The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 03-07-2013, 10:55 AM
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,712
Default

Thanks for all the responses, folks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Whigham View Post
Will you share the results in an anonymous fashion, sort of like an aggregate? I don't want to bias the thread/results in any way so I'm hesitating with posting any thoughts about this or that, but I would like to see what sort of breakdown you get in terms "correctly picking out the $1500 mic" in particular. It would be quite useful to correlate "listening environment" and right/wrong. So nerdy - I love it! Hell, we need a database. And a spreadsheet! And quick - someone get a line chart going stat!
Scott, I'm happy to give you all the data and let you play with it. I've thought about how to correlate this stuff and never came up with an idea I liked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob1131 View Post
Interesting exercise, Fran.

I liked "U" the best and "S" the least. "t" and "r" were both good sounding, but I liked "t" just a little better than "r".

My preferences were the same when I compared them in headphones and on monitor speakers.
I've sent you the key via PM, Bob.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moon View Post
Better not say which you think is best because that could sway other people's decisions.
As far as I'm concerned, discussion is fine as long as the key-holders don't reveal their knowledge. Gets kinda tricky after a while, though.

You suggested in your PM that a second thread for discussion might be a useful way to go. I'm OK with that, although it might be worth waiting a few days to let the traffic die down on the original thread, what do you think?

Oh, and I sent you the key via PM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Berger View Post
I wasn't able to listen 'properly' so as a result, they all sounded fairly close.
Having said that . . I though 'u' was a little 'more defined' and my slight preference. I have no idea which was which. Nice playing Fran. PM previously sent!
I've sent the key via PM, Steve. Thanks for commenting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mesa View Post
I liked *u* then *r*, *t*, and *s* Please PM the key, Fran. Thanks!
Key sent via PM, thanks for playing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
I often find that cutting back and forth between two sounds is a better way to hear differences than ABXing, just for seeing how much of a difference there is. Less time for the memory to fade, I guess. If you can't hear a change between two sounds when you abruptly cut between them, well...
I haven't started listening to your composite, Doug, but thanks for participating. And thanks for all the other stuff you do to help folks improve their recordings. I sent the key via email and look forward to listening to your sample.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redavide View Post
To me, they all sounded very good -- but not being very much of a microphone expert, guessing which was which would pretty much be just random guessing. To my ears, "t" is the most pleasing and I thought "r" is probably the dynamic mic . . .

Recently, at the Oxford and Cambridge Blind Wine Tasting Competition, the competitors had to identify 12 unmarked wines by grape, country of origin, region, subregion, vintage and taste characteristics. It was fairly incredible how accurate some of the tasters were, so it would be interesting to see if mic experts have the same degree of refinement when it comes to listening . . .
Thanks for participating. Experience and training can make a big difference in our ability to discriminate fine detail, that's proven. I've sent the key via PM.
__________________
E ho`okani pila kakou ma Kaleponi
Slack Key in California - www.kaleponi.com
My YouTube clips
The Homebrewed Music Blog
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-07-2013, 11:17 AM
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Whigham View Post
Interesting, Doug - thanks for sharing. I like to compare the same passages - we all "consume" stuff like this different though I guess. Yours reminded me of that eye test where you look at a white screen and press the buzzer when something changes. Fun

I have thoughts... I would like to share and discuss. Should we create a new thread or discuss here? I'm scared to really share anything lest I accidentally influence someone some how in some way!
Scott, I would say discuss away if you can keep from giving away the IDs. I'll edit the first post to point out the value of listening before reading the discussion that follows.

Fran
__________________
E ho`okani pila kakou ma Kaleponi
Slack Key in California - www.kaleponi.com
My YouTube clips
The Homebrewed Music Blog
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-07-2013, 11:24 AM
Fran Guidry Fran Guidry is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,712
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
Yeah, the ABX has that covered, tho. This is just a different way to hear it. I look at it like this: I know if I even get up and move between takes, the odds of being able to record again and edit in a change are greatly reduced. I'll hear even the tiniest change in position at the edit point. So the question is: is the difference between these mics greater or less than that? If you listen to the tail, you can get a pretty clear picture of one way these mics differ
Your composite clip really slapped me in the face with one key fact. I'm not motivated strongly enough to find differences. As you know, careful comparison listening takes time and energy and I get lazy after ten minutes or so of back and forth. In the future I'll try to remember to go to the tails and ABX there.

That's one of the things I listen to anyway - as KevWind pointed out in another thread my tinnitus riddled rock and roll damaged fogey ears are not the finest precision instruments, but by cranking up the long tails of clips I can get a feel for the relative self-noise of the recording chains. The comparison was pretty interesting among these clips, because one of the mics is particularly noted for its low self-noise.

As always, thanks for your contributions. I know my recordings would be a lot worse if you were less generous with your knowledge and experience.

Fran
__________________
E ho`okani pila kakou ma Kaleponi
Slack Key in California - www.kaleponi.com
My YouTube clips
The Homebrewed Music Blog
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-07-2013, 12:06 PM
moon moon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scotland YES!
Posts: 1,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fran Guidry View Post
You suggested in your PM that a second thread for discussion might be a useful way to go. I'm OK with that, although it might be worth waiting a few days to let the traffic die down on the original thread, what do you think?
Yeah it's probably better to wait a bit.

