[QUOTE=Jim Andrada;1172749]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.

>>>If you're singing and playing at the same time, my favorite plan is a figure of eight, sideways and nulling the guitar.

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)

>>Which Rode?

Or maybe even a lav for voice.

>> Ya know, I wouldn't have said yes except for a recent shoot I did. Gerry Clarke is singing into a Countryman E6. Neil Harpe Gerry Clarke - "What You Think This Is" on Vimeo

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

>Me neither. For live, I like the K&K pickups.

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

Jerry Bruck and Buzz Turner are both great guys.

Regards,

Ty Ford

If I had decided to buy a Schoeps, was not recording in stereo, was not reccordng voice or anything else at the same time, had a reasonably good room to record in, and had no known noise problems to have to minimize using mic patterns, I'd just buy one mic with an omni pattern, for the reasons mentioned above.

I would use this for a while, and then later, after this experience, decide about a second capsule.

But that is just me.

I don't think Schoeps makes a bad sounding mic, so no matter what you decide, I don't think you will be disappointed. ;-)

-Mike

Which mic for voice is very dependent upon the specific voice, style of music, room, etc.

With a good voice in a good room I usully start with a large diaphram condensor in omni mode.

Using a small condensor for voice would normally be pretty far down my list of mics to try.

So I would agree with a previous poster that rather than a second Schoeps capsule, a mic more optimized for voice might be a better use for the dollars.

-MD

Mike, et al,

I used to think that way too, but the cmc641 (which is an SD mic) is the mic of choice for interior shot movie dialog.

I once thought the bigger diaphragm would be much fuller sounding (because of its size) than an SD mic. Not so much. Sure, there are a lot of excellent LD mics out there. TLM 103, C414, U 87, U 89, M71, TLM 67, TLM 103, among others. How each one handles that little peak that happens as a result of capsule architecture is REALLY important.

Having said that, the cmc641 is NOT your typical SD mic. Until you've compared it to other mics, both SD and LD, you really don't know. I suggest that people rent one for a few days. But be careful, every time I say that, someone does and then buys one.

As for the pattern, it's a supercardioid. My room's pretty good sounding. I compared the wider cmc64 and the cmc641. For my money, and that's what it was, the cmc641 heard less room and more of what I wanted to record.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Well, I wouldn't argue that, since I have not done much movie dialog. And I have not used a cmc641 (though your glowing endorsement has made me want to try one.)

But the poster was not talking about dialog, but an overdubbed vocal (singing). A different matter. And if there is such a thing as a 'standard' for that, it would have to be something like a U-87 or other large diaphram condensor.

It's not completely about the sound either - larger diaphram mics, all else being equal, are less prone to pops, have better S/N ratio (physics), and the good ones usually come with switchable patterns , which gives you some choices on the spot.

One of these days I want to get my hands on a cmc641 and see how its supercardioid pattern compares to the supercardioid on one of my TLM-170s. I think these two mics derive that pattern through two different means (interference tube vs phase cancellation) so it could be interesting to see the strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches.

-Mike

Mike:Well, I wouldn't argue that, since I have not done much movie dialog. And I have not used a cmc641 (though your glowing endorsement has made me want to try one.)

Mike: But the poster was not talking about dialog, but an overdubbed vocal (singing). A different matter. And if there is such a thing as a 'standard' for that, it would have to be something like a U-87 or other large diaphram condensor.

Ty: Both voice jobs, obviously. Some great vocals have ben recorded using SM58s during live shows. It's a standard. Part of the PROBLEM with this point is that there are many LD mics that sounds pretty crappy that have been sold to unsuspecting buyers. It's not the size of the diaphragm. It's about the specific mic and the specific preamp for the specific job. In the studio, I use a u 89 a lot for vocals, but have used the cmc641.

Mike: It's not completely about the sound either - larger diaphram mics, all else being equal, are less prone to pops, have better S/N ratio (physics), and the good ones usually come with switchable patterns , which gives you some choices on the spot.

Ty: Although LD mics do have higher sensitivity, with proper placement and modest pop protection, popping isn't really any more a problem with the cmc641. Not all LD mics come with switchable patterns, of course. The TLM 193, which is based on the u 89, for example is cardioid only.

