Then again, maybe not...Ty Ford - "Look Ma, I'm Flyin" on Vimeo

Schoeps>Sound Devices 442>Canon XL2.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty, that is gorgeous! Nice piece! This restores faith in my XH-A1 now! I'm still holding out for a pair of Schoeps, once you hear these there is no going back.

Michael

Thanks Michael,

Two thoughts. The Canon XL2 is standard def. As such the audio is 16-bit, 48khz. (about 1500 kbps)

Your XH-A1 does standard def, per the above, but also HDV. HDV audio is only 384 kbps MPEG 1 layer 2. Stick with Standard Def and your audio will sound better.

I used only one mic for that recording and added effects later; two different reverbs, as I recall. They gave it the space.

Regards,

Ty Ford

That instrumental sounds nice, Ty, but with all due respect, I find the reverb to be distracting from the performance. That being said, I do tend to prefer a drier acoustic guitar sound in general. Nice work, though.
As to the OP, who can say what the "best" mic in any application is? Ears will decide, and if you think its the best, then it is. So if you liked the Schoeps, get one if you have the budget. It really can depend a lot on the actual instrument. My guitar player's Martin sounds best with an AT-4040 aimed around where the neck joins the body, in my room. As with everything audio, your mileage WILL vary. Way too many variables! Andy

Andy,

Tried a schoeps cmc641?

Ty

Can't say that I have, Ty. I was meaning that of the mics I have, the AT 4040 sounds best on his guitar. Schoeps are on the list, once there's money for them! Then there's the rest of the signal chain to consider...

Andy,

Not trying to kick sand on the AT4040. AT makes some VERY nice mics. But, when you have time and inclination, rent a cmc641 for a few days. My entire approach to mics changed when I heard a cmc641 though a GML preamp.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Hey ty, just curious how I could get a copy of two of your songs to use in a slide show
I'm working on.. not commercial just for my own pleasure...

The songs are Blue Sky Cowboy Dream and Look Ma, I'm Flyin'

Very well done....

thanks

Ty...I need to up my game regarding pre-amps and conversion before I mess with anything like a Schoeps. What's the point of running a mic like that through a $160 pre and a $200 converter? For me, at this stage of the game, that would seem like a waste of time. I haven't heard better yet, but I know I'm missing something, and I look forward to the day the veil is lifted for good! Andy

Microphone
 

Michael, may I also suggest you check out ribbon mics. They can be had for prices beginning around $100-to several thousand dollars. The only down side is a good preamp is needed. Check out the AEA, Coles, or Royer ribbons. Then combine them with a Gordon or Forssell preamps, this is assuming you want to spend a load of money!!!

I am using a pair of Apex 205 ribbons that I had modded by Michael Jolly. The Apex ribbons can be had for $100-120 and the MJ mod is $219. Add a AEA TRP and you are in business for about $1200 new. The TRP shows up from time to time for $700-800 used.

No they are not Schoeps, but they have a unique character of their own.

David Rogers

Andy,

It's a game of steps. I originally started with a Digi001, got GML preamps, got an REM AD-I 8 converter. Somewhere after there, I tried the Schoeps. I am on record in many places saying this. The difference was both subtle and profound. When I heard the difference I remember thinking every thing I know about audio up until then had been wrong.

I still think you'd be interested in renting a cmc641, even with your setup. I think DreamHire in NY rents them.

Regards,

Ty Ford

David,

Yes, a unique character. I own a 77DX, m160 and an AEA R84 with TRP preamp I bought earlier this year. Of the three, the R84 gives me the best results. A while back I was recording sax for a song here. I tried the M160 and the cmc641. In a heartbeat, the cmc641 won. Here's a compressed version of the mix. http://tinyurl.com/ku66nc


I wrote a feature story about the history of the ribbon mics some years back for Pro Audio Review. http://idisk.mac.com/tyreeford-Public/Ribbon_Mics.txt

All ribbons have a pretty limited HF response, so if you're looking for bright and shiny, don't go there. The exceptions being the beyer M260 and m500 which aren't around anymore.

