mics for classical guitar

[chris ruth]

Any recommendations for mics that may be an upgrade from Oktava
MK-012s for recording classical guitar.
Let pre-empt some of your questions

room - ok, treated so kind of 'dead' on purpose
guitar - great!
player - ok (well it's me, i can post some recordings if you want to
gauge that)
equipment - usbpre 2 and laptop...that's it!
I will also do some guitar orchestra (boston guitar orchestra)
recordings live, and spaces vary alot.

thats
Chris

[swanny]

Post by chris ruth
Any recommendations for mics that may be an upgrade from Oktava
MK-012s for recording classical guitar.
Let pre-empt some of your questions
room - ok, treated so kind of 'dead' on purpose
guitar - great!
player - ok (well it's me, i can post some recordings if you want to
gauge that)
equipment - usbpre 2 and laptop...that's it!
I will also do some guitar orchestra (boston guitar orchestra)
recordings live, and spaces vary alot.
thats
Chris

AKG C451 ?

[Nate Najar]

schoeps cmc 641

trust me

[Charles Tomaras]

Post by Nate Najar
schoeps cmc 641
trust me

Why would you recommend the Schoeps MK41 capsule for solo classical guitar
in a dead room? Seems an MK4 cardiod would be a better choice.

[Don Pearce]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:33:05 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"

Post by Charles Tomaras

Post by Nate Najar
schoeps cmc 641
trust me

Why would you recommend the Schoeps MK41 capsule for solo classical guitar
in a dead room? Seems an MK4 cardiod would be a better choice.

If the room is dead there is no need for a cardioid. Much better to
keep the smoother response of the omni.

d

[Arny Krueger]

Post by Don Pearce
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 22:33:05 -0800, "Charles Tomaras"

Post by Charles Tomaras

Post by Nate Najar
schoeps cmc 641
trust me

Why would you recommend the Schoeps MK41 capsule for solo classical guitar
in a dead room? Seems an MK4 cardiod would be a better choice.

If the room is dead there is no need for a cardioid. Much better to
keep the smoother response of the omni.

Not only that, but one of the justifications for high priced cardioids is
their allegedly superior off-axis response. With omnis, off-axis response is
strongly defined by the diaphragm's diameter.

Question to the OP - have you tried the omni capsule for your MK-012?

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Don Pearce
If the room is dead there is no need for a cardioid. Much better to
keep the smoother response of the omni.

Ah, we get to disagree Don, depending of course on whether the room is dead
but nice sounding or dead and boring.

To reap the omni benefits requires a well sounding room.

Also the off axis response doesn't really matter if there is no room sound
that gets influenced by it.

Post by Don Pearce
d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:20:02 +0100, "Peter Larsen"

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Don Pearce
If the room is dead there is no need for a cardioid. Much better to
keep the smoother response of the omni.

Ah, we get to disagree Don, depending of course on whether the room is dead
but nice sounding or dead and boring.
To reap the omni benefits requires a well sounding room.
Also the off axis response doesn't really matter if there is no room sound
that gets influenced by it.

Post by Don Pearce
d

Kind regards
Peter Larsen

Dead is dead. Considering whether it is nice sounding or not is a
little like asking whether a light that is switched off is better with
a blue bulb or a pink one.

As for off axis not mattering in a dead room - that is exactly why I
suggested using an omni instead. The on-axis response of an omni is
generally much better than that of its cardioid equivalent.

In a live room, of course, the situation is more complex (and much
more fun). If the room sound is good, then moving an omni back a
little might be good. This is not usually the best solution with a
cardioid, because it inevitably has a much more coloured response
off-axis that will not improve things. There are many combinations,
not all of them euphonic.

d

[Peter Larsen]

Post by Don Pearce
Dead is dead.

Only in an an-echoic room, in real world rooms "dead" is a room with too
little treble and too much bass.

Post by Don Pearce
Considering whether it is nice sounding or not is a
little like asking whether a light that is switched off is better with
a blue bulb or a pink one.
As for off axis not mattering in a dead room - that is exactly why I
suggested using an omni instead. The on-axis response of an omni is
generally much better than that of its cardioid equivalent.

Just one example to counter this: the CK1 cardioid has a smoother, albeit
gently rising, response on axis than the CK22 omni based on a measurement
referencing a 4006 in a higly damped listening room, I probably still have
the raw measurement data on some harddisk.

Post by Don Pearce
In a live room, of course, the situation is more complex (and much
more fun). If the room sound is good, then moving an omni back a
little might be good. This is not usually the best solution with a
cardioid, because it inevitably has a much more coloured response
off-axis that will not improve things. There are many combinations,
not all of them euphonic.

Yes. But in a dead room I'll take a cardioid over an omni or a subcardiod
because of the lack of treble from the room sound that is there. It is
simpler than having to split the recording into M and S and boost the treble
on the S.