Ty: The downside of LD mics is that due to their capsule construction, they are prone to a presence peak that CAN DEFINITELY get in the way, making the source sound edgy. Phase response of LD mics is not as good as SD mics. I think that's partly due to the headgrille and internal acoustical environment of the capsule because it seems less apparent to me when using my TLM 103.

Mike: One of these days I want to get my hands on a cmc641 and see how its supercardioid pattern compares to the supercardioid on one of my TLM-170s. I think these two mics derive that pattern through two different means (interference tube vs phase cancellation) so it could be interesting to see the strengths/weaknesses of the two approaches.

Ty: The TLM 170 is also based on the u 89. It has a slightly smaller capsule than the u 87. As such some have called it an MD. It is a pressure gradient mic. It has no interference tube. The Schoeps CMIT has an interference tube. I like the u 89 and TLM 170 because they don't have as much of a presence peak as the u 87. Some people have they said the TLM sounds dull. I think it sounds normal and natural. We can get fooled by brightness, thinking brighter is better.

Ty: I've written about that in published articles before. Hmm, here you go.

If you’re just starting the trek from dynamic to condenser microphones, beware of the four steps of disillusionment.

Step 1. Wow, this new cheap condenser mic sounds great! Listen to all of the high frequencies! I’m going to use it on everything!

Step 2. Hey, is it me, or is this new cheap condenser mic a little edgy on some things?

Step 3. Hey this new cheap condenser mic is noisier than some of my dynamic mics, especially on really quiet instruments. My dynamic actually sounds better on some stuff.

Step 4. I guess you get what you pay for. Oh well, maybe I can sell it on eBay and get one that’s quieter and less distorted.

In this case, being disillusioned (or without illusion) is a good thing because you have learned to hear the difference.

How To Compare Microphones

1. To do this test you first need matching mic cables and preamps.

2. Pan two channels to the center position. Turn of all effects, EQ and excess routing and make the simplest path to the headphone jack.

3. Get a good set of headphones. I like Sony MDR 7506 for this test because of their high frequency response.

4. Place the mics in stands so that they are about two inches apart and angled slightly inward. (Position the stands so you can comfortably get to the console controls.)

5. Plug each mic into a separate channel.

6. Using your vice as a source, set a nominal level with the input trim for the first mic, and set the channel fader to unity gain (that’s usually about 3/4 up).

7. Set the trim of the second mic channel input trim to the same spot the first trim pot is set.

8. Place your mouth about six inches away from the mics. Speak straight ahead so that your voice is picked up by both mics equally.

9. Using the bus buttons, switch from one mic to another. Adjust the second trim as needed until the voice is at the same level on each mic.

10. If the second input trim is higher than the first, the first mic is more sensitive. If the second input trim is lower than the first, the first mic is less sensitive.

11. Stop talking and get the studio as quiet as you can. Turn up the headphones a bit. Check for relative self-noise differences by listening to each mic. As I mentioned earlier, self-noise sounds like white noise, sort of a Pffffffffff.

And there you have it.


Ty: The u 89 is brighter than the cmc641, It has that presence peak. With some vocalists, I have to pull down around 6 kHz to get rid of the edge.

BTW, guess what mic on Gerry's vocals? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhDtH5OMpv8

Regards,

Ty Ford

Yes, I should also be clear that I am talking about high quality mics, specifically Neumanns ;-)

Not the cheap crap that has come out in the last few years. In a previous era there was no need to make the distinction, since there were only a few choices, all good.

Actually my 'go to first' mic for vocals is the TLM170, not the U-87. It has a small peak, but it is high - above the main voice range, more in the 'air' range. I use the U-87 if I feel a vocalist is lacking in presence, as it has a more pronounced peak closer to the vocal presence range. Also, the TLM170 is quieter than the U-87 and slightly less prone to pops. I like the less colored sound of the TLM170, as I prefer to use the console EQ if I want to mess with the sound. It does have a slightly smaller diaphram than the U-87, perhaps a factor in its smaller peak and less susuptability to pops. (Neumann does refer to it as a 'large condensor mic' though).

