Video Demo: Comparing 5 Condenser mics

[Glennwillow]

What a time consuming project, Doug! Thanks for all this work.

I can certainly hear differences between the mics, and I do think the Schoeps mics sound the best, so very smooth and even sounding. But the surprise is how good the less expensive mics sound. You have illustrated before with example recordings about how a player can get acceptable results with less expensive mics. This video is another eye-opener -- or should I say, ear-opener?

I think it helps to have such a terrific player and such wonderful instruments to play. But the video also shows that a person can get good results without breaking the bank. This has always been my opinion, so I am glad to see it reinforced here after all your hard work, Doug.

Thanks for doing this! What a gift to the guitar world.

- Glenn

[TBman]

Nice work Doug, thanks.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I will bet you that if i were to take parts of these recordings off youtube and shuffle them without labels you will not be able to identify the Schoeps from the less expensive mics at any greater odds than chance.

I have taken that kind of test a few times. Always been able to tell which ones are the Schoeps. I have witnesses! LOL...but true!

There is always more to the story when it comes to a mic's Sonic character and what it does to the guitar's true tone, to long term listening, or how it sits in the mix. That is not to say that any one of these mics would not work well enough for most of us. It is all about just how much the small differences mean to each of us personally. I always relate differences to Races or accuracy competitions. The winners of many modern races( cars, horses ) often wins by milliseconds. In rifle competitions the difference between first and last is often very small. In archery competitions the difference between 1st & 2nd,3rd is sometimes less than a one or two percent difference. It can be the same for a hit record. Small differences in melodies & Lyrics put together by the writer. Small differences between the players and recording engineers. But those small differences add up just enough to evoke emotion & create that hit song. Life in general is all about these small differences in every category. Even in Love it has made the difference between whether we got the girl of our dreams or not.

Doug has stated it is Schoeps that sounds most like his guitar in person. And that is one of the keys reasons why one might want to own a mic like that. For some that would be everything. Others not. Personally, I have worked so hard to purchase a guitar with the sonic character that I have wanted. So naturally I also want the mic, preamp and all the rest that will represent the guitar in the way I wish it to. Most of my music is based on Tone & harmonics. A simple strum of a chord can be one of the most beautiful sounds on earth. Capturing that in all of its glory is another story.

But this is not always the case for an engineer. Sometimes an recording engineer will pick a mic for how he wants the guitar or voice to sound. If this were not the case, we would only have one microphone. Sometimes we want the guitar or voice to sound bigger or different than it is.

This is a wonderful microphone comparison. I hope it will encourage many to join in on the recording fun. This comparison proves that it is possible to make reasonable recordings without breaking the bank.

[FrankHudson]

Auditioning this nice video casually but through my modest monitoring setup, I too thought the Schoeps sounded the best overall, with the Neuman 184 mics in the runner up slot. What was surprising was the cheapie CAD set. My ears, my tastes, (neither of which are prize-winning) I preferred the CAD set to the middle two priced mics in the raw recordings. The CAD set little meatier in sound, not brittle at all. Yes, maybe a tad less overtones, but with the overtone series on the next two sets up the price range up from the CAD I didn't like what extra detail added I heard until I got to the two higher priced sets.

I'll also give an amen to GlennWillow's comment. Every one of those sets can produce a credible recording of a performance -- and after common recording adjustments (and much more if we're talking in a mix with other instruments) the differences would be overlapping. One case for the Schoeps: if you record solo acoustic guitar and don't want to spend much, if any, time working EQ et al with the raw tracks, then with the playing and the guitars in this test, the Schoeps will give you the most beautiful sound with nothing else done. For some, that time and skill-set requirement to overlap the Schoeps likely makes up for the cost difference.

And if you don't mind, or want to spend that time while mixing and mastering, then AlohaChris makes another case clearly for just getting the Schoeps and being done with it, in his response outlining his experience above. Where that's affordable, there's wisdom there.

I came to recording from a much lower budget situation (affording a new pack of cassette tapes was a capital expense). Someone with a set of any of the mics in this test (even the low-end CAD mics) could produce a recording that has every bit the emotional effect on the listener as the Schoeps set produced.

[Glennwillow]

For me, the bottom line coming out of Doug's video is that a person could use less than perfect mics and still get a good -- or at least usable -- recording. Not everyone has the resources to put $3200 into a pair of Schoeps mics, though I have been tempted.

I did hundreds of video recordings using the Rode NT5 mics. Yes, they are a little thin in the bass; yes, they hype the upper frequencies somewhat, but both of those characteristics can be addressed with EQ.

I have also found that a good tape recorder simulation plug-in can work wonders on digital recordings. The sound of analog tape can help round off some of the irritating digital edges. If you don't have a plug-in like this, you might want to consider one. They are reasonably cost-effective. For me, a tape simulation plug-in is real magic.

- Glenn

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by alohachris

Wouldn't a player rather buy once & stay with a great pair of SDC's than go with a string of obviously entry-level CAD's or 2020's or the clear but ever-slightly-shrill NT5's because they are affordable? Who wants to EQ a mic heavily to get a natural, unhyped sound?!? Why not start with a mic that sounds great flat without a lot of processing? Schoeps! At least that's what my ears tell me. The KM184's ARE great SDC mic's & clearly shine here. But maybe we all hear these various mic's differently, eh?

