Warm/mellow small condenser mic?

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by b1j

But that's my difficulty here. I can't say I understand what a "warm" mic is or does. Or "mellow," for that matter. And while I'm at it, what's "nice?"

Everyone knows I'm a newbie, but I'll just state anyway that I'm in the "flat" camp on general principles. Throw "low self noise" onto that as well. That's all I want.

Oh, and world peace.

I get it. I was more answering your note of "I don't know what warm is". The sE mics are not "warm" to my ears.

FWIW - "warm" & "flat" are very close in my book. The problem with so many of the "copy cat" mics...the mics that are built like more expensive classics, is that they don't take into account the fact that most of those classic capsules were never flat & manufacturers combated that in the circuitry. That's the reason all those u87 & km84 copies sound horrible. They have the capsule pretty close to a dead on copy, but they neglect the circuitry to add the roll-off that tames the harsh peak of the capsule design. The good news is that you can use an EQ to replicate the circuit EQ and tame those cheaper mics.

Mics are one of those things that there is a significant jump in quality through the price ranges right up to the point of diminishing returns.

[b1j]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I get it. I was more answering your note of "I don't know what warm is". The sE mics are not "warm" to my ears.

FWIW - "warm" & "flat" are very close in my book. The problem with so many of the "copy cat" mics...the mics that are built like more expensive classics, is that they don't take into account the fact that most of those classic capsules were never flat & manufacturers combated that in the circuitry. That's the reason all those u87 & km84 copies sound horrible. They have the capsule pretty close to a dead on copy, but they neglect the circuitry to add the roll-off that tames the harsh peak of the capsule design. The good news is that you can use an EQ to replicate the circuit EQ and tame those cheaper mics.

Mics are one of those things that there is a significant jump in quality through the price ranges right up to the point of diminishing returns.

Thanks, Steve. Interesting explanation.

I suspect there's more to high-end sound than frequency response graphs, but this got me looking at the graphs for my sE8. It's very flat except for a medium-wide rise of about 2 dB in the 6 to 9k range. I expect that will give me a brighter raw recording, which I may or may not like, depending on the music. I'll watch out for it when I use EQ, and especially when I track four or five acoustics in a song. I think I learned something today.

But in the end, budget set my ceiling, and that's what it is for now.

[RodB]

I like what might be described as a warm sound and am very happy with a pair of SE8 mics - not at all bright or harsh to my ears.

I too would recommend considering a ribbon mic. I have an SE VR2 which I like a lot and am about to get a 2nd one. One of these should be within you budget.

[alohachris]

Barry,

Give sdelsolray a shout out. He has beta tested more mic's than anyone I know. I trust his ears & opinions & he can really play the guitar too. And Doug Young as well.

I once owned a pair of Peluso TUBE P-28 SDC's that were the warmest, full sounding SDC's I'd ever heard. And nice detailing along with it. Cost more than you are looking to spend thoughl There are used ones available at Reverb & Gearspace. If I hadn't been so addicted to those 641Schoeps.... I'd have kept those P-28's.

https://www.soundpure.com/p/peluso-p...iABEgI0kPD_BwE

However, in my decades-long international search for the best mic's for me & thousands of auditions, I finally came to believe that uncolored, balanced, clear, great performing condenser mic's - without bias- are the best for recording anything. You can always EQ a track in post if it needs help in a frequency, right? Start with neutral, my friend.

alohachris

[TBman]

Originally Posted by b1j

I'll add to the blizzard of mic brands, just to add to the bewilderment.

I've been very happy with a pair of sE8 SDCs (sE Electronics). I held back from posting here because I have no idea how to quantify warm and mellow. Isn't that in the performance? But for flat, the sE8 is a great choice. A pair is about $500, and it comes with a case and stereo bracket.

I have had a pair of those in my Sweetwater wish list for some time now. I might go that route and try a plugin or two also to get where I want. Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

Edit:
Mrs. Claus has them in her gift bag and they are ready for delivery,

[b1j]

Originally Posted by TBman

I have had a pair of those in my Sweetwater wish list for some time now. I might go that route and try a plugin or two also to get where I want. Thanks everyone for the suggestions.

Edit:
Mrs. Claus has them in her gift bag and they are ready for delivery,

Barry, I hope you like them!

Flat out to about 7 kHz, then a gradual rise (2 dB) through 9 or 10 kHz, then back to flat. Easy to EQ down if you want, but I like the airiness.

Love that Mrs. Claus.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by b1j

Thanks, Steve. Interesting explanation.

I suspect there's more to high-end sound than frequency response graphs, but this got me looking at the graphs for my sE8. It's very flat except for a medium-wide rise of about 2 dB in the 6 to 9k range. I expect that will give me a brighter raw recording, which I may or may not like, depending on the music. I'll watch out for it when I use EQ, and especially when I track four or five acoustics in a song. I think I learned something today.

But in the end, budget set my ceiling, and that's what it is for now.

I generally don't put much value in the response graphs...you just need to listen, but yes...a bump in that 6k-9k range can bring out a brittleness in some sources. You can apply a similar, but opposite, EQ to tame that to taste.

