Matt Palmer mic shootout Neumann KM-184 vs Schoeps MK4

[dewach...@gmail.com]

Which do you prefer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qngmz88wogI&feature=youtu.be

[tom g]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 6:14:14 PM UTC+1, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:
> Which do you prefer?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qngmz88wogI&feature=youtu.be

Very difficult. All the recordings are of very good category and of course Matt Palmer is magnificent. The sound of the Schoeps seems me more compressed in the high frequencies, maybe the Neumanns are just a little more realistic but this is so much about personal taste, isnt it?
More important, I dont hear so well the special quality of your guitar.

tom g

[Andrew Schulman]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 12:14:14 PM UTC-5, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:
> Which do you prefer?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qngmz88wogI&feature=youtu.be

Schoeps.

Andrew

[Richard Jernigan]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 11:14:14 AM UTC-6, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:
> Which do you prefer?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qngmz88wogI&feature=youtu.be

I really like them both. A slight preference for the Schoeps with my Sennheiser HD600 headphones through the sound card on my Mac Mini, but I will try a different set of headphones and an Apogee DAC to see whether it changes my mind. Also I might try them through the speakers in my practice room, but the room is pretty lively.

RNJ

[tom g]

I listened with AKG K271MkII and AKG 240 headphones. I didnt listen with hi-fi. With both microfones I hear a sound that for my taste is a bit "cloudy", the Schoeps a little more but it is just a fraction. By "cloudy" I mean that it does not have the "transparency" that I wrote about. But in these days, that is normal and we have become acostomed to it.

tom g

[Richard Jernigan]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 11:14:14 AM UTC-6, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:

> Which do you prefer?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qngmz88wogI&feature=youtu.be

Output via USB to Apogee Mini-Me DAC, Stax Signature Lambda headphones: I much prefer the Schoeps. They sound "warmer". To my ears the KM184s have a little bit of treble edginess, compared to the smooth but transparent Schoeps.

Both mics are cardiods, so they are well into the proximity effect which boosts the bass. Looking at the published response curves, the Schoeps are very flat, presumably measured outside the proximity effect.

The KM184 has a bass rolloff and a treble boost. By 100 Hz the bass is down 2 dB, by 50 Hz it's down 4 dB. The treble boost starts at 5 KHz and rises to a little more than 2 dB by 10 KHz, which is just a tiny bit more than the treble boost of the Schoeps MK 2H.

So the measured data (which I looked up after listening) accords with what I hear: more treble and less bass on the KM184, relative to the Schoeps.

Which is more "realistic"? You would have to be there.

I think the KM184's reputation as a guitar mic might be tilted a bit toward the steel string side, where the upper partials of the notes are stronger than on a nylon string. I hear a fair number of steel string recordings, beginning with Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, where the trebles are a bit hyped, but sound nice.(I think CSNY was pretty well stomped on by dynamic compression as well.)

For me hyping the trebles is a bad thing on classical nylons; maybe yes, maybe no on flamenco, since modern players display a great variety of touch from one person to the next. And Paco de Lucia, the oracle for most present day flamencos, once said that maybe classical players pay a little too much attention to tone quality, and not enough attention to rhythm.

But between the two mic's, I would say, "Whatever floats your boat." I say to-may-to, you say to-mah-to.

RNJ

[Richard Jernigan]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 11:14:14 AM UTC-6, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:

> Which do you prefer?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qngmz88wogI&feature=youtu.be

Tried something else. Mac Mini via AirPlay (Wi-Fi to Airport Express) to Linn Classik, Linn AV-5105 amps with crossover cards on the inputs, thence to Linn Katans and a Linn 10.5" subwoofer.

Here my preference flips. The room is about 14 feet by 25 feet (4.25 by 7.7 meters), with a high sloping ceiling, bare hardwood floors, bookcases along one short wall and a desk at the other short wall. There is no acoustic treatment, a pair of sliding glass doors on one of the long walls looking out to a 2nd floor balcony. The room is thus pretty lively, but subject to fairly hefty bass resonance.

I have listened to exactly the same Linn equipment in a treated room, and it sounded pretty flat in frequency response to me, but I haven't measured either space.

Now I like the Neumanns better. There's too much bass on both brands of mic's but the Neumanns' slightly brighter treble makes them more attractive in this setting.

