Quantcast
Mic Shootout BeesNeez / Wagner / Neumann - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Mic Shootout BeesNeez / Wagner / Neumann
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Thanks for posting this Ben, i am looking forward to hearing it. I am also looking forward to receiving my Jade.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
heathen's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Group 1.

Mic1. Fav all round great freq response smooth through the entire range, clean and clear with the slightest of edge

Mic2. 2nd fav, Robust and full sounding in the bottom end, very smooth with a sweet top end.

Mic3. 4th fav, seemed a little more forward in the mids though sound a little sibilant
.
Mic4. 6th fav, did'nt sound as detailed through entire range

Mic5. 3rd Fav, Quite smooth thoughout freq range.

Mic6. Least fav, something in the upper mids annoyed me ever so slightly, though still very very nice.

Mic7. 5th fav, nice, very smooth and quite coloured, has a warm vibe.

Ok to start with mic shootouts with no music gives me no idea as to how something will perform in a mix, that said we know the quality of the classic mics and that they have been used in countless great mixes.

2nd I'm not even going to attempt to guess what is what when I've never heard any of Bens mics, no point.

3rd, all the mics sounded good and it was difficult to choose after choosing my fav 3.

4th, Ben you obviously make mics which will stand up with the best of them, I'll be interested to see the results.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
heathen's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
It is best to use the same performances when doing a comparison test.... if you are trying to show how one mic (or preamp, etc) differs from another, it is unfortunately the only proper way. The reasons why have been well documented.

There are many factors that influence the sound of a mic... and recording the same performance is the only way to help minimize these external factors.

As a side note, generally manufacturers are not allowed to start threads to showcase their products on the forum outside of the New Product Alert section. These files would have been better suited for your threads about the mics there.
This is how we do it Australia Tony heh, there is way more to testing a bunch of mics than doing 1 take at 3 feet away, you should know this c'mon. Ben's not pushing his mic's anyway, just a simple comparison done in 1 of the best studios in Sydney.

Fair go.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Brent's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
As a side note, generally manufacturers are not allowed to start threads to showcase their products on the forum outside of the New Product Alert section. These files would have been better suited for your threads about the mics there.
With all due respect Tony, how is this any different than a vendor, who is also a moderator, constantly pushing the same wares he sells with thumbsupthumbsup.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mics ➡️
If me posting these is a problem, remove the thread, but that hardly seems fair as others here have posted shootouts. I do realise that i am the manufacturer but i am not pushing my mics, it is mearly a subjective listening tool for people.
I am not trying to moderate the thread in any way. I'm simply making you aware of the rules for future reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by heathen ➡️
there is way more to testing a bunch of mics than doing 1 take at 3 feet away, you should know this c'mon.
Yes, I completely agree... However, samples of various mics with separate performances is probably the worst way to evaluate how a mic differs from another. I realize it's difficult to listen to samples and judge how a mic really sounds, but I was specifically disagreeing with Ben's looking for a "certain intimacy to be achieved between vocalist and microphone"... This leads to a greater amount of variables, and brings in a far greater degree of personal tastes. As I said, moving a 1/2" in any direction will drastically alter the sound, therefore it's always best to use the same performance at the same distance, and have all levels matched when doing a "shootout".

The following thread shows an unscientific, yet very effective method for testing 8 high end microphones all at the same time, using the same performance, and distance, etc. It's the best mic test I have seen on GS in a while, and it is simple to do a test like this:

https://gearspace.com/board/high-end...o-samples.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent ➡️
With all due respect Tony, how is this any different than a vendor, who is also a moderator, constantly pushing the same wares he sells.
I am not, nor have I ever been a manufacturer... You can buy the stuff I, or any other dealer sells from anyone you want. Hopefully, over the last 5 years I have offered something to the community other than just being a dealer. I try to provide good advice, regardless if I sell something or not.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #36
Lives for gear
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
Regardless of which mic used, people will always pick the best performance as the best sounding in these comparison tests.
If that's the case, why isn't everybody picking the same takes as the "best mic"; not only that, why are so many people picking what according to my listening notes were "clearly the worst of the bunch" as their favorites? Couldn't it be that the tests actually do a fine job of revealing the character of the mics and which is "best" is simply a matter of individual aesthetics?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #37
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiospace ➡️
Couldn't it be that the tests actually do a fine job of revealing the character of the mics and which is "best" is simply a matter of individual aesthetics?
Yes and No...

