acoustic guitar mics

[NL5]

It sounds like, given your current conditions, you're craving something a little brighter and more detailed. For that, I'd go with a Marshall mxl-603. Don't think there's much that can comete with it for less than $500 a pop (as far as brighter, more detailed mics go).

If price weren't an issue, then I might say AKG 451 ... maybe Neumann km-184.

A lot of people don't like the 184's, but I gotta say, they TRANSFORMED the acoustic guitar sound I was getting. True, they are a bit bright, but they make acoustics just sparkle. For me, mics usually make fairly subtle diffrences, not so with the 184's.

 

[crazydoc]

Here's a quote from Brent Casey, who used to work for MXL and now for Studio Projects:



Hello.
There are many advantages of using the C4's vs. the MXL603's.
I think there are some interesting discussions regarding the two mics, especially regarding the recording of steel string acoustic guitar. Lots of people seem to really like the 603's for this purpose and the C4's haven't quite garnered the same reputation - at least online in places like Home Recording. However, I am slowly amassing a stack of cd's with the C4's being used on acoustic stringed instruments that just kick ass. Ironically, the engineer who is recording these performances was field testing for me when I was with MXL and back then he simply refused to use the 603's to record with after trying them on several occaisions, as he found them to be exceedingly grainy and harsh.

We used acoustic guitars extensively in developing the C4 mic and I have always been particularly pleased with their inherent utility for this task. I think that the C4's deliver the best image and clarity out of any of our mics. Therein lies the difference, I think. The same cannot be said for the 603's - and this is not always a bad thing for many people and their rooms. There are some very good reasons for this in the case of the 603 - all of it pretty much has to do with the capsule. First off, the factory that machines the 603 backplate decided early on that a certain step in the machining process was beyond their capabilities so they just stopped doing it. This in effect changed the properties of the "air cushion" between the diaphragm and backplate. We have also to consider that the diaphragm material when it is mounted on the tensioning ring is not tensioned to a high specification. I have worked on thousands of these mics and can attest to this. This places the resonant frequency of any given 603 diaphragm in a wider range of possible frequencies. Note: the C4 diaphragms, after being mounted on a tensioning ring are tested for resonant frequency in a pass/no pass procedure. They must fall in a certain specified frequency range or they are rejected.

Back to the 603's: Another thing I noticed throughout the 603's is that the diaphragm tension is fairly low for that particular type/dimension of capsule and it's not going to get any tighter over time. This in and of itself is not a bad thing unless the diaphragm is allowed to physically contact the backplate, etc. but in terms of design, it is a variable that must be known and taken into account in order for the capsule to work optimally. Additionally, the diaphragm material of the 603 is of a higher mass than what is generally used for a small condenser and this may result in somewhat of a sharply rising resonance peak, that peak being determined by the mass of the diaphragm material and to what degree it is tensioned.

So, getting to the bottom line here, what does all this mean? It means that due to the wide range of these variables being what they are, the 603 capsule will have inferior performance due to these parameters not being correllated with each other and working as a system. One must account for each of these factors: the tension of the diaphragm vs. the diameter of the mic vs. the polarity voltage vs. the backplate hole location vs. the mass of the diaphragm material vs. the spacing between the diaphragm and the backplate vs. the air resistance within the aforementioned spacing vs. the backchamber size vs. the acoustic delay path timing, etc, etc. All of this directly affects the sensitivity of the mic, especially at high frequencies, the polar pattern, i.e. how well cardioid works and the overall frequency response. If you are shopping for a mic, these are things that might be of interest to you to know about the mic you are purchasing. If it is very hard to - or next to impossible to predict how the mic is going to behave with any degree of precision, except perhaps to conclude that the polar pattern is not going to be very good and the frequency response may be peaky and weird and not very linear, then you may very well want to consider casting your net a little wider.
And that is a major advantage of the C4 over the 603.

The C4 capsules have been designed with all of this taken into account and therefore constructed in such a manner as to considerably diminish these variables and properly combine them in a predetermined ratio so as to make a working capsule with predictable sensitivity, a properly damped diaphragm resonance, linear frequency response and a cardioid polar pattern that functions as it should. No need to make lemonade from lemons by calling them "wide cardioid" in the marketing literature. Another big benefit of all this is that I don't have to work on the C4's prior to them shipping, whereas I had to work on nearly every 603 before it left the building. Big Difference.
You will also find that the C4's have a lower noise floor which is always good to have - usually on the order of several dB.

