SP b1 compared to SP c4

  • Thread starter Thread starter antofants
  • Start date Start date
Flatpicker said:
Here a post from Jay Lison I found on the Studio Projects forum over at R.O where he compares his newly puchased C4s to his B1s:

"I just got my C4's today! Here's my first impression of them.

First thing, I must have the bad shockmounts, because my mics don't stay in them at all. When I was putting it on the mic stand, I forgot about this, and nearly sent one of my brand new C4's slipping through the shock mount, and right into the ride cymbal. These guys don't want to stay in the shock mounts...at all. Right now, I'm relying on the mic cable to keep them held in place.

I tossed them up on my drum kit with the cardiod capsules on. I put a 57 on snare and a 112 on kick, and thought I'd see how the C4's hold up capturing the rest of the kit. I thought the C4's sounded fantastic on the cymbals, and the snare mixed with the 57 sounded great too. The hi-hat also sounded frickin' great. Since I didn't have mics on the toms, they sounded a bit thin, as one would expect. Even with no filter being used, these guys don't have very much going on in the low end department, which is exactly what I want out of a pair of SDC cardiod mics.

I've been using the B1 mics as overheads for the past couple months at home in my home studio, while I was deciding what overheads to buy. The B1's had too much low to low mids to be used as drum overheads, but sounded very much how my drum kit sounds in my room (which is nearly totally dead; 6" insulation). The toms with the B1's as overheads didn't need close mics, they sounded full and just like my toms. The problem was, the whole kit was too full sounding, so it needed a lot of EQ to fit it in a rock mix, which resulted in the toms being thinned and needing close mics anyway. So, the C4's fix that, and now I'm just going to toss up the B1's on my toms, or use them for overheads when doing jazz or sparse instrumentation recordings.

In conclusion, these are exactly what I wanted, great overhead mics for my drums. I'll be recording a session over the weekend, and I'm going to put them up against a pair of 451's (which I'm not all that fond of for the money(too bright)). I'll try to post a link to some audio samples later next week."

You can visit the thread here:
http://www.recording.org/ubb/ultima...26;t=000146;p=1
Click to expand...
The AKG C451's are a bright sounding mic... and so are the MXL603S's... but, unlike the 603S the 451 seems to handle cymbals better than the 603S. The 451's are my favorite overhead mic's and the 603S is one of my favorite acoustic guitar mic's. I wonder if DOT's opinion will agree with Jay's opinion of the C4's vs 451's? Anyway, good re-post Flatpicker... thanks.
 
A B1 is bigger than a C4. The C4s are coming in a road case.

they probabely dont sound the same way, and C4 kit is more expensive.
 
Thanks so musch again, Flatpicker!

Another fantastic post that gives me a better idea of what's going on between the two mics. I've really appreciated the responses. They're exactly what I was looking for. Thanks so much - David
 
A question for DJL.
Do you consider the terms "neutral" and "flat" to mean the same thing?

Compaired to most of my other mics, the B1 does "sound" fairly neutral to me. It doesn't sound flat though. I can hear that slight bump in the upper mids. Still, compaired to my other mics, neutral does come to mind. Well, except for my KSM32. It "sounds" fairly neutral to me as well.

I guess, when I think of the term neutral, It think of a mic that will work for a lot of different purposes. Maybe not stellar on any of them, but workable. That's how I hear the B1. I can count on it to be in the ballpark. It's definately a mic I would take with me to record a source I haven't heard before.

Just my $.02

Blessings, Terry
 
DJL said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Well at least that explains why you feel the need to pipe up every time someone says they think a mic is neutral sounding. Aside from reference mics, there really aren't many, if any, that could be called neutral. I guess I better learn to use the term "less colored" or something. :D

Blessings, Terry
 
I think there's definitely a difference between flat and neutral.

Something that's flat may not necessarily sound neutral. Flat simply refers to the shape of the frequency response. Granted, a flatter response will contribute to a more neutral sound, but it isn't the only determinant.

Another major factor here is texture. Tubes and transformers, for example, can be very flat (ie -- they won't muck around with the response curve too much), but they will tend to add mild distortions or other textures that have nothing to do with the frequency curve.

Something with a wider pickup pattern and better off-axis response will tend to sound more natural to our ears, because they behave closer to how our ears percieve sound. By nature of their being LDC's, you're usually not going to get as natural of a sound as that of an SDC in a lot of different ways. That's just physics. There may, however, be other factors built in to the design that can affect these sorts of things (ie -- frequency response), so this obviously isn't going to be a totally universal phenomenon.

