Mic Comparison – Four More Clips
I posted a link to yesterday’s blog post at a couple of recording forums and one guitar site. I started threads at the Reaper Forum, on Gearslutz, and at the Acoustic Guitar Forum. It’s been interesting reading people’s reactions.
As I expected, some folks reject the validity of these controlled tests, stating that different mics respond to different positioning in different ways, and their performance in their optimal position is the important issue. I can only suggest that they try some controlled testing in those different positions. After all, if the difference really exists, it should be apparent when levels and positions are matched, right?
And as I expected, some people pointed out that mics with different patterns and mics with very different transducer technology, like ribbon mics, sound different from the cardioid condensers I used. I absolutely agree.
Also as I expected, some people suggested that my use of a single source, the acoustic guitar, is preventing me from hearing the differences, which show themselves on cymbals and vocals. As Dirty Harry was wont to say, “A man’s gotta know his limitations.” I don’t record those sources so I don’t use them for testing .
One comment that has come up a couple of times is that the mics I chose were too similar, all large diaphragm mics from the low end of the spectrum. So I pulled out my highest priced mic, a Schoeps CMC64 small diaphragm condenser, and stuck it in the array.
Variety is the Spice of Mics?
For a little more variety, I replaced the Rode and AT mics with the Shure KSM141 and KSM44. So this set of clips includes two large diaphragm mics and two SD mics, and the price spread ranges from under $200 to over $1500.
I followed the same procedure I illustrated in yesterday’s post, aligning mic diaphragms by eye, playing a test tone through a small speaker about 1 foot from the mics, then adjusting gain on the M-Audio Profire 2626 to match their levels as well as possible in Reaper. Then I recorded the test tone followed by the acoustic guitar clip.
Mics and Clips
So here are the mics:
CAD M179
Schoeps CMC64
Shure KSM44
Shure KSM141
and here are the clips:
download 20090626-F.wav
download 20090626-G.wav
download 20090626-H.wav
download 20090626-I.wav
As before, I’ll post the key to the clip identities in a future blog entry. Or if you post your opinion and preference in a comment here or on one of the forums I visit I’ll email or PM the information to you.
Philosophical Musing
Please let me take a moment to wax philosophical here. No one has reported doing double blind ABX comparisons on the clips so far. Several posters have offered opinions on the sonic qualities of the clips, but no one has confirmed that they can actually hear a difference! This seems to be human nature, but I think that skipping the double blind check is missing a really valuable learning experience.
This entry was posted on Friday, June 26th, 2009 at 8:36 pm and is filed under Audio, Comparisons. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Russ said in post # 1,
on June 27th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Thanks for the shootout. I’ve been wondering how the KSM141s compare to Schoeps.
Didier Brest said in post # 2,
on June 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
I do not know who is who but I prefer I.
aaron said in post # 3,
on June 28th, 2009 at 1:28 am
thanks. I like 1 and very much. Think no. 1 is the schoeps. Could you let me know the order of mics for this test? Thanks. Aaron
Fran said in post # 4,
on June 28th, 2009 at 8:12 am
Thanks for the comments, folks. Russ, do you have a guess at the identities of the clips, or a preference?
Didier and Aaron, I’ll email you the key.
Fran
Yuval said in post # 5,
on June 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Thanks for the clips. I like the first sample the best (CMC64?) and the third sample the least (KSM44?). Could you please email me the Key?
Chris said in post # 6,
on July 1st, 2009 at 3:38 am
Thanks for the clips! By itself, as a solo guitar recording, I liked them in that order (from most to least): I, F, G, H. But I guess all of them are usable. H seems to be quite “cutting”, especially noticable in the squeaky string noise, but then again G or H might cut through a mix with other instruments really well, where more subtle presence might get lost… Please mail me the results, I’m curious!
Dave said in post # 7,
on July 9th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
I can’t tell the difference really, but, if I were to have to guess, I’d say I like F the least. The rest all sound the same to me. I am listening on some crappy headphones due to the hour, but it’s enough to tell me that I’d never spend $1500 on a mic.
Hayden said in post # 8,
on July 29th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
The cad m179 has a clear pristine sound. You can really hear the details on the high end. No emphasis on the low end, but a fair presence. At what it does, it does it the best.
This mic is amazing on acoustic instruments, sweet vocals, as you can hear the texture, and specially for female background vocals, to get clear Ahhh!, Ohhh!.
At $150, this mic is a steal! I have one and would be ready to pay $600 for it. But I guess people would only be ready to pay that much if it would be called sm179!?
dave said in post # 9,
on August 5th, 2009 at 5:59 am
I prefer F and H is my least favourite,but they are all pretty good to my ears!You can,t beat the old guitar!
