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

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

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

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.

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

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2AsQwcwZc&feature=channel_page)

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

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

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

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.

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

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV2AsQwcwZc&feature=channel_page)

Michael

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

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.

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

While we're on the subject of recording, can anyone advise how to avoid "finger squeaks"?

This helps a bit:
Fingerease Guitar String Lubricant and more Fretted Instrument Care and Cleaning at GuitarCenter.com. (http://www.guitarcenter.com/Fingerease-Guitar-String-Lubricant-100095424-i1133493.gc)

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

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

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

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 (http://www.posthorn.com/S_capsulesonly.html)

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.

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 (http://www.posthorn.com/S_capsulesonly.html)

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

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.

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.


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

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

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.

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

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.

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


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.

[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 (http://www.vimeo.com/5330259)

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

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.

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

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.



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

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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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'. ;-)


BTW, guess what mic on Gerry's vocals? YouTube - "What You Think This Is" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhDtH5OMpv8)


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

I get them to sing across or under it. OOOPS! another trade secret gone.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.

I get them to sing across or under it. OOOPS! another trade secret gone.

Regards,

Ty Ford

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

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.

Look here, there are pictures:

Georg Neumann GmbH - Products/Current Microphones (http://www.neumann.com/?id=current_microphones&lang=en)

-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

Something just occurred to me. I keep thinking that recording into the camera isn't necessarily going to give you the best result. Typically cameras are designed to record video and sound seems sort of like almost an afterthought. Scan these forums and people are always complaining about why even very expensive cameras have less than stellar pre-amps etc

And 16 bit/48k isn't really the best for music. Voice, dialogue, OK, but the demands of squeezing video into limited bandwidth always seems to dictate that sound will be sacrificed to make room for video.

Thinking about all of this, I wonder if you've ever looked at something like the Sony PCM-D50 all in one mic/recorder, or maybe one of the Zoom products.

I have the Sony and am always rather pleasantly surprised at how good the mics are at the price point. I've done a couple of brass band recordings going simultaneously into a Schoeps/Sound Devices setup and the Sony. The result is always that the high priced spread is better - but the little Sony ain't bad! Much better than you might think.

I did a demo disk for a local classical guitarist a few months back and was planning on recording both ways, but for some reason I can't remember at the moment I didn't use the Sony so I don't have a good comparison at hand, unfortunately.

One thing I did do was to have a metal adapter made up so I could mount the Sony in a shock mount on a mic stand and I think this made it much more usable.

Anyhow, just a suggestion that you might want to look into.


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.