Warm Audio?

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

Yes, I use a pair of WA-84 mics and I like them a great deal. Here is an instrumental video I did using the WA-84 mics.



I'm glad to answer specific questions if you'd like to PM me.

- Glenn

This is wonderful guitar playing and very nicely recorded!

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by dnf777

Sorry to hear that, but you really got me wanting to try some "real" KM 84s now! Just don't have 6 or 7 thousand dollars laying around....

Interesting that you don't see any comparisons of the WA84s to the current KM184s.... although from the reviews I've read, even the 184s don't compare to the original 84s.

For me though, if I want my recordings to sound better....I just need to practice my playing more! (that's the weak link in my signal chair!!)

I love my KM184s and if you look in the real world (ie not guitar forums), you will find many happy professional users of this mic.

[dnf777]

Originally Posted by rockabilly69

I love my KM184s and if you look in the real world (ie not guitar forums), you will find many happy professional users of this mic.

No doubt. Didnt mean to imply otherwise. Just saying most reviews state they are very different, esp in the mid range. I mulled over a set of 184s on reverb before deciding on a new set of WA84s. It was hard enough explaining that PayPal to the CFO!

[BillCoplin]

I recently purchased a pair of Warm Audio Wa84s and my initial reaction is that I love them. They are true flat mics and you can always add warmth via preamps or plugins. I’m very happy with my purchase as they are a fraction of the price of Neumann or others.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

I must admit these kits are nicely packaged. A little bit more expensive than I would have thought, for a built it yourself though.


How close is this mic to a real 84? Do you own this mic?

Yes, I have a couple, plus one of the ones he makes specifically for snare drum (less sensitive, handles higher SPLs). They are not 100% dead on 84s, but they are in the ballpark. Then gain, at this point each real 84 is a different beast than the others. They get old & they all age differently.

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Please share what the right Pre and the EQ setting are?
You use to be able to pick up used 184 at a very reasonable price. Seems like everything is more expensive now. So I am not seeing great deals on Reverb right now. But still, a reasonable option.

The right pre is an API 512v (I'll say that 99% of the time). But the idea is you want something with some transformer beef to make up for the fact that the 84 has a transformer & the km184 is transformerless. I typically engage the 3:1 transformer load on the 512v.

So the km184 has a more aggressive low end roll-off and then has a peak between 5k-15k centered around 8k. So I basically add 2-3dB of low shelf (around 100Hz) and then a 2-3dB dip with a parametric at 8k with a Q just a little wider than an octave. That gets you in the ballpark. The 84 is still a little more "solid" for lack of a better word. The 184 just feels a little smaller.

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Have you had any experience with with Omni Capsules 84's, DupleMeter?

Yes, I love them as orchestra mains.

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by rockabilly69

This is wonderful guitar playing and very nicely recorded!

Very kind of you, Daniel! Thank you!

- Glenn

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

Yes, I use a pair of WA-84 mics and I like them a great deal. Here is an instrumental video I did using the WA-84 mics.



I'm glad to answer specific questions if you'd like to PM me.

- Glenn

I'm listening to this on my monitors and yes, your great playing, and a haunting piece -- but to the point of the thread, a very nice sounding recording to my uneducated ears. I wonder if DupleMeter who contributed to this thread would say that what is demonstrated on Glenn's video is consistent to what he recalls about his experience with the same model Warm Audio mic. Maybe different preamp "flavor", EQ, something else if there's a difference? Possible "secret" running change or variation of a component that could make Glenn's or my WA84 different from DupleMeter's?

My level of playing or recording isn't to GlennWillow's, though I try my best. I haven't had as much time in my studio space this year, but my impression of the WA84 mics is that they don't have an objectionable top end problem to my ears and setup. Midrange detail? There I might not have the experience to notice faults there.

