More Oktava MK-012-01 Stuff

[Fichtezc]

I found when I was mic shopping that it was really nice to have a ton of samples of what I wanted to buy. I only rarely could personally test out the mics so it was nice to hear what other people did with them.

Here's anothet sample of the unmodded Oktava Mk-012-01s on a cheaper dread. Put a high pass filter on it at 50hz and added some subtle reverb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01TgN...ature=youtu.be

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Fichtezc

I found when I was mic shopping that it was really nice to have a ton of samples of what I wanted to buy. I only rarely could personally test out the mics so it was nice to hear what other people did with them.

Here's anothet sample of the unmodded Oktava Mk-012-01s on a cheaper dread. Put a high pass filter on it at 50hz and added some subtle reverb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01TgN...ature=youtu.be

Sounds very good to me. You are getting a good recorded sound with your cedar top guitar. Like it.

[Fichtezc]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Sounds very good to me. You are getting a good recorded sound with your cedar top guitar. Like it.

They worked like a charm on the Seagull. Only took about 5 minutes of placements. It's my Taylor they're difficult with!

[rick-slo]

Seems those higher end guitars often take a higher amount of work to record well. :-)

[Ty Ford]

Originally Posted by Fichtezc

They worked like a charm on the Seagull. Only took about 5 minutes of placements. It's my Taylor they're difficult with!

Why?

Regards,

Ty Ford

[Fichtezc]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

Why?

Regards,

Ty Ford

No idea. I've only gotten a sound I REALLY like on my Taylor twice and I record it every day. This is the first time I've used them on the Seagull and they sounded great.

[moon]

Originally Posted by Fichtezc

They worked like a charm on the Seagull.

I concur

This one you did earlier is on my mp3 player. Great recording.

[Fichtezc]

Originally Posted by moon

I concur

This one you did earlier is on my mp3 player. Great recording.

Mine as well! Thank ya!

[Ty Ford]

Originally Posted by Fichtezc

No idea. I've only gotten a sound I REALLY like on my Taylor twice and I record it every day. This is the first time I've used them on the Seagull and they sounded great.

can you be more descriptive?

Ty

[Fichtezc]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

can you be more descriptive?

Ty

I've posted probably ~10 threads on trying to get "better" recordings with my Taylor. BUT here's the recording I like the sound of with my Taylor and Oktavas. I got to record it in my parent's living room. This allowed me to back the mics off and not deal with room sound as much.

It has a really nasty, muddy boom around 190Hz which I always have to scoop out. If I can back the mics off ~2 feet the guitar sounds pretty good but I don't really have the option to do that since my bedroom is so boxy. I made some of fran's acoustic panels and got the chance to back the mics off about ~2 feet here. but it sounded thin so I added the anthem pickup to bring back some "oomph." This is my second favorite recording.

The recording of the Seagull sounds basically like the Seagull, especially with the reverb added since the mics were sort of close. But the recordings of my Taylor never sound like my Taylor. I'm okay with the sound being colored, a lot of times that can be a good thing, but I don't like it as much in this case. It loses its brightness. I've tried a LOT of different mic positions and as soon as I get a little more brightness it instantly becomes thin. If I try to fill a little more low end back in it gets muddy. There's a chance I just haven't found the right position yet and in fact,that's almost certainly the case. But I work on it every day and I still can't find it.

Here are a couple I don't like:
They're obviously processed with EQ, compression and reverb so they're probably not the best examples.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuhTzf8j6wQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNtZiS8KM84
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgYvRPeL0tQ

[Ty Ford]

Fich,

Like your playing, btw.

You have a Taylor and most Taylors are bright. The Oktava, if they are still putting them out the way they did when I reviewed them, are big on the bottom. (see below) So, you end up with less midrange.

I think that's what you're missing.

Regards,

Ty Ford


The MK 012 Multi-Capsule Studio Condenser
Ty Ford, Baltimore, MD

Several years ago, an article on microphones made in Russia would have been
categorized as esoteric. With the fall of The Wall in Germany and the dissolution
of the Soviet Union, the possibilities have become both literally and figuratively
global. Six months ago, while attending a touring classic guitar and amp show, I
had seen the Sovtek(SP?) tubes and amps. As such, it was not really a surprise to
find Russian mics making their way to this country. What was a surprise was the
rock-bottom list price. The Oktava MK 012 Multi-Capsuled Studio Condenser is a
set consisting of an active transformerless output stage, three screw-on
directional capsules (omni, cardioid and hyper-cardioid), a threaded, inline 10db
pad and a simple pinch clamp mic clip. The whole kit comes in a nice foam-lined
wooden box. Frequency response is 20Hz-20KHz. Sensitivity is 10 mV/Pa. Output
impedance is 300 ohms.

