointed out in my post, it DID work great on one guitar that came thru my
studio.
To clarify further, the AKG C3000 is a dual-element electret mic. It uses a 1/4"
element in conjunction with the larger diaphragm. Most large diaphragm electrets
tend to be peaky, and I suspect the smaller element is shunted across the bigger
one to help smooth some of those peaks.
I haven't tried it for overheads - it may work fine there, I don't know. As far
as vocals, same comments apply - I haven't heard any singers that another mic
wouldn't improve, except the one person I mentioned earlier. I've tried it thru
4 different pre-amps, but the basic edge keeps coming thru.
BTW, the Shure SM-81 is also an electret mic. I know of very few people that
have EVER commented negatively about the SM-81 - it's one of the most highly
respected mics in the industry, and has been for many years.
Elizabeth, please understand that I am not dissing your choice of this mic - it
might be way better for your stuff than a Neumann U47 at $7,500. And I've seen
that happen, too. And it DID, in fact, work better on the '56 Martin D-18 than
any other mic I owned - including the Shure SM-81s, and some large condensor
mics costing many times the price of the C3000.
All I'm saying is the C3000 is not what most professional studios consider an
"all-around" or "work-horse" mic, and the results can vary so dramatically (due
to it's unique sonic signature), that most pros recommend it VERY guardedly.
You can do a DejaNews search, as I did, on "AKG C3000" and find about 40 posts -
about 35 - 40%% said they liked it (mostly home studio people that bought them
at the new, lower price) while the others didn't find much use for it (these
were mainly studio engineers). And yes, YMMV.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: <dave@lone-wolf...>
Subject: Re: Best $200 mic for acoustic guitar & sax
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:34:32 GMT
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
In article <<19990224092555.00790.00001739@ng-fu1...>>,
dcconklin@aol.com (Dcconklin) wrote:> Thanks again for the additional input - my "recording room" is a very small
> room (10x10) with carpet, and drapes or bookcases on all walls - no reverb
that
> I can detect - it seems pretty soft already.
>
> This is turning into a genuinely interesting thread!!!
>
> In light of the other post, which discusses different mics for different
> guitars, I should say that I am mostly trying to record fingerpicking stuff on
> a Seagull cedar top (my favorite guitar for this type of music). I have tried
> pointing my AKG large diaphragm DYNAMIC at the 12th fret angled away from the
> body, but the signal is VERY small, even after maxing out the Art MP preamp,
> and despite the cardioid pattern, there is a disturbing amount of wheezy
breath
> sounds in it (and still a VERY boomy bass). This is with the mic about 6
> inches from the guitar - I'm afraid if I move back 30 inches as you say, I
> won't get a signal much above noise level. Is there something I'm doing wrong
> (other than having the wrong mic - D3600)?
Hi Dc, There are 4 mic points on the acoustic guitar I've found to be most
productive: --12th fret as you mentioned above, 3-6 inches away. You're
familiar enough with the Art Tube MP, so I'm assuming you've tried the power
boost, as well as checked the phase in/out. If the 12th fret is your
designated point, try closer (3 inches), aiming just off the neck at the
high-E. Slightly bigger signal & (theoretically) less boom. --Between the
soundhole and bridge, on the pickguard 3-6 inches off the top, perhaps skewed
closer to the brige. It's a middier tone, with the bass adjusted by
proximity to the strings. --20 to 30 inches away, aimed right at the
soundhole. Works most effectively with condensor mikes, though you can pull
it off with a preamped dynamic, subject to your personal tastes. --A
relatively new position for me, suggested on the NG as a way of 'minimizing'
the big jangle you get in the above positions when recording 12-strings --
hang or boom the mike at eye/ear level, roughly where your head is, i.e.,
over the side of the guitar. The mike hears what you hear. On 12's, it
balances the mid/hi's of all of the unwould strings with the wound bass
strings. Haven't tried it on a 6, it may be too bassy.
Realizing you're working with one mike, a suggestion to mix one or more of
the above two signals might not be appreciated, but this would give you the
best of all four worlds. Worst case, don't be afraid to EQ, either on your
deck (e.g., trimming the bass in your original position), or inline with your
preamp. You probably don't want to buy more gear, but there are a few nice
EQ's out there that can help enhance mike signal/positioning problems.
Just a few thoughts -- good luck!
--Dave
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
| Oktava 012 report by Myles |
|---|
From: Mylesboise <mylesboise@aol...>
Subject: Oktava 012 report by Myles
Date: 26 Feb 1999 01:49:16 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Oktava MC 012 Report (long) - Myles Boisen 2/25/99
Greetings all:
As a champion of quality affordable microphones, and a frequent r.a.p.
contributor, I wanted to share some new observations about the Oktava MC 012.
This "report from the field", as much as it may sound like a magazine review or
sneaky sales rant, is strictly a personal opinion piece.
In a recent "Top 10 Mics" post, I listed the Oktava MC 012 - a Russian small
diaphragm condensor with interchangeable capsules - as a great "bargain" mic.
The 012 (cardioid capsule) became my overhead mic of choice after many
comparisons with the AKG 451 and other mic pairs in my analog-based studio.
It's also excellent on acoustic guitar and percussion, and has come in very
handy for getting a big sound on soft-spoken vocalists who can't cut through
the mix on a U 87 or Lawson. This model has all the highs and snappy transient
response that small diaphragms are known for, is not overly bright or harsh,
and delivers a remarkably full low end.
The quality and affordable price tag of the 012 make it an outstanding
contender among the under $500 (street price) condensor mics commonly discussed
on r.a.p., including the AKG C3000, Audio-Technica 4033 and 4041, Crown CM 700,
Rode NT 1, and Shure SM 81. Not only that, but in recent testing I was
surprised to find that the sound of a factory-matched 012 pair compared
favorably to some well-known $1000 large-diaphragm condensors!
Since the time that these mics have became available in the U.S. (primarily
through Guitar Center), there have been many complaints of unreliability,
inconsistency, and general quality control problems. I have talked to people
who, on my recommendation, have bought 012's from G.C. that either didn't work
or were too noisy for critical use. And putting together a stereo matched pair
was about as likely as winning a lottery which requires you to have TWO
identical winning tickets!
Over time I have bought 3 of these mics from G.C., and two of them matched well
enough to use for overheads. I have been very happy with the pair, and have
used them almost all of the time on drums. The third mic is handy for tracking
acoustic guitar, hi hat, or percussion at the same time. The cardioid capsules
are all that Guitar Center had, and they sounded very good, but I was intrigued
about other possibilities for this modular system.
Then, through r.a.p., I found out about Taylor Johnson at The Sound Room, an
independant U.S. distributor for Oktava mics, capsules, and factory-matched
stereo pairs. Taylor kindly sent me a matched 012 set to audition (the
factory-matched stereo pair, or FMSP), including a nice cedar box for each mic
set, omni, cardioid and hypercardioid capsules, shock mounts, and a Lomo M1
large diaphragm capsule that screws on to the 012 preamp body.
A little detective work turned up this interesting tidbit; according to Taylor
the FMSP mics he sells are initially checked for overall quality, cosmetics,
sound, frequency, and electronics, then set aside for matching. In an email
message Taylor elaborated "After the FMSP and single units are chosen they go
to a recording studio in Moscow that specializes in classical music... Here,
they are checked and tested again and from these tests, units are shipped to
the Sound Room - where they are tested by me."
So what happens to the mics that don't make the cut? You don't think those
Russian guys are just going to throw them away do you? You can guess where they
end up. Taylor said that his 012's receive 4 levels of testing, while the G.C.
stock gets passed after a "red light/ green light" inspection.
Anyway, I took it upon myself to do some testing of the various 012 lines,
employing standard methods which I've developed as a magazine reviewer. And I
can tell you that there is a big difference between the FMSP stock and the G.C.
stock 012's. Here's what I found...
In a blind test using Focusrite Green preamps and Monster Cables, I listened to
four cardioid mics: one of my matched G.C. stock 012's, a FMSP 012, a FMSP 012
body with large diaphragm Lomo M1 head, and a Neumann TLM 103. The mics were
clustered together in front of a loudspeaker playing full range music mixes,
and each mic came up on an individual, unidentified fader on my board with
gains carefully matched. On paper I made 4 columns, with the fader number at
the top of each column (1-2-3-4). I then listened to the mics randomly, making
comments in each column, and when I was done I matched the mics to the fader
numbers. Rather than paraphrase, I'll present the raw notes here.
1 (G.C. 012): midrangy; thin and bright; small-sounding compared to 2/3; thin
compared to 2/3; warm low mids, but not enough bass; richer than 4; generally
prefer to 4; fairly even frequency sweep, but midrangy at 750 Hz.
2 (FMSP 012): open, airy, close; good warm lows; clear non-sibilant highs; no
honkiness; lots of 4-8 kHz; smooth; smoother than 3; more character and depth
on room/ ambient sounds/ reverb etc.
3 (Neumann TLM 103): bright at 9 kHz; open highs; fuller lows than 4; less
midrangy than 1; better lows and more airy highs than 1; "live" sounding highs;
deep lows; sounds closer than 1; more even response than 2 on frequency sweep.
4 (FMSP 012 w/ Lomo M1): midrangy; upper mids are exaggerated; more detailed
than 1; midrangy and distant; more forward than 1; sounds covered compared to
2/3; brash at 3k and midrangy compared to 1, annoying mids like a transistor
radio; boxy.
While listening I noticed strong similarities between 2 and 3, and based on my
knowledge of the TLM 103 as a superior-sounding mic I was pretty sure it was
#2. Whatever #3 was, I knew it was a pretty good mic too! I did some additional
comparisons of these two and noted:
2 (FMSP 012): more high end definition; richer than 3; better low end
definition.
3 (Neumann TLM 103): lower noise; punchier extended lows.
Imagine my surprise to find that the smoothest, richest, and most defined mic
was the FMSP 012! In off-axis testing 1 and 4 were basically thin and midrangy,
and I noted:
2 (FMSP 012): 8kHz peak; abundant 300 Hz; full; bright; warm lows.
3 (Neumann TLM 103): good bass; smooth highs.
A self-noise test revealed that the TLM 103 was by far the quietest, followed
by the FMSP 012 w/ Lomo M1 head. The G.C. 012 and FMSP 012 were very close, and
noticeably noisier than the other two mics.
To be fair, I have to mention that I didn't compare the TLM 103 and FMSP 012 on
anything other than this loudspeaker test. This sort of listening test, though
it is revealing to me about the general character of a mic on full frequency
music, is not scientific. Additionally, such testing holds no indication of how
a mic may work in the real world, especially on individual instruments. But I
also have to say that I was really impressed and a little shocked at how good
the FMSP sounded up against the TLM 103. Never thought I'd be one of those guys
that said "sounds as good as a Neumann"!
In sessions it has been immediately apparent that the cardioid/ hypercardioid
FMSP pair is better matched, much smoother-sounding, and clearer in the high
end than my G.C. set on drums and percussion. The G.C. set was also always a
little midrangy, requiring a broadband eq cut anywhere between 600 Hz and 1
kHz. The FMSP does not need such a cut.
On a live recording job I was able to compare the cardioid FMSP with a pair of
AKG C3000's, recording one set of music with each. The AKG's had truer and more
defined bass, but the FMSP was way more silky in the highs, imparting a
wonderfully smooth analog quality to the live stereo DAT recording. I compared
an FMSP 012 with an AKG 414, AKG C3000, and Oktava MK 219, and again preferred
the 012's smooth, natural sound. It also compared very favorably to another new
cardioid-only mic in the TLM 103/ AKG 414 price range (this mic cannot be named
here).
Using test tones, I investigated the matching of the two FMSP mics. The
cardioid set is matched, but not perfectly so, with some little bumps
throughout the frequency range of 63 Hz to 10 kHz (this was the useable range
of the speaker I had on hand for tones - it's not quite lab equipment). I
observed differences of 2-4 dB in the output of the two mics at 63 Hz, 5 kHz,
and 6 kHz. The hypercardioid set was very well-matched in the midrange, with
differences of about 2 dB in the output of the two mics at 63 Hz, 80 Hz, 100
Hz, 160 Hz, and 5 kHz. The omnidirectional set had differences of about 2 dB in
the output of the two mics at 125 Hz and 6 kHz, and was extremely well-matched
between these two points. I would attribute these differences to
inconsistencies in both the capsules and the preamps. I also noticed that one
preamp was always about 2 dB noisier than the other, which is not a real
problem for most applications.
In a test of different capsules, the hypercardioid and cardioid capsules were
fairly similar, with the cardioid giving flatter, more accurate mids and highs,
and exhibiting more "grab" on whatever source it's put in front of. The
omnidirectional capsule has a predictably distant sound compared to the
cardioid, with smoother highs and less lows.
In summary, anyone who has read my posts about this mic knows I like it a lot,
and the FMSP set, taken a single mics or together, is obviously a big step up
in quality from the G.C. set I have. I didn't care for the Lomo M1 head in
testing, although I did use it in sessions and thought it had a very present,
bright character that could complement percussion, acoustic guitar, and vocals.
I'm sending back the Lomo M1 head by the way, and buying the FMSP. Anyone want
to buy a pair of sorta-matched G.C. 012's?
During the time that I've had these mics, Taylor has been negotiating with his
Russian colleagues and the Oktava company to provide a new brand name for the
mics he sells. The company he represents now bears the RTT (Russian Transducer
Technology) name, and will include the previously mentioned 012's and
accessories, a new low-noise 012, plus other RTT solid-state and tube
condensors, and a ribbon mic.
According to Taylor, this name change is needed to differentiate this product
line from the mics sold by Guitar Center and other worldwide distributors. He
seems to be very concerned about the quality of the mics he sells, and is
engaged in regular dialogues with his Russian partners about improvements to
new and existing models. His committment to quality, combined with a genuine
openness to questions and comments, is very refreshing in this biz. That's why
I'm giving him (and the 012 FMSP) this plug.
For more information, check out the Sound Room website at "www.oktava.com". As
of today that web address is current, although he'll be dropping all references
to the Oktava name soon, and is planning to establish an information page at
"rtt-microphones.com". You can also call Taylor at (877) 425-0220 toll-free, or
(870) 425-0220, and e-mail can be sent to "<sales@oktava...>".
That's it! If there's something I left out here, feel free to email me at the
address below. Otherwise please direct all 012-related inquiries to Taylor.
Thanks for reading this long post, and happy recording.
Best regards, Myles Boisen, Sonic Investigator.
(510) 835-9333/ Oakland, CA./ <mylesboise@aol...>
The Boisen Audio Recording Arts cheap and fast-loading website can be found at
http://members.aol.com/mylesboise/bara.html
| recording [2] |
|---|
From: Al Evans <al@powertools...>
Subject: Re: recording
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:09:10 -0600
Organization: PowerTools, Austin, Texas
In article <<6520-36F8C1E9-1@newsd-123...>>, <Sheltech@webtv...>
(Dennice Shelton) wrote:
> I'm deciding which mike(s) to buy for home
> (bathroom) recording of a Taylor 812-c.
> I've read about using large diaphragm condenser (l.d.c.) and a small
> diaphragm condenser (s.d.c.) together for stereo ( both cardioid
> pattern) also using 2 s.d.c.'s set on omni pattern for another stereo
> mix.
> I have no recording experience and no interest in going to a studo
> and am VERY OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What I am currently using is a pair of Core Sound microphones. They are
relatively inexpensive (about $230 for the pair, I think) and are really
designed for "stealth" recording. The quality of these mics is outstanding:
http://www.core-sound.com .
I use them clipped to each end of a 10-inch bar that's intended to let you
put two mics on one stand in an ORTF-like configuration. I position this
rig so that the mics are 4-6 inches from the lower bout, midway between the
bridge and the bottom of the guitar. This gives a nice stereo image, a
couple of feet from treble to bass. Obviously, the width of the image can
be reduced to taste in mixing. They're omnidirectional, so there's no
problem with proximity effect.
The resulting sound is extremely accurate and a little dry. It can be
seasoned to taste with appropriate reverb. The most frequent comment I hear
is "wow, that sounds EXACTLY like that guitar."
The best thing about this setup is that it takes no time -- all I have to
do to record is plug it in, sit down, and position the mics. When you're
being your own engineer, you really welcome these simplifying factors.
The downside of the setup, if any, is its precision. High definition and
precise reproduction are two of my goals in recording, but they may not be
everybody's. And if you're trying to impress someone with your really big
professional-looking microphones, these aren't gonna do it:-)
--Al Evans----
Al Evans and PowerTools -- <al@powertools...>
Specializing in design and development of high-performance cross-platform
multimedia frameworks and applications for MacOS and Windows 32
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: recording
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:56:55 GMT
Organization: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc.
On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 03:43:53 -0700 (MST), <Sheltech@webtv...> (Dennice
Shelton) wrote:
>I'm deciding which mike(s) to buy for home
>(bathroom) recording of a Taylor 812-c.