RNJ

[tom g]

It is a problem with Mr Thames' test that the best position for microfones can be diferent for two diferent microfones. Example, the KM 184 likes ORTF configuration or a bit "off axis" and not to be pointed directly to the guitar. Richard mentions the small adition to the high frequencies response but with the right position, this is an advantage.
"Industry standard" microfones are "industry standard" for a good reason. To understand your equipment is esential and to do that before to buy another one!
Comparisons are always very interesting but conclusions are, well, difficult.

tom g

[Matt Faunce]

They both sound great on my Radio Shack Lightweight headphones.

I record up close with omnis and I feel that an un-eq'd playback leaves
the bass too strong. Since this isn't from proximity effect, and the
inverse square rule works equally for all frequencies, I attribute it to
the effect of sound bouncing off the walls. A room enhances certain
frequencies at the expense of others.* I'm guessing that the midrange
gets enhanced the most, which explains why there are so many midrangy
classical guitar recordings. So I roll off the bass a bit so the balance
sounds more like it was recorded in a good sounding (non-midrangy) room.

* Modal Ringing and Room Resonance
https://youtu.be/aHkAFSZmMk4

--
Matt

[Richard Jernigan]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 11:14:14 AM UTC-6, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:

> Which do you prefer?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qngmz88wogI&feature=youtu.be

Michael--I believe you said you recently acquired some Schoeps mics. Which capsules do you have, and do you like them?

RNJ

[wollybird]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 11:14:14 AM UTC-6, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:

> Which do you prefer?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qngmz88wogI&feature=youtu.be

shouldn't You be asking people under 35?

[Matt Faunce]

That is, 'too much bass' is the accurate frequency response at that close
distance, but it's not representative of the frequency response a listener
will hear in a typical room at a typical distance. So, the amount that the
bass should be rolled off is proportionate with the distance your reverb
setting is mimicking. Actually, the whole frequency response curve needs to
be eq'd to some new curve that matches the desired distance you want to
imitate in your imagined good sounding room.

I've always assumed the distance the proximity effect starts is 12" for the
typical cardioid mic. This is based on some frequency response charts I've
read; one recently from Audio Technica which says the response is flat down
to 20 Hz when 12" from the sound source. The <12" curve must be the curve
at a specific distance <12" which they don't specify. Since the guitar's
lowest pitch is 80 Hz rather than 20 which is where the frequency response
charts start, I figure the guitar won't be affected until within 10" or so.
When it barely starts it starts at the lowest end first. Furthermore, the
more the sound wave approaches the mic from the side the less the proximity
effect is in effect.

Sure Microphones put an explanation of proximity effect online that makes
everything I said make sense. Unfortunately they only explain using
relative distances rather than exact distances with certain microphones.

--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

From Sure:
Why does Proximity Effect Occur?
http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2844

From AT:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/site/aa901ccabf1dfc6b/index.html#other

Here's a closer look at their frequency response graph:
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/resource_library/images/52f53877a4e52d47/index.html

Here they show the response at 12", 3", and I can't make out that first
mark.

--
Matt

[Richard Jernigan]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 4:25:02 PM UTC-6, Matt Faunce wrote:


> >
>
> That is, 'too much bass' is the accurate frequency response at that close

> distance, <snip>

Accurate frequency response of what? As far as I know the ear is a pressure transducer, not a pressure gradient transducer.

RNJ

[Matt Faunce]

I'm saying the omni will accurately pick up the same frequency response
as your ear. At 12" the bass response will sound like a lot compared to
the normal listening distance of 6 feet or so. I'm also saying that the
cardioid will pick up pretty much the same response as the omni at 12".

--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

That's 12" on out. I'm excepting cardioids that were designed for close
miking, like the Earthworks SR25, and the DPA 4011. Those will lose bass
response when moved outwards. The guys at rec.audio.pro said that those
cardioid mics are examples of the exception, and that most cardioids are
flat outward of 12". They're my only source on that. They're not
infallible but fairly reliable.

--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

OK, in the thread linked to below there is some disagreement among
respected forum members about directional mics staying flat out past a
certain distance.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.audio.pro/proximity$20effect$20DPA/rec.audio.pro/oWLS9sfjrog/Bbo9V34esicJ

The last post is by a former Neumann employee. He says "most directional
mics are rolled off deliberately so that within their "normal" working
distance (usually less than a meter) they are relatively flat (due to
proximity effect)."

