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
Tags: , , ,

CM3 - really THAT good? Condenser Microphones
Old 24th August 2017
  #1591
Lives for gear
 
jpgerard's Avatar
And we don't have to - different opinions are a beautiful thing. I stand by mine and if you ask the good folks at Neumann (at least someone who is technically inclined, not a salesman) they will indeed concur: like a lot of Cardioids, the 184 (and a bunch others, CM3 included) has a tapered low end. Originally is was designed on purpose and helped counteract proximity effect. These days it can be a sign of poor design or manufacturing consistency. BTW: it was not an attack on the 184, vs. the CM3. It's just a reminder that the 184 is not ruler flat.
Old 24th August 2017
  #1592
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpgerard View Post
but you need to stick with the modular KM range from Neumann to get a linearity comparable to Schoeps or Line Audio.
So you're saying the KM140 has more linearity on the bottom than the KM184? I've seen very little conversation over the years about the differences, if any, between the lines. But some have said they are absolutely identical mics, while others swear the modulars sound closer to the KM84. What's your experience?
Old 24th August 2017
  #1593
Lives for gear
 
jpgerard's Avatar
No, sorry if that was (again, I need to watch it) misleading. As far as I know: the KM184 and KM140 have the same capsule and always had. All released data is the same for both. when I heard a 140 I heard the same overall response as the 184. But I didn't have a 184 next to it...

What I meant is that with the modular range, you can go with a KM131 which is a ton more linear (straight line, or close to it) than the KM183 which is definitely treble emphasized.

If you need a directional mic, the 120 is a very useable Fig-8 and sounds quite natural to my ears, more so than the 140 or 184.

So with a KM100 system you have more options if you're after linearity. The 180 range has a treble emphasized Omni, the 184 we all know, and the 185 which has a very obvious low end roll off. That one and the 183 bugged me most as I always felt they strayed away from linearity a bit much. Neither Schoeps or MBHO went with such derivations. But back to the Cardioids... I'm puzzled because people I know and trust said the KM140 "sounds" flatter than the KM184. So this has indeed been discussed in various forums back when the 184 was released. But I never had the opportunity to do an A/B: I can only tell you that some talented engineers working on classical material said that the KM140 is flatter than the 184.

Tolerances perhaps? Is it possible that the KM180 circuit upgrade altered the response of the mic somehow? I doubt it. But it could possibly explain why some folks hear a difference and favour the 140. Transient distortion, or lack of it in the older KM100? I don't have a clue. It could more probably be, without wanting to start another long thread, that KM100 users have mics that have collected all sorts of particles on the diaphragm over the years and when the 184 came out, well, all examples were brand new, not "worn in" or fatigued. The freshness of brand new 184 may have caused some users to report they were brighter... I don't know.

The one model in the 180 range I find over the top is the 183. I think the treble lift is overdone for an "every day" Omni, except in cases when you need a really serious treble peak. Yes, you can work it by pointing it not at the source but somewhere else and focus on the off axis response, typical with a Diffuse Field mic. But unless you're really far from the source, in a relatively dark room, it's going to be pretty bright indeed.

Again, anyone getting to know those mics will be able to work with them. I heard wonderful work with mics I wouldn't want given to me for free. I'm sure some folks love their 183's. I know a lot of users with 184 who wouldn't trade them. I also know more 184 users who did trade them for something with less personality, or a different overall tone.

The 184 will always be compared to the 84 unfortunately, in part due to Neumann salesmen telling us they're the same as the 84 but quieter etc. It's a different mic... and I find both usable for different tasks.

Interesting that the KM100 is now discontinued (it has been for some time in fact). Offer and Demand at play again. Could it be that Free Field Omnis aren't wished for anymore? If the 183 is still a regular product it must be profitable. So linearity is probably not what everybody wants.

One thing to keep in mind: the 140 is smaller and that will have an effect on the response. Less than with an Omni, true. But still. So even if the mics have the same guts and capsules, the body may have an influence. The 140 can be remotely set and the dimensions are then even smaller. So if you compare with a 184 I'm sure there may be differences to be heard. But I can't provide measurements on this, it would be interesting if someone who did could jump in. But then this all belongs in a KM184 thread I think, right?

