Quantcast
Beyer MC930 vs. JZ BT-201 vs. Schoeps MK21 on acoustic guitar - Page 4 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Beyer MC930 vs. JZ BT-201 vs. Schoeps MK21 on acoustic guitar
Old 19th March 2009 | Show parent
  #91
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Michael, I know But still, my approach would always rather be as Mike suggested: how the best to record (any) instrument(s) ... For that, I would consider as very natural a set of samples being for example recorded by various mics (including ribbons), patterns, positions etc. And somebody could for example say: I clearly prefer the sound of that instrument recorded by AB omni DPA and I don't like much the recordings with a pair of MK4. The stereo ribbon sounds wonderful as well ... etc. I would consider such a test and comparison very much valid. Even more than testing cardioid mics of various manufacturers ... Patterns etc. are just technical means and terms. But we are interested in the (best) result ...
Old 19th March 2009 | Show parent
  #92
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➑️
Michael, I know But still, my approach would always rather be as Mike suggested: how the best to record (any) instrument(s) ... For that, I would consider as very natural a set of samples being for example recorded by various mics (including ribbons), patterns, positions etc. And somebody could for example say: I clearly prefer the sound of that instrument recorded by AB omni DPA and I don't like much the recordings with a pair of MK4. The stereo ribbon sounds wonderful as well ... etc. I would consider such a test and comparison very much valid. Even more than testing cardioid mics of various manufacturers ... Patterns etc. are just technical means and terms. But we are interested in the (best) result ...
How can I disagree with the idea behind your approach? But you'll admit, I think, that it is not practical. In reality the tests are more idiosyncratic than that.

You don't keep equipment around that isn't useful to you after evaluating it, so the gear selection is not broad enough (not faulting you) to take a pure approach, i.e. to extract the best results from an instrument using a representative array of gear options.

Since compromises are a fact in these tests, it is only fair to ensure that readers know the fundamental design of the gear you select as it affects the results.

My desire is that your clips can also help less experienced recordists be informed enough to make good choices for their own applications, learning how your aesthetic guidance and gear selections work in synergy. In this respect, it could mislead some, for example, to think an MK21 sounds like any other cardiod. They should know how to compare options based on both design and the sound. And this purpose is defeated if basic design differences between selected mics, for example, is not perfectly clear.
Old 19th March 2009 | Show parent
  #93
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Sure ... BTW I had MK4 capsules here for a short while and whatever I tried, I always prefered MK21 or MK2 ... Once I would like to try MK22 ...

BTW2 - tomorrow I will have this new magnificent set here for trying (without asking, it simply came on its own):

Tool Kits: 3 Zigma Audio - Condenser Microphones The Master 4x10 Toolkit ... Let us see whether big words will also bring a big sound ...
Old 20th March 2009 | Show parent
  #94
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick ➑️
Since compromises are a fact in these tests, it is only fair to ensure that readers know the fundamental design of the gear you select as it affects the results.

My desire is that your clips can also help less experienced recordists be informed enough to make good choices for their own applications, learning how your aesthetic guidance and gear selections work in synergy. In this respect, it could mislead some, for example, to think an MK21 sounds like any other cardiod. They should know how to compare options based on both design and the sound. And this purpose is defeated if basic design differences between selected mics, for example, is not perfectly clear.
Here are two different objectives :
- Ivo gave us a few recordings and ask us to choose which is the best for us, and ok the difference come from the difference of mic, all the other parameters being roughly the same in this particular situation.
- Others interpret "oh I prefer this sample so this mic IS the best and should be the best for me".

It's all the difficultie of the interpretation of samples.

JMM
Old 20th March 2009 | Show parent
  #95
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathieujm ➑️
Here are two different objectives :
- Ivo gave us a few recordings and ask us to choose which is the best for us, and ok the difference come from the difference of mic, all the other parameters being roughly the same in this particular situation.
- Others interpret "oh I prefer this sample so this mic IS the best and should be the best for me".

It's all the difficultie of the interpretation of samples.

JMM
We're beating this to death.

I understand. The value of Ivo's approach is best understood by those who know his quest for sonic goods because the tests are idiosyncratic; the rationale, pattern, or order is not obvious. Yet, unfortunately, some may assume it is scientific -- i.e. that his comparisons use like devices.

My point is simple: Help recording novices and those who occasionally drop in here understand any key criteria for evaluating the clips.

