Baggs Lyric

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Ron Potkul

Could you do a sound sample of the lyric EQed to the best sound you can get out of it becuase right now the Lyric sounds like a really pale in comparison to your DPA mic.

I'm surprised people think the DPA sounds better. On my studio monitors, the DPA sounds pretty bad compared to the Lyric - very distant, "cave-like", boomy. I've tried to use just the DPA at gigs, by the way, with lots of EQ. Never works. It's a great add-in to another pickup, but is too distant on its own.

I'll give EQing both a shot today, but I think I'd be mostly trying to make the DPA sound more like the Lyric. One possibility is that the Martin OM is simply more to people's liking than my Taylor. It is a warmer guitar. Or maybe, if you're listening on computer speakers the bassiness of the DPA isn't coming thru?

Also do you think one could use the Lyric above the string line on the bridge and use a KK, or Trance below the string line in their normal installation position,.creating a dual source system? Also, do you think the lyric could work at the base of the neck ( where a lot of people would put the battery)inside the guitar since it is just a mic and could pick up more of the string sound and let the K&K pickup the soundboard?

Intriguing ideas for sure. I planned to try the behind the string line - hadn't thought of the neck area - good idea. One issue with this kind of thing is that it might work at home, but not in real life. I just ran into someone who had a K&K installed behind the bridge pins and was having odd problems on louder gigs, while sounding just fine at lower volumes. So this kind of thing might appear to work in a home test, but it'd need a lot of real world trials to be sure it works.

[dannyg1]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Seems worth a try. Bagg's instruction note that the position of the mic isn't critical. I'm sure they mean not to worry about a 1/4 here or there in where it goes on the bridgeplate, but after hearing it, I wonder if it would work almost anywhere. It really makes the whole guitar microphonic, hitting the neck picks up about as loud as tapping right on the bridge plate. Since it apparently works as a boundary mic, you might very well be able to place it somewhere besides the bridge plate and have it work ok. It just uses double sticky foam tape to mount, so it's easy enough to try.

I suppose that you've mounted the Lyric under the saddle line, as Baggs instructs. I'm interested though in how and where the DPA mic has been mounted and how it's being supplied with phantom?

I've been trying to mount a Miniflex 2mic in my Larrivee 12 fret slopedread and the bass that the guitar produces naturally seems to overwhelm the pickup and has made mic placement in the guitar much dicier, millimeter to millemeter, and more obviously important. Pretty much any 'at performance level' audible floor monitor signal on a stage will set the combo feeding back on the low end. I'm running it through an external Focusrite instrument pre, EQ'd to fight the feedback.

Interested in this Lyric and the DPA because I'm thinking that I ought to try another pickup in my Larrivee and use the Miniflex in a guitar that's more typically voiced.

[steveyam]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

I'm not sure that I understand your point about EQ, Steve. Baggs has included a presence control to give the user some EQ flexibilty. Even so, they've also had a Venue DI in the signal chain (for EQ, I presume) for their demo vids. It makes sense to me that tone adjustments beyond a presence tweak might be needed. There are multiple factors (the guitar, playing style, the player's taste, the performance conditions) which determine what EQ adjustments will best satisfy a particular player with a particular rig.

Its interesting to me that my Baggs Anthem system (in a cedar/mahogany OM) takes very little EQ tweaking, but the tweak that it does require (a mid boost of a few db) is a pretty unusual one, in my experience.

I'm not talking about Baggs or indeed any manufacturer. I'm talking about players. The whole EQ debate thing. I'm not against - indeed I'm for - manufacturers including EQ controls. I guess you'll have to re-read my OP on that basis to get the gist of what I'm saying. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[leeasam]

ok I listened and I have an altec lansing speakers with sub woofer set up on a desk top. the DPA is way woofy. If I were to use this at chuirch with a band it woud be worthless. I can asure you there would be nasty feedback issues and not cut through the mix worth a darn. Also even though it is in a Martin which is warmer than the Taylor it still IMO does not sound like the guitar- way too much warmth and bass. I can assure you that if you were standing in front of Doug in the same room with him playing this would NOT be what you are hearing.

