Studio Projects and Neumann

[robgb]

As already said, if you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter. You can hear some difference, and it appears to matter to you. Fine. You have every right to your opinion.

Two questons:

1) Do you respect the opinions of others?

2) Have you ever actually heard a Neumann "in the flesh"?

1) I respect the opinion of others when that opinion comes from the heart and brain and not the ego.

2) I've owned several.

I'm fifty years old. I'm a multi-instrumentalist who has been laying tracks since I was eighteen. I've used high-end equipment, I've used low cost equipment. I've seen my share of crap on both ends. I've also seen my share of gems.

Neumann's are GREAT friggin' mics, no question about it, but thanks to the many quality low cost and mid-priced units available today, it's my opinion their price can no longer be justified. I think this little test helps prove that. But, no matter what, they will always be able to trade on the brand name.

Believe me, I have my own prejudices about gear, but this doesn't happen to be one of them.

 

[boingoman]

Yes, and there's very little difference. A tiny bit of harshness in the highs, a little less body and warmth -- but NOT enough to justify the difference in price.

Well, I guess a question would be...how much more do you have to spend to get that body, warmth, and smoothness? Not is it justified- just how much?

Can you get it for less than a high-end price? If you have to pay a certain price for it, you do. Justifying the higher price has no bearing on the discussion, until someone makes a mic that sounds just as smooth, just as warm, and has just as much body for less. At least it seems that way to me.

"While I myself won't get into the comparison game, I will say that this certainly proves that both the B1 and the C1 are excellent sounding mics and your work won't suffer if you use them."


LOL.

 

[Aceboympk]

Paying Much More for Better Sound

Oh, I'm definitely in the camp that if you want better sound, even slightly, a person has to choose if the increase in sound quality is worth the increase in price. That's a no brainer. However, the price increase isn't a 1:1 ratio. It's more like the Richter scale. A little increase costs a lot.

I think the chasm that some people can't cross is if its not worth it to them, why is it worth it to someone else? For many people, the increase is definitely not worth it and they don't understand why in the world other people would. Guess what, they're right because neither party is wrong. Its about preferences, price, and budget. To argue it or debate it is futile.

Noone will convince another person that their opinion is better because it is a personal matter. If someone has $10 million, they probably won't care about spending $4k on a mic to get that better sound. However, if they only have $5,000 maybe they would think twice about it. But, and this is the most important aspect to this dicussion, someone may have a passion about sound and they are committed to getting the best possible sound because it is what drives them. They will probably purchase that $4k mic and be happy with it...until they find a better piece of gear, and then their GAS will drive them to a state of uneasiness until they get it. And so on, and so on, and so on.

Who here has ever listened to a $100k PAIR of speakers? Does anyone think that there is a pair of speakers worth $100k when they can get just as good of sound out of a $10k pair of speakers, or a $5k pair of speakers, or.....

Ok, so let's say that someone believes that they have to have the $100k PAIR of speakers (yes, they do exist). How about cables? Does anyone believe that a $12k PAIR of speaker cables really is worth it (yes, these exist too)? My guess is the person who purchased the $100k speakers does.

And yet there are those like me who are happy with our $3500 pair of speakers, and our $400 speaker cables. And then there are people who are happy with $350 speakers and $40 cables. Preferences, price, and budget.

I will end by saying this, for every person out there who doesn't believe the extra price is worth it you are correct. For those who do believe its worth it, they are correct too. It is a waste of time to argue one way or the other because both are right.

Regards,
Mark

 

[DJL]

Wtf...

.




I wonder if DJL would like to comment on this?


.

Happy cows live in CA.

 

[acorec]

Yes, and there's very little difference. A tiny bit of harshness in the highs, a little less body and warmth -- but NOT enough to justify the difference in price.

The last few examples use a low cost SP pre and a Mackie pre (which sounds a little better). With these units, the differences in the mics (from the U87) are more pronounced. But with a bit of EQ, the difference -- again -- would not be enough to justify the VAST difference in price.

If it hadn't been announced that there was a Neumann involved in this test, I wonder how many of you can HONESTLY answer that you would have known it was a Neumann and not just a mid-priced mic.

I mean, honestly. Forget your prejudices, forget your pride -- if that's possible.

Try them in a mix and then tell me they are close to sounding the same.

 

[robgb]

Robgb:
"While I myself won't get into the comparison game, I will say that this certainly proves that both the B1 and the C1 are excellent sounding mics and your work won't suffer if you use them."

boingoman:
LOL.

Uh-huh. Name me one mix that HAS suffered because of the use of the C1. Because, they ARE used. And I would lay good money that you wouldn't know it was only a "cheap" mic. The best you could do is guess.

