Earthworks LAB Pres

[c7sus]

Anybody using these? I'm looking at the 2 channel pre to use with a pair of Neumann 183 omnis..... the goal is accurate, natural sounding acoustic guitar........

The guy at Pacific Pro Audio in Seattle said "boring" when I asked how these sound. Then, when I told him I wanted accuracy he said these are pres for that.

I've been trying with an NT2 and an NTV through a VC6Q but I'm getting a pretty "honky" mid tone that really is grating. The sales guy suggested it could be the room or the instrument. I doubt it's the instrument...... Martin D45L Custom from 85.....

Anybody got any tips on using the spectral analysis in CW or Sound Forge to pinpoint troublesome frequencies?

[The Axis]

I can't really comment on the sound of these, because I don't have one. But based on the specs, other reviews, and my experiences with Earthworks mikes, I have decided that that the LAB102 is the PRE I will buy next. They probably are boring, if you are recording boring sounds !

I tried an NT2 through a VC6Q before also. Maybe for rythmn guitar tracks within a mix they are OK, but it sounds nothing like the guitar actually sounds.

I also tried the frequency analysis thing, using an RTA, to see if I could get a more natural sound. But RTA's simply aren't accurate enough to do that type job (1/3 octave increments).

If you are happy with the sound of your guitar, and want to capture it, try Earthworks mikes, or any *very flat-response* small condenser. My experiments with mikes and EQ lead me to the conclusion that 1-2 dB variation in frequency response can make a huge difference in the perceived tone of an acoustic guitar, because it has so many harmonic overtones. Also, most large condensers have very uneven off-axis frequency response, making placement very touchy and almost like a voodoo art. That simply doesn't happen with the earthworks.

The only other small condensers I tried were the AT4041 and the OKTAVA MC012. (Is Rode NT3 and AKG C1000 considered "small" condenser ?) All sounded OK, but not terribly accurate.

PS: I am always amused by the guys who blame the room for the tone. Sure, there are good rooms and bad rooms, but my ears are always in the same room with the guitar, so I can tell if it really sounds bad ! Oh, yeah, I tried having someone else play the guitar, so that I wasn't only hearing it from the players position. It really isn't all that different, (although the players position is *slightly* more muted on the highs and seems richer in lows because of the instrument-body contact).

Good luck,
rick

[The Axis]

I can't really comment on the sound of these, because I don't have one. But based on the specs, other reviews, and my experiences with Earthworks mikes, I have decided that that the LAB102 is the PRE I will buy next. They probably are boring, if you are recording boring sounds !

I tried an NT2 through a VC6Q before also. Maybe for rythmn guitar tracks within a mix they are OK, but it sounds nothing like the guitar actually sounds.

I also tried the frequency analysis thing, using an RTA, to see if I could get a more natural sound. But RTA's simply aren't accurate enough to do that type job (1/3 octave increments).

If you are happy with the sound of your guitar, and want to capture it, try Earthworks mikes, or any *very flat-response* small condenser. My experiments with mikes and EQ lead me to the conclusion that 1-2 dB variation in frequency response can make a huge difference in the perceived tone of an acoustic guitar, because it has so many harmonic overtones. Also, most large condensers have very uneven off-axis frequency response, making placement very touchy and almost like a voodoo art. That simply doesn't happen with the earthworks.

The only other small condensers I tried were the AT4041 and the OKTAVA MC012. (Is Rode NT3 and AKG C1000 considered "small" condenser ?) All sounded OK, but not terribly accurate.

Good luck,
rick

[hixmix]

Earthworks LAB pres to monty...Earthworks LAB pres to monty.....