Mics for recording Acoustic guitar????

[wcap]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

The whole story is in a blog post: http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...ur-more-clips/ The mics are a Schoeps CMC64, Shure KSM44, Shure KSM141, and CAD M179.

A stern lecture on the need for level matching and use of same performance is in an earlier post: http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/

For a long time, say eight years or so, I believed what I read on the internet about the vast and overwhelming difference between mics. And indeed, when I listened to a mic I heard what was "expected" based on what I'd read. Schoeps were smooth and flat, Shures edgy, LDs warm and SDs thin.

Then there were a couple of _very_ interesting occasions when I got the labels mixed up and heard the wrong thing. That is, the mic that should have been shrill sounded warm, and vice versa. Oooops. It turns out this is very common, as is adjusting some knob until things are just right and discovering the device is not in the circuit. This is normal human behavior, part of the way our perception works, and we can't fix it. Even knowing about the issue doesn't make one immune to it.

When I learned about the importance of level matching, using the same performance, and blinding the evaluation I found that the once vast differences had become minimal. That's not to say there are _no_ differences, and no reason to prefer one mic over another, just that the differences seem to me to be a lot smaller than people's descriptions have led me to expect, differences small enough to be swallowed up in room acoustics, performance differences, string life, instrument choice, mic placement, etc. And that's not even addressing processing with EQ, reverb and compression.

Fran

I agree. These are remarkably similar to my ears (and with my Yamaha headphones, which are not top of the line by any means). I think I might like clip G a little less than the others, but the others seem pretty darn similar - I'm quite certain I would not be able to pick one of these out from the group if they were not labeled.

I'd be interested in knowing which microphone was which (in particular, which was the very expensive one)!

Not long ago there was a post in another thread by Doug Young (I think) talking about how recording engineers rank the importance of different factors in determining the final sound. As I recall, the top factors, in this order, were the guitar player (I think maybe this one was listed twice, in both first and second position!), then the guitar, and then things like the recording space and the sound engineer came in next (not sure of the order of these two). The microphones/equipment used were way down on the list as I recall.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by alexevans917

MK012. I spent all day today tracking for an EP and the MK012's were used all over the place, despite AKG C414XLII's being available, along with a selection of other LDC's and SDC's of greater cost. They excel on acoustic guitar, drum overheads, and xylophone (we used them on all 3 today). As soon as I have the cash, I will be purchasing a pair for my home studio. Truly phenomenal microphones.

Is it possible that they used the same mics because they were already on the stand? Why tear down a setup and switch mics when the audible difference is nearly imperceptible?

When you get your MK012s at home, be sure to set up a level matched same performance double blind comparison with your other condenser mics and confirm that you can actually hear a difference.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by wcap

I agree. These are remarkably similar to my ears (and with my Yamaha headphones, which are not top of the line by any means). I think I might like clip G a little less than the others, but the others seem pretty darn similar - I'm quite certain I would not be able to pick one of these out from the group if they were not labeled.

I'd be interested in knowing which microphone was which (in particular, which was the very expensive one)!

Not long ago there was a post in another thread by Doug Young (I think) talking about how recording engineers rank the importance of different factors in determining the final sound. As I recall, the top factors, in this order, were the guitar player (I think maybe this one was listed twice, in both first and second position!), then the guitar, and then things like the recording space and the sound engineer came in next (not sure of the order of these two). The microphones/equipment used were way down on the list as I recall.

I'll PM you the results. These clips have been up for a couple of years now and so far the key has been kept private.

If you really want to understand the difference between mics, you need to pull a couple of these clips into an ABX tool and confirm that you really can hear a difference. Even after doing this for a number of years I'm still surprised at how small the differences become when the labels are hidden.

Fran

[wcap]

Thanks Fran. Very interesting. I have read glowing reviews (here on AGF) of the very expensive Schoeps CMC64 mic. Based on those reviews, and some sample recordings that were posted as part of those reviews, I really expected this one would really shine out from the pack. It is really interesting that to my ears anyway, none of these mics you tested really shine out from the rest in any major way.

What is an ABX tool, by the way?

[alohachris]

Aloha,

Online comparisons & tests are all well & good, & can give you a small part of the picture when judging mic's. However, I have found that the only way to make choices on mic's is to go put an ear on it - LIVE.