That's the best you can do with ANY pro-level mix that you weren't personally involved in. Like I said, I'm fifty years old and I've heard a lot of stuff from musicians and engineers over the years about how this is better than that and you can't live without product xyz, blah blah blah.

And 90% of it is b.s. The other 10% is insecurity.

Try them in a mix and then tell me they are close to sounding the same.

Close enough. If you've got big bucks, by all means, get the Neumann. But if you can't afford it, not too many people will notice a difference.

The C1 sits just fine in a mix. If it ain't working for you -- then you don't know what the hell you're doing.

You see, the reason I keep harping on this is because guys like you come to these HOME RECORDING forums and seem to want to discourage everyone from doing what they love. "Oh, you can't get a decent mix with THAT crap."

Well, the truth of the matter is -- they CAN. They can not only get a decent mix, they can get an excellent one. It just takes time and training. Granted, they won't achieve high-end status with their mix, but with the right ears, they'll be able to come close enought for Joe Consumer.

You're not doing ANYONE a favor by putting down the equipment they use. This should be a place of ENCOURAGEMENT, not attack.

Now if you want to HELP someone by warning them against a piece of equipment that you or a friend has actually had experience with, that's a good thing. Otherwise, tell them to educate themselves, make their purchases wisely (meaning get their opinions from actual users), then shut the hell up.

 

[Flatpicker]

...I wonder how many of you can HONESTLY answer that you would have known it was a Neumann and not just a mid-priced mic...Forget your prejudices, forget your pride -- if that's possible.

Can't say I would have known it was a Neumann - there are other great sounding European mics besides them. But, I can say without a doubt that in a blind test I would certainly have picked the Neumann because of its wonderful midrange and smooth top, as stated above. Nothing to do with prejudice or pride, just using my ears. Besides, for the type of music I record, I’m not a fan of mics with “scooped” mids.

Heck, I wish it was a $200 Chinese condenser that sounded like that - then I could actually afford one!

 

[sdelsolray]

I get flak everytime I bring this up, but I found an interesting AUDIO comparison between the B1, C1 and the U87:

http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=2466&alid=675

rgb

I noticed the online files are about 6 Mb and run about 6 1/2 minutes. I'm not quite sure, but that's probably a mp3 file running at about 128. Kurt has some very nice gear. I would suspect the original recordings would be much more revealing about each mic, as well as the various pres.

To my ears, mp3 at 128 is quite different than 24bit 44.1 .wav files, particularly through a studio grade monitoring chain.

 

[noisedude]

Definitely - I can hear all sorts of crackles and loss of detail in my 192kbps WMA files ... and I have shite ears compared to most of you people!!

No-one is forcing anyone to compare the C1 to a U87. You people clearly all have minds of your own ... ignore the hype and use yours ears.

Having done that, take a check of your bank balance and start wondering whether the U87 comparison is helpful at all anyway. Compare the C1 to the other mics in the price bracket, and choose from them ... I don't care who you are, or how clever your design is, you can't make something that sounds identical to something else for a fraction of the cost ... or the first company would already be doing it!

I imagine DJL might agree with me on this .... that would be a first

 

[DJL]

I reserve my right not to comment at this time about any PMI Audio Group crap.

I imagine DJL might agree with me on this .... that would be a first

That's not ture... we once agreed you need a job.

 

[noisedude]

I reserve my right to ignore your subject line and respond to:

That's not ture... we once agreed you need a job.

We definitely agreed on that!!!! Only 18 months til I begin teacher training and then I will have employment sussed for life ... not well paid though

Do you not agree with me on my previous post then? I think that if one is going to buy a mic from a price bracket, one should choose from those whilst being aware of what 'expensive' sounds like. You might unearth a gem ... you might not be able to hear a difference. We just need to be a little more realistic about what we're buying ... all the hype for ADK, SP, SE etc needs to be treated with caution as you would with Neumann, BLUE etc. You shouldn't buy ANY mic based on hearsay. Except ... well, those BLUE Dragonflys look pretty cool ...

 

[acorec]

Uh-huh. Name me one mix that HAS suffered because of the use of the C1. Because, they ARE used. And I would lay good money that you wouldn't know it was only a "cheap" mic. The best you could do is guess.

That's the best you can do with ANY pro-level mix that you weren't personally involved in. Like I said, I'm fifty years old and I've heard a lot of stuff from musicians and engineers over the years about how this is better than that and you can't live without product xyz, blah blah blah.

And 90% of it is b.s. The other 10% is insecurity.



Close enough. If you've got big bucks, by all means, get the Neumann. But if you can't afford it, not too many people will notice a difference.

