inexpensive small condensers for acoustic work?

[jnorman]

there are lots of choices out there these days for small diaphragm
condensers, ranging from nearly free (behringer ecm8000 @$35 ea.) to
the DPAs for around $2k each or more. i hear people praise mics by
companies that no engineer would have even considered a few years ago,
such as marshall and a hundred new companies that import chinese mics.
superlux has a new pair of sd condensers for $129pr that dan richards
has said are "smoother" than the rode NT5s. OTOH, the new ksm141s by
shure received a funky review at prorec. the SP C4s dont seem to have
made any real impact (yet?). many people love the marshall 603s, and
the octava mc012, though in my own experience of not being quite
satisfied even with gefell M300s and km184s, it is very hard for me to
believe that ANY sub-$500 mics can actually be useable in a critical
acoustic application (as opposed to a busy rock/pop mix). are there
actually some inexpensive SD condensers these days that can, for
example, do a reasonable job recording a solo grand piano without the
excessive top-end hype so common to most new cheaper mics? thanks for
your thoughts.

[Ron Charles]

What about the new Josephsons or the Schoeps CMC6 (Xt), I know either will
do a superb job, but they are certainly over $500 a pair!
RON CHARLES
"jnorman" <jnorman34@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e340b423.0308141542.1003ace@posting.google.co m...
> there are lots of choices out there these days for small diaphragm
> condensers, ranging from nearly free (behringer ecm8000 @$35 ea.) to
> the DPAs for around $2k each or more. i hear people praise mics by
> companies that no engineer would have even considered a few years ago,
> such as marshall and a hundred new companies that import chinese mics.
> superlux has a new pair of sd condensers for $129pr that dan richards
> has said are "smoother" than the rode NT5s. OTOH, the new ksm141s by
> shure received a funky review at prorec. the SP C4s dont seem to have
> made any real impact (yet?). many people love the marshall 603s, and
> the octava mc012, though in my own experience of not being quite
> satisfied even with gefell M300s and km184s, it is very hard for me to
> believe that ANY sub-$500 mics can actually be useable in a critical
> acoustic application (as opposed to a busy rock/pop mix). are there
> actually some inexpensive SD condensers these days that can, for
> example, do a reasonable job recording a solo grand piano without the
> excessive top-end hype so common to most new cheaper mics? thanks for
> your thoughts.

[M. Im]

The Oktava MC-012 with the omni capsule is not bad. I can't use it for
critical recording because of the self noise, but it does reasonably
well.

M. Im

jnorman34@comcast.net (jnorman) wrote in message news:<e340b423.0308141542.1003ace@posting.google.com>...
are there
> actually some inexpensive SD condensers these days that can, for
> example, do a reasonable job recording a solo grand piano without the
> excessive top-end hype so common to most new cheaper mics? thanks for
> your thoughts.

[Ty Ford]

In Article <e340b423.0308141542.1003ace@posting.google.com>,
jnorman34@comcast.net (jnorman) wrote:
>there are lots of choices out there these days for small diaphragm
>condensers, ranging from nearly free (behringer ecm8000 @$35 ea.) to
>the DPAs for around $2k each or more. i hear people praise mics by
>companies that no engineer would have even considered a few years ago,
>such as marshall and a hundred new companies that import chinese mics.
> superlux has a new pair of sd condensers for $129pr that dan richards
>has said are "smoother" than the rode NT5s. OTOH, the new ksm141s by
>shure received a funky review at prorec. the SP C4s dont seem to have
>made any real impact (yet?). many people love the marshall 603s, and
>the octava mc012, though in my own experience of not being quite
>satisfied even with gefell M300s and km184s, it is very hard for me to
>believe that ANY sub-$500 mics can actually be useable in a critical
>acoustic application (as opposed to a busy rock/pop mix). are there
>actually some inexpensive SD condensers these days that can, for
>example, do a reasonable job recording a solo grand piano without the
>excessive top-end hype so common to most new cheaper mics? thanks for
>your thoughts.


It ain't just the hype, it's also the distortion.


Regards,

Ty Ford



For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Bill Thompson]

Ty Ford wrote:

> It ain't just the hype, it's also the distortion.

Is this a chicken-and-eff situation? Does the frequency response of the
capsule/electronics system increase distortion, or does the distortion
skew the frequency response?

There is definately something going on in all of these microphones that
doesn't happen with my current "reference" model, the KM-84. Even my
C-451s don't quite make the grade, though I still like them on some
things. My acid test is a steel string guitar, and it is darned
difficult to capture the sound I hear in my head! The closest I've
gotten is the KM-84s, but I'm still searching (and of course once I find
it the sound in my head will probably change!!!)