Experienced people easily forget how much training they have accumulated. Drop-ins might be easily mislead by their ignorance of Ivo's approach, or novices because they don't yet know the difference between mic patterns. I suggest that Ivo use like devices or at least be very clear about the how design differences affect the sounds in his clips. I'm not asking him to write a book, though I'd probably buy it if he did.
Old 20th March 2009 | Show parent
  #96
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by didier.brest ➑️
What is the reason why the preamplifier gain should change the ratio of the signal to the miccrophone self-noise, which is established at the microphone output and as such is depending on the microphone only?
The preamplifier gain may impact on the signal to preamplifier self-noise only.
I can't see no reason for that either.

Also the preamp noise should not be audible in decent designs in most situations.

Mic noise is the only noise that should be audible in a high quality recording and playback chain.. and if we're lucky, even mic noise will be inaudible! :-)


/Peter
Old 20th March 2009 | Show parent
  #97
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop ➑️
I can't see no reason for that either.

Also the preamp noise should not be audible in decent designs in most situations.

Mic noise is the only noise that should be audible in a high quality recording and playback chain.. and if we're lucky, even mic noise will be inaudible! :-)


/Peter
Well, try to whisper to any mic with any preamp set to minimum and then maximum gain. Balance the level of both recordings ... If you hear the same noise level in both recordings, I will use my hands as wings and will fly to listen to that to your place (similarly - use ribbon mic and U87 set to the same low preamp gain and then listen to the resulting overall noise with both recordings)
Old 20th March 2009 | Show parent
  #98
Lives for gear
 
mljung's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➑️

BTW2 - tomorrow I will have this new magnificent set here for trying (without asking, it simply came on its own):

Tool Kits: 3 Zigma Audio - Condenser Microphones The Master 4x10 Toolkit ... Let us see whether big words will also bring a big sound ...
Interesting - big words indeed - please Ivo make some of your usual fine comparisons [preferably without reverb].

Let's see if Zigma is something that JZ was not

sdaM
Old 20th March 2009 | Show parent
  #99
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mljung ➑️
Interesting - big words indeed - please Ivo make some of your usual fine comparisons [preferably without reverb].

Let's see if Zigma is something that JZ was not

sdaM
Something has started here: https://gearspace.com/board/high-end...-my-hands.html
Old 23rd March 2009 | Show parent
  #100
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
To me it's hard to hear the difference between the Schoeps and the Beyers. But the JZ sounds a little honky compared to the other two (still not bad though). But I'm listening on my computer speakers.

Old 23rd March 2009 | Show parent
  #101
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by radlid ➑️
But I'm listening on my computer speakers.

I think comments based on listening on this type of monitoring should be preferably held back .... It is like if someone would like to comment differences in some specific colours rendering on some Photoshop forum and mentioned that he is watching the designs on his mobile phone screen ...
Old 23rd March 2009 | Show parent
  #102
Lives for gear
 
desotoslo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Yes, it's true. The difference is subtle at first glance, but once you listen closely with good headphones and conversion, these mics are miles apart. The Schoeps is just a very refined and deep, natural mic.
Old 23rd March 2009 | Show parent
  #103
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISedlacek ➑️
Well, try to whisper to any mic with any preamp set to minimum and then maximum gain. Balance the level of both recordings ... If you hear the same noise level in both recordings, I will use my hands as wings and will fly to listen to that to your place (similarly - use ribbon mic and U87 set to the same low preamp gain and then listen to the resulting overall noise with both recordings)
But that doesn't have anything to do with the preamp noise.. it has all to do with the relation of the sound level that hits the capsule and the self noise of the mic and that is exactly what we were trying to say.


/Peter
Old 23rd March 2009 | Show parent
  #104
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop ➑️
But that doesn't have anything to do with the preamp noise.. it has all to do with the relation of the sound level that hits the capsule and the self noise of the mic and that is exactly what we were trying to say.


/Peter
But we are not talking about the preamp noise. The original point was the fact that JZ mics have lower output than Schoeps or (even more Beyers). Since the preamp was set to the same level in all cases, it is natural, that the overall noise was highest in case of JZ. Normally the preamp gain would be increased for JZ, resulting in less overall noise level. I we use ribbons, the preamp gain would be yet increased ...
Old 23rd March 2009 | Show parent
  #105
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Ivo, gain setting has no effect on the signal to noise ratio of the mic. The only thing that can affect the S/N is the SPL of the actual source signal.

That said the noise (and recorded signal) of a particular mic will be higher with increased preamp gain, not lower as you wrote above.


/Peter
Old 23rd March 2009 | Show parent
  #106
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop ➑️
Ivo, gain setting has no effect on the signal to noise ratio of the mic. The only thing that can affect the S/N is the SPL of the actual source signal.

That said the noise (and recorded signal) of a particular mic will be higher with increased preamp gain, not lower as you wrote above.


