Studio Mic for Classical Instruments - TLM193; C414XLS; AT4047?

[jnorman]

looking for a solid, neutral, unhyped studio mic for classical instruments, including everything from picollo and flute, to strings, horns, and pedal harp. no vocals. from my reading, perhaps the TLM 193, 170, and U89 might be the best, but most expensive choices. the C414 B-ULS and it new equivalent, the C414 XLS seem to be in the middle cost-wise. a less expensive choice might be the AT4047. all have relatively flat response curves, and nice reviews.

from your experience, would the AT4047 do the job? would a 414 be better? should i save my pennies, forget the AT and AKG, and wait until i find a good used TLM193 or TLM170? my main mics are KM140s, which do great as ORTF mid-distant pair, but are a bit sharp for some instruments when used closer in the studio.

thanks for any thoughts.

[John Brook]

Hi,

I have both the AKGs and Neumanns you mention (414's + 193).

The 414s are multi-pattern, and I like to use the wide-cardioid when possible. It is more neutral as it moves towards omni.

The TLM193 really has a large sound, but it is a fixed cardioid pattern. I use it for solos mostly. I have an AT mic, but not the 4047, so cannot comment except to say that it, too, is cardioid. It supposedly has a really nice sound which would work well with vocals and strings.

I'd recommend going with the AKGs. It's high quality sound and is well established. You'll appreciate the multi-pattern. When I'm doing on-site recordings, it's nice, too, to have the LEDs on the back side letting you know the mic is on.

[Jungle Jazz]

Of the mics you listed, I'd go with a 414 ULS. I feel like a broken record saying this again, but I had a pair of the C414B-XLS, and I found the combination of the elastic capsule suspension and electronic pattern control to be less than ideal. Ultimately, the patterns didn't sound a whole lot different in their pattern definitions; they all more or less sounded like omni. Maybe I just got a bad pair, but it was particularly noticeable in figure 8, which didn't really seem to have side nulls. I like the ULS for its more clearly defined pattern selections. Maybe others have had better luck with the XLS.

I like the 4047 as well, but it isn't as flexible as a 414. It sounds to me like it has a slight midrange presence boost. If you can live with cardioid only, and you truly want a flat response LDC, I'd look into the Beyerdynamic MC834. On the cheap, for a pretty good neutral sounding LDC, the CAD m179 can do quite well.

[Baithak]

Dear JNorman:

I find that most of the LD mics have disturbingly weird off-axis responses. i.e. their use as a stereo pair is limited. The only mic that I have found useful for off axis use (as well as neutral sounding on axis) is the Sanken CU 44x. Now that they have released the MKII which operates on Phantom power, it is a really useful general purpose mic with the added benefit of sounding like the instrument. My search of LD mics is pretty much done.

The 414 is nice too for a bit less coin. No experience with the higher end Neumans.

Good luck,
Baithak

[John Brook]

One after thought - I recently purchased the AT 4050ST, which is a stereo mic and can work either in the MS mode or XY. I've only used it in the studio thus far, no field experience with it yet, but it seems quite good. You might take a look at it as an alternate to what you've suggested.

Good luck.

[Celloman]

Originally Posted by Baithak

The only mic that I have found useful for off axis use (as well as neutral sounding on axis) is the Sanken CU 44x. \

Excellent mic, but even though it is dual capsule design, it's not a LD capsule.

Mike

[didier.brest]

The AT4047 is warmer than the AKG C414B-XLS. Both are nice mics. I often prefer the AT4047 on my piano but it's just me. I can provide you with some samples if you are interested in.
Note that the AT4047MP is the multipattern version of the cardioid only AT4047.

[musicfromtheroad]

Originally Posted by Jungle Jazz

... but I had a pair of the C414B-XLS, and I found the combination of the elastic capsule suspension and electronic pattern control to be less than ideal. Ultimately, the patterns didn't sound a whole lot different in their pattern definitions; they all more or less sounded like omni. Maybe I just got a bad pair, but it was particularly noticeable in figure 8, which didn't really seem to have side nulls.