That would be very surprising to me. In my experience, the pattern has more effect than the specfic mic. The more directional, the more prone to popping. It's very clear with switchable pattern mics - if a mic is popping in cardiod, switch to omni and the problem goes away (usually).

We probably have different perceptions from different usages. It is not uncommon to have a pop vocalist in a studio screaming at the top of their lungs an inch away from the mic. I'm guessing you rarely use your cmc641 that way. ;-) If the highy directional cmc641 can handle THAT without pops I DEFINITELY would like to hear it.

I'm sure the cmc641 can record vocals beautifully when used appropriately.

I've recorded a few singers that seemed to have more 'pop' than 'voice'. ;-)

I wouldn't even hazard a guess. You really can't tell such subtle differences once things are mixed.

Also, as recently dramatically brought to my attention here, U-Tube does such horrible things to audio, it is questionable if you could tell the difference between a $10 Radio Shack mic and your cmc641 after it went through their processing.

-Mike

You and I are in the same camp regarding the TLM 170, u 89. Both are frequently overshadowed by the u 87.Poppability of mics depends mostly on the headgrille and the distance between the headgrille and the diaphragm. Putting a pop filter right up against the headgrille of a mic really doesn't give you much. YOu need space between the

Sure omni patterns don't pop as easily as more directional patterns (in general and all other things being equal), but having a vocalist yell into any LD mic in cardioid pattern vocal mic that's only an inch or two away is just asking for popping trouble. I usually push 'em back by increasing their headphone level so they hear PLENTY at a proper distance. If they get too close, the proximity effect can result in a muddy track.

If you provide the cmc641 with a headgrille (pop filter) and similar distance between the headgrille and element as you'd find with an LD mic, the popping potential is about the same. Then too, I don't have vocalists sing right down the throat of the cmc641. I get them to sing across or under it. OOOPS! another trade secret gone.

Regards,

Ty Ford

No huge secret. I generally put an LD mic in front of the forehead, angled toward the mouth. It reduces pops, and delivers the character of the head resonance, rather than the muddiness of chest resonance. If the singer sounds thin, I move the mic below the mouth to add more chest voice.

I don't even consider putting the mic right in front of the mouth. I guess that would be good if you need more definition in the consonants.

It's always amazed me how many people stick the mouth right on the mic. I learnt from the voice over engineers in London Soho back in late 80's and it was always speak across the mic. We did not even own a pop guard. Sometimes employed the foam though. Brought the mic in close for people v/o's like Bill Mitchell I think, for the proximity effect. Other than that it was considered unnatural to place the voice so close to the mic.

I wonder if you guys would hazard a guess at what Nuamann 's they where as I don't know the names. It was late '80's and they where shorter than a U87 and a stubbier with various polar patterns. Not sure if they had power supplies but I think they might had. I've often wondered what model they where. would appreciate solving that old mystery. Jim

The TLM170 is a bit stubbier and was quite popular in the 80s - but it could even then have been a number of vintage Neumanns - not much point guessing, I suppose?

There were 3 identical ones. They where that shape but the pattern selector was rotary but on the side. You slid it left to right. Not a little rotary knob but more like a focus ring. Maybe I will never know.

Normally I set up a vocal mic with the pop screen about 8 inches from the mic, and use all the techniques mentioned. Ninety eight percent of the time, that works. But not always.
Vocalists do not always stay put, and I have had them push the pop screen right into the mic, and stand on their tiptoes to reach up to a mic, etc.

Here is a not uncommon situation with rock albums:

It's the last day of tracking. The lead vocals are the last thing done (common), we are doing the last vocal. If on analog 24 track (lots of rock still done that way), we have only one track left, and are actually recording over the scratch vocal. It's a big, loud, screamer production number, which the vocalist has saved for last because he knows he is going to shred his voice doing it. If I'm lucky, he will tell me something like 'the next take is going to be much louder - and I can only do this -once- before my voice is shredded'.