As I have stated, the C4's possess what I consider to be very good clarity and imaging for a condenser mic. Because of this, they need to be well-placed for the best possible sound. I know that this sounds simplistic, but take my word for it. The 603's are way more forgiving in this regard. I have already listed some possible reasons as to why, but allow me to be a bit more succinct: impulse response. This is a specification that you will not find in any mic manufacturer's literature as far as I know. It is, in short, a measure of the mic's ability to respond to sound. This is probably the most important difference between the two mics and it explains a lot of things. Try this on for size: A mic with superior impulse response can respond to and better reproduce an impulse (sound), or series of impulses than a mic with inferior impulse response.

When Alan says that the 603's are "colored", this is by and large what he is referring to. What is happening is that the 603 capsule, as a system, is all messed up for reasons I have touched on above and is actually and physically damping some of the sound information. Some sound never even gets the chance to be become a voltage because the capsule cannot reproduce it. Or perhaps the sound is reproduced somewhat, but is attenuated unduly. Furthermore, the sounds that are being reproduced by the capsule can actually undergo a phase shift due to the damping effect of the capsule upon the envelope of the transient, since the rise and fall of the impulse becomes somewhat compressed in time compared to what the actual rise and decay of the transient would actually be were it allowed to fully propogate. What this translates to is that the C4 capsule, being superior in this regard to the 603 is better able to reproduce subtleties, overtones, reflections and an overall greater degree of sound information. It's no wonder that some people claim to get better results from a 603. There's less to deal with. The C4 is definitely more picky, but placed right, it is much more rewarding sonically. Remember I mentioned earlier my engineer pal who gets great results with the C4's, but won't go near the 603's? Well, when it comes to placing a mic, he knows what he's doing, so the C4's work for him. Conversely, he can hear the effects of the poor impulse response of the 603, therefore it is not a viable tool for him to record with.

Anyhow, that's my take on the whole 603 vs. C4 thing. I hope this helps.

Brent Casey

http://www.pmiaudio.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=58

 

[DanRoy]

wow, thanks for all the suggestions. you guys mentioned some miking techniques I haven't tried yet, I will have to experiment. really I think having a couple extra nice mics around here would be a good thing.

those NT5s sure are pretty! anybody else tried those? I will now scour the web for reviews...

if I go for the MXL603 pair, would it be important to pay the extra money for a "matched pair" or will just the regular "pair" be ok?

 

[borntoplease]

i just bought a pair of earthworks sr71s used. i got them for 400 bucks. they are amazing. look for a used pair of those... they blow away everything in that price range. i am super happy.

 

[DanRoy]

given that I own two fairly good LDC mics (B1, AT3035),

yall think I'd get better use out of one more expensive mic (shure SM-81, peluso CEMC6, groove tubes GT-33) or a pair of 603s, C4s, oktava 012s, or NT5s?

[I think there is power in statements like these...simply repeating the name of something as worthy of consideration has a certain weight...advertising is as simple as repetition]

also I just learned that the AT2020 is a MDC, not LDC, anybody tried these? one person on another forum says they are better on instruments than my 3035

also: shure KSM109, anybody have opinions on these? they are in my price range

 

[baekgaard]

if I go for the MXL603 pair, would it be important to pay the extra money for a "matched pair" or will just the regular "pair" be ok?

If you go for a pair (which I recommend you should instead of just getting a single), then a matched pair is better because you can make a "true stereo" recording with them. There are no drawbacks -- except for the possibly higher price. You can make nice stereo recordings with even different mics, but they will not be true stereo, and the stereo image may change depending on what tones are being played.

You could read here on matched pairs (just trying to save myself a lot of typing):

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=147013&highlight=matched

(look around posting #13 and #14).

As for your other question on getting a higher quality mic vs. a lower priced pair... well, it depends. You should really have a stereo pair. Makes a big difference when recording e.g. guitar, or if you ever want to record a drum set using an overhead. And I think that unless you go for 500+ dollar mics, then you will not get substantially better sound than with the good ones already mentioned here. Sure, there are (always) better mics, but they usually cost more. Are you doing demo's for yourself, recording your own band, recording other people, or even plan to start making money in your well-treated studio?

