Mic Comparison - a Tutorial

[Fran Guidry]

I have this idea that most of the dramatic differences between preamps and a/d converters and even mics to a great extent, is malarkey. To read a recording forum like Gearslutz, mics are the paintbrush of the artist-engineer, and part of the art is choosing just the right shade of cardioid.

But when I start doing carefully controlled tests, with matched levels and a single performance, I don't hear differences that would make me choose one mic over another.

I've done a blog post and two videos demonstrating how I compare mics. Please take a look, listen to the clips, let me know if you hear big differences between the mics. And let me know what you think of the methodology I'm using.

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/

Naturally I used Reaper for the calibration and recording process. Thanks to folks around here who gave me some valuable tips.

The mics in the comparison are the CAD M179, Rode NT2a, and Audio-Technica AT3035. PM or email me or post a comment on the Homebrewed Music blog with your identifications of the three mics and I'll respond with the key.

***
Late edit
***

I should have posted the clips here for the convenience of all. No need to go to my blog to listen to them, but please pay a visit if you'd like to evaluate the methodology of the comparison.

These are the mics:
CAD M179
Rode NT2a
Audio-Technica AT3035

and here are the clips:
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090625-J.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090625-K.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090625-L.wav

Fran

[semiquaver]

put an SM-57 a sennheiser 421, a beyer ribbon and an AKG c-12 in there and you will hear more significant differences. the ear tends to adjust when listening to a track like that solo-ed more difference is heard in musical context. these are 3 so-so condensers so not surprising that they are similar.

[yep]

Well, first off, the differences between mics are not "malarkey," as this similar-methodology shootout demonstrates pretty well:

http://transom.org/tools/recording_i..._shootout.html

Second, I agree with the notion that mics often reveal their biggest differences when used in different applications and with different placement. Putting some mics in front of absorbant panels is apt to negate a lot of differences in pickup pattern and directionality. And since pickup and directionality are often not linear or equal in terms of frequency dropoff with direction, that's potentially a pretty big difference, unless you plan to do all of your recording that way.

Third, these are all mics that are, I think, *supposed* to be similar-sounding. All are large-diaphragm condensers intended for general-purpose recording with a "neutral" sound.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, I actually do hear a pretty significant difference between these mics even on my crappy laptop speakers. To my ears, J sounds the most fake and pretty/sparkly/brittle. K sounds the most natural and realistic, with the most depth of tone and "woodiness," as well as the richest decay. L is my least favorite in this test, with a slight honkiness in the upper mids and what might be room sound or what might be bad enclosure design. I have no idea which mic is which.

The differences are subtle, and none of them are the knockout "magic bullet" that some beginners might expect to hear from changing mics, but subtle is not the same thing as nonexistent.

Last but not least, I think the biggest value to these kids of shootouts is illustrating what kinds of differences there are, not necessarily selecting a "best." For example, J's sparkly high-end might be just the ticket for a strummy rythm part that has to cut through a dense mix. L's honkier, roomier sound might work well for slightly "electric"-sounding single-note leads with a "basement boogie" vibe, especially with a placement that complemented the mic, say right above the strings at the body fret pointed across the soundboard. And K, my favorite in this test, might be too revealing on a cheap or badly-played guitar, and might not have the "balls" to punch through a dense rock mix, even if it sounds the best on a delicate solo track. Moreover, since I don't know what the original guitar/room sounds like, it's hard to say for sure what I'm hearing, how much is the mic and how much is the source...

My 2c anyway.

[yep]

PS--

An awesomely-talented performer with killer material and good promotion and distribution could make a hit record with any of these mics, or probably with just SM57s. I and I think 99% or the rest of the world would rather listen to a good performance than a good mic. So maybe in that sense, from a musician's POV, the differences are "malarkey."

But best of all is to hear a good performance, brilliantly captured. And every so often, a great recording can bump the enjoyment of a piece of music up a letter grade or so, and a really bad recording might pull the enjoyment down by about the same.