> I've read about using large diaphragm condenser (l.d.c.) and a small
>diaphragm condenser (s.d.c.) together for stereo ( both cardioid
>pattern) also using 2 s.d.c.'s set on omni pattern for another stereo
>mix.
> I have no recording experience and no interest in going to a studo
>and am VERY OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Dar
>
There's no right or wrong mic combination to use. Whatever works for
you. That being said, I'd suggest buying 1 good mic first and adding
to your collection as you can afford it. Personally, I prefer small
diaphragm mics for acoustic guitar because of their inherently better
transient response. My guess is you will find that your bathroom is
not going to work well as a recording environment. Way too much early
reflection.
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
| low-end condensor mics akg vs. audio technics [5] |
|---|
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: low-end condensor mics akg vs. audio technics
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:27:59 GMT
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
In article <xPbQ2.227$<hl6.13446@news...>> "James Law" <<jlaw@umich...>> writes:
>I can't remember the audio technica model, but i wish to purchase a $250
>condensor mic, and have been investigating the c3000 akg, and audio
>technica.- they are both about the same pricewise.
>
>Which is better for all purpose recording? I want to use it on acoustic gtr,
>and my voice.
I'd go with the Crown CM-700 or the AKG C535 over either one.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Geoff Waddington <geoffwad@interlog...>
Subject: Re: low-end condensor mics akg vs. audio technics
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:17:05 -0400
Organization: Interlog Internet Services
My AKG C535 EB often gets used on acoustic guitar, over much more expensive
mics, sounds great. YMMV -- Geoff W
James Law wrote:
> I can't remember the audio technica model, but i wish to purchase a $250
> condensor mic, and have been investigating the c3000 akg, and audio
> technica.- they are both about the same pricewise.
>
> Which is better for all purpose recording? I want to use it on acoustic gtr,
> and my voice.
> THanks
> James
> <jlaw@umich...>
From: Jeff Craft <Jeff@ahealingplace...>
Subject: Re: low-end condensor mics akg vs. audio technics
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 17:42:24 -0400
Organization: BodyCraft Wellness Center, Inc.
I have a Rode NT1, which I love. It's very versitile, transperent and airy
vocals, great for acoustic guitars. really anything. I got it for 299 at a local
Guitar center. You may be able to find it cheaper somewhere.
Geoff Waddington wrote:
> My AKG C535 EB often gets used on acoustic guitar, over much more expensive
> mics, sounds great. YMMV -- Geoff W
>
> James Law wrote:
>
> > I can't remember the audio technica model, but i wish to purchase a $250
> > condensor mic, and have been investigating the c3000 akg, and audio
> > technica.- they are both about the same pricewise.
> >
> > Which is better for all purpose recording? I want to use it on acoustic gtr,
> > and my voice.
> > THanks
> > James
> > <jlaw@umich...>
From: Richard L. Hess <rlhess@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: low-end condensor mics akg vs. audio technics
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:29:43 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:17:05 -0400, Geoff Waddington
<<geoffwad@interlog...>> wrote:
>My AKG C535 EB often gets used on acoustic guitar, over much more expensive
>mics, sounds great. YMMV -- Geoff W
I, too, like the C535EB, but it is very bright compared to the C3000.
The C3000 has an, err, interesting midrange that can sound honky.
What I've discovered is that it is very difficult to say which mic
works in which situation.
A website I'm doing is a cyber-neighbor of Geoff's
http://interlog.com/~mlh
and Ms. Hammond sounds great on a 535--although I can't wait to try my
new TLM103 on her! One of her new songs will be my entry into the new
rap CD. I used a 535 on the voice for that one.
I tried five mics yesterday on another singer who has created some
problems for me in the past. In a previous session, I used a
C414B/ULS, a C3000, and a C535EB. The 535 sounded the best of those
three, but a bit thin and bright. The C3000 sounded honky and hte
C414B/uls sounded flat and dull.
Yesterday, I had the C535EB as a reference to the previous tests, a
Sennheiser MD421/U dynamic (the original one not the new version), a
Sennheiser MKH416T short shotgun, an AKG C451 with a CK5 capsule, and
a Neumann TLM103.
The winner was the TLM103, although in listening to the vocal tracks
alone, the CK5 was a close contender. The 103 worked better with the
guitar and floated the voice above the guitar better than the CK5. The
421/U was the worst of the five, sounding duller and honkier. The 416
was better than either the 535 or the 421.
I was surprised at how close these things sounded after my previous
tests.
I'm not sure what all this means, but I'm concerned about the C3000. I
really like the C414B/ULS for organ recordings. I did one recently
with this new pair of 414's where I had previously used a pair of
451's. The 414's are more detailed and quieter and are just wonderful
for this. They don't have the presence rise that the
CK5/TLM103/C535EB/416T/421U all have. The CK5 is a sloped response
compared to the CK1.
On the other hand, I did like the C3000 on a male vocal I did a month
or so ago, but I suspect that the TLM103 would sound as good or better
on that voice as well.
I'm thinking that I might just sell my pair of C3000's now that I have
a TLM and I'm nervous about the C3000's in many applications. They are
not a "poor man's" 414 B/ULS nor are they a "poor man's" 414TLII. I
tried a TLII and found it far to spitty to my liking. The TLM103
controls this much better.
The C3000 is well respected in many applications. At this point,
however, I think I could use another C451 or 535EB more easily than
the C3000's. A male/female duo tried out my 535EB's and are seriously
considering buying a pair for themselves.
Sorry for the ramble...there is no simple answer.
Cheers,
Richard
Richard L. Hess <rlhess@mindspring...>
Glendale, CA USA http://rlhess.home.mindspring.com/
Web page: folk and church music, photography, broadcast engineering, and more
From: Idim <idim@aol...>
Subject: Re: low-end condensor mics akg vs. audio technics
Date: 12 Apr 1999 17:58:33 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< I can't remember the audio technica model, but i wish to purchase a $250
condensor mic, and have been investigating the c3000 akg, and audio
technica.- they are both about the same pricewise. >><< Which is better for all
purpose recording? I want to use it on acoustic gtr,
and my voice. >>
The Audio Technica model down at that low $250 range is the AT-3525, it seems
to be a nice mic.
Another AT is the AT-4033SM which is a bit more expensive ($325-$350), I was
considering it, but tried out the AKG C3000 (@ $270) instead 2 weeks ago and am
quite impressed, I've decided to keep it.
Joe B
| Advice on condenser mics for home studio? [4] |
|---|
From: No Busking <nobusking@erols...>
Subject: Re: Advice on condenser mics for home studio?
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 07:25:55 -0000
Coincidently, last night I was doing an A-B test between an SM57 and some
Audio Technica gooseneck condensers I picked up cheap. Lined them up,
panned left and right, and recorded fingerstyle on my Taylor 412CE to DAT.
Tried several mic positions. Not scientific, just interesting.
The SM 57 does just fine picking up acoustic...admittedly, it lacks the
detail of condenser mics, but it gives a very useable warm sound. Mic
positioning was more important with the SM57 than with the condenser. The
noise floor appeared to be lower with the 57, but by playing around I was
able to determine it was a function of mic sensitivity and ambient noise.
If you are moving to condensers because of the greater detail, be aware that
there is a tradeoff to be had with the noise floor...and it's a mechanical
issue more than an electronic one.
All in all, I find the 57 very acceptable for most applications...but I
wouldn't argue that it's superior to a condenser mic (and the condensers I
was testing were not exactly designed for the purpose of recording acoustic
guitar).
DickSchnei wrote in message
<<19990515055405.00822.00001267@ng-cg1...>>...
>>The SM57 is great for mic'ing a speaker cabinet, but leaves a lot to be
>>desired for direct mic'ing of an acoustic instrument.
>>
>>Nick
>>
>
>Have you ever tried it? I used a SM57 to record several songs for the
RMMGA
>tape VI and they sounded very good. I used what I had and wasn't expecting
>great results. It surprised me.
>
>Dick Schneiders
From: Nick Bennett <nickbenn@twinsongs...>
Subject: Re: Advice on condenser mics for home studio?
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 11:16:28 -0600
Organization: Twin Songs Records
> Have you ever tried it? I used a SM57 to record several songs for the
RMMGA
> tape VI and they sounded very good. I used what I had and wasn't
expecting
> great results. It surprised me.
Yes, I have. And I do agree that, with care taken in good positioning, and
proper treatment of the signal, you can get pretty good results with the
SM57. But we've thrown away a lot of tracks recorded with an SM57, in favor
of AT4041 tracks (in one case, the SM57 tracks were recorded by someone with
much better guitar technique, and much more studio smarts than I, while I
did the AT4041 tracks, and there was simply no comparison) - the difference
in detail was huge, especially given that a used AT4041 in good condition is
really not that expensive (I picked up a pair for $400).
From: Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou <NOSPAMmother@gnv...>
Subject: Re: Advice on condenser mics for home studio?
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:06:58 GMT
Organization: Motherheart
Check out Taylor Johnson's specially tested Russian Oktava mics at:
They're absolutely awesome. I've own and have used the 012 and the 319 and
found them really fabulous for recording acoustic guitar and voice.
Regards
Elizabeth
Remove NOSPAM from email address before replying
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Advice on condenser mics for home studio?
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 21:31:46 GMT
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here!
>
>Did Rick Ruskin jump in yet? He has tons of experience on both sides
>of the console with this issue.
>
>For the record, I use (and recommended in past threads) the Oktava
>MK012's that Elizabeth mentioned, even in live applications. A nice
>mic for the money, though the older ones appear to have had some
>quality control issues. That's why the "tested" source that Elizabeth
>mentioned is a good place to go for them.
>
>Peace,
>Tom Loredo
As you mentioned, this topic has been covered many times but anything
worth doing is worth overdoing, I guess:
I have always preferred small diaphragm condenser mics over their
large capped siblings. In the "under $300.00" class, I recommend the
Shure SM-81 or the EV CS-15E. The Shure has a bit more sparkle on top
while the EV is more neutral/accurate. The Shure is still in
production. The EV is not but can still be found at good prices.
(Someone offered me a pair for $300.00 not too long ago.) There are
lots of choices out there now. You just have to do some homework,
listen, compare, and when all is said and done, do the best with what
you end up with.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
| Recomendations for micing a 12 string guitar [2] |
|---|
From: Paul Story <sstudio@erols...>
Subject: Re: Recomendations for micing a 12 string guitar
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 14:48:33 -0400
"Peter C. Hotston" wrote:
> My guitar of choice is a 12 string acoustic and as yet I have never
> heard a recorded sound from it that I like.
>
> As I am about to embark on upgrading my microphones from assorted sm57s
> 58s etc. What would you folks out there recommend as a good mic for the
> job.
>
> I am already going to listen to the AKG Solid Tube and the Neuman TLM103
> for a vocal mike and for six string acoustic along with the AT 4033 and
> AT4060.
>
> Your thoughts please !
>
Peter,
My two favorite setups are a pair of KM 184s in ORTF (nearcoincident...diaphrams 17cm (6.7 inches) apart at an 110 degree angle)
This way gets a more narrow but natural sound.....
This way gets a HUGE sound, pan the 184s left/right, leave the condenser in
the middle....
or a 184 pointing at the 12th fret or so (plug one ear and listen to the
guitar up close with the other ear to find the best spot) another 184 close
to the headstock (yes, the headstock) a little off angle and a Lawson L 47
(or some large condenser) back several feet usually plugged into a Manley
VoxBox (or RNC) with a fair amount of compression (again listen with one ear
to find the sweet spot). I have had several 12 string guys tell me it was
the best sound they ever got.
good luck,
paul story
solo studios
From: Frank Vuotto <fvuotto@laplaza...>
Subject: Re: Recomendations for micing a 12 string guitar
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:59:27 GMT
Organization: Southwest Cyberport
I agree, ORTF is the way to go here. There is a DIY mic adaptor on my
web page that is perfect for this kind of setup. (follow the Taos Amp
link)
Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/> My two favorite setups are a pair of KM 184s in ORTF (near
>coincident...diaphrams 17cm (6.7 inches) apart at an 110 degree angle)
>This way gets a more narrow but natural sound.....
| Mini Condenser on stage with monitors |
|---|
From: ArrahCee <arrahcee@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mini Condenser on stage with monitors
Date: 21 Jun 1999 18:15:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>how do you rate the Beta's against the SM 's (either 57 or 58) , I've
>considered getting another, but I'm not convinced that the SM's are
>worth the extra cost over the BG's....
Ray,
The only Beta I have first-hand experiencewith is my Beta 57-- it's an older one, but
I'm told the only difference in it and the
Beta 57A is the grille design.
Compared to an SM 57, the Beta 57 is:1. Hotter
2. More natural sounding, not as harsh,
a bit more bottom end, to my ears.Though the freq response curves look tobe very similar, they do have very different
sounds-- For example, my bouzouki is
MidRange City already, and it sounds
fairly harsh through the SM 57, even with
a lot of the mids EQ'd out-- it tends to
go "pang" when I hit it. Also, my
Saltarelle button accordion (we're talking
traditional Irish music) sounds much more
natural through the Beta. The SM57 cuts
out a lot of the "roundness" of the tone
and makes it sound (in comparison) as if it's
being played through a telephone.
It still does color the sound (as mostdynamics would do, I guess), so you still
don't get as faithful a sound as a nice
condenser.
I think the BG series is a different Shureline, though.
Hope this helps!Rick Cunningham
<arrahcee@aol...>
| Acoustic guitar mic questions [13] |
|---|
From: DStern <sdf@wer...>
Subject: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 19:42:32 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I am once again disappointed with my acoustic sounds and want to purchase
a new microphone to improve the situation. I am currently using an AT
4033 and/or 421 and not getting anything spectacular. I generally run my
mic into a Sytek pre > Distressor > Protools.
The guitar parts I am recording are very strummy, open tunings that are
the foundation of the songs in which they appear. These parts have to
hold their own against drums and electric guitars in places as well.
Also, I like a close miked sound that is full and balanced... I'm not a
fan of the over-sizzly high end sound. I prefer a more natural
Zeppelin/Yes type acoustic sound.
I am considering the following mics and wish to get some feedback on your
experiences with using them with steel string acoustic guitar.
KM-184 - Is this mike all about the high end sizzle sound?
TLM 103 - Has anyone used this for steel string?
Wright Omni - How is the high end on this... can anyone characterize the sound?
Any contributions would be appreciated.
DStern
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 22:28:25 -0500
Dramon,
Of the mics you name, the Wright sounds the closest to the Zep/Yes thang. A
D18 miked with a Wright at about the 12th fret into a Great River gets the
"Can't Always Get What You Want" sound, so if you know that record you know
the Wright's high end. The Wright has more presence than the KM184s (it's
not really that either has more top, rather these two mics represent the
mids in totally different ways, so the Wright sounds more "forward"), and
less girth than the 103 (in general- I've only tried the 103 on piano). If
it was a solo guitar part, the 184s may be a better choice, but if the
guitar's competing with drums, etc, I'd recommend the Wright.
Having said that, any of the three will give excellent results.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Music
Composer, Producer, Arranger
<caldwell@bellsouth...>
RAP CD II Submission Info is available at
http://personal.mem.bellsouth.net/~caldwell/rapcd
DStern <<sdf@wer...>> wrote in message
news:<sdf-2906991942320001@user-2ivea2f...>...
> I am once again disappointed with my acoustic sounds and want to purchase
> a new microphone to improve the situation. I am currently using an AT
> 4033 and/or 421 and not getting anything spectacular. I generally run my
> mic into a Sytek pre > Distressor > Protools.
>
> The guitar parts I am recording are very strummy, open tunings that are
> the foundation of the songs in which they appear. These parts have to
> hold their own against drums and electric guitars in places as well.
> Also, I like a close miked sound that is full and balanced... I'm not a
> fan of the over-sizzly high end sound. I prefer a more natural
> Zeppelin/Yes type acoustic sound.
>
> I am considering the following mics and wish to get some feedback on your
> experiences with using them with steel string acoustic guitar.
>
> KM-184 - Is this mike all about the high end sizzle sound?
>
> TLM 103 - Has anyone used this for steel string?
>
> Wright Omni - How is the high end on this... can anyone characterize the
sound?
>
> Any contributions would be appreciated.
>
> DStern
From: KL <kleblanc@cwix...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 05:18:59 GMT
Would Shure SM81's fit into this picture? I just borrowed a pair for some
trial recordings of my Martin D35 and I thought they sounded great... Is
the KM 184 and others worth the higher cost compared to the Shure (esp. when
the guitar needs to compete in the mix)?
~Kurt
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 01:01:45 -0500
You know, every mic has its strengths and weaknesses. You just have to learn
what they are and how to take avantage of them.
SM81s are fine mics, and can do a great job, given good placement with the
right guitar in the right key (I'm serious- change the key and you may want
to change the mic). They are noisier than 184s, but not terribly noisy.
Hell, there have been times when I've grabbed a 57 or Audix D2 (inexpensive
dynamics) over a Wright or other condenser. They're noisy and unrealistic,
but sometimes that's what the song wants.
