I need your help in deciding on a ribbon..

[AB3]

What do you want to do Both are great but different. I have used both and loved both.

R84 is nice, rich and thick and my preference for flute, mandolin and winds.

M160 - not as rich - but still sweet.

It is also a matter of taste.

For instance, some people love M160 on guitar cabs. But I used R84s on guitar cabs with awesome results.

M160 is hypercardioid and is more live/PA friendly. In the studio, I love figure eight.

It is not about one mic being better than the other. They are different.

[ejbragg]

In case you haven't seen it....
Cascade ribbon mics

[bcgood]

Thanks AB3, good descriptions. Yes, I agree it's definitely not about one being better than the other, I love both mics.

Main duties will be for vocals and acoustic guitar.

I have used the R84 before but not the M160. I have heard the M160 though and like it.

[Rascal Audio]

R84 is lovely on vocals. Can be nice on acoustic too, though might need a little HF lift with a good EQ to give it more air.

M160 is a brighter mic, and may work better for guitar. It's been a long time since I have used one of these, so just trying to remember. A stiffer, less 'ribbony' sound, as I recall, if that is useful at all to you.

Is there a particular reason you're wanting a ribbon(s)? There are many excellent condensers that are superb for acoustic guitar and vocals.

Joel

[bcgood]

Yea for me I'm a huge fan of ribbons. I like the way they sound. To my ears they just sound smoother and more 3D than even nice condensers.

I think eventually I'll get both but for now I'm trying to decide which one I'm going to spring for first.

[joeq]

love the R84 for electric guitar cab and mono overheads vocals and some acoustic guitars

you will have to add highs most likely, but it's a very smooth sound

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by joeq

love the R84 for electric guitar cab and mono overheads vocals and some acoustic guitars

you will have to add highs most likely, but it's a very smooth sound

I wonder if I wouldn't really have to add highs with the M160? That might be an advantage. Also for reference I'll be using either mic with a Cloudlifter and the class A pres in my Roland Octacapture.

[j2dafo]

Those 2 are apples and oranges. I'd say the M160 is a little more of an all-rounder, but I love the tone of the R84 and would personally get more mileage out of it.

Decide what you want from this purchase and pick the mic that covers most of the territory.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by j2dafo

Those 2 are apples and oranges. I'd say the M160 is a little more of an all-rounder, but I love the tone of the R84 and would personally get more mileage out of it.
.

I only used the M160 a couple of times but this is my reasoning as well

I have plenty of condensers and dynamics. I wanted my ribbon to be very "ribbony"

the R84 has so much "character" - if I dare to use that overused term - that makes it a mic to use when my other mics are too 'regular'

[Doc Mixwell]

AEA R84,

but I'd bet I'm gonna buy a M160 eventually too,

love that mic, its really useful and sounds amazing.

but here, I choose the R84, because BIG ribbons rule

[bcgood]

Ok thanks guys, I do love the sound of the R84. I think I may get this one first.

[Jonathan@FPA]

Originally Posted by bcgood

Ok thanks guys, I do love the sound of the R84. I think I may get this one first.

Great mic- you won't regret it, and more useful [IMO] than a 160.

[bcgood]

Then again the M160 has such fast transient response..

[Greg Curtis]

Another vote for the R84.

[vincentvangogo]

Originally Posted by bcgood

I need your help in deciding on a ribbon.

Go for a blue one, it matches your eyes.

[AllBread]

For vocal and acoustic use I'd definitely get the R84 before the M160 - I just find it to work better in more situations on those two sources than the M160 (which I have two if and love dearly). R84 is also fantastic for guitar amps, I've found, provided you give it some space.

Also, if I were shopping for a one and only ribbon mic or even just a first ribbon mic I'd go with the R84 simply because it's a ribbon that acts like a ribbon whereas the m160 is one of the few ribbon mics that don't act like a ribbon.

When I think of what a good ribbon mic brings to the table, I think of a very natural, unhyped sound. I think that the inherent figure 8 pattern that 99% of Ribbon mics have adds to their reputation for delivering that natural sound because you end up getting the source combined with the sound of the source in the space that it is in and it's easy to blend the direct vs indirect sound picked up just by varying the distance from the source. And, of course, the extreme nulling on the 90 degree axis is another reason that I'll reach for a ribbon when I do.