None of these test recordings, on their own, would make or break the material, or even come close. So in a pass/fail sense, based on this test, all of these mics "pass" the studio-quality test (at least based on my living room assessment through tiny crotch speakers on a laptop-- i can't comment much below 500Hz!).

In and of itself, I cannot imagine a single person who would otherwise buy or enjoy this recording NOT buying it because of one of these mics. But I could pretty easily imagine a 60-track pop/rock mix with lots of drum mics and double-tracked vocals and three guitar amps and multiple stages of compression and eq becoming a little hard to listen to if everything were recorded through J.

[dub3000]

Third, these are all mics that are, I think, *supposed* to be similar-sounding. All are large-diaphragm condensers intended for general-purpose recording with a "neutral" sound.

i'd agree with that statement.

put a beta 52 up against a 58, a rode large d condensor, a pzm, a ribbon, and small d condensor and you'll see some gigantic differences.

and that's before we get into the big money mics. i mixed some tracks for a mate recently, some with vocals recorded on a u47 and some i recorded myself with an at4040 in a different room (same singer). omg. no contest. and you could FEEL it was the mic. not very scientific, but still. it's that *sound*.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by semiquaver

put an SM-57 a sennheiser 421, a beyer ribbon and an AKG c-12 in there and you will hear more significant differences. the ear tends to adjust when listening to a track like that solo-ed more difference is heard in musical context. these are 3 so-so condensers so not surprising that they are similar.

I plan on using a wider variety of mics in more comparisons, but after reading numerous times that the CAD is a miracle, the Rode is a dog, and the AT3035 is too bright for anyone to use, I expected the differences to jump out at me.

They didn't.

If nothing else, these comparisons and discussions are helping me recalibrate my expectations.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by yep

Well, first off, the differences between mics are not "malarkey," as this similar-methodology shootout demonstrates pretty well:

http://transom.org/tools/recording_i..._shootout.html

Hmmmmm, since this comparison relied on multiple performances I'm not seeing the similarity in methodology.

Second, I agree with the notion that mics often reveal their biggest differences when used in different applications and with different placement. Putting some mics in front of absorbant panels is apt to negate a lot of differences in pickup pattern and directionality. And since pickup and directionality are often not linear or equal in terms of frequency dropoff with direction, that's potentially a pretty big difference, unless you plan to do all of your recording that way.

The panels are actually about three feet behind the mics. And now that you mention it I do generally have a couple of 503 panels behind the mics when I record.

Third, these are all mics that are, I think, *supposed* to be similar-sounding. All are large-diaphragm condensers intended for general-purpose recording with a "neutral" sound.

I've read so much praise for the CAD and so much criticism of the AT I was shocked, shocked I tell you, that they are in fact so similar. Haven't you always read that the AT3035 is cuttingly bright? Is one of these mics startlingly different from the others?

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, I actually do hear a pretty significant difference between these mics even on my crappy laptop speakers. To my ears, J sounds the most fake and pretty/sparkly/brittle. K sounds the most natural and realistic, with the most depth of tone and "woodiness," as well as the richest decay. L is my least favorite in this test, with a slight honkiness in the upper mids and what might be room sound or what might be bad enclosure design. I have no idea which mic is which.

The differences are subtle, and none of them are the knockout "magic bullet" that some beginners might expect to hear from changing mics, but subtle is not the same thing as nonexistent.

I suppose my whole experience of similarity in preamps, converters, and even mics is just due to old worn out ears. I pulled these clips into foobar2000 and did some pretty concentrated ABX testing, and I could not tell one clip from the other.

Well, I'll save a bunch of dough if I stop trying to play at recording engineer <grin>.

Last but not least, I think the biggest value to these kids of shootouts is illustrating what kinds of differences there are, not necessarily selecting a "best." For example, J's sparkly high-end might be just the ticket for a strummy rythm part that has to cut through a dense mix. L's honkier, roomier sound might work well for slightly "electric"-sounding single-note leads with a "basement boogie" vibe, especially with a placement that complemented the mic, say right above the strings at the body fret pointed across the soundboard. And K, my favorite in this test, might be too revealing on a cheap or badly-played guitar, and might not have the "balls" to punch through a dense rock mix, even if it sounds the best on a delicate solo track. Moreover, since I don't know what the original guitar/room sounds like, it's hard to say for sure what I'm hearing, how much is the mic and how much is the source...

