Ribbon Madness....Some Comparisons

[warhead]

Now that I've seen these pics I gotta say it's more a choice between favorite positions than mics, with no way to directly compare any of the mics from the same position etc. Sort of a "pick your favorite clip" vs favorite mic really.

And no I'm not biased one over the other...I sell them all!

War

[Inner Light]

Can't wait to hear the new clips cause I want to pick up the Biz Pre soon along with the compressor.

[yeloocproducer]

I liked the coles the best... they brought me in/ "involved" me the most... but maybe that would get fatiguing for a whole album.

[drBill]

Warren - the Coles and 205 are absolutely close enough that it's a fair comparison. The ribbons are no more than 2-3 inches apart at worst, and they are equidistant from the strings. The R92's are a different matter as mentioned earlier.

OK Brad....trying again but GS won't upload any attachments right now. I'll try again later.

[drBill]

Ahhh...Firefox to the rescue. Not sure what's up with Safari???

Again, tpt section OD's. Modded 205 into a Biz w/ Dual mode on, into a Digi 192, no compression, EQ or verb. 320mp3

[James Lehmann]

Nice test - although I'm a bit wary of mp3's and always try to post anything so critically subjective as WAV's. Although one can argue that since all the files are processed the same way the inherent differences will remain.

Notwithstanding the above, I preferred Mic 1, ie the Coles. I felt it had a more natural, full-bodied quality to it. Sounds most like a piano to me.

Thanks for sharing!

[drBill]

After a few weeks and finishing the album, my opinions still hold. I definately prefered the 205, although the extreme LF information did give me a share of grief. I originally mixed the record without a sub and found out down the line that I had some extreme LF pedal problems. A quick trip back thru the material with an automated LF in PT solved the problem without robbing the beautiful low end throught all the music. The coles still sounded great, but somehow needed to be "faster" for the complex stuff. So...there you have it. At some point, budget allowing, I'll pick up a pair of 4038's, but for now the 205's are working out great for me. cheers,

bp

[bcgood]

Before reading any of the other posts I preferred mic 3. Even though there wasn't as much low and high frequency information they sounded smooth and natural to me, go figure...

I do think that R84's would be better and also sound better positioned for low and high not too far away from the piano but this has already been said...

[Mozart]

I used that technique today, I must say it works pretty well! I have Weinbach 6,1' (Petrof) Instead I tried it with two Royers R-121 and added U67 distant in omni.

Here are some pictures, and mp3's. first Mp3 is from only Royer's and the 2nd one is with U67 in omni. Room is not that big, more like a Piano booth 8x12'. No processing, no reverb...
There is an Apeh 405 on the picture too, I tried that one in the combination with Royers, But U67 sounded a LOT better!
So it is not in the sound clips.

[bcgood]

Sounds good man, that's the first clip in a long time that I actually liked the sound of Royers.

[drBill]

I'll listen tomorrow when i'm at the studio and can really hear better. Isn't that a 460 though? If so, yeah, no comparison to a 67. So, how did you like this technique compared to previous micing styles you've used.

For a more classical / orchestral piano approach, I love 2 67's spread about 3-4 feet apart and back a couple more feet in a similar out of the piano setup that you used. thumbsup

bp

[drBill]

Mozart, sounds nice. Beautiful mellow sound. Watch your phase though. This style of placement can get a little phasey if you don't keep a careful eye (ear) on it.

bp

[Mozart]

Originally Posted by drBill

Mozart, sounds nice. Beautiful mellow sound. Watch your phase though. This style of placement can get a little phasey if you don't keep a careful eye (ear) on it.

bp

Thanks,
I heard it afterwards, but like you mentioned before, always is not enough time to play with it, especially the client was a local student...
I'll call a piano player in my off time and master the technique more.
I like it though, really sounds to me more like you're listening in the room than other standard micing I was using.
thumbsup

[heathdwatts]

Has anyone done a similar comparison using a soprano saxophone? I'm currently using a Seinheisser MD-421 to record mine, but I'm always looking for a microphone that will give me a big, warm, full sound.
Thanks,
Heath

Originally Posted by drBill

Hey Fellow Gearslutz!