Use what you have.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Music
Composer, Producer, Arranger
<caldwell@bellsouth...>
RAP CD II Submission Info is available at
http://personal.mem.bellsouth.net/~caldwell/rapcd
KL <<kleblanc@cwix...>> wrote in message
news:7Nhe3.332$<HF4.24145@news...>...
> Would Shure SM81's fit into this picture? I just borrowed a pair for some
> trial recordings of my Martin D35 and I thought they sounded great... Is
> the KM 184 and others worth the higher cost compared to the Shure (esp.
when
> the guitar needs to compete in the mix)?
>
> ~Kurt
>
>
>
From: Garthrr <garthrr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: 30 Jun 1999 09:01:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <<sdf-2906991942320001@user-2ivea2f...>>,
<sdf@wer...> (DStern) writes:
>I am once again disappointed with my acoustic sounds and want to purchase
>a new microphone to improve the situation. I am currently using an AT
>4033 and/or 421 and not getting anything spectacular. I generally run my
>mic into a Sytek pre > Distressor > Protools.
Tonight I tried my new Earthworks Z30X pair through a Manley pre for both steel
string and nylon string. I am very happy with the results. Definitely not super
hyped in the highs but quite EQ-able when you want the zippy highs. (I mean
that the recording I did seems very responsive to any EQ I do to it.)
Ive also had good results with AKG C460 mics. They seem to impart a sheen that
I dont hear with other mics I own.
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
From: <artemis@escape...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:06:36 -0400
DStern wrote:
>
> I am once again disappointed with my acoustic sounds and want to purchase
> a new microphone to improve the situation. I am currently using an AT
> 4033 and/or 421 and not getting anything spectacular. I generally run my
> mic into a Sytek pre > Distressor > Protools.
>
> The guitar parts I am recording are very strummy, open tunings that are
> the foundation of the songs in which they appear. These parts have to
> hold their own against drums and electric guitars in places as well.
> Also, I like a close miked sound that is full and balanced... I'm not a
> fan of the over-sizzly high end sound. I prefer a more natural
> Zeppelin/Yes type acoustic sound.
A natural acoustic guitar will naturally disappear when put
in a mix with big drums and electric guitars. Isn't is
possible this is an arrangement question more than a mic
question? If you want strummy, open tunings, and you want
the guitar to sound natural, you need the other instruments
to be sensitive to that. Also, what sounds good naked, will
not nec. sound natural in a mix.
Before you go buying microphones, you might want to try
other techniques--not close miking, not disressoring, moving
the mic around the room, miking the other guitars
differently, getting the drummer to avoid busy snare or ride
parts, etc...
John Washburn
From: KyleSong <kylesong@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: 30 Jun 1999 16:47:53 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Whatever you decide, make sure you hear the km 184 before you buy anything.Personally, I really love this mic. It shines on acoustic guitar of all
flavors, and is a very versatile mic. Get a pair.
Kyle
From: Eli Crane <ross897@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: 30 Jun 1999 18:22:28 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Whatever you decide, make sure you hear the km 184 before you buy
anything.
>Personally, I really love this mic. It shines on acoustic guitar of all
>flavors, and is a very versatile mic. Get a pair.
I like the KM 184 also, but keep in mind, that I am still fairly new at hearing
all these microphones(just can't afford them)... I have heard an SM 81, AKG
C414TLII, SM57, ATM33?(I think that is what it's called) and probably some
others that I can't remember on acoustic guitar and out of all those I like the
KM 184 the best, the KM 184 did impress me a WHOLE bunch.
Oh, and what kind of guitar are you micing anyway?
Eli
From: EnsnareYou <ensnareyou@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: 30 Jun 1999 19:46:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Assuming you are wanting to use a single small diaphragm mic.... If you want a
bright (often screechy) but very thin sound try out an AKG C451 or C1000. For
a bright but slightly fuller sound try the AKG 460. A KM184 or Audio Technica
AT4051 will give you an even fuller sound but will still have some top end
sheen to them. A KM84 or KM140 will give a warmer, richer, tone with less top
end. A KM54 or KM56 will leave you crying afterwards because they sound
wonderful and will break your bank account at the same time. The Earthworks
QTC1's will give you a fairly decent representation of the guitar without a lot
of hype albeit the QTC's can be somehwat flat sounding. Flat isn't always a
good thing though. The Oktava MC012's can be sort of KM84'ish sounding if you
can find one that works. MB 603's also give you that KM84 sound with a lot
more body and are very nice.
Many large diaphragm mics can also yield great results as well. I've had
excellent results with an AKG C12, AT4060, Brauner VM1, BLUE Bottle Mic, Lawson
L47, and dare I say it... an AKG The Tube. The AKG 414 is also popular but
I've never been thrilled with that mic on any instrument except maybe a snare
drum. The Rode NT2 works well when you want a brighter and thinner tone.
Often it's nice to have a large diaphragm mic set a few feet back (2-6'
dependent upon how good your room is) from the guitar and a small diaphragm mic
close in (6-12") near the 12th or 13th fret. Position the mics carefully and
listen each time you move the mics to see how it's affecting the tone. A third
mic that's off to the side of the guitar (1-3' or so aimed at the curve of the
guitar body) will give you a very clear and detailed strum and finger pick
sound. Be very careful with this mics position as it greatly affects the
overall tone.
Try every mic you have an sometimes you'll be surprised what works best.
Experiment and don't be worried about what other people use. What works best
for you is all that counts. It's not hard to get a great sound if you put your
ears to work for you!!
Lee
From: steve <combssl@charlotte...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 18:18:18 -0400
Organization: Infinet
EnsnareYou wrote:
snip...
> Often it's nice to have a large diaphragm mic set a few feet back (2-6'
> dependent upon how good your room is) from the guitar and a small diaphragm mic
> close in (6-12") near the 12th or 13th fret. Position the mics carefully and
> listen each time you move the mics to see how it's affecting the tone. A third
> mic that's off to the side of the guitar (1-3' or so aimed at the curve of the
> guitar body) will give you a very clear and detailed strum and finger pick
> sound. Be very careful with this mics position as it greatly affects the
> overall tone.
>
snip..
> Lee
good post Lee.
Depending on what sound is needed for the song, there can be limited
options. Say for strummed country sound, I get a small diaphram close on
the neck, angled a little for pick sound. For a Jimmy Page sound, I have
used a large diaphram back a bit at the hole.
Using two mics like this, you can create brand new guitar sounds by
moving one or both mics. I have amazed myself and others this way using
what I considered cheap sounding guitars.
Steve
From: Jeff Olsen <jeffo@efn...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: 1 Jul 1999 02:09:36 -0700
Organization: Oregon Public Networking
In <<sdf-2906991942320001@user-2ivea2f...>> <sdf@wer...> (DStern) writes:
>I am once again disappointed with my acoustic sounds and want to purchase
>a new microphone to improve the situation. I am currently using an AT
>4033 and/or 421 and not getting anything spectacular. I generally run my
>mic into a Sytek pre > Distressor > Protools.
>Also, I like a close miked sound that is full and balanced... I'm not a
>fan of the over-sizzly high end sound. I prefer a more natural
>Zeppelin/Yes type acoustic sound.
The 4033 is a big part of your problem. Those are not bad microphones for
the money, but they have a bright and unnatural high end. The Sytek is a
good mic preamp to use for acoustic recording, maybe not the best on the
world but pretty darn good ( I use one for that often). However, the
Sytek and that AT don't mate well for that application. The 4050 has a
much nicer top (than the 4033) and can sound nice and meaty.
>KM-184 - Is this mike all about the high end sizzle sound?
No, I would say it is a moderatly bright mic but with a nice clean open
top end. They are nice mics. For acoustic, I am always wishing they had
a rolloff switch, but the KM184/Sytek combo works well.
Can't help with the others you mentioned.
I will pass on some things that have worked for me, though. First,
fitting an acoustic guitar into a rock mix can be very difficult; the
relatively dainty guitar sound gets eaten for lunch, unless you are
willing to make level and EQ compromises with the other instruments that
you (or the other band members) may not be willing to make. That said,
I've had better luck fitting acoustics into that sort of mix using a
non-accurate but very euphonic signal chain; in my case a KM184 or AKG 460
into a Peavey tube preamp. The AKG, which has a bright and crystalline
top end end through a Sytek, is sparkly with harmonics and nice and thick
through the peavey; in other words, not clinically accurate at all, but
very nice to listen to. And the added harmonic content and midrange
smearing (due to the transformers) really helps the acoustic has a
presence in the mix.
Another one, stranger still, is an AT4050 through a cheap preamp (dbx
760x). This has a lot of character; not strident at all on the top end,
not sparkly and bright or lush, just sort of beefy and somewhat
"electrified" sounding. A fair amount of the color is from the preamp;
the 4050 through the sytek is much cleaner.
A third trick is to blend a little piezo (yuck, i know) pickup sound in
there... the Evil Twin tube DI works great for that.
But most important, be prepared to get a little wacky with EQ and whatnot
at mixtime; realize that you are trying to fit two pretty uncompatible
things together here; things that in the real world would not BE at
similar levels to begin with! You are CREATING an artificial reality
here... so if you want to hear that low G on the guitar, scoop out some
150-180 hz from the bass and keys, etc.
-jeff
From: Mark Plancke <Mark@SoundtechRecording...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 15:39:34 GMT
Organization: Soundtech Recording
<qw@qw...> (DStern) wrote:
>Has anyone used the TLM-103 on acoustic?
Yes, and it sounds wonderful. I placed it about 1' away pointing
around the 14th fret angled slightly toward the body. Great River pre
to tape. Nice sound. I've been using the AKG 451 on a Martin guitar
(D28) for the project I've been working on, if your looking for a
bright, crystalline sounding track perfect for fitting into a big mix
the 451 has it in spades. I don't think I'll have to EQ very much to
get it to work in the context of the final mix, may have to put a high
pass filter on it to get rid of any low end noise.
PS. There's something about Martin guitars and Neumann KM84's that
don't seem to work together, this may extend to the KM184 series but I
haven't tried that combination.
Mark Plancke
SOUNDTECH RECORDING STUDIOS
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
http://SoundTechRecording.com
Wandering into Usenet and asking if the Mac or the PC is better is
sort of like wandering into an Irish bar and asking if Catholics
or Protestants are best. You might learn something about religion
in the process, but not much, and you stand almost certain to be
injured in the crossfire.
Scott Dorsey 5/28/99 2:39PM rec.audio.pro
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic guitar mic questions
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999 17:49:00 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<qw@qw...> (DStern) wrote:
>Has anyone used the TLM-103 on acoustic?
Yup, used it into the Great River preamp for the last rap CD set. Worked
great on a Martin D28 and an old Gibson J45.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
| Two Mics or One for Recording [12] |
|---|
From: Andy Schreckenghost <alschrec@ghg...>
Subject: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 1999 22:34:20 -0700
OK.. this probably belongs on the Rec.Audio.Pro group.. but they're so
busy over there.
I'm trying to decide whether I want to buy a single large diaphram
condensor microphone (maybe a Neumann TLM 103) to record guitar and
occasional vocals or if I should get a matched pair of Oktava 012's (not
Guitar Center.. the pre-tested, matched ones)? Voice is about 1/3 as
important as guitar and I don't want to spend more than $850 or so.
I've read reviews and web sites and articles.. there is a lot of
conflicting information out there.
I'm going through a new Mackie board with the improved mic pre's, a
Gadget Labs 8/24 (better to crash Cakewalk with), and can make the
recording space very quiet.. so I think the microphone(s) will matter.
Comments / suggestions appreciated as always..
Andy Schreckenghost
Houston TX
From: Richard Ausili <roausili@email...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 19:24:57 -0700
Right now I'm considering getting a Neumann TLM-103.
These mikes are definitely used in recording studios
around here and must be truly professional quality.
They are hard to find around here. Musician's Friend
(Large Music store chain) was the only store around
this Springfield, Oregon area that even carries this kind
of microphone and they had to wait about 2 months to
get any into their warehouse. These microphones are
extremely popular. Neumann is a good name.
The kind of microphone you use can make a tremendous
difference. I started out with a Shure BG something or
other microphone and couldn't stand it. It was terrible
for recording acoustic guitar.
Then I took it back and they gave me a AKG C 3000
microphone to try out. This was much better, but still
not good at all for acoustic guitar. I was recording my
Martin HD-28 and I realized that this microphone and
the previous one were simply distorting the sound of
my guitar, which really got on my nerves.
I found out by talking to numerous people at recording
studios (and the people at Mackie) that acoustic
guitar is one of the hardest instruments to record.
You really have to have a good microphone to properly
pick up the sound of an acoustic guitar.
My advice is to go to the closest Musicians' Friend
store and go ahead and buy the Neumann TLM-103
microphone. If you decide against keeping it you
still have 45 days before returning it for an unconditional
refund. I figure you don't have anything to lose that way.
The whole point is that you are probably not going to
find any kind of cheap microphone that's going to
record acoustic guitar music properly.
--
Richard Ausili
<roausili@email...>
Andy Schreckenghost <<alschrec@ghg...>> wrote in message
news:<378589DC.9952CC9A@ghg...>...
> OK.. this probably belongs on the Rec.Audio.Pro group.. but they're so
> busy over there.
>
> I'm trying to decide whether I want to buy a single large diaphram
> condensor microphone (maybe a Neumann TLM 103) to record guitar and
> occasional vocals or if I should get a matched pair of Oktava 012's (not
> Guitar Center.. the pre-tested, matched ones)? Voice is about 1/3 as
> important as guitar and I don't want to spend more than $850 or so.
> I've read reviews and web sites and articles.. there is a lot of
> conflicting information out there.
>
> I'm going through a new Mackie board with the improved mic pre's, a
> Gadget Labs 8/24 (better to crash Cakewalk with), and can make the
> recording space very quiet.. so I think the microphone(s) will matter.
>
> Comments / suggestions appreciated as always..
>
> Andy Schreckenghost
> Houston TX
>
From: <hedberg@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:31:43 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
In article <<378589DC.9952CC9A@ghg...>>,
Andy Schreckenghost <alschrec@ghg.net> wrote:> OK.. this probably belongs on the Rec.Audio.Pro group.. but they're so
> busy over there.
>
Surely Fletcher could find the time to give you some friendly
non-judgmental advice.
> I'm trying to decide whether I want to buy a single large diaphram
> condensor microphone (maybe a Neumann TLM 103) to record guitar and
> occasional vocals or if I should get a matched pair of Oktava 012's
(not
> Guitar Center.. the pre-tested, matched ones)?
Andy
If Dante were still around he could write a sequel describing the levels
of technological hell that modern musicians go through. Welcome to
microphone hell.
Something you might consider is buying a less expensive large diaphragm
condensor and then one decent quality small diapragm condensor.
AT4050CM's are pretty good -- they have a less expensive version
(4033?). Rode NT2 (less expensive is the NT1). Equitek -- lots of
options in the $400 -- $600 range. That would leave you enough to get
one SM81 ($280 to $300 + TTI). I don't know how important it would be
to have matched small diaphragm condensors except for particular stereo
imaging techniques.
I bought an SM81 this weekend and have been experimenting with it some.
I have an AT4050 that I've had for a couple years. The AT does a
respectable job on acoustic guitar from a bunch of different locations
both close and far. I like it a real lot on vocals. It also has omni
and figure 8 which give you a different sort of recording than the
cardioid I found that the SM81 can add a whole bunch of high end detail
that the AT doesn't seem to find (particularly without overloading the
bass end -- even with the bass attenuation clicked in). Interesting
thing was comparing the response of the SM81 to the Kinscherff rosewood
High Noon and a Martin 000-28. What people tell you about experimenting
with mic position and distance etc is the truth. Anyway, using the AT
at about the 12th fret (maybe 8 to 10 inches from the guitar) angled
slightly towards the soundhole and the SM81 aimed at the lower bout
slightly behind and below the bridge (about 1-2" from the guitar) gave
me the best sound I have yet been able to get with the 000-28. It also
managed to get a very good stereo image of every mistake that I made in
excruciating detail.
While pricing the SM81's locally I happened into Guitar Center (they
didn't have the best price) and the sales slug tried to sell me the
Octava. Fortunately, I had brought along a garland of garlic for just
such an occasion. For some reason he was overcome with a fit of honesty
when I told him that I wasn't going to buy one of their Octavas because
I had no desire to fall to a lower level of microphone hell than the one
I currently occupy. He said that they get about 50% returns on the
Octavas they sell -- more than on just about anything else in their
pro-audio department. I figure that if 50% of the buyers return then
probably 75% of them are bad. wouldn't the percentage of bad mics get
higher as they continue to resell the ones that get returned?
I opted for the SM81 rather than the matched QC'd Octavas not only
because of price, but mostly because I don't really know much about
these things and the SM81 seemed like a safe option. I didn't want to
get myself in a situation where I am not getting the results that I want
and don't know whether it is bad technique or bad equipment. People who
do this stuff for a living seem to consider the SM81 to be a reliable
and affordable mic for acoustic guitar -- one that does not have a lot
of idiosyncratic characteristics and "doesn't suck bad" on anything.