My 2c anyway.

Thanks for taking the time to listen and comment. I'm sure you'll agree that we never know the source unless we were present for the recording. Would you also agree that using the same source for all the mics makes more sense than trying to compare mics based on different performances?

I'll go back through the clips and see if I can find some correlation to your descriptions. Thanks for the insight.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by dub3000

i'd agree with that statement.

put a beta 52 up against a 58, a rode large d condensor, a pzm, a ribbon, and small d condensor and you'll see some gigantic differences.

and that's before we get into the big money mics. i mixed some tracks for a mate recently, some with vocals recorded on a u47 and some i recorded myself with an at4040 in a different room (same singer). omg. no contest. and you could FEEL it was the mic. not very scientific, but still. it's that *sound*.

I recently heard some clips comparing a Brauner VM1 to a Schoeps CMC641. If you would predict night and day differences between those two you might be surprised.

I absolutely understand that there are noticeable differences when different patterns are involved like the PZM, or different transducer technologies like ribbons with 6db rolloff starting at 8-10K.

But I just read a discussion today in which someone claimed to hear vast differences between the Rode NT2a and Rode NT2000. And I've read hundreds of others just as (in)credible.

I think most folks getting started in recording would be well served to understand that the purported huge differences between similar mics are often inconsequential.

Fran

[dub3000]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

But I just read a discussion today in which someone claimed to hear vast differences between the Rode NT2a and Rode NT2000. And I've read hundreds of others just as (in)credible.

nice recordings, btw.

but i'd argue that by using a nice sounding acoustic guitar you're not really testing all possible permutations of that.

try the test again with: cymbals. hi hats. snare. female vocals. acoustic bass if you can get access to one. stuff with a lot of sizzle and transient stuff going on. i think you'll find bigger differences.

having said that, there isn't much point in having ten different LDC's that are roughly equivalent. they're all built in roughly the same way, and all will have high frequency resonances - that's just part of their capsule design, it's not negotiable. i have a pair of at4040's and a v67g and no urge at all to get any more LDCs. if a source is too bright, i just move the mic a bit.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by dub3000

nice recordings, btw.

but i'd argue that by using a nice sounding acoustic guitar you're not really testing all possible permutations of that.

try the test again with: cymbals. hi hats. snare. female vocals. acoustic bass if you can get access to one. stuff with a lot of sizzle and transient stuff going on. i think you'll find bigger differences.

having said that, there isn't much point in having ten different LDC's that are roughly equivalent. they're all built in roughly the same way, and all will have high frequency resonances - that's just part of their capsule design, it's not negotiable. i have a pair of at4040's and a v67g and no urge at all to get any more LDCs. if a source is too bright, i just move the mic a bit.

Since I record strictly for my own needs and interests, I stick to solo acoustic guitar - well, I'm gearing up for some band tracks but those will be a string band of `ukulele, guitar, and DI bass. I don't see any female vocals, drum kits, or acoustic bass in my recording future.

Thanks for your insight.

Fran

[dub3000]

here's the cad mic profile:



and the rode's one is in here:
http://www.rodemic.com/downloads/nt2..._datasheet.pdf

those frequency profiles are very similar, you're not going to get much difference with those mics until you start pushing them hard with really extreme material.

[Wolffman]

What the hell, i might as well have a punt at it as well
It might be of some value to get an opinion from a novice, but then again, maybe not.
I,m listening on my hs80m monitors in my tin garage with 3mm panneling on the walls and tin roof, with zero accoustic treatment so just at a guess, what i,m hearing will be far from accurate.

J: to me J has a slightly scooped sound with a more pronounced low & high freq ranges

K: has the more even sound across the freq range and is to my ears the best sounding mic on this particular guitar

L: has the brightest sound to me although it seems to be very similar in the tops to J but with less low freq response.