The M160, being hyper cardioid, doesn't provide this feature (which isnt a bad thing and is often exactly why I use it when I do, at times). I love it for it's great midrange on guitar cabs, been really digging it on snare lately (tons of body and great hi-hat rejection)and they make great overheads. Personally I have never found it to be just the ticket on a vocal. I do love it on acoustic when isolation is desired - like when your tracking a singer playing guitar at the same time or when recording a live show where a figure 8 ribbon or a condenser picks up way too much bleed from the monitors and everything else on stage (biggest struggle tracking live shows is getting good sounds from acoustic instruments and the m160 is a god-send in this department).

So, of course, I'd recommend getting them both because its these considerations that will make one work great where the other fails but I'd get the R84 first if most your recording is in a controlled studio environment.

[Ward Pike]

Originally Posted by vincentvangogo

Go for a blue one, it matches your eyes.

^^ This!! ROTFLMAO

[joeq]

Originally Posted by AllBread

Also, if I were shopping for a one and only ribbon mic or even just a first ribbon mic I'd go with the R84 simply because it's a ribbon that acts like a ribbon whereas the m160 is one of the few ribbon mics that don't act like a ribbon.

nice way of putting it

[bcgood]

I was messing around on that last post, lol.

Anyways, ok you make some great points All Bread. You have convinced me along with many others on this thread to go for the R84. Thanks for your help guys.

P.S. My eyes aren't blue!

[joeq]

Originally Posted by bcgood

I was messing around on that last post, lol.

Anyways, ok you make some great points All Bread. You have convinced me along with many others on this thread to go for the R84. Thanks for your help guys.

P.S. My eyes aren't blue!

do they make ribbons in "bloodshot"?

[ejbragg]

Another nice feature of the figure 8 pattern is mid-side microphone configuration, if it's something that interests you. I love it on acoustic recordings - makes the stereo field sound as fat or narrow as you require, depending on how you mix it. Of course, it still requires another good (cardioid) mic (and fyi, I find that a good condenser or tube, such as Neumann or Gefell make a great compliment to a ribbon on those types of recordings. Ditto for most jazz.)

[nnajar]

Originally Posted by ejbragg

Another nice feature of the figure 8 pattern is mid-side microphone configuration, if it's something that interests you. I love it on acoustic recordings - makes the stereo field sound as fat or narrow as you require, depending on how you mix it. Of course, it still requires another good (cardioid) mic (and fyi, I find that a good condenser or tube, such as Neumann or Gefell make a great compliment to a ribbon on those types of recordings. Ditto for most jazz.)

Yeah but you can't ms with an r84..... It isn't symmetrical. Need a 44 or 77 for that..... Or an 88 and that's all you use.....

[RankAmateur]

Originally Posted by ejbragg

Another nice feature of the figure 8 pattern is mid-side microphone configuration, if it's something that interests you. I love it on acoustic recordings - makes the stereo field sound as fat or narrow as you require, depending on how you mix it. Of course, it still requires another good (cardioid) mic (and fyi, I find that a good condenser or tube, such as Neumann or Gefell make a great compliment to a ribbon on those types of recordings. Ditto for most jazz.)

Novice question: isnt mid-side a bit tricky to mix?

[AllBread]

Originally Posted by RankAmateur

Novice question: isnt mid-side a bit tricky to mix?

Nope, you can just record the figure 8 mic onto two tracks, one with the polarity reversed (you can do this on a console using a mult after the preamp to feed two console channels or in the Daw by setting two tracks to the same input and, in the case of PT which doesn't have a polarity reverse function on the channel, add a low latency eq like the digi eq ii or iii and reverse polarity there). Pan one of he channels hard left and the other hard right and group them.

Then start out with the cardioid (mid) mic for your main sound of the instrument and then start adding the side channels to taste.

And I'll agree that one would ideally use a bi-directional mic with the exact same frequency response on each side as the side mic but I wouldn't let the slightly different frequency response that many ribbons exhibit depending on which side you use stop me from experimenting with M/S techniques with those mics - not something you'd want to fight when using a MS setup to capture an ensemble when placed dead center in a great sounding hall but the lack of symmetry could go unnoticed or even make the sound a bit more interesting when recording a single instrument in the studio.