Post by Don Pearce
d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce]

On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:47:25 +0100, "Peter Larsen"

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Don Pearce
Dead is dead.

Only in an an-echoic room, in real world rooms "dead" is a room with too
little treble and too much bass.

Post by Don Pearce
Considering whether it is nice sounding or not is a
little like asking whether a light that is switched off is better with
a blue bulb or a pink one.
As for off axis not mattering in a dead room - that is exactly why I
suggested using an omni instead. The on-axis response of an omni is
generally much better than that of its cardioid equivalent.

Just one example to counter this: the CK1 cardioid has a smoother, albeit
gently rising, response on axis than the CK22 omni based on a measurement
referencing a 4006 in a higly damped listening room, I probably still have
the raw measurement data on some harddisk.

You can always find an exception to a general rule. Doesn't make the
rule wrong.

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Don Pearce
In a live room, of course, the situation is more complex (and much
more fun). If the room sound is good, then moving an omni back a
little might be good. This is not usually the best solution with a
cardioid, because it inevitably has a much more coloured response
off-axis that will not improve things. There are many combinations,
not all of them euphonic.

Yes. But in a dead room I'll take a cardioid over an omni or a subcardiod
because of the lack of treble from the room sound that is there. It is
simpler than having to split the recording into M and S and boost the treble
on the S.

Post by Don Pearce
d

Kind regards
Peter Larsen

OK, just a difference in definition of the word "dead". For me, dead
equals anechoic. If there is any kind of reverb, the room is not dead.

d

.

[Ty Ford]

Post by Don Pearce
OK, just a difference in definition of the word "dead". For me, dead
equals anechoic. If there is any kind of reverb, the room is not dead.
d

Please revisit the OP.

"kind of 'dead' "

The modifiers "kind" and "of" = "not"

Do any of us have access to an anechoic room?

Other than Don, of course.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

[Don Pearce]

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Don Pearce
OK, just a difference in definition of the word "dead". For me, dead
equals anechoic. If there is any kind of reverb, the room is not dead.
d

Please revisit the OP.
"kind of 'dead' "
The modifiers "kind" and "of" = "not"
Do any of us have access to an anechoic room?
Other than Don, of course.

I no longer take any notice of words like "kind of". They are
meaningless in the modern argot.

d

[Ty Ford]

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Don Pearce
OK, just a difference in definition of the word "dead". For me, dead
equals anechoic. If there is any kind of reverb, the room is not dead.
d

Please revisit the OP.
"kind of 'dead' "
The modifiers "kind" and "of" = "not"
Do any of us have access to an anechoic room?
Other than Don, of course.

I no longer take any notice of words like "kind of". They are
meaningless in the modern argot.
d

That explains so much! Henceforth I'll remember that you truncate instead of
dither.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

[Don Pearce]

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Don Pearce
OK, just a difference in definition of the word "dead". For me, dead
equals anechoic. If there is any kind of reverb, the room is not dead.
d

Please revisit the OP.
"kind of 'dead' "
The modifiers "kind" and "of" = "not"
Do any of us have access to an anechoic room?
Other than Don, of course.

I no longer take any notice of words like "kind of". They are
meaningless in the modern argot.
d

That explains so much! Henceforth I'll remember that you truncate instead of
dither.

Oh yes. I've never been one to dither.

d

[geoff]

Post by Don Pearce
Oh yes. I've never been one to dither.

Me neither. I think .....

geoff

[Ty Ford]

Post by geoff

Post by Don Pearce
Oh yes. I've never been one to dither.

Me neither. I think .....
geoff

:)

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

[Arkansan Raider]

Post by geoff

Post by Don Pearce
Oh yes. I've never been one to dither.

Me neither. I think .....
geoff

LOL

---Jeff

[Arny Krueger]

Post by Don Pearce
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:47:25 +0100, "Peter Larsen"

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Don Pearce
Dead is dead.

Only in an an-echoic room, in real world rooms "dead" is a room with too
little treble and too much bass.

Post by Don Pearce
Considering whether it is nice sounding or not is a
little like asking whether a light that is switched off is better with
a blue bulb or a pink one.
As for off axis not mattering in a dead room - that is exactly why I
suggested using an omni instead. The on-axis response of an omni is
generally much better than that of its cardioid equivalent.

Just one example to counter this: the CK1 cardioid has a smoother, albeit
gently rising, response on axis than the CK22 omni based on a measurement
referencing a 4006 in a higly damped listening room, I probably still have
the raw measurement data on some harddisk.

You can always find an exception to a general rule. Doesn't make the
rule wrong.

To help clarify, it is generally true that other than omni mics designed for
measurements (e.g. the 4006), the on-axis response of normal ominis used for
recording is slightly peaked above 5-10 KHz. The usual reason given is that
the rising response overcomes the slight dulling due to rolled-off off-axis
response in normal, somewhat reverberent rooms. A highly damped room would
be your exceptional case.

IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Don Pearce
In a live room, of course, the situation is more complex (and much
more fun). If the room sound is good, then moving an omni back a
little might be good. This is not usually the best solution with a
cardioid, because it inevitably has a much more coloured response
off-axis that will not improve things. There are many combinations,
not all of them euphonic.

Yes. But in a dead room I'll take a cardioid over an omni or a subcardiod
because of the lack of treble from the room sound that is there. It is
simpler than having to split the recording into M and S and boost the treble
on the S.

Post by Don Pearce
d

Kind regards

OK, just a difference in definition of the word "dead". For me, dead
equals anechoic. If there is any kind of reverb, the room is not dead.

In the real world truely anechoic rooms are very rare. Rooms that are full
of thick rugs, wall hangings, diffusive ceilings and overstuffed furniture
are not common but are also not very rare. In such rooms, Peter's comments
may apply. Of course, you can always throw in a little treble eq during
subsequent production steps. However, eq applies to the whole mic, not just
the on-axis or off-axis response.

Most cardioids used for recording are at least as peaked up as the omnis.

[chris ruth]

Post by Arny Krueger

Post by Don Pearce
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 15:47:25 +0100, "Peter Larsen"

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Don Pearce
Dead is dead.

Only in an an-echoic room, in real world rooms "dead" is a room with too
little treble and too much bass.

Post by Don Pearce
Considering whether it is nice sounding or not is a
little like asking whether a light that is switched off is better with
a blue bulb or a pink one.
As for off axis not mattering in a dead room - that is exactly why I
suggested using an omni instead. The on-axis response of an omni is
generally much better than that of its cardioid equivalent.

Just one example to counter this: the CK1 cardioid has a smoother, albeit
gently rising, response on axis than the CK22 omni based on a measurement
referencing a 4006 in a higly damped listening room, I probably still have
the raw measurement data on some harddisk.

You can always find an exception to a general rule. Doesn't make the
rule wrong.

To help clarify, it is generally true that other than omni mics designed for
measurements (e.g. the 4006), the on-axis response of normal ominis used for
recording is slightly peaked above 5-10 KHz.  The usual reason given is that
the rising response overcomes the slight dulling due to rolled-off off-axis
response in normal, somewhat reverberent rooms. A highly damped room would
be your exceptional case.
IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Peter Larsen

Post by Don Pearce
In a live room, of course, the situation is more complex (and much
more fun). If the room sound is good, then moving an omni back a
little might be good. This is not usually the best solution with a
cardioid, because it inevitably has a much more coloured response
off-axis that will not improve things. There are many combinations,
not all of them euphonic.

Yes. But in a dead room I'll take a cardioid over an omni or a subcardiod
because of the lack of treble from the room sound that is there. It is
simpler than having to split the recording into M and S and boost the treble
on the S.

Post by Don Pearce
d

 Kind regards

OK, just a difference in definition of the word "dead". For me, dead
equals anechoic. If there is any kind of reverb, the room is not dead.

In the real world truely anechoic rooms are very rare. Rooms that are full
of thick rugs, wall hangings, diffusive ceilings and overstuffed furniture
are not common but are also not very rare. In such rooms, Peter's comments
may apply.  Of course, you can always throw in a little treble eq during
subsequent production steps. However, eq applies to the whole mic, not just
the on-axis or off-axis response.
Most cardioids used for recording are at least as peaked up as the omnis.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Well maybe i just need some help with positioning. I've tried the
usual, x-y, spaced pair, orft. But they all have one thing in common
(in my setup).
They all sound better very close to the guitar, 6-12inches from 12th
fret (way too boomy if i get near the soundhole). So that would imply
the room sucks, right? But it still sounds great in that room if i
just sit a few feet in front of the guitar (with someone else playing)

I could post some mp3 files of a simple test if anyone would oblige
me.
Maybe 1 mic, 6inches away, and 3 feet away. Then you can judge.

thanks

[PStamler]

Post by chris ruth
Well maybe i just need some help with positioning. I've tried the
usual, x-y, spaced pair, orft. But they all have one thing in common
(in my setup).
They all sound better very close to the guitar, 6-12inches from 12th
fret (way too boomy if i get near the soundhole).

Again, if you've been doing ORTF or XY with omnis, you're not really
doing ORTF or XY. Try them with cardioids (at 110 degree angle) or
hypercardioids (at 90 degree angle).

So that would imply

Post by chris ruth
the room sucks, right? But it still sounds great in that room if i
just sit a few feet in front of the guitar (with someone else playing)

The thing is, the human brain does amazing compensation; it can make a
room which sucks for a microphone sound great. There isn't a mic made
that can do that.

Here's a tardy question: what are the room's dimensions?

