Ribbon for classical guitar

> I sometimes would have liked the sound to be a tad softer and warmer.

Assuming you have an EQ, that would do the same thing for free.

--Ethan

"Ethan Winer" <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:

> > I sometimes would have liked the sound to be a tad softer and warmer.
>
> Assuming you have an EQ, that would do the same thing for free.
>
> --Ethan

I disagree with the concept that mere EQ really offers the difference
between a CMC641 and an M160.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

hank alrich wrote:

> I disagree with the concept that mere EQ really offers the difference
> between a CMC641 and an M160.

So do I, but he can try playing with EQ on the recording that he made
with the Schoeps mic to see if he gets what he's after. He can also try
putting the mic in a different position, recording in a different room,
using different strings, filing his nails differently . . .

If H. said he didn't like his recording, I might suggest a different
mics, but since he writes that he's pleased with it, he has a good sound
to work with. Without knowing what his present recording sounds like and
what he's after, I'd be hesitant to recommend a specific mic,
particularly a Beyer, which can be a bit tricky to work with. Maybe a
Royer, or an AEA. But like Ethan says, EQ is almost certainly available,
and it can always be undone.



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

On 20 Jul., 00:01, Mike Rivers <[email protected]> wrote:

> he can try playing with EQ on the recording that he made
> with the Schoeps mic to see if he gets what he's after. He can also try
> putting the mic in a different position, recording in a different room,
> using different strings, filing his nails differently

I tried all these and also found the optimal setting for me. But what
I am referring to is a certain quality of the guitar, a slight over-
brightness and harshness (typical of a new spruce top classical that
still did not fully open up, which usually takes several years), and I
thought a ribbon could smoothen it a bit. (It's a great guitar
though.)

> I'd be hesitant to recommend a specific mic,
> particularly a Beyer, which can be a bit tricky to work with.

Why is a Beyer particularly tricky to work with?

(I thought Beyer because they are quite easy to get in Germany where I
live.)

Thanks!

H. Khalil wrote:
> On 20 Jul., 00:01, Mike Rivers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> he can try playing with EQ on the recording that he made
>> with the Schoeps mic to see if he gets what he's after. He can also try
>> putting the mic in a different position, recording in a different room,
>> using different strings, filing his nails differently
>
> I tried all these and also found the optimal setting for me. But what
> I am referring to is a certain quality of the guitar, a slight over-
> brightness and harshness (typical of a new spruce top classical that
> still did not fully open up, which usually takes several years), and I
> thought a ribbon could smoothen it a bit. (It's a great guitar
> though.)
>
>> I'd be hesitant to recommend a specific mic,
>> particularly a Beyer, which can be a bit tricky to work with.
>
> Why is a Beyer particularly tricky to work with?
>
> (I thought Beyer because they are quite easy to get in Germany where I
> live.)
>
> Thanks!
>

You might be surprised by how little difference there is between a Beyer
ribbon and the Schoeps on classical guitar. One of the reasons that I
think ribbons have the reputation for sounding soft and warm is because
of most ribbon mics' lack of high frequency response, say above 10KHz,
but there's little or no sound coming from a classical guitar at those
frequencies, so it isn't really a significant issue here.

When I compared a Beyer M260 to a Schoeps 541, if anything the Beyer
sounded a little brighter. I didn't measure it but it seemed to me that
maybe the Beyer had some mid-range peaks whereas the Schoeps is pretty
flat; that might have been the cause of it. I seem to recall Hank making
a similar observation about a Beyer ribbon a while back in this group,
but I don't remember the context.

I should say that I really do like the sound of an M260 on classical
guitar (or I would if I ever got around to playing it, which doesn't
seem to have happened for a while...), but if as you say you're looking
for something warmer and softer than the Schoeps, I'd say a Beyer ribbon
mightn't be it.

Hank mentioned the AEA 84; I'll suggest you put a Coles mic on your
short list, the 4040 is a very different thing, darker, thicker
sounding. As to 'warmer', hmmm, not sure.

Lastly, a ribbon mic with a figure-8 pattern could be used as the side
mic in an MS pair, along with your Schoeps. It doesn't produce a
dramatic stereo effect, but it's interesting, it gives you a little of
the character of each of the two mics.

Cheers,
Nick

Nick Brown <[email protected]> wrote:

> When I compared a Beyer M260 to a Schoeps 541, if anything the Beyer
> sounded a little brighter.

IME the M260 has an edge that the M160 and M500 do not, in spite of the
M500's big peak for stage vox. I use the M260 when I don't really want
clean. Sometimes I find that little edge useful.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

H. Khalil <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 20 Jul., 00:01, Mike Rivers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > he can try playing with EQ on the recording that he made
> > with the Schoeps mic to see if he gets what he's after. He can also try
> > putting the mic in a different position, recording in a different room,
> > using different strings, filing his nails differently
>
> I tried all these and also found the optimal setting for me. But what
> I am referring to is a certain quality of the guitar, a slight over-
> brightness and harshness (typical of a new spruce top classical that
> still did not fully open up, which usually takes several years), and I
> thought a ribbon could smoothen it a bit.

You could well be right.

> (It's a great guitar
> though.)
>
> > I'd be hesitant to recommend a specific mic,
> > particularly a Beyer, which can be a bit tricky to work with.
>
> Why is a Beyer particularly tricky to work with?

The M160 and M130 in particular are quite insensitive and hence, require
a capable preamp offering lots of clean and quiet gain.

> (I thought Beyer because they are quite easy to get in Germany where I
> live.)

Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
might work very well for you.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

On 20 Jul., 06:43, [email protected] (hank alrich) wrote:

> Try an M160, if you are presently recording with a single mic. This
> might work very well for you.

I am curious why the M160 and not the M130, given that the latter has
a much flater frequency response, judging by the data sheet on the
Beyer page http://www.beyerdynamic.de/en/broadcast-studio-video-production/products/microphones/studio-microphones.html

The diagram of the M160 shows a bump in the high frequency range that
scares me (a brighter mic than the CMC 641 is the least thing I want).

Do the diagrams have any practical significance?

Thanks!