Baggs Lyric

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

Probably not a fair question but since it is a mic I wonder it I could install it in a Doubleneck acoustic with two bridges? It's carbon fiber so there is no bridge plate, and I could position it in the center?

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.

[arashaw]

I'm having a luthier build me this type of guitar

http://www.wlguitars.com/instrument/8-acoustic-steel

I wonder if this pickup would be the answer or I would have trouble with the bass side of things? In my electric version I have two separate pickups/outputs. I have been pondering what type of pickup to put in?

[alohachris]

Mahalo Doug & Friends,

Thanks for letting us put an ear on the "new" Baggs Lyric.

IMO, in listening to Doug's samples, the Lyric does sound better & produces a more natural, acoustic result than ANY pickup that Baggs has ever put out, especially their un-natural sounding UST's.

However, in listening to the dynamic range & detailing of the Lyric compared to the Schoeps & especially with the DPA 4061 internal mic, there really is NO COMPARISON. The Lyric isn't even close to the 4061. It sounds constrained, more mid-rangey & less open by comparison to the other sources, even with all the transient noises it picks up.

So why, if you can find used DPA 4061's on the market for less than the price of the new Lyric, would any player choose to install the Lyric over the 4061, especially in s dual-source system?

Plus, the DPA 4061 internal condenser mic has been around for awhile now & sounds obviously MUCH, MUCH BETTER (More Natural & More like a Mic)) than the Lyric - especially here in Doug's samples. The Lyric doesn't sound bad at all, just not as natural as the 4061.

Somehow, typical of Bagg's pickups, there is a lack of openness & detailing in the Lyric when compared to the other mic's in these samples - no matter the guitar. Hyping the mid's can indeed better-prevent feedback, but at the cost of more natural acoustic tone.

Everyone has such hopes for a simple, affordable single pickup/amplificaton solution or mic that can be used live & not feedback. But clearly in these samples, clearly, the Lyric is NOT the sonic equal of the 4061, or of the AKG's 416 or 516 internal condenser mic's that I use.

And because of where Baggs places the Lyric inside your guitar, you cannot even combine it with any of the more popular SBT pickups like the K&K, Dazzo, or PUTW which also need to be placed under the saddle line of the bridgeplate as well.

Obviously, for dual-source systems, Baggs (marketing) wants us to combine the Lyric with their UST's not SBT's - a limitation that takes us further from natural acoustic sound, giving us fewer options.

It makes you wonder how the Lyric would sound if placed on other areas of the guitar top, huh?
The question being: Are there other Acoustic "sweet pots" inside a guitar where the Lyric might be effectively-placed - as is the case with every other internal mic on the market? Why did Baggs choose the under-saddle line, bridgeplate location-only for a mic?

So sonically, from these samples, & logistically, due to the Lyric's placement limitation, I'd say that Baggs has "missed the tag" again in terms of a cutting-edge technology or an amplificaiton break-through product towards a more natural, open acoustic sound, wouldn't you?

When compared to other single pickups used alone, the Lyric does sound very good (in these samples), & it may indeed behave better than other internal mic's in the loud bars we play in. But a K&K mini P/U combined into a dual-source system with a DPA 4061, & run through a GOOD blending pre or mixer for control will leave the Lyric in the dust in terms of sound & flexibility. That's what I hear in these samples. I'll withhold my final judgment for when I can actually try the Lyric in one of my guitars & give it a LIVE audition with my ears in person.

Give the DPA 4061 a try, guys. That's what these samples tell me. But the Lyric sounds pretty good too.

What do you think?

alohachris.

[cat_guitar]

I also think that the Lyric is not as 'natural' as other internal mics. Yes the Lyric is not boomy at all and has very good string-to-string separation, but the lower registers always give me an impression that some kind of pickup sound is added. IMO, most internal mics have a muddy bass, but the Lyric is just the other way round - the bass sounds too 'direct' comparing with the treble. It's very good for strumming, but may not be the best sound for fingerstyle.

I'd say Baggs has figured out a way to clean up the bass of an internal mic. It's really a remarkable achievement. I love the whole idea, but it's a little bit overdone on the Lyric.

[wood nacho]

I'm really liking the string to string separation. My only criticism is the bass sounds quite thin (to be expected) and the midrange could use a bit of EQ. Pairing the Lyric with a soundhole mag seems like it could be a real homerun.

[arashaw]

So why, if you can find used DPA 4061's on the market for less than the price of the new Lyric, would any player choose to install the Lyric over the 4061, especially in s dual-source system?

Simple affordable? If one plugged it into an SPS-1 could it be eq'd to sound like a DPA?

[alohachris]

Aloha Arashaw,

You could EQ the Lyric somewhat with something like the SPS-1. But since Baggs has already EQ'ed this Lyric "mic" strongly towards the mid-range freq's, your control would be considerably less than with the DPA 4061.

At least that's what I am guessing having used lots of internal mic's & EQ's over the years & having heard the Lyric just this once through these online samples. Who knows yet?

