Are microphones like guitars?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by midwinter

I say this not so much as an endorsement of expensive mics; I'm really mostly saying that there are perceptible, and sometimes stunning, differences between cheap mics and expensive mics. But like Bob said, it all depends on what you're going for or what you need.

I recall when I first started recording acoustic, I had a pair of SM81s. Those are supposed to be good acoustic mics, or at least were considered decent at one time. I was never able to get a sound I liked, and it seemed like placement was really critical. Then I got a pair of KM184s, and it just instantly seemed like they sounded good anywhere, almost like placement didn't matter (until I got pickier, later). It was like I couldn't get a bad sound with them.

These days, I wonder, I wish I still had the SM81s, maybe they'd be fine, now that I've worked on acoustically treating my room, and have had more experience, different guitars, different recording gear, different monitors, etc. Hard to say. I think the AT2020's sound perfectly fine, for example (although with a bit of self-noise). The 50 cent built-in mics in the Zoom H6 are quite decent, too. (Check out Fran's videos with them)

I have a number of mics, some sound very different than others, especially the ribbon mics vs condensers. The big thing I find tho, is that it's all relative. I can record something with one type of mic, and think it sounds "good". But then if I try another, well, maybe that sounds "good" too, but different. Then you start agonizing over which is "best", and what if I used a different guitar, and/or a different mic placement, or .... It's a learning experience. And if one mic sounds "best" today, maybe the other will sound better tomorrow. You can go a bit crazy. If the goal is to record some music, stopping with the first thing that sounds "good" isn't an entirely bad idea :-) As long as you don't start comparing, and you like what you hear, you're in good shape. You can always imagine it would sound better with a different mic, a different guitar, and so on.

This doesn't stop me from comparing minute differences endlessly.... In that way, I think they're a lot like guitars.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Also it should be noted that recording a single acoustic guitar track any slight difference in anything like slightly lacking in dynamics, or hyped, or higher noise floor will not be as noticeable as when you start recording multiple tracks

That's really a key point. Whatever issue any particular mic has is going to be amplified once you record multiple tracks using that mic. It's easier to hide the problem if you're doing something simple (i.e. just a guitar and a vocal track) but if you start layering in other instruments (banjo, mandolin, etc.) with that same mic, the mics shortcoming is going to stand out more.

My experience is that better mics get you where you want to be with less work. This is a general rule of thumb and there are certainly exceptions, but for the most part, I've found this to be true. For me, the less I have to do to make a guitar track sound good, the better.

[Nailpicker]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

One of my links above has a same source comparison of a CAD M179 and a Schoeps CMC64. The Schoeps is about 10 times the price of the CAD. I would be interested to hear how many folks heard 10 times better sound from the Schoeps ... or 2 times better ... or a noticeable difference.

As Bob says, there _are_ mics that make a big difference, just as there are guitars with a distinctive unerasable sound signature. A National Tricone will not be mistaken for a J45 any time soon. But just as many different rosewood/spruce guitars have a very similar sound and could be used interchangeably, there are many different mics which are effectively indistinguishable, especially to someone without years of experience and a very high quality playback chain.

Fran

I did easily notice a difference, but not in the sense that one sounded better than another, but rather they simply sounded different. I suppose a sound engineer might be able to qualify and quantify those differences, but to my human ear they simply sounded different.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by KevWind

...
And while I completely agree price alone does not excellence make. And very usable equipment exists at fairly modest price points no doubt.
But of course the exact same thing exists for guitars as well. But these truths do not negate the old also true adage, you tend to get what you pay for.

This old adage must have been birthed before the high end audio industry. http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm I'm sure you can find a few examples of products where you definitely do not get what you pay for. Some of those examples might even include microphones where most of the development budget went for visual design while the electronics and transducer elements are generic.

Couple questions for clarity.
So I watched the video . Is it just camera angle or is the Schoeps sitting slightly behind the CAD ?

Camera angle.

Also what is the rest of the recording chain ?

RME UFX.

And what file resolution did you upload to youtube ? As all these things can have an effect.

I'll stand by for your demo of the effect of a decent prosumer audio interface versus a high end preamp and a/d converter. I've read many testaments to the remarkable qualities of such gear but still search for a comparison that demonstrates it.

And as far as the upload to YouTube, that is not the appropriate way to compare the samples. As the blog post and the description of the video point out, the original unedited 44.1/16 WAV files are available for download.