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Arny Krueger
To help clarify, it is generally true that other than omni mics designed for
measurements (e.g. the 4006), the on-axis response of normal ominis used for
recording is slightly peaked above 5-10 KHz. The usual reason given is that
the rising response overcomes the slight dulling due to rolled-off off-axis
response in normal, somewhat reverberent rooms. A highly damped room would
be your exceptional case.

The 4006 is very much not designed for measurements. The 4145 is designed
for measurements, the 4006 and the like are much less expensive designs
intended for recording work.

Some of the issue with that high end peak is that it is difficult to avoid
due to internal resonances of some capsule designs. It's not entirely
deliberate.

Post by Arny Krueger
IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

Post by Arny Krueger
In the real world truely anechoic rooms are very rare. Rooms that are full
of thick rugs, wall hangings, diffusive ceilings and overstuffed furniture
are not common but are also not very rare. In such rooms, Peter's comments
may apply. Of course, you can always throw in a little treble eq during
subsequent production steps. However, eq applies to the whole mic, not just
the on-axis or off-axis response.

In the seventies there was a very big push for making studios dead at high
frequencies and in the midrange, in an attempt to get better isolation
for multitrack recording. Unfortunately this mostly resulted in severely
unbalanced rooms that were still reverberant at low frequencies but dead as
hell at high frequencies. When the room sound is unbalanced, pulling the
mikes back gets you more unbalanced room sound.

Post by Arny Krueger
Most cardioids used for recording are at least as peaked up as the omnis.

Most of them are more so because of physical geometry issues. It is very,
very hard to make a cardioid that is flat in the free field.
--scott

[Don Pearce]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Arny Krueger
IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

d

[Nate Najar]

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Arny Krueger
IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.
d

yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:32:10 -0800 (PST), Nate Najar

Post by Nate Najar

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Arny Krueger
IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.
d

yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

The mk41 will do very nicely, but at 110 degrees, you get a bit of a
response dip in the middle. Somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees would
be better.

d

[Ty Ford]

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Nate Najar
yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

The mk41 will do very nicely, but at 110 degrees, you get a bit of a
response dip in the middle. Somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees would
be better.
d

Don,

No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

[Don Pearce]

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Nate Najar
yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

The mk41 will do very nicely, but at 110 degrees, you get a bit of a
response dip in the middle. Somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees would
be better.
d

Don,
No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?

Absolutely not - I'm dead certain it is somewhere between ;-)

d

[Ty Ford]

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Nate Najar
yes but ortf sounds oh so good with the mk41's

The mk41 will do very nicely, but at 110 degrees, you get a bit of a
response dip in the middle. Somewhere between 80 and 90 degrees would
be better.
d

Don,
No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?

Absolutely not - I'm dead certain it is somewhere between ;-)
d

! :)

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

[geoff]

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Ty Ford
Don,
No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?

Absolutely not - I'm dead certain it is somewhere between ;-)
d

Or not.

geoff

[Don Pearce]

Post by geoff

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Ty Ford
Don,
No dithering. Is it 80 or 90?

Absolutely not - I'm dead certain it is somewhere between ;-)
d

Or not.

No, it definitely is, probably.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Arny Krueger
IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

This is sadly true. The Oktavas are better off-axis than you'd ever
expect, though. The hypercardioids are better in that regard than the
cardioids.
--scott

[PStamler]

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Arny Krueger
IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

This is sadly true.  The Oktavas are better off-axis than you'd ever
expect, though.  The hypercardioids are better in that regard than the
cardioids.

The Neumann KM 84s are also excellent off-axis, and give great ORTF.
And I've achieved very good results with the Microtech Gefell M930s,
which is something of a surprise, since they have larger capsules. But
they're nice and uniform off-axis, and do a great ORTF.

I'd be interested to hear what a pair of Neumann TLM102s did. When I
tested one, it sounded unusually uniform off-axis, but I couldn't try
ORTF because they only sent one of them.

Peace,
Paul

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:19:47 -0800 (PST), PStamler

Post by PStamler

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Arny Krueger
IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

This is sadly true.  The Oktavas are better off-axis than you'd ever
expect, though.  The hypercardioids are better in that regard than the
cardioids.

The Neumann KM 84s are also excellent off-axis, and give great ORTF.
And I've achieved very good results with the Microtech Gefell M930s,
which is something of a surprise, since they have larger capsules. But
they're nice and uniform off-axis, and do a great ORTF.
I'd be interested to hear what a pair of Neumann TLM102s did. When I
tested one, it sounded unusually uniform off-axis, but I couldn't try
ORTF because they only sent one of them.

I think it would be a fair generalization to say that you are more
likely to have success with a small diaphragm than a large one.
Off-axis response is a matter of geometry (provided on-axis is OK),
which is favoured by smaller dimensions.

d

[PStamler]

Post by Don Pearce
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:19:47 -0800 (PST), PStamler

Post by PStamler

Post by Don Pearce

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Arny Krueger
IME, the above statement of Peter's is a reasonable generalization.