Maybe you could try to shop for a used pair?

A couple of links that may help you decide on what mic types to go for and in what priority (unless you have read these already):

http://www.mojopie.com/micproj.html

http://industryclick.com/magazinear...leaseid=2244&magazinearticleid=1981&siteid=15


-- Per.

 

[DanRoy]

right now I am primarily recording myself, and my occasional "band" when I have that opportunity, which seems to be about 10 times a year or so. but I might record some acoustic performers in my room. I don't think I'll charge, I don't consider myself to be skilled enough, I will just do it for the learning experience. my room is not treated, and I am not experienced enough to know if it sounds good or bad. but who knows, I might get a flat panel monitor and start a mobile recording operation.

I have been listening to led zeppelin and marvelling at what I consider to be the fairly shitty quality of their recordings on pretty much all of their albums. maybe I just don't like the jimmy page production approach. i'm more of a piper at the gates of dawn or beatles guy when it comes to 60s stuff, or a Kid A guy when it comes to contemporary stuff

 

[Richard Monroe]

Yo NL5! I'm with you. I characteristically prefer bright mics for acoustic Mostly I use an AKG C414B-ULS and/or one or two KM184's. I keep the C-4's around because they are my only SD omnis, and they work very well for remote stereo recording, where I can't afford to risk loss or damage to the Neumanns. I keep the Oktavas for drum overheads, an occasional vocal, and recording cheap guitars, and oddly enough, violin, where they just seem to shine. Those are all applications where I want to airbrush just a tiny, tiny bit of detail out of a source. I think the Oktavas are worth having, mostly because I got them for $50 apiece, and they are pretty good mics for a lot of applications. I believe the NT5's are generally better mics than the 603's, and so are the C-4's. In other words, both of them do what the 603's do- better. AKG C451/SM81 do it- better than NT5/C-4. KM184 does it better then the 451, or the SM81 (there are those who will disagree with me there). The Oktavas do- something else. They aren't the monsters of high end detail, and I don't like them for remote stereo recording, either orchestral or rock/reggae, where I used them quite a bit, until I added other mics to the cabinet. Note- I didn't say "better" mics.
The Earthworks mics mentioned above are also a whole different animal, and a lot of us would snap at them for $400 the pair. Unfortunately, that's not what they usually cost. I regret that I have not used the Peluso mics, and can't give you any informed opinion on them. My conclusion? Mostly, you get what you pay for. The 603's are possibly the best bargain in dirt cheap SD's. I think C-4 is the best bargain under $500 (this is where Chessrock and I simply disagree. The 603, in my opinion, is not compareable to a C-4. The NT5's are, but I prefer the C-4 for its superior versatility and SP's customer service.
I believe C451 and SM81 are better mics, in general, than NT5/C-4, and they should be, for about twice the price and cardioid only. I believe that the Neumanns and Earthworks mics are compareable, but distinctly different. The Earthworks mics are so damned sensitive and accurate that I'm afraid of them. Sometimes a little makeup is a good thing, but you need less of it on Faith Hill. Unfortunately, I don't get to record badasses every day.
The end of the line, by pretty much all accounts, are Schoeps and DPA, which, sad to say, I can't afford. Maybe someday. You seem to be pretty much stressed out about this mic thing, but I believe all the mics mentioned in this thread will be found to be worth what you have to pay for them. It's time to just buy a pair of mics and move on. There will be other mics.-Richie

 

[DanRoy]

look what I found:

single C4 on a Goodall acoustic with a touch of reverb added (info: http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=319036&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=35&vc=1)

and for something a little different, C4s on a high school choir:

I would still like to hear whatever clips you guys can come up with

 

[hoth]

Sorry I flaked man. I had all intention to get the C4's but time became an issue and no store in my area had a pair. I ended up getting the Rode NT5's for cheaper than the C4's would have cost me. I figured they can't really be that bad.