And in answer to your question after careful listening, the difference in sound is admittedly slight (very subtle ) on my lap top earbuds, but it is none the less there The Schopes is a slightly fuller and balanced sound with a bit better detail. Also (not at my studio but) seems like the CAD has a slight hype in the upper mids. guess is

Hopefully now that I've pointed it out, you'll try the WAV files in an ABX comparator like the free one mentioned in the blog post. Even better, try the four mic comparison which also includes the Schoeps and CAD but without labels.

And of course 10 times or 2 times is subjective and thus not particularly relevant unless of course you base your decisions only on price.

I had hoped that the absurdity of "10 times better" would be seen as humor. But in fact the OP specifically sought opinions about the relationship between price and audio quality.

Also it should be noted that recording a single acoustic guitar track any slight difference in anything like slightly lacking in dynamics, or hyped, or higher noise floor will not be as noticeable as when you start recording multiple tracks

Another great opportunity for a demonstration, I hope. Have you experienced this phenomenon or are you repeating "common knowledge?"

And just for jokes, which of the two Doug Young clips did you prefer?

Fran

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by jim1960

...My experience is that better mics get you where you want to be with less work. This is a general rule of thumb and there are certainly exceptions, but for the most part, I've found this to be true.

I've also found this to be true in my experience.

But, back to the original question posed, are microphones like guitars? To me, without a doubt they are. I've found that there are quite a few parallels with microphones and guitars, especially with electric guitars and amps, and microphones and pre-amps. I am without a doubt a gear-head. I'm always looking for new tones, and more importantly, I'm always looking to get the tones that I hear in my head. Well, I've been recording, mostly for myself, for a long time (40 years), and playing guitar professionally for many years, and for the first half of that, it was mostly electric playing. So I went through a lot of guitars and amplifiers in search for those tones. In my search for good tones, it didn't take long for to figure out the a Les Paul through a Marshall Plexi would easily give up the proto-typical crunch hard rock guitar sound, or a Telecaster through a tweed Fender Deluxe would give give up a killer roots guitar tone, etc. Well in my time recording, especially in the last 5 years where I am preparing to go full-time pro at it, I am finding the same things. Certain microphones, and just importantly pre-amps, not only make the job easier, they become critical parts of the chain in getting there musically.
Lately I've been recording my wood bodied resonator and voice and I'm finding that a Blue Dragonfly ($500 used) with an ISA One preamp ($399), and a cheap ART Dual Levellar compressor ($200), are giving me a more unique reso tone, than if I would have used a Neumann U87ai ($3000) through a Manley Voxbox ($3500).

Here's an example of that (with a Blue Cactus through the same chain of gear for the voice and both mics bleeding into each other)... Listen on a good set of headphones, and you'll hear how the cheap compressor highlights the way the reso speaker cone compresses. ....




Is it a BETTER tone??? Who's to say, I just find it sounds musical to me, and in the end that's what I'm looking for. It's just, I now know, that that combo will work for when I want to record reso, just like a know a Tele and Tweed Deluxe will work when I need that american roots tone.

With experience, and careful listening, it doesn't take long to figure out what microphones work with what timbres. And what preamps bring out the best in what microphones.

Two pieces of equipment that are time and time slammed on a lot recording websites are the Rode NTK tube microphone, which many people complain has a very harsh/spikey top end, and the Drawer 1960 preamp/compressor, which many people complain are too dark, and the compressor too slow and mushy. Well guess what, put those two together, and presto they both bring out the best in each other, with the Drawmer taking edge right off of the NTK and giving up a great tone.

Listen to the warm tone of this acoustic guitar here...




I have a fairly good collection of microphone, some entry level like the Shure SM57/58s all the way up to high dollar Neumans like the U87/89s etc. I can say without a doubt that what microphone I use is rarely based on cost, although the precentage rate of when a microphone is used is higher with the expensive models. I have certain mics that I know I could use 80% and they will get the job done, whereas there are other mics that I have it may be 20% of the time, but when they are do work, they do the job better than anything I have. The trick is to, when you have the time, record as much as possible, and try everything you have on a source and listen with an open mind.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by midwinter

As someone who just upgraded to his first "real" mic, and who was always skeptical about the audible difference between a $1000 mic and a $300 mic, I immediately did a side-by-side comparison of them with both my old instrument mics (Røde M5s) and my old vocal mic (AT 2050) running through the same preamp/settings/etc.

I was frankly astonished at what I heard in terms of detail, clarity, and transients on the "real" mic vs the cheaper one.

I just did a little recording today and when I listened back, it was incredible to realize that I just didn't need to do much to it at all in terms of EQ. A little compression and a little reverb and I was done. I realized at one point that, basically, I was EQing the *guitar* and not the mic.