Here's his post separated from the rest:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/rec.audio.pro/oWLS9sfjrog/R9DKMqZHAv8J

If he's right, directional mics that stay flat at a distance are the
exception.

--
Matt

[Richard Jernigan]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:15:00 PM UTC-6, Matt Faunce wrote:


>
> I'm saying the omni will accurately pick up the same frequency response
> as your ear. At 12" the bass response will sound like a lot compared to

> the normal listening distance of 6 feet or so...
> --
> Matt

Bass boost due to the proximity effect is an artifact of __pressure_gradient__ transducers like cardioids, not __pressure__ transducer like omnis. Are you saying that as my ear moves closer to the guitar, the bass sounds louder relative to the other frequencies? If so, why?

Isn't the ear a __pressure__transducer? If not, how does the sound get to the other side of the tympanic membrane so that the membrane can respond to the __pressure_difference__, not just to the pressure itself?

RNJ

[Richard Jernigan]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 5:32:08 PM UTC-6, Matt Faunce wrote:

> That's 12" on out. I'm excepting cardioids that were designed for close
> miking, like the Earthworks SR25, and the DPA 4011. Those will lose bass
> response when moved outwards.

> Matt

..as does the KM184.

RNJ

[Richard Jernigan]

...and as does the Schoeps MK 4, but to a much lesser extent.

[Matt Faunce]

Richard, to my experience, the attenuation of bass at greater distances
is due to factors besides proximity effect, so it affects omni-mics and
your ears. I don't know the correct theory to explain this, but I guess
that it has at least partly to do with your room being a filter. Why
does sound coming out of your headphones seem to be so lacking in bass
until you get your ears close? I just tested white noise played through
the stock speakers on my iMac, by moving my head very close then very
far from the computer. I think the same effect was happening, but
there's a point where it levels off. In my little bedroom that point is
about 12". Try it yourself:

https://www.simplynoise.com/

The big knob is the volume control.
--
Matt

[Richard Jernigan]

I gave the dimensions of the audibly resonant room where the particular speakers I mentioned are, so people who were so inclined might get an idea of what the room modes might be. In a rectangular room with flat 10-foot ceiling, there would be strong nodes at my sitting position around 80Hz and 160Hz. In fact the ceiling slopes from about 8 feet along one of the long walls to about 12 feet along the opposite wall. This makes calculating the modes more complex, and I haven't done it, nor have I swept the room with a frequency generator. But there are noticeable modes in the bass region of the guitar.

A well known phenomenon is the brain's ability to construct the fundamental of a note from only the overtones. The open low E-string of the guitar sounds near 80Hz, the harmonics are 160Hz, 320Hz, 640Hz...and so on.

But if you notch out the 80Hz fundamental, the brain still hears the note as low E. In fact, on several guitars I have measured, the 160Hz octave of the open low E-string has much more energy than the 80Hz fundamental. So room resonances at higher frequencies can make bass notes with lower fundamentals sound louder.

RNJ

[Richard Jernigan]

What happens when you get your ear close to the speaker, then move to one side instead of moving back?

RNJ

[Matt Faunce]

Yeah, psycho-acoustics. Normal acoustics is complicated enough. But it's
gotta go through our psyche.

The main driver of my opinion is this. When I listened to my recording
of L'aurore by Francis Kleynjans without eq it sounded too bassy, so I
took the same recording and rolled out the bass a tad. The first track
on my SoundCloud page is un-eq'd, the second copy, entitled L'aurore by
Francis Kleynjans was eq'd. The eq'd version sounds more balanced to me,
that is, more like the balance I'd hear sitting across the room.

https://soundcloud.com/matt-faunce

--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

I heard a swooshing sound, which I attributed to the change in balance
of frequency. But now I think I was influenced by the 'power of
suggestion'. Who knows? Maybe the only swooshing was the change in
intensity (volume).

--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

Ooops. I read that wrong in my last response. That was a good
suggestion. My computer is up against a dresser on the left but there's
open space on the right. It swooshes moving to the right but not the
left. I can't explain that, which means you're probably on to something.