/Peter
What shall I say ... Play the same instrument (with the same SPL) to 1) ribbon mic 2) condenser mic.

Keep the same (low) preamp gain for both. The ribbon mic recording will be much lower in volume (because the mic has lower output than the condenser). Adjust both recordings to the same volume level. You will experience much higher self noise with ribbon recording, because the S/N (signal- noise ratio) was not as good when the preamp was set to low gain ... If you put the preamp to higher gain for the ribbon mic, the S/N ration will be better resulting in less noise. (the same applies for any mic with lower gain ...)
Old 23rd March 2009 | Show parent
  #107
Lives for gear
 
didier.brest's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
You're right when the equivalent input noise (EIN) level (= output noise level expressed in dB minus the preamp gain expressed in dB) is higher at the lower gain, which is most often true, and when the ambient noise is lower than the EIN at the preamp input.
Old 12th April 2009 | Show parent
  #108
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
I tried to record guitar with my
Bayerdynamic MC 930 stereo SET
with soundcraft preamps to my Audidgy SE sound card but the sound was not good and i decided to make my own handmade microphones with 9 volt battery power and no preamps = 12 USD price. Here is my little improvisation i recorded today

http://grafray.com/files/GrafRay_Rec...jio_impro1.mp3

Strange ... they sound better than my Bayerdynamic MC 930 stereo SET
Old 12th April 2009 | Show parent
  #109
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrafRay ➑️
I tried to record guitar with my
Bayerdynamic MC 930 stereo SET
with soundcraft preamps to my Audidgy SE sound card but the sound was not good and i decided to make my own handmade microphones with 9 volt battery power and no preamps = 12 USD price. Here is my little improvisation i recorded today

http://grafray.com/files/GrafRay_Rec...jio_impro1.mp3

Strange ... they sound better than my Bayerdynamic MC 930 stereo SET
I can't hear your mp3. What is this file ?

JMM
Old 12th April 2009 | Show parent
  #110
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
yes it is MP3. Try to download one more time

I was running around my guitar with Bayer MC930 stereo set, made lots of tests but i never heard the main thing for guitar sound - string vibration and soft sound. So i think the membrane of MC930 is too harsh and thick to produce strings vibrations. This is why i decided to make my own handmade microphones. But I think all microphones like Schoeps and others are not able to pick up strings vibration
Old 13th April 2009 | Show parent
  #111
Lives for gear
 
MichaelPatrick's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrafRay ➑️
yes it is MP3. Try to download one more time

I was running around my guitar with Bayer MC930 stereo set, made lots of tests but i never heard the main thing for guitar sound - string vibration and soft sound. So i think the membrane of MC930 is too harsh and thick to produce strings vibrations. This is why i decided to make my own handmade microphones. But I think all microphones like Schoeps and others are not able to pick up strings vibration
I'd guess from the clips that you are using very small capsule omnis. What kind are they? The left/right difference is striking, so I'd guess they're pretty close as well.
Old 14th April 2009 | Show parent
  #112
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
I would not speak about my microphones the only thing i will make another stereo set 12 USD for micing BASS of guitar. This my stereo pair was at 30 centimeter at the neck start of the guitar. Another pair i will set at bass body . I just want to say - Bayers MC930 do not do their work for nylon guitar and i am not able to make my MC930 sound even a little closer to my handmade microphones. I am not a sound engineer and i was not able to make objective edition for the sound of my mics but they are much closer to the guitar sound. Now i try to sell my Bayers MC930 at my area. They good for other things like Choir or steel string guitar. But not nylon guitar because of roughness or crudity i do not know exact word. And even 2000 - 5000 preamp does not help Bayers MC930 to pick up natural nylon guitar sound. Preamp is not main thing. The first main thing is membrane of the mic. Now i wait for my Steinberg MR 816 coming from e-bay and i will give you much more objective tests of my mics for nylon guitar. Now i record to 20 USD sound card and my microphones give much better sound even on this 20 USD card.

Of course DPA do their work but the money .......
Old 14th April 2009 | Show parent
  #113
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
MichaelPatrick

You are right the membrane size is like this microphone have. But 12 USD is a little better ))
DPA 4091

What my position is - i thoght they (at manufactures) do something better then i can make with my own hands for 12 USD but i decided to check my knowledge to make a microphone with my hands by soldering iron ))
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 5882 views: 1881276
Avatar for Funny Cat
Funny Cat 9 hours ago
replies: 122 views: 29716
Avatar for RKeefe1032
RKeefe1032 13th February 2017
replies: 37 views: 9929
Avatar for Joram
Joram 10th July 2012
replies: 107 views: 15066
Avatar for Jeezo
Jeezo 10th April 2020
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump