[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

...
How do the M295s work on the MDP-1a?

Rick,
The MDP-1a with the M295s is a nice combo, a bit more rich than the DBX/M295 combo.

Originally Posted by alohachris

Aloha Stephen,

Mahalo a nui for sharing those very nice wav. file samples with us. I really like the music you chose & the playing. It was a slow, complex piece of varying tempo that allowed me to easily hear the overtones & space between the notes. It was very accessible too & longer than most samples so one could really hear different passages & notes a couple times/variations around to more accurately assess the differences. Bravo.

I listened to the samples at least five times each through Adam AX7 near-field's, AKG 240 Studio cans & Daedalus 803 mid-fields. Very Nice Sound & quality recordings, Steve.

First, I was curious as to why you chose to pan 25% L-R in mixdown. I've heard other recordings from you doing the same thing. Is it because it is difficult to equalize channel levels in A/B spaced pairs mic'ed at two feet out? I know I have trouble with that issue (I use other patterns, primarily, because of it). It was more noticeable through the headphones.

The three samples were as different as they can be from one another. Still, they are, as you say, "Different flavors of nice." Ha!

The CMC641/MDP-1a combo sample seemed to emphasize the trebles a bit. Some trebles even sounded a bit nasally. I am unaccustomed to hearing that from that rig because I use that combo almost everyday. The trebles & transients sound a bit smoother to me at home. I felt that the bass was slightly less focussed on some notes. Again, was that because of more room from 2 feet out? The 641 hypers should be able to handle that. The mid-range sounded less emphasized, slightly imbalanced - but minor. Still, the notes were accurate, natural & very detailed, Of the three, it sounded the second-most open in overall acoustic sound. Nice recording.

The M295/dbx 786 combo sample is my favorite of the three. It is SO musical, balanced & easy on the ears. You're so right about the "magic made by elves" quality of that 295, Steve. Is it the metal diaphragms? Nothing was over-emphasized or unfocussed. It sounded So Open & revealed more about the guitar than the other samples (which guitar was that Steve?). The trebles were bell-like. Basses were tight, but not too. Mid's were just perfect. It rings through the frequencies. Great acoustic sound & track. A pleasure!

When I hear the name "Josephson," I think "bright" but very good mic's. It's the same with "Rode," almost harshly bright among entry-level mic's. Listening to your third sample of the the Josephson 606A/KA22 mics, ADK AP2 preamp combo, Stephen, did little to change my opinion. Though it sounded much smoother than any Josephson I've heard, the overall effect was much brighter, more compressed & tighter sounding in comparison to the other samples. It was, however, the most focussed sounding of the three samples with great sounding basses. But it also almost had the effect of raising the pitch, that compression effect. As with all your equipment, one hears detailed, very accurate & nice with this combo. But it was my least-favorite of the three samples because it did not sound very open overall & wasn't particularly smooth.

Again, Stephen, mahalo for sharing those great clips with us. It is always a real treat to hear you play. And you always make me think twice. So, what is the "trick" or obvious wild-card that I've overlooked in this assessment. Ha!

Mahalo a nui,
alohachris

Chris,

Thanks for your thoughts. The guitar is the 1999 Tippin OMT (EIR/German spruce), DM Alchemy PB strings mid-life.

The Schoeps mics work a bit better in my room if they are another 6" to 8" away. If you cut out about 2dB of low mids it cleans up the sound. Yes, the Gefells are, "Made by the Elves, you know." The Josephsons are bright. I wouldn't want to much of that in a final mix. As you say, they are very detailed and accurate. They take eq easily.

As to the 25% L/R panning, it just seems right to my ear. Too much farther apart and the differences between the two mic sources begin to be noticeable and the center image begins to dissolve.

Originally Posted by moon

Thanks for posting the clips.

The Josephson was a little too bright for me. Maybe I'm just a bit biased against that kind of sound.

It was very hard to say which one I liked better of the other two. I think I'd have to have them both

The Schoeps were very solid and well-defined. Punchy? It's as if they're carving a sound out of granite - in a good way. An elite, master-crafted, highly-polished kind of granite.

The treble strings on the Schoeps have a lot of bite whereas, on the Gefell, they sound much more delicate which maybe suits this particular piece better. The Gefell is a lovely sound: warm, smooth and (as Chris said) open.

So, on this test, I'd pick the Gefell to play something plaintive and reflective, and the Schoeps if I wanted to play with something with power.

Does that make any sense?

Makes perfect sense.