To the first part of your comment.... No. Not at all. Because of the additional variables I have noted in this and other similar threads when it comes to testing gear. All we can say is how a particular mic sounded on that particular performance on that particular singer on that particular day at that particular distance in that particular room, etc, etc. We can't draw any other conclusions.

But, you are right... "Which is best?" is purely based on your sense of aesthetics. Typically, in these instances the best performance will win the shootout among the majority of listeners. But, you are absolutely right... it will not always be the case. For instance, when things are very close in sound, it will usually be whichever sample is louder which wins. But, generally the best performance or the loudest sound file will win.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #38
KAB
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
After a quick listen, I chose:

Lmic2

TJmic1

(bmic) - This set was a bit more difficult for me. Choosing one over the other would be more material-dependent, I think. That said, I'll say:

A toss-up between bmic1 and bmic2 (though quite different from one another), with bmic7 in there as well, but not considered due to the key change.

Thanks.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
Yes and No...

To the first part of your comment.... No. Not at all. Because of the additional variables I have noted in this and other similar threads when it comes to testing gear. All we can say is how a particular mic sounded on that particular performance on that particular singer on that particular day at that particular distance in that particular room, etc, etc.

But, you are right... "Which is best?" is purely based on your sense of aesthetics. Typically, in these instances the best performance will win the shootout among the majority of listeners. But, you are absolutely right... it will not always be the case.

I mean no disrepect Tony, but I think there is nothing wrong with this thread. This is a great shootout and by the sounds of these clips, it's not really a 'that's better', or 'that's better', they are all great.

First off, each performance was very nicely delivered. Now if some of these performances were delivered badly then yeah it can create variables that would favor a manufacturer...

But!!!, the fact of the matter is that no matter how good a performance is, you cannot polish a turd.... all the 'sung' performances were performed quite nicely.
Therefore, if any of the 7 mic's used were 'turds' they would have been 'flamed'
but I think i'll find an agreeable audience by saying that all these 7 mic recordings are in the same league. I've tried as hard as I could to 'dislike' some of these clips (for shootout purposes and my own 'favorites), but they are all great, just a matter of choosing a Rolls Royce, Porsche, Lambo, Military issue Hummer, Ferrari, they are all great models, each have different features to their driving ability just like each 7 of these mic's, they are all beautiful, just different flavors.

To end... to continue on a turd rampage, i'd like to say that had one of these clips been recorded with a cheap Chinese microphone that sometimes get hailed as champaine... I can tell you right now, that I, and the other slutz around here would have 'flamed' that particular clip...

Just remember, you cannot polish a turd,
And you cannot damage a diamond!!!,

Join in with the fun Tony, these shootouts are great for the forum, can't wait to find the results out!!!!!!!!

i'll post my full list of favorites soon!

p.s. forgive my spelling.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
E.rOk.stA's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Dang! Not tryin' to disrespect anyone, but why every time somebody does a shootout like this, folks immediately start hatin'? (i.e. "it's not controlled enough", "too many variables", etc.) Obviously, Ben spent his own valuable time to put this together. Nobody's taking this info and publishing it as exclusive scientific data! Geez! This kind of junk takes all the fun out of it. This shootout is conclusive enough to give common folks a ballpark on what the tonal differences are between the mics. Some of us aren't fortunate enough to do this ourselves so these kind of posts really count. If people can't get a good idea what to expect from these mics with the posted samples, then they probably are in the wrong game. It's insulting to us listeners to assume that we will be misled/confused because the shootout wasn't clinically controlled. I'm just sayin'..................................oh well, it's Sunday night, peeps must be bored.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #41
500 series nutjob
 