Ribbons are mostly used to take the edge off of something. I tracked vocals last year with Karyn Oliver. I used a U 89 and the R84 together and mixed the tracks. The result was pretty subtle, but the R84 added some thickness/smoothness to the midrange that I liked.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I agree with you Ty. I too have a number of Schoeps products. My favourite location mic series.

Regards
David

Have you tried the Schoeps wide cardioids? I like them for brass band stuff - Eb cornets in the wrong hands can be extremely shrill. Of course, lots of personal preference going on.

Thanks David I'll look into those. I've heard of some kinda set up using a ribbon mic ( to catch the room ambiance) along with something like a Schoeps..... three mics total.

The problem with guitar is catching those high end trebles, as Ty mentioned. I think just about any decent mic will capture good bass and midrange. However, when I first heard the Schoeps I was struck by the purity, and sparkly trebles, it is hard to go back now, I've been corrupted...... in a good way.

Oddly enough it's a comparison I use with my customers to illustrate the difference between a good classical guitar. and a great classical guitar. It's all in the trebles! A guitar by default has good bass, to tweak the treble is what separates the men from the boys.

Are these ribbon mics?
YouTube - Allegro in d minor by Weiss

Michael

Ty, I wonder if one Schoeps is better than two average mics? Personally I don't mind a guitar recorded with just one mic. Again great recording. I've never used SD on my A1, but the image you got looks excellent! I wonder for Youtube if there is any noticeable different using SD as opposed to HDV.

For me the biggest difference is the settings used to compress it for uploading.

Michael

Michael,

Yes, one Schoeps is better than two or twenty-two average mics. Compression settings are important. I constantly play with them to try to eek out a better product.

Thanks for the compliment on the video. It does keep people coming in to get on the internet.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Jim,

Less than you might think. I was surprised when the schoeps won out over the ribbon for sax. I really like what it did. If Schoeps were just the product of whim and preference, they wouldn't cost what they do.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Got to beg to differ about this. It is my belief and experience that a good acoustic, either steel or nylon string designs, is characterised by an even balance across the whole of it's range from low to high and that a warm bass response which is balanced with the rest of the instruments range is not a given. A lot of lesser classical/spanish/nylon string instruments appear fine in the treble register, say above the F on 3rd string at tenth fret, but lack a good depth of tone, including a good bass response created from the instruments top resonating, and it is only the very best instruments which have an even tonal response across all registers whilst embodying a warm tone with it as opposed to an even response which is a bit tame or dull. The main achievement is evenness, The sam goes with loudspeakers and microphones.

Is it all in the treble? No. A cheap piano sounds good in the treble too but lacks the depth and evenness... here we go again. It is the same for most instruments. Maybe all.

So as not to be misconstrued, among the reasons I really like the cmc641 are that it has some pretty serious attention to detail in the midrange.

According to players of classical guitar with nylon strings I've talked to, the biggest problem is plasticky sounding 1st and 2nd strings. That's partially because these strings are unwound. Using condenser mics with a lifted top end response makes the strings sound more plasticky. The cmc641 tends not to.

Ribbon mics with their rolled off high frequency response would tend to do something sort of similar, but usually come off too cloudy or dull in the top end.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Interesting. I've not come across the plastic sounding issue. I once had a live sound PA engineer stick a SM58 in front of my classical...! felt like going home before we'd started!
Apart from that it would have to be a condenser mic'. I'm lucky in that in the studio or front room, church etc.. doing recordings I've always had access to a top end mic. Being an ex full time pro guitarist and having a close friend who plays exceptionally, I find myself recording classical guitar from time to time. His instruments are made by a guy who names them girls names. They are proper nice works of luthiership. Everytime I buy his last guitar his upgrade makes me not like it as much. I'm trying to get hold of another MKH105 in order to have a pair of omni room mic's to put out along with a CCM41 which has a emmsser fig 8 attached. My last rig was to use a Nuemann kmi85. As may be becoming obvious on this group, I love recording acoustic instruments and in particular stringed instruments.