I wouldn't like to guess which mic is which but i will say that J has a very similar sound to my rode nt1a so J could !! be the nt2a.
Further than that i have no idea.

Please take this post with a grain of salt

Cheers

[Smurf]

To tell the truth, the only differences I hear were on the harmonics, the rest were very similar to my ear...

K - The percussive's sounded muted, muddy

L - The percussive's sounded cleaner, clearer

J - The percussive's sounded full, middy

On a side note this year I decided to get an array of mics instead of one really good one. Why? To experiment with mic technic itself. The only one missing is a ribbon, and it is on its way and should be here next Mon.

And what are the mics?.....

MXL990 - have had it for 4 years

DAK 2001 - also have had it for years

SM58

C2 - matched SD Stereo Pair

C3 - LD Multi Pattern Mic

So far it has been a great experience working with these items.

And a side question for you all....what IS the size of a Large Diaphragm, Small Diaphragm, and Mid Diaphragm mic? Even the big boys don't agree. Here is an average of what I have found...


Large Diaphragm = 22mm & up

Med = 16mm to 22mm

Small = 15mm & below

Sorry for the hy-jack, but thoughts? And would all of these mic in the test be considered LD, or MD?

[stupeT]

For my own voice I used a AT4035 for many years and I liked the sound, though I struggeled hard to find the proper de-essing settings all the time. And extreme settings here made the sound less natural than intended.

Lately I tested a MXL V67i. The overall sound did not change sooo much, maybe more silkier presence and a bit phatter. But I dont need a de-esser anymore! Thats less work and a more natural sound.

So in that case there was a *big* difference. Could well just be the pairing of me and the mic, but who cares as long as it sounds good.

[yep]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

...I've read so much praise for the CAD and so much criticism of the AT I was shocked, shocked I tell you, that they are in fact so similar. Haven't you always read that the AT3035 is cuttingly bright? Is one of these mics startlingly different from the others?...

You might do better to write to the reviewers. I've never read nor made any claims about any of these mics, I think.

Moreover, it's really hard to align different mic reviews. One person who gave a great review to mic X might also love similar-sounded mic Y, but another reviewer might not like either of them. If each reviewer is only reviewing one or the other, then the sum of the reviews does not necessarily equate to a "shootout."

Even more to the point, just because the differences are subtle does not mean that they are malarkey. I have an acquaintance who recently began eating meat after years of being a vegetarian and he can't tell the difference between different cuts of beef. Someone who has never paid much attention to lumber might not, on first glance, notice much difference between different kinds of wood, but experts will spot them instantly. Someone who has actually used different lumber to build houses will not only recognize different woods, but will know from looking at and handling different pieces of lumber which are more or less suitable for different construction applications.

The differences in mics are not like the differences between grape soda and orange soda, more like the differences between, say, red wines. And it is a perfectly acceptable conclusion to decide that any of them are "good enough" or that the differences aren't worth getting hung up on, or aren't worth the money, or whatever.

Talking about human perception of sound is like dancing about architecture. The more we stray from measured results, the trickier it becomes to say anything empirical.

[spikemullings]

Originally Posted by stupeT

For my own voice I used a AT4035 for many years and I liked the sound, though I struggeled hard to find the proper de-essing settings all the time. And extreme settings here made the sound less natural than intended.

Lately I tested a MXL V67i. The overall sound did not change sooo much, maybe more silkier presence and a bit phatter. But I dont need a de-esser anymore! Thats less work and a more natural sound.

Interesting. I have an AT3035 and have the same de-essing/gritty highs problem.

I have not a clue but if pressed I would say J or K were the AT and if really pressed I would say J.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by yep

You might do better to write to the reviewers. I've never read nor made any claims about any of these mics, I think.

Moreover, it's really hard to align different mic reviews. One person who gave a great review to mic X might also love similar-sounded mic Y, but another reviewer might not like either of them. If each reviewer is only reviewing one or the other, then the sum of the reviews does not necessarily equate to a "shootout."