One can never have enough mics eh?? So in true Gearslutz fashion I decided to put SIX mics on the piano to compare between them. The session was a "New Age" solo piano recording and I used ribbons exclusively for the close piano mics. Pretty fun. I thought you guys might like to do a little ribbon mic comparison / listening....

The comparison is just that - a comparison. It's not meant to be a full on shootout, or a critical double blind listening test. I was getting paid and had work to do! You know.....like a real life session. Take that into consideration as you listen. For fairness and your convenience, I've gain matched the main files within .1dB of each other with the room mics down 12dB as they will be in the mix.

For this session, I compaired 3 pairs of ribbons. One pair are old time classics that most of you know. One pair are what many are finding to be a new classic. And one pair are for all intents and purposes an unknown mic. (At least in comparison to the other two.)

For fair comparison purposes, Mic 1 is always the same mic on all the clips, Mic 2 always the same, etc. I'm not trying to trick anyone here....

I find when listening, I often find I like one mic for certain sections of music and another for other sections - but the bottom line is you have to choose one (or in this case, a pair). In the studio, the decision was unanimous for those in the CRM, with (thankfully) the artist choosing the same mic that my assistant and I liked as well. Ribbons were chosen because the artist loves a warm organic sound, and I've had success in the past with ribbons on piano for this type of application. If you're listening on computer, you're going to miss the huge bottom some of these files have.

Mics 1 & 2 were iniside the piano in a unique placement that I prefer with fig8 mics, and Mics 3 were right outside the piano in a more "classical / orchestral" type placement. Please keep that in mind when listening to the 3rd set of Mics, as they were further back from the strings. They were chosen and added almost as an afterthought, as there was no room inside the piano since it was beginning to look like a press conference in there. Also, there is a fourth pair of mics that are room mics (TLM170's) that can be added in with the close mics if you're lining up the files and listening in your DAW. If you're not in your DAW, you can use them as a reference to hear what the room sounds like. They were placed about 10-12 feet up and about 30-40 feet away from the piano and 30-40 feet apart with the piano being the apex of the triangle.

There is no EQ, no Compression or Limiting, no Verb. No nothing! All I did was adjust the gain via Audiosuite Gain, to match the gain for a fair comparison. The final product will have a little verb added to the main mics in addition to adding in the room mics. A little compression / limiting as well, but very minimal, and a little HPF EQ automated in at various places to remove some of the extreme low end pedal noise resonance that occationally gets in. If you're in your DAW and lining up the room mics with the main mics, what you hear is pretty much how the final mix will end up sounding. Later, there may be full bandwidth 24/44.1 WAV files up on the internet to download if any of your are interested in real critical listening, but for now..... it's mp3's. :-( They are rendered at 320kbit/s via PT's MP3 option.

After everyone is done listening and deciding which they like, I'll post some pics so you can see the kind of unique mic placement. And of course reveal the mics themselves.

Here's the important and fun GS technical stuff:

Artist: Jeff Bjorck - a "New Age" style solo pianist recording arrangements of Hymns.
Piano : Yamaha C7
Studio : Citrus Studio A (So Cal)
Console : Neve VR72
Mic Pre's:
Mic 1 - D&R Vision Mic Pre
Mic 2 - D&R Vision Mic Pre
Mic 3 - Apogee Mini Me (suggested by the studio manager)
Mic 4 (room) - Martech MSS-10
Conversion : Apogee AD16X clocked to Apogee Big Ben
DAW : PTHD3
Bit Depth / Sample Rate : 24/44.1

So Have Fun! This should prove interesting.......



(Clips 2, 3 & 4 to follow on successive posts due to the GS attachment limitations...)