--
Matt

[Learnwell]

> My computer is up against a dresser on the left but there's
> open space on the right. It swooshes moving to the right but not the
> left. I can't explain that, which means you're probably on to something.
>
> --
> Matt

What if you place your computer on your head, then tilt it slightly (2 degrees or so) south while frantically waiving your right arm (not the hand, that should remain perfectly still)? Attenuating the southern hemisphere distortion might go some way to alleviating drop cutoff in blagle mou. In doing so be very careful to not offend the penguins, this important step is misunderstood by most, or at least none.

[Matt Faunce]

I took my phone outside away from any walls and ceiling and listened to
the difference in the balance between the bass and treble of various
songs. The farther the phone was from my head the greater the disparity
of clarity between the two. The lower tones suffered more with distance
than the higher tones. So I don't think the room resonance was the sole,
or main, problem with my recording (which I made with omnis at 12".)

I spoke of the same problem a few time before here on rmcg:

"I remember participating in a studioclass/masterclass (where
both the master and the students commented on various students'
performances); everyone agreed that they couldn't hear my basses. I was
a little shocked; it took probably literally three long seconds until I
fully accepted they were right. The master was my regular teacher; in my
next lesson in his studio he said that while he noticed my weak basses
right away on the stage, he didn't notice the problem in his little
studio, so the room size probably affects the balance. When I was on the
stage getting criticized, I figured (rightly or wrongly) that my close
proximity to my guitar was giving me a different balance than the
audience, so I played the piece again with a little more oomph in the
basses, and they said 'much better.'"

Although I now think the distance rather than the room resonance was the
problem, as the same problem would probably be there if performed
outside. If the inverse square rule applies to all frequencies what's
the reason for the difference? Is the inverse square rule only perfectly
applicable across the frequency spectrum in a perfect environment?
Perhaps that's an environment without humidity? Sound sure does sound
different when it's 0 degrees F. Does the barometric pressure plays a part?

--
Matt

[Steve Freides]

I don't know your age, Matt, but some of this may be age related. As
I've gotten older, I like to roll off bass response in systems that I
listen to, and I suspect this may be related to gradual reduction in
high frequency hearing I've accrued. Somehow, turning up the treble
doesn't seem to do anything for me, likely bassed (misspelling intended)
on the frequencies where typical tone controls are focused.

-S-

[Richard Jernigan]

Both my audiologist and my brother the M.D. tell me that loss of high frequency hearing with age is an effect of industrialized civilization. It is noise damage. They say that 65-year old men who have lived all their lives away from civilization have hearing equal to that of 16-year old girls in America.

Personally I am a model case. Way too many guns, motorcycles and airplanes in my youth. Before I finally decided to try hearing aids, somewhere around age 65, i was essentially deaf above about 5 KHz.

I chose my audiologist because among her clientele were several retired members of the music faculty at the University of Texas. I am happy with the results. She tells me that with the (admittedly expensive) gear she has fitted me out with, I can hear as well as the average 20-year old. There is one exception, which I have discussed with her. I don't have as much dynamic range in the high frequency range. I hear sounds well of moderate intensity all across the frequency band, up to about 16 KHz, but loud sounds with considerable high frequency content, like a symphony orchestra ff overload my ears, when the hearing aids are configured to flatten out the response at moderated sound levels. The solution is to install another program (several are available to select with the push of a button) that cuts back on the highs at high sound levels. Works for me.

RNJ

[Richard Jernigan]

Yes, I was going to suggest you try it out of doors. Good idea.

I don't know how the iMac speakers are configured, and I haven't thought much about cell phones, but I have thought and experimented a little about guitars.

I read, and was told several times about how guitars sounded different to a listener out front than they did to the player. It works like this: at higher frequencies, where the wavelength of the sound waves is comparable to, or smaller than the dimensions of the guitar top (starting around 1 KHz and going up), the higher frequencies are projected more in front of the guitar, in directions near perpendicular to the top, than they are in other directions, while the lower frequencies spread more in all directions. Radar engineers use this effect to concentrate transmitted energy into astonishingly narrow beams. But this is what audio and electrical engineers call a "far field" effect. When you move your ears or your microphone in close to the guitar top, the "beaming" effect begins to disappear, the prominence of the high frequencies is reduced, and the balance shifts toward the bass.