You know, for the money you are looking to spend, you could get about a
dozen SM57's. Wouldn't that be nice.
Harold
ps I would be happy to bring the SM81 and the AT4050 over.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou <NOSPAMmother@gnv...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 16:10:52 GMT
Organization: Motherheart
Hey Andy.
>I'm more familiar with your posts on RMMGA, but it appears you're involved
>with the RTT mic's..
Yep - it happened kinda organically but I find myself in business, again.
This time with some stuff and people I believe in.
>I have two questions if you don't mind..
>
>a. When the RTT mic's are available will they cost the same as the FMSP
>MC012's your selling now? Is the only difference the label?
No. The new mics will cost around $750 for matched pair, as opposed to
$599 for the Oktavas. They will be considerably better built, 'though, and
have a much higher SPL rating and lower noise floor.
>b. I'm trying to decide between a single high end large diaphram (for which
>your RTT microphones would certainly be a candidate) and two small diaphrams
>(like the MC012's) in an XY for recording acoustic guitar. I've read a lot
>of conflicting things and would be interested in your opinion or, realizing
>that it's a broad question, a pointer where I could learn more.
>
My standard set-up for recording acoustic guitar is a pair of MC012s,
using the cardioid heads, in an x-y coincident stereo pair arrangement (on
shockmounts and a T-bar) around a foot away from the guitar. Sometimes
I'll go closer, if I want to get the extra warmth from the "proximity"
effect. That's that sexy, "Barry White" sound that close-miking gives to
radio show hosts and vocalists that like to pretty-much eat the mic.
Assuming I've found the right place in the room for them to perform, I
tend to get the guitarist to play and then "search" for the right spot
around the guitar with my ears and record from there. About 75% of the
time, that ends up being one mic pointed at the 12th fret and the other at
the base of the fingerboard, pointing down at an angle of about 60
degrees. If there's a problem with fingernoise, you could try pointing the
mics at different ends of the bridge from behind, with the T in the T-bar
vertical.
Watch out for excessive boominess in larger guitars, such as dreadnoughts
and jumbos. Use your ears to find the spots where this is minimised. Even
a little mic. adjustment can cut down on boominess considerably
I should say that you can also get excellent results using a single small
condenser, too. it's just that I like to have the tonal flexibility and
true stereo capability that a pair of mics. gives you.
If a session requires recording voice and guitarat the same time (an
engineer's nightmare! :> ) , I do the same thing but add an MC319, laid on
it's back (the rear rejection is excellent), to record the voice and get
the player to sing across the diaphragm. This minimises guitar pickup on
the vocal mic., though voice will still appear quite strong on the guitar
tracks. Still, having a track of the voice more-or-less separate helps a
lot.
Another option for recording guitar is to use the "sunrise" method which
involves using a single large diaphragm condensor mic. (such as the MC319)
- again, on it's back. It is positioned under the lower side of the guitar
so, if you look down the bridge while you're playing, the diaphragm of the
mic can be seen in it's entirety, looking like the sun rising over the
guitar top.
As I'm sure you realise, there are as many miking methods as there are
studios. The best advice is to be attentive to folks with a lot of
experience, use your ears, a deal of patience, be inventive and trust your
instincts.
I can say that, if there were only ever a FMSP of Oktava MC012s and an
Oktava MC319 available to record voice and acoustic instruments, it
wouldn't worry me a bit. It's a great trio of mics for the purpose.
>OK. That was three questions.
>
>Actually, I wanted to post this on RMMGA.. folks on RAP will already have
>firm opinions but guitarists like myself who suddenly have a lot of new
>digital recording gear at their disposal have a lot to learn about
>microphones..
>
You're right. In fact, I'll include this in RMMGA as part of your thread
there. Further, I've slightly modified and added to the message I sent to
you personally. :>
Regards - and good luck!
Elizabeth
Remove NOSPAM from email address before replying
From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 14:39:52 -0700
Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus
Good advice in this thread.
Yet another approach (yes, there are a lot of opinions on acoustic guitar
micing), if you have two mics that aren't even close to being the same, much
less a matched pair, is to use one mic close, a foot or two away, and one
mic distant, five or so feet away. This is assuming you have a decent,
quiet room.
In this scenario you would mix the close mic quite a bit louder than the
distant mic. The distant mic would serve the same function as adding 'verb
but would be more natural.
--
___
http://www.dpsound.com/johnwms.htm
http://www.mp3.com/HandPicked
Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou wrote in message ...
>
>My standard set-up for recording acoustic guitar is a pair of MC012s,
>using the cardioid heads, in an x-y coincident stereo pair arrangement (on
>shockmounts and a T-bar) around a foot away from the guitar. Sometimes
From: Dave Clutter <dclutter@columbus...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 12:27:11 -0400
Organization: Time Warner Communications Columbus
OK, folks. Small diaphram for acoustic guitar.
I've been looking at Shure BG4.1 at around $165. Any others in this price
range I should look for, and/or should I just go for the SM-81.
Also, can these be used for performing in quiet settings, while using a
different mic, of course, for vocals.
Thanks again,
Dave Clutter
From: <hedberg@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:34:05 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
In article <zVJi3.3691$<Gx.33968@storm...>>,
"Dave Clutter" <dclutter@columbus.rr.com> wrote:>
> OK, folks. Small diaphram for acoustic guitar.
>
> I've been looking at Shure BG4.1 at around $165. Any others in this
price
> range I should look for, and/or should I just go for the SM-81.
>
> Also, can these be used for performing in quiet settings, while using
a
> different mic, of course, for vocals.
The SM81 can be used for vocals. It comes with a silly little sponge
wind filter but Shure sells some add on filters that do a better job. I
have used one for live vocals in a relatively quiet club. It wasn't my
mic -- belongs to the club and it was their choice. They had installed
a filter on the end of it that looked like a silencer for a 12 gage
shotgun.
So, the direct answer to your question is yes -- the SM81 (for one) can
be used for sound reinforcement.
Harold
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou <NOSPAMmother@gnv...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:47:43 GMT
Organization: Motherheart
In article <zVJi3.3691$<Gx.33968@storm...>>, "Dave Clutter"
<<dclutter@columbus...>> wrote:
| OK, folks. Small diaphram for acoustic guitar.
|
| I've been looking at Shure BG4.1 at around $165. Any others in this price
| range I should look for, and/or should I just go for the SM-81.
|
| Also, can these be used for performing in quiet settings, while using a
| different mic, of course, for vocals.
|
| Thanks again,
| Dave Clutter
Check out our single Oktava MC012s. They come with 3 interchangeable
capsules (cardioid, omni, hyperdardioid) a -10dB pad, a mic clip and a
cool cedar box - all for $259. We warranty them for 2 years.
Find more info at:
http://www.oktava.com/mics/mc012.html
Info on all our mics. at:
http://www.oktava.com/mics/micsales.html
Check feedback on our mics. at:
http://www.oktava.com/feedback/view.html
Regards
Elizabeth
RTT mics/the Sound Room South
Remove NOSPAM from email address before replying
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:43:39 GMT
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network
On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 13:28:47 GMT, <NOSPAMmother@gnv...> (Elizabeth
Ann Papapetrou) wrote:
>
>
>| Dave,
>|
>| Most people will have better luck using a small diaphragm condensor mic
>| for recording acoustic guitar under the conditions you mentioned.
>|
>
>
>Harvey - you have a whole heap of experience in recording acoustic guitar
>and, clearly, there's a hungry world of newby recording set-ups out there.
>
>
>Care to write a general piece on the subject? The world will be grateful.
>
>Regards
>
>Elizabeth
>
>Remove NOSPAM from email address before replying
When Harvey Gerst speaks..........
People listen or they don't.
Seriously, the guy knows his stuff. And although he cringes everytime
I say it, he's a good friend.)
And for my 2 cents: Simplest set up is a single mic. Small capsules
are my preference over larger ones but big caps will work, too. The
results will be different not necessarily better or worse. 2 mic
set-ups panned stereo are usually more impressive sounding but much
touchier when it comes to mic placement because not only do the mics
interact with the guitar, they interact with each other.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:40:25 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<NOSPAMmother@gnv...> (Elizabeth Ann Papapetrou) wrote:
>| Dave,
>| Most people will have better luck using a small diaphragm condensor mic
>| for recording acoustic guitar under the conditions you mentioned.
>Harvey - you have a whole heap of experience in recording acoustic guitar
>and, clearly, there's a hungry world of newby recording set-ups out there.
>Care to write a general piece on the subject? The world will be grateful.
>Elizabeth
Elizabeth,
The guy you really want to answer this is Rick Ruskin, not me. But here
are my thoughts on the subject, for whatever that's worth:
Because a guitar depends on wood resonances to project the sound, a
guitar has an unusual radiation pattern, as do most other stringed
instruments. Where you are (in relation to the guitar) makes a big
difference in what you hear.
To complicate matters even more, these radiation patterns will change,
depending on the chord being played, the technique of the guitarist, the
room, and the type of guitar being played. So there is no "one size fits
all" mic setup available, but here are some things that we know "kinda"
work for a lot of people.
First choice: Mono or stereo?
Stereo:
If it's a solo guitar project, stereo is what most people expect to
hear, which means two mics. Several techniques can work here: Spaced
omni mics (if it's a good room), or a pair of small cardiods either
spaced wide (but watch out for phase cancellations), or in an X/Y array,
pulled back about 2 or 3 feet.
Mono:
If it's a rhythm guitar designed to fit into a track, you can use one
mic to record the sound, but where you put that mic becomes harder. To
capture more of the body (full range) of the guitar, pull the mic back
about 2 or 3 feet, and move it left to right, and up and down, over a 3
foot range till you hear the sound you want. (Imagine a 3 foot circle
around the first position of the mic - move it up to 18" in any
direction from that starting point.)
More on mono: If it's sitting in a complex song (i.e., lottsa other
instruments), you may want to record a thinner sound to help the guitar
cut thru better. Try moving the mic in closer, and aim it at the bridge,
from below the picking hand position.
A large diaphragm mic can sometimes give better results for thinning a
mono guitar track. The AKG C3000 or 414 are both very bright mics that
"may" work in "some" cases. Even the smaller diaphragm mics (AKG C1000
or a Radio Shack condensor mic) may help the track to cut thru the other
instruments.
Don't be afraid to use the low frequency roll off switch on the mic to
reduce the bass a bit. Also, dynamic and ribbon mics can work on certain
songs (try the Beyer M201, or the Beyer 260, the Shure SM57, and the
Sennheiser 421 for starters.)
Mic choices: Small cardioid condensor microphones are "usually" prefered
(remember, these aren't rules set in cement) because they are
"generally" smoother in response than big condensor mics. Large
diaphragm condensor mics are particularly flattering for some singers,
but they also can have response anomalies that will interact with the
guitar to produce weird (but sometimes wonderful) results.
Some good proven choices for small cardioids are Shure SM81, AKG 451,
Crown 700, EV C15P, Neumann KM184, B&K 4013, and the Octava MC-012 (but
try several if you buy it from Guitar Center).
The Neumann TLM-103 is a large diaphragm mic, but it's sometimes perfect
for a number of different guitars. The new Shure KM32 is also getting
recomendations, as are the GT series from Alesis, and the Rode mics (but
try several before you buy).
As Rick Ruskin would say, "Any questions?"
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Tony Beltran <beltran@skypoint...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 18:15:24 -0500
Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc.
Hi:
I am not an expert on this subject in any way, but
here are my own experiences:
First, I bought a pair of Radio Shack condensor mics
(small diaphragm, use AA battery) model 33-3017 on
sale for about$35 apiece. These sounded OK, but
I wanted something smoother.
After digging around and reading a lot, I came to
the conclusion that it would be a good idea to put
serious money into the mics and worry about the
rest later. I did this with my stereo when buying
speakers 20 years ago and still have the same speakers
with no desire to "upgrade".
Anyway, I got a matched (by serial number) pair of
Neumann KM184 mics. They cost me about $575 apiece,
but the different between them and the Radio Shack
mics was very noticeable (not a fair comparison, I
am sure). The very first thing I noticed was the
LACK OF NOISE. Then, the smoothness. There seems
to be an almost intangible quality that sounds to me
as if the mics are in control - they just easily do
what they are supposed without strain. I know this
probably does not make sense, but I don't know how
else to describe it.
So, in hindsight, I think it was worthwhile to spend
the money and just get good mics. I think recording
technology will change from month to month, but a good
set of mics is forever. I don't think this was a waste
of money.
Tony
--
Powered by LINUX (2.0.36)
From: Doc West <dkwest@slip...>
Subject: Re: Two Mics or One for Recording
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:07:27 +0100
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network
Too bad Elizabeth's mics don't have the RTT name yet, so we have to keep
distinguishing them from those mics of the same name marketed elsewhere.
I bought the MC012-FMSP set..that's the matched pair of MC-012's from
the Sound Room (Elizabeth's company) in February.
The extra levels of quality control must work. This pair does not suffer
from the problems I've heard about in the mics marketed by guitar center.
And I've been nothing but happy with 'em. They sound much more true to
life than the C-451 I'd relied on previously.
A decent matched pair of small condensors with multiple patterns opens up
a world of possibilities.. For a guy like me, who wants to find out what
works, what doesn't, and why I'm seldom happy with the sound when I work
other people's sessions as a player, such a set is more useful than a
single-pattern large condensor...even a reputedly wonderful one like the
TLM-103.
I recently picked up a GT5SM multiple-pattern large condensor, and it'sgot a whole different set of good and bad points. I'm glad to have it. But
I'm glad I bought the FMSP set first.
This is all just my own experience and opinion. You go ahead and do
whatever you want. no matter what you buy, you're bound to learn
something. And no matter what you buy, you're probably gonna want to buy
something else in the future.
--
a corollary to Sturgeon's Law:
10% of everything isn't crap. Stay alert or you'll miss it.
| Rec Acoustic Guitar: Does my gear suck or do I? [3] |
|---|
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Rec Acoustic Guitar: Does my gear suck or do I?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:24:39 GMT
Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:06:53 GMT, <ss@sonic...> (SonicWonder) wrote:
>I have been trying for some time now to get a good acoustic guitar
>tone with the gear that I own to no avail. I have a yamaha acoustic
>that sounds marvelous in real life - very rich in overtones. I am
>close miking with an NT2 into a soundcraft mixer pre straight to DAW
>with no compression at tracking. I tried using compression at
>tracking but my DBX 266A completely muddied the sound regardless of
>the settings used - I thereby opted to compress after tracking with
>pluggins. I have miked at various locations all over the guitar and
>still the tone is not to my liking and requires TONS of EQ. Tthe
>160-220 Hz region needs to be cut to reduce the muddiness (probably
>from proximity effect due to close miking). Additionally, there are
>harsh frequencies at which harsh non-harmonic buzzing is occurring
>(1137Hz and above) which need to be notch filtered. The problem is
>that after all this EQing the life of the guitar is gone. It sounds
>extremely thin and hollow - it almost seems as if the harmonics are
>too strong in relation to the fundamental. To get some meatiness in
>the tone back I am forced to use chorus but I would like to go for a
>natural tone! I am currently using light strings; will going with
>heavy strings help significantly? Any ideas on how to get a meatier
>tone with the equipment at hand?
I've had no experience with the NT-2 so can't comment on its merits or
lack thereof. The muddines is most likely do to your close-micing.
So:
Back off as much as you need to get the most natural sound or as close
to the sound you desire.
Mic the guitar anywhere but the soundhole. Best guess is to try
somewhere in the area where neck and body meet but if that dsoesn't
work, try the bridge area or anywhere else you can think of.
Don't assume you must place the mic "straight on" to the guitar. Try
different angles. Mic from below or above, whatever gets you closest
to the sound you want _before_ signal porcessing. Once you get
something reasonable, then switch your eq in to get you the rest of
the way.
Lastly, ( a personal belief of mine) don't get hung up on level. Good
clean sound is what you want. If you move the mic closer just to get
better s/n out of your signal chain but lose the good sound, what's
the point?
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Rec Acoustic Guitar: Does my gear suck or do I?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:19:27 -0500
Where are you placing the mic? Most people first try micing the soundhole,
thinking that's where the sound comes from. This is a very unpleasant place
for a mic to be, with huge low end and lots of air burst noise. Try two
things: First, close mic with the NT2 at about the 12th fret, at a slight
angle (not perpendicular). This is usually a good area to get a balanced
sound. Second, don't close mic. Try about 3-4 feet back, if your room's
quiet enough. This will be a wetter sound, but can be very natural.
Your gear doesn't suck, and you probably don't either. You just haven't
tried every possible way to use your gear.
When you find the right spot, the drastic EQ will not be needed.