The Schoeps do have what seems like an honest balanced response. Nuemann sounds great too. Not sure which I prefer yet. Funnily enough it's the same thing in speakers which appeals to me. A detailed mid range. You know what it's like. I find myself re-evaluating my preferences as the years go by and as I get deeper into listening. I remember finding Mackie speakers were very larger than life sounding with great high and low ends but lacking the warm detailed mid range that say Tannoys are renowned for.

While we're on the subject of recording, can anyone advise how to avoid "finger squeaks"? The problem is most acute with onboard pickups, I think, but I hear them if the fretboard is miked, which as I understand it, is a good thing to do...I have limited experience in recording music (my job is news) but getting my feet wet.../Battle Vaughan/miamiherald.com video team

that's a technique question, part of the performance. You can minimize teh really bad ones, but I tend to leave the "normal" ones alone.

I once had a guy cruising for a studio for classical guitar. He recorded a track here and then questioned a noise in the recording at xminutesyseconds. He implied there was something wrong with my rig. It was his nose snort. I didn't expect him back. I was rewarded by being correct.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Ty, would you say not using on-board pickups for recording would be good practice? (When Ty talks I tend to listen closely....)/ bvaughan

If you consider I said that a guitar by default has a good bass, my comments make sense. Of course taking it to the extreme, that only treble will do isn't what I meant, you need bass, however from building guitars for the past 35 years i've found the most challenging thing is to get good trebles. This may not be so important on steel string guitars, as it is for classical guitars. Cheap classical guitars have surprisingly good bass response. If you consider the main melody in classical music happens in the treble range this becomes vitally important. The bass in my mind creates the ambiance for the melody or cantable to dwell in, it shouldn't dominate the treble.

If you make your first guitar it's hard not to get a decent bass response, as I said it's built into the design by default, it's therefore the challenge to get a good treble. If you get good treble the bass is automatically there as well. If you get good bass it doesn't guarantee good treble.

I've heard it said, that someone will pay one million dollars for a car that goes 200 mph, but they will pay 2 million dollars for a car that will go 205 mph.

Michael

This helps a bit:
Fingerease Guitar String Lubricant and more Fretted Instrument Care and Cleaning at GuitarCenter.com.

MMmm. I like this site. You've got me thinking.

Bat,

I've seldom heard a pickup I've liked on an acoustic guitar for recording. I have a friend with a Simon & Patrick guitar. It's pickup sounds pretty darn good and we have used that on some tracks mixed in with other things. That track was not extremely prominent in the mix.

I just rigged my old Harmony 12 Sovereign with a K&K Arch Top kit and it sounds VERY much like the guitar itself, even though it's not an archtop.

I have gone direct with my Tele, a Les Paul and a Fender P-bass through a Groove Tube Brick or Ditto and right into the system. This keeps the noise (from amps) in the room down and actually sounds a lot like an old Pre-CBS Fender amp.

In general I like the sound of a good guitar. If the guitar doesn't sound that good, whatever you can do to it to help it works for me.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Thanks, Ty and Jon, this site always has people who know what they're about....!/B. Vaughan

Well I've made my mind up to buy a couple Schoeps. I have a question though. To go with the CMC6 amplifier, what is the best capsule to record classical guitar with? I see the MK-21h is made specifically for guitar recordings.
Posthorn | Schoeps Colette Capsules

Also is there a compromise for a capsule that is good for both voice, and guitar ( this would be best for me as I record voice as well.

Michael

Michael,

I don't see where Schoeps or Posthorn suggests that capsule for guitar. If you have a good sounding guitar, boosting the highs is not required. I used a MK41 capsule on mine and find it hides the flaws in the room better.

And, again, I'd start with one Schoeps on one guitar.

Regards,

Ty Ford

I generally use the MK21 (not 21H) but for the guitar recordings I like the cardioid MK4.

