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 2 weeks ago
  #1771
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rojaros View Post
I think the sound coloration from the side is quite significant... ORTF didn't work for me either (big angle). For me they work best in some kind of between AB and NOS (Less angle than NOS and wider apart), but that's really a matter of experimentation.
Interesting. I had experimentally determined that I like the results from the CM3s in NOS better than in DIN or ORTF, but didn't know why. Personally, I find CM3s to be quiet enough and sensitive enough to record some pretty quiet nature stuff without issues. I'm using a MixPre-6, whose preamps I find to be quite clean.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1772
Lives for gear
 
rojaros's Avatar
I guess that it's due to the fact that in NOS the time difference becomes a bit more dominant as compared to intensity difference... The angling is the same as in DIN.

But to really know one would have to do some serious testing. I'm rather a friend of experimenting and choosing what pleases my ears. Mixpre-6 has a lot of clean gain, certainly more than enough for the CM3.
Old 6 days ago
  #1773
Lives for gear
I have a 4 mic array recording, with CM3 (in NOS) in the centre, and Rode NT5 omnis (at 67 cms) at either end (of the same bar). The bar was around 1.2 metres behind the conductor, and about 10 feet high.

I'm having trouble deciding about the relative balance of each pair to give an optimal mix, so to illustrate I'll provide a few mixes here.

In addition I've applied some roll off at the low end (18db/oct at 75Hz) to attempt to clear away some of the LF haze a little. There are other distractions too, a little traffic noise at the outset, but it's easy enough to 'hear past' this...

Generally one pair predominates over the other by 9dB, and I'd be interested in your overall impressions...as to which are going in the right direction ?

First, the CM3's predominating, one mix with the LF filter applied to that pair, and one without .....
Old 6 days ago
  #1774
Lives for gear
To follow, a mix with the Rode NT5-O (omni) pair predominating by 9dB ...with and without HPF on the CM3 pair.....
Old 6 days ago
  #1775
Lives for gear
Finally, perhaps the blends aren't the way to go at all: so here is each mic pair in isolation, with no HPF applied to either.....
Old 6 days ago
  #1776
Lives for gear
 
jpgerard's Avatar
I know I shouldn't prefer the unfiltered versions as the difference should be negligible at least audibly as the filter curve is steep and the freq. quite low but I do. However to chose between the mixes or individual tracks... it's all a matter of choice and one would need to have heard the source to comment on linearity of the tracks, otherwise the choice is vastly artistic I think.
Old 6 days ago
  #1777
Gear Nut
I liked the NT5 best with no roll off.
Old 6 days ago
  #1778
Lives for gear
 
rojaros's Avatar
I liked both unmixed takes better than both combined, and of the last two I slightly preferred the CM3 for more clarity in the strings. My feeling is that the positioning of the mics could be improved, I hear too much of diffuse field and too little of direct sound...
Old 6 days ago
  #1779
Gear Nut
Yes, closer miking would have been better especially with the omni mic's. But then it was a HIP group and this causes the usual problems with a weak sound.
Old 6 days ago
  #1780
Lives for gear
 

I prefer the CM-3 only version first, but the CM-3 dominant mix isn't bad. To my ears there's a noticeable loss of low end on the filtered versions, so I'm with JP there.
Old 5 days ago
  #1781
Lives for gear
Isn't it fine to be wise with hindsight !

I should have swapped out the CM3's for straight Rode NT5 cardioids, and had 2 pairs of NT5's on the bar, 1 in ORTF, other as 67 cm AB omni...instead of the wider-cardioid CM3's ?

Or get myself a pair of fig 8's to run as a Faulkner (type 1) array....

Make notes for self, when in same church, same time next year .......
Old 5 days ago
  #1782
Lives for gear
 

Well, hard to say without a direct comparison, but in my limited experience with NT-5's I'v found them to be typically over-bright SDC's. That has its place, but for orchestral music the CM-3's are pretty darn true to my ears.
Old 5 days ago
  #1783
Lives for gear
 
rojaros's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by studer58 View Post
Isn't it fine to be wise with hindsight !

...

Or get myself a pair of fig 8's to run as a Faulkner (type 1) array....

Make notes for self, when in same church, same time next year .......
I would be surprised if a Faulkner pair would help in this situation. It picks up even more of the room acoustics in my experience. Would it be possible to bring the microphones closer to the source?

Did you ever experiment with some kind of an ORTFisch arrangement with a third microphone panned to the center and mixed in to taste? I quite like the results of that. For me, if all three mics are recorded to the same level, the center ends up being around -10dB lower, so it's just a touch of an extra stability of the center image.
Old 5 days ago
  #1784
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojaros View Post
I would be surprised if a Faulkner pair would help in this situation. It picks up even more of the room acoustics in my experience. Would it be possible to bring the microphones closer to the source?

Did you ever experiment with some kind of an ORTFisch arrangement with a third microphone panned to the center and mixed in to taste? I quite like the results of that. For me, if all three mics are recorded to the same level, the center ends up being around -10dB lower, so it's just a touch of an extra stability of the center image.
I've never tried the fig8 Faulkner pair, but TF himself has said that it significantly cuts down on side wall reflections, and he says it allows him to place the mic pair further back in the room than other typical coincident pairs, to give a more natural balance between reverberant and direct sounds.

I haven't tried the ORTF-ish approach you have mentioned above, but I imagine it could produce phasing problems between 3 closely spaced...no ?
Old 5 days ago
  #1785
Lives for gear
 
jpgerard's Avatar
I still think you have plenty of material to get a very good end product. Pick what sounds best after sleeping on it. If you really can't decide - then it's all good to be used and that's a pretty good problem to have
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