Cheers,

Bill
Mindseye
M I N D S E Y E | home

[drBill]

Originally Posted by heathdwatts

Has anyone done a similar comparison using a soprano saxophone? I'm currently using a Seinheisser MD-421 to record mine, but I'm always looking for a microphone that will give me a big, warm, full sound.
Thanks,
Heath

Heath - I haven't been doing saxes much lately, but I intend to try the 205 on one in the near future. I think in combination with a U87 it would be killer. That's where I'll head next time I'm recording a tenor. For alto, the ribbon alone might be just the ticket. Why not get one and try it yourself. They're pretty reasonable. Cheers,

bp

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

The Coles 4038 uses a 1" long ribbon tuned a bit higher than the Apex 205 which uses a 50mm (1.97"), very low tension ribbon.

For a bit leaner sound in the bass and perhaps a different midrange feel, one of the "short ribbon" (35mm), higher tuned mics like the Nady RSM-4 or Cascade Fathead would be worth a try.

Yes, the tuning issue is critical! Tuned & damped a bit higher, to be precise.

What kind of Hz is the 205 tuned to?

Andy

[Michael_Joly]

The ribbon tuning of a stock Apex 205 can vary all over the map - from sagging out of the gap, single Hz range to overly-tight in the 80Hz range. I set the mics Bill has to a classic "long ribbon" resonance of about 32Hz - useful musically and mimimizes sub-sonic rumble.

I've gone back and forth on the ribbon damping issue, the short ribbon mics need to be damped but on the long ribbon mics I feel its a matter of taste and application.

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

The ribbon tuning of a stock Apex 205 can vary all over the map - from sagging out of the gap, single Hz range to overly-tight in the 80Hz range. I set the mics Bill has to a classic "long ribbon" resonance of about 32Hz - useful musically and mimimizes sub-sonic rumble.

I've gone back and forth on the ribbon damping issue, the short ribbon mics need to be damped but on the long ribbon mics I feel its a matter of taste and application.

Sagging out of the gap?! Good grief!

Yes, the main disadvantage of the small ribbon is the compromise of tuning & damping.

I'm a big fan of the singe Hz range tuning, but, well, it isn't practical with most microphones.

Also, as you point out regarding sub-sonic rumble, if 'long' ribbons are tuned in the single Hz range (where they sound best) they can be a very very serious danger to both woofers & sub-woofers!

I've seen 'eye-popping' maximum mechanical excursion from a few 'un-protected' woofers from live-room door slam/kick drum wind on low-hz prototypes of mine. Oops!

Andy

[drBill]

Andy, in reality, the 205's that Michael did for me caused pretty severe LF excursions on the piano that I didn't notice until I turned on my sub. I mixed on JBL LSR28P's (without the sub) that have nice low end extention, but when I spot checked with the sub on, I had to go back and automate a HPF to clear up some of the "pedal" issues that were causing ultra low end (my guess is around or below 40Hz) bumps in the program material. Still, I prefered doing that than going to the Coles which only exhibited this problem very rarely.

The same mic on drum rooms is SO EXCITING though that it makes me tingle in anticipation when I put them up for a drum session. ABSOLUTELY love that bottom on the room mics!!!

bp

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by drBill

Andy, in reality, the 205's that Michael did for me caused pretty severe LF excursions on the piano that I didn't notice until I turned on my sub. I mixed on JBL LSR28P's (without the sub) that have nice low end extention, but when I spot checked with the sub on, I had to go back and automate a HPF to clear up some of the "pedal" issues that were causing ultra low end (my guess is around or below 40Hz) bumps in the program material. Still, I prefered doing that than going to the Coles which only exhibited this problem very rarely.

bp

Yes, I would expect mechanically transmitted sub-rumble with a ribbon tuned to ~30Hz.

In the old days ribbons of this kind of tuning would often be friction damped with 'cloth' or 'foam', to stop 'inaudible' resonance from causing problems & eating headroom.

After my speaker popping incident I always made sure to run a HPF around 20-30Hz for safety when testing ribbon prototypes.