PS: I prefer to work with relatively flat mics but that's just me. And yes, I prefer the 84 to the 184, the difference between them is clearly audible
Old 24th August 2017
  #1594
Lives for gear
 

Thanks for the detailed reply! I didn't mean to turn this into a Neumann thread, but the reason I asked is that I've been using a pair of KM140's for my main orchestra mics, with good results, and have been a little afraid to swap them out for the pair of CM-3's I got from you earlier this year and used mainly as choir mics thus far. It's a situation where I don't get any rehearsal or experiment time at all and have to limit the mics on stage, so I just have to commit and hope for the best. Knowing the KM140's are a bit weak on the bottom, and having already heard the noticeably beefier bass of the CM-3's, I'm gonna go for the gold at next month's concert. Should be a great test for the little guys, as the concert includes Mahler 5.
Old 24th August 2017
  #1595
Lives for gear
 
jpgerard's Avatar
I don't think of them in terms of "beefier" and "leaner" per se, to be honest I think you'll notice the wide polar response of the CM3 before you notice differences in the low end. The flatter top end of the CM3, for sure. But when it comes to the bass, used at an appreciable distance, let's say I wouldn't swap 140's for CM3's hoping to get a "bigger low end". What would be interesting would be to run both pairs together... then you could decide what works best for you and you could even report here!
Old 24th August 2017
  #1596
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpgerard View Post
I don't think of them in terms of "beefier" and "leaner" per se, to be honest I think you'll notice the wide polar response of the CM3 before you notice differences in the low end. The flatter top end of the CM3, for sure. But when it comes to the bass, used at an appreciable distance, let's say I wouldn't swap 140's for CM3's hoping to get a "bigger low end". What would be interesting would be to run both pairs together... then you could decide what works best for you and you could even report here!
Yeah, it's possible I've confused the darker tone with being more bass-heavy. I'd love to put both pairs up, but I can only place one tall stand on stage. I'll see if it's possible to rig something up with all my oddball clamps and clips.
Old 24th August 2017
  #1597
Gear Addict
 
Vesta's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpgerard View Post
I cannot agree that a KM184 or, gasp, U87, would be more desirable on any given source than a CM3... especially on classical recordings... at least if you want a honest recording.
This is interesting... So my heavy large diaphragm condensers that I ceremoniously put in front of the vocalists, could be replaced with something the size of an XLR plug at no cost to the sonic quality? How sure are you of this?
Old 25th August 2017
  #1598
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesta View Post
This is interesting... So my heavy large diaphragm condensers that I ceremoniously put in front of the vocalists, could be replaced with something the size of an XLR plug at no cost to the sonic quality? How sure are you of this?
CM3:X/Y .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDwiyl5FRJg
Old 25th August 2017
  #1599
Lives for gear
 
jnorman's Avatar
FYI - here is a direct comparison of the km184 vs km140:
KM184 vs KM140
Old 25th August 2017
  #1600
Gear Addict
 
Vesta's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
This sounds convincing but can we put it up behind a pop filter and record vocals with no room sound? You know, the usual way you'd record say a U87...
Old 25th August 2017
  #1601
Lives for gear
 
jpgerard's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmccoy View Post
Yeah, it's possible I've confused the darker tone with being more bass-heavy. I'd love to put both pairs up, but I can only place one tall stand on stage. I'll see if it's possible to rig something up with all my oddball clamps and clips.
Also they have different proximity effects, so distance is critical in getting the same "amount of bass" if you see what I mean.