It's important to challenge what you think you know. Audio in particular can be very subjective. Thanks for keeping us honest

If I'd got that wrong I was going to stop recommending mics, or making any kind of comments about audio, because it wasn't just that I thought I knew; I was sure I knew. It would have meant there was something badly wrong with my perception of audio quality.

The EV RE15 looks like an iinteresting mic (never heard one before). I was reading up about it and apparently it's got quite a tight pattern and what it does pick up off-axis is fairly uncoloured.

Haven't tried Doug's test yet. That's going to be harder.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-07-2013, 01:57 PM
Fichtezc Fichtezc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Rocktown
Posts: 1,047
Default

Interesting, they were all SO close that I really had to wrack my brain and take notes. After receiving the PM, turns out I correctly identified the schoeps and RE15 but I couldn't tell the difference between the A6 and the NT1....I guess that helps the point!
__________________
Taylor 712
Aria A551b
Cordoba C10 Cr/Ir
Seagull Entourage Rustic (I won it!)

PRS CE22
American Standard Stratocaster
Silverface 1978 Fender Champ
Fender Deluxe Reverb

Winner of the Virginia Guitar Festival

Feel free to call me Zach
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-07-2013, 06:40 PM
AcEast AcEast is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 31
Default

I love that you've done this Fran - may I pls have the answer via pm as well.
Thx!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-07-2013, 08:17 PM
Steve Berger Steve Berger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,212
Default

Hey Fran, thanks again for doing this. After getting the results key it looks as if I just might be able to save myself some serious coinage.
__________________
Steve
SoundCloud / SoundClick / Facebook Music Page

'More guitars than I need but not as many as I want.'
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-07-2013, 08:18 PM
Fichtezc Fichtezc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Rocktown
Posts: 1,047
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Berger View Post
Hey Fran, thanks again for doing this. After getting the results key it looks as if I just might be able to save myself some serious coinage.
Not if you consider the rest of the equipment he used
__________________
Taylor 712
Aria A551b
Cordoba C10 Cr/Ir
Seagull Entourage Rustic (I won it!)

PRS CE22
American Standard Stratocaster
Silverface 1978 Fender Champ
Fender Deluxe Reverb

Winner of the Virginia Guitar Festival

Feel free to call me Zach
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-07-2013, 08:46 PM
mesa mesa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 3,156
Default

Good stuff, Fran. Thanks!!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-07-2013, 09:59 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 9,879
Default

I have no experience with 3 of the 4 mics in this test, so I can't begin to guess which is which, but my impression is that there's surprising little difference while the music's playing - some difference, but nothing that would leap out to any casual listener, but some very interesting stuff going on if you listen to the tail. Differences should be very evident if you listen to the tail on my switching back and forth track. One track shows dramatically more noise than the others. Another has a big low end boost that kind of masks the noise a bit. One mic has a slightly reduced low end. I guess that leaves one that's "normal" :-) There's actually a little more noise than I'd like on all 4 tracks, not sure what's up with that.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-07-2013, 10:54 PM
moon moon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scotland YES!
Posts: 1,983
Default

The NT1 was the first one I got. I don't want to give anything specific away but it lived up to it's reputation... Easy to spot if you know what that is.

The Schoeps stood out with its subtlety, precision and general awesomeness. It feels like every separate frequency is arriving in sync and on time with nothing added or taken away and no phasing, ringing, or distortion to muddy up the sound. Great mics.

I own an A6 so that probably helped me to identify it. Was surprised how well it stood up beside the Schoeps. A good budget mic.

I hadn't heard an EV RE15 before and although the kind of flaws I expected to hear in a dynamic were present, they were harder to hear than I expected. I'm impressed. Looks like a useful mic, although it wouldn't be my first choice for acoustic guitar.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-08-2013, 08:30 AM
SpiritShooter SpiritShooter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 205
Default

Recently, while testing mics prior to buying the Schoeps CTC6.4, I noticed the biggest differences when I took the Apogee Quartet out of the chain and recorded through the Apogee Symphony IO and Pacifica Preamp.

The Symphony/Pacifica allowed me to hear and identify the differences much more clearly.

I think that the signal chain can have a major part is allowing varying microphones to exhibit differing properties. In another words, the differences tend to be reduced to where even lesser mics show less differentiation from the upper end mics.

I first noticed this when i was at the university recording studio. I could hear differences that I couldn't hear previously.

In any event, the Schoeps stands out quite convincingly.

Last edited by SpiritShooter; 03-08-2013 at 08:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-08-2013, 08:51 AM
Scott Whigham Scott Whigham is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 484
Default

I think that, on a good monitoring setup, it is clear and without question which take is the Schoeps. You don't even need a second listen to pick it out. I don't think you need to have owned or even recorded with one to pick it out either - one of the takes stands out because of its clarity, accuracy, and lack of hype. That take would be the Schoeps. Doug, moon - would you guys disagree with that?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-08-2013, 09:10 AM
pete12string pete12string is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 694
Default

PM'd my listening experience.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-08-2013, 09:11 AM
moon moon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Scotland YES!
Posts: 1,983
Default

@Scott

Absolutely.

It's maybe the best mic I've ever heard on acoustic guitar (and probably lots of other things too). "Best" kind of depends what sound you're looking for, but in terms of accuracy and so-real-you-can-reach-out-and-touch-it-ness, Schoeps are excellent.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=