Bill

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Bill Thompson <bill@audioenterprise.com> wrote:

> Ty Ford wrote:

> > It ain't just the hype, it's also the distortion.

> Is this a chicken-and-eff situation? Does the frequency response of the
> capsule/electronics system increase distortion, or does the distortion
> skew the frequency response?

> There is definately something going on in all of these microphones that
> doesn't happen with my current "reference" model, the KM-84. Even my
> C-451s don't quite make the grade, though I still like them on some
> things. My acid test is a steel string guitar, and it is darned
> difficult to capture the sound I hear in my head! The closest I've
> gotten is the KM-84s, but I'm still searching (and of course once I find
> it the sound in my head will probably change!!!)

I'm into a project that's going to take a while, and as it's an acoustic
project I'm working towards getting the best isolation from external
noises and captured sound that I can muster. We have a pretty full sound
from the two instruments, and while some musical sections are quite
dense, other portions have _lots_ of space, especially when we have two
single lines going. It's almost like the space is some kind of magic,
the openness drawing a listener right into the sonic picture. For
reasons mentioned by Ty Ford recently in another thread I have chosen to
start with dynamic mics, in this case Sennheiser 441's in modified ORTF,
placed such that they capture a nicely realistic balance of cello to the
left and my McCollum guitar to the right, along with my voice, without
extreme L/R separation. These are good mics, with nice extension for
dynamics, and decent rejection. In particular, they do not offer the
"reach" of condensors, which helps avoid instrusive noise.

I started with my favorite preamp the MP2-MH, and it just wasn't
happening. Went to the GTQ2. Nope, that's not it. I'm not getting close
enough with either to even mess with positioning overall. I know the
room very well, and can generally pick where to put what, both musos and
transducers, to influence things the way I wish.

Went to the HV-3D. Bingo, there is the detail I'm looking for in this
case, such that we can listen and say, "I don't appreciate this little
aspect of what we're getting". Make a few mic moves and we're very close
to what we want. We still have issues to deal with, like getting our
seating to shut up, and certainly we can improve the sound a little. But
we're really close overall.

This project will happen two-three days at a time spread over months.
I'm aiming to have a recording spproach as nearly repeatable as I can,
so that what we get in September matches what we'll get in many of the
following months without having to go through this every time. A
realistic capture of the guitar is one of my goals, as I seriously
apprreciate the sound of this instrument. And right now, both of us are
impressed by the extent to which what we record sounds like both
instruments. For some reason this 441 + HV-3D combo is giving me things
I often don't get even with condensors.

That said, I do wish I had a pair of Josephson Series 4's and/or Schoeps
CMC641's to try, just for comparison. I'm halfway tempted to sell my EL8
and spend for the Series 4's. Even if they didn't make it in this case
(and I don't think it's going to be easy to beat what's happening now)
they'd serve well for other stuff.

Fo course, Senn 441's are neither inexpensive, nor small, nor
condensors. <g>

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Bill Thompson]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

<big snip>
> of course, Senn 441's are neither inexpensive, nor small, nor
> condensors. <g>

I'm thinking that statement should be bronzed!

Bill

[Ty Ford]

In Article <lfScnWadpqexn6CiU-KYvw@giganews.com>, Bill Thompson
<bill@audioenterprise.com> wrote:
>Ty Ford wrote:
>
>> It ain't just the hype, it's also the distortion.
>
>Is this a chicken-and-eff situation? Does the frequency response of the
>capsule/electronics system increase distortion, or does the distortion
>skew the frequency response?

Bill,

Not to be argumentative, but I think possibly HF and distortion are not so
related, although they do combine to mess up the sound of a mic. There's
also the off-axis response characteristics, impulse (transient) response and
one or two other things I'm probably forgetting.

>There is definately something going on in all of these microphones that
>doesn't happen with my current "reference" model, the KM-84. Even my
>C-451s don't quite make the grade, though I still like them on some
>things. My acid test is a steel string guitar, and it is darned
>difficult to capture the sound I hear in my head! The closest I've
>gotten is the KM-84s, but I'm still searching (and of course once I find
>it the sound in my head will probably change!!!)
>
>Bill

I understand. Try the Schoeps CMC641. That works for me. Anyone in Baltimore
got a good KM 84? Let's hook up and compare the KM 84 with the Schoeps CMC641.

Here's what I do know. The KM 84 has a wider pattern than the CMC641. As a
result, the CMC641 works better in less than ideal places, because you don't
hear the room as much.


Regards,

Ty Ford


For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Scott Dorsey]

Ron Charles <portugal@3web.net> wrote:
>What about the new Josephsons or the Schoeps CMC6 (Xt), I know either will
>do a superb job, but they are certainly over $500 a pair!