Bill said in post # 10,
on October 1st, 2009 at 6:25 am
I liked the harmonics of the first two (F & G), but they seemed to have a bottom end that was muted, lacking resonance.
There was more attack on the lows with H, but the upper harmonics were not as detailed as the first two clips.
Out of the four, only the “I” clip covered the spectrum of the instrument for my ears, and this is the one I would prefer to use.
Fran Guidry said in post # 11,
on October 1st, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Bill, thanks a lot for commenting. I’ll email you the key to the clips.
Fran
ehsan said in post # 12,
on October 13th, 2009 at 12:20 am
F ksm44
G CAd
H Schoeps
I 141
ehsan said in post # 13,
on October 13th, 2009 at 12:20 am
plz send me the answers
davidR said in post # 14,
on October 18th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Personally, “I” sounded the most pleasing to me. Can’t identify which mic is which; totally lacking experience in that area. The clips are very much appreciated Fran. Your method of comparison is solid.
jason said in post # 15,
on November 3rd, 2009 at 10:23 am
I prefer Mic I.
Fran Guidry said in post # 16,
on November 3rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Thanks to everyone for your comments. I believe I’ve sent the key to everyone who commented.
Fran
Charley Patton said in post # 17,
on November 3rd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I liked G the best, most musical and most dynamically correct to my ears. H had too much string and fret sounds, but I liked the over all sound. F sounded ok, a bit like G. I didn’t like I, too nasal and constipated. Knowing my cheap taste I guess I is Schoeps. It’s great with blind tests, you really have to listen hard to form an opinion. Please mail me the answers.
Charley
Leandro said in post # 18,
on December 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I think F sounds better, then I, G, and H. NOw, what´s the answer?
I´ll be reading this blog.
Marcus67 said in post # 19,
on January 14th, 2010 at 3:35 am
I like F the best for the detailed high end and neutrality color wise, but the bass is a bit loose, and I then like I for a tighter bass, more compressed colored sound (shure141 I think) and more even frequency response. If there was less color in my chain, I would go for I as it sounds the most ready, while if I wanted to add color with a nice tube pre etc, I would go for F. These are the only 2 I really like.
and I would love to get the answers
piscaerm@yahoo.com
Thanks!
richard gilbert said in post # 20,
on January 21st, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I think I and then F for me…..I really hope I is the KSM141s or cheaper……
Darrell Styner said in post # 21,
on February 3rd, 2010 at 8:40 am
I like I, F, G, and H last. I and F both have better balance (more low end) and both sound good to me. G and H both seem a bit thin with a clear loss of detail in H. F is just a little harder than I in the upper-mids so I give I the nod. Other than H, it’s surprising how close to each other (and good!) they all sound.
I know nothing about any of these mics so I’d appreciate knowing the rough retail prices of each along with the key. Thanks!
Fran Guidry said in post # 22,
on September 5th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
A belated thanks for your comment, but to anyone reading the blog, these answers are not correct.
Fran
Howard Barnum said in post # 23,
on December 10th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Thanks—
I downloaded foobar2000 and ABXY’d the clips 20090626-F.wav and 20090626-G.wav. I was correct in 5 out of 5 trials correct. I found the difference subtle to pick up on at first, but it’s obviously there. I’m not totally clear whether it’s just a level difference or a frequency response difference. I just listened to the first second or two of the clips. Easier to identify differences in a short bit of music. Track A sounded just slightly snappier, in the initial chords, and maybe just a tad more clarity or sparkle in the single-note picking that follows. I could imagine that is due to more high-end frequency response from the mic on track A. (If the top track in the 2-track playlist is always A, then the snappier one was F.) If you can see my email address, please feel free to mail me the key. However, I’ll probably ABXY some other pairs of these as I’m finding it pretty interesting. I promise not to post any results of tests done after I look at the key, and if you want to wait a bit to make sure I don’t peek, that’s cool too…
Howard Barnum said in post # 24,
on December 10th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
H versus I: I was correct in 6/6 trials. Assuming the top track in the playlist loads as A, I liked H quite a bit better than I; comparatively, I sounded muffled and maybe rolled-off in the high end, H open and with a “sparkling, airy” [insert favorite audiophile high-end blather here] sound, and just crisper, clearer sound overall. I sounded more toward a nylon-stringed guitar kind of sound, though I guess these are steel
.