But the proximity effect for a pressure gradient transducer __adds to__this shift of balance. A cardioid mic experiences a significantly higher bass boost when it moves in close than an omni does.

RNJ

[Richard Jernigan]

On Monday, December 21, 2015 at 10:05:52 PM UTC-6, Learnwell wrote:

> What if you place your computer on your head, then tilt it slightly (2 degrees or so) south while frantically waiving your right arm (not the hand, that should remain perfectly still)? Attenuating the southern hemisphere distortion might go some way to alleviating drop cutoff in blagle mou. In doing so be very careful to not offend the penguins, this important step is misunderstood by most, or at least none.

Typical usenet.

RNJ

[Matt Faunce]

I wonder if the effect that I'm hearing has to do with the movement of
the particles in the wave rather than the fluxuations of pressure. Maybe
when listening at a distance the low intensity of this motion working
together with the greater frequency of the high tones makes these high
tones more audible (a psycho-acoustical phenomenon) than the less
frequent, but equally low intense, bass particle motions. It's just a guess.

I imagine the dots at the bottom of this movable gif represent the
motion of air particles in an airwaves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave#/media/File:Shallow_water_wave.gif

But it has nothing to do with age. I noticed this phenomenon throughout
my life.

--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

I'll have to think more about how beaming works, and see if it matches
the different ways I've experienced the phenomenon I'm taking about.

I've gotta be careful about attributing two different phenomena to the
same cause. Maybe the bigger decrease in bass signal, relative to the
treble, as you take the headphones off your ears is a different
phenomenon from the bigger decrease in bass clarity relative to the
treble clarity as I move my phone's speaker away from my ears.

--
Matt

[Learnwell]

Indeed!

[Steve Freides]

That's interesting - I just assumed it was a function of age and nothing
else.

> Personally I am a model case. Way too many guns, motorcycles and
> airplanes in my youth. Before I finally decided to try hearing aids,
> somewhere around age 65, i was essentially deaf above about 5 KHz.

I'm 60 and, so far, I still hear well enough for my own liking.

> I chose my audiologist because among her clientele were several
> retired members of the music faculty at the University of Texas. I am
> happy with the results. She tells me that with the (admittedly
> expensive) gear she has fitted me out with, I can hear as well as the
> average 20-year old. There is one exception, which I have discussed
> with her. I don't have as much dynamic range in the high frequency
> range. I hear sounds well of moderate intensity all across the
> frequency band, up to about 16 KHz, but loud sounds with considerable
> high frequency content, like a symphony orchestra ff overload my
> ears, when the hearing aids are configured to flatten out the
> response at moderated sound levels. The solution is to install
> another program (several are available to select with the push of a
> button) that cuts back on the highs at high sound levels. Works for
> me.

All interesting to know - thanks.

-S-

[michael...@mac.com]

Well Tom, whar kind of test would that be? Placing these mics in some kind a configuration supposedly unique to each one. iF you are going to do a comparison you have to do it consistently. I've never even heard of a mic comparison video that doesn't have the mics in the same position. Despite your negative comments I think we can learn a lot in these comparison videos.

[michael...@mac.com]

Hi Richard yea, those are my Schoeps they have the MK4 capsules. Matt expressed an interest in getting a pair of Schoeps so I sent him mine to try out. I think he's gonna stick with his Neumann's. I didn't film or record this video this was all done by Matt and I'm not sure of his recording environment..... I think his basement. I do believe Matt told me the mica 24 inches from the guitar........ At that distance I believe the proximity effect is almost negilable.

[dewach...@gmail.com]

I played drums from the age of 12 in a number of bands. I remember getting checked out by the school nurse in 8th grade..... since I was the only kid in school with long hair she asked me if I play music in a band...... I said, yes, she then told me to stand as far as I could away from the drummer because the impact of the drums had the worse damage to my hearing.... ha!