The CMC-6 might be flat enough with an omni capsule, but it'll still be
way ragged above 10 KC compared with a real measurement mike.

Josephson makes a measurement mike for something like $200. It's not even
close to IEC Type I specifications, but it'll meet the Type II specifications,
and it's very flat from any location. It's noisy as hell, but that is the
sacrifice you make for the flat frequency response and extreme
omnidirectionality.

The Behringer measurement mike is better that you'd think, but the idea of
measurement gear is that your measurement system should be considerably higher
grade than whatever you're trying to measure....
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

M. Im <schoeps@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The Oktava MC-012 with the omni capsule is not bad. I can't use it for
>critical recording because of the self noise, but it does reasonably
>well.

If you are hearing a lot of self noise, and it's mostly rumbling, pull
the thing out and deflux the board. There should be an article on upgrades
for the 012 in the next Recording magazine with any luck.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

In article <bhlij2$2mi$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com writes:

> If you are hearing a lot of self noise, and it's mostly rumbling, pull
> the thing out and deflux the board. There should be an article on upgrades
> for the 012 in the next Recording magazine with any luck.

It just arrived an hour ago, and your long awaited (by you, I know)
article about upgrading the Oktavia mics is in there. September 2003
issue, guaranteed not available on news stands yet.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)

[Ron Charles]

Hi Scott,

I do not think he was referring to a measurement mic, I read his post to
infer he wants to record tracks with acoutical insturments such as piano, in
which case I still like the Schoeps Collette and Josephsons!>

RON
"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bhlho8$18b$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Ron Charles <portugal@3web.net> wrote:
> >What about the new Josephsons or the Schoeps CMC6 (Xt), I know either
will
> >do a superb job, but they are certainly over $500 a pair!
>
> The CMC-6 might be flat enough with an omni capsule, but it'll still be
> way ragged above 10 KC compared with a real measurement mike.
>
> Josephson makes a measurement mike for something like $200. It's not even
> close to IEC Type I specifications, but it'll meet the Type II
specifications,
> and it's very flat from any location. It's noisy as hell, but that is the
> sacrifice you make for the flat frequency response and extreme
> omnidirectionality.
>
> The Behringer measurement mike is better that you'd think, but the idea of
> measurement gear is that your measurement system should be considerably
higher
> grade than whatever you're trying to measure....
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Clayton]

In article <tford.1411421526D@news.jagunet.com>, tford@jagunet.com (Ty
Ford) wrote:

> I understand. Try the Schoeps CMC641. That works for me. Anyone in Baltimore
> got a good KM 84? Let's hook up and compare the KM 84 with the Schoeps CMC641.

No use me trying that act Ty, but what I could do if it was any help, is
to do some comparisons with the AKG 480b with hypercard head and the
Schoeps CMC641s when they arrive. They would have been here now except
they sent me in error the ones with bass rolloff!

> Here's what I do know. The KM 84 has a wider pattern than the CMC641. As a
> result, the CMC641 works better in less than ideal places, because you don't
> hear the room as much.

I've been using the 480s in the not so good sounding rooms and had good
results, that is, the customers keep coming back!

--
Mike Clayton

[Kurt Albershardt]

Mike Clayton wrote:
> In article <tford.1411421526D@news.jagunet.com>, tford@jagunet.com (Ty
> Ford) wrote:
>
>> I understand. Try the Schoeps CMC641. That works for me. Anyone in Baltimore
>> got a good KM 84? Let's hook up and compare the KM 84 with the Schoeps CMC641.
>
>
> No use me trying that act Ty, but what I could do if it was any help, is
> to do some comparisons with the AKG 480b with hypercard head and the
> Schoeps CMC641s when they arrive.

I'll offer to send back a pair of modified C460B's for the partyif you'd
like to see how they compare.

[Mike Clayton]

In article <1061145463.737914@nnrp1.phx1.gblx.net>, Kurt Albershardt
<kurt@nv.net> wrote:

> Mike Clayton wrote:
> > In article <tford.1411421526D@news.jagunet.com>, tford@jagunet.com (Ty
> > Ford) wrote:
> >
> >> I understand. Try the Schoeps CMC641. That works for me. Anyone in
Baltimore
> >> got a good KM 84? Let's hook up and compare the KM 84 with the
Schoeps CMC641.
> >
> >
> > No use me trying that act Ty, but what I could do if it was any help, is
> > to do some comparisons with the AKG 480b with hypercard head and the
> > Schoeps CMC641s when they arrive.
>
> I'll offer to send back a pair of modified C460B's for the partyif you'd
> like to see how they compare.