Now to compare the “snappier/sparklier” ones from the two previous comparisons, i.e. H versus F. I got 6 correct out of 6. I found H to sound a bit snappier, sparklier. Again, just based mostly on the first two chords, plus sometimes a few notes beyond. Can’t say for sure which I prefer musically without listening to the whole track, I guess my prejudice is toward the snappier sounding one, i.e. H.
Comparing the two “less snappy” tracks from the first two rounds, namely G versus I, I didn’t feel like I could discern any difference. I did hazard a guess once, feeling I was guessing on an unreliable wisp…and was wrong. I’ll leave that at 0/1 for now although I might try listening to the whole track to see if I think I can find a spot that differentiates them. (But I doubt I’ll be able to.)
Very interesting. I’d like to see the key.
Thanks again!
T said in post # 25,
on January 10th, 2011 at 10:37 am
I’ve listened to a couple of clips on my laptop. Everything sounds pretty good. I think that from a price performance standpoint I would probably go with the SM 141. The Schoep mics seem expensive and one would worry about taking them out of the house.
Apparently the Shure mics are rugged enough to use as stage mics.
Would the Shure 141 be the fourth mic?
igg said in post # 26,
on January 10th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Please send me the mic lists in both of your shootouts. Thanks
Fran Guidry said in post # 27,
on January 10th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
igg, care to offer your impressions of the differences? Tell us your favorite? Offer a guess as to which mic is which?
I might mention that once you know the identify of the mics, your preference will be affected by bias. We humans are unable to filter out our preconceptions, which invariably color our sensory processing, so the only chance to really hear things is before you know which is which.
Fran
igg said in post # 28,
on January 12th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
OK here goes….. for both tests —switched back and forth on Reaper – listening through headphones (Senn. HD-560) on a Tascam FW-1884
First Test:
From liked best to least….
J – seemed to have “compressed focus” – Less self noise –most string articulation — Less airy — High freq string noise
L – More “upfront” – more “present, natural” more mid emphasis –slightly muddier
K- More self noise —airy — a little honky” –more mid emphasis
Second Test:
F sounded a lot like I… From liked best to least…
H – Clean …Nice clean detail ….Airy
G – Detailed but a little thin…. more string noise…. HF a little boosted
I – A bit dull
F – Least defined – more mid range boost
fwiw:
It sure takes a lot of concentration to do this stuff. I’m no expert but I’ve found that mic placement is so important in getting the sound you want.
Also, sometimes the cleanest most articulate track needs to be balanced with something fatter not to get too jangly.
Fran Guidry said in post # 29,
on January 12th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
Hey, thank you, igg. I’ll get both keys in the mail to you right away.
You’re certainly correct that it takes a lot of concentration, in my experience. But isn’t it funny that when we read on Gearslutz or another forum, the choice seems so obvious and unsubtle!! People describe hearing huge and obvious differences between mics in just a fraction of a second.
Fran
osvaldo said in post # 30,
on February 8th, 2011 at 1:38 am
My guess is :
F – Ksm141
G- Schoeps
H- Cad M179
I – KSM44
Thanks for posting the clips
Osv
Ray Jay said in post # 31,
on March 20th, 2011 at 9:45 pm
My guess is,
I’m curious as to what other people though of the KSM too.
F – KSM44
H – Cad M179
G – Schopes
I – KSM141
I would appreciate if you would send me the answers! I own a KSM44 but I don’t record acoustic guitar, so I wonder if I got it right
Fran Guidry said in post # 32,
on March 20th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Ray, thanks for commenting. I’ve sent you the key in an email.
Fran
Alessandro said in post # 33,
on March 30th, 2011 at 6:29 am
My guess
F – CAD M179
G – KSM141
H – KSM44
I – Schopes
I’m planning to buy a cad m179 and this test came in handy.
Thanks for posting the clips.
Fran Guidry said in post # 34,
on March 30th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Alessandro, thanks so much for stopping by to reply. I’ve sent the key via email.
Fran
joon said in post # 35,
on April 21st, 2011 at 4:34 am
Hey Fran, I felt H is from a small diaphragm condensor (Schoeps). I like that the best. I like G the least and a tie for second place for F and I.
Fran Guidry said in post # 36,
on April 21st, 2011 at 9:12 am
Thanks for commenting. I’ve emailed you the key.
Fran
Brian Dunard said in post # 37,
on May 16th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
I would like the key to the shootout between the Shure, CAD and Schoeps mics. I like F the best as it is a bit more relaxed up top. At any rate, thanks for posting.
Fran Guidry said in post # 38,
on May 16th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Thanks for stopping by and commenting, Brian. I’ve emailed you the key.