Even more to the point, just because the differences are subtle does not mean that they are malarkey. I have an acquaintance who recently began eating meat after years of being a vegetarian and he can't tell the difference between different cuts of beef. Someone who has never paid much attention to lumber might not, on first glance, notice much difference between different kinds of wood, but experts will spot them instantly. Someone who has actually used different lumber to build houses will not only recognize different woods, but will know from looking at and handling different pieces of lumber which are more or less suitable for different construction applications.

The differences in mics are not like the differences between grape soda and orange soda, more like the differences between, say, red wines. And it is a perfectly acceptable conclusion to decide that any of them are "good enough" or that the differences aren't worth getting hung up on, or aren't worth the money, or whatever.

Talking about human perception of sound is like dancing about architecture. The more we stray from measured results, the trickier it becomes to say anything empirical.

The desire for measured results is the reason I keep suggesting that listeners do some ABX testing and report their results, but I haven't gotten any takers yet.

And I find a lot more variation in red wine than I do in these mic samples but then I probably have a lot more experience in that area <grin>.

Fran

[jens]

Using different mics can make the same instrument sound completely like another one - depending on the mic/instrument combination of course - and then again sometimes the differences are rather marginal.

Knowing WHAT, HOW and WHEN to use, makes all the difference - personally I'm still a complete rookie in that field, but at least I now know that these differences really DO exist - back when I had even less of a clue about microphones/micing techniques I doubted it.

Sorry, but that's really how it is.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by jens

Using different mics can make the same instrument sound completely like another one - depending on the mic/instrument combination of course - and then again sometimes the differences are rather marginal.

Knowing WHAT, HOW and WHEN to use, makes all the difference - personally I'm still a complete rookie in that field, but at least I now know that these differences really DO exist - back when I had even less of a clue about microphones/micing techniques I doubted it.

Sorry, but that's really how it is.

I agree with Jens. It's often a trade-off or balancing act. You know that mic pair X will sound great on the drum overheads but for this song you need them for the backing vox group (in a live session where both happen at once) so you compromise and use mic pair Y on the drum overheads instead... knowing that pair Y won't capture cymbal transients as well but making the compromise.

The MXL V69 and the AT4050 (to me) sound really, really close on acoustic guitar but easily very different on vocals.

[Tedwood]

There all different for sure, I don't own either of these but I've heard other people use them all. I have an NT1a which sounds most similar to K to my ears. I've hear Spike's AT3035 which sounds more sparkly than my Rode so I guess J is the AT3035. So by process of elimination that means L is the M179.

I like L least, and I like K most, but I might just like L most on vocals or some other instrument or in a different position.

when do we get the answers?

[stupeT]

Originally Posted by ahnold

Do I think expensive wine is a waste of money? Yes I do. It's a waste of money FOR ME. In my opinion, it's a perfectly justifiable expense for someone who has the palette to discern and get more enjoyment from the better wine.

Now, on the one hand, I appreciate the fact that I can enjoy wine, without worrying about the vintage, or the vineyard, or whatever. I can sit down and drink a glass and not think twice about how I'm experiencing it. I almost feel sorry for those poor suckers who can't drink wine, unless it's $100 a glass.

Well, not really. I do recognize that my lack of refinement in that area means that I can't appreciate one of the finer things in life. And, isn't that part of the point of living? Discernment and appreciation?

Anyway, I say all this because it's the same for mic's as much as wine. And I hold a similar, attitude towards the poor folks who genuinely can't relax and enjoy a piece of music because they can't get past the sound of the recording.

Excellent!

I can tell the difference between cheap and expensive wine. And there is a *big* difference between expensive mic and expensive wine! The mic will last your whole life but that bottle of wine is GONE when the evening is over

[stupeT]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

The MXL V69 and the AT4050 (to me) sound really, really close on acoustic guitar but easily very different on vocals.

That is only because you let your cat play the guitar!

We are very sensitive to subtile differences in human voices. Naturally and from the genes I think...

[yep]

Originally Posted by Fran Guidry

The desire for measured results is the reason I keep suggesting that listeners do some ABX testing and report their results, but I haven't gotten any takers yet.