pan60's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
i think this is a great thread and see no issue with t ( myself ), but i do feel the need to add, ( as it is my belief as well ), i do not think Tony is out of line in simply pointing out his position in these types of shootout.
i share the same belief, i do not feel you can listen to a sound file done in this manner a choose the mic best sooted for your use, in your vocal booth ( correctly treated or not ), through your monitors, in your studio, with a given vocalist.
and as as been stated sampling moving ( rather intentional, or conscious or not ), dose make a difference in the tonal qualities being captured at the moment.
just to many a variable.
what is being heard in these type of shoot outs is the room, the performer, the performance ( from a given position and moment ), the microphone, and the preamplifier.

Ben Sneesby please take no offense to my comment as that is not my intent, just encourage people to try gear in the studio themselves.
also i understand this is not always possible, and at times we as customer have to make deception somewhat blind, so to that i can see where these types of shoots may offer some input in the decision make for many.

P.S.
Ben Sneesby i still plan to get with as discussed in my last email just been swamped, keep up that awesome and great work you are doing!!!
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
E.rOk.stA's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I'm not tryin' to call anybody out. I like Tony, sometimes it's just not THAT real.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #43
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Not taking sides here, but the distance from the mic did in fact persuade my decision. In a couple clips, more of the room was apparent. That is to say, if all the mic numbers are the same on each test(which it sounds like they are) the slight movement in the vocalists changed things.

That being said, I really liked 2, 1, and 6 in that order. The others sounded good, but didn't fit the vocalists as well. My picks are L2, TJ1, B1

On L 2 was first place, 6 was second place, 1 was third place
On TJ 1 was first place, 2 was second place, 3 was in third place
On B 1 was frist place, 2 was second place, 6 was third place
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
asagaai's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
[quote=bighud;3852780]
On L 2 was first place, 6 was second place, 1 was third place


Ha- this was my preference as well-with a close call between L7 probably a little in front of L3, and then L4 and lastly L5.

GJ
Newcastle/OZ
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #45
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Well, I finally listened to the tests and I just gotta say it made me a very happy man. I ordered a Jade about a week ago, and there is a Jade somewhere in this mix. And there are some very high end mics in this mix. And there are no duds in this assortment of mics from what I can hear! So this tells me, my purchase of a Jade is going to result with me having a really top notch sounding microphone that stands up to some very high end competition. I believe that some great recordings can be made with any of these examples and Ben did nor exaggerate when he said his product holds its own with some great mics.

Well done Ben Sneezby.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Piedpiper's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
With all due respect to Tony's points which are good ones, I don't agree as categorically as he is putting them. If anything, this post is likely to show up as many down sides as up sides of Ben's mics. I couldn't be more appreciative of the chance to hear this kind of comparison, despite whatever limitations. Also, I listen for very specific things and am not influenced one iota by the performances. It seems that everyone has their own taste here and there are no clear "winners."

I heard the most transparent undistorted sibilance from 2, 5 and 6, a very important quality to me, and very telling of underlying technical issues. 5 had a bit of upper midrange edge that I didn't like, but better in this regard than some of the others. 2 had a little more midrange magic than 6 which was very smooth but not as present. My tuppence.

Ben, what was the other 49 style mic with the round badge in the picture?
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
It is best to use the same performances when doing a comparison test.... if you are trying to show how one mic (or preamp, etc) differs from another, it is unfortunately the only proper way. The reasons why have been well documented.

There are many factors that influence the sound of a mic... and recording the same performance is the only way to help minimize these external factors.
While I agree that variations in performance makes a big difference, and that from an engineering perspective, it would seem more logical to throw up all the mics in front of a single performance, the fact is, this method also has significant flaw(s).