RE: "simple, affordable" - since most players who post here about amplification seem to want to do it for the least amount of buck$ spent - & using only one pickup or mic, I thought the Lyric might help them out well in that regard. It sounds great compared to all the single source pickups out there.

Personally, I don't think that "simple, affordable" can be accomplished by ANY single pickup or mic used alone & applied to regular, pro gigging situations. IME, you need a dual+-source based system to satisfy those variable requirements. With that phrase, I was not talking about my rig at all, but the oft-stated desires of many here in the AGF market segment.

One thing I don't like about the Lyric from watching the Gryphon installation clip is that it runs on a battery pack that goes inside your guitar. Why are we still doing that? Shouldn't a mic be run on phantom power in 2013. Or be an electret?

And, what if you wish to put together a dual-source system, & add the Lyric to another pickup that also runs on an internal battery? it's kind of a drag to have to add yet another battery & affix more wires plus controls inside your acoustic guitar. That's an antiquated approach to pickup design, IMO. David Enke, Greg Gualtieri & others have each offered better approaches/solutions to powering pickups & internal condenser mic's since the early 90's.

alohachris

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by wood nacho

I'm really liking the string to string separation. My only criticism is the bass sounds quite thin (to be expected) and the midrange could use a bit of EQ. Pairing the Lyric with a soundhole mag seems like it could be a real homerun.

I also thought the bass response was a bit weak. Part of that may be inherent - one thing I like about a pickup like the K&K is the somewhat bigger-than-life bass you get. Another aspect in my recordings, at least, might be my Taylor, which is a relatively bright guitar. The tone of the Lyric sounds pretty close to the actual guitar to me. I could certainly boost the low end with EQ, but I think I'll try it in some other guitars as well as soon as I get a chance and see how it responds to a different instrument.

[guitaniac]

My take on the DPA mic vs Lyric is that both samples could have been easily EQed more to my taste (less bass on the DPA mic, less presence on the Lyric), but that the DPA mic has more of that in-the-cave sound which has always been an issue for me. Such signals have always necessitated the addition of a mag signal, or a UST signal, to satisfy my preference for a more focused amplified tone.

I can easily imagine using the Lyric system as a single source pickup, provided its not too feedback susceptable for bare-fingered picking in a noisy room. At worst, I can imagine using the pure Lyric signal for strumming, while blending in some mag (or UST) signal for picking with bare finger pads.

BTW, I was struck by how much the DPA mic sounds like my Wendler Dynafield IV system. Once I roll the excessive bass off the Dynafield IV signal, its still too in-the-cave sounding (for my taste) to be used as a single source pickup. Its also more feedback prone than a UST or a mag, of course. Even if I preferred the pure Dynafield IV tone, I'd still be obligued to blend in some mag signal, or some UST signal, for bare-fingered picking in a noisy room.

[Ron Potkul]

Hi Doug,

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. 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?
Just wanted your thoughts on these types of installation. Again, Thank You for spending your precious time to help out all of the members on this forum who read your post but may never take the time to say Thank You!!

Kind regards,
Ron

[ljguitar]

Hi Doug...

Thanks for posting the samples, and it will be interesting to see how the Lyric actually works out live (with pickups the differences are often quite different when we play through amps or PA systems than recorded).

And it will be interesting to see how people deploy them in tandem with other 'stuff' (pickups).

Your DPA comparison samples were amazing...maybe it's just my nearly 65 yr old ears, but the DPA 4061 was preferable. I know it's double the cost of the Lyric, but the differences were dramatic through my little system here on the desk (Bose computer system).

Thanks again for taking the time to sample and review the Lyric.

[steveyam]

I think the Lyric is going to be one of those pickups that the manufacturer tweaks with time. You're not going to get the best product from the first attempt. They'll develop it. And of course, Fishman will want to get in on the action too. The nett result? all good for the consumer in the longer term, but buy early, and you may well just be helping in a rather large R&D exercise.

Just a side point, I often wonder why EQ 'problems' are often touted as being big hurdles to cross in these issues? I mean, just do it, if you're cute enough to hear/recognise the problem or failing, then presumably you're good enough to 'EQ out' the problem?! People seem to want the perfect response (to them, one of thousands that is!) right from the pickup, yet still seem to want to alter or mess about with the EQ. EQ fanatics, EQ obsession. Dunno..

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

My take on the DPA mic vs Lyric is that both samples could have been easily EQed more to my taste (less bass on the DPA mic, less presence on the Lyric), but that the DPA mic has more of that in-the-cave sound which has always been an issue for me. .

Yep, in that comparison, both were flat. I normally cut the bass on the DPA, but of course I'm also blending it with another source. I could try eqing to match, but they're in different guitars, which makes it a bit hard. I was really trying to compare the -in-the-cave aspect, which is what the Lyric sets out to solve.

[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.

[Andy Howell]

The DPA was in a different class I think for not that much extra cash, if sound quality is what you are looking for.

The Lyric is certainly a mic but sounds as if it would benefit from blending but then would that be any better than the Anthem?

Listening to these reminds me that there is something about Baggs which doesn't work for me.

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