I could see the baggs as a stand alone unit and work in a band with maybe not much trickery to get it to work. I think Doug said the Taylor was a 914?? Well from my experience( and I am a Taylor fan) these models never trip my trigger. always a bit on the bright side. I find 814CEs much warmer sounding. The 900s just seems stiff and not as bass responsive. So in light of that I can really see the Lyric as been a bit more true to the actual guitar.

One thing I have found even with so called tone snobs is the sound they get live even though they like it and can sound good is nothing like what the guitar actually sounds like standing in front of unplugged. they may think in there head it is but I have heard enough to say nope not even close! but still sounds good.

For that matter even with a good studio mic it many times still does not sound like the guitar played right in front of you

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Andy Howell

The DPA was a revalation to me - Doug, was it easy to install in the guitar? Presumably it is phantom powered?

Sort of easy - fine wires, hard to solder. It's an electret, so it need 9 volts phantom power. We had a massive thread on this mic a while back:

http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=222529

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by dannyg1

I suppose that you've mounted the Lyric under the saddle line, as Baggs instructs. I'm interested though in how and where the DPA mic has been mounted and how it's being supplied with phantom?

Yes, it's on the saddle line. The Lyric is an active pickup, it has it's own end-pin preamp and battery.

I put the DPA mic just inside the sound hole, clipped to the edge. Again, lots of details, if I recall, here: http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/f...d.php?t=222529 I provided power to the DPA with the Raven Labs PMB-1 in this recording. I also use a Pendulum SPS-1 for the DPA, which I normally pair with another pickup. Lots of samples using it in different combinations on my pickup page.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by leeasam

ok I listened and I have an altec lansing speakers with sub woofer set up on a desk top. the DPA is way woofy. If I were to use this at chuirch with a band it woud be worthless.

Exactly. Again, I'm amazed people are preferring it. My reaction was "this is what I've been using? Yuck!". BUT, the reason I tried this was to compare a raw mic and see how much of that in-the-cave woofiness Baggs had solved, and the answer is "a lot". Normally when I use the DPA, I use it as a second source to a more direct pickup, and roll a lot of bass off, so it's just providing a bit of air. Absolutely, the DPA alone does not sound like the guitar.

I could see the baggs as a stand alone unit and work in a band with maybe not much trickery to get it to work. I think Doug said the Taylor was a 914?? Well from my experience( and I am a Taylor fan) these models never trip my trigger. always a bit on the bright side. I find 814CEs much warmer sounding. The 900s just seems stiff and not as bass responsive. So in light of that I can really see the Lyric as been a bit more true to the actual guitar.

Agreed, I picked the Taylor for this because it was "available" - had an empty bridge plate :-) And I figured Taylor was a guitar people knew. But it's a bright guitar. I think I'll try it in my Martin next, but it'll take a bit more work.

For that matter even with a good studio mic it many times still does not sound like the guitar played right in front of you

Yep, plus add in that everyone's listening on different systems. No one's hearing the sound of the actual guitar!

[leeasam]

Doug one reason I like my ES in my 2010 816CE does what I want and sounds great. When one has dye hard blue grass players at a Christmas program comment on how nice my 816CE sounded through the mic and pa I told them it was not a mic but plugged in. That makes me smile.

I just got a Taylor GS mini and this new Lyic just might be what I am looking for for a pick up that is easy to install and does not intrude much on anything. I also have a Para Di ( which I use on my PRS P22 for the piezo into PA setting) that could work well with the Mini and the Lyric I think.

[Andy Howell]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Exactly. Again, I'm amazed people are preferring it. My reaction was "this is what I've been using? Yuck!". BUT, the reason I tried this was to compare a raw mic and see how much of that in-the-cave woofiness Baggs had solved, and the answer is "a lot". Normally when I use the DPA, I use it as a second source to a more direct pickup, and roll a lot of bass off, so it's just providing a bit of air. Absolutely, the DPA alone does not sound like the guitar.