I say this not so much as an endorsement of expensive mics; I'm really mostly saying that there are perceptible, and sometimes stunning, differences between cheap mics and expensive mics. But like Bob said, it all depends on what you're going for or what you need.

I don't know if you have the inclination, but it can be very educational to go through the hassle of a careful level matched same source comparison. Small details in the recording process can have a large impact on our impression of the results, so level matching with a test tone, positioning the mics as close the same location as possible, and recording the same session through both mics simultaneously will reduce the variables and allow you to hear the real differences with more confidence.

The reason I keep singing this old song has to do with the thousands I spent on gear when I was trying to learn to improve my recordings. I read the posts on Gearslutz that convinced me I had to have a John Hardy preamp and solid gold a/d converters or I'd be wasting my efforts. Of course, the first session through the Hardy was a revelation - veils were lifted, angels sang, and I was on my way to a Grammy! But the next day my tracks sounded as bad as ever (grin). It took a long time to figure out that a good recording required (as Jim1960 lists above) a good performance, a decent sounding space, a flattering mic position. And once these things were taken care of and the gear didn't add hum or hiss or crackles, didn't wipe out the bass or make the highs shriek, the tracks sounded pretty darned good.

So I try to be the anti-Gearslutz. And today I have plenty of fairly high end equipment and do most of my recording on a Zoom H6 XY.

Fran

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

....RME UFX.

I'll stand by for your demo of the effect of a decent prosumer audio interface versus a high end preamp and a/d converter. I've read many testaments to the remarkable qualities of such gear but still search for a comparison that demonstrates it.


Another great opportunity for a demonstration, I hope. Have you experienced this phenomenon or are you repeating "common knowledge?" Fran

Just extracting two parts of this post...

In answer to the first statement.... I use two RME interfaces, a UCX, and the other a Babyface (being fed digitally with an RMI ADI8DS), and I've tested other good convertors at more than double the price, and I not only can't hear the difference, I too, have yet to hear a comparison that was good enough to break out my wallet.

For the second... That "common knowledge" has worked in my favor more times than not because when one person that seems like he/she is in the know, slams a piece of perfectically fine equipment, then the lemmings jump on board and perpetuate it. That in turn keeps the price of that piece of equipment low on the resale market. I've bought a lot of gear for decent price used that was talked down on. For example a used Neumann U89 for $1000, because everyone continually compares it to the U87ai which is an entirely different mic, one flat as a pancake, and the other flavored to the hilt.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

positioning the mics as close the same location as possible, and recording the same session through both mics simultaneously will reduce the variables and allow you to hear the real differences with more confidence.

That's precisely what I did—same preamp, same settings, made sure the gain and output levels were consistent an that the volume in my DAW was the same.

Once I controlled for all of that, what got me, in the end, was that there were overtones and harmonics that I hear in the room that just kind of weren't there as fully on the cheaper mic, but were clear as day on the "real" one.

Now I just need to get over to Rockabilly69's studio for a mic shootout to figure out what my next big purchase will be....

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by midwinter

Now I just need to get over to Rockabilly69's studio for a mic shootout to figure out what my next big purchase will be....

Let's say 1:00 tomorrow, then lunch! Bring your favorite tracking headphohes

[Earwitness]

I would compare mics to bottled water. Some mics -- probably the more expensive, are more like distilled water, which may be more expensive because it is so clean, and is necessary if doing chemistry, or if you want to be the one to add exactly what you want to it to get the finished product. But most people actually like tap water or Dasani better than distilled water. So, which is better? Depends on what you are doing with it and what you are planning to add.

Or, mics are more like bikinis: oh, never mind....

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by rockabilly69

Let's say 1:00 tomorrow, then lunch! Bring your favorite tracking headphohes

Sounds good!

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by midwinter

Sounds good!

see ya there

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by Earwitness

I would compare mics to bottled water. Some mics -- probably the more expensive, are more like distilled water, which may be more expensive because it is so clean, and is necessary if doing chemistry, or if you want to be the one to add exactly what you want to it to get the finished product. But most people actually like tap water or Dasani better than distilled water. So, which is better? Depends on what you are doing with it and what you are planning to add.

Or, mics are more like bikinis: oh, never mind....

...there ya go keeping Austin weird

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by rockabilly69

see ya there

Aaaand now there's a KM184 on the way....

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by midwinter

Aaaand now there's a KM184 on the way....

Congrats. I've got my eye on the Gefell M295. I'll be picking up a pair before too long.