Mic Test.

gearboy · Post by **gearboy** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:08 pm

It just so happens that I picked up a few new mics in the past month, and have yet to do any serious projects with them. So tonight I ran a bunch of mics through my Burr-Brown modded MP20 just for kicks as I started recording a demo. All mics were approx 6" away from and aimed at the 12th fret of my 2000 Taylor 310ce. All files are 24-bit/96kHz and 17.9MB each. PLEASE DOWNLOAD THEM, import them into your DAW, and combine them in various ways.

Cascade M37 #1
Cascade M37 #2
Oktava MK012 #1
Oktava MK012 #2
Shure SM57
OktavaMod MK319 (w/ Floating Dome and Premium Electronics Mod)
AKG 414 B/ULS
AT 4047sv

All files were recorded mic --> BB-Modded Presonus MP20 (send to RNC for slight compression in SuperNice Mode) --> Black Lion modded MOTU 828mk2 (analog/clock) --> Digital Performer as 24-bit/96K. If you would like to loop them the tempo is 120bpm, the time signature is 6/8, and I started at bar 4. There is no EQ or processing added, with the exception of slight compression (less than 2:1 ratio at -3db) with the RNC. I used Monster cable for the entire chain (please don't yell at me).

*All mics were recorded as cardioid with no pads or onboard high-pass engaged. I did ude the 80Hz high-pass filter on the MP20 for each recording

Assemble a sound out of 1-4 of these mic choices and post your favorite combinations. I'm curious to see what folks like.

Have fun,

Jeff

JadeLatrell · Post by **JadeLatrell** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:23 am

Fun. Well, I'll take a stab here, even though going first scares me.

Of course, the usual caveats apply, so I am listening as if I am trying to get a solo acoustic guitar track.

I like the richness and detail of E, the best. But I found that I liked the combination of E and B2, and F and A1. These not adjusted for level, just combined.

A1 and A2 were bright and a bit tinny
B1 and b2 were richer than the A's but a bit emphasised and muddy on the lows.
C was too tinny and brittle on the high end, like the highs were fighting to be heard.
D was mid-rangy and a bit dull because of it
E as stated seemed to have the most detail, though the mid-lows were more pronounced.
F has pronounced mids but I thought the highs were nice but perhaps not enough of them.

This through the Rosetta 800 to Central Station to Adam A7s.

Good luck all.

gearboy · Post by **gearboy** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:57 am

JadeLatrell wrote:Fun. Well, I'll take a stab here, even though going first scares me.

I like the richness and detail of E, the best. But I found that I liked the combination of E and B2, and F and A1. These not adjusted for level, just combined.

Glad that someone finally responded. I posted this over two messageboards! So thanks.

Also, experiment with panning A1/A2 and B1/B2 at 9 & 3 and place one of the other mics at 12 o'clock. Obviously there is no wrong way to do this.

I seriously plan on doing this same test through all of my preamps as time allows, so look for more in the future as well as a dedicated webpage. But for now, I can't wait to hear more opinions as I patiently wait to post the... answers?

Jeff

duncan · Post by **duncan** » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:07 pm

17 meg files at 96 are going to scare most people away. I've seen MP3's posted, which have enough fidelity to compare mics to each other.
The thing about comparing mics is putting them in context. An acoustic guitar sounds really different in a mix than it does solo'd. Same with a vocal, or whatever.
But it's great that you're comparing mics and pres. That's an excellent way to learn about gear. The one test that blew my mind was recording a CD track into DP via the 2408 analog inputs, and then importing that same track into DP directly off the CD into the soundbites window. That's when you discover what your A/D convertors are doing to your sound. (Hello Black Lion Audio - analog upgrade of a 2408 for around $300.)

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:21 am

I listened through Peak Pro via headphones out of a Tascam interface clocked to Rosetta 200. Didn't try any mixing of tracks.

A1, A2 - bright, sibilant

B1, B2 - warm, kinda muddy (B2 had more highs)

C - bright, thin (worst on its own)

D - midrangy, yet kinda thin

E - warm, fuller

F - bright, kinda full (probably best on it own?)