If the singer is not monitoring through headphones while they sing, then perhaps this is less of an issue... for example, it would matter less for recording a cellist in a string ensemble who would be playing to the live sound and not the monitor mix. But for my uses, and in the context of recording vocals, I think it's far more common to be performing off a headphone monitor.

And the question, in the case where we use multiple microphones in one take, is, which feed do you give to the singer? This plays a huge part in the performance. The singer would naturally respond to the microphone that they are monitoring from. They will ease in and ease out in proximity, and their voicing will change accordingly to suit what they're hearing. To assume that capturing this "targeted performance" with another mic sitting next to it, is a mistake. The singer would have sung differently with the other mic, and changed their performance accordingly.

So while I understand that every performance can sound vastly different ... I think Ben's one-take-per-mic approach is actually a more realistic representation. For any singer that "works the microphone", this is really important. The recording captures not only the technical aspects of the microphone, but how it made each singer performed differently to fit it. A microphone which naturally compresses very smoothly, may encourage a singer to belt out more, while one that's very harsh may encourage a singer to restrain him or herself. This is all part of what the microphone contributes to the recorded performance.

Again, I'm impressed that Ben seems to have a similar understanding of this, being a performer himself. And that's rare for someone in the engineering field thumbsup
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #48
Gear Maniac
 
Astromann's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
I was specifically disagreeing with Ben's looking for a "certain intimacy to be achieved between vocalist and microphone"... This leads to a greater amount of variables, and brings in a far greater degree of personal tastes.
If they don't know what they are singing thru...what does it matter?tutt
They have equal opportunity to do that with "ALL THE MICS.
In fact using the mic as a personal extension of your vocals is what it's all about, you use it like an instrument.
If that instrument does not work that well for you then you try another.
The very reason I got disenchanted by the current batch of endless chinese capsule mics on the market is exactly that...you cant use them as an instrument, they have their own sound and you cant influence it because they sound STERILE!!
One reason a Stratocaster is so famous is people can express themselves thru it because there is not too much getting in the way and therefore you can establish a personal connection with it and "PLAY" with it.
I build and re build instruments ...and play them as well so I should know!!
If you dont establish some kind of personal connection with the instrument...be it piano, guitar, microphone whatever...then you have a sterile performance, with no real soul...or intimacy as Ben puts it!!
A shootout has to include that...what you are proposing is something like
"Play a guitar...then play this one" but don't relate to them...keep a steady course and just play notes, but don't play with it and dont relate to it at all...because it introduces variables, this is ridiculous!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
As I said, moving a 1/2" in any direction will drastically alter the sound, therefore it's always best to use the same performance at the same distance, and have all levels matched when doing a "shootout".
Isn't that called mic technique? Don't most vocalists do this during a performance?
Why not in a shootout?.....if they dont know what they are using they have equal opportunity to using expression and technique with all the mics.
Anyway most of these performances sounded pretty similar...so I dont really know what you are on about!! Other than discrediting the whole shootout!

BTW I have no connection to Ben...I did however buy the Arabella and the special modded mic with the 12ax7 valve.
The reason I bought them CAUSE THEY SOUNDED GREAT!! thats the only reason,
If they didn't deliver what I know to be a good sound, I would not spend my hard earned cash on them.
Now I was present when the James, Jade and Arabella were stacked up against a few Peluso's and an AK47 in a test using the guidelines you advocate.
I can ASSURE YOU nothing was done to favor Bens mics...he wanted an unbiased and honest result...and that result was achieved!!
All I can say is this....if I owned a Peluso or a Telefunken AK47 (both costing a lot more than a Jade) I would have been very upset by the results!!
Check them out for yourself if you like, they use the guidelines you advocate!!
https://gearspace.com/board/new-prod...es-jade-4.html
Cheers
Old 26th January 2009
  #49
Lives for gear
 
geareyes's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks for the effort Ben.

Your contribution has substance & will attract the interest of a good proportion of this Gear community who take a special interest in mics.