Yes, I know that Internet audio, YouTube data compression and level normalization etc could cloud things (although these days, Internet audio is where much listening rubber meets the road) but my monitors tend to unforgiving to any brittle top end and I certainly didn't hear that in Glenn's demo. Lack of detail? I thought the video sounded maybe a bit compressed for solo acoustic guitar, but not in an unpleasant way -- and if I was mastering I'd likely make similar choices in volume levels knowing common listening environments.

Again, I'm not the expert in these things, and I appreciate the things I learn here.

[Koda]

Thanks for all of the replies. Very informative.



Glenn - Awesome playing! I really like the finger-style approach on Carl's tune.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by FrankHudson

I'm listening to this on my monitors and yes, your great playing, and a haunting piece -- but to the point of the thread, a very nice sounding recording to my uneducated ears. I wonder if DupleMeter who contributed to this thread would say that what is demonstrated on Glenn's video is consistent to what he recalls about his experience with the same model Warm Audio mic. Maybe different preamp "flavor", EQ, something else if there's a difference? Possible "secret" running change or variation of a component that could make Glenn's or my WA84 different from DupleMeter's?

My level of playing or recording isn't to GlennWillow's, though I try my best. I haven't had as much time in my studio space this year, but my impression of the WA84 mics is that they don't have an objectionable top end problem to my ears and setup. Midrange detail? There I might not have the experience to notice faults there.

Yes, I know that Internet audio, YouTube data compression and level normalization etc could cloud things (although these days, Internet audio is where much listening rubber meets the road) but my monitors tend to unforgiving to any brittle top end and I certainly didn't hear that in Glenn's demo. Lack of detail? I thought the video sounded maybe a bit compressed for solo acoustic guitar, but not in an unpleasant way -- and if I was mastering I'd likely make similar choices in volume levels knowing common listening environments.

Again, I'm not the expert in these things, and I appreciate the things I learn here.

First - I have to say the performance is beautiful. Well executed with feel & touch. Well done.

If I'm being picky about the mics: The mics feel thin to me and the top is spitty (especially around 10k). The mids had a claustrophobic feel to them that kept the recording feeling small to my ears. Especially in that 250-1k range, you can hear the flubby, lack of definition that fights against the detail of the full spectrum. The mic is reacting to the sound there, but not fast enough to reproduce it in a clean/open way. Overall that gives it a very 2-dimensional feel. What's sad to me about that is that the performance was much more dimensional than the recording captured.

This same performance with my preferred signal chain would be an eye opener. Comparing it to nothing (or some memory of a great sound) is hard. But if you could hear it side by side with what would be my idealized sound, the differences would be obvious. I'd do a shootout, except I got rid of my WA84s (I did say they disappointed me ).

That said, there is always "better". And you should never let the pursuit of better get in the way of good enough. This recording captures the emotion of the piece, so it did its job. If you were aiming for a record release & a shot at awards, well, then it could be argued that it could be better recorded to capture the full range of what was played

For reference: I listened in a tuned mix room on 3-way Dynaudios (35Hz-22k response) that have been positioned to create the ideal listening environment & sweet spot at my mixing position. These speakers are beautifully uncolored & truthful.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

First - I have to say the performance is beautiful. Well executed with feel & touch. Well done.

If I'm being picky about the mics: The mics feel thin to me and the top is spitty (especially around 10k). The mids had a claustrophobic feel to them that kept the recording feeling small to my ears. Especially in that 250-1k range, you can hear the flubby, lack of definition that fights against the detail of the full spectrum. The mic is reacting to the sound there, but not fast enough to reproduce it in a clean/open way. Overall that gives it a very 2-dimensional feel. What's sad to me about that is that the performance was much more dimensional than the recording captured.

This same performance with my preferred signal chain would be an eye opener. Comparing it to nothing (or some memory of a great sound) is hard. But if you could hear it side by side with what would be my idealized sound, the differences would be obvious. I'd do a shootout, except I got rid of my WA84s (I did say they disappointed me ).