I like the MK21 because it doesn't disproportionately boost off axis highs and works very well for a lot of what I do, and I agree with Ty that the MK41 is a surprisingly good mike for a lot more than what it normally gets used for

But I think in general starting with a regular cardioid will give you a lot of options.

I also have to say that for classical instruments I don't much like really close mic'ing.

I play brass (tuba to be exact) and I can clearly hear different frequencies originating from different locations on the horn. Just as guitar highs and bass originate in different locations, I guess.

I think a classical instrument needs some space between instrument and listener so the sound can blend and I think overly close mic placement defeats this blending.

Similarly for piano, I really don't much like the "performer's location sound image" with noticeably spread out highs and lows. That just isn't how listeners hear the instrument.

On the other hand, closer mic placement may help minimize room effect so it's a real game of listening and deciding what sounds best to YOU!

So you should probably buy a couple of every kind of capsule (ha ha)

Financially to say the least this isn't too practical with $choeps, so I understand the dilemma of choice you're faced with.

If it were me I'd start with a pair of cardioids - OR maybe a single cardioid and then maybe a figure 8 capsule and look into M/S recording because you would be able to get a reasonably nice stereo image and also be able to buy additional capsules singly rather than in pairs. Lots of bang for the buck. And I think Ty's advice of one mic and one guitar is really worth thinking about. I think having a bit of stereo image adds a nice open-ness but stereo is not by any means a necessity

I'd be happy to bring my Schoeps collection when I'm in Santa Fe next month and let you listen and figure out which you like best.

If you are recordng voice and guitar at the same time, things get a lot more complicated.

There are two basic approaches.

One is to back off the mics and record this like a classical performance. This will require a reasonably good room, and a performer who knows how to balance the voice and guitar well naturally. What you hear is what you get.

A pair of cardiods, a cardiod and figure 8 (for MS) or even a pair of omnis in a good room will work well for this.

The other approach is to close mic. This opens up a very large can of worms. The problem here is that the two sources are very close together, and that any bleed from voice into the guitar mic (and vice versa) will sound bad, due to being off axis (especially with cardiods) and the distances are such that there is likely to be phase cancellation or comb filtering (distance 1 to 2 feet between the mics means problems with phase in the 500-3000 Hz range - right in the middle of the sensitive vocal range!).

Another problem is that you will need to be micing very close to get near the 3 to 1 guideline (which is a minimum). Small condensor mics with a cardiod pattern tend to get very boomy and are very prone to pops at such distances.

Here are two approaches I often use in such situations:

1. This is where the unique properties of the figure 8 pattern come in very handy. I use such a mic on the guitar, with the front pointed at te strings, but the null of the mic pointed at the singers mouth. This almost perfectly eliminates the voice from the guitar mic. No other pattern can do this as well, only figure 8 has a perfect null.

For the voice, normally a small condensor would not be my first choice due to the problems mentioned above. If I did have to use one, I would choose an omni pattern which can be used close without boominess and pops. More likely though, I would choose a large condensor, and also use it in a figure 8 pattern, but with the null of this mic pointed at the guitar.

2. Similar to #1 on the guitar, but I would use a dynamic mic for the vocal - something designed to be used VERY close, such as an SM-7 or SM-57. This pretty much eliminates any bleed from the guitar into the vocal mic due to sheer distance (1 in from mouth, 12-24 in from guitar - much better than the minimum 3 to 1).

If one of the Schoeps is specifically for voice (as opposed to for stereo), omni rather than cardiod may be better, if you plan to close mic.

If I were going to buy two Schoeps, in this circumstance, I might get one figure eight and one omni. This woud allow both a nice MS stereo setup for distant micing and and the potential for better separation and less chance of vocal pops and boominess in a close miced situation.

You might think a bi-directional mic would not not be a good choice in a less than perfect room. In actual practice, what happens is that - in a close mic situation - the bounce from sidewalls is eliminated by the null of the mic, and the sound from the rear wall is so much less than the front (due to close micing) that it makes little difference.

