Blue Bear Sound's 2nd Mic Shootout...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blue Bear Sound
  • Start date Start date
Blue Bear Sound

Blue Bear Sound

New member
Allright... mic shootout using acoustic guitar clips... 11 clips for your listening pleasure, all zipped in a single file... I'll post the link later this morning (when it's active!)

Different than the last shootout - here are some points to keep in mind:

1 - this isn't a good-mic/bad-mic kind of comparison -- it's more "this is what each mic sounded like AT THE TIME... with THAT placement... with THAT particular instrument... with THAT player"

2 - with the above in mind - you should consider the differences in mics as "colors" or "sonic shades" -- each sound might be exactly what's needed in a given application for a particular mix.

3 - I threw a really bad mic in there to prove that no one should ever consider buying Radio Shack mics... (it was the one of their Realistic/Shure omnis circa 1982!)

4 - I used a Fender 12-string. Signal chain was identical for each mic and the placement was directly at the neck joist at a 45-degree angle from the neck... the only variation in setting was to adjust for even levels. The path was mic --> VXP (no processing except hi-pass) --> Masterlink.

5 - In case it matters, that clip was me playing the intro to Supertramp's "Sister Moonshine." I thought it would one that would be a familiar sound for many... (although I may be dating myself here!) ;)

6 - The mics compared were (in no particular order):
- Shure SM58 dynamic
- Audio-Technica 4041 med-dia cond
- Studio Projects C1 large-dia cond
- Radio Shack #???? dynamic omni (circa 1982)
- AKG D112 dynamic
- Beyer M160 dynamic ribbon
- Marshall MXL2001 large-dia cond
- Rode NT2 large-dia cond
- Shure SM57 dynamic
- Shure SM57Beta dynamic
- Audio-Technica 4033 large-dia cond


So have at it........... watch for the link, coming up shortly....

Bruce
 
Bruce, nice work.I could hear subtle differences between all the mics except from the 112,160,and of course the radio shack mic ouch!!Like you said it's not about what mic is better but try to listen to the little differences between them all.By the way,Bruce we've had the privilege of seeing a picture of harvey,when is the blue bear going to go public?Show your face blue bear!!!!!!!!!!!!Hey, there's even a picture of your wife on your website but the mysterious blue bear is no where to be seen...
 
harley96 said:
Bruce, nice work.I could hear subtle differences between all the mics except from the 112,160,and of course the radio shack mic ouch!!Like you said it's not about what mic is better but try to listen to the little differences between them all.By the way,Bruce we've had the privilege of seeing a picture of harvey,when is the blue bear going to go public?Show your face blue bear!!!!!!!!!!!!Hey, there's even a picture of your wife on your website but the mysterious blue bear is no where to be seen...
Click to expand...

Bruce isn't a carbon based entity like the rest of us... He is a transient soul, floating from world to world with his 32/8 and Adats under arm..... :D

Thanks for the Clips.... I will check them out tonight.... (No sound cards at work...)
 
Wow.

I'm really impressed by how smooth the ribbon mic sounds. Damn. I *need* a ribbon mic now because of you Bruce :D

Thanks for the clips!
 
If you need a server to host the files I can help you there.
Email me for a username and password.
 
Good test Bruce.
AT4033- About what I'd expected I have a pair of these and like 'em on acoustics. Nice and full sound.
AT4041- A surprise. A lot thinner than I would have predicted.
NT2- Thinner still. Hmmm... I realize that in the context of a particular song, about anything could be appropriate but I don't think I liked this mic.
MXL2001- A little larger than the 4033. Good balance.
C-1- Ah, the infamous Studio Projects mic. Is it my imagination or do I hear this mic compressing? I suppose it could be the preamp I'm hearing. Not bad though.
D-112-Better than I would've expected it to sound. I have a couple of these and I have to say, that wouldn't have been one of the mics to come to my mind when reaching for something to mic an acoustic guitar. Not bad but too tubby.
M-160- Very smooth but not enough high end. Sounds like it was on the edge of woofing out.
SM-57-BIG surprise. Again, not my first choise for acoustic guitar, but it wasn't bad at all. I could see where that might be usfull in a pop tune.
SM-57-Beta- Ditto. Just a bit more definition than the 57
SM-58-Sounds like the 57 (go figure).
Real nice work Bruce (and not too shabby on the guitar either).
 
4033 - Distinct tone, a little nasal and muddy on the "slammy parts"
4041 - A little harsh and thin.. still pretty tight low end..
C1 - strange sound.. I can't really get a grip on it... messy.. almost sounds as it's pumping...
Crapshack - Killer for certain applications...hehe
D112 - OK... next mic...
M160 - Booomy... worse than crapshack in a way..
MXL2001 - Poor mids. something in the lower register takes over the show. Nice rich highs
NT2 - a bit thin, though nice control on the "slammy parts"
Shure SM mics - Got a cetain sound... poor highs, busy mids.

