|
Post by M57 on Aug 31, 2018 14:29:22 GMT -6
Just few seconds of noodling - half finger picking, half w/pick. Simultaneously recorded with a pair of A Designs P1s. Give 'em a quick C@C please. They're quite different.. A : SDC 1 B : SDC 2 The reveal is about a dozen posts down.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 31, 2018 15:37:48 GMT -6
I like SDC 2. SDC 1 is just too bright for my tastes. Of course, without hearing the guitar, it's hard to say. Maybe it's just a really, really bright guitar and SDC 2 is muffled.
But I like SDC 2 here either way. Sounds more mid forward, voiced like a KM84 to my ear.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Aug 31, 2018 16:51:40 GMT -6
It's a Taylor 714 and it is admittedly a very bright guitar. I'll withhold my comments for now - PM me if you want a reveal.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Aug 31, 2018 20:47:27 GMT -6
I prefer 2 and I usually like bright stuff. PM me and let me know what they are.
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Aug 31, 2018 20:56:32 GMT -6
Wow that's really interesting. The way A is voiced, your guitar part put me in a relaxed singer songwriter sort of mind frame with a vibe that had me anticipating a Damien Rice crossed with Steve Winwood.
And then the way B was voiced, brighter, more modern and a little phasey I instantly was expecting something in more of an indie hipster, Lone Bellow sort of vein.
Pick the mic that matches the production aesthetic for the final track.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 31, 2018 21:15:57 GMT -6
Are we all talking about the same mics? It's confusing because the links here say "A" and "B" but the DropBox pages they take you to are labelled "SDC 1" and "SDC 2". To me the file the the "A" link takes you to ("SDC 1") is demonstrably brighter. Listen to the strumming. It's got loads of air up at like 16khz. The file that "B" takes you to ("SDC 2") seems quit e bit more mid forward.
Is it really just that subjective or are we mixing up what we're calling what?
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Aug 31, 2018 21:24:20 GMT -6
I only listened to the first 10 seconds of each otherwise it's harder for me to come away with a first impression.
The first thing I noticed was that A seemed to have a fuller frequency response, more bottom, and B seemed shifted upwards a little in response like a 67 will do, more focus on mids and high mids and a little narrower sounding than A. B has what I would characterize as a more modern sound to me than A simply because of that slight shift to the high mids.
After listening to the strumming part, B doesn't sound as bright there because it sounds like it's picking up less detail, a little rounded off or maybe it's a ribbon.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Aug 31, 2018 21:59:48 GMT -6
I only listened to the first 10 seconds of each otherwise it's harder for me to come away with a first impression. The first thing I noticed was that A seemed to have a fuller frequency response, more bottom, and B seemed shifted upwards a little in response like a 67 will do, more focus on mids and high mids and a little narrower sounding than A. B has what I would characterize as a more modern sound to me than A simply because of that slight shift to the high mids. After listening to the strumming part, B doesn't sound as bright there because it sounds like it's picking up less detail, a little rounded off or maybe it's a ribbon. Interesting. They both sound squarely like SDCs to me. Super fast transients, flattened kind of image. A just sounds a lot crispier to my ear than B. B sounds like a KM84 or something trying to be a KM84. Mid forward, not a ton of air, relatively warm for an SDC, kinda punchy. Goes to show how differently we all hear things.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 1, 2018 4:30:10 GMT -6
Yeah - Sorry for the confusion. A = SDC 1 and B = SDC 2
|
|
|
Post by iamasound on Sept 1, 2018 21:33:07 GMT -6
Of course context of mix is important in choosing a mic candidate, but for me I liked A as it was more frequency balanced as B was a bit scooped.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Sept 1, 2018 21:43:06 GMT -6
Isn't the P-1 scooped in frequency response? Not that the P-1 sounds bad at all, in fact it is a solid preamp. That would be a nice comparison. I would love to hear this same comparison with a Great River preamp. Very nice, I guess it's all about context and where you are going from here with the other instruments.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 1, 2018 21:57:51 GMT -6
A was bright, but somehow it drew me in and yeah hard to admit but I really liked it. There was even the metallic string character I usually hate, but somehow I still liked it.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 2, 2018 4:44:15 GMT -6
Isn't the P-1 scooped in frequency response? Not that the P-1 sounds bad at all, in fact it is a solid preamp. That would be a nice comparison. I would love to hear this same comparison with a Great River preamp. Very nice, I guess it's all about context and where you are going from here with the other instruments. Turns out I have a stereo pair of both of these mics and I just did a shootout of them by recording my piano using separate takes (I'll post those shortly). I also have a single Great River NP-500NV so I can shoot out the pre-amps with the same mic in mono. I'll definitely give the GR a shot, but I'm inclined to think that the way the mics are voiced so differently outweighs the impact of those pre-amps, which I find to be quite similar strangely enough.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 2, 2018 4:46:36 GMT -6
A was bright, but somehow it drew me in and yeah hard to admit but I really liked it. There was even the metallic string character I usually hate, but somehow I still liked it. Man, it's strange how people are hearing these so differently. I too prefer A. I think it's warmer, maybe with a bit too much boom around 200hz which I can dial down, but I think SDC-2 has the more metallic character. SDC-2 sounds almost DI-like to me.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Sept 2, 2018 5:12:00 GMT -6
They both sound good. I don't really listen to sources alone, but in a mix. So, these shootouts are tough calls because both A/B will work. I tracked an acoustic the other day with an old Audio Technica 4051 w/Super Cardiod capsule. It turned out really good, but it was a little too tinny sounding and I didn't like the way it sounded in the mix, so I rolled off some of the higher frequencies and it fit right in the track. I was tracking/experimenting with a different acoustic guitar just to see if I could get a blend flat without any tweaking.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 2, 2018 6:06:12 GMT -6
Here are the stereo pair clips with piano. Obviously different takes because I only have a pair of P1's and the style makes it all but impossible for me to play the same thing, so deal with it A = SDC-1B = SDC-2I'm mixed on this.. It's like as guitfiddler said, it depends on the application. Again A is warmer and I might prefer it in a more exposed setting. I think B is crisp and more likely to sit better in a dense mix. I'm tempted to think it's just a function of the voicings, but am I imagining things when I say that A sounds a little smeared?
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 2, 2018 6:34:42 GMT -6
Here's the reveal for those interested. I made the text color very similar to the background color. Just highlight or triple-click on the text below and it should be easy to read.
So it's a little bit of a trick. They are the same mic, a Rode NT-5 but SDC-2 is the stock microphone. SDC-1 uses a Micheal Joly MJE-384K "Roadster" capsule(s). I was hoping that the capsules would make the microphone substantially "better," and while I do prefer the mod over the stock sound, I'm beginning to realize that the stock mic offers a different "useable" voicing. It's like having two mics in one. It's not a world class mic and I sure would like to have a real 84 or a Soyuz, but I'm hoping I can be happy with these.
^^ Highlight above ^^
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 2, 2018 10:48:55 GMT -6
Yes, A is "fuller", but it's also boomy. What I look and hope for when listening to files like this, is a thing I call "dreaming". A sound that lets my imagination flow, where I'm feeling the mood of the music and losing myself into it. I don't care which mic is technically better. If one mic makes me listen to it, but the other makes me forget to listen to the mic because the music is enchanting and sends me into an emotional state, that's the one you want. A sounds good, boomy, but good. B made my imagination soar, I was just anticipating a great vocal to come in with it. B is my choice for that song. *wrote this before the reveal. I wouldn't pay for that mod after hearing the difference, I'd just use that cash to buy another mic with a different flavor.
Listen to this mic on the acoustic bass. It's sick, and it's $49 www.iskproaudio.com/collections/frontpage/products/little-gem*go to 1:40 on the 3rd video with the acoustic guitar to hear the bass.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 2, 2018 11:04:01 GMT -6
A sounds..boomy B is my choice for that song. Agree that A is boomy, but to be fair, I'm pretty sure I had it aimed right at the sound hole. Anyway, Hopefully I'll be able to tame the boom. Hah, I was just noodling.. but to be fair a few of the voicings are part of a song I'm writing right now. I'm actually experimenting with a stereo pair using SDC A aimed at the fretboard (hopefully that will also help it boom less) and a LDC placed a bit "over the shoulder," and giving them a small stereo spread so when you listen it sounds like you're playing the guitar with the fretboard slightly to your left and the guitar's body to the left. Hmm.. Maybe I should flip and make it about the listener's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 2, 2018 11:17:46 GMT -6
I tried lots of things and settled on an unusual setup for two mics. One is placed in front, the other just above my right shoulder. For some reason they didn't sound out of phase, and I dialed in just a pinch of the over-shoulder mic for tone, more like an EQ than a stereo mic thing.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Sept 2, 2018 11:19:08 GMT -6
I was hoping that [snip] would make the microphone substantially "better," and while I do prefer the mod over the stock sound, I'm beginning to realize that the stock mic offers a different "useable" voicing. Sorta related, and same vendor tangent, I found the modified Oktava MK-012 improved some things, and lost some things at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Sept 2, 2018 12:34:09 GMT -6
That's one of the reasons for buying the real deal vintage mics if you can afford one. You know what you're getting. With mods, it's basically a crap shoot. I have some nice mics that are good candidates for modding. Let's say a great mod costs $300. Is it worth it, or is the $300 better spent toward a known entity.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Sept 2, 2018 13:22:28 GMT -6
That's one of the reasons for buying the real deal vintage mics if you can afford one. You know what you're getting. With mods, it's basically a crap shoot. I have some nice mics that are good candidates for modding. Let's say a great mod costs $300. Is it worth it, or is the $300 better spent toward a known entity. Absolutely, but most of the "known" quantities are too rich for my blood - at least at this point in time. And unfortunately "known" is somewhat of a misnomer in my case. Many of you guys know what real 67s, 47s and 84s sound like. I don't. And even if I had the chance to work with them, I still can't afford them. I need options, and the cost/value ration of switchable mod appeals to me. A real interesting analogy for me personally: My wife and I are wine-snob wannabes. We rarely if ever go out to dinner and cook dinner at home so we can afford bottles in the $15 to $30 range with the occasional splurge - maybe a $50 bottle. We also get the occasional opportunity to drink wines that cost a lot more with friends and over time we have come to appreciate their value. It turns out that the process of educating our palettes has if anything enhanced our ability to appreciate the wines in our affordable price range. Maybe someday we'll go crazy, but there's no way I'm buying a $100 bottle without knowing it first. Robert Parker and Wine Enthusiast ratings are about as reliable as a Sweetwater customer review. BTW, for those of you who might suggest I could drink less and save up for a Soyuz, my wife has declared the wine budget to be non-negotiable.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 2, 2018 14:25:16 GMT -6
A was bright, but somehow it drew me in and yeah hard to admit but I really liked it. There was even the metallic string character I usually hate, but somehow I still liked it. Man, it's strange how people are hearing these so differently. I too prefer A. I think it's warmer, maybe with a bit too much boom around 200hz which I can dial down, but I think SDC-2 has the more metallic character. SDC-2 sounds almost DI-like to me. I forgot to say I listened through iPhone speaker, which is like a high pass filter, and A was a lot more extended and detailed, but musically so to me. Now that I listen on better speakers I can here the low end resonance on A and thanks highs have a little more bite, and how B seems a little less pokey and more controlled. A still seems a little more "personal space" to me, intimate and close. B seems a little smoother and easier to listen to, maybe mellow is a good word
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Sept 2, 2018 20:14:58 GMT -6
That's one of the reasons for buying the real deal vintage mics if you can afford one. You know what you're getting. With mods, it's basically a crap shoot. I have some nice mics that are good candidates for modding. Let's say a great mod costs $300. Is it worth it, or is the $300 better spent toward a known entity. [snip] BTW, for those of you who might suggest I could drink less and save up for a Soyuz, my wife has declared the wine budget to be non-negotiable. As well she should. As well she should. (Though, just to float it out there again, you can pick up a Soyuz 013 for not too much coin if you know where to look and who to ask.)
|
|