This is a great point but always a hard sell to beginners. I allude to this in the "Beginner's Guide" when I mention "The Slow Creep" where you slowly climb the ladder while amassing a lot of cheap gear before you finally buy quality gear.

I give the similar advice when people ask me for a beginner guitar recommendation. I always tell them to buy as much guitar as they can afford rather than cheaping out because you'll want something that sounds good, is playable, and inspires you to pick it up often.

But regarding this video in particular, I'm surprised to see people praising the CAD mic that to my ears is easily outclassed by every other mic in the shootout. The CAD recording is flat and uninteresting to my ears. There's just no depth to the sound. I think in this case, it's Doug's excellent playing that is creating an aural illusion.

[FrankHudson]

Originally Posted by jim1960

This is a great point but always a hard sell to beginners. I allude to this in the "Beginner's Guide" when I mention "The Slow Creep" where you slowly climb the ladder while amassing a lot of cheap gear before you finally buy quality gear.

I give the similar advice when people ask me for a beginner guitar recommendation. I always tell them to buy as much guitar as they can afford rather than cheaping out because you'll want something that sounds good, is playable, and inspires you to pick it up often.

But regarding this video in particular, I'm surprised to see people praising the CAD mic that to my ears is easily outclassed by every other mic in the shootout. The CAD recording is flat and uninteresting to my ears. There's just no depth to the sound. I think in this case, it's Doug's excellent playing that is creating an aural illusion.

I tried to address this "How can you like (or accept) the CAD" in my response: the raw CAD sounded better than the next 2 up the ladder raw because I didn't like the upper end and/or body of those next two, particularly when fingerpicking which is Doug's forte. Doug did a nice job of supplying "effected" versions at the end of his video when the CAD lost that edge.

The argument for going cheap rather than buy once, cry once has these points of plausible wisdom or necessity:

Some folks have to stretch to buy anything. I lived forty years that way, myself. My condenser mic in those days for me was a Radio Shack mic that took AA batteries. That CAD is cheaper in constant dollars by far, and might sound better than SM57 which was my "good" other mic, which I was using for vocals anyway. In those cases it's not CAD vs. AT vs Schoeps, it may be no mic and no recording at all. And yes, I walked two miles to school and work, uphill both ways, and it was in Minnesota winters -- and all I had for breakfast was a bowl of cold gravel.

A sub $100 mic for those who don't know if they are really going to take to recording may be disposable and remove the element of risk to them. Yes, I know the Schoeps and the Neuman have decent resale value, but it may be one of those cases where the resale is misleadingly stated as percentage rather than actual dollars lost and opportunity cost.

Recording (to my mind, there may be better wisdom) is most about fostering performances, and then about how to deploy whatever one has in whatever spaces one has to capture that -- and the superiority of equipment is a subsidiary issue to those things. If a sub-$100 mic gets someone more experience with those first two things because they can afford it now, or it seems less risky, and so lets them take the first plunge, it's a benefit. Buy once, cry once folks are speaking from the other side of engagement. If everyone bought a $2000 mic or $2000 guitar for their first purchase to see if it's for them, there'd be a lot more $2000 guitars and mics sitting in closets gathering dust -- that's what worries some folks who've tried and then not taken to things.

Perhaps these things are self-evident, or you're just trying to round out the picture with your wisdom and experience. I'd agree that yours and AlohaChris' statements apply to some (many? most?) here at the AGF, I've already said upthread that there is wisdom there -- and I value the experience and knowledge shared by you two here.

[Glennwillow]

Doug's forte is solo fingerstyle guitar. In my view and under this condition, it makes sense to spend $3200 on a pair of Schoeps mics. If that were my forte, I'd likely have a pair of Schoeps mics, too.

If I were running a recording studio, particularly one which emphasized the recording of solo fingerstyle guitar, I'd also have a pair of those Schoeps mics. Even for general use in a recording studio, I could certainly see the value of these Schoeps microphones.

But I rarely record other people. And while I like to think I have done a pretty good job developing my abilities as a guitar player, my forte is not solo fingerstyle guitar but rather the combination of singing and playing together. Would anyone notice the difference if I used a pair of Neumann KM184 mics for the guitar? I seriously doubt it.

In the hundreds of videos I recorded with less expensive Rode NT5 mics, nobody ever commented on my lousy guitar sound. I use other mics today, but still, the NT5 mics did their job reasonably well for what I do.

I appreciate the advice of folks who have gone through a lot of recording experience. It does make me think and rethink things. But I also have my own experience of using recording equipment for the last five and a half decades. Some of that involved actually recording albums while I performed professionally.

I also have my own set of financial priorities in my life and a 53-year marriage that I need and want to maintain.

None of us should be surprised or frustrated if each person filters advice through their own experience.

Once more, I want to thank Doug for all this work.