The C1 sits just fine in a mix. If it ain't working for you -- then you don't know what the hell you're doing.

You see, the reason I keep harping on this is because guys like you come to these HOME RECORDING forums and seem to want to discourage everyone from doing what they love. "Oh, you can't get a decent mix with THAT crap."

Well, the truth of the matter is -- they CAN. They can not only get a decent mix, they can get an excellent one. It just takes time and training. Granted, they won't achieve high-end status with their mix, but with the right ears, they'll be able to come close enought for Joe Consumer.

You're not doing ANYONE a favor by putting down the equipment they use. This should be a place of ENCOURAGEMENT, not attack.

Now if you want to HELP someone by warning them against a piece of equipment that you or a friend has actually had experience with, that's a good thing. Otherwise, tell them to educate themselves, make their purchases wisely (meaning get their opinions from actual users), then shut the hell up.

Dude, you are going waaay overboard defending the budget mics vs. Neumann. Get over it. Neumanns are professional tools for use in professional studios. C1s, B1s etc. are budget mics to be used in budget studios. They will not, cannot, will never, ever, in a million years compete against one another. If a C1, B1 is all you can afford, so be it. But, don't keep beating a dead horse. Many posters on here can hear a difference and choose to use the high-end stuff. These people I am talking about (like Han, myself, Fletcher) KNOW that these budget mics ruin a mix if used on any more than a few tracks. It is a cumulative buildup of "harshness" like tape hiss builds up with more tracks. 4 Track analog vs. 24 Track analog with no noise reduction is a total difference. Hiss on 4 tracks is nowhere near hiss on 24 tracks. The former is not a big problem, the latter is unworkable.

 

[billisa]

Many posters on here can hear a difference and choose to use the high-end stuff. These people I am talking about (like Han, myself, Fletcher) KNOW that these budget mics ruin a mix if used on any more than a few tracks. It is a cumulative buildup of "harshness" like tape hiss builds up with more tracks.

I'm sure you're right. I have had the pleasure of using Neumanns (back in the late 70's), but don't own one now.

Assuming your statement to be 100% correct, however, one is led to the conclusion that some very inexpensive mics have come a very, very long way in terms of quality.

Back in the day, I doubt if there was any mic a home recordist could typically afford that could stand in any comparison with a Neumann in most normal circumstances -- even recording one voice on one track. Today, it takes a pro with seasoned ears to explicate what the actual differences are, and why they matter. That's not a bad situation to be living within.

 

[slobbermonster]

Today, it takes a pro with seasoned ears to explicate what the actual differences are,

You'd be surprised how many "laymen" hear the difference, they just aren't able to articulate the differences like a seasoned person. To them it just doesn't sound good /right but they aren't sure why. As previously stated, the issues become very obvious as you build more tracks. It's not the expensive vs cheap argument. It's quality vs less-than-quality. If I could find a $200 Chinese mic that sounds good and has the qualities of the higher end gear, I'd buy 20 of them. So far my Chinese mic purchases have been pretty dissappointing to say the least, including the Studio Projects stuff.

 

[acorec]

I'm sure you're right. I have had the pleasure of using Neumanns (back in the late 70's), but don't own one now.

Assuming your statement to be 100% correct, however, one is led to the conclusion that some very inexpensive mics have come a very, very long way in terms of quality.

Back in the day, I doubt if there was any mic a home recordist could typically afford that could stand in any comparison with a Neumann in most normal circumstances -- even recording one voice on one track. Today, it takes a pro with seasoned ears to explicate what the actual differences are, and why they matter. That's not a bad situation to be living within.

You hit the situation square 100% on the head.

I never said that the budget mics are not usable. You certainly can get very decent results with them if used sparingly. The best use of the budget stuff would be to use like 5 different mics in a 24 track mix. The flaw buildup would not be too bad. The one area I think is wrong in the logic of the budget mic thing is that people confuse the "this mic is just as good as a U87" with "this mic sounds very like a U87". There is a big difference here. Budget mics can have sound attributes much like a big-budget mic but the real difference is that you could use a big-budget mic for everything without buildup of "harshness" and other problems inherent in the sound of capsules/electronics that have to be designed using very low cost components. You simply cannot get the same sound/build quality of a $2000 mic in a $200 mic. Anyone who preaches this is dead wrong. You can get decent results with a $200 mic, no doubt, but you would have to be very limited in its use in a big mix to avoid the mix problems later. This is why those "mic tests" using a single track/source are totally useless. You would have to be right there in the studio to hear rhe real differences as the mp3 format usually used does not have the resolution to allow you to hear the differences. These mic tests are the principle tool used by the sales/marketing teams to sell you the mics.