I have then exactly ONE chance to get this performance. The singer is going to go to a place where he is completely immersed in his performance. He is very likely to move around his mic position, studio technique will NOT be what is on his mind, and he is likely to revert to whatever he is used to doing in his live performance, which may mean gettng right on top of the mic.

In such a situation, I will put the mic in omni mode to reduce the potential for pops and reduce problems with changing frequency response as he moves around.

There are a few situations where it is actually appropriate to have a vocalist right on top of the mic. For example, if I have a very good singer, with lots of control, with a very wide dynamic range, who has very skilled mic technique, doing certains kinds of material which may go from practically a whisper to very strong - there is a certain kind of extreme presence which you can get this way which is just stunning.

I have also used figure 8 pattern on lead vocals, typically to null out some extraneous sound source or the side wall first reflections while deliberately picking up some more distant room sound.

I have used every common studio mic pattern on lead vocals in different circumstances, with the sole exception of the hypercardioid pattern (hence my interest in Ty's earlier mention of good results with this - I would not have expected this) (Nor have I used a shotgun for a lead vocal, or a parabolic, or a lav, which I also would not expect to sound very good).

The point I am trying to make (in the context of this thread) is this: there is more than one 'correct' way to do it, and having a multi-pattern mic may be useful enough to justify the expense, because it gives you more options. I would -personally- find having just ONE pattern (in this case the cmc641 hypercardioid), no matter how wonderful the mic, a little too limiting.

I have seen too many people use cardioid mics for EVERYTHING.

If you want to start a heated discussion amongst engineers, just get them together and mention 'mics' and 'mic technique'. If you want to see actual blood to flow, also mention 'studio monitors'. ;-)

That's my $0.02

-Mike

Look here, there are pictures:

Georg Neumann GmbH - Products/Current Microphones

-MD

Jimmy,

The u 89 looks like a jr version of the u 87. Even stubbier and fatter is the TLM 170.

Regards,

Ty Ford

They must have been M 149's. Interesting. Except I'm not sure it was available in the late '80's.
Actually I went to that page a few years ago Mike and came to the same non conclusion... Definitely looked like the same mic though.

I was in my current studio when I reviewed the m149 for Pro Audio Review. I've been here almost 12 years, so not the 1980s.

Regards,

Ty Ford

Hi Jim,
I've been seriously thinking of getting the Sony D50 from your recommendation. I'm wondering if it works as a regular microphone that I can plug directly in my XH-A1 with XLR cables as well.
I've seen some recorders on the market that have XLR inputs, are these for use with other mics?

If the Sony won't work for that can you recommend a unit that will? Also are ther recorders that have rechargable batteries, instead of buying new ones all the time?

I guess I should have just asked if the Sony D50 can also be used as a mic for the A1.

Michael

Hi Michael

Interesting question. I never would have thought of that one.

I checked, and the line out jack is hot when recording so I guess it would be possible.

However, I wouldn't recommend using it that way. because by going to the camera you'd be degrading the sound. The Sony captures at 96k Hz per second and 24 bits PCM uncompressed whereas I think the camera would be at 48k Hz and 16 bit compressed, so right away there would be a degradation in quality. Also, by going through the Sony's pre-amps and A to D and then D to A and then into the camera's A to D (and maybe through the camera pre-amps - not sure if they bypass the pre-amp on line in or just put a pad in-line and then make the trip through the camera pre-amps anyhow) you're running through a lot of electronics which inevitably adds noise at every step.

Much better to just import the PCM audio from the recorder into your editing package and line it up with the video, I think. You might want to use the camera mic to make it easy to synchronize the two, but I think for what you"re doing the sync doesn't have to be as precise as for lip-sync - a frame or so off I don't think anyone would notice. (I might be wrong!)

Re batteries - I got a really rather good recharging unit (Powerex) and I use rechargeables for the Sony and for my Sound Devices mixer. They work fine.

As I had mentioned, I'll be in Sante Fe in a couple of weeks and would be happy to bring the Sony as well as the Schoeps mics for you to compare.

OK so it seems the Sony is not really suitable for this. I was wondering more in the case of an emergency situation where plugging into the Sony would be better than the Mic onboard the XH-A1.