- Glenn

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by min7b5

Thanks so much for everything you do for us here Doug. My only concern is that my wife is going to somehow see this video wonder why I didn’t get $59 CAD microphones and use the money I spent on the Schoeps to take her to Europe for a week

Certainly illustrates the power of internet folklore when we constantly read things about, say, how the 184’s are unusably harsh compared to Schoeps… I hear the differences between all the microphones, but they are very small in the grand scheme of things -certainly compared to moving a mic a few inches.. That said, not in any hurry to part with my Schoeps. Thanks again for all your hard work with these videos

I just did a blind test with some engineer friends of a km84 (recently serviced by Klaus) vs a km184 on acoustic guitars. 3 out of 4 preferred the km184 to the km84 and thought they were preferring the km84, citing the km84 as "definitely the km184, because it's too bright".

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I just did a blind test with some engineer friends of a km84 (recently serviced by Klaus) vs a km184 on acoustic guitars. 3 out of 4 preferred the km184 to the km84 and thought they were preferring the km84, citing the km84 as "definitely the km184, because it's too bright".

I've never used a 184 but have an 84 and they can seem bright to me on acoustic guitar. I need to low cut around 100 and high cut around 5000.
Except for that mid range solidity that the 84 is famous for I prefer a modified Octava M-012. I bought a pair for $200 and spent about $300 for the mods.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by runamuck

I've never used a 184 but have an 84 and they can seem bright to me on acoustic guitar. I need to low cut around 100 and high cut around 5000.
Except for that mid range solidity that the 84 is famous for I prefer a modified Octava M-012. I bought a pair for $200 and spent about $300 for the mods.

was it the Joly mods?

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

was it the Joly mods?

No , Bill Sitler at BSRS: .

[alohachris]

Aloha runamuck,

I would have to guess more on the CAD & AT's because I've never owned them or heard or used them before. Not used to how they sound.They both overacheived here because of Doug's abilities.

I owned the Rode NT5's, KM 184's & had 25 years primarily on the Schoeps in home recording. So I can usually pick out their differences in any line up because of much experience listening to them. The Schoeps sound like old friends to me.

The only SDC's that I had a difficult time in discerning most times from the Schoeps ever was the MKH Series from Sennheiser. Very similar to the Schoeps, which have that tell-tale "ease" thing going on that gives them away.

FYI, Schoeps & Sennheiser have cornered the 'dialogue mic' market in making motion pictures since forever. Never see any other brands on any set. That's how clear, uncolored, realistic, balanced & brilliant these mic's are. Absolutely the best off-axis response too.

But you are probably right, runamuck. My ears, though still pretty good for their age, 78, are definitely not what they were even three years ago, especially in discerning different subtle frequency shadings as easily as before. You could probably fool me in a mic-recognition test. But at least I still understand that it's mic's I am hearing, right? (rim-shot) Ha! Man! Dem Changes!

All the best to you, runamuck. I've really enjoyed your informative posts & our occasional jousts over these many years. Really appreciated you. I'm sure we would have had a blast pickin' together. Thank you!

alohachris


BTW, I also preferred the Michael Joly-modded Oktava-12 to the brighter KM-184 too & used one at my gigs for years. Now that was a great value! Didn't mind it as much if the much cheaper mod got knocked over by a drunken patron or myself. Also truly valued the KM-84, my primary guitar recording mic in the 80's. Had a bunch of 'em & used them live too. Your description is right on! -alohachris -

[tdlwhite]

Thanks for this, Doug - a very nice comparison that makes me want a pair of Shoeps with the MK41 capsules even more than I already did.

One question: do you know what cause the two 'crackles' in the left channel? They happen at ~ 4m20s and 5m28s into the video. (one AT2020 and one quieter one with the Shoeps).

I ask because I sometime get similar mic crackles when recording, and I put it down to either voltage spikes from the preamps or interference through the cable. But I never figured it out properly (I just switched channels and crossed my fingers).

Thanks,

Tom

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by tdlwhite

Thanks for this, Doug - a very nice comparison that makes me want a pair of Shoeps with the MK41 capsules even more than I already did.

One question: do you know what cause the two 'crackles' in the left channel? They happen at ~ 4m20s and 5m28s into the video. (one AT2020 and one quieter one with the Shoeps).

I ask because I sometime get similar mic crackles when recording, and I put it down to either voltage spikes from the preamps or interference through the cable. But I never figured it out properly (I just switched channels and crossed my fingers).

Thanks,

Tom

I hadn't noticed those, but I think I hear what you mean. Wish I'd have caught those and used a different take. On first listen, I thought it was probably a guitar noise I made, but narrowing it down, at the least the one at 4:20 looks (and sounds) like a digital glitch, just a short click, to short to be a sound I actually made, I think:

Screenshot 2023-12-20 at 12.32.15 PM.jpg

The one at 5:28 is less clear, but is also just a few samples, only on the left side, so probably not an acoustic-generated noise. I have had issues like this back when I had a more complex setup with multiple A/D's and a master clock and so on, but I gave that up long ago, and this was simply using my all-in-one Apogee Ensemble, so I'm not sure what would have caused this, but it does seem like something went wrong in digital land. Kind of annoying...