That said, there is always "better". And you should never let the pursuit of better get in the way of good enough. This recording captures the emotion of the piece, so it did its job. If you were aiming for a record release & a shot at awards, well, then it could be argued that it could be better recorded to capture the full range of what was played

For reference: I listened in a tuned mix room on 3-way Dynaudios (35Hz-22k response) that have been positioned to create the ideal listening environment & sweet spot at my mixing position. These speakers are beautifully uncolored & truthful.

Thanks! That's the kind of thing I can use to help educate my ears.

We agree on the dangers of the endless, unlimited pursuit of better, but learning to listen is worthwhile.

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

First - I have to say the performance is beautiful. Well executed with feel & touch. Well done.

If I'm being picky about the mics: The mics feel thin to me and the top is spitty (especially around 10k). The mids had a claustrophobic feel to them that kept the recording feeling small to my ears. Especially in that 250-1k range, you can hear the flubby, lack of definition that fights against the detail of the full spectrum. The mic is reacting to the sound there, but not fast enough to reproduce it in a clean/open way. Overall that gives it a very 2-dimensional feel. What's sad to me about that is that the performance was much more dimensional than the recording captured.

This same performance with my preferred signal chain would be an eye opener. Comparing it to nothing (or some memory of a great sound) is hard. But if you could hear it side by side with what would be my idealized sound, the differences would be obvious. I'd do a shootout, except I got rid of my WA84s (I did say they disappointed me ).

That said, there is always "better". And you should never let the pursuit of better get in the way of good enough. This recording captures the emotion of the piece, so it did its job. If you were aiming for a record release & a shot at awards, well, then it could be argued that it could be better recorded to capture the full range of what was played

For reference: I listened in a tuned mix room on 3-way Dynaudios (35Hz-22k response) that have been positioned to create the ideal listening environment & sweet spot at my mixing position. These speakers are beautifully uncolored & truthful.

Interesting comments. Thank you for the kind words on the performance.

I am not a professional studio, just a guitar player in a home studio having fun. I imagine that for most readers here, this is obvious.

I would certainly appreciate having even better small diaphragm condenser mics for recording my guitars, but in retirement, the cost of equipment is always a major consideration.

So then the question is, do I have to spend $3300 for a pair of Schoeps MK4 mics or can I get by with good sound for $750. There are a lot of folks who just spend the money. I listened to comparisons of the mics on Sweetwater and I thought the Warm Audio WA-84 mics stood up very well compared to much more expensive mics. So I took the more cost-effective approach.

Before this I was using a pair of Rode NT5 mics which cost ~$400 when I bought them. The Warm Audio WA-84 sound considerably better -- much warmer sound, much less brittle high end -- compared to the Rode NT5 mics. But compared to something like the Schoeps mics? I have never had the luxury to compare. Maybe I really am missing something.

Thanks for your thoughts on all this.

- Glenn

[Acousticado]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

Interesting comments. Thank you for the kind words on the performance.

I am not a professional studio, just a guitar player in a home studio having fun. I imagine that for most, this is obvious.

I would certainly appreciate having even better small diaphragm condenser mics for recording my guitars, but in retirement, the cost of equipment is always a major consideration.

So then the question is, do I have to spend $3300 for a pair of Schoeps MK4 mics or can I get by with good sound for $750. There are a lot of folks who just spend the money. I listened to comparisons of the mics on Sweetwater and I couldn't hear the differences. So I took the more cost-effective approach.

Before this I was using a pair of Rode NT5 mics which cost ~$400 when I bought them. The Warm Audio WA-84 sound considerably better -- much warmer sound, much less brittle high end -- compared to the Rode NT5 mics. But compared to something like the Schoeps mics? I have never had the luxury to compare. Maybe I really am missing something.

Thanks for your thoughts on all this.

- Glenn

I’m in the same boat as you Glenn and after following this thread, I’ve wondered the same thing. I’ve long admired your playing and quality home recording ability. Love your take and recording of Carl’s song.

I’m in the process of renovating my basement rec room where I plan to reestablish my very modest studio after many years of not having recorded. When I last did over 15 years ago, I just dabbled and didn’t get too far, so I’ve begun the long learning curve ahead and this sub forum is a great resource, with kudos to Jim for pulling together the sticky thread.