Keep it up thumbsup

Mike
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Gear Maniac
 
Astromann's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by pan60 ➡️
i think this is a great thread and see no issue with t ( myself ), but i do feel the need to add, ( as it is my belief as well ), i do not think Tony is out of line in simply pointing out his position in these types of shootout.
Hi Pan60
LOL!! Shouldn't you be on the 500 series forum?
Just kidding!!
Cheers
Astro
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
adamcal's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
there are 2 types of equipment testing, Scientific and basic comparisons.

I think if anyone who wants to post files for evaluation should state up front which method is used and then everyone can take it for what its worth. as has been done here.

I think both a valid and I like to see files posted in either method, this is an audio forum, audio files can say much more than endless words, even if the comparison is not scientific, its still a lot better then a written description or scec sheet.

id rather someone post a basic comparison than no post at all because the proper scientific method was too time consuming.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #52
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astromann ➡️
If they don't know what they are singing thru...what does it matter?tutt
They have equal opportunity to do that with "ALL THE MICS.
Yes, and that's the problem. We want to eliminate as many variables as possible... this is one of those many, many variables. Remember we aren't making a record, but doing a comparison test to determine the inherent sound of a piece of gear.
Quote:
Isn't that called mic technique? Don't most vocalists do this during a performance?
Why not in a shootout?.....
As I have stated before, we want to eliminate the variables as much as possible so the gear is what we are hearing (and in this particular instance the mics).

Put simply, we want to hear what the piece of gear that we are testing sounds like.... We don't want to hear the variables that trick us into thinking otherwise. We don't want to hear the singer 3" further back on one performance, we don't want to hear the singer moving a little closer on one mic with certain words, and not so on another. I could go on and on... but, hopefully people are starting to get a sense of just how many variables can come into play.

I'm surprised that some people aren't willing to accept a logical approach to gear tests, and are happy to take a "something is better than nothing attitude". Comparison test audio files are ONLY as good as how scientifically they were made, the fact that some people have decided to be aggressive in arguing to the contrary is mind-numbing.

I don't really want to continue to debate the reasons for doing proper tests in this thread. I've said all there is to say... If anyone comes up with any other rebuttals, just drop me a PM/ email, so the thread can get somewhat back on track. Have a nice night folks.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Gear Head
 
🎧 15 years
^Agree with Tony Belmont above (although I have a Ben's mic which I find stunningly great).
However, the last posts have been based on the presumption that the comparison hasn't been done in one take for each mic and singer, without actually knowing whether this is correct or not (or am I missing something?).
So it is Bens turn here, me thinks.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #54
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
moving a 1/2" in any direction will drastically alter the sound, therefore it's always best to use the same performance at the same distance,
So how would you record a single performance into 3 mics simultaneously let alone 7 while having the singer sing an optimal distance from the mics capsule?
It just seems like an argument to can all comparison tests in future.
They obviously aren't scientific, or even that conclusive. They are a bit of fun and somewhat a teaser to each piece of equipment's capabilities.
Too many variables - the skill of the singer, the skill of the engineer.
Examples of the same mic (especially vintage) can sound different. Differences may occur if the same mic-pre isn't used. Some mics sound better with a certain mic-pre instead of another.
There are so many variables I think you have to accept it's more of an interesting exercise than something clinically conclusive.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by synchu ➡️
^Agree with Tony Belmont above (although I have a Ben's mic which I find stunningly great).
However, the last posts have been based on the presumption that the comparison hasn't been done in one take for each mic and singer, without actually knowing whether this is correct or not (or am I missing something?).
Ben stated they were all separate performances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
So how would you record a single performance into 3 mics simultaneously let alone 7 while having the singer sing an optimal distance from the mics capsule?
As I said before, I don't really want to continue the debate. But, you can see one possible scenario with 8 mics in the following thread:

https://gearspace.com/board/high-end...o-samples.html
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
...
I'm surprised that some people aren't willing to accept a logical approach to gear tests, and are happy to take a "something is better than nothing attitude". Comparison test audio files are ONLY as good as how scientifically they were made, the fact that some people have decided to be aggressive in arguing to the contrary is mind-numbing.