You might want to try other mics as well, but the NT2 will work very well.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Music
Composer, Producer, Arranger
<caldwell@bellsouth...>
RAP CD II Submission Info is available at
http://personal.mem.bellsouth.net/~caldwell/rapcd
SonicWonder <<ss@sonic...>> wrote in message
news:<378df36c.43571607@news...>...
> I have been trying for some time now to get a good acoustic guitar
> tone with the gear that I own to no avail. I have a yamaha acoustic
> that sounds marvelous in real life - very rich in overtones. I am
> close miking with an NT2 into a soundcraft mixer pre straight to DAW
> with no compression at tracking. I tried using compression at
> tracking but my DBX 266A completely muddied the sound regardless of
> the settings used - I thereby opted to compress after tracking with
> pluggins. I have miked at various locations all over the guitar and
> still the tone is not to my liking and requires TONS of EQ. Tthe
> 160-220 Hz region needs to be cut to reduce the muddiness (probably
> from proximity effect due to close miking). Additionally, there are
> harsh frequencies at which harsh non-harmonic buzzing is occurring
> (1137Hz and above) which need to be notch filtered. The problem is
> that after all this EQing the life of the guitar is gone. It sounds
> extremely thin and hollow - it almost seems as if the harmonics are
> too strong in relation to the fundamental. To get some meatiness in
> the tone back I am forced to use chorus but I would like to go for a
> natural tone! I am currently using light strings; will going with
> heavy strings help significantly? Any ideas on how to get a meatier
> tone with the equipment at hand?
From: Michael Quayle <mikey.quayle@virgin...>
Subject: Re: Rec Acoustic Guitar: Does my gear suck or do I?
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:57:21 +0100
Organization: Virgin News Service
I can't comment on the mic you're using, because I don't know it, but first
thing I would suggest is try every placing you can, if you haven't done this
already. I find I get the most natural results from pointing the mic at a
slight angle towards the 12th fret,about 8-12 inches away. If it still
sounds muddy, move the mic back a little more into the room. Whatever you
do, don't close mic into the soundhole: this will generate the kind of
muddy, horrible sound you described, with far too much bass to boost.
If all this fails, then try getting hold of a different mike. I have used
everything from a cheap C1000, to an AT4050 and achieved pleasing results
with each.
Good Luck and Regards,
Michael Quayle.
| Mixing Acoustic Fingerstyle [8] |
|---|
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Mixing Acoustic Fingerstyle
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:08:30 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:26:43 GMT, <jeff.hill@york...> wrote:
>I've been recording fingerstyle onto a digital Fostex machine,using
>large and small diaphram condensors. I have exhaustively experimented
>with mic placement. I have recorded in various rooms ranging from soft
>to hard(bathroom). I am using ART Tube MP's for my preamps and getting
>a pretty good sound. My sound though is not as full and sparkling as
>the pro recordings out there. Is there any magic or tool/effect that is
>used in mastering, besides a bit of reverb? I have an RNC compressor
>which is used to some effect and have experimented with reverb. The
>sound that I am getting is quite true to the guitar (Taylor 514C)but
>not quite up to snuff. All input is greatly appreciated.
>
Don't confuse mastering with mixing. Mastering is the craft/art of
taking final mixes to the "end" medium. Normally this involves level
matching from cut to cut and if needed, additional eq and or
compression. Reverb is rarely done as part of the mastering process.
Bathrooms are usually bad recording environments - too small with too
many early reflections. Unless you have a truly wonderful sounding
room, I'd stay with a deader space and let your reverb device add the
ambience. Get the best dry (non-reverbed) sound you can with mic
choice and placement. Don't be afraid to use eq as you record and on
remix but don't expect it to cure everything. Leave the compressor
out of the chain until re-mix. You can't uncompress a recorded signal
and this way you get all the dynamic range. You may find you don't
need the compressor at all. Try pre-delaying the send to your echo
chamber. The mix tends to get less "muddied up" this way.
Try anything and everything to get the desired results. ther'e no
real right or wrong here.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
From: Jdanz <jdanz@cdsnet...>
Subject: Re: Mixing Acoustic Fingerstyle
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 17:48:12 +0000
Organization: MegaNews!
I have been struggling with some recording as well. I am using two mics to mic
an acoustic guitar into a Korg D8 (digital recorder). I use two rolls preamps
as well. A few things I have discovered.
1. Record as clean as possible and then deal with adding effects. I do use a
little eq when I record. After recording I use more eq, and a little reverb.
This seems to clean up the signal.
2. A dampened room works better... a room with lots of furniture, and
curtains to cover the window, and don't face a bare white wall. You can also
make a fort with blankets that works well.
3. I record on two tracks at the same time in stereo
4. No matter how good I get it, something always seems different the next
time :)
5. There is a recording newsgroup that is helpful alt.music.4-track
Jeff D.
<jeff.hill@york...> wrote:
>
> I've been recording fingerstyle onto a digital Fostex machine,using
> large and small diaphram condensors. I have exhaustively experimented
> with mic placement. I have recorded in various rooms ranging from soft
> to hard(bathroom). I am using ART Tube MP's for my preamps and getting
> a pretty good sound. My sound though is not as full and sparkling as
> the pro recordings out there. Is there any magic or tool/effect that is
> used in mastering, besides a bit of reverb? I have an RNC compressor
> which is used to some effect and have experimented with reverb. The
> sound that I am getting is quite true to the guitar (Taylor 514C)but
> not quite up to snuff. All input is greatly appreciated.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: <jeff.hill@york...>
Subject: Mixing Acoustic Fingerstyle
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:35:13 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
I've been recording fingerstyle onto a digital Fostex machine,using
large and small diaphram condensors. I have exhaustively experimented
with mic placement. I have recorded in various rooms ranging from soft
to hard(bathroom). I am using ART Tube MP's for my preamps and getting
a pretty good sound. My sound though is not as full and sparkling as
the pro recordings out there. Is there any magic or tool/effect that is
used in mastering, besides a bit of reverb? I have an RNC compressor
which is used to some effect and have experimented with reverb. The
sound that I am getting is quite true to the guitar (Taylor 514C)but
not quite up to snuff. All input is greatly appreciated.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
From: <synaptic@pathcom...>
Subject: Re: Mixing Acoustic Fingerstyle
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 00:45:10 GMT
Organization: Pathway Communications
<jeff.hill@york...> wrote:
> I am using ART Tube MP's for my preamps and getting
>a pretty good sound. My sound though is not as full and sparkling as
>the pro recordings out there.
If you're going to compare your stuff to the 'pro recordings',
consider if the performance, recording medium, microphones ,
_micpres_, other outboard, acoustic environment, etc. is at the
level of what you hear on say a Michael Hedges or Leo Kottke CD (or
whomever). Does the guitar sound nice in the room?
I would say that you must be on the right track if you've doing an
'exhaustive' amount of experimentation with mic placement.
Rent a pair of Neumann KM140s and a pair of APIs for a day, and see
what happens.
Cheers,
J.
----------------------------------
Synaptic Gap Productions
Toronto, Ontario
(416) 410 - 6595
<synaptic@pathcom...>
----------------------------------
From: Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d...>
Subject: Re: Mixing Acoustic Fingerstyle
Date: 25 Aug 1999 13:40:05 -0400
Organization: D and D Data
In article <7pv3at$v6a$<1@newsmaster...>> <synaptic@pathcom...> writes:
> If you're going to compare your stuff to the 'pro recordings',
> consider if the performance, recording medium, microphones ,
> _micpres_, other outboard, acoustic environment, etc. is at the
> level of what you hear on say a Michael Hedges or Leo Kottke CD (or
> whomever).
I read somewhere that when recording Leo Kottke, between mics and
pickups, they use between 9 and 12 sources, depending on the instrument
he's playing. The article didn't address signal processing at all (that
I remember anyway) though I'm sure it's liberal. So it's not just "one
good mic" or "one compressor" that will do the job.
--
Mike Rivers (I'm really <mrivers@d-and-d...>)
From: Jim Ruberto <jruberto@plinet...>
Subject: Re: Mixing Acoustic Fingerstyle
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 01:37:00 -0600
Organization: Bewell Net
> > If you're going to compare your stuff to the 'pro recordings',
> > consider if the performance, recording medium, microphones ,
> > _micpres_, other outboard, acoustic environment, etc. is at the
> > level of what you hear on say a Michael Hedges or Leo Kottke CD (or
> > whomever).
>
> I read somewhere that when recording Leo Kottke, between mics and
> pickups, they use between 9 and 12 sources, depending on the instrument
> he's playing.
This is from Michael Manring's site, how he records his electric bass. The
more you have to work with... you get the picture. A little different
scenario, similar technique.
1. Magnetic Pickup
2. Fishman Contact Pickup, mounted wherever works best, left
3. Fishman Contact Pickup, mounted wherever works best, right
4. Microphone (Shure SM-58), placed by left hand
5. Microphone (RØDE NT-1 through Soundcraft 200B Mixer micpre), placed by
right hand
6. Digitech RP-10, Left
7. Digitech RP-10, Right
The magnetic pickup is the main output of the bass and is the primary
signal-it's significantly louder than everything else in the mix. You don't
need much of the other stuff to have a profound impact on the sound.
-- from www.manthing.com
Don't be afraid to try mics in weird places. I have gotten good sound from
micing the headstock. an over-the-shoulder mic can be nice. be aware of
phase issues, move the mics around until cancellation is minimal. and dont
knock them over when you stand up. ;)
Full and sparkling? New strings for sparkle (try some different brands,
Martin SP's are especially bright but only for a few hours it seems -
certainly only for one session). Do you use fingerpicks? That'll make it
bright. For fullness and warmth, a mic a few inches off the body is a nice
one to have in the mix, make sure it doesnt get too boomy.
Something you didn't mention using was ambient micing. Set up a single mic
or a stereo pair in a good sounding room in addition to your close-mics.
Push 'em around till you get a good ambient sound, a little in the mix can
add a lot. Good luck.
enjoy,
jim
P.S. recent religious experience:
neumann m-147/neve 1084 at the neck joint
earthworks sr-77/grace on the body beneath the bridge
thru a pair of distressors (dont remeber the settings, i was playin not
trackin)
gawd. i didn't want to go home.
From: Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d...>
Subject: Re: Mixing Acoustic Fingerstyle
Date: 25 Aug 1999 06:49:25 -0400
Organization: D and D Data
In article <7puol1$a5g$<1@nnrp1...>> <jeff.hill@york...> writes:
> I've been recording fingerstyle onto a digital Fostex machine,using
> large and small diaphram condensors. I have exhaustively experimented
> with mic placement. I have recorded in various rooms ranging from soft
> to hard(bathroom). I am using ART Tube MP's for my preamps and getting
> a pretty good sound. My sound though is not as full and sparkling as
> the pro recordings out there.
ART Tube MPs and large diaphragm mics aren't exactly the combination
for getting sparkle from a fingerpicked acoustic guitar. I'd go for
small diaphragm mics and a really transparent preamp, but first -
how's your guitar, your strings, and your pickin'? If you're trying
to record with old strings, you'll never get brightness.
> Is there any magic or tool/effect that is
> used in mastering, besides a bit of reverb?
Nope, no magic tools. Garbage in, garbage out.
> sound that I am getting is quite true to the guitar (Taylor 514C)but
> not quite up to snuff.
You can't do any better than that. If the guitar doesn't give you the
sound you want, try another guitar. That's why there are different
guitars, and why session guitarists often show up with a carload of
them.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (<mrivers@d-and-d...>)
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Mixing Acoustic Fingerstyle
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:53:58 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Jim Ruberto" <<jruberto@plinet...>> wrote:
>> > If you're going to compare your stuff to the 'pro recordings',
>> > consider if the performance, recording medium, microphones ,
>> > _micpres_, other outboard, acoustic environment, etc. is at the
>> > level of what you hear on say a Michael Hedges or Leo Kottke CD (or
>> > whomever).
>>
>> I read somewhere that when recording Leo Kottke, between mics and
>> pickups, they use between 9 and 12 sources, depending on the instrument
>> he's playing.
>
>This is from Michael Manring's site, how he records his electric bass. The
>more you have to work with... you get the picture. A little different
>scenario, similar technique.
<snipped>
>The magnetic pickup is the main output of the bass and is the primary
>signal-it's significantly louder than everything else in the mix. You don't
>need much of the other stuff to have a profound impact on the sound.
>-- from www.manthing.com
On the other hand, you could just take Michael Manring's output from his
bass directly into the board and get a killer sound. Same thing with
Rick Ruskin (and other players of that proficiency level) - set up any
mic you want, in any room you want, point it in their general direction,
then hit red.
When you have players of this caliber, it ain't about mic techniques,
it's about keeping out of their way. Good mic technique only changes the
finished recording from "incredible" to "fantastic".
Im my old life, back in L.A., I had the opportunity to play Merle
Travis' Gibson Super 400, Albert King's Flying V, Jerry Garcia's
Alembic, Jimi Henrix' Strat, and Mike Bloomfield's Les Paul, to name
just a few of the dead guys I knew back then. If I were the engineer in
charge, I wouldn't waste a 7" reel of heavily spliced Radio Shack 1/4"
tape to preserve my efforts on their instruments for posterity.
Last year's AES also brought that home to me - Rick Ruskin "tuning up"
was better than me playing a carefully rehearsed piece. Listening to
Jeff Baxter last night at Mars Music also reminded me of why I went from
being a musician into production.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
| Gefell for acoustic recording? [3] |
|---|
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Gefell for acoustic recording?
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:49:19 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 00:01:32 GMT, <crosspicker@my-deja...> wrote:
>Been using a Gefell 71 (I think) set on cardioid on my upper bout for
>recording. Got me to wondering: if money's no object, what's your dream
>mic for recording? I've already picked the Gefell over a AKG 414 or a
>Shure 81 for a flat response with no noticeable bumps in the curve. I
>haven't had the pleasure of meeting a KM 184 (did I get that right?)
>
>What do you all like for recording a seasoned, well-balanced flat-top
>guitar?
>
>Thanks,
>Kelly
>
>
So far, the Sennheiser MKH40 gets my vote, especially when going
through one of Dan kenndy's Great River mic preamps.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Re: Gefell for acoustic recording?
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:36:25 -0700
Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus
<crosspicker@my-deja...> wrote:
>
> Been using a Gefell 71 (I think) set on cardioid on my upper bout for
> recording. Got me to wondering: if money's no object, what's your dream
> mic for recording? I've already picked the Gefell over a AKG 414 or a
> Shure 81 for a flat response with no noticeable bumps in the curve. I
> haven't had the pleasure of meeting a KM 184 (did I get that right?)
>
> What do you all like for recording a seasoned, well-balanced flat-top
> guitar?
>
The Gefell is very good.
We have two KM 184s and they are quite nice on acoustic guitar. We also
have a TLM 170 that is good. Our Manley black reference takes the
"breathtaking" award though. Almost makes me want to scratch up the
"extra" $3000 and try a gold reference. :)
--
http://www.dpsound.com/johnwms.htm
http://www.dpsound.com
From: GtrPaul <gtrpaul@aol...>
Subject: Re: Gefell for acoustic recording?
Date: 30 Aug 1999 03:50:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Ditto on the Manley Cardoid Reference. Very detailed, extended high end. I have
also had truly excellent results lately with a BPM Studio Technik TB 95 (Tube
Mic) in cardoid pointed at neck/body junction from about a foot angled down a
bit. Sytek pre with Jensen trans. or Manley 40 db. + a little drawmer 1960
compression or (believe it or not) a dbx 163.
(also fine on male vox).
I have had excellent results with Schoepps 221 B and the 934 capsule. I've
tried the KM 184 and wasn't wild about it for my guitars. (1948 maple J200 +
1983 Om-28 alpine top)I suggest that the right combination of mic for guitar is
critical and variable ad infinitum.
I'd be interested to hear one of the new shure KSM mics on acoustic. Overall, I
own a pair of Gefell Mt711s and I've used them for piano and overheads but
haven't found them sparkling for guitar and voice. serviceable but not
spectacular. I like their size but I'm not sure they haven't been eclipsed by
some of the new mics out there. It really is all quite individual as to taste
and tone color. Good luck.
<GtrPaul@aol...>
| Oktava MC-012, Lomo capsule, and MK-319 |
|---|
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC-012, Lomo capsule, and MK-319
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 14:22:48 -0500
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
FWIW, I've had a pair of the MC012's from Taylor (it's Johnson, not Howard, Harvey)
since March and like them very much. I've used them on acoustic guitar and been
quite happy with them. If you want to hear what they sound like in the hands of a
poor amateur who is still learning how to do this stuff, wait for Bohemian RAP CD;
my track uses them on a Martin D-28.
Service is important too, and Taylor is good in that regard--I had a pre-amp body go
bad this week, and Taylor is sending a new one asap.
Lately I've been trying double tracking the acoustic with the MC012's and a pair of
Wright omnis (hi, Fletcher). Nice combo; you can get more top by emphasizing the
Wrights or more bottom/smoothness by emphasizing the MC012's.