Since learning which mics you use, I’d be thrilled if I can ever get to a point of capturing such impressive performances of my own songs. So, the WA84s are certainly of interest to me.

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by Acousticado

I’m in the same boat as you Glenn and after following this thread, I’ve wondered the same thing. I’ve long admired your playing and quality home recording ability. Love your take and recording of Carl’s song.

I’m in the process of renovating my basement rec room where I plan to reestablish my very modest studio after many years of not having recorded. When I last did over 15 years ago, I just dabbled and didn’t get too far, so I’ve begun the long learning curve ahead and this sub forum is a great resource, with kudos to Jim for pulling together the sticky thread.

Since learning which mics you use, I’d be thrilled if I can ever get to a point of capturing such impressive performances of my own songs. So, the WA84s are certainly of interest to me.

Thanks for your thoughts, Tom. Best of luck to you on your home studio. I do think This Sweetwater comparison of mics for guitar is very helpful.

- Glenn

[dnf777]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

Interesting comments. Thank you for the kind words on the performance.

I am not a professional studio, just a guitar player in a home studio having fun. I imagine that for most readers here, this is obvious.

I would certainly appreciate having even better small diaphragm condenser mics for recording my guitars, but in retirement, the cost of equipment is always a major consideration.

So then the question is, do I have to spend $3300 for a pair of Schoeps MK4 mics or can I get by with good sound for $750. There are a lot of folks who just spend the money. I listened to comparisons of the mics on Sweetwater and I thought the Warm Audio WA-84 mics stood up very well compared to much more expensive mics. So I took the more cost-effective approach.

Before this I was using a pair of Rode NT5 mics which cost ~$400 when I bought them. The Warm Audio WA-84 sound considerably better -- much warmer sound, much less brittle high end -- compared to the Rode NT5 mics. But compared to something like the Schoeps mics? I have never had the luxury to compare. Maybe I really am missing something.

Thanks for your thoughts on all this.

- Glenn

Lots of really good points for the home studio engineer! I've come to embrace my naivety in this pursuit, as I mentioned to Steve. If I heard a pair of KM84s, I might start to scheme a way to adopt a pair....but in all reality, I am (and should be) very happy with the WA84s.

This hobby REALLY makes "relative value" in important concept, and where you apply it really matters. If I really like a certain brand of guitar strings that costs 3x as much as standard Martin or Elixirs, well by golly, I'll splurge on the top dollar strings. Don't have the same luxury with mics or EQs, or pre-amps....so you really have to look at what you are gaining by splurging on the big-dollar items.

I have found Warm Audio fits my niche perfectly in many cases. Their EQP isn't cheap, but I can swing it after a period of fattening my piggy bank. A Pultec is out of the question, but would it even be worth it for my purposes. I think not. And I'll probably never find out for sure. We have though, witnessed right here in this thread that a truly beautiful recording can be produced with this prosumer level equipment.

[Glennwillow]

Thanks for your thoughts, Dave!

I made my living as an engineer -- a mechanical design engineer, not a studio engineer. I remember years ago in my first engineering job out of Purdue where I worked at Texas Instruments down in Richardson, TX on the north side of Dallas. I built a Scott receiver in a kit at home and an electrical engineer friend took me into his lab at TI where we could check out this receiver. To my ears, this receiver sounded really good, but interestingly enough, when checking out the quality on a very high quality oscilloscope, it was interesting to see little places of distortion in the wave forms.

I couldn't hear these areas of distortions, but on the scope, they were there. They looked bad, but interestingly enough, they didn't really sound particularly bad.

It was just a lesson to me that quality often costs a lot of money, but I (or others) may not necessarily be able to hear the difference. At the time, I was 22-23 years old and my ears were in good shape. The lesson, I think, is that few things in life are perfect, but then again, we don't necessarily need them to be to get enjoyment from them.

- Glenn