[ejbragg]

Originally Posted by AllBread

And I'll agree that one would ideally use a bi-directional mic with the exact same frequency response on each side as the side mic but I wouldn't let the slightly different frequency response that many ribbons exhibit depending on which side you use stop me from experimenting with M/S techniques with those mics - not something you'd want to fight when using a MS setup to capture an ensemble when placed dead center in a great sounding hall but the lack of symmetry could go unnoticed or even make the sound a bit more interesting when recording a single instrument in the studio.

Yes, sir! That's the easiest way to track it. For those who don't have a console that allows that, just track the two different mics on two different channels, then copy the fig-8 mic audio onto another channel and reverse the phase on the entire waveform. Pan those hard left & right. Then follow the mix as described above. It's simple.

Good call on the pattern being uneven. However, I have tried this on a Royer 101 recently (which also has an uneven response), but the outcome was still beautiful.... I tracked a full choir near one end of a 40' x 50' room (20' vaulted ceiling) using the Royer facing sideways. The room is not perfectly symmetric, so I faced the darker side (rear of the mic) toward a closer wall; the other toward a more distant wall. I also used a U87 cardioid for the center. Alone in this room, with the preamps I used, the Neumann actually sounded a bit thin and touched on being shrill. A change of preamp would likely have helped - I was using a transformerless class A (earthworks). And the Royer alone sounded full and beautiful - however, the 101 is a bit weak in the upper frequencies. But using this method, the two mics complimented each other very well, indeed. I'll post a clip in a bit....

[ejbragg]

Now ... before I place my neck on the chopping block (by placing my mix out here for scrutiny by a lot of excellent engineers who would likely do things differently), I have to make the following disclaimers:

1. This group is not a professional group. They are actually a family. There were 25 of them, all between the ages of 17-35, with two younger children. They put together an album for their grandfather who taught them how to sing. Because of this fact, I was a bit concerned about how the quality of the recording was going to turn out. Once I heard them sing, all concern went into the trash. Their grandfather did a fine job! But consonants are not on queue, etc. In other words, if you're listening for all the perfect synchronicity of a professional group, you may be disappointed.

2. The room I used was not really large enough for proper choral recording - which would have been an emptied concert hall, ideally (150,000+ cu ft). The dimensions are described above, and the total volume is 20,000 cu ft.

3. I placed the mid-side mics 9' high, 15' from the performers, which were close to the front wall. I also tracked with 2 earthworks at about 18' high, 5' from the rear stone wall, facing the stone wall [the QTC30's are omnidirectional, but they do pick up ever so slightly more from directly in front of them].

4. During mixing, we pulled the EQ down about 1.5 dB at around 1KHz, with a Low Q setting. the room sounded a bit boxy otherwise. The Royer (side lobes) and U87 (center) were brought up to about the same level. The distant room mics were brought up to just over 12 dB below the main mics - just enough to add some thickness.

5. Then we cheated. We added just a bit more reverb.

6. Last of all, I didn't just cheat; I really broke the rules! It's a social blunder to add (audible) compression to a performance of this genre. But I did it. Not only that, it's a bit over the top. When the choir starts getting loud, you can hear the stress begin. It really needs to be backed off, but the project was an inexpensive experiment and we're leaving it alone. The customer was in a rush, under a budget, and ... frankly, they're quite happy with it. So it is what it is.

Here's one of the tracks:
Be Thou My Vision

[bcgood]

Sounds really nice EJ, I like it. Soothing stuff

[Alex Breaux]

Sonically there is absolutely no comparison between those two mics.

The AEA stuff is a godsend to the audio industry and that is an understatement. I love their mics on almost everything.

The sound of the Beyer to me is a very bright ribbon sm57 sound. It is awesome on some acoustic instruments, drum OVH in tight live rooms, and most importantly a great 2nd mic to have on a guitar cabs.

My opinion, both mics "a pair of both actually" would be great in any studio. But if its one or the other, you best be getting yourself an r84.

[gutr2]

Hey man, I hate to sound so passionate, but..
I have both and although I've been trying hard, I still haven't used the M160 yet, I haven't found anything that another mic doesn't do a better job.

I too had heard amazing things about it and bought one based on that.
It has lots of high mids and it's much thinner sounding than the R84.

The R84 is thunderous and glorious, it's just plain round warmth and detailed mid-range.

I haven't tried the M160 for vocals, I think it could sound quite nice, for a more forward / thinner sound. R84 is nice but it's not a mic with presence. It can sound a bit too laid back on some sources.