The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Small diaphragm condenser... Condenser Microphones
Old 31st December 2010
  #31
Lives for gear
 
SteelyDani's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ofajen View Post
The KM184 has an 8 dB peak at 10K and is rather hyped for my taste.
I’m afraid you are making a mistake. The omni KM 183 has an 8 dB peak at 10K. The KM 184 has only between 2 or 3 dB boost at 8/9000 Hz and in my experience is an excellent mic for recording acoustic instruments.
Old 1st January 2011
  #32
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDani View Post
I’m afraid you are making a mistake. The omni KM 183 has an 8 dB peak at 10K. The KM 184 has only between 2 or 3 dB boost at 8/9000 Hz and in my experience is an excellent mic for recording acoustic instruments.
Correct. I already posted, in this thread, that this statement was in error and added the correct figure.

Cheers,

Otto
Old 1st January 2011
  #33
Lives for gear
 
KevWind's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by grrrayson View Post
Schoeps.
Yessirie
Old 1st January 2011
  #34
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tedpenn View Post
Sorry if you misunderstood- didn't mean to imply any change in the actual pickup pattern of either mic, simply their practical application in those respective locations (omni closer to source). Hence the quotes around "directional".



This is a common misconception regarding omni's. "Directionality" has everything to do with the ratio of direct to indirect sounds that the microphone is seeing, and by moving an omni closer to the source you are able to achieve the same ratio of direct/indirect as a more distant cardioid.

Let me be very clear: I am in no way suggesting that the actual pickup pattern of either microphone is changing, only their practical application. The myth that I'm trying to dispel (which unfortunately your post seems to perpetuate) is that no matter how close to the source you place an omni it will never be as good at rejecting unwanted reflections as a cardioid placed further back. This is simply untrue.

As noted before:


While (obviously) you are indeed placing the omni in a different place within the guitar's radiation pattern when moving it closer, this is often not a problem, especially with careful placement.


I have, many times, and in direct comparison between an omni and a cardioid in a fairly reflective room. I've also used an omni in a (fairly unflattering) booth with great results from careful close placement.

I'm not sure what part of my earlier post may have lead you to believe that for some reason I didn't think the details mattered, but of course they do. That's the reason for my detailed responses, as well as references to 3rd party sources cited (albeit a manufacturer with unavoidable bias).



This is very true, and the reason that careful placement is needed regardless of the microphone type. No one's talking about shoving an omni right up over the soundhole of a guitar. We're talking about the difference in a cardioid placed at 2 feet, versus an omni placed just over a foot away.

There is a tradeoff with either mic type.

With an omni, you have to move in closer to achieve the same rejection of off-axis sounds, but you lose that proximity effect and coloration of off-axis sounds.

With a cardioid, you can get away with more distant placement, but they are significantly more colored off-axis and the proximity effect can translate to boominess if you're too close, or thinness if too distant.



To make matters worse, these polar patterns are entirely frequency dependent. In the case of an acoustic guitar recording, if you look at what is undoubtedly the most common cardioid placement (straight on from the front, a foot or two away, somewhere near the 12th fret, etc.) the rejection of lower frequencies at 45 degress off axis is quite poor. This is remarkable and relevant because with this placement, that boomy soundhole happens to fall right around 45 degrees off axis! And the proximity effect only makes dealing with the low end buildup more difficult. So what do you do to deal with this? Move the mic further away, putting you right back in the position of the mic hearing more indirect/reflected sounds, the very complaint you make about omni's.

KM184 Polar Pattern


Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking cardioids. In fact, MOST of the time I'm recording acoustics I'm using cards of some type. My KM184's, for example, sound fantastic on-axis, and when placed well, but they get downright nasty off-axis or when placed hastily.

The bottom line is that in my experience folks are simply overly paranoid about using omni's, for fear of not being able to deal with those unwanted reflections. As mentioned, moving closer is one way to deal with this.

However, the giant elephant in the room is that the other very effective way to handle this potential problem is with absorptive gobos! To be blunt, if someone has the money to be considering any of these microphones, you also have to cash to pick up some 703, wood, and fabric (or buy some pre-made). Treating the recording space and mic placement are equally, if not more important than the pickup pattern you're dealing with. And, assuming you're in a studio environment (and not live) those things are just as easy to do.
+1 on all of this. I'm using omnis up close and much prefer the results to using cardioids on acoustic guitars.
Old 1st January 2011
  #35
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett View Post
The current 451s are electrets, the originals were true condensers
So what? All DPA mics except for the 4041 are electrets too.
Old 1st January 2011
  #36
Lives for gear
 
SteelyDani's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ofajen View Post
Correct. I already posted, in this thread, that this statement was in error and added the correct figure.

Cheers,

Otto
Sorry Otto. I hadn’t read your fourth post.
Old 1st January 2011
  #37
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelyDani View Post
Sorry Otto. I hadn’t read your fourth post.
No prob. I'm going to go back and delete that post, so the unsuspecting will only see corrections, not the first post.

Cheers,

Otto
Old 2nd January 2011
  #38
Lives for gear
 
tmcconnell's Avatar
 

A couple of points

+1 for Schoeps.
+1 For omni.

Nice middle ground: mk21 capsule. Its wide card without being completely omni. It does not suffer from proximity effect anywhere near as much as normal cardioid mics. It is slightly euphonic.

-1 for the km184. This has a high end boost that makes it brittle to many ears... my understanding is that this was intentional as it was designed as a distance mic.. so its compensating for the high end loss due to lots of air between mic and source.

Finally, if by acoustic sounds you mean acoustic guitars, its quite difficult to get that sound right, and very rarely does anyone actually want on tape what they are hearing in the room. For example, in a dense country mix, the guitar ends up playing a role a lot like a high hat, and in a rock mix, the 6-700 hz growl is often boosted to make it cut without chewing up all the frequency real estate. . And, the room is a huge factor normally, and runs from horrible to beautiful... so the choice of mic should be guided by the recording environment as much as anything else.

Anyway, My 2 cents. If you go with the Schoeps you will have an industry standard tool you can use on almost anything and get a very accurate picture. I often test mics over a drumset. I try to hear the decay of a sizzler I have that has 4 rivets. With an SDC I can hear each rivet rolling around on the brass as the symbol decays, with almost any ribbon mic, it just sounds like noise. Often acoustic guitars - even good ones - have a nasty string thing going on, and a little mush is a good thing. So, anyway, be sure its accuracy that you really want. I personally like an r122 on acoustic. It gives a little midrange boost, quells nasty wrong harmonics in the strings, and the null pane can be used to make bleed sound beautiful but still have less of it. Your Omni's won't do that. I'll shut up now. t.
Old 7th January 2011
  #39
nog
Gear Nut
 

bottomless

call me a doink, but i love reading gearslutz.
all kinds of wisdom and a million hilarious
wiseguys. it's a winnin hand!
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
ArjanES335 / Low End Theory
20
RabbitHoleRecord / So much gear, so little time
8
adam_asr10 / Low End Theory
11
withintheflux / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
12

Forum Jump
Forum Jump