How are they modified Kurt?

--
Mike Clayton

[Bill Thompson]

Ty Ford wrote:
>Not to be argumentative,

why???

> but I think possibly HF and distortion are not so related, although
> they do combine to mess up the sound of a mic. There's also the
> off-axis response characteristics, impulse (transient) response and
> one or two other things I'm probably forgetting.

a very good point... I was over simplifying... still, I have to wonder
how all the obnoxious behavior in the upper octaves relates. Part of it,
I'm sure, is that pattern misbehavior will be more pronounced in the
upper octaves, and distortion products quicky migrate to the upper
octaves as well... certainly seems like an interesting puzzle!

> Try the Schoeps CMC641.

That's a very scary proposition...

> That works for me.

I know... I heard your one microphone demo, that's why I'm scared<G>!

> Anyone in Baltimore got a good KM 84? Let's hook up and compare the KM 84 with the Schoeps CMC641.

Don't live in Baltimore, don't have a KM-84... but if you ever do the
shootout I'd be tempted to drive down with a couple of guinea pig guitars!!!

> Here's what I do know. The KM 84 has a wider pattern than the CMC641. As a
> result, the CMC641 works better in less than ideal places, because you don't
> hear the room as much.

And for me, for now, this is a huge issue... my room is terrible, and
anything I can do to make it go away without actually fixing it is good.

Now the next room will work with omni's!!!!!!

Bill

[David Josephson]

In <bhlho8$18b$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

>Ron Charles <portugal@3web.net> wrote:
>>What about the new Josephsons or the Schoeps CMC6 (Xt), I know either will
>>do a superb job, but they are certainly over $500 a pair!

>The CMC-6 might be flat enough with an omni capsule, but it'll still be
>way ragged above 10 KC compared with a real measurement mike.

>Josephson makes a measurement mike for something like $200. It's not even
>close to IEC Type I specifications, but it'll meet the Type II specifications,
>and it's very flat from any location. It's noisy as hell, but that is the
>sacrifice you make for the flat frequency response and extreme
>omnidirectionality.

Scott keeps hoping that everybody will start using omni's more. We got
demerits in his review of our C42 in Recording because it didn't have an
omni capsule. Awww, man! I like omni's too, but the plain truth is that
the isolation provided by a good cardioid is essential for a lot of
people doing recording.

If you really need a pair of cardioids for under $250 apiece, used Shure
SM81s has to be the choice to make. Our new C42 is under $1000 a pair at
Mercenary, Cascade Media or AEA but $500 a pair just won't do it. The
problem with less expensive mics is that their response varies widely,
on-axis and much more so off-axis. There is only so much machining
precision you can put in at that price point, and it basically means that
you need to spend the time yourself to listen and select from a bunch of
mics rather than counting on any two to be matched.


--
Josephson Engineering / Santa Cruz CA / david@josephson.com

[Scott Dorsey]

David Josephson <davidj@rahul.net> wrote:
>In <bhlho8$18b$1@panix2.panix.com> kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>>Ron Charles <portugal@3web.net> wrote:
>>>What about the new Josephsons or the Schoeps CMC6 (Xt), I know either will
>>>do a superb job, but they are certainly over $500 a pair!
>
>>The CMC-6 might be flat enough with an omni capsule, but it'll still be
>>way ragged above 10 KC compared with a real measurement mike.
>
>>Josephson makes a measurement mike for something like $200. It's not even
>>close to IEC Type I specifications, but it'll meet the Type II specifications,
>>and it's very flat from any location. It's noisy as hell, but that is the
>>sacrifice you make for the flat frequency response and extreme
>>omnidirectionality.
>
>Scott keeps hoping that everybody will start using omni's more. We got
>demerits in his review of our C42 in Recording because it didn't have an
>omni capsule. Awww, man! I like omni's too, but the plain truth is that
>the isolation provided by a good cardioid is essential for a lot of
>people doing recording.

My error... I got this thread confused with another one, in which the same
poster was looking for microphones for acoustical measurements. (But it is
true that I'd like people to use omnis more.)

>If you really need a pair of cardioids for under $250 apiece, used Shure
>SM81s has to be the choice to make. Our new C42 is under $1000 a pair at
>Mercenary, Cascade Media or AEA but $500 a pair just won't do it. The
>problem with less expensive mics is that their response varies widely,
>on-axis and much more so off-axis. There is only so much machining
>precision you can put in at that price point, and it basically means that
>you need to spend the time yourself to listen and select from a bunch of
>mics rather than counting on any two to be matched.

I'd pick the Crown CM-700 over the SM81, personally, but I think it's well
worth it to go up that step.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."