Irwin
(who hasn't died, but simply has been moving house, lurking where possible, and not
saying much)
Harvey Gerst wrote:
> I had the opportunity to listen to some of the Oktava mics from Taylor
> Howard (www.oktava.com), and I thought I'd share my findings with anyone
> that might be thinking about getting any of these mics.
>
<rest of good stuff snipped>
| Acoustic effects - compression |
|---|
From: Peter Lawrence Alexander <alexpub@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic effects - compression
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 08:35:48 -0700
Organization: MediaOne-Road Runner, Western Region
Check out a teaching tape called Recording Guitars. It's a 1-hour tape with
lots of examples and accompanying booklet. You can find it here:
http://alexanderpublishing.com/cc/catalog.cgi?HS3
Peter Alexander
| good mic for acoustics? [2] |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: good mic for acoustics?
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:46:50 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Robert McArthur <<rtmca@yahoo...>> wrote in message
> news:<37F824E4.9030BB62@yahoo...>...
> > AKG C1000S is pretty unbeatable and can now be gotten for $200 bucks.
AKG C1000S is "unbeatable" only if you are seeking a very inexpensive
and mediocre microphone. Seriously, let's keep this stuff in
perspective. I'm pretty new to RMMGA, so I don't know what standards
y'all hold for decent mics, but those are near the bottom of the barrel
and certainly won't give you even an approximate picture of what your
instrument actually sounds like.
For a little more money one might like to compare against the Crown
CM700. Much more accurate top end, far less cheesy, tinny coloration.
And still only an okay mic.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: good mic for acoustics?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 02:00:34 -0500
The C1000 is as far from "clean sounding" as any I can think of. And your
speculation about Neumanns is groundless. Seeing as the Crown C700 Hank
suggested is only about $250, I think your reaction is silly.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Music
Composer, Producer, Arranger
<caldwell@bellsouth...>
"Gimme some money" - David St. Hubbins
Cypher <<guitarzan@geocities...>> wrote in message
news:<7D72CA7AF4AABC7E.9A2F7ACCFCD9EE93.8C67E32578361D26@lp...>...
> hank alrich <<walkinay@thegrid...>> wrote in message
> news:<1dz90ao.djlayou6d340N@alm-ts1-h1-27-167...>...
> > AKG C1000S is "unbeatable" only if you are seeking a very inexpensive
> > and mediocre microphone. Seriously, let's keep this stuff in
> > perspective. I'm pretty new to RMMGA, so I don't know what standards
> > y'all hold for decent mics, but those are near the bottom of the barrel
> > and certainly won't give you even an approximate picture of what your
> > instrument actually sounds like.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. A C1000 will certainly give you more than an
> "approximate" picture of what your instrument sounds like. Saying that it
> won't is pretty ridiculous. The C1000 is a pretty clean sounding mic. Not
a
> lot of character, but it does have a pretty flat and wide frequency
> response. I'd say that it would probably give you a cleaner sound than you
> probably want, and pick up a lot of stuff that you don't, like finger
noise.
> A good preamp and a good EQ behind the C1000 would probably give you a
very
> good sound.
>
> Some of the Neumann mic's that people rave about for recording guitar, are
> not actually "clean" mics at all. Most of them have been modified
somewhat,
> and aren't reproducing a "true picture", but rather a "warmed up" version,
> that certainly sounds pleasing but isn't realistic. Also, you have to
figure
> that a lot of the famous acoustic guitar recordings are preamped by a
> seriously custom preamp, tuned and EQ'd for this type of recording. Again,
> they're "warming up" the sound, and this isn't an entirely "accurate"
sound.
>
> There's no reason that someone with a halfway decent preamp, compressor,
and
> EQ can't get a semi-pro quality recording using a C1000. I personally use
a
> C3000 and get a very nice recording just using the preamp and EQ on my
> mixer. I've also gotten pretty good results with an Audix OM3xb of all
> things. I know a guy that only mics his acoustic with an SM57 and his
> recordings sound very professional.
>
>
>
>
| C1000 any good for acoustic guitar? [3] |
|---|
From: <k_winkler@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: C1000 any good for acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:04:19 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
In article <7u388n$qvh$<1@nntp3...>>,
"Robert Orr" <rworr@mindspring.com> wrote:> The EQ article does mention the C3000, but also mentions the C1000 as
> "comparing favorably to the KM 184"
>
Robert, prompted by your post, I re-read the article and now I see that
I had missed the reference to the C1000. Here's what it reads:
"The 184 and an AKG C1000, to my surprise, compared quite favorably on
voice, flute, guitar, mandolin, and upright bass, as did the AKG C3000,
which also was right in the "warm and present" ballpark. (Since the
C3000 is a large-condenser with a protective grille, it wasn't a fair
comparison, but I had to see how the two stacked up.)
I find this passage a bit confusing and see where it could be
interpreted the way you describe. But after reading it a few times, and
compare this paragraph to the one above it, where he mentions "testing
the 184 against a Sanken CU31, Calrec 2050, and the AKG C60 (A vintage,
small-diaphragm tube mic), the 184 sounded noticeably fuller, richer
and less noisy" I think he puts the 184 AND the C1000 above this other
group of mics.
I admit I should have re-read the article before responding to your
post the first time, as I had not remembered the reference to the
C1000. However, I must say that upon re-reading it, I feel that David
did not say whether he preferred the C1000 to the KM 184 or not; only
that he liked both when compared to the previously mentioned mics.
Respectfully,
Karl Winkler
Neumann/USA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: C1000 any good for acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:30:15 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
I hate this question - over and over and over again!!!! Lemme see if I
can clear the air once and for all about what's "best" or "good" for
acoustic guitar, and the AKG C1000/C3000's place in the universe.
Karl W., David J., or whomever, feel free to jump in and correct me on
anything I get wrong. For those of you who don't like being lectured to,
I apologize in advance. (For those of you who don't like dangling
participles, as in the previous sentence, it's just something you'll
hafta put up with.) <g>
Basic stuff:-----------------------------------------
Most things that vibrate (like guitars, banjos, and loudspeakers), and
things that respond to vibrations (like microphones), don't respond
evenly at all frequencies, especially frequencies whose wavelength is
shorter than they are. Instead of acting like a single coherent source
(i.e., like something coming from a rigid piston), they break up and
generate peaks and dips that are not always related to the frequencies
of interest.
For an acoustic guitar, this means that different sounds come from all
over the guitar, because of the different thicknesses and shapes of the
guitar's surface. This complex field of sound WILL CHANGE depending on
the note being played. If you change keys, or even go to another chord,
the sound of the guitar WILL CHANGE!!
In a microphone, peaks and dips occur when the microphone diaphragm
ceases to move as a piston, usually at higher frequencies.
Begin Mind Experiment:------------------------------------
Think of a small rock being tossed into a calm lake. Ripples spread out
thru the water from where the rock entered the water. Imagine a reed in
the water a small distance away, Attached to the reed is a pen which
sits lightly on a piece of paper which is moving past the point of the
pen. A single rock thrown into the lake will cause the reed to move back
and forth, and the attached pen will draw a nice even wavy line, which
dies away gradually.
Now throw in several rocks at once and try to imagine the ripple pattern
and what the pen will draw. The multiple ripples are analogous to the
soundwaves that are coming off the guitar.
Now imagine a second reed/pen, but in another spot. The pen will draw a
completely different pattern of the same event. In this mind experiment,
the reed is analogous to a microphone, BUT...
Imagine the reed does not move evenly at all wavelengths; it likes some
wavelengths, and doesn't respond well to others. So it imposes its own
behaviors patterns on the pen, adding or subtracting in some cases.
End mind Experiment.------------------------------------
Even with an absolutely perfect flat microphone, where you place the mic
in the guitar's complex sound field will change what the mic hears. Add
mics which are less than perfect (like the AKG C1000), and they will add
their own colorations to the sound.
No two acoustic guitars are EXACTLY alike, in looks or in sound - nature
doesn't work that way. IF the microphone happens to be in the right
spot in this 3 dimensional "sound lake", and IF the microphone's
response characteristics happen to be complementary to the PARTICULAR
guitar being miked, you will get a pleasing recording.
The AKG C3000 and the AKG C1000 have some peaks and dips in their upper
end response. IF the guitar being recorded is VERY mellow, these mics
MIGHT be a good choice to bring out top end, but with indeterminate
uniformity, depending on all the interactions I've discussed above.
So the "best" mic really depends on 4 things: the specific guitar being
played; where the mic is placed*; the key and style being played; and
the mic's unique sonic characteristics. There CAN'T be a BEST mic for
all guitars; there are too many factors which are outside the mic's
contribution.
*NOTE: A mic placed closer than 3 feet from the guitar is in the
guitar's "nearfield", where the sound will change dramatically with very
small changes in mic positioning. You're also now in the mic's
"nearfield", where the sound will also change dramatically with very
small changes in mic positioning.
In general, SOME inexpensive mics (like C1000 and C3000) may have peaks
and dips which flatter SOME guitars in some positions. The better small
mics tend to be more neutral sounding, which can seem to add "warmth" by
not emphasizing the treble response of the guitar with mic peaks.
Going into a recording situation with a mic that adds boosted treble
automatically is not usually a recipe for success. That's why most
people here advise against the C1000 and C3000. IT may work for ONE
guitar, but it's not going to be something that works on MOST guitars.
That's the reason you'll usually always see recomendations here for mics
like the Neumann KM184 and the Oktava MC-012 (which is similar in design
to the 184).
It also takes a while to develop your ears to appreciate the differences
between various microphones. People who rave about the AKG C1000 for
guitar (when they first get it) usually become less satisfied with their
purchase over time as their ears improve. They don't hear the peaks as
peaks at first; only as improved clarity over their old mics.
Sorry for the rant, but maybe this will help some of the new people to
understand how some of this basic junk works. For all of you who already
know this stuff, sorry for taking up all this bandwidth.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: C1000 any good for acoustic guitar?
Date: 15 Oct 1999 00:09:25 GMT
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
In article <<380a6ec2.25688568@news...>>, ark <<ark@aa...>> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:30:15 GMT, <harvey@ITRstudio...> (Harvey Gerst)
>
>>Going into a recording situation with a mic that adds boosted treble
>>automatically is not usually a recipe for success. That's why most
>>people here advise against the C1000 and C3000. IT may work for ONE
>>guitar, but it's not going to be something that works on MOST guitars.
>>That's the reason you'll usually always see recomendations here for mics
>>like the Neumann KM184 and the Oktava MC-012 (which is similar in design
>>to the 184).
>
>People tell me that the KM184 also has quite a bit of hyped high end
>though... not a flat mic at all.
The KM184 has a tipped-up top end like having a stubbed toe. It's
tipped up, but it's clean.
The C1000 has a shrieky top end like being hit by a locomotive. It's
way brighter, and it's not only bright, it's also harsh as hell.
Personally, I am not a fan of the KM-184, because I find it too bright
for most of the work I do, but it has a lot of uses in places where
that brightness is helpful.
The C1000s brightness is not helpful.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
| The inexpensive small-cap condensor search: Who's tried the Hebden Sound mics? [3] |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: The inexpensive small-cap condensor search: Who's tried the Hebden Sound mics?
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:06:43 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
What about those Hebden Sound mics that Art Yeap vends? I can see this
small-cap condensor thing is going to be with us for a few moments and
I'd like to find out more about lesser-known and lesser-advertised mics
that might be recommended in place of the C1000 and cheap A-T offerings,
etc.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: ark <ark@aa...>
Subject: Re: The inexpensive small-cap condensor search: Who's tried the Hebden Sound mics?
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 07:20:31 GMT
Organization: Alternate Access Inc.
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:06:43 -0700, <walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich)
wrote:
>What about those Hebden Sound mics that Art Yeap vends?
Hank, those are essentially the small Calrec mics, newer versions of
what I've been using. The Hebden guy, Keith, that makes them used to
work for Calrec and he bought all the tools and dies from Calrec when
they got out of the mic business. Did Art Yeap ever actually import
any? I haven't heard anything about them, or from him in over a
year... I love them on some of my acoustics, but they don't have that
high end snap that a lot of people are accustomed to with many newer
mics. They are very smooth and natural sounding, no bump on the high
end. If you have a dull sounding instrument however, don't count on
these mics to artificially brighten it up. I've never used a KM84
but Rick Ruskin described the Calrecs as "KM84 wannabees". Maybe
Scott Dorsey can comment on them as he went thru mine to check them
out after I bought them used a couple of years ago, he's heard a lot
more mics in his life than I have.
The original Calrecs that I have are an older design, they are a bit
noisier and have less output than a lot of newer mics, but they work
pretty well for me unless the source is very quiet. The new versions
use the same capsules but are supposed to be much improved with a new
mic amp design... I'm anxious to get hold of a couple of the new mic
bodies. Here's an email I got from the guy early in 1998:
I wrote:
>> I understand you may be making a new transformerless mic?
and he replied...
>Yes, the pre-amp design is already done and has been more-or-less
>prototyped; however new metalwork is being designed also and this has yet
>to be done. So, some time yet!
>Spec: Sensitivity of old pre-amp = 8 mv/Pa
> Sensitivity of new pre-amp = 25 mv/Pa
>Overall, I think the s/n ratio will be about 6dBs better than the old
>design.
>
>The pre-amp will operate from about 1Hz to 100kHz however this will no
>doubt be limited to some extent by the capsule etc when they are finally
>put together.
>
>The new pre-amp will have greater drive capability, lower noise, and
>greater gain. When it is finished I will let you know.
>
>My address is: Hebden Sound,
> Lee Mount,
> Cross Lanes,
> Hebden Bridge,
> West Yorkshire. HX7 7EW
> England.
>
> Tel. +44 (0)1422 842443
> Fax.+44 (0)1422 846278
>
>Kind regards, Keith.
So that's all I know. If these are available somewhere now I'd like
to know about it...
Al
From: James Perrett <James.Perrett@soc...>
Subject: Re: The inexpensive small-cap condensor search: Who's tried the Hebden Sound mics?
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 15:46:10 +0100
Organization: Southampton Oceanography Centre
ark wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 15:06:43 -0700, <walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >What about those Hebden Sound mics that Art Yeap vends?
>
> Hank, those are essentially the small Calrec mics, newer versions of
> what I've been using. The Hebden guy, Keith, that makes them used to
> work for Calrec and he bought all the tools and dies from Calrec when
> they got out of the mic business. Did Art Yeap ever actually import
> any? I haven't heard anything about them, or from him in over a
> year... I love them on some of my acoustics, but they don't have that
> high end snap that a lot of people are accustomed to with many newer
> mics. They are very smooth and natural sounding, no bump on the high
> end. If you have a dull sounding instrument however, don't count on
> these mics to artificially brighten it up. I've never used a KM84
> but Rick Ruskin described the Calrecs as "KM84 wannabees". Maybe
> Scott Dorsey can comment on them as he went thru mine to check them
> out after I bought them used a couple of years ago, he's heard a lot
> more mics in his life than I have.
>
...
> So that's all I know. If these are available somewhere now I'd like
> to know about it...
>
> Al
>
They were reviewed in both Studio Sound and Audio Media a few months
ago. Both reviews reckoned that they were very similar to the equivalent
Calrec models - so similar in fact that you could use a Calrec and the
equivalent Hebden Sound mic as a stereo pair if you had to. Mike Skeet
was one of the reviewers.
James.
| Miking technique [2] |
|---|
From: jolnick <olnick@bigfoot...>
Subject: Re: Miking technique
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:37:18 GMT
Organization: Intermedia Business Internet - Beltsville, MD
The 421 isn't the first choice for miking acoustic guitars & banjos,
but lots of folks do it -- I've recorded in a pinch with it myself,
actually. And I do know there are some Celtic guitarists that swear
by it.
One thing to keep in mind when using a 421: make sure you roll off the
low end. There's a circular barrel switch on the bottom, near the
jack. 'M' (for Music) is the flat setting, while 'S' (for Speech) is
low end rolled off. There are five positions on the switch, and most
folks go one switch over from 'M' (slight rolloff). It's a good
starting point in general with this mike, and you may need to roll it
off some more.
It can make a big difference with this mic. Being a dynamic mic, it
will work best fairly close to the instrument, so the roll-off of bass
buildup can be a factor. Experiment with different settings, and see
if it makes a difference.
But any condenser mike would be a better choice in this situation, if
possible. I just thought I'd throw that out about the 421....
Joe
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Miking technique
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:13:19 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Mon, 18 Oct 1999 19:37:18 GMT, "jolnick" <<olnick@bigfoot...>>
wrote:
>The 421 isn't the first choice for miking acoustic guitars & banjos,
>but lots of folks do it -- I've recorded in a pinch with it myself,
>actually. And I do know there are some Celtic guitarists that swear
>by it.
I have done some sessions where the 421 was the perfect choice for the
guitar and/or banjo. Too much depends on: 1. the physical and
musical setting and 2. the actual instrument/player combination to
make the above statment.
