Another compare and contrast for micing live acoustic guitar...SM-81 vs AT4041

  • Thread starter Thread starter drbluezz
  • Start date Start date
I've bought more AT4041 (& 4051) then the Shure

and purely subjectively I tend to prefer the 4041 (over SM81)
but it's not an either or thing and have used SM81 what I would assume to be fairly effectively on lots of instruments (can't recall having used them on woodwind or brass but percussion, piano, acoustic string instruments . . . )

when you have the luxury you try to match mic to budget content room instrument

over the years, generally speaking I've been 'lucky' with AT mics (would still be uncomfortable buying a workhorse sight unseen, so to speak) less lucky with Shure . . . needing to audition more individual mics of specific models to find the one that subjectively 'fit', etc.

if a client showed up and wanted to use their SM81 I certainly wouldn't recoil and reject the concept out of hand (even if that recoil was a ms blink of an eye thing that we then auditioned their mic choice and 'discussed' what might work best )

advice, such as it is, is always, if possible audition prior to purchase . . .

if you're looking to purchase for business the Shure brand might be slightly more recognizable and SM81 might have slightly more cache
 
Id lean towards the AT4041...but Id go with a KSM32 or AT4033 myself...they are better
 
Maybe I should mention I will be using the mic for an acoustic guitar playing bluegrass music at about any venue from restaurants and small bars to outdoor festivals. So, will I be in venues where picking up detail and nuances is important? Yes. Will I be playing venues where it will be all but impossible to hear such detail? Yes.
Now wha'da'ya' think???


Tom
 
Fishman, Schertler, Baggs etc.....
If you must something hyper cardioid to reject feedback or a 57
 
darrin_h2000 said:
Depends on the situation really...but it pays to have a good pickup in your acoustic.
Click to expand...


Welllll, I'm one of those snoody, uppity, acoustic guitar, cork sniffin' purists that don't want no stankin' pickups on my precious little Collings D-1A. So, put that in y'er Barcus Berry and arpeggio it!! ;) Ahem.
But seriously, I'm leaning strongly toward an AT 4041. Considering my needs, the type of band, the venues we play (indoors and outdoors), the AT 4041 seems as good a choice as any. If I go more money I'll be looking mostly at large diaphram condensers which may not be the best choice for outdoor or noisy environments. Anyone seriously disagree?


Tom
 
drbluezz said:
Maybe I should mention I will be using the mic for an acoustic guitar playing bluegrass music at about any venue

Tom
Click to expand...

Looking for a mic to play live introduces an entirely new set of variables

not least of which is having $300+ gear go walk about (been known to happen)

of the two mics mentioned gut instinct is that SM81 is less amenable to average live venue
(if one is independently wealthy, or has strict security under control, is playing relatively quiet venue's with reasonable acoustics then we're back to original answer)

Stepping outside the bounds of original question I would tend to agree with spirit of other responses that for anything other then a concert setting where crowds expect to listen relatively quietly and where performers are not physically moving while playing significantly that neither mic is optimal

the mantra is that all this stuff, whether playing live or recording is a nested series. of compromises . . . subjective experience suggests that attempting to use either of the mics listed (and many similar ones) in the typical live venue would tend to force compromise that would obviate the strengths of the mic. That is probably possible to obtain the same or superior results with less effort, perhaps less expense from different choice for projecting guitar into the crowd
 
oretez said:
Looking for a mic to play live introduces an entirely new set of variables

not least of which is having $300+ gear go walk about (been known to happen)

of the two mics mentioned gut instinct is that SM81 is less amenable to average live venue
(if one is independently wealthy, or has strict security under control, is playing relatively quiet venue's with reasonable acoustics then we're back to original answer)

Stepping outside the bounds of original question I would tend to agree with spirit of other responses that for anything other then a concert setting where crowds expect to listen relatively quietly and where performers are not physically moving while playing significantly that neither mic is optimal

the mantra is that all this stuff, whether playing live or recording is a nested series. of compromises . . . subjective experience suggests that attempting to use either of the mics listed (and many similar ones) in the typical live venue would tend to force compromise that would obviate the strengths of the mic. That is probably possible to obtain the same or superior results with less effort, perhaps less expense from different choice for projecting guitar into the crowd
Click to expand...


And your mic of choice would be????


Tom
 
I'd take a 4041 or 4051 rather than the SM81. I'd still get a 57 with a windscreen as backup for noisy venues though. The mic I've been using for indoor small venues for acoustic guitar is the GT-44. Tube MD mic that sounds great on acoustic instruments.
 
Here are some random observations from a show tonight--national touring jazz band who brought their own mics. Two rhythm guitars were on opposite sides of a Cascase Fathead. Boxy, probably partly due to the dullness of ribbons and also some cancellation from opposite polarity on either side of the mic. But that really worked in the mix to keep the rhythm guitars out of the way of the leads, and there was little to no EQ on that mic. Lead guitar used a Shure KSM109. Sounded great in the mains, but due to suboptimal angle with respect to the monitor, gain before feedback was troubling and required significant EQ in the monitors. Hypercardioid pattern would have been superior. The result was adequate to marginal monitoring. Fiddle used an AT4033. Sounded good, very natural, little EQ in the monitors but highs significantly rolled off in the mains as per the desired tone of the fiddler. EUB went into a small amp then DI. Female vox on Shure Beta 58 which worked fine as always. Unusually, the band wanted no vox in monitors, but there was plenty plenty gain available for the monitors had that been desired. This was in a 600 seat auditorium with a good proper stage and good acoustics.

Just a show, maybe something you can use.
 
drbluezz said:
And your mic of choice would be????


Tom
Click to expand...

To be honest I had to think about this.

The conclusion didn't actually surprise me, but it has been awhile since I articulated it. Personal preference is no mic. No reinforcement, amplification of any kind, just room and guitar.

Everything else is not merely compromise but initiates a path of infinite regression. Fix the 'worst' thing and the next worst thing rears an ugly presence.

Generally speaking while SDCs are more accurate, provide better transient detail but my next 'best' choice would be for Large diameter condenser (LDC). And, again to be as honest as possible, these days I'm less concerned with specific brands then with specific mics (in specific rooms, specific instruments, specific content, on specific days for use to achieve specific goals . . . and the intersection of all these specifics is complex if not absolutely unique). While I had a long time collaborator who hated it when I pulled out the C414 I'm pretty OK with any reasonable C12, K47 (capsule) variation. (C414 U47 VSM1, etc.) Though if possible, on acrostic guitar, I tend to prefer omni capsules (even in live venues) but tend to mentally use the more common labels. Again generally speaking if venue does not support use of omni experience suggests you might want to consider other elements of, approaches to, sound reinforcement.

I'm not adverse to using a single LDC for an entire small ensemble (continuing to pursue the less is more philosophy)

Reality, though, is that I tend to use what ever I have that seems appropriate. If I'm responsible for sound reinforcement or are recording for a client I will seriously consider their preferences, balanced against their expectations; if possible use whatever they want (that is available on budget).

And there are numerous situations in which, even using aesthetics as a primary guide, SDCs, ribbons, and dynamics have been appropriate choice. Generally speaking I try to avoid using hyper-cardioid capsules and dynamic mics, if possible. Tend to get to either only via fairly convoluted and complex decision trees.

But to reiterate I don't find selection of specific mic brand/model to be a particularly significant variable for any individual show. Plethora of choices at almost all price points these days. Any tool no matter its theoretic or iconic quality, if it interferes with presentation and/or performance is a counter productive choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top