Thanks for helping with this.

Yes by all means lets get together when you are here in Santa Fe. Better to email me at this address.
michaelthames1@mac.com

505 474 6628

One more question Jim, then I'll leave you alone on this Sunday afternoon. Does the Sony work as a interface for the computer. In other words can I use it as a plug in mic for doing voice overs or narration in Soundtrack or Garageband?

Michael

Michael

Don't worry about my schedule - My real job is as a business development consultant for Japanese companies with US partnerships so I work almost Japan time - it's already Monday in Tokyo so this makes a nice break between phone calls across the Pacific!

I think the only reasonable way to use the Sony is to record to it and then upload the files to the PC over USB. No reason you couldn't use it for voice over, but it would be best to record to a file and then upload it.

I think though that there are probably better mics for VO. I'm quite happy with my (reasonably priced) Rode NT2-A in Omni mode and I have a small cigar sized unit that has an XLR connector on one end and a USB interface on the other - it's called a micport pro and it works very well indeed - even provides phantom power to any XLR mic. Link follows.

CEntrance -> MicPort Pro

The Schoeps CMC641 is also great for voice (and other things) as Ty says, but it's pricey.

[QUOTE=Jim Andrada;1180155]Michael

Don't worry about my schedule - My real job is as a business development consultant for Japanese companies with US partnerships so I work almost Japan time - it's already Monday in Tokyo so this makes a nice break between phone calls across the Pacific!

I think the only reasonable way to use the Sony is to record to it and then upload the files to the PC over USB. No reason you couldn't use it for voice over, but it would be best to record to a file and then upload it.

I think though that there are probably better mics for VO. I'm quite happy with my (reasonably priced) Rode NT2-A in Omni mode and I have a small cigar sized unit that has an XLR connector on one end and a USB interface on the other - it's called a micport pro and it works very well indeed - even provides phantom power to any XLR mic. Link follows.

What A great job you have. I've spent a lot of time on that side of the pond, and love it over there.

Well thanks to your recommendations I bought the Sony D50, should get here tomorrow. After going back in the archives here, I came across your post comparing the Scheops, and the Sony D50, very interesting, considering the investment. For me at this point I think the Sony d50 will be much more useful for my purposes.

My wife, and her girlfriend, went to the Opera last night, (starts way too late for my tastes). They came home early, it was a modern opera, (dang, I forget the name) and my wife being Italian likes the classic Italian composers. Wonderful production, and setting out doors and up on the hill.

When I was a teenager I was a bellboy at the Inn At Lorretto here in Santa Fe. I remember taking Nino Rota's ( wrote music for Fellini's films) bags up. He was premiering an Opera that year in Santa Fe. I asked him to come and hear me play classical guitar during "happy hour" in the bar.

I was a bellboy by day, and played guitar there by night great job, in those days.

I think you'll be happy with the Sony - most people are pretty satisfied with it.

I'll get in touch before heading to Santa Fe - would still like to come by and say hello. My wife used to be a concert pianist in Japan and was a rehearsal pianist for San Jose Opera for several years when we lived in the Bay area. I'm purely an amateur musician and play tuba in a British style brass band. I studied classical guitar for a few years, but never had enough talent or dexterity (or dedication???) to play well so I gave it up.

Jim thanks again for the recommendation on the Sony PCM D50, I think it's amazing! Here is a video I did yesterday with it.
YouTube - Patrick Sise plays Bach, violin suite BWV 1001 Fugue
I used Pluraleyes to sync up the video and audio together. This software is a real lifesaver!
Singular Software

Michael

I thought you'd be happy with it. For the $$$ it's hard to beat. I think the clarity is much better than some of the other links you've posted and it does indeed seem to do a good job of showing off the high end of the guitar.

I think now it's a matter of experimentation with positioning and distance. Closer would be a bit better I think, but it might also interfere with the video if you wanted to keep the unit out of the picture. As with all things, it's a matter of trading off the various constraints to get the result that's important to YOU.

We'll be in Santa Fe week after next. If you're around, we'd like to stop by.

By all means please stop by!