And of course in a distant micing situation, using MS micing allows the amount of ambience to be varied after the fact - a great advantage if you are uncertain of the room.


-Mike

I usually use a wide cardioid with figure 8 as an M/S setup and I like it - again, for what I do which is often concert band recording. I'm actually playing with the idea of adding an omni to the mix as my next purchase.

I think the great thing about M/S is that it works well with just about any capsule in addition to the figure 8. There are even configurations of two fiigure 8 mics as a stereo setup (Blumlein)

Downside is that the figure 8 is one of the more expensive capsules.

The other downside is that you either need a mixer or recorder that will decode the M/S to stereo, or after the fact editing in software. There are lots of plug-ins available to do this as well. (Waves Stereo Imager, for example or a relatively low cost module from Brainworks in Germany.) It's a well solved problem so not to worry.

Wide cardioid is not a bad choice if you are micing pretty far away. If you are closer though, or need to cover a sound source that is wide (like a concert band), the omni shoud provide better MS decoding in the critical high frequencies at the extremes of the stereo image. Since cardioids tend to fall off in the high frequencies as you get off axis, this will naturaly affect the MS decoding there.

A cheap way to play with this before spending your money would be to cover up the sound holes on the back of your cardioid, which turns it into an omni. This works with varying degrees of success depending upon the construction of the mic, so do some quick checks with white or pink noise, on and off axis to make sure. Depending upon the size of the mic body, you may be able to use a short piece of vinyl tubing for this, which can be slipped on and off quickly.

Figure 8 mics are more expensive, but for MS this is partially offset by being able to use an omni for the other mic, which is usualy the cheapest. And no other mic has the flexibility of a figure 8. With an omni and a figure 8 mic, you can generate all the other common mic patterns by combining them in various ways (wide and narrow cardioid, though not interference type patterns such as long shotgun patterns).

(Michael) Decoding MS can be done simply by sending the omni to a mono channel, panned center, and sending the figure 8 to both sides of a stereo channel, with one side flipped out of phase.
Modern audio software makes this so easy to do. No plug-ins strictly needed, though they make things even simpler. Nowadays, you probably got an MS decoder plugin for free with your software anyways.

Add one more figure 8 mic to the mix and you could record your concert band in full ambisonics for complete audio heaven. I'd be hard pressed to decide between that and a new omni. ;-)

-Mike

Well, some of my thinking that led to trying the wide cardioid was that the shrillest instrument in the band (Eb cornet) is also the furthest off axis (far left)

Definitely no emphasis needed there

Although I do plan to try an omni as part of the M/S setup in the near future

Thanks Ty, In the Scheops catalog it says the MK 21h was made for drums and guitar. I guess the "H" stands for "Highs", in which case that doesn't sound appealing for classical guitar, but better suited to steel strings.

Yea I know so many guys who record in an acoustically dead room, this doesn't help the classical guitar in my opinion.

I think there was some confusion about my wording. What I need is a capsule that will record just voice for instructional videos, and one for guitar. I won't be recording both a guitarist and a singer at the same time. Was wondering if one capsule could do both reasonably well.

In the old analog tape days, adding some hf was done to add some of the hf lost when recorded to analog tape. That's no longer relevant. So hf boost is good for adding hf lost for distance micing.

Regards,

Ty

Well, maybe an MK41 for voice and an MK2 omni for the guitar??? Although the omni might work well for voice as well if placed properly.

I actually have a large diaphragm Rode that I use for voice and it has been pretty satisfactory with the omni setting and used quite close with a pop screen (and a bit below mouth level). I think voice is nowhere as much of a challenge as music so maybe a completely different mic would be fine (also probably cheaper than a Schoeps capsule)

Or maybe even a lav for voice.

Really, the only way to know is to try them before you buy them.

Schoeps makes a low sensitivity mic capsule that is intended to be placed inside the guitar. No idea how it would work and not motivated to spend the $$$ on one

By the way, when I was debating where to start I actually asked the folks at Schoeps and they were quite helpful.