The CM3's being so light and tiny you should be able to rig them without trouble.
Old 25th August 2017
  #1602
Lives for gear
 
jpgerard's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesta View Post
This is interesting... So my heavy large diaphragm condensers that I ceremoniously put in front of the vocalists, could be replaced with something the size of an XLR plug at no cost to the sonic quality? How sure are you of this?
You'll have to conduct your own experiments. I did mine. Others did too. Discussing how mics sounds in forums is exhausting and not terribly constructive. What I can tell you is that you might want to give up the idea that expensive, large microphones are automatically better then smaller, less expensive ones. According to you, a TLM103 would always beat a Schoeps on vocals. All I can say is... how sure are you of this? I strongly suggest doing some unbiased tests. On vocals, I couldn't tell you how many times I ended up with a well popfiltered SDC and the U87 stayed in its box on most sessions, mating well with a given singer only about 5 to 10% of the time. Back when I was an active engineer in the studio, my C414EB won, my KM84 won, my Gefell 71 won, my Sony C38b won, my C451E even won a few times over the U87. It all depends on the voice and the desired results. I'm not bashing the U87. But you can't assume it will always beat smaller, less expensive, lesser known mics. That applies in broader strokes to SDC vs. LDC choices. Never assume - experiment. Whatever works.
Old 25th August 2017
  #1603
Gear Addict
 
Vesta's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpgerard View Post
According to you, a TLM103 would always beat a Schoeps on vocals. All I can say is... how sure are you of this?
Not sure at all... Especially since the last post I made (before the one you quoted) was a comment saying "My impression [of TLM103 and 102] was they were down to the level of Chinese condensers, with nothing but the Neumann logo on them."

But thanks for your thorough explanations. I bought a pair of CM3's after reading your posts and really love them. It just never occurred to me I could use them on vocals like that. There's nothing I'd want more than to do away with the large and heavy LDC's and pack light for on-location recordings.
Old 25th August 2017
  #1604
Lives for gear
 
jpgerard's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesta View Post
Not sure at all... Especially since the last post I made (before the one you quoted) was a comment saying "My impression [of TLM103 and 102] was they were down to the level of Chinese condensers, with nothing but the Neumann logo on them."

But thanks for your thorough explanations. I bought a pair of CM3's after reading your posts and really love them. It just never occurred to me I could use them on vocals like that. There's nothing I'd want more than to do away with the large and heavy LDC's and pack light for on-location recordings.
Meant as a generalized "LDC vs SDC". And I don't see how the 103 is "down to the level of Chinese condensers" but I'll give you that the 102 seems to be pushing the envelope - the wrong way - a bit... not a bad sounding mic though, the 102.

Yes, if you can, try the CM3 on vocals, spoken word even. Again, when you need linearity, fidelity - it's just the ticket. You'll need proper pop filtering. For location recordings SDC's are a bit of a norm but I can see why you'd still grab a LDC for vocals. On location you don't always have the luxury of proper popfiltering and positioning or endless takes. So a LDC, naturally more pop resistant, might be required. However for everything else, LDC's will not disappoint (again, unless you're after the personality of a given LDC).
Old 25th August 2017
  #1605
Gear Addict
 
Vesta's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpgerard View Post
Meant as a generalized "LDC vs SDC". And I don't see how the 103 is "down to the level of Chinese condensers" but I'll give you that the 102 seems to be pushing the envelope - the wrong way - a bit... not a bad sounding mic though, the 102.

Yes, if you can, try the CM3 on vocals, spoken word even. Again, when you need linearity, fidelity - it's just the ticket. You'll need proper pop filtering. For location recordings SDC's are a bit of a norm but I can see why you'd still grab a LDC for vocals. On location you don't always have the luxury of proper popfiltering and positioning or endless takes. So a LDC, naturally more pop resistant, might be required. However for everything else, LDC's will not disappoint (again, unless you're after the personality of a given LDC).
By Chinese condensers I don't necessarily mean horrible sounding mics; more like modern mics made cheaply in China. They're not all bad.

I was judging their sound by this shootout, in which I heard them to be clearly inferior to the Rode NT1.

Should I place double pop filters in front of the CM3's for vocals?
Old 25th August 2017
  #1606
Lives for gear
For Vesta...this is inexorably leading to the inevitable, isn't it: you have the relevant mics, the recording space, the pop shields, the voice talent...do the xperiment and post results !