It's more or less academic since the fellow says he's using ORTF which
means he's using a cardioid mike.

ORTF (and similar) have an inbuilt problem. All the good stuff at
centre stage is 55 degrees off-axis. You need a really fine cardioid
for that to sound good. A look at the polar plots of most cardioids
will show that they aren't even the germ of a good choice for ORTF.

This is sadly true.  The Oktavas are better off-axis than you'd ever
expect, though.  The hypercardioids are better in that regard than the
cardioids.

The Neumann KM 84s are also excellent off-axis, and give great ORTF.
And I've achieved very good results with the Microtech Gefell M930s,
which is something of a surprise, since they have larger capsules. But
they're nice and uniform off-axis, and do a great ORTF.
I'd be interested to hear what a pair of Neumann TLM102s did. When I
tested one, it sounded unusually uniform off-axis, but I couldn't try
ORTF because they only sent one of them.

I think it would be a fair generalization to say that you are more
likely to have success with a small diaphragm than a large one.
Off-axis response is a matter of geometry (provided on-axis is OK),
which is favoured by smaller dimensions.

In general that's true. But in the last few years some larger-
diaphragm mics (like the M930 and the TLM102) have arrived which seem
to defy the laws of physics by behaving more like smaller-diaphragm
mics at 90 degrees off axis. I don't know how they manage it, but I'm
not going to turn them down.

Peace,
Paul

[Ty Ford]

Post by Peter Larsen
Ah, we get to disagree Don, depending of course on whether the room is dead
but nice sounding or dead and boring

+1!

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Charles Tomaras

Post by Nate Najar
schoeps cmc 641
trust me

Why would you recommend the Schoeps MK41 capsule for solo classical guitar
in a dead room? Seems an MK4 cardiod would be a better choice.

From my perspective, I will almost always take the MK41 over the MK4. If
you want more ambience, just pull it farther away!
--scott

[Charles Tomaras]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Charles Tomaras

Post by Nate Najar
schoeps cmc 641
trust me

Why would you recommend the Schoeps MK41 capsule for solo classical guitar
in a dead room? Seems an MK4 cardiod would be a better choice.

From my perspective, I will almost always take the MK41 over the MK4. If
you want more ambience, just pull it farther away!
--scott

I've not used mine for classical guitar, nor much music for that matter but
I do have many hours of dialog and interview experience with my Schoeps
stuff and almost always prefer the sound of the MK4 over the MK41 if the
room sound and camera headroom will allow.

[chris ruth]

Post by Charles Tomaras

Post by Nate Najar
schoeps cmc 641
trust me

Why would you recommend  the Schoeps MK41 capsule for solo classical
guitar
in a dead room? Seems an MK4 cardiod would be a better choice.

From my perspective, I will almost always take the MK41 over the MK4.  If
you want more ambience, just pull it farther away!
--scott

I've not used mine for classical guitar, nor much music for that matter but
I do have many hours of dialog and interview experience with my Schoeps
stuff and almost always prefer the sound of the MK4 over the MK41 if the
room sound and camera headroom will allow.

WAIT. You guys are great but i think i should give some more info (as
usual)

Budget ~ $800.

I'd like the mic to work in a variety of settings since i will be
doing some live recordings, but mainly, for my personal use, it will
be a small room with a lot of dampening material (ala ethan winer's
recommendations).

Maybe i should stick with the Octava MK-012s for the small room
recording and just get another mic for live??
I have omni and cardiod capsules for the octavas.

thanks

[Charles Tomaras]

Post by chris ruth

Post by Charles Tomaras

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Charles Tomaras

Post by Nate Najar
schoeps cmc 641
trust me

Why would you recommend the Schoeps MK41 capsule for solo classical guitar
in a dead room? Seems an MK4 cardiod would be a better choice.

From my perspective, I will almost always take the MK41 over the MK4.
If
you want more ambience, just pull it farther away!
--scott

I've not used mine for classical guitar, nor much music for that matter but
I do have many hours of dialog and interview experience with my Schoeps
stuff and almost always prefer the sound of the MK4 over the MK41 if the
room sound and camera headroom will allow.

WAIT. You guys are great but i think i should give some more info (as
usual)
Budget ~ $800.
I'd like the mic to work in a variety of settings since i will be
doing some live recordings, but mainly, for my personal use, it will
be a small room with a lot of dampening material (ala ethan winer's
recommendations).
Maybe i should stick with the Octava MK-012s for the small room
recording and just get another mic for live??
I have omni and cardiod capsules for the octavas.
thanks

Did your gain issues with the Octava's become more manageable with the USB
Pre2?

[Peter Larsen]

chris ruth wrote:

[thread lost in schoepsung]

Post by chris ruth
WAIT. You guys are great but i think i should give some more info (as
usual)
Budget ~ $800.