...
Totally correct. To each his own. Tests done this way have their use when comparing very different mics, like for matching different mics for a certain style/song to a certain voice. They only bring out very substantial differences in the sound and still only when the other many variables are as similar as possible.

When it comes to the subtleties of comparing related microphones that are relatively close in their sonic properties like in this shootout, the test method is completely useless or misleading. And if a maunfacturer of some of the candidates makes a test like this it actually makes me note that mic on my "never ever" list.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum ➡️
Totally correct. To each his own. Tests done this way have their use when comparing very different mics, like for matching different mics for a certain style/song to a certain voice. They only bring out very substantial differences in the sound and still only when the other many variables are as similar as possible.

When it comes to the subtleties of comparing related microphones that are relatively close in their sonic properties like in this shootout, the test method is completely useless or misleading. And if a maunfacturer of some of the candidates makes a test like this it actually makes me note that mic on my "never ever" list.
Fair enough.
I have Korby 47 that in many comparisons sounded 'almost identical' to original U47 or Wagner U47. Still, it is quite different take on U 47, I kept Korby, as it's simply preferred nuance on some 47-ish tasks, but in general it's not really same absolutelly top class as my reference Wagner U47.
Subtleties here makes crucial differences when mic is finally chosen for particular vocalist and vocal tracked in great environment.
I can easily make Korby sounding better on same task than reference U47.
Likely it was not an intention of this thread, but variableas that influence listener impressions might be easily to big to justify impartiality of the shootout.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Maniac
 
Astromann's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
Put simply, we want to hear what the piece of gear that we are testing sounds like.... We don't want to hear the variables that trick us into thinking otherwise. We don't want to hear the singer 3" further back on one performance, we don't want to hear the singer moving a little closer on one mic with certain words, and not so on another. I could go on and on... but, hopefully people are starting to get a sense of just how many variables can come into play.
I agree with this...you are not wrong about this...BUT as I said in my posts the performances were very similar anyway.
I could certainly tell what the tonal characteristics of the mics were...and others could also.
So yeah the tests may not absolutely perfect in a nuance and performance sense...but they are pretty close...close enough to get a good idea.
Stick another mic that has a chinese capsule in there and I GUARANTEE you will hear that particular mic is not even in the ball park.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
But, you can see one possible scenario with 8 mics in the following thread:
https://gearspace.com/board/high-end/340524-nu-47-nordic-audio-labs-audio-samples.html
Well no test is perfect....A singer would need a mouth that is at least 15" in circumference to achieve equal proximity to all those mics in their photographed positions.
That would be very difficult...even for Mick Jagger!! LOL!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
We don't want to hear the singer 3" further back on one performance
Honestly it would be very difficult to sing with an equal distance from the sweet spot of those mics in the pic you sent a link to, especially the type of vocals Ben has used that require close proximity. They are simply at too many odd angles...definitely some would get more proximity than others and therefore possibly sound better.
If you were very close to the Sony you would be at least 3" off center to the lower mics...so that would not be a good test.
If I owned a mic in that test...I would want it to be the Sony or the Nordic.
I am not trying to discredit what you are saying, but it seems to me that you (at least sound like) you are trying to discredit the tests that were set up.
At the end of the day no test is absolutely perfect.
I deal with a fair bit of maths in CAD within computers so I am very familiar with all kinds of values and measurements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
Comparison test audio files are ONLY as good as how scientifically they were made, the fact that some people have decided to be aggressive in arguing to the contrary is mind-numbing.
Some will agree with you...some won't...that's life.
There is no scientific assumption or empirical test...from gribbles yardstick, to climate change to Darwins theory that any number of "scientists" will agree unanimously on, regardless of how many white papers or whatever else are written on it.
Others have a right to disagree with you and your idea of a perfect test, so to turn around and say that others that respond to the contrary is "mind numbing" is just a little bit one sided.
Cheers
Astro
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➡️
I'm surprised that some people aren't willing to accept a logical approach to gear tests, and are happy to take a "something is better than nothing attitude". Comparison test audio files are ONLY as good as how scientifically they were made, the fact that some people have decided to be aggressive in arguing to the contrary is mind-numbing.
The funny thing is, it seems like only the aggressive posts get read and responded to. I thought I made some points in a reasonable manner but it gets neglected ... ah well.