[dewach...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 9:22:19 PM UTC-7, Richard Jernigan wrote:
> On Sunday, December 20, 2015 at 11:14:14 AM UTC-6, dewach...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Which do you prefer?
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qngmz88wogI&feature=youtu.be
>
> Michael--I believe you said you recently acquired some Schoeps mics. Which capsules do you have, and do you like them?
>
> RNJ

Here is a recording on the same Schoeps mics I did, but with a Metric Halo Preamp ULN-2. Mics were spread a little further a part than Matt's video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCUpgGODNb0

and here is one I did with my Oktavia MK-12's with the MJE K47H large diaphragm capsules , and the Metric Halo ULN-2. Both recording were done in the exact same room and Mic placement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBQTAq7_tU

[Matt Faunce]

Matt Faunce wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard, to my experience, the attenuation of bass at
>>>>>> greater distances is due to factors besides proximity
>>>>>> effect, so it affects omni-mics and your ears. I don't know
>>>>>> the correct theory to explain this, but I

I think the main cause is explained in the Fletcher–Munson curves, which
are the perceived frequency response curves you and your ear pick up at
various SPLs (sound pressure levels). See link below.

I wonder what the frequency response curve of my microphone is at
various SPLs.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87751/do-low-frequency-sounds-really-carry-longer-distances

--
Matt

[tom g]

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 6:56:43 AM UTC+1, michael...@mac.com wrote:
> Well Tom, whar kind of test would that be? Placing these mics in some kind a configuration supposedly unique to each one. iF you are going to do a comparison you have to do it consistently. I've never even heard of a mic comparison video that doesn't have the mics in the same position. Despite your negative comments I think we can learn a lot in these comparison videos.

I agree about the consistency, Michael, but it is better if the position of the microfones is a good compromise for both of them. When I said, these comparisons are always interesting, I wanted to say that there is always something to learn. Ive learned not to configure either the Schoeps or the Neumanns like that but of course, not only that. The other recordings you mention are, for me, much better.
Can I turn the question around and ask you what you think of recorded guitar comparisons like these and why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYO8Z5GbmUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvFTgII4nLA

[Matt Faunce]

Print this gif out on two separate pages:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/ISO226LoudnessCurves.gif

Measure the SPL of your guitar at the distance your mic is, then measure
the SPL of your guitar at the distance you expect to imitate in your
recording. Lets say those measured SPLs are 80 dBs and 60 dBs. Place one
page over the other so the 80 curve is on top of the 60 curve at the 1K
Hz mark. Of course, you'll have to hold the pages up to a light to do
this. The difference between these two curves tells you how to set your
eq., (or how to play with your mic placement to basically do the same
thing as an eq.)

If the marks in this example are your exact marks, you should center
your eq. at 82 Hz, cut by 10 dB, with a Q of 0.1. (82.41 Hz is the
lowest tone of the guitar. 0.1 Q will reach up to 828 Hz, which is about
right. Just use the lowest frequency of your guitar or instrument.)

Calculate your Q here:
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-cutoffFrequencies.htm

10 dB cut seems extreme, but the rest seems about right. I cut mine by 3
dB, with a 0.2 Q. I loaned out my SPL meter. When I get it back I'll
post some exact numbers.

--
Matt

[dsi1]

On Wednesday, December 23, 2015 at 1:38:40 AM UTC-10, Matt Faunce wrote:
> On 12/23/15 3:28 AM, Matt Faunce wrote:
> > Matt Faunce wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Richard, to my experience, the attenuation of bass at
> >>>>>>> greater distances is due to factors besides proximity
> >>>>>>> effect, so it affects omni-mics and your ears. I don't know
> >>>>>>> the correct theory to explain this, but I
> >

> > I think the main cause is explained in the Fletcher-Munson curves, which

Sounds like something you'd do if you didn't trust your ears. Why not ditch the graphs and EQ with that which God gave you? I'm assuming that your hearing is in good shape. If you do have a significant hearing loss, you would need those graphs and formulas but the reality is that people with anything over a mild to moderate hearing loss should not be doing this type of work.

[Matt Faunce]

It's nice when theory matches your ears. Plus, theory is interesting. I've
been setting my eq to cut the bass by 3 dB, with a Q of 0.1 or 0.2,
centered at 78 Hz. I kept second guessing myself, thinking that since 0.1
is the lowest setting available on my mastering gadget maybe I should back
off from that extreme. But, the Fletcher-Munson curves tell me that the
lowest setting is the right one.
--
Matt

[Learnwell]

> Attenuating the southern hemisphere distortion might go some way to alleviating drop cutoff in blagle mou.