On a side note...what do you find attractive about the U87 sound, is it the pedigree history, the flatness (or coloration) or just familiarity and dependability ? This is not a test (I don't have a U87)...just simple curiosity.

Personally, I'd angle the CM3 just slightly off 90 degrees to the singers' mouth...so the pressure wave doesn't hit the mic capsule dead-on, but rather at a slight angle...and experiment with double pop shields and another 10cms or more distance from the mouth than a LDC like a U87 (smaller diaphragm = easier to overload)
Old 25th August 2017
  #1607
Gear Addict
 
Vesta's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
For Vesta...this is inexorably leading to the inevitable, isn't it: you have the relevant mics, the recording space, the pop shields, the voice talent...do the xperiment and post results !

On a side note...what do you find attractive about the U87 sound, is it the pedigree history, the flatness (or coloration) or just familiarity and dependability ? This is not a test (I don't have a U87)...just simple curiosity.

Personally, I'd angle the CM3 just slightly off 90 degrees to the singers' mouth...so the pressure wave doesn't hit the mic capsule dead-on, but rather at a slight angle...and experiment with double pop shields and another 10cms or more distance from the mouth than a LDC like a U87 (smaller diaphragm = easier to overload)
It's not like I'm in some kind of emergency or anything. I'm just on gearslutz discussing gear. Of course, I'm going to experiment.

I don't care much for the U87 sound. I think you mean U47 which is what I brought up in the thread you must remember me from. I heard the U47 in two different blind tests and each time picked it as a clear preference due to some sweet midrange coloration and open, natural timbre. I'll try to find the test online and send it to you, if you're curious.

Thanks on the tips on how to handle CM3. Without reading this tread I knew I didn't prefer the CM3's for vocals but didn't realize it was the sensitivity to plosives. Next time, I'll make that a non-issue and see what I get.
Old 25th August 2017
  #1608
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesta View Post
I don't care much for the U87 sound. I think you mean U47 which is what I brought up in the thread you must remember me from. I heard the U47 in two different blind tests and each time picked it as a clear preference due to some sweet midrange coloration and open, natural timbre.
I think we see such classic Neumann mics in multiple videos and YouTubes over time, and so we perhaps think all mics should sound similarly good at the same distance/angle/pop shield ....when each mic deserves to be given enough experimental placement variations, connection to various mic preamps and other signal chains to shine at their best.

There is no one-mic fits all....perhaps no one mic should only be used for 'x' either...give it the extended benefit of open-minded experimental license to excel...and prepare to be surprised !
Old 25th August 2017
  #1609
I want to relatively close mic an acoustic guitar in stereo, and am wondering which array would be best to start with. I am looking at the mic mounts from SRS for the CM3. My research suggests XY and ORTF may be best at closer distances, with ORTF having a slightly wider stereo image. "True" ORTF requires cardioid mics, but the CM3s are wide cardioid.

I was just wondering which of the stereo bars might be good to start with? I have a single Rycote Lyre mount for the CM3 and ideally would like to be able to use it for both mics, so I guess I'd be going with the mk2 models that can accommodate the Rycote? But that leaves far fewer choices...

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/srsr...Line+Audio&s=0

Maybe I should buy an adjustable mount and experiment a bit?
Old 25th August 2017
  #1610
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermetech Mastering View Post
Maybe I should buy an adjustable mount and experiment a bit?
I think this is a good idea ! If your guitar is going to be recorded as part of a larger, more dense mix of other instruments you probably want it to be mono compatible, which would dictate X/Y as giving a not very wide, but coherent sound which sits well in a mix.

If solo guitar, try a variety of the near spacings like ORTF, DIN, NOS etc at various distances and work out how these translate to your preferred sound. Even AB with the CM3's might float your boat...the only way is to try....