I had the same experience with the XLS trying it out in a store - when I pointed this out to the sales 'dude' he said 'they always ship broken stuff to us..." so the only time I've heard one I assumed it was broken...

has anyone else had this experience? - I was testing on headphones and there was no discernible difference between figure8 and omni - no nulls - was the mic broken or ...?

[Corran]

I'm planning on buying a pair of LDC's soon that will be useful for classical and jazz as well as some studio stuff I've got coming in.

Through my personal research I've kinda decided on a pair of Neumann U89's, for various reasons. I throw this out there both as a possible suggestion for jnorman as well as to see if anyone else would agree or disagree, since I don't have any actual experience with them.

I have had experience with a newer 414 (not sure if it was XLS or ULS) and I didn't like it at all.

[rumleymusic]

The 414 is a very good, well balanced, and neutral sounding microphone. You should not notice much of a difference with on axis material when using different patterns. AT 4050 and Shure KSM44 and also great medium budget multi pattern microphones for classical recording.

[Track 7]

I use the AT4047 on strings and classical instruments quite often because I love the smooth top end and a bit of warmth.
If you want something very neutral, I would suggest the KSM32 which also works very well on many instruments. I use it when I want something that is neutral but still very full sounding and accurate.

[pkautzsch]

414 XLS has a bit of a lo-mid bump to my ears. For classical, I only like them as room mics, in fig-8 with the nulls towards the ensemble and the audience, pointing at the side walls. This is a taste thing, I guess, and probably depends on the rooms. No good in using a lo-mid bumped mic in a lo-mid bumped room.

To the OP: Does it have to be LDC, or have you ever thought about Schoeps? They are "warmer" than 140s, and still very neutral and detailed. Sennheiser 80xx are said to be even warmer and more neutral (haven't heard them myself). All take EQ very well.

[Audiop]

Originally Posted by Baithak

The only mic that I have found useful for off axis use (as well as neutral sounding on axis) is the Sanken CU 44x. Now that they have released the MKII which operates on Phantom power, it is a really useful general purpose mic with the added benefit of sounding like the instrument. My search of LD mics is pretty much done.

Hi!

Please refresh my memory, did you try and use MKH40 and MKH8040 for some time? In such case do you still use them and how do you feel the MKH's compare to CU44X?

I'm interested in this mic and if they have something the MKH8040 does not have as a main pair I'm considering a purchase of a pair.


/Peter

[matyas]

I regular use a pair 414s for classical. Some may find them bright, but in the kinds of halls I find myself working in, that's not always a bad thing. They're also super-versatile.
Another mic you should consider if you're looking at LDCs is the Gefell M930. I don't own it, but I've used it before, and it sounded great on flute. It's a very smooth mic (to my ears) and I think it sounds relatively unhyped.

[sonare]

I choose a mic based on the sound I think I need and go from there. Any 414 is a different and brighter world from the U89/TLM170/193 family but I have found my 193s a dependable go-to for spotting everything from from lute or recorder to LOUD jazz trumpet. Klaus Heyne has developed a mod that makes a 193 electrically identical to a 170 in cardioid. The 193 is the sleeper value of ebay-- about $700 vs over twice that for 170 or U89.

Rich

[jnorman]

thank you all for your input. what about a nice true pressure near-field omni, like a senn mkh20, km131, or cmc62? i am becoming a fan of the more spacious sound of omnis.

what are your thoughts on SDC vs LDC, and omni vs directional, when choosing a primary studio mic for acoustic instruments?

[sonare]

I avoid the studio like the plague so am really not the one to ask!

Rich

[Baithak]

Originally Posted by Audiop

Hi!

Please refresh my memory, did you try and use MKH40 and MKH8040 for some time? In such case do you still use them and how do you feel the MKH's compare to CU44X?

/Peter

Hey Peter : Sorry I have not had a chance to compare with the Senn MKH series although they consistently seem to get good reviews. I have the Schoeps mics and some of the SDC DPAs but somehow I really like the sound of the CU 44Xs. Most of the music I record is acoustic - with plucked instruments like the Sitar and Sarod. Also a lot of vocal classical indian music which I prefer to record with minimal mics in "live" rooms. This puts a great premium on off-axis sounds. I guess an omni mic sounds so real because it has better off-axis response than cardiods. The CU-44X sounds nearest to how an omni sounds while still having superb rejection in the back. You should really try one.

Best wishes,
Baithak

[Eric Weber]

The original poster said his KM140's were too bright in the studio....
they have a slight HF bump in the response to compensate for their customary use as an ortf pair.... where the main sources are somewhat off axis.... Either look at their published response and put in a slight correction in your daw or just turn them a little off axis to roll off this bump...

Another poster mentioned listening for microphone pattern nulls on headphones... it does not work correctly.... have someone else do the singing and rotate the microphone... the results will be what you expect...

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by sonare

Klaus Heyne has developed a mod that makes a 193 electrically identical to a 170 in cardioid.

I thought that the 193 was sounding like the 170 in cardioid. Not true?

[buzzjoe]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

I thought that the 193 was sounding like the 170 in cardioid. Not true?

I have both mics here (since yesterday) and did a short A/B test (my voice, steelstring guitar, Forsell SMP-2). I am surprised how different they sound. Both are used and the 170 is much older than the 193 so I am not shure if they sound "like new" (especially the 170). To my ears the 193 sounds a lot "fuller" in the low mids while the 170 (in cardioid) sounds a little "thinner" in that range. Overall the the 193 sounds warmer and more "in your face" and the 170 a little "distant" in comparison. I much prefer the 193.

Oliver

[didier.brest]

You might make check your 170 because I often read, especially on the Neumann forum, that both these mics and the U89 are very close.

[Marik]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

414 XLS has a bit of a lo-mid bump to my ears. For classical, I only like them as room mics, in fig-8 with the nulls towards the ensemble and the audience, pointing at the side walls. This is a taste thing, I guess, and probably depends on the rooms. No good in using a lo-mid bumped mic in a lo-mid bumped room.

To the OP: Does it have to be LDC, or have you ever thought about Schoeps? They are "warmer" than 140s, and still very neutral and detailed.

Thank you for expressing my sentiments and being generous enough to give the 414's at least some credit. Personally, I did not find ANY use for ANY 414 reincarnation... at least in classical recording.

Also, absolutely agree with the LDC thing, but again, who listens here?

Best, M

[Yannick]

How about a Pearl DS60 ?

[Storyville]

Originally Posted by jnorman

thank you all for your input. what about a nice true pressure near-field omni, like a senn mkh20, km131, or cmc62? i am becoming a fan of the more spacious sound of omnis.

what are your thoughts on SDC vs LDC, and omni vs directional, when choosing a primary studio mic for acoustic instruments?

I do a fair amount of recording of classical/jazz/acoustic instrumentation.

If you want "natural/honest" my recommendation is omni sdc. I use a pair of earthworks QTC30s constantly - piano, over the sound holes, string ensemble OH, drum room captures, acoustic guitar sound hole a foot away and aimed at the bottom of the neck, solo strings above and aimed at the bottom of the neck - I am constantly impressed by these microphones.

IF going for an LDC I do recommend the TLM170s for neutral - Gefell umt70S for robust.

I think c414s are underrated for these applications, I use a pair of ULSs for room captures to a great deal of success (M-S).

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by Eric Weber

The original poster said his KM140's were too bright in the studio....
they have a slight HF bump in the response to compensate for their customary use as an ortf pair....

I would not attribute this motivation to the microphone design.

[JEGG]

Originally Posted by didier.brest

I thought that the 193 was sounding like the 170 in cardioid. Not true?

There are slight differences. The upper end is where the primary difference lies, with the 193 being every so slightly "etched," but not in a negative sense. The 193 is slightly quieter, not that it means much. ("Etched" in the realm of the 193/170/89 means barely perceptible.)

There's really not much in the differences.

There are some that claim the polar pattern is slightly different, some preferring one over the other. But again, the differences are small. (I haven't noticed the pattern difference.)


Nothing to worry about.