OK. Here's another mic comparison:

A double-rigged session with one pair of mics following another in this
single clip:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Comparison.mp3


Comments and observations invited, as usual....

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:08:40 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Comparison.mp3

I only listened on speakers in my laptop, but even that way, number
two sounded pretty shrill in comparison with 1.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:08:40 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Comparison.mp3

I only listened on speakers in my laptop, but even that way, number
two sounded pretty shrill in comparison with 1.


Laptop speakers???

I would have thought this comparison represents the ultimate *extreme*
between two different pairs of mics on a price basis, if nothing else -
well worth a pair of headphones, if not burning to disk and playing over
your hifi system!!

(Hint: A price differential of possibly 100:1 !!??)

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:13:53 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:08:40 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Comparison.mp3

I only listened on speakers in my laptop, but even that way, number
two sounded pretty shrill in comparison with 1.


Laptop speakers???

I would have thought this comparison represents the ultimate *extreme*
between two different pairs of mics on a price basis, if nothing else -
well worth a pair of headphones, if not burning to disk and playing over
your hifi system!!

(Hint: A price differential of possibly 100:1 !!??)

i'll do that a bit later - just veging in front of the telly right
now. Bugger all on, as usual.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:13:53 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:08:40 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Comparison.mp3

I only listened on speakers in my laptop, but even that way, number
two sounded pretty shrill in comparison with 1.


Laptop speakers???

I would have thought this comparison represents the ultimate *extreme*
between two different pairs of mics on a price basis, if nothing else -
well worth a pair of headphones, if not burning to disk and playing over
your hifi system!!

(Hint: A price differential of possibly 100:1 !!??)

OK, just plugged the laptop into the hi fi. On number two, the whole
thing has a tilted feel towards the top end. The bass is much lighter,
and the top is much brighter. I prefer number 1.

So did I pick the 100 or the 1?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:13:53 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Laptop speakers???

I would have thought this comparison represents the ultimate *extreme*
between two different pairs of mics on a price basis, if nothing
else -
well worth a pair of headphones, if not burning to disk and playing
over
your hifi system!!

(Hint: A price differential of possibly 100:1 !!??)

OK, just plugged the laptop into the hi fi. On number two, the whole
thing has a tilted feel towards the top end. The bass is much lighter,
and the top is much brighter. I prefer number 1.

So did I pick the 100 or the 1?


Actually, I got that wrong - the price differential is more like 10:1
but it's still significant!

OK, you are choosing the expensive mics - as you have probably gathered,
they ain't mine! (I don't have that many musicians here!! :-)

And now the cat's out of the bag, the 'owner' may come forward with more
information, but what I think is interesting is that I think the second
clip sounds quite good in its own right and it seems to me that if you
play the second clip first it can actually make the first clip sound a
bit 'boomy' by comparison!

(It seems I like a brighter sound - I wonder if it's my hearing???)

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:43:23 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:13:53 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


Laptop speakers???

I would have thought this comparison represents the ultimate *extreme*
between two different pairs of mics on a price basis, if nothing
else -
well worth a pair of headphones, if not burning to disk and playing
over
your hifi system!!

(Hint: A price differential of possibly 100:1 !!??)

OK, just plugged the laptop into the hi fi. On number two, the whole
thing has a tilted feel towards the top end. The bass is much lighter,
and the top is much brighter. I prefer number 1.

So did I pick the 100 or the 1?


Actually, I got that wrong - the price differential is more like 10:1
but it's still significant!

OK, you are choosing the expensive mics - as you have probably gathered,
they ain't mine! (I don't have that many musicians here!! :-)

And now the cat's out of the bag, the 'owner' may come forward with more
information, but what I think is interesting is that I think the second
clip sounds quite good in its own right and it seems to me that if you
play the second clip first it can actually make the first clip sound a
bit 'boomy' by comparison!

(It seems I like a brighter sound - I wonder if it's my hearing???)


It is more than likely that you are losing a bit of top end. We never
did manage to do that test a while ago cos you only had a laptop for a
source, and they just put out odd frequencies all over the place.

Any road up, what were those mics?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:08:40 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Comparison.mp3

I only listened on speakers in my laptop, but even that way, number
two sounded pretty shrill in comparison with 1.


Laptop speakers???

I would have thought this comparison represents the ultimate *extreme*
between two different pairs of mics on a price basis, if nothing else -
well worth a pair of headphones, if not burning to disk and playing over
your hifi system!!

(Hint: A price differential of possibly 100:1 !!??)


Morning Don. A few days ago, during a discussion about
Chinese mics, it occurred to me that it would be interesting
to bi-rig a smallish session for comparison with a normal set-up.

I borrowed five Chinese mics model 2000 made by a company
called SCT. (!!) I believe these are the same microphones
sold by Thoman in Germany with the T Bone badge.

Of the five, one did not work at all, and one pair were opposite
phase to the other pair. Putting this right was not difficult, but
the plan for a tree and two outriggers, five mics in all, could not
be realised.

Yesterday, I sent a short segment to Keith by e-mail, for him to
hear the difference, I did not really expect him to post it. This
is copyright material, even though it is only a first rehearsal. I
have asked him to take it down by 1200 hrs UK time.

As you observed, the Chinese sound is dryer, and considerably
brighter (brittle was the word one of my colleagues used) When
the orchestra is playing in sections, this is not too obtrusive until
the violins start to play. One gets the impression they have barbed
wire strings.