I like bars which enable the most flexibility in attaining all of these settings, but there's no denying the setup speed and reliability of the Shapeways/SRS printed bars are impossible to beat !
Old 25th August 2017
  #1611
Thanks Studer 58. It's going to be mainly acoustic guitar based folk music, with minor overdubs of other instruments. I'll probably be double tracking many acoustic guitar parts for each song, and experimenting with both mono and stereo recording, and then again when mixing them all together. I'll be wanting a deliberately wide stereo image for some parts, that really lives out far L & R, so wondering if the wide ORTF might be good for this. I'll grab the cheapish Rode adjustable bar and experiment...
Old 26th August 2017
  #1612
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermetech Mastering View Post
I'll grab the cheapish Rode adjustable bar and experiment...
A great initial choice, highly flexible and rugged. I've found that the multiple layering of many 'true stereo' acoustic guitars can quickly lead to a congested sense and flattening of space, not to mention a rapid build-up of exaggerated bass...so some point-source/ single-mic mono guitars, with eq reduction in the low end, can prevent this...interspersed with stereo guitars.

Many of these spaced stereo miking techniques eg ORTF don't collapse down well to mono on guitars, especially with close-miking...hence the recommendation to also record single mic.
Old 26th August 2017
  #1613
Thanks for the input and hints! Had wondered about that, multiple layering of stereo acoustic guitars, and if it might sound bad... Ideally will be very stripped back mixes with only a few elements, maybe one mono acoustic centre and stereo overdubs for the "sides", with a few effect sounds or minimal percussion etc.

Stereo mics will be the pair of CM3s (probably a bit more distant, at least 1m away, to get rid of proximity effect) and an AA CM48T tube mic (mono, will experiment with cardioid and omni patterns and the built in HPF at 125Hz, hopefully able to get a bit closer). The only other mic I have is an SM57 but will probably save that for any electric guitar/tube amp micing overdubs. Only pre I have is a Chandler TG2, but it has been sounding great with all the mics so far, coloured but in a nice way.

Will order the Rode bar this week, not sure how wide it can go, but hopefully wide enough.
Old 26th August 2017
  #1614
Lives for gear
 
celticrogues's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermetech Mastering View Post
Will order the Rode bar this week, not sure how wide it can go, but hopefully wide enough.
I believe the max on the Rode bar is 20 cm.

-Mike
Old 31st August 2017
  #1615
Here for the gear
 
Harewood's Avatar
I just bought a pair of CM3's so I don't have to read 54 pages of post!
Old 31st August 2017
  #1616
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harewood View Post
I just bought a pair of CM3's so I don't have to read 54 pages of post!
Nope, you still have to read them all. It's a rite of passage.
Old 1st September 2017
  #1617
Gear Maniac
 
benoïde's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpgerard View Post
from years of customers reports and personal experience... DPA/Schoeps can be considered a step up in that they have lower noise than the Line Audios. But compare a Schoeps MK21 and a CM3... you won't be floored by the difference in terms of tone, dynamics and overall quality. Again, noise floor, yes, a bit to the advantage of the Schoeps and it can be a requirement in some situations. DPA's are pretty much above all, and their price is justified. However I cannot agree that a KM184 or, gasp, U87, would be more desirable on any given source than a CM3... especially on classical recordings... at least if you want a honest recording. If you need that U87 whatever-you-want-to-call-it or the artificial treble emphasis and tapered low end of the 184, great - but you need to stick with the modular KM range from Neumann to get a linearity comparable to Schoeps or Line Audio. The CM3 and OM1's are designed to be flat, not flattering - so yeah, they might lose in an audio beauty contest but when it comes to honesty and linearity, they will easily match the big guys. What they don't have is the treble emphasis, which many tend to mix with "detail" or "resolution". A treble boost makes it easier to hear HF detail, but it doesn't magically enhances the "resolution" of the mic. Whether you HF emphasize or not is a choice, it's up to the designer, and up to the user to pick the right mic for the right job. So, DPA wins time after time for being linear and pleasing. Slight treble thing going on but not overdone. Beautiful work from the designers. B&K/DPA mics were and are the first choice for classical for good reasons At the end of the day it's just choices, and the CM3 or OM1 can not only be used with great results on the right source, just like any other mic, they can offer the layman without unlimited budget access to performance otherwise unattainable. Don't underestimate them based on their price. First we all know by now they're under-priced a bit (!). Second, even if they weren't, it's obvious that when used properly, they will serve their purpose admirably. I, and others, have been fooled in various listening tests...
Hi JP,