Allowed for in my suggestions, C42 as well as KSM 141 should be well within
that for a matched pair.

Post by chris ruth
I'd like the mic

Pair of mics - or 4 even, my best folly for many years was to buy 2 pairs of
C42's that cam for sale simultanously - one here in Copenhagen and the other
in the US of A. Perhaps you should devote some time to learn stereo
recording since you keep saying mic rather than mics. Even if for a track in
a multitrack you should in my opinion - track count permitting - record your
guitar in stereo. With a guitar ensemble you DO need to learn how to set a
stereo pair up, it is NOT gonna sound right in multi-mono. If it is just a
spot mic used with a main pair, then using only one mic can be better than
using a pair, a spot mic is there to focus the instrument image.

I'm still only learning, and have been for 40 years, do not expect to get
good at setting up a stereo pair already in take 3.

Post by chris ruth
Maybe i should stick with the Octava MK-012s for the small room
recording and just get another mic for live??
I have omni and cardiod capsules for the octavas.

Just what problem is it you need to solve then, they're perhaps not the
pinnacle of reliability - no mic with detachable capsules is, but not at all
bad mics. You should look into whether a Jecklin disk is a strategy for you,
it is forgiving and very useful in case you can not - and in real life live
recording you rarely can - get far enough away from an ensemble. A problem
that btw. also often necessitates 45 to 60 degrees angle between an ""ORTF
pair"" rather than the ""proper"" ORTF angle of 110 degrees. If there is a
hole in the middle the size of the US budget hole, then the angle needs
narrowing, if too much mono it needs widening, I try to reserve extreme left
and right for ambience. Recorded rooms and stages usually ARE wider than the
ensemble, remember!

Post by chris ruth
thanks

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[PStamler]

I've used the MK012s for ORTF live recordings, with more-than-decent
results. I suggest getting a pair of the hypercardioid capsules;
they're actually closer to real cardioid than the "cardioid" ones.

If you use the MK012s in omni, point them up at the ceiling; the off-
axis response is reasonably flat, while the on-axis response is
bright.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by chris ruth
Maybe i should stick with the Octava MK-012s for the small room
recording and just get another mic for live??

What don't you like about the MK-012s? I think you'll be hard-pressed to
find a pair of anything better in that price range. The Oktava is really
a pretty good mike.
--scott

[chris ruth]

Post by chris ruth
Maybe i should stick with the Octava MK-012s for the small room
recording and just get another mic for live??

What don't you like about the MK-012s?  I think you'll be hard-pressed to
find a pair of anything better in that price range.  The Oktava is really
a pretty good mike.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

First off, i usually them in ORTF, after lots of experimenting (i have
not tried the omni's pointing at the ceiling though. That's why i post
here!) . The issue is no matter what room i try (for solo recording),
i find i have to be very close (like a few inches), otherwise it's
starts to sound like crap (with either capsule). So I do a little EQ
(sometimes) add some reverb and a get a 'decent' recording. However,
the recording never sounds as good as my guitar sounds to my ears.
It's a really beautiful intrument, made by a local luthier, Aaron
Green (i'll give him a plug). And i can't seem to capture that
beautiful sound in a recording. I even tried to record a really good
player playing my guitar. I was blown away by the sound sitting in
front of him but the recording, well just ok.
For ensemble recording i tried ortf not far enough away, with the
omni's and basically got a recording of the center guitars. It was my
first time, i'm totally green. There was another time i recorded a
koto ensemble, put the mics farther, but got too much room and sounded
like crap.

I have not tried the usbpre 2 yet but i'm not expected a huge
improvement from that. All the above was done with a tascam.

thanks

[Peter Larsen]

Post by chris ruth
First off, i usually them in ORTF, after lots of experimenting (i have
not tried the omni's pointing at the ceiling though. That's why i post
here!) . The issue is no matter what room i try (for solo recording),
i find i have to be very close (like a few inches) ,,,

Follow up pending, looks like it will tke more time to type than I have this
morning ...

Post by chris ruth
I have not tried the usbpre 2 yet but i'm not expected a huge
improvement from that. All the above was done with a tascam.

Well, recorder really doesn't matter all that much, mic matters and
positioning thereof.

Anybod who hasn't read it should search for the title "The stereophonic
zoom" in the AES library, it is a 1983 or so item, and the author has
written a new version, possibly including surround.

Post by chris ruth
thanks

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[PStamler]

Post by chris ruth
For ensemble recording i tried ortf not far enough away, with the
omni's and basically got a recording of the center guitars. It was my
first time, i'm totally green. There was another time i recorded a
koto ensemble, put the mics farther, but got too much room and sounded
like crap.

By definition you can't do ORTF with omni mics. ORTF is defined as
using cardioid mics, spaced 7" apart, angled outwards at 110 degrees.
If you're using omni mics in that configuration all you have is spaced
omnis, and with the Oktavas you have the added problem of pointing the
capsules at the musicians, which will brighten up the direct sound
while the room pickup is less bright. This disconnect between the on-
and off-axis sound may be part of the reason you hear the recordings
as sounding like crap.