And I find a lot more variation in red wine than I do in these mic samples but then I probably have a lot more experience in that area <grin>.

Fran

Uh, I think you got a couple of takers in this thread already (myself included).

Unless, of course, you're asking people to specifically guess which mic is which. And that would be asking a lot, and you could only test people who have used all three mics often enough to know what they "sound" like.

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by yep

Uh, I think you got a couple of takers in this thread already (myself included).

Unless, of course, you're asking people to specifically guess which mic is which. And that would be asking a lot, and you could only test people who have used all three mics often enough to know what they "sound" like.

Actually I'm asking for results of double blind ABX comparisons. If you used a comparator for your evaluations you didn't mention it. And I apologize for dropping the ball on sending you the key, just PMed it to you.

Here's a discussion of double blind testing and use of the foobar2000 ABX comparator: http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...dio-interface/

I've only received one report of the use of ABX to compare clips, on another board.

But any and all comments are welcome and interesting, even ones that suggest that a mic knows the difference between sources and reacts differently based on that knowledge <grin>.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

I agree with Jens. It's often a trade-off or balancing act. You know that mic pair X will sound great on the drum overheads but for this song you need them for the backing vox group (in a live session where both happen at once) so you compromise and use mic pair Y on the drum overheads instead... knowing that pair Y won't capture cymbal transients as well but making the compromise.

The MXL V69 and the AT4050 (to me) sound really, really close on acoustic guitar but easily very different on vocals.

Lawrence, have you ever put up both mics equidistant from the vocal source, used a test tone to adjust gain so their levels are matched, and then compared the mics on a single performance, preferably double blind?

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by Tedwood

There all different for sure, I don't own either of these but I've heard other people use them all. I have an NT1a which sounds most similar to K to my ears. I've hear Spike's AT3035 which sounds more sparkly than my Rode so I guess J is the AT3035. So by process of elimination that means L is the M179.

I like L least, and I like K most, but I might just like L most on vocals or some other instrument or in a different position.

when do we get the answers?

Ted, I sent you the key.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

Rather than start a new thread I'll post these additional clips here. On some other forums a couple of folks suggested that my three mic comparison used mics that were too similar, so I put up these four mics:

CAD M179
Schoeps CMC64
Shure KSM44
Shure KSM141

to generate these clips:
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-F.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-G.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-H.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090626-I.wav

In this case one of the mics cost under $200 and one cost over $1500. Surely the difference must be enormous!!

The methodology for the comparison is the same described here:

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/2009/...on-a-tutorial/

If you offer a comment on the comparison I'll be glad to PM or email you the key.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by ahnold

How much of the subtle differences is the mics and how much is the 3-4 inch difference in capsule position? As close as those mic's are, the capsules still occupy different air and will capture a different sonic perspective. Right?

The real differences between the mic's, themselves, is only part of the perceived difference in the sound files, which is already very subtle. So, given similar mics, as in this example, wouldn't you be just as well off changing the mic position, as changing the mic?
...

I would say that the 3" spacing compared to the distance from the source, about 24-30", makes the difference due to spacing minimal.

But in response to your question, I absolutely believe that differences in mic position will have a lot more impact than the inherent differences in these mics.

Fran

[ringing phone]

That's gorgeous playing.

fwiw I thought J sounded the best and K was thinner and L was maybe somewhere in between those two...or even almost identical to J. But my first impression was that K was thinner somehow. J was rich.

FGHI...? They all were about the same to me. The differences aren't going to make me start gushing about how this one sounds (insert some piece of blowhard romanticised mythologised claptrap here) or that one sounds (insert some vain elitist pontificating posturing pompous self-aggrandising fantasy here).

[Splice]

There is some very useful microphone information on this site - http://www.recording-microphones.co.uk/index.shtml

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by ahnold

Fran, It might be interesting if you could put up a couple matched mics in a configuration like you have for this comparison, with the capsules side by side, a few inches apart facing the same spot on the guitar. I'd be curious just how much difference there might really be between the two.