Andy

[RKHIII]

Bill, too much fun!! Enjoyed the shootout and the music was wonderful, so much so that I added Jeff's latest CD to my Amazon order last week. Think I gravitated toward the Coles due to something I heard in the low end of the 205's. It was a toss up though...and with the difference in price between the two, I'll be grabbing an Apex 205 for sure. Thanks again Bill...and thanks to Jeff Bjorck for some truly wonderful music.

[infopimpster]

Bump - thanks for documenting all this.

[Marik]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

I'm a big fan of the singe Hz range tuning, but, well, it isn't practical with most microphones.

Hi Andy,

I am not sure if I understand why would you want to get a single Hz range tuning--it is the same as to make a half pound woofer cone. Sure it will go quite low, but it'd just inefficiently flip around without giving any useful sonic information.

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

I set the mics Bill has to a classic "long ribbon" resonance of about 32Hz - useful musically and mimimizes sub-sonic rumble.

I am not sure how "classic" this value is and where this figure comes from, at all.
There is much more into tuning frequency than just chosing some "classic" value. Even to assume that value was used in some mics, it was a result of oprimizing many parameters, including ribbon size, transformer parameters, tolerance of the ribbon installation, etc.
It might be fine with one transformer, but useless with another. It might be good for let's say 100 micron slit between ribbon and magnet poles, but useless with 200um. It might be good for 6mm wide, but not good for 5mm wide ribbon, and so on...
It is the same as to say: "Hey dude, set the gain at 4 and you'll get that awsome classic sound".

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

I've gone back and forth on the ribbon damping issue, the short ribbon mics need to be damped but on the long ribbon mics I feel its a matter of taste and application.

I am not sure what it is all about, as I find it very strange generalization.
First, why is that all short ribbons DO NEED damping? and
Second, WHY the long ribbons damping are left to taste or application? I'd feel it is rather a means of improvement of technical and sonic characteristics and would depend largely on some specific design choices.

Best, M

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Marik

Hi Andy,

I am not sure if I understand why would you want to get a single Hz range tuning--it is the same as to make a half pound woofer cone. Sure it will go quite low, but it'd just inefficiently flip around without giving any useful sonic information.

Actually, the tension makes little effective difference to the efficiency of a ribbon microphone (above the resonant frequency) - unless you count resonance as efficiency.

We want the resonant frequency as low as possible to keep the audible band free of resonance.

Also, comparing woofer mass to ribbon tension doesn't make sense.

We don't change ribbon mass for tuning, we reduce tension. Hence the corrugations.

I am not sure what it is all about, as I find it very strange generalization.
First, why is that all short ribbons DO NEED damping? and
Second, WHY the long ribbons damping are left to taste or application? I'd feel it is rather a means of improvement of technical and sonic characteristics and would depend largely on some specific design choices.

Best, M

Leaving 'piston' designs out of the question for the sake of simplicity -

Short ribbons need damping because they cannot hold a low enough tension to keep their self resonance in the sub-sonic range. Since their self resonance is usually in the very audible lower/upper bass or even mid range, friction damping is used to 'reduce' the problems in those ranges.

With long ribbons, since low tuning can be used to set the self-resonance frequency to a sub-sonic range, the issue of damping becomes a safety, headroom & application issue.

You can use a transformer which doesn't pass sound that low, or you can friction damp or you can leave it alone and hope the user knows what he is doing!

Andy

[Marik]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

Actually, the tension makes little effective difference to the efficiency of a ribbon microphone (above the resonant frequency) - unless you count resonance as efficiency.

We want the resonant frequency as low as possible to keep the audible band free of resonance.

Also, comparing woofer mass to ribbon tension doesn't make sense.

We don't change ribbon mass for tuning, we reduce tension. Hence the corrugations.

Andy,

I did not compare woofer mass to ribbon tension, but wanted to point out the effect they produce is similar--inefficient work on lowest frequencies, and was not talking about efficiency of the microphone. I am sorry if it was not clear enough.

Sure you can tune it to 1Hz, but all it would do is to react to wind blasts or mechanical excitations, inefficiently popping and flipping around, instead of giving some useful information in that range.