First of all, I don't dispute the linearity of the CM3 - especially on the off-axis response, which is a big advantage over many microphones regardless of price for acoustic recordings. I have only compared it to DPA 4006 when recording a piano recital, I wanted to hear how it fared tone wise, and there was no contest (of course, as you said DPA's are classic mics for a reason). I haven't done any blind tests with Schoeps or other mics.

BUT, for the way I work, I like using km184As or km140s for the woodwinds and reeds, percussions or as spot mics for piano, harpsichord, harp, celesta. As well as schoeps mk4 etc. So I'm not judging the quality of the CM3 in itself, I think it's a good mic with a very low price. It's just that for the way I work, I like the other options we have better. I like having spot mics that push the sound a bit, I feel it makes my job easier and allows me to work fast. I work for a classical music station in Belgium and we mostly do live mixing printed to stereo.

Regarding your KM184/U87 comment : I have used a 87 once as a Cello spot mic, it didn't do the job pleasingly, I won't do it again. But we also do Jazz recordings, so it is useful there in a studio context. As for the KM184, we have compared the KM184 with the KM184A (KM100A modular series), they seem to have the same frequency response although to my ears the "A" version is more refined and has less "bite" in the upper mids.

As for your vision of a "honest" recording, I'd like to know more about it. In my mind, as soon as you put a mic in front of an (group of) instrument, you create another reality, vastly different than the reality of being in the concert hall. We've had some debate about this between colleagues, as to what is more natural, or feels forced. Some like it better at a distance, some like it closer. Interestingly, we all use the same microphones and roughly the same placement, the difference is generally due to : the choice of grids for the main pair and the outriggers (4006 with black, normal or close grids), the general balance with the spot mics and the amount of artificial reverb (if any) added.

As an anecdote, I remember having recorded a famous clavecinist using a pair of 4006, combining close grids and the 50mm spheres. A more experienced colleague working with me hated the result, thinking my placement was way too close to the instrument. I didn't agree and he went on to ask the musician to listen to the recording during the rehearsal before the concert. He came and loved what I had done, claiming he hated the habit of making the instrument sound distant. He liked that he could hear what he called "the center of the note", but with a good amount of weight (due to the 4006's response) and no harshness (due to the proximity grids). I used the spheres to make the instrument sound smaller in the stereo sound stage.

All this to show that opinions differ sometimes extremely, without any being right or wrong. I'd be curious to know some of your references as to what is a honest recording, and if you want, I can send you some samples of recordings I made that I thought were good.

Getting back to the thread : if I had nothing but CM3 as spot mics, I would probably be happy. But I don't, and prefer to use other microphones, it's just the way I like to work.
Old 1st September 2017
  #1618
Lives for gear
 
jpgerard's Avatar
Yes, the CM3 (and OM1) behaves very well off axis. It's one of the key point Roger at Line Audio insists on getting right.

Fully agreed re: CM3 vs others: it is its own thing, it does its own thing. I know folks who use nothing but oktava 012's. Some use only this, or that. If you know a given mic to the point where it feels natural and you're never surprised, why use something else? Unless you feel the need for a mic that yields some sort of improvement, it's probably time wasted. But it's always good to try new and different things.

I too like the 87 on some sources, to order certain results. Can't disagree there!

See, I'd lost track. I spaced out on the 184A. So this is basically a passive version of the KM140? I'll have to look at this thing in more details. Now I see why they ditched the KM100 range.