Do this: set the MK012s up as a real ORTF pair, with the cardioid
capsules. Stick a finger in one of your ears and move around the room
in front of the musician(s) until you find a spot where it sounds good
-- good direct sound, good balance. Put the ORTF pair there and
record. See how that sounds.

Peace,
Paul

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by chris ruth
First off, i usually them in ORTF, after lots of experimenting (i have
not tried the omni's pointing at the ceiling though. That's why i post
here!) . The issue is no matter what room i try (for solo recording),
i find i have to be very close (like a few inches), otherwise it's
starts to sound like crap (with either capsule).

When you encounter this sort of thing, either the microphone is no good
off-axis, or it's a room problem.

The Oktavas are pretty good off-axis.

How is your monitoring?
--scott

[Ty Ford]

Post by Charles Tomaras
I've not used mine for classical guitar, nor much music for that matter but
I do have many hours of dialog and interview experience with my Schoeps
stuff and almost always prefer the sound of the MK4 over the MK41 if the
room sound and camera headroom will allow.

Tried the mk4 and mk41 and went the other way. Liked the mk41 better.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

[John Sorell]

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Charles Tomaras
I've not used mine for classical guitar, nor much music for

that

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Charles Tomaras
matter but I do have many hours of dialog and interview

experience

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Charles Tomaras
with my Schoeps stuff and almost always prefer the sound of

the MK4

Post by Ty Ford

Post by Charles Tomaras
over the MK41 if the room sound and camera headroom will

allow.

Post by Ty Ford
Tried the mk4 and mk41 and went the other way. Liked the mk41

better.

Post by Ty Ford
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

Ty,

Sorry for bringing up a late thread. What made you like the MK41
capsule better than the MK4?

Thanks,

John

[Ty Ford]

Post by Charles Tomaras

Post by Nate Najar
schoeps cmc 641
trust me

Why would you recommend the Schoeps MK41 capsule for solo classical guitar
in a dead room? Seems an MK4 cardiod would be a better choice.

1. He didn't say totally dead.

2. Pull it back a bit.

I tried both here before going with the cmc641.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

[Peter Larsen]

Post by chris ruth
Any recommendations for mics that may be an upgrade from Oktava
MK-012s for recording classical guitar.
Let pre-empt some of your questions
room - ok, treated so kind of 'dead' on purpose

This is not good, because it - in my opinion - rules the best choice out,
DPA 4006 or similar.

Post by chris ruth
guitar - great!

This is good.

Post by chris ruth
player - ok (well it's me, i can post some recordings if you want to
gauge that)

For you to fix if not adequate.

Post by chris ruth
equipment - usbpre 2 and laptop...that's it!
I will also do some guitar orchestra (boston guitar orchestra)
recordings live, and spaces vary alot.

Josephson C42, Shure KSM 141/137, AKG CK 451. All need suitable treble eq,
whatever that is. Do NOT go too close, to record an entire instrument you
need to be "instrument size" away from it. My best recordings of guitar in a
room are made with mic higher than players head, ie. angled perhaps 45
degrees down.

KSM 141 is the most useful one of those listed because of its dual
personality, but ambience and perspective tends to be better on the other
two when used for ensemble miking. Getting minimum phase EQ right helps a
lot, but conceptually the Shure seems to be a spot microphone rather than an
ensemble microphone - great for choir tho!

Recording guitar for track use and guitar in a room are two very different
recordings and thus come with different mic choices and placements. Based on
Ty Ford's mic test a - preferably pair of - Neumann tlm 102's ARE on my
"look for list". I do not have any personal experience with the tlm 102 so
while it does appear to be excellent it is premature for me to comment on
its usefulnes but I am thinking track use, comments are appreciated if
available.

And what the other guys said. With my existing setup my first choice would
be C42 for you as well as for the guitar orchestra. You should also check
the MKH 8040, to me it sounds as if Sennheiser have been in the Neumann
design archive, ie. eerily like the KM84 as I _recall_ a pair I borrowed and
stupidly did not buy in 1975 because they clipped my A77. Note: _not_ a
valid AB comparison!

Note: I instinctively dislike laptops for location recordings because they
are independently usable objects that are sellable at a shady beerjoint, the
Good Book says not to tempt ...

Post by chris ruth
Chris

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[PStamler]

I say the Schoepses if you have the money, or perhaps Sennheiser
MKH40s. I also second the recommendation of Neumann TLM102s -- I
suspect they'd make a very good ORTF pair. Likewise Microtech Gefell
M930s.