I could hear the As working in some rock songs. E and F would work better in folky/singer/songwriter stuff. I guess.

gearboy · Post by **gearboy** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:55 am

duncan wrote:17 meg files at 96 are going to scare most people away.

Yeah, but the most scientific that I could do. And remember, this grew out of a demo that I was working on, so it was the way I was recording into DP at the time. When I do the "big test" it'll be 24-bit/44.1kHz and loop-based for comparison in multitrack software.

The thing about comparing mics is putting them in context. An acoustic guitar sounds really different in a mix than it does solo'd. Same with a vocal, or whatever.

Oh, yeah, I agree completely. And obviously mic C or D isn't going to be my first choice for acoustic guitar, but may be cool for something else, etc.

But it's great that you're comparing mics and pres.

Thanks. Just wanted to share. I'll post the mic list in a little bit.

Jeff

OldTimey · Post by **OldTimey** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:35 am

A1-A2 (panned in stereo) - hyped highs, would cut through a mix

B1-B2 (panned in stereo) - much warmer, full bodied, but not as defined as a

C - lackluster dynamically speaking...clear sound, but not as appealing a tone.

D - prefer it to C, is this the dynamic mic? kinda "rounded" sounding. but i like it. combines with a1 and a2 nicely.

E - full bodied, clean sound

F - well-balanced, my favorite soloed.

combined, i thought the sound of all 8 at the same time was fun.

also combining E or F with D. or a1.a2 with E, F, or D sounded nice to me.

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:59 am

Looks like our evaluations in the test are much alike, OldTimey.

OldTimey · Post by **OldTimey** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:32 pm

chrispick wrote:Looks like our evaluations in the test are much alike, OldTimey.

and similar to jadelatrell's as well...except we seem to prefer F over E. i couldn't decide really which i liked better at first, E does capture a certain "trueness" of the instrument, but i found F a bit more flattering and musical.

-with only one mic over 500, im gonna guess that one of the matched pairs are a pair of mxl 603's, or at least a mic similar in design. studio projects???
Oktavas?

anybody else gonna take a listen?

jmoore · Post by **jmoore** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:58 pm

I started to reader other responses and decided to quit before I developed to many preconceived notions. So...here are my thoughts.

A1/A2 -bright, but not excessively so. Does not appear to accurately capture much low end information. Still quite usable. I think of this as something I would use a texture in a mix. Like when you are more concerned with the click of the pick against the strings than the tone of the instrument.

B1/B2 -much more balanced than A. Sounds fairly nice, but a little unfocused. I also noticed that it seems like there is something going in the sixth measure where the two tracks don't match for a brief moment. Anybody else hearing that. Anyway, this recording could probably stand on its own more than A.

C -Sounds very lo-fi. I'm thinking this is either a dynamic microphone or a very inexspensive condenser. Either way, not (in my opinion) a very usable sound.

D -All mud and midrange and sounds like there is a low pass filter on it. Nevermind, this is my vote for the dynamic mic.

E -This is probably my favorite. Maybe just a touch scooped, but overall sounds very full and natural.

F -A little too mid-forward, but still nice sounding. Seems to be a litttle bit week on the low end. I could see this working well in a busy mix.

Anxiously awaiting results and nervously looking forward to seeing how my perceptions match up with you guys/gals.

-jordan

gearboy · Post by **gearboy** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:11 pm

Edit: Reposted in original post for this thread.

jmoore · Post by **jmoore** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:06 pm

gearboy · Post by **gearboy** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:11 pm

jmoore wrote:oops

I was just going to respond to you. What information, or did you notice my posting?

Keff

chrispick · Post by **chrispick** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:01 pm

I would've guessed that C was a 57 (or similar) and F was a 40-series AT!

OldTimey · Post by **OldTimey** » Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:23 pm

ive never used a 4047. i preferred it to the 414 though. hmm maybe time to check out the AT 40 series! i hear they are great bang for the buck.

i need a good ldc that will sound good on low sources with high SPL's...im too nervous to put my 'flagship' ldc's in front of kick drum, but a 4047 8 inches or so from the kick, might do the trick...