Obviously I meant blagle MOO, blagle mou makes no sense, but I'm sure you moo that.

[dsi1]

The place I used to work would have me program hearing aids as a last
resort i.e., when they could not get an aid to work for a patient. My
dirty little secret was that I stuck the aid in my ear and listened.
Mostly I got rid of the resonant points of the aids and the client would
be satisfied. If you are able to smooth out these peaks, the aid will
start to sound more natural, literately "transparent." It's a startling
effect and something that you can't get by adjusting using the frequency
response graph on the screen.

I'll always trust my ears rather than what's shown on the computer
screen. OTOH, there probably will come a time when my ears won't be very
good for this. My brain processing ability ain't as good as it used to
be. I can feel it all slipping away - too bad.

[Richard Jernigan]

Hi Michael--

Thanks for the reply. At the moment we have just checked into our hotel in Merida, Yucatan. It will be after the first of the year before I get back to some decent headphones and speakers to listen to your links, but your stuff on Youtube has been sounding great lately.

Later, RNJ

[michael...@mac.com]

Yea, I've see this comparison before. I don't know Kent, I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but I find this whole thing to be ridiculous. The idea that you can discern a difference in these guitars according to the country they were built in is so pompous. I realize guitar dealers need to hype things up a bit to bamboozele their customers. GSI does the same thing. I remember reading a description of a French maker Roe I believe, who went on for an entire paragraph comparing his guitars to the grape vineyards in France. I guess people eat this stuff up. Individual makers have a style, not countries. I would say the exception to this would be the environmental factors such as climate that effects the humidity they were built in, but now a days we have dehumidifires.

[tom g]

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 6:45:32 PM UTC+1, michael...@mac.com wrote:
> Yea, I've see this comparison before. I don't know Kent, I'm sure he's a nice guy and all, but I find this whole thing to be ridiculous. The idea that you can discern a difference in these guitars according to the country they were built in is so pompous. I realize guitar dealers need to hype things up a bit to bamboozele their customers. GSI does the same thing. I remember reading a description of a French maker Roe I believe, who went on for an entire paragraph comparing his guitars to the grape vineyards in France. I guess people eat this stuff up. Individual makers have a style, not countries. I would say the exception to this would be the environmental factors such as climate that effects the humidity they were built in, but now a days we have dehumidifires.

Yes you are right, it is just something said to collectors who want a guitar to represent diferent countries. I can see similarity in a city like Madrid where there is a long tradition or Granada where there is an influence of flamenco but it has nothing to see with a country and there are so many exceptions.
When the same guitarist plays many diferent guitars they sound to me more the same than diferent. There are some things that it seems that I can know: the fullness of the high sounds and their sustain, but not much more unless the recording is very good.
My guitar was made in Madrid and sounds better there than where I live. Here there is high humidity during half the year and low humidity during the other half so I am not surprised that the guitar is confused.

[michael...@mac.com]

I would like to see video where Miles is presented 10 different guitars from various countries and upon hearing them in a blindfold test correctly identifies their country of origin. Actually I would bet money he couldn't even identify a spruce from a cedar guitar. I believe I have a good sense of sound but I failed in a blindfold test to correctly identify cedar and spruce guitars....... Let alone their county of origin.

[Matt Faunce]

OK. Since my guitar, playing style, and room are different from yours,
your measurements would be a little different, but your eq adjustments
would still be still very close. I used the peak SPL (I set the meter to
'fast') from a 30 second selection of high notes. I measured with
A-rating because that end of the spectrum is hardly affected by the
Fletcher-Munson curve. My measured my A-rated SPL peaks are:

live guitar at 12" = 87 dBA
live guitar at 7' = 77 dBA
stereo playback at 7' = 72 dBA

To simulate 7' listening distance, at live volume, I should set my eq to
cut about 7 dBs, centered at 82 Hz, at a Q of 0.1

For my usual stereo listening distance (7') and SPLs (5 dB quieter than
live) I should set my eq to cut about 5 dBs, centered at 82 Hz, at a Q
of 0.1

YMMV
--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

On 12/28/15 2:13 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
> I measured with A-rating because that end of the spectrum is hardly
> affected by the Fletcher-Munson curve.