Some of the more noteworthy exceptions out there tend to include the Shure KSM series, the Audio Technica 4050, and some of the AKG C414 models. The SP B series and the CAD M series are some of the more neutral of the budget LDC's, but even those are going to be colored to an extent. When people call them neutral, they're speaking mostly in relative terms.
 
Thanks chessrock,

That is pretty much how I hear things as well. I like how you used the word natural to help discribe neutral. Makes good sense. "Neutral" really is a relative term.

Blessings, Terry
 
chessrock said:
When people call them neutral, they're speaking mostly in relative terms.
Click to expand...
Oh ok, then the word neutral when referring to mic's on this forum really means nothing then?
 
Words used in relative terms still have meaning. You know this, I know this. You are trying to be difficult. You know this, I know this.
 
DJL said:
Oh ok, then the word neutral when referring to mic's on this forum really means nothing then?
Click to expand...


Decibal measurements are mostly relative in the way they are used. Lean pork, or a fast turtle are relative, and they still mean something. So why not a neutral LDC? It's the same idea.
 
Yea, but if I tell you that I'm turning something up by 3 decibals, how loud are those three decibals?

To be exact, when you turn something up by 3 dbs, you're increasing the volume by 141.25% of whatever it was at before, so it's a relative expression.

A db (as in singular) has no actual value, in theory. If it did, then 2 dbs would be twice as loud as 1, and 5 dbs would be half as loud as 10 and so on (in actuality, turning something up by 6 dbs would make it nearly twice as loud).


As far as the whole neutral=flat thing goes, it's just flawed logic . . . whether or not people generally accept it. Flat doesn't mean neutral any more than shiny means new. In other words, new things are often shiny, and being shiny can be a strong indication that something is new . . . but the two don't mean the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Oh ok, so were back to the word "neutral" when referring to mic's on this forum really meaning nothing then... or at least not the same thing to everyone. :)

"Yea, but if I tell you that I'm turning something up by 3 decibals, how loud are those three decibals?"

dB SPL = 20log P/P ref... I think about a 6- to 10-dB increse in level is what many people would consider as about twice as loud.
 
You ever seen a frequency graph? "Flat" just refers to the shape of it. I could take a test tone, run it through a big muff pie distortion box, and there's still a possibility it could come out relatively flat. But I certainly don't think it would come out anywhere even closely resembling neutral, do you? :D
 
When I think of a neutral mic, I think of it as being a flat mic... so whatever you put into a flat or neutral mic is what you should get out of it. I think of the B1 as being a tailored mic rather than a neutral mic.
 
Sorry for all the fuss. When I asked if DJL if he felt neutral and flat meant the same thing, I was just trying to understand better, his reason for rebutting, everytime he saw someone call the B1 neutral. When he answered "Yes", it made it clear to me why he feels the need to rebutt.
When he hears someone say a mic is neutral sounding, to him they are saying "flat sounding", and of course, The B1 is not flat. Well except for in that picture above. I'll probably still refer to the B1 as being a neutral sounding mic because, to my ear, it is. However, it doesn't sound flat to me.

Blessings, Terry
 
Here’s another issue to deal with – It depends on the source!

You want proof? Proof?!! YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE PROOF!!! ;)

Ok... here goes anyway.

Take an AKG 414 and stick it in front of an acoustic steel string guitar. If it’s anything like the 414s I’ve heard, it’ll sound very close to the natural sound of the guitar. Call it neutral, natural, or whatever.

Now, take that same mic and place it in front of a male vocalist. How’s it sound? Again, if its anything like the 414s I’ve heard, it’ll be colored and definitely NOT neutral.

See what I mean?
:cool:
 
still4given said:
Sorry for all the fuss. When I asked if DJL if he felt neutral and flat meant the same thing, I was just trying to understand better, his reason for rebutting, everytime he saw someone call the B1 neutral. When he answered "Yes", it made it clear to me why he feels the need to rebutt.
When he hears someone say a mic is neutral sounding, to him they are saying "flat sounding", and of course, The B1 is not flat. Well except for in that picture above. I'll probably still refer to the B1 as being a neutral sounding mic because, to my ear, it is. However, it doesn't sound flat to me.

Blessings, Terry
Click to expand...
You don't need to be sorry... I'm glad you asked.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top