>
>One thing to keep in mind when using a 421: make sure you roll off the
>low end. There's a circular barrel switch on the bottom, near the
>jack. 'M' (for Music) is the flat setting, while 'S' (for Speech) is
>low end rolled off. There are five positions on the switch, and most
>folks go one switch over from 'M' (slight rolloff). It's a good
>starting point in general with this mike, and you may need to roll it
>off some more.
Better yet, try leaving the mic flat and changing the distance/axis of
the mic to the instrument. Use roll-off as a last resort.
>
>It can make a big difference with this mic. Being a dynamic mic, it
>will work best fairly close to the instrument, so the roll-off of bass
>buildup can be a factor. Experiment with different settings, and see
>if it makes a difference.
Depends on the quality of the pre-amp the mic is feeding as well as
the rest of the signal chain. See above.
>
>But any condenser mike would be a better choice in this situation, if
>possible. I just thought I'd throw that out about the 421....
I kinda doubt that a 421 would be outperformed by just any condenser
mic. The operating principle of a device has little bearing on it's
actual quality.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
| recording microphones [9] |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: recording microphones
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:22:16 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Bob S. <<rjshama@copper...>> wrote:
> I'll be fingerpicking both guitars and I'd like to stay under a grand for
> both pieces if at all possible. I've had the C1000 and C3000b recommended to
> me and I've read good reviews on both mics. I'd just like some more
> feedback.
You have enough budget to get something decent. Seriously. I suggest a
pair of Microtec Gefell M300s, which can be had from Studio Tech Supply
in Dallas for about $450 each. These are cardioid condensors. I'm not
affiliated with them, but I have known co-owner Al Priest for nearly
three decades, and I recently got a quote from him for another guitarist
seeking mics. These mics are orders of magnitude better than those
you've listed, and they will serve you well for a long time. Not to
mention that if you eventaully want to sell them, they will have far
better relative resale value than those AKGs.
I do like some AKG mics, but not those.
Studio Tech Supply's # is
214 358 0050
www..studiotechsupply.com
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: recording microphones
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 18:42:03 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Bob S." <<rjshama@copper...>> wrote:
>I'll be fingerpicking both guitars and I'd like to stay under a grand for
>both pieces if at all possible. I've had the C1000 and C3000b recommended to
>me and I've read good reviews on both mics. I'd just like some more
>feedback.
AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
I hate this question - over and over and over again!!!! Lemme see if I can clear
the air once and for all about what's "best" or "good" for acoustic guitar, and
the AKG C1000/C3000's place in the universe.
For those of you who don't like being lectured to, I apologize in advance. (For
those of you who don't like dangling participles, as in the previous sentence,
it's just something you'll hafta put up with.) <g>
Basic stuff:-----------------------------------------
Most things that vibrate (like guitars, banjos, and loudspeakers), and things
that respond to vibrations (like microphones), don't respond evenly at all
frequencies, especially frequencies whose wavelength is shorter than they are.
Instead of acting like a single coherent source (i.e., like something coming
from a rigid piston), they break up and generate peaks and dips that are not
always related to the frequencies of interest.
For an acoustic guitar, this means that different sounds come from all over the
guitar, because of the different thicknesses and shapes of the guitar's surface.
This complex field of sound WILL CHANGE depending on the note being played. If
you change keys, or even go to another chord, the sound of the guitar WILL
CHANGE!!
In a microphone, peaks and dips occur when the microphone diaphragm ceases to
move as a piston, usually at higher frequencies.
Begin Mind Experiment:------------------------------------
Think of a small rock being tossed into a calm lake. Ripples spread out thru the
water from where the rock entered the water. Imagine a reed in the water a small
distance away, Attached to the reed is a pen which sits lightly on a piece of
paper which is moving past the point of the pen. A single rock thrown into the
lake will cause the reed to move back and forth, and the attached pen will draw
a nice even wavy line, which dies away gradually.
Now throw in several rocks at once and try to imagine the ripple pattern and
what the pen will draw. The multiple ripples are analogous to the soundwaves
that are coming off the guitar.
Now imagine a second reed/pen, but in another spot. The pen will draw a
completely different pattern of the same event. In this mind experiment, the
reed is analogous to a microphone, BUT...
Imagine the reed does not move evenly at all wavelengths; it likes some
wavelengths, and doesn't respond well to others. So it imposes its own
behaviors patterns on the pen, adding or subtracting in some cases.
End mind Experiment.------------------------------------
Even with an absolutely perfect flat microphone, where you place the mic in the
guitar's complex sound field will change what the mic hears. Add mics which are
less than perfect (like the AKG C1000), and they will add their own colorations
to the sound.
No two acoustic guitars are EXACTLY alike, in looks or in sound - nature doesn't
work that way. IF the microphone happens to be in the right spot in this 3
dimensional "sound lake", and IF the microphone's response characteristics
happen to be complementary to the PARTICULAR guitar being miked, you will get a
pleasing recording.
The AKG C3000 and the AKG C1000 have some peaks and dips in their upper end
response. IF the guitar being recorded is VERY mellow, these mics MIGHT be a
good choice to bring out top end, but with indeterminate uniformity, depending
on all the interactions I've discussed above.
So the "best" mic really depends on 4 things: the specific guitar being played;
where the mic is placed*; the key and style being played; and the mic's unique
sonic characteristics. There CAN'T be a BEST mic for all guitars; there are too
many factors which are outside the mic's contribution.
*NOTE: A mic placed closer than 3 feet from the guitar is in the guitar's
"nearfield", where the sound will change dramatically with very small changes in
mic positioning. You're also now in the mic's "nearfield", where the sound will
also change dramatically with very small changes in mic positioning.
In general, SOME inexpensive mics (like C1000 and C3000) may have peaks and dips
which flatter SOME guitars in some positions. The better small mics tend to be
more neutral sounding, which can seem to add "warmth" by not emphasizing the
treble response of the guitar with mic peaks.
Going into a recording situation with a mic that adds boosted treble
automatically is not usually a recipe for success. That's why most people here
advise against the C1000 and C3000. IT may work for ONE guitar, but it's not
going to be something that works on MOST guitars. That's the reason you'll
usually always see recomendations here for mics like the Neumann KM184 and the
Oktava MC-012 (which is similar in design to the 184).
It also takes a while to develop your ears to appreciate the differences between
various microphones. People who rave about the AKG C1000 for guitar (when they
first get it) usually become less satisfied with their purchase over time as
their ears improve. They don't hear the peaks as peaks at first; only as
improved clarity over their old mics.
Sorry for the rant, but maybe this will help some of the new people to
understand how some of this basic junk works. For all of you who already know
this stuff, sorry for taking up all this bandwidth.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: recording microphones
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:11:32 -0600
Excllent post, Harvey.
Considering the really nice mics out there for under a grand, the C1000 and
C3000 shouldn't even be considered. For those of you who think this is a
snobbish statement, remember, lots of people like Ovations, too (I happen to
prefer guitars myself).
Look at the Oktava MC012 (from the Sound Room, not Guitar Center), AKG 4051,
and the Shure KSM32 (street's about $500 for this mic, even though list is
$1000). I have a pair of KM184s myself, but that's over $1000. I'm getting
MC012s soon, and will be very interested to compare them.
I also get great results using a mono Neumann TLM103, but it depends on what
role the guitar plays in the song. If its a fingerpicked part, I prefer
strereo small condensers, but if it's a rhythmic instrument in a full mix,
the 103 works great.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Music
Composer, Producer, Arranger
<caldwell@bellsouth...>
"Gimme some money" - David St. Hubbins
Harvey Gerst <<harvey@ITRstudio...>> wrote in message
news:<4BAB195E99D6AF86.E3780B193E2EABDA.C2702AA92AB26162@lp...>...
> "Bob S." <<rjshama@copper...>> wrote:
>
> >I'll be fingerpicking both guitars and I'd like to stay under a grand for
> >both pieces if at all possible. I've had the C1000 and C3000b recommended
to
> >me and I've read good reviews on both mics. I'd just like some more
> >feedback.
>
> AAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
>
> I hate this question - over and over and over again!!!! Lemme see if I can
clear
> the air once and for all about what's "best" or "good" for acoustic
guitar, and
> the AKG C1000/C3000's place in the universe.
>
> For those of you who don't like being lectured to, I apologize in advance.
(For
> those of you who don't like dangling participles, as in the previous
sentence,
> it's just something you'll hafta put up with.) <g>
>
> Basic stuff:-----------------------------------------
>
> Most things that vibrate (like guitars, banjos, and loudspeakers), and
things
> that respond to vibrations (like microphones), don't respond evenly at all
> frequencies, especially frequencies whose wavelength is shorter than they
are.
> Instead of acting like a single coherent source (i.e., like something
coming
> from a rigid piston), they break up and generate peaks and dips that are
not
> always related to the frequencies of interest.
>
> For an acoustic guitar, this means that different sounds come from all
over the
> guitar, because of the different thicknesses and shapes of the guitar's
surface.
> This complex field of sound WILL CHANGE depending on the note being
played. If
> you change keys, or even go to another chord, the sound of the guitar WILL
> CHANGE!!
>
> In a microphone, peaks and dips occur when the microphone diaphragm ceases
to
> move as a piston, usually at higher frequencies.
>
> Begin Mind Experiment:------------------------------------
>
> Think of a small rock being tossed into a calm lake. Ripples spread out
thru the
> water from where the rock entered the water. Imagine a reed in the water a
small
> distance away, Attached to the reed is a pen which sits lightly on a piece
of
> paper which is moving past the point of the pen. A single rock thrown into
the
> lake will cause the reed to move back and forth, and the attached pen will
draw
> a nice even wavy line, which dies away gradually.
>
> Now throw in several rocks at once and try to imagine the ripple pattern
and
> what the pen will draw. The multiple ripples are analogous to the
soundwaves
> that are coming off the guitar.
>
> Now imagine a second reed/pen, but in another spot. The pen will draw a
> completely different pattern of the same event. In this mind experiment,
the
> reed is analogous to a microphone, BUT...
>
> Imagine the reed does not move evenly at all wavelengths; it likes some
> wavelengths, and doesn't respond well to others. So it imposes its own
> behaviors patterns on the pen, adding or subtracting in some cases.
>
> End mind Experiment.------------------------------------
>
> Even with an absolutely perfect flat microphone, where you place the mic
in the
> guitar's complex sound field will change what the mic hears. Add mics
which are
> less than perfect (like the AKG C1000), and they will add their own
colorations
> to the sound.
>
> No two acoustic guitars are EXACTLY alike, in looks or in sound - nature
doesn't
> work that way. IF the microphone happens to be in the right spot in this
3
> dimensional "sound lake", and IF the microphone's response
characteristics
> happen to be complementary to the PARTICULAR guitar being miked, you will
get a
> pleasing recording.
>
> The AKG C3000 and the AKG C1000 have some peaks and dips in their upper
end
> response. IF the guitar being recorded is VERY mellow, these mics MIGHT
be a
> good choice to bring out top end, but with indeterminate uniformity,
depending
> on all the interactions I've discussed above.
>
> So the "best" mic really depends on 4 things: the specific guitar being
played;
> where the mic is placed*; the key and style being played; and the mic's
unique
> sonic characteristics. There CAN'T be a BEST mic for all guitars; there
are too
> many factors which are outside the mic's contribution.
>
> *NOTE: A mic placed closer than 3 feet from the guitar is in the guitar's
> "nearfield", where the sound will change dramatically with very small
changes in
> mic positioning. You're also now in the mic's "nearfield", where the sound
will
> also change dramatically with very small changes in mic positioning.
>
> In general, SOME inexpensive mics (like C1000 and C3000) may have peaks
and dips
> which flatter SOME guitars in some positions. The better small mics tend
to be
> more neutral sounding, which can seem to add "warmth" by not emphasizing
the
> treble response of the guitar with mic peaks.
>
> Going into a recording situation with a mic that adds boosted treble
> automatically is not usually a recipe for success. That's why most people
here
> advise against the C1000 and C3000. IT may work for ONE guitar, but it's
not
> going to be something that works on MOST guitars. That's the reason you'll
> usually always see recomendations here for mics like the Neumann KM184 and
the
> Oktava MC-012 (which is similar in design to the 184).
>
> It also takes a while to develop your ears to appreciate the differences
between
> various microphones. People who rave about the AKG C1000 for guitar (when
they
> first get it) usually become less satisfied with their purchase over time
as
> their ears improve. They don't hear the peaks as peaks at first; only as
> improved clarity over their old mics.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but maybe this will help some of the new people to
> understand how some of this basic junk works. For all of you who already
know
> this stuff, sorry for taking up all this bandwidth.
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: recording microphones
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 01:17:37 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<idim@aol...> (Idim) wrote:
>I've seen the AKG C3000 recently going for $240.
>
>I'd like to have an expensive Neumann TLM103 ($800) or a $500 Shure KSM32, but
>if your budget is under $300, the C3000 is a good choice; better is the Neumann
>but it's 3 times the price.
Joe,
Sorry to disagree, but in that range, the Oktava MC012 from Sound Room
(www.soundroom.com), or that new Marshall large diaphragm mic (at least I've
heard good stuff about it from people whose ears I trust) would be a far better
buy than the AKG C3000. Even the Crown 700 would be a far better choice.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: recording microphones
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 02:59:43 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Idim <<idim@aol...>> wrote:
> I've seen the AKG C3000 recently going for $240.
>
> I'd like to have an expensive Neumann TLM103 ($800) or a $500 Shure KSM32,
> but if your budget is under $300, the C3000 is a good choice; better is
> the Neumann but it's 3 times the price.
But it's not as if those are your only two options. Try a Crown CM700,
list under $300 and to be had for aboaut $220. I'd rather seek out a
used Beyer M260 or M160 if I had a decent preamp, instead of the C3000.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: recording microphones
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:00:28 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Lyle Caldwell <<caldwell@bellsouth...>> wrote:
> Excllent post, Harvey.
Yeah, but he didn't tell us 1) if he's married and 2) what's the best
mic for a married guy to use to record the new guitar he's trying to
hide from his wife...
In my other response I forgot to mention the Elation KM201 small
diaphragm condensers, which are said to be much like the older Neumann
KM84s, i.e., somewhat smoother on top than the KM184. Can't say, as I've
not heard them myself. A pair might cost a little over a grand, in the
$1100 area, but for that you also get a pair of omni capsules along with
the cardioids, too.
I wonder if Ruskin's tried them?
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: recording microphones
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 16:35:07 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:00:28 -0800, <walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich)
wrote:
>Lyle Caldwell <<caldwell@bellsouth...>> wrote:
>
>> Excllent post, Harvey.
>
>Yeah, but he didn't tell us 1) if he's married and 2) what's the best
>mic for a married guy to use to record the new guitar he's trying to
>hide from his wife...
>
>In my other response I forgot to mention the Elation KM201 small
>diaphragm condensers, which are said to be much like the older Neumann
>KM84s, i.e., somewhat smoother on top than the KM184. Can't say, as I've
>not heard them myself. A pair might cost a little over a grand, in the
>$1100 area, but for that you also get a pair of omni capsules along with
>the cardioids, too.
>
>I wonder if Ruskin's tried them?
>
>--
>hank - secret mountain
>Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
>Read it and reap!
The only mic Ruskin has experience with from the above list is the
KM84. I'm in the fortunate position of not really _needing_ another
mic for my collection at thist time. (Desire is yet another matter.)
Anyone on a budget of $300 or less for a pair of quality mics for just
about any application, should audition the EV CS-15. Only available
used but still supported by EV.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
http://www.videoprogressions.com/rickbio.htm
http://www.fingerstyleguitar.com/books.htm
From: Ed Kelley <ekelley@haywood...>
Subject: recording microphones
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:22:42 -0500
Gee, the original post on recording mics got quite a response. Not too many
of you seemed to care about AKG mics. That's OK (BTW-Al Petteway recorded
his latest CD w/ Amy White using the C4000b.) What I have found about mics
is just what I said initially, but no one seemed to pick up on
this----PLACEMENT. Maybe the better mics compensate more for improper
placement, but certainly not by much. Every guitar is different and good
placement takes experimentation.
As important as the microphone is, other factors must be considered. One
very important consideration is the quality of the signal being recorded--if
you are not using good mic pre's/mixer, or if the A/D converters are noisy,
or your sample rate/bandwidth is too low, your recording room is noisy or
too colored, then you are wasting money by investing in expensive mics.
Also underlying the choice of mics (or at least $$$ spent on them) is the
ultimate purpose of the recording project. I like to tweak and geek, but I
find that the music itself is the message, and there must be a point of
saturation as far as the average listener is concerned. By this I mean that
unless you are only concerned with the sound quality of the recording (you
must be an engineer) the difference between a $500 mic and a $2000 may be
even be a factor to those who would be purchasing, listening to, enjoying,
and feeling the music you make. The music is the message, a microphone is
only one (important) part of the vehicle you use to carry that message.
I just grabbed (finally) a copy of Billy McLaughlin's "Finger Dance." I
could swear it was recording using a pickup rather than mics--so what? It's
still a great recording, and totally enjoyable. If I'm not mistaken, Doyle
Dykes records with a pickup (maybe includes and internal mic.)