Of course, I meant that any difference in the shape of two curves, above
1kHz, and within 20 dB, is negligible.

--
Matt

[dcasw...@gmail.com]

Hi Tom,
I guess from your posting that you find spaced cardioids a bit phasey, and not giving a really sharp image. Each mic array has plus and minus points and will depend on the room, the player and the instrument as to which sounds best..in addition to the taste of the engineer. Ortf can sound good on guitar, but it does depend on the setup being really precise. The dedicated schoeps ortf mic might be a good choice, especially for self recording..(there is also a much cheaper version of this mic..)
There are also some 3d printer mic mounts that are custom made for particular mics: there's a thread about them here: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/remote-possibilities-acoustic-music-location-recording/1003254-orft-mount-ortf-challenged.html
they look as if they can produce a perfect ortf setup, and in a very neat way.
XY can also be good on guitar, but the angle of 90 degrees is not always the best one..again the dedicated schoeps mic allows for the angle to be precisely determined..neither of these two schoeps stereo mics is very cheap!
As I said in a previous post my current favourite is the josephson c617 omni..it sounds great, and personally I have no problem with mono. This avoids many issues..mono compatibility, placement is much easier, the image is sharp, although some may find it sounds a bit boring...however, from the distance of a metre or less the guitar is basically a single point source, and to my ear, more direct and less reflected sound is preferable..I'd like to hear your thoughts on placement and mic choice..
Regarding the guitar shootout, it isn't really helpful to group guitars by country, but it is interesting to hear the sound of those instruments. I have to say that the Thames guitars I have here would fit right into that top bracket category! As WDJ used to say of his Thames: 'it embarrassed many a big named instrument!"
What the shootout does do is to enable us to hear different instruments many of which we may never have an opportunity of seeing live.
Happy New Year,
David

[tom g]

Hi David,
As you guess, I really didnt like the sounds in Matt Palmer's test. Both microfones are very good if they are utilized correctly so I have no problem with them. And I dont blame the preamplifier. In any case, tests show that they are the least important element and that is also my experience although I discovered it too late!
Yes, a sharp image is what interests me and also "transparency", but maybe that word can be too subjective. I dont believe that it is possible to create transparency with processing. Sometimes big diafragm omnidirectional microfone can be better than a small diafragm, it depends the acustic conditions. A good acustic and microfone placement is esential and of course the instrument is also very important. If the sound of the guitar lacks character, there is no remedy although it can be good in every other way.
The only guitar made in the US that I have seen here was a Stephan Connor. It is obvious that Mr Thames is a very skilled artesan and perhaps one day I will see one of his guitars.
As I said, I dont like many of the guitar recordings of these days because it is impossible to hear the character of the guitar. ( Of fact, Im not sure that the "enrejada" and "doble tapa" guitars have much character anyway. ;-) ) But it seems strange that it doesnt worry to guitarists. As I said, I think we have just become acostomed to bad recorded sound.
In another thread I mentioned the new Slate Digital VMS (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/VMS). It is taking a long time to become available. Very interesting but it is not clear yet whether it is the end the "high end" microfone market for ever.
Of course digital microfone modelling is not new, but this technology is deeper.
Forgive my english and it has been a pleasure to talk to you!
tom g

[Richard Jernigan]

Thanks for the links Michael. I listened to both via the speakers. I was beginning to wonder whether my ears were playing tricks on me. Both clips are without the strong bass emphasis of Palmer's recordings. I like them both, the Schoeps a fair amount better.

RNJ

[Ken Whisler]

I am no expert, just want to chime in my experience.

Three years ago, I was researching mic's. My wife needed ideas what to get me for Christmas, so she spied on my browsing habits. She then did a bit of research on her own, made an informed decision, and a pair of 184's were under the Christmas tree. An RME Fireface UC followed soon.

A year later, I take this rig into an old church for remote recording. I put the headphones on my son's head and told him to move the mics around until he liked what he heard. 30 minutes later, he recorded a bit, gave me the headphones and played back, I gave him a thumbs up and said lets do it!

I am highly confident that if we had a different pair of mics, my son would have achieved the same results with a different position.

Three of the tracks are at the bottom of my soundcloud page:

https://soundcloud.com/ken-whisler

[John Nguyen]

Nice! Loved the Ave Maria.