Overall.. I'd prefer the NT2 with a touch of the 4033....

Nice one, Bruce.
 
Bruce,

you're the man. Now If you would do that same test with vocals, you would be the angel.

Anyhow, that guitar was wack.

I put all the files in mediaplayer and listened without knowing what I was listening to I disliked basically all the mikes, mainly because I dont know what a 12 string guitar sounds like in real life.

All I was hearing was a harsh sound with unbalanced frequencies. It also seemed that the mics had a really hard time capturing either a pleasing tone or a balanced.

The 4033, 4041 and c1 and nt2 all sounded too harsh

the crapshack and d112 sounded like a 14 year old recording with a radio shack mic to a karaoke thing

The m160 and mxl2000 were pleasing, but I doubt that they are true to the sound.

The shures just sounded fake.
 
I agree with CyanJaguar, the sound from one track to the next is quite obvious and different but none have a pleasing tone that acoustic guitar should have. Words like harsh, muddy, and compressed can be applied to all of these tracks. What MP3 conversion was used on this? Maybe that is the problem. Wave files are really the only way this kind of thing should be done.
 
I dissagree...

MP3 Files are fine for Rough A/B Testing..... Yes, It's nowhere near optimal in the whole spectrum of sound quality, but with an MP3 based "shootout" everything is degraded relatively the same amount which makes A/B testing workable.

Anyone with ears can distinguish a mic comparison through MP3's, at least enough to hear which mic is the best in and how the others compare in the "shootout"..

Joe
 
VOXVENDOR said:
I dissagree...

MP3 Files are fine for Rough A/B Testing.....

Anyone with ears can distinguish a mic comparison through MP3's, at least enough to hear which mic is the best in and how the others compare in the "shootout"..

Joe
Click to expand...

While I can easily identify many differences between all the tracks, real and useful differences in quality can't be determined if there isn't much quality overall. If I had to choose one of these tracks in the form they are currently in as a keeper I would be at a loss, as they stand I would call them all unsalvageable. If you held a gun to my head and forced me to pick I would possibly say that the AT's and the Beta 57 might be a little better than the rest but beyond that it's a damn hard call.
 
Hmmm... I can download about 40% of the file and no more.:(

WHY WHY WHY!!!
 
I wouldn't say that any of them sounded like the perfect mic to me, but I found the sounds of the 4033 and the mxl the least offensive. Thanks Bruce.
 
Track Rat said:
Really?? What are you listening on?
Click to expand...

Harman Kardon tube amp rebuilt with with Audio Note oil caps and Holco resistors running LS3/5a's.
 
Cool. I wouldn't term the better mics (4033, MXL2001) unusable.
 
C1

Who ever said... All the guitars are recorded bad, or sound bad is obviously not listening on very good speakers...

I pulled these up on the NS10's and YSM's and then home speakers....

The 4033 sounded sweet but thin... and im an AT man, so thats hard for me to type :)

The MXL2001 was my favorite.... Im buying one!!!!!
It had the exact same sweet high end as the 4033, yet it also had a fat bottom end.... Loved it...

I liked the Crapshack better than the C1... The Crapshack tone was awful, but It's the wierd sucking movement of the C1 that really kills me.... At least you can Eq the Crapshack to sound a bit better...

That guitar track recorded with the C1 is un-fixable..

That C1 is unusable junk to me if it really sounds like that and it wasn't a miking error.... I know Bruce is good, so Im guessing it's the mike...
Whats up with the C1... it's like the Diaphram was moving funny or something.......???


I think the MXL 2001 won this shootout..... and what a shocker.... I am a die hard AT man... life-long... well not anymore, I guess... :)

Thanks Bruce

Nice recordings.... the AT track and the MXL track are both great recordings... don't let anyone tell you that it's ALL bad sounding..
 
Re: C1

VOXVENDOR said:

The MXL2001 was my favorite.... Im buying one!!!!!
It had the exact same sweet high end as the 4033, yet it also had a fat bottom end.... Loved it...

I liked the Crapshack better than the C1...

I think the MXL 2001 won this shootout..... and what a shocker.... I am a die hard AT man... life-long... well not anymore, I guess... :)
Click to expand...

This is precisely the kind of thing I was afraid this would produce, the fact that you you now think the MXL 2001 is a good sounding mic is quite unfortunate.

There are lots of cheap mics that can sound pretty decent these days and honestly the 2001 really isn't one of them especially if you are talking about something as critical and demanding as acoustic guitar, and this case 12 string.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top