Ed K
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: recording microphones
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 19:07:02 GMT
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Ed Kelley" <<ekelley@haywood...>> wrote:
>Gee, the original post on recording mics got quite a response. Not too many
>of you seemed to care about AKG mics. That's OK (BTW-Al Petteway recorded
>his latest CD w/ Amy White using the C4000b.) What I have found about mics
>is just what I said initially, but no one seemed to pick up on
>this----PLACEMENT. Maybe the better mics compensate more for improper
>placement, but certainly not by much. Every guitar is different and good
>placement takes experimentation.
Ed,
Excuse me? Nobody picked up on "placement" as being one of the most important
factors? Gee, I thought that was the basic message my post tried to explain, and
why someone like Al Petteway may get good results with a C4000b, but you may not
(even though we were discussing the AKG C1000/C3000, not the C4000b, which is a
different animal).
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
| Best mic position when playing? [2] |
|---|
From: Peter MacDonald <pjmacd1@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Best mic position when playing?
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 02:53:57 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc.
>>JBARN0979 <<jbarn0979@aol...>> wrote in message
>>news:<19991115182820.04992.00000224@ng-cd1...>...
>>> I've been performing and recording acoustic music for about 18 years, but
>>in
>>> that time I've never really determined the "best" mic placement for
>>optimum
>>> tone and sound. I've tried placing the mic in various places from the
>>> neck/body joint to end of the lower bout of the guitar. With different
>>guitars
>>> and different playing conditions what works well in one situation doesn't
>>seem
>>> to work as well in another. I've heard about some folks using two mics
>>placed
>>> in different positions and mixing the sound to get the best tone but I've
>>never
>>> tried it. I'd like to hear from some other folks in the group - what are
>>your
>>> thoughts/opinions on mic placement?
>
I'm listening to the CD "Music for the Motherless Child" with Martin
Simpson on guitar and Wu Man on pipa, a Chinese lute. This CD has
wonderfully warm and natural acoustic sound. The liner notes say that
"the microphone setup was the classic Blumlein arrangement".
Does anyone know what that means?
Peter
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Best mic position when playing?
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 21:23:06 -0600
Two figure 8 mics set one atop the other, so that their axes are
perpendicular. This can produce a very nice stereo image, but requires very
nice mics to do this. As the pattern picks up sounds all around the mics,
this isn't a good choice for live performances with a PA, as the
possibilities for feedback are high.
For a more in-depth explanation, and info on other stereo miking techniques,
go to http://www.josephson.com/mictech.html
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Music
Composer, Producer, Arranger
<caldwell@bellsouth...>
"Gimme some money" - David St. Hubbins
Peter MacDonald <<pjmacd1@earthlink...>> wrote in message
news:<38336979.11182023@news...>...
>
> >>JBARN0979 <<jbarn0979@aol...>> wrote in message
> >>news:<19991115182820.04992.00000224@ng-cd1...>...
> >>> I've been performing and recording acoustic music for about 18 years,
but
> >>in
> >>> that time I've never really determined the "best" mic placement for
> >>optimum
> >>> tone and sound. I've tried placing the mic in various places from the
> >>> neck/body joint to end of the lower bout of the guitar. With
different
> >>guitars
> >>> and different playing conditions what works well in one situation
doesn't
> >>seem
> >>> to work as well in another. I've heard about some folks using two
mics
> >>placed
> >>> in different positions and mixing the sound to get the best tone but
I've
> >>never
> >>> tried it. I'd like to hear from some other folks in the group - what
are
> >>your
> >>> thoughts/opinions on mic placement?
> >
>
> I'm listening to the CD "Music for the Motherless Child" with Martin
> Simpson on guitar and Wu Man on pipa, a Chinese lute. This CD has
> wonderfully warm and natural acoustic sound. The liner notes say that
> "the microphone setup was the classic Blumlein arrangement".
>
> Does anyone know what that means?
>
> Peter
>
| Review: Two modest price mics for acoustic recording |
|---|
From: Cypher <guitarzan@geocities...>
Subject: Review: Two modest price mics for acoustic recording
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:59:45 GMT
Sorry if this is a re-post it didn't show up the first time.
*See sound samples at bottom!*
Overview:
Recently I've been doing some work on my home recording setup. I've been
using a trusty pair of AKG C3000's for awhile now, as they have always
provided great sound and excellent sensitivity, with very low handling and
ambient noise pickup. Recently, in search of a better vocal mic (read
"warm"), I bought a RODE NT1, after having read several favorable reviews on
it. I've been working with this mic for a few weeks, and have come to the
conclusion that I really like it. Tonight, I decided to work on a
side-by-side comparison of the two mics, and compare them for those out
there that might be interested in either. Let me say first, though, that if
you can afford a set of Neaumann U87's, then what are you waiting for? This
review is for the rest of us working folks. :-)
AKG C3000:
In the "under $500" and "under $300", there is a dizzying array of
large-diaphragm condenser mics to choose from. I've listened to mics from
C.A.D., RODE, AKG, EV, Alesis (GT), SHURE, Audix, etc.. All of these mics
seem to have their own unique character, and I doubt that any of them can
be considered "great" for all types of recording, but rather, each would
probably sound good in one situation or another. I originally chose the AKG
C3000, because of it's obvious high-sensitivity and good presence. It's not
a terribly "warm" mic, nor is it bright or harsh like many of it's
competitors. The sound is crisp with good tight bass response, and the mic
doesn't muddy up when pushed. (I've heard that this mic is a favorite among
"tapers", and I would have to agree that it would probably do a good job
recording a live concert.) The C3000 has a switchable bass roll-off, -10db
pad (in case you're inclined to mic a kick drum at close range), and two
polar patterns - cardiod and hypercardiod. It can handle very high sound
levels even without the -10db pad, as it's rated at 137db SPL. The frequency
response is an even 20hz-20khz. The overall sound is very clean. The mic
doesn't color the sound much if any. Pretty much, what you hear is what ends
up on tape. That makes this a good mic for a lot of different situations,
such as micing a choir or live performance, or acoustic instruments, etc..
Again, the mic has a very crisp sound, which might be undesirable on
acoustic instruments such as the acoustic guitar, where too much "finger
noise" might be picked up. However, mic placement is a true art, and if you
find the right spot, you can get a very nice acoustic guitar recording with
this mic, with minimal unwanted finger noise. For vocals, the C3000 does a
good job, but it certainly isn't going to give you the warm vintage sound
that is so popular right now. It will give you a very "accurate" vocal
sound, though, with very minimal coloring if any. As always, listen to one
of these yourself and see what you think before you buy. Your ear is
definitely the best judge.
RODE NT1:
This mic has received some rave reviews, and I'm not surprised. From the
first time I heard this mic through my own equipment, I knew it was a
winner.
I bought it because I wanted a "warmer" vocal mic, and the first recording I
did with it was with an acoustic guitar. I was instantly impressed with this
mic. It's very sensitive, and has a very warm character, without being
muddy, or sounding "too colored" like some other vintage wannabe mics. Yes,
this IS a vintage wannabe mic. It's supposed to sound like an old Neumann.
Now I don't claim to have a "golden ear", nor have I spent much time in a
studio with a couple of U87's. However, I'll bet that RODE knew what sound
they were looking for when they built this mic, and I'll bet that it's the
same mic that the NT1 is cosmetically similar to. Since most of us working
folks can't afford a U87, nor do we want to drop the money ($1000) for a
"budget" TLM-103, The RODE series mics are an excellent alternative. The NT1
is a very basic mic in it's design. It only has one polar pattern, no bass
rolloff or, no -10db pad, etc.. The warm sound from the NT1 is VERY welcome
for vocals, as it even made my voice sound good, and that's VERY hard to do!
It also does a really nice job on most acoustic guitars, though I wasn't
100% happy with how it recorded the 12-string. I don't think that this mic
would be good for recording a live concert or choir, but I do think that it
might add just the right coloring to many acoustic instruments. It does
color the sound, but it does it in a good modest way. The recordings you get
from this mic can be very vintage sounding depending on your pre-amp and EQ
settings. I suggest seriously checking one of these out before looking at
other mics.
*Note: The NT1 is said to have an internal shock mounting system, but it
definitely picks up a lot more handling noise than the C3000.*
Sound Samples:
I'm not posting these samples to demonstrate my playing in any way. I'll be
the first to admit that my playing needs a lot of work. These recordings
were done to demonstrate the C3000 and the NT1. You'll notice that these
mics actually compliment each other very well! The C3000 is panned hard Left
while the NT1 is hard right. These were recorded using the stock mic preamps
on the Alesis Studio 24, which aren't exceptional, but they are clean and
work well for our purposes here. The signal was routed through a DBX DDP
compressor with a very light amount of compression added, and the signal
boosted a few db. It was then routed to a Tascam CDR. Getting the signal
over to MP3 wasn't exactly done the best way... The signal was routed back
through the mixer from the CDR, and into my Soundblaster card for conversion
over to MP3. The MP3 conversion colored the sound much more than I would
have liked. However, it will give you a rough idea.
Left=AKG C3000
Right=RODE NT1
Taylor 712:
http://www.cyberramp.net/~cypher/audio/712.mp3
Taylor 414CE:
http://www.cyberramp.net/~cypher/audio/414ce.mp3
Taylor 355:
http://www.cyberramp.net/~cypher/audio/355.mp3
*Notice in the 355 sample how the NT1 seemed to color the Taylor 355
12-string a little too heavily? This just goes to show you that one mic
isn't going to accel in all areas.*
Conclusion:
Both of these mics are very good mics, period. Forget about the price
range.. I'd be willing to bet that the NT1, especially, would hold it's own
against a $1000+ mic. The C3000's are good "utility" mics, and at their
price point, you can afford a nice stereo pair. These are handmade in
Austria and appear to have very high quality construction. The internal
shock mount is very effective, and makes handling noise virtually
non-existent. Another big plus for live taping situations. At $269, everyone
should own an NT1, unless you don't like it's sound of course. It's a great
vocal/instrument recording mic, with just the right amount of warmth and
vintage flavor. It's very sensitive, even more so than the C3000. Also,
there's no substitute for a good mic preamps. Fortunately, costs have come
down and you're now finding good preamps built into mixing boards like
Behringer and Mackie. I'm even pretty impressed by the preamp in my Alesis
Studio 24. Surprisingly enough, it's very clean unless you push it really
hard. Tube preamps will of course give you a vintage sound, but be careful.
The coloring of a tube mic preamp might not compliment the sound of your
"vintage sounding" mic. If you're trying to warm up a cheaper condensor mic
or a dynamic mic, then a tube pre-amp might be what you need. Be careful
about buying into the "hype", though. I've heard some pretty expensive
"tube" mic preamps that sounded terrible, while I've heard some modest
priced solid-state preamps that actually sounded very good and polished. As
always, your own ears are the best judge.
Good luck!
-=Cypher
http://www.cyberramp.net/~cypher/
| Inexpensive mics? [6] |
|---|
From: Elizabeth A. Herreid <herreide@kingcon...>
Subject: Inexpensive mics?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 02:03:44 GMT
Organization: Merril Information Systems, Inc. (using Airnews.net!)
Yeah, I did look on Dejanews, but didn't find all that much on this
subject, so I'll ask again. Sorry.
I recently bought a minidisc recorder and would like to get a better
mic than the one I have now. This is strictly for fun / personal use,
so I don't really care to spend a lot of money. Are there ANY
inexpensive (at least under $100) mics out there that would give me a
semi-decent result? What about some of the nicer Radio Shack mics?
Or the Shure SM57? Had anyone used the "Audio Spectrum" mic listed in
Elderly's catalog?
If it matters, this would be primarily used for instrumental work
(either just me, or me and a fiddle player), possibly a few vocals,
but once again, I'm not looking for studio quality sound by any means.
Thanks for any help,
Elizabeth
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Inexpensive mics?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:30:34 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------523D89F39410DFBC1FD3898E
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, the Sony ECM-90 or whatever they call it - the cigar shaped, stereo
90/120 degree switchable mike with a base that can be screwed on a mike
stand or used to stand it on a table. It costs about $100 (=A385 in
Britain at list price) and it is perfectly matched to the minidisk. The
SM57 is very badly matched to the minidisk input, as are most dynamic
mikes regardless of quality of price. DK
"Elizabeth A. Herreid" wrote:
> =
> Yeah, I did look on Dejanews, but didn't find all that much on this
> subject, so I'll ask again. Sorry.
> =
> I recently bought a minidisc recorder and would like to get a better
> mic than the one I have now. This is strictly for fun / personal use,
> so I don't really care to spend a lot of money. Are there ANY
> inexpensive (at least under $100) mics out there that would give me a
> semi-decent result? What about some of the nicer Radio Shack mics?
> Or the Shure SM57? Had anyone used the "Audio Spectrum" mic listed in
> Elderly's catalog?
> =
> If it matters, this would be primarily used for instrumental work
> (either just me, or me and a fiddle player), possibly a few vocals,
> but once again, I'm not looking for studio quality sound by any means.
> =
> Thanks for any help,
> Elizabeth
--------------523D89F39410DFBC1FD3898E
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="david.vcf"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for David Kilpatrick
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="david.vcf"begin:vcard
n:Kilpatrick;David
tel;fax:+44 1573 226000
tel;work:+44 1573 226032
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:<david@maxwellplace...>
x-mozilla-cpt:;1
fn:David Kilpatrick
end:vcard
--------------523D89F39410DFBC1FD3898E--
From: Dick Schneiders <dickschnei@aol...>
Subject: Re: Inexpensive mics?
Date: 15 Dec 1999 11:49:18 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Yes, the Sony ECM-90 or whatever they call it
It is Sony ECM-907, David. That is also the mic that I use with my mini-disc.
It works very well and can be bought for under $100 at several mail order
electronic places.
I agree that you will probably have problems trying to adapt a mic like a Shure
SM57 to use with a minidisc. I use the SM57 myself for a lot of purposes, like
live playing with an instrument that has no pickup (my ukuleles for instance)
but it simply does not work well with my minidisc.
Dick Schneiders
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Inexpensive mics?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:14:34 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
<<fastbreak@my-deja...>> wrote:
> The Shure SM58 is an excellent general purpose mic. I think the SM57 is
> fine.
The 58 is specifically intended for vocal use and its response fits the
mission, allowing a voice to cut through an onstage mix. That peak in
the midrange is not always complimentary to other sources. The 57 is a
much better general purpose transducer.
However, absent a reasonable preamp, dynamics aren't going to love a
minidisk input. The little condensors intended for that will work much
better. And if one doesn't need a directional mic and can work with an
omni, very good quality is obtainable for not too much money.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
From: DodsonJohn <dodsonjohn@aol...>
Subject: Re: Inexpensive mics?
Date: 15 Dec 1999 16:33:26 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Elizabeth,
Check out the low cost binaural mics from Core Sound and SoundPro.
They are about $70-$75 and the sound will astound you and all who listen.
Core Sound at www.core-sound.com
SoundPro at www.minidisco.com
I bought the ones from Core Sound. They have a 30 day return policy, so you can
try them out first (which you may want to do, as it is really hard to believe
the sound quality that comes from mics the size of pencil erasers!!) I took
mine (along with a Sharp 702) to a guitar camp last summer and all who listened
were very impressed - big grins with out fail.
Cheers,
John
<DodsonJohn@aol...>
From: DodsonJohn <dodsonjohn@aol...>
Subject: Re: Inexpensive mics?
Date: 16 Dec 1999 05:45:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
(Elizabeth A. Herreid) writes:
>John, I'm just getting some of these posts now...how is Core Sound's
>service? I checked out the website, and the prices certainly are
>tempting. Did you order by phone or by printing out the order form?
>How do you use the mics - just clip them onto your clothing or? They
>look so tiny! I guess I'm used to "normal" looking mics, but these do
>look interesting.
Yes, I just printed out the order form and sent them a check. I had the mics
in about 2 weeks (they are made to order).
To record guitar camp sessions/concerts and other stuff, yes I just clip them
to my shirt collar. To record myself, I clip them to a gimme cap and set the
cap about 6 feet away. I also recorded a great sounding impromptu jam at camp
by just laying them on a coffee table. (If you send me a disk, I'd be happy to
make you a copy.)
Well worth checking out on their 30 day return policy. It is hard for me to
imagine what their $230 mics sound like.
All disclaimers apply. :)
Good luck.
John
<DodsonJohn@aol...>
| Charlie and John - Ouch! |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Charlie and John - Ouch!
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 10:37:29 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Charley Bonner <<cwbne@aol...>> wrote:
> He specified the need for a large diaphragm
> rather than a small condenser mike as the former will "hear" in much the way
> the human ear does.
For live work one one must use the mic so close to the face of the
guitar that no mic hears the entire instrument, and hence can't deliver
a really natural sound. A small diaphragm condensor will have more even
off-axis response and usually sound more natural in this application.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"