It is not difficult to EQ the two tracks to sound similar, (we
tried an inverted bell with a fairly wide Q centred on 3k8) But
the timbre, particularly of celli is still rather disappointing,
Interesting also that the centre image was difficult to establish
with the Chinkies. The RH mic had more gain.

Difficult to estimate the price differential. Probably 100:1 is
close to the mark.

I have a feeling these mics might be very good indeed on pop
piano, with their forward mid range. I have a very good Decca
compressor with which I would like to try with them.

Iain

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:23:28 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:08:40 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...Comparison.mp3

I only listened on speakers in my laptop, but even that way, number
two sounded pretty shrill in comparison with 1.


Laptop speakers???

I would have thought this comparison represents the ultimate *extreme*
between two different pairs of mics on a price basis, if nothing else -
well worth a pair of headphones, if not burning to disk and playing over
your hifi system!!

(Hint: A price differential of possibly 100:1 !!??)


Morning Don. A few days ago, during a discussion about
Chinese mics, it occurred to me that it would be interesting
to bi-rig a smallish session for comparison with a normal set-up.

I borrowed five Chinese mics model 2000 made by a company
called SCT. (!!) I believe these are the same microphones
sold by Thoman in Germany with the T Bone badge.

Of the five, one did not work at all, and one pair were opposite
phase to the other pair. Putting this right was not difficult, but
the plan for a tree and two outriggers, five mics in all, could not
be realised.

Yesterday, I sent a short segment to Keith by e-mail, for him to
hear the difference, I did not really expect him to post it. This
is copyright material, even though it is only a first rehearsal. I
have asked him to take it down by 1200 hrs UK time.

As you observed, the Chinese sound is dryer, and considerably
brighter (brittle was the word one of my colleagues used) When
the orchestra is playing in sections, this is not too obtrusive until
the violins start to play. One gets the impression they have barbed
wire strings.

It is not difficult to EQ the two tracks to sound similar, (we
tried an inverted bell with a fairly wide Q centred on 3k8) But
the timbre, particularly of celli is still rather disappointing,
Interesting also that the centre image was difficult to establish
with the Chinkies. The RH mic had more gain.

Difficult to estimate the price differential. Probably 100:1 is
close to the mark.

I have a feeling these mics might be very good indeed on pop
piano, with their forward mid range. I have a very good Decca
compressor with which I would like to try with them.

Iain





Did you listen to my equalization? I think it turned out quite well,
but with this mic we might be at or beyond the limit of what can be
rescued. My eq was considerably more complex than the one you tried -
I used the FFT filter in Audition, so I think it has possibly made a
better job of removing those sharp barbs from the strings.

I could have done with some content above 9kHz to do a proper job
though. It all sounded very filtered by the low rate MP3 coding.

I suppose that when you are producing rather than recording music,the
word "bad" doesn't come into it (apart from perhaps unreliability). A
mic is either right or wrong for a job.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:23:28 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


Yesterday, I sent a short segment to Keith by e-mail, for him to
hear the difference, I did not really expect him to post it. This
is copyright material, even though it is only a first rehearsal. I
have asked him to take it down by 1200 hrs UK time.


I've only just managed to do that - Pipex was having one of its 'turns'
and not letting me (or *anybody* else) on! The chances that your clients
are among the dozen or so visitors I get each week are possibly slim (??
:-) and even if they were, the chances they hit that link before I
nipped it are, I would have thought, even slimmer...!!??

(If there's any comeback, tell them there's *no charge* for the free
publicity!! ;-)

Asittapens, it looks like the Pipex webspace is on and off like a
whore's drawers anyway - so I doubt *anybody* will get on much for a
while yet!!



It is not difficult to EQ the two tracks to sound similar, (we
tried an inverted bell with a fairly wide Q centred on 3k8) But
the timbre, particularly of celli is still rather disappointing,
Interesting also that the centre image was difficult to establish
with the Chinkies. The RH mic had more gain.


Yet the waveform in SoundForge shows the Left Channel to be a little
'louder' if anything?


Did you listen to my equalization? I think it turned out quite well,
but with this mic we might be at or beyond the limit of what can be
rescued. My eq was considerably more complex than the one you tried -
I used the FFT filter in Audition, so I think it has possibly made a
better job of removing those sharp barbs from the strings.


I think your EQ job went a long way to ironing out the differences...



I could have done with some content above 9kHz to do a proper job
though. It all sounded very filtered by the low rate MP3 coding.



....as did that...


I suppose that when you are producing rather than recording music,the
word "bad" doesn't come into it (apart from perhaps unreliability). A
mic is either right or wrong for a job.


Yes. I wouldn't have thought anyone in his right mind would expect a
dirt cheap generic/unbranded Chinese mic to outperform or even in any
way match a Neumann or similar mic and use one for serious, commercial
work.

The point, once again, is that the cheepy Chinky stuff is, if nothing
else, cheep enough to allow people to 'have a go' and is probably plenty
good enough for use in bedroom studios! That said, it does look like
it's possibly to take *cheapskating* a little too far - with both mics
and valve amps. I think (and hope) the more plausible-looking *brands*
like the CAD and SE Electronics I have here are a wee bit different.
When I get the 'replacement' valve mic - another CAD:

http://www.cadmics.com/Trion8000.htm


I will post a (probably final) set of clips for comparison purposes when
I can get Swim revved up on the clart and joanna - may even jingle a set
of keys as well!!

(What I would like is a pair of Neumanns *and* a pair of 'Unbranded
Chinkies' to complete the spectrum, but I'm not about to go and *buy*
either one!! :-)