 

[DanRoy]

no problem....i'd like to hear clips of those too (or any other mic mentioned) if you have them available

 

[hoth]

OK. I've put up a zip archive with two recordings of the NT-5's. One is at the 12th fret and bridge, the other is an XY stereo from farther away. This is an absolutely quick and dirty, throw it in the water and see if it swims type test. Obviously no EQ (and the conditions were less than optimal to say the least). But hey, that's usually how we record anyway. I was playing my Guild D-55 through an M-Audio Firewire 410 into Sonar.

http://s18.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0XFTWRZ0I0M6S1EZC2U6ITG5LN

 

[DanRoy]

thanks for the clips! sounds pretty good, a lot better than some of the other clips I've heard recently.

mojopie called these "musical to a small degree" on acoustic guitar, which makes me shrug and groan and scratch my head after all the good things they say about them. for some reason the reviews on that website really frustrate me.

 

[hoth]

thanks for the clips! sounds pretty good, a lot better than some of the other clips I've heard recently.

mojopie called these "musical to a small degree" on acoustic guitar, which makes me shrug and groan and scratch my head after all the good things they say about them. for some reason the reviews on that website really frustrate me.

Yeah, I was having a hard time myself figuring this out after reading that review. The jury is still out for me on these. They definitely have a power in the mid and lows. I would use the NT5's for instruments that lack umph. I think though that I need a mic that gives more presence and air than these though. But sometimes they surprise me in good ways. I don't know. I'd welcome comments too. Thanks.

 

[jeffree]

Have you considered the AT 4033 for acoustic guitar? Just last night, I was listening to "Sounds of Wood and Steel (3)", a Windham Hill/Taylor guitar collection. One tune, "Cajon Pass" by Phil Keaggy, had such beautiful acoustic tones that I checked it out in the CD-sleeve notes.
Phil explains that he recorded all 3 parts himself--2 tracks of a acoustic Taylor 6-string and 1 track of an acoustic Taylor bass--through his AT 4033 and an Avalon pre-amp. Wow. Three tracks with the same mic, less than 45 minutes of initial set-up, and what a sound. Of course, the Taylors didn't hurt a bit.

As a result of this one recording, I've added this mic to my wish list for future consideration. Anyone else here used it extensively?

Best,

J.

 

[hoth]

Have you considered the AT 4033 for acoustic guitar?
QUOTE]

The reason I wanted the C4's or NT5's is to get stereo recordings or just lots of flexibility in mono through placement of the mics. I already have a multipattern LDC and a good dynamic. Are matched pairs overrated? I assumed that studios typically stereo track an acoustic guitar so a pair would help me get closer to "that sound."

 

[DanRoy]

i am intrigued by the 4033, I haven't heard any clips though. I know the strokes use it as their primary vocal mic. I am looking at the 4040 as an option because it seems to be availalbe for less money, and I am very happy with the 3035 I own

I think I don't really like the clips I've heard of 603s and C4s on acoustic guitar (not very realistic, lots of washy percussive pick/string sound...this is a sound I have heard to a degree on some professional recordings), but the NT5 clips just posted sound pretty good to me. I heard a clip of all 3 peluso mics (one SDC, two LDC) on acoustic and female voice that sounded good. if I haven't posted it here I can find it if you are interested. I do like the oktavas on acoustic (www.halfmassive.com). and the AKG 414 and C3000B(www.thejohnfrancis.com) but those are really expensive.

I guess I am a little leery of chinese mics. I like my B1, but it makes a funny crackling/hissing sound sometimes (once a month or so), which I can cure by turning phantom off and then on again. plus they just look cheap

 

[ozraves]

looking for more shimmer, less of that big boom sound, a glassier, more focused sound. for example, um beck - sea change, or wilco - ghost is born. anti-example - led zeppelin, got that covered

I don't get any boom out of my large condensers I use for mic'ing acoustic guitar. You need a bright mic. Unfortunately, cheap bright mics tend to get brittle. I go with the Blue Dragonfly for this sound. It's way beyond your budget though.

I think the AT4040 puts across a shimmery sound when positioned correctly. I think it's a great mic for the money. It's much more balanced than the Dragonfly. You might try one out.

 

[tubesrawsom]

you cant beat royer 121's

 

[XLR]

I didn't like the sound quality of most of the mp3's I've heard recently that were made with MXL603s. They've been put up in a number of the forum categories.

Here's one I did like, posted in the MP3 Mixing Clinic section in the thread, "New acoustic tunes". The canned drums aren't my taste but the main guitar line sounds pretty good. Made with a pair of 603s'.

http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Showband.asp?id=615

Whaddayathink?

Tim