Peace,
Paul

[Ty Ford]

Post by Peter Larsen
Recording guitar for track use and guitar in a room are two very different
recordings and thus come with different mic choices and placements. Based on
Ty Ford's mic test a - preferably pair of - Neumann tlm 102's ARE on my "look
for list". I do not have any personal experience with the tlm 102 so while it
does appear to be excellent it is premature for me to comment on its
usefulnes but I am thinking track use, comments are appreciated if available.

You're right, Peter. The TLM 102 are contenders along with cmc641 and TLM 67.
Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar http://youtu.be/yWaPRHMGhGA

[hank alrich]

Post by chris ruth
Any recommendations for mics that may be an upgrade from Oktava
MK-012s for recording classical guitar.
Let pre-empt some of your questions
room - ok, treated so kind of 'dead' on purpose
guitar - great!
player - ok (well it's me, i can post some recordings if you want to
gauge that)
equipment - usbpre 2 and laptop...that's it!
I will also do some guitar orchestra (boston guitar orchestra)
recordings live, and spaces vary alot.
thats
Chris

I think you've omitted one important parameter.

How much are you willing to spend, what's your max outlay for this
upgrade?

If not so much, Arny's suggestion of omni caps for your Oktavas could be
a fine next step. If more but not outrageously more, Ty's Josephson C42
MP's are a good ticket. Up from there the Schoeps are fine tools,
regardless of your choice of caps, omni, card, or hyper.

There are other options, like the Brauner VM1S, or Josephson C700S.

Your playing will turn out to make the biggest difference. After that
mic configuration and placement will be the dominanat factors affecting
recording quality. Feeding into that last item are your budget and the
way different configurations work in your room.

If you you listen now to the recordings you have made with your present
setup, how do you personally rate the playing, and the mic config and
placement?

[Mark]

Post by hank alrich
Your playing will turn out to make the biggest difference. After that
mic configuration and placement will be the dominanat factors affecting
recording quality.

I was hoping someone would mention that...

Mark

[chris ruth]

Post by Mark

Post by hank alrich
Your playing will turn out to make the biggest difference. After that
mic configuration and placement will be the dominanat factors affecting
recording quality.

I was hoping someone would mention that...
Mark

the playing is fine. The guitar sounds great to the ear.
Again, the problem is, no matter what configuration i try, i need to
pout the mics withing 6 inches of the guitar otherwise it sounds bad.
So i think i'm missing some of the 'sound?' of the whole guitar, as it
would sound if you sat a few feet in front of it.

[Mark]

Post by chris ruth

Post by Mark

Post by hank alrich
Your playing will turn out to make the biggest difference. After that
mic configuration and placement will be the dominanat factors affecting
recording quality.

I was hoping someone would mention that...
Mark

the playing is fine. The guitar sounds great to the ear.
Again, the problem is, no matter what configuration i try, i need to
pout the mics withing 6 inches of the guitar otherwise it sounds bad.
So i think i'm missing some of the 'sound?' of the whole guitar, as it
would sound if you sat a few feet in front of it.

i didn't mean to insult the playing...

my point was that the playing and the mic LOCATION are much more
important compared to the exact model of mic...
except for the choice of omni vs non omni that is also major...


if you have 2 tracks, record one of each and mix to taste.


Mark

[hank alrich]

Post by chris ruth

Post by Mark

Post by hank alrich
Your playing will turn out to make the biggest difference. After that
mic configuration and placement will be the dominanat factors affecting
recording quality.

I was hoping someone would mention that...
Mark

the playing is fine. The guitar sounds great to the ear.
Again, the problem is, no matter what configuration i try, i need to
pout the mics withing 6 inches of the guitar otherwise it sounds bad.
So i think i'm missing some of the 'sound?' of the whole guitar, as it
would sound if you sat a few feet in front of it.

When I record solo guitar I like to have the mic pair 3' - 5' away.

[hank alrich]

Post by Mark

Post by hank alrich
Your playing will turn out to make the biggest difference. After that
mic configuration and placement will be the dominanat factors affecting
recording quality.

I was hoping someone would mention that...
Mark

Well, I play guitar and right there is where my own troubles begin. <g>

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 23:38:56 -0500, chris ruth wrote
(in article

Post by chris ruth
Any recommendations for mics that may be an upgrade from Oktava
MK-012s for recording classical guitar.
Let pre-empt some of your questions
room - ok, treated so kind of 'dead' on purpose
guitar - great!
player - ok (well it's me, i can post some recordings if you want to
gauge that)
equipment - usbpre 2 and laptop...that's it!
I will also do some guitar orchestra (boston guitar orchestra)
recordings live, and spaces vary alot.
thats
Chris

Schoeps CMC641
TLM 67

Most classical folks are pretty sensitive about the plasticky sound of the
1st and 2nd strings. Using a mic with a bright top end increases the plink.

The mics I've mentioned above don't.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar

[Nate Najar]

I have a new response to this query based on recent experience. My initial response is schoeps mk41. My new response is Aea ku4. Sorry for the increase in price.

N