 

[asulger]

on wharfies

I'm surprised how obvious the difference sounds on my new 8.2 wharfies. There's the Neumann, sounding very smooth, and every other clip sounding either bright or harsh in comparison.
But that's what most of us have, so hey, we learn to live with brightness

 

[teainthesahara]

This is why those "mic tests" using a single track/source are totally useless. You would have to be right there in the studio to hear rhe real differences as the mp3 format usually used does not have the resolution to allow you to hear the differences. These mic tests are the principle tool used by the sales/marketing teams to sell you the mics.

I gotta agree with everything your saying, except this. I've heard many people say this, but I dont think it holds true. In my own budget set up, I regularly record solo test tracks of different mic/pre/compressor combinations. All done in WAV files, and then sometimes converted to 224kbit mp3's to specifically hear how those combinations translate to the mp3 medium. Yeah, the mp3's are different, but i've never had a problem picking out subtle differences present in the original recording, regardless if im listening in my project studio or elswhere. I agree that a single track is limited as far as predicting what happens in a full mix, but I've yet to hear an mp3 of a soloed track that was entirely misleading.

 

[mshilarious]

but I've yet to hear an mp3 of a soloed track that was entirely misleading.

I don't think it's misleading, but it is only one piece of the whole picture. In the above test (which we've heard before):

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=130047&page=3

the guitar is really one-dimensional. It would have been more interesting if the right hand position was changed, or if there was some fingerpicking. Anything less bright, really.

And it's vastly more useful to try the mic on a variety of sources, especially vocals since that's the main intended use for these sorts of mics. That's true of any mic. Even a kick drum mic would have to be tried on different kicks before you know what it's really like.

Another problem with the test is that it wasn't blind--the title tells you the order.

 

[baekgaard]

Maybe some of the most seasoned guys could give a hint here...

I don't have a problem telling the difference between most of these mics. I've been through a lot of the tests on the net, and I _think_ I can start to hear the trend, despite all the difficulties involved. To my ears, on some sources the big mics win. Sometimes, on certain sources, other mics are better. But I agree that "the big mics" often sound a bit more rounded and more "tasteful". The budget mics are sometimes more "pronounced" in the way they do whatever they do... i.e. they sometimes "overdo their thing"

I personally own a bunch of the budget mics (B1, C1, NT1000, Oktava MK-012, SM58, ECM8000, etc), being used in my home to make music for the fun of it. They are all different -- sometimes they sound good on a source, sometimes they don't. There may also be some sample variation. I think my NT1000 is a bit darker sounding than what I've heard from others, but it could also be my room or my crappy pop-filter. Or maybe using a darker preamp also helps a bit to tame the top. I sometimes change the preamps also to affect the sound.

Now, having said this, what if some of you, with much more experience than I have, could give some hints on how to avoid the "signature" patterns of the mics.

1) It has already been indicated to use multiple mics; I can certainly ascribe to that (i.e. different mics for lead singer and back-up vocals; another set for the guitar, etc).

2) Another big factor is of course positioning, relative to the source and possibly also the room. Using the often somewhat uneven pickup characteristics creatively can often help. Experiment is the key -- but I have read some good advice from e.g. Harvey here on what to experiment with.

3) What about EQ? Chessrock explained here earlier about the usual two "bumps" that these mics can have, at 6k and 12k, with most chinese having agressive 12k bumps, AT and Shure having 6k bumps, and Røde having both... I guess this means that building up the signature sound of these mics can be helped a bit by using some EQ (1-3dB, maybe sometimes 5-6dB) to dampen these frequencies? So, a good starting point for us new-b's to tame a SP mic may be to remove 3dB fairly broadly around 12k, for some of the tracks?

4) Other ideas?

Hope you get what I'm trying to here. It will never make them sound equal to big bucks mic, but it will help us with a lower budget to overcome some of the problems inherently native to low budgets...


-- Per.

 

[chessrock]

3) What about EQ? Chessrock explained here earlier about the usual two "bumps" that these mics can have, at 6k and 12k, with most chinese having agressive 12k bumps, AT and Shure having 6k bumps, and Røde having both... I guess this means that building up the signature sound of these mics can be helped a bit by using some EQ (1-3dB, maybe sometimes 5-6dB) to dampen these frequencies? So, a good starting point for us new-b's to tame a SP mic may be to remove 3dB fairly broadly around 12k, for some of the tracks?

4) Other ideas?

You could try a different mic.

Main problem is that some of these Chinese dogs just don't sound very good and have distortion in the higher frequencies. EQ might or might not help that.