Go try out mic's in different price ranges in person to be sure of the differences. Your ears might surprise you as to how different they can be. And not always that subtle.

LIVE is the only way you can tell how:
- a mic feels
- a mic sounds
- a mic responds (speed)
- it picks up details
- it handles transients
- its coloration
- its off-axis clarity & response time
- it behaves alone, w/ phantom & w/ other parts of a chain (preamp?)
- much it weighs,
- its proximity "squeal point"
- wide it's pattern(s) are
- feedback resistant it is
- it sounds (full sound in a room in real time!) with air around
- it sounds in different sized spaces or types (wet vs. dry)
- it sounds in stereo
- its features work or feel or look (like recessed roll-off switches)
- it sounds in a treated studio
- noisy it is (self-noise)
- it holds its own in the mix
- it handles EQ & plug-in's
- how it sounds on your voice (that's huge for vocal mic's)
- & how it works with you, your guitars, your rig & your music.

You can't tell that about a mic from online samples, tests or shoot-outs, friends. You have to experience the sound through a mic live to get the full picture, even if you want to keep it simple.

I go a step further. I absolutely want to take my time putting mic's through their paces. So I rent them & try 'em out on my home rig, which I know well. That way, the store guy won't hurry you along in your assessment or push you towards what he wants to sell you, or distract your ears from the task at hand. It's so worth it to me to try out mic's that way.

Never trust what you hear online. These digital formats are simply not that good to be able to tell you where to spend your money & what's right for your ears. It's NOT good enough to demonstrate all the differences among mic's at this point, especially the subtleties & the elements I listed above.

Go all the way with your research of mic's because they are the most important, critical first piece of gear in your signal chain.

Go listen to mic's LIVE. Let your ears decide, beyond online samples & tests.

alohachris

PS: When you try them out live, you will CLEARLY be able to hear the differences between a KSM 44 & a CMC641. Both are great mic's - for different applications. You will see how very different they are from one another when you put them through their paces as above - LIVE. -alohachris-

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by wcap

Thanks Fran. Very interesting. I have read glowing reviews (here on AGF) of the very expensive Schoeps CMC64 mic. Based on those reviews, and some sample recordings that were posted as part of those reviews, I really expected this one would really shine out from the pack. It is really interesting that to my ears anyway, none of these mics you tested really shine out from the rest in any major way.

What is an ABX tool, by the way?

I think the officially anointed magic mic around here is the Schoeps CMC641, the Type 6 amp with the MK41 almost-hypercardioid capsule. I used the MK4 cardioid because the other mics were cardioid, and pattern differences _do_ result in audible differences. Pattern differences are a real concern, as opposed to many of the imaginary and magical traits folks want to apply to mics like "resolution" and "reach."

ABX is a procedure for comparing things to determine if we can discriminate between them. An ABX tester presents you with two labeled samples (A and B) and lets you listen to them at will, then listen to an unlabeled sample (X) and lets you attempt to identify it between the two.

The tool I use on a PC is an ABX comparator plugin for Foobar2000. http://www.foobar2000.org/download Note that you need to grab the ABX tool from the official components page: http://www.foobar2000.org/components/author/Peter as well.

This tool will present the files, let you choose different starting points for the comparison, maintains a record of your selections, and computes the statistical results.

One can never prove that there are no audible differences, of course. But if I spend an hour of concentrated and focused listening and am unable to reliably identify the clips, I would conclude that the differences cannot affect the emotional impact of the recording and I need to worry more about practicing than buying mics.

There are things about audio that can be demonstrated and reproduced and confirmed, and there's a vast sea of hand waving and metaphor and confirmation bias and "magic." If you dig into the subject, you'll find that ABX tends to make the "magic" disappear. So if the magic is gone when the label is removed, was it ever there in the first place?

Fran

[him]

Originally Posted by alohachris

Never trust what you hear online. These digital formats are simply not that good to be able to tell you where to spend your money & what's right for your ears.

Your post seems to be missing some major smileys. Lossless digital files are not that good? Heh. Lossless files at sufficient sample size/rate are as good as it gets.

If the goal is recording, live behavior isn't a good test...what you hear "live" is a blend of the equipment and the direct sound from the instruments/performers. That is unavoidable and will throw off your test results.

Fran has it exactly right.