Based on simple observations, comparisons to the AKG 460 or 451 or Neumann
KM 84 or KM 100 are inevitable. The price ($649 for the complete set), among other
things, separates the MK 012 system from the pack.

For the price, the MK 012 system was a major surprise. Using API 512B mic pre
amps with no EQ, the cardioid and hyper-cardioid capsules were almost, but not
quite as transparent as our reference Neumann U87, but with a smaller sweet
spot and not quite the high-frequency response. Used on voice, the MK 012 omni
capsule was virtually indistinguishable from the U87 in omni pattern. The noise-
shaping was also different. If you imagine a spectrum on the left end of which is
the Neumann U87 and on the right end of which is the AKG 414, The cardioid and
hyper-cardioid capsules of the MK 012 sit just to the left of the U87. I know that's
not on the spectrum, but that's were they are.

The MK 012 capsules are extremely sensitive. Even using a pop filter and placing
the mics to the side, or above is no guarantee of a popless recording. They are also
susceptible to physical vibrations. The C-ring sling-shot "suspension mount"
needs some work. Although the C-ring itself is sturdy, my paper deliverer uses
sturdier rubber bands than are used to support the rather crude cradle designed
to support the mic body.

Next on the sound check was a comparison between the MK 012 with cardioid
pattern versus a Neumann KMi-84 on snare. This time the preamps were in a
Trident 90 console with no EQ. Both mics were placed two inches in from the rim
and at about a 40 degree angle to the head. The MK 012 sounded throaty, the KMi-
84 a bit boxey. We restrained ourselves from reaching for an SM 57.

In our next comparison we mounted the MK 012 with cardioid capsule and a
Gefell UM70s in the same vertical plane about a foot and a half from an acoustic
guitar with moderately dead strings. The mics were angled from a point between
the nut and the bridge toward the sound hole so that they would "hear" the main
lobe of sound projected from the instrument and not be overwhelmed by the low
frequencies coming from the sound hole.

During rhythm chops with a flat pick, the Gefell was brighter than the MK 012
and the MK 012 had a much bigger bottom. During a round of finger-picking, the
Gefell sounded hotter and closer and very neutral. Again the MK 012 had a
warmer bottom.

Because different mic pre amps (and even cables) can make a noticeable
difference in the frequency response and sound. I finished up the comparisons
using a Mackie 1604, comparing the MK 012 with a Gefell M71 cardioid
condenser. The outputs of the two were within a dB of each other. The MK-012 still
had a much greater low-frequency response. It also had a more noticeable high-
frequency response, upwards of 7KHz I'd guess, making the M71 sound more
mid-rangey.

Pattern-wise, both the cardioid and hyper-cardioid capsules of the MK 012 were
wider than the M71. Because of this, the MK 012 heard more room noise. This and
the extended low frequency response should be workable in a nice quiet studio
with good EQ, but it may cause problems in basement studios with sound leakage
problems and limited EQ.

IN THE END
For the money, the MK 012 is a very good value. And because you can never have
enough RAM, console inputs or microphones, I'd say the MK 012 is certainly
worth a listen.

http://www.tyford.com

[Fichtezc]

That's a really cool review! Thanks for posting it. I always like to feel good about what I buy, too hah

I'm not sure if I agree on acoustic guitar...or we may not agree on "mid range." I totally agree that it has a lot of low end and since I like huge sounding guitars this is perfect. It also responds pretty well in the high end. They're not "bright," especially not compared to my Chinese SDCs, but have a very pleasant high end. I usually end up boosting the highs about 2db either way. I ALWAYS find myself cutting around 190Hz in a narrow q and between 300 and 500hz in a pretty wide q. It feels like those frequencies OVERWHELM the rest. The could very well still be considered "low end" however.

[Ty Ford]

What gauge strings?

Ty

[Fichtezc]

Originally Posted by Ty Ford

What gauge strings?

Ty

Elixir phosphor bronze .12-.56 on both.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Fichtezc

I ALWAYS find myself cutting around 190Hz in a narrow q and between 300 and 500hz in a pretty wide q. It feels like those frequencies OVERWHELM the rest. The could very well still be considered "low end" however. I ALWAYS find myself cutting around 190Hz in a narrow q and between 300 and 500hz in a pretty wide q. It feels like those frequencies OVERWHELM the rest.

That frequency range covers the peak output of the guitar (standard tuning, various strings sounding) and it is the frequency range that could most easily sound congested on a recording.
What I do often on a spaced pair is turn the guitar back and forth, a little towards one mike and then the other, looking for the cleanest sound. Regarding equalizing you can also do that separately for the reverb.