I'd do it myself, however I don't have a matched pair of mics to do the comparison. Plus, you are a much better guitarist than I.

ahnold, I was using a pair of AT3035s in X/Y and thought of you. Here's a pair of tracks recorded on those mics, both turned so they are facing the source. Levels were matched by the simple expedient of setting the John Hardy M-1 to low range, then turning the pots all the way up (40 dB of gain). The mics were about 22" from the 12th fret of the Wingert Model E guitar.

http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090705-T.wav
http://www.homebrewedmusic.com/audio/20090705-B.wav

I haven't had a chance to listen to these yet but I expect them to be pretty close.

Fran

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by ahnold

I've only listened for a few moments, but I can hear about as much difference as the other files you posted, which is to say, not much at all.

There has to be a difference, however. If there weren't, wouldn't the two files null when phase was reversed?

Anyway, thanks again, for taking the time to do this

Ahnold, this brings up the key point - there are limits to our perception systems. Human hearing covers a certain range of frequencies, has a certain level of discrimination. Different people have slightly different ranges, it's possible to improve your ability to differentiate with training and experience but there are still limits to what we can hear.

And in many cases the differences in our gear are less than our hearing can differentiate.

So it's entirely reasonable that two files that don't null cannot be distinguished by our hearing system. The null test is not a test of audibility, it only serves as definite evidence of inaudibility. If two files null they don't just sound the same, they are the same.

Fran

[ringing phone]

Fran I saw earlier you said something to the effect of turning your pots 'all the way up'...you don't find that a) you gonna pick up too much background/ unwanted noise and b) you're not gonna pick up too much signal related noise?

When you record acoustic guitar via condenser mic you need gain...is it your usual practice to really up the gain like you said 'all the way up'?

or was that whole 'all the way up' thing just for the mic test you ran?

Ioften wonder how much gain do Ineed to record my acoustic guitar. Igenerally aim for a peak of -10db or something...I suppose mic distance and the amount of gain share a bit of a relationship that is open to tweaking.

thanks

[Fran Guidry]

Originally Posted by ringing phone

Fran I saw earlier you said something to the effect of turning your pots 'all the way up'...you don't find that a) you gonna pick up too much background/ unwanted noise and b) you're not gonna pick up too much signal related noise?

When you record acoustic guitar via condenser mic you need gain...is it your usual practice to really up the gain like you said 'all the way up'?

or was that whole 'all the way up' thing just for the mic test you ran?

Howdy, Ring,

In the post you refer to I was using a John Hardy preamp that has a High/Low range of gain settings. Instead of painstakingly setting levels with a test signal, as I did in my multi-mic comparisons, I set the Hardy to its low gain range and cranked it all the way up. That gave me 45dB of gain and since I was comparing two of the same mic, I figured that was close enough to equal levels for my purposes.

"All the way up" is meaningless without knowing the range available, and that varies widely for different devices.

On the issue of signal vs noise, the preamp gain should have an undetectable impact on the signal to noise ratio assuming a decent preamp. The signal (music) and noise (everything else) in the room has a constant ratio. The sensitivity of the mic and the gain of the preamp together determine the level of the recording, but the source signal and ambient noise must go up and down together.

Ioften wonder how much gain do Ineed to record my acoustic guitar. Igenerally aim for a peak of -10db or something...I suppose mic distance and the amount of gain share a bit of a relationship that is open to tweaking.

thanks

You've got it, the amount of gain needed from the preamp depends on:

Source volume
Distance from source to mic
Mic sensitivity
Desired signal level

Acoustic guitar is a fairly quiet source, but different folks record at wildly different distances. A lot of pop/rock acoustic is recorded from inches away, most classical guitar from several feet distance.

Mic sensitivity is all over the place as well, from something like passive ribbon mics to the flat response dynamics like the Sennheiser 441 or Shure SM7 up to some high output condensers that generate line level signals with loud sources.

I think your target level of -10 dBFS is a good one, but I don't mind levels well below that if that's all I can get.

Fran