I think people forget that the natural sound of the mic is not the be all/end all. There is opportunity to embellish/enhance that. As long as the raw sound is reasonably close, there's no reason to get caught up in dogma about balanced/flat/neutral response.

And yes, budget is always king. If it weren't I'd have a dozen u47s ;-)

[kellyb]

I 100% agree that being dogmatic about "flat" and "neutral" can be a misdirection of an understandable strategy to avoid stridency; as Steve said, mics' sounds can be manipulated.

IME, not only can most mics be eq'd/manipulated, but if you're mixing to sound like current and historical commercial music, you'll have to eq/manipulate sounds - even if your room is treated, you have great mics, gear, etc. IME, eq-ing most any ribbon mic is almost a given and on most sound sources. And I don't think it's uncommon to high pass kick drums and bass, often aggressively, to reclaim headroom needed to get masters to contemporary standard listening levels.

[fitness1]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

For the most part, I'd tend to avoid mics that are considered "warm" (as well as those considered to be bright). That implies some EQ curve to the mic, some non-linearity. I've had the best luck for acoustic guitar with mics that capture what's there. Warmth (which I do like) comes from the guitar, hopefully from me, and then any post-processing I do to dial in the sound.

That pretty much sums up everything to do with "sound" - live, recorded or performed.

Been saying a version of that for many years. Glad to hear I wasn't nuts.

[DupleMeter]

The reality is that every mic has circuitry that alters the natural sound of the capsule. Some capsules don't require much (m7, k47, k67) to make them sound really beautiful, while others require significantly more (looking at you k87).

The problem with most cheap mics is that they use a variation of the k87, but cheap out on the filters to make it smooth. The k87, on its own, is rather bright/harsh. It's the filter circuit that makes it sound smooth in a u87. That's why most cheap mics benefit from replacing the k87 style capsule with a smoother k47 style. They don't spend the money on developing a proper filter circuit for the mic.

Every mic has a sound that is a sum of it's parts, including filter circuits to tune it to the manufacturer's taste. Some manufacturers like it bright (looking at you AKG). Some like mid-range punch (Neumann), while others try to go for a balanced response (DPA, Schoeps). And within each line there are variations of that tendency.

The one cool thing about spending my life in studios & recording music, is that I've gotten to use so many mics and have learned what I like, what I dislike, what matters & what doesn't really matter.

The reality is, with a good preamp, EQ & compressor, it's possible to get good results from almost anything.

[DupleMeter]

This all made me think of something I learned from my mentor. Back when the u87 came out & studios bought them as replacements for the u67, many engineers thought they were too bright (sound familiar). A big difference was that the u67 had a frequency response of about 40Hz to 16Hz, while the u87 was 20Hz-20kHz.

What I was told is that a lot of engineers simply used a low pass filter at around 14kHz to emulate the smoother top end of the u67 with the new u87. Further illustrating the adage "it's the carpenter, not the tools."

[kellyb]

Despite the approx. 2db lift centering a little under 10k, the U87ai isn't characteristically or patently "bright". My "accurate" AT-4051s are brighter.

And "20hz-20khz" is even more nonsensical in the case of the U87ai than most mics; they steeply roll off somewhere around 12k and are about 8db down at 20hz: http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Neumann/U-87-Ai

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Despite the approx. 2db lift centering a little under 10k, the U87ai isn't characteristically or patently "bright". My "accurate" AT-4051s are brighter.

And "20hz-20khz" is even more nonsensical in the case of the U87ai than most mics; they steeply roll off somewhere around 12k and are about 8db down at 20hz: http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Neumann/U-87-Ai

That was kind of my point. a u87 isn't really that extended...but it was new, so therefore not as good. What it reveals is the tendency to let the brain get in the way of our hearing. The "extended brightness" they were experiencing was the bump between 4k-8k. But they were compensating up at 14k, where they thought the issue was.

Hearing is very psychological.

I have a pair of 4051s. I tend to avoid them because they can feel a little brittle on acoustic guitars. They are great pulled back (as a diffuse field pair), where that toppiness becomes reach and they balance out very nicely.

[BuzzTurner]

DupleMeter said, "The reality is that every mic has circuitry that alters the natural sound of the capsule." Not every mic. Schoeps CMC Series, Neumann KM100 Series, Neumann KK Series and Sennheiser have bodies that will accept different capsules. I'm most familiar with Schoeps and can confirm that the difference is in the capsule not the amplifier body. Schoeps has offered some amplifier bodies that do introduce equalization (linear, high frequency boost) but their standard amplifier bodies are known to behave the same way with any capsule.

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I have a pair of 4051s. I tend to avoid them because they can feel a little brittle on acoustic guitars.

Yeah, I had a pair too for some years. I could not get them to sound the way I wanted after messing around over and over again. They're not bad mics, in my opinion, but too thin for what I want to hear from finger picked ac. guitars. Even with EQ I could not get them right and that may be because of my limited mixing skills.

Not too long ago I got a Roswell k67. Oh man, I love that mic.