Allow me to expand on what I said before.

Your proposed (and the more commonly accepted) method is only logical for testing the use of equipment to record performances which are not affected by live monitoring. For example, recording acoustic and electric guitars. An orchestral performance. But vocals is a tricky matter.

It can depend on certain styles of music or performers. There are vocalists who tend to largely belt out at a high volume (or even scream), and it is necessary to record them 3 feet+ from the microphone and they are unlikely to "work the microphone" in the manner of a Sinatra style crooner.

But for the particular styles of singing where the singer responds to the sound of the microphone on headphones, it is really ILLOGICAL to eliminate this from the testing process.

In fact, most typical shootouts have left me with little idea as to how they'd fare for achieving this sort of vocal for this particular reason. And Ben's clips thus far have given me the best impression of capturing such performances, which is the reason for my interest in his microphones thus far. I am as yet not a BeezNeez customer, so I hold no bias.
Old 26th January 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Lives for gear
 
asagaai's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astromann ➡️

"Tony Belmont-
The following thread shows an unscientific, yet very effective method for testing 8 high end microphones all at the same time, using the same performance, and distance, etc. It's the best mic test I have seen on GS in a while, and it is simple to do a test like this:

https://gearspace.com/board/high-...o-samples.html"


Is this your idea of scientific!! You have to be kidding!! A singer would need a mouth that is at least 15" in circumference to achieve equal proximity to all those mics in their photographed positions.

I deal with a fair bit of maths in CAD within computers so I am very familiar with all kinds of values and measurements...and I can tell you
"That ain't scientific...not one bit!!"

Cheers
Astro

Come on Astro what is 2 or 3 inches between friendsheh.

In that test I did with a professional singer between a Jade and a Pearlman TM1 modified into an Arabella- I placed 1 mike above the other carefully aligning capsules and ran the mikes through identical chains and recorded through both at the same time. Even though I told the singer to place her voice at the point between where the tips of the mikes met- there is no guarantees that the singer did not deviate between the 2 capsules causing differences as to proximity between the 2 mikes.

Another way would be to re-amp a recorded vocal using a speaker and have a specific distance between speaker and capsule of the mike and use same settings for all mikes. The problem with this is that this is not pure because of the original recording artifacts and it is a bit mechanical in that the vocalist is not playing the mike as an instrument to demonstate the mikes abilities.

Seems all test regimes involving 7 mikes plus have weaknesses/strengths.

But one thing is for sure-when a new kid on the block arrives and starts making mikes the calibre of Jade, James and Arabella for a fraction of the cost of the very top big boys that is right in the sonic territory of the very big boys like Neumann/Wagner/- I would expect a directly proportional correlation between objections regarding testing protocols to the level of disquiet being experienced by manufacturers/dealers whose markets are in competition.

Genug- When are the results to be posted.

GJ
Newcastle/OZ
Closed

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 98 views: 46046
Avatar for nst7
nst7 14th February 2014
replies: 315 views: 46524
Avatar for Veronica Sneesby
Veronica Sneesby 29th June 2016
replies: 75 views: 15732
Avatar for Actualsizeaudio
Actualsizeaudio 31st March 2016
replies: 2704 views: 407719
Avatar for Diogo C
Diogo C 30th October 2015

Forum Jump
Forum Jump