Mus have another listen! I was allowing for a lack of EQ!

[jimmy bookout]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I'm surprised people think the DPA sounds better. On my studio monitors, the DPA sounds pretty bad compared to the Lyric - very distant, "cave-like", boomy. I've tried to use just the DPA at gigs, by the way, with lots of EQ. Never works. It's a great add-in to another pickup, but is too distant on its own.

I'll give EQing both a shot today, but I think I'd be mostly trying to make the DPA sound more like the Lyric. One possibility is that the Martin OM is simply more to people's liking than my Taylor. It is a warmer guitar. Or maybe, if you're listening on computer speakers the bassiness of the DPA isn't coming thru?




Intriguing ideas for sure. I planned to try the behind the string line - hadn't thought of the neck area - good idea. One issue with this kind of thing is that it might work at home, but not in real life. I just ran into someone who had a K&K installed behind the bridge pins and was having odd problems on louder gigs, while sounding just fine at lower volumes. So this kind of thing might appear to work in a home test, but it'd need a lot of real world trials to be sure it works.

Doug,
As always, thanks for your efforts on all our behalfs (is that a word?)!!!

I'm with you, I think the Lyric sounds a lot better than the DPA. I listened to the samples, and then kept reading, and went back to the sample again as everyone was raving about the DPA. I still think the Lyric is better.

Jimmy

[dannyg1]

One question is, after watching the Guitar World Bagg's interview and reading things here and there: Is this mic the exact same thing as what's in the anthem or is it tuned differently?

Another: Lloyd Baggs says some things about how the mic rejects reflected sound from around the inside of the guitar, so I assume that the mic is aimed toward the soundboard in its recommended mounting position. Cant think of a polar pattern that totally rejects sound from the sides and behind. Any idea if that's an accurate way of describing what this mic is doing?

Count me as one who thinks the DPA sounds better than the Lyric in your comparison samples, but, as you said, different guitars (And I've never liked the Taylor sound). The Lyric has a blooming sound in the 250hz area that's bothering me.

[mchalebk]

"Is this mic the exact same thing as what's in the anthem or is it tuned differently?"

It's not the same; couldn't be, since the original didn't handle anything below about 250 Hz. According to the Baggs website, it is "the next step in Tru•Mic technology." So, it's based on the same design, but redesigned.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by mchalebk

"Is this mic the exact same thing as what's in the anthem or is it tuned differently?"

It's not the same; couldn't be, since the original didn't handle anything below about 250 Hz. According to the Baggs website, it is "the next step in Tru•Mic technology." So, it's based on the same design, but redesigned.

The 250 crossover was in the Anthem electronics. There's no indication of whether there was an inherent limitation in the mic itself or not. My assumption with the Anthem was that Baggs was doing the classic thing - letting a mic handle the highs and another pickup handle the lows, taking advantage of the strengths of each. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there were also changes made - the main thing they talk about is the noise cancelation technology used to reduce that in-the-box sound, but they also mention a couple of patents around the new mic.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by dannyg1

Another: Lloyd Baggs says some things about how the mic rejects reflected sound from around the inside of the guitar, so I assume that the mic is aimed toward the soundboard in its recommended mounting position. Cant think of a polar pattern that totally rejects sound from the sides and behind. Any idea if that's an accurate way of describing what this mic is doing?

The mic is sort of floating in the case. The tape mount is facing the soundboard, obviously, and the mic element is more open in that direction, but the mic element is sort of free-floating in the middle of the mount, and there are little soundholes all over the case. They describe it as a pressure zone or boundary mic, which you can read more about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZM_(microphone)

[wood nacho]

Here is Lloyd talking about the Lyric at NAMM. I got a laugh out of how Lloyd takes the mic from the interviewer and then just holds onto it for the rest of the interview lol.
http://youtu.be/ox1rt8mpX6M