Besides, despite our common sense and against our intuition, in an optimized practical system it will in fact, limit low frequency extension of the mic.

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

Short ribbons need damping because they cannot hold a low enough tension to keep their self resonance in the sub-sonic range. Since their self resonance is usually in the very audible lower/upper bass or even mid range, friction damping is used to 'reduce' the problems in those ranges.

With long ribbons, since low tuning can be used to set the self-resonance frequency to a sub-sonic range, the issue of damping becomes a safety, headroom & application issue.

You can use a transformer which doesn't pass sound that low, or you can friction damp or you can leave it alone and hope the user knows what he is doing!

I am afraid I'd strongly disagree here and would like to point out that in fact, the damping carries completely different purpose.

As a side note, while it is true, condenser microphones require effective damping of a resonance peak, which can be as high as 40-50db, we do not actually need it in ribbon microphones, where the principle of work as a mass controlled system is completely different. Moreover, the damping associated with tuning resonance occures in a "natural" way and many factors contribute into that--mechanical, acoustical, and electronical.

Best, M

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Marik

Andy,

I did not compare woofer mass to ribbon tension, but wanted to point out the effect they produce is similar--inefficient work on lowest frequencies, and was not talking about efficiency of the microphone. I am sorry if it was not clear enough.

.....

No. I'm afraid you will have to consult the text-books on this one.

The comparative relationship of efficiency you describe between the woofer mass and the ribbon tension does not exist - unless you propose to compare them both as speakers?

A low tension ribbon (as a microphone) is not inefficient at LF.

There is a big difference between moving air and being moved by air.

Sometimes these things are not as intuitive as they could be.... :-)

Andy

[Marik]

Originally Posted by andy_simpson

No. I'm afraid you will have to consult the text-books on this one.

The comparative relationship of efficiency you describe between the woofer mass and the ribbon tension does not exist - unless you propose to compare them both as speakers?

A low tension ribbon (as a microphone) is not inefficient at LF.

There is a big difference between moving air and being moved by air.

Sometimes these things are not as intuitive as they could be.... :-)

That would be true only in a strict mass controlled system conditions. It seems that by following your intuition you are missing or forgeting the fact that ribbon microphone can go down only as long as it stays mass controlled.
In the real life due to viscosity of the air in the slits between the ribbon and magets (or pole pieces), as well as damping properties of the loading air, the system turnes into resistance controlled one way above subsonic frequencies, followed by a rapid 12db per octave fall below it--fact which explains ribbons relatively poor low frequency response.

For the further reading I'd suggest L. Anderson (H. Olson assistant) paper on the subject... or even better--make some experiments and put the ribbon on so called Gayford bridge and observe its motion impedance for yourself under different conditions. Can be tricky, but I think this will explain you all the processes and help in their better understanding.

Best regards, M

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by Marik

That would be true only in a strict mass controlled system conditions.

This is hardly a case of true or false. Rather design dictates limits.

It seems that by following your intuition you are missing or forgeting the fact that ribbon microphone can go down only as long as it stays mass controlled. ...
Best regards, M

Which is why the specific design, scale & associated compromises are obviously absolutely critical.

In any case, I suspect that this will only go further around in circles, so I will accept your caveat as above. Please make a final summation of your point if necessary and let us leave it alone.

Andy

[drBill]

Originally Posted by RKHIII

Bill, too much fun!! Enjoyed the shootout and the music was wonderful, so much so that I added Jeff's latest CD to my Amazon order last week. Think I gravitated toward the Coles due to something I heard in the low end of the 205's. It was a toss up though...and with the difference in price between the two, I'll be grabbing an Apex 205 for sure. Thanks again Bill...and thanks to Jeff Bjorck for some truly wonderful music.

Ha! Just found this thread again. Glad you found it on Amazon Roy. I just got the hard copy CD myself. Sounds good. Glad you're enjoying it. I'll relay that to Jeff.

bp

[luctellier]

The clips Sounds AMAZING! Good job! thumbsup