One of the reasons I always argued with producers, engineers and musicians (back when I was an active studio engineer) is that I favour natural recordings and over the years tried to stay true to the source. It doesn't really work on Pop/Rock records as you can imagine, when the musicians and producer want impact and, well, loudness rather than a beautiful rendition of the source... I like older recordings for the same reason, I think. Old Blue Note records for instance... most but not all Neil Young albums... classical records can be wonderful or terrible, it's a tossup.

Arguments with musicians can be tough. At one point my opinion was that musicians should worry about their playing and tuning and let the tech side to engineers, haha... but these days it seems that every musician is at least a bit of a techie. So die hard engineers can have a hard time as they have no choice but to interface with musicians who might have a very different point of view or maybe just dead wrong... and sometimes completely right. It's become very psychological.

I agree that is the CM3 was the only mic available I sure wouldn't worry about the quality of recorded sound - but variety is beautiful and whenever I hear a good recording made with DPA's, it's impossible not to praise them. When I had the luxury of owning dozens of mics I loved my KM84s but ended up using Sonys, Calrecs, AKGs... whatever got the job done best. And sometimes the higher end, more expensive was the best option, sometimes that Oktava with the Hyper capsule killed the others. It's all good. I heard great recordings with 10K+ vintage Neumanns and I heard great recordings with nothing but cheap Chinese imports. But one thing in common with the Line Audio's, DPA's, Schoeps and other products aiming for linearity is the ease of use on anything in any environment. I do like that. Knowing that you'll get usable results, maybe not the absolute best, but always usable. And that's not always the case when using, well I won't mention other products, but let's say that I don't consider some of those other widely used mics as real workhorses. But that's just me.
Old 1st September 2017
  #1619
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermetech Mastering View Post
Thanks Studer 58. It's going to be mainly acoustic guitar based folk music, with minor overdubs of other instruments. I'll probably be double tracking many acoustic guitar parts for each song, and experimenting with both mono and stereo recording, and then again when mixing them all together. I'll be wanting a deliberately wide stereo image for some parts, that really lives out far L & R, so wondering if the wide ORTF might be good for this. I'll grab the cheapish Rode adjustable bar and experiment...
Deliberately wide acoustic for folk? Really? To me things lose intimacy and honesty when the guitar loses the middle connection, which always happens when things go super wide. Not something to give away without a fight when doing folk IMHO.

I would try the 'one horizontal mic on the neck, one vertical mic pointing at the floor over the shoulder' combo. Always creates a musically pleasant space if it is the main thing. How far out you put the shoulder one is critical, there is a very thin bullseye 'cake slice' of sound beaming up from the saddle. Too near the players shoulder, gone, too far out front of the guitar, gone.
Old 1st September 2017
  #1620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Deliberately wide acoustic for folk? Really? To me things lose intimacy and honesty when the guitar loses the middle connection, which always happens when things go super wide. Not something to give away without a fight when doing folk IMHO.

I would try the 'one horizontal mic on the neck, one vertical mic pointing at the floor over the shoulder' combo. Always creates a musically pleasant space if it is the main thing. How far out you put the shoulder one is critical, there is a very thin bullseye 'cake slice' of sound beaming up from the saddle. Too near the players shoulder, gone, too far out front of the guitar, gone.
Thanks for the input, that's a classic technique that I still have to try, do you reckon CM3 at neck and CM48T (valve LDC) over shoulder would be best, or vice versa? Of course will probably try it both ways... Hopefully get someone else to play the guitar while I run around with headphones experimenting.

Yeah, Folk indeed, but not really Trad, there will be trippy modular synths and all sorts, so think more Psych/Freak folk such as The Incredible String Band, Current 93, Espers, and Fovea Hex, as opposed to Woody Guthrie or The Copper Family. I get what you're saying about intimacy and connection, but there is certainly space for things to get "far out man" too.

I do of course want to start simple, I'm still working on the song writing, so it'll probably be a while before I start recording in earnest, but when I do I'll start with simple one mono micing in various places, before trying the fancy stereo stuff.
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
Plugin / So much gear, so little time
10
adclark / Low End Theory
31
hollywood_steve / The Good News Channel
0

Forum Jump
Forum Jump