Fran
Danyel Braz said in post # 39,
on June 27th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Hi Fran!
Thanks for the blind tests, very entertaining!!
From least to most I liked, K – J – L
and for the second test
F- I loved
I – I loved but I think not as much as I liked F
H – It was good
G- the least I liked
Please send me the key, I m very curious! : )
Todd said in post # 40,
on August 31st, 2011 at 11:33 am
Hey Fran,
Well as I sit here at work trying to figure out how best to record my solo acoustic guitar, I am struggling with the following – I hear my computer based audio through my telephone headset. When I record I use a pair of Sony digital pro monitor headphones hooked up to my tascam workstation, so I can’t A/B sound clips with good speakers…as I have no access to any to listen to computer based clips. So PERHAPS you can share with me – based on your experience and feedback, did one mic come out at all ahead? I am looking to purchase a pair of somethings soon. I have NO brand loyalty or name bias. I just need to get to work recording at home…before I die – and all this brilliance is lost forever! HAHAHAHA. Please give me some direction. Thanks so much. Regards, Todd
Fran Guidry said in post # 41,
on August 31st, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Todd, to my ear the four mics were so close as to be indistinguishable without intense concentration. So I’d say there was no real winner.
Condenser mics are a good bet, because their greater sensitivity means the mic preamp has less work to do, so a lower cost unit can be used without getting into the noisy part of its gain.
For strictly solo acoustic guitar, no vocals, I’m currently preferring omni mics, because they provide a more natural representation of the bass, but directional mics work well too.
One thing to avoid is a mic with high self-noise, like some of the very small omni condensers. The acoustic guitar is a pretty quiet instrument so the mic needs to be chosen to avoid adding noise.
Do you have a budget in mind? Anyone with a recording setup that you can try out? What is your Tascam recorder? Does it provide phantom power?
Like you I started out looking for the “best” mic, and spent thousands of dollars only to find myself now believing that mics make a lot less difference than I expected. The big breakthroughs in my recordings came from improving my room sound and learning to not record too “hot” – it’s intuitively attractive to try to get as loud as possible, but our recording gear is designed to work at a level that sounds pretty low compared to commercial recordings.
Hope this helps,
Fran
Fran said in post # 42,
on August 31st, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Fran!
Thank you for your quick response. Well to answer your questions, yes the tascam 2488Neo has phantom power. My budget is $400 for a pair of mics for the guitar. Some of the music WILL end up with a vocal track or bass and vocals. I’m in this alone so I have no one else I can ask to try things out. I will be doing most of my recording with a Mcpherson guitar (http://mcphersonguitars.com) which has an offset soundhole so I will adjust accordingly.
Fran Guidry said in post # 43,
on August 31st, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Do you currently have a vocal mic you like? Many mics work well for both, but as a class SDC pencil mics don’t make the best vocal mics, but they do make the best instrument mics. Plenty of good instrument recordings made with large diaphragm (LD) mics, and they’re available with multiple patterns. That’s one reason the CAD M179 is so popular.
My advice for recording guitar – don’t get too close, the distance is a tone control that adds bass real fast as you get closer than 3 feet or so. A distance of 2 feet gives a nice natural sound in many cases. Many people suggest placing the mic a few inches from the guitar – I think this is doing things the hard way. The sound is boomy and harsh and takes a lot of processing to clean up.
Don’t record too hot. Back in tape days people bounced into the red, but the red in analog was around -18 dBFS in digital. So bounce your RMS (average) levels around that number and keep your peaks below -8.
Those two lessons took me years to learn, because I got so much bad advice from the internet. Of course, you may have a different idea of the sound you’re looking for, I wanted something very natural and close to the sound of the guitar in the room.
Fran
Fran said in post # 44,
on September 1st, 2011 at 5:50 am
Hey Fran,
I have no vocal mic I like – but I have a friend who can loan me a joemeek JM37 and he has a Shure KSM27. I would use these for recording but want to try using two mics and recording in stereo. Thank you for you advice on “don’t get too close”, I have been struggling with this using the JM37. This is a big bodied guitar and the boominess is is a problem with that mic a foot away. I have been playing with positions trying to find one that evens out the tone. So when I typically have done sessions I have usually had the engineer use 2 mics on the guitar, so that is what I am trying to recreate. Should I use 2 M179s? Should I use 2 SDC mics? Thanks so much for your help…when this gets squared away I will send you a song to check out….
Todd
Fran Guidry said in post # 45,
on September 1st, 2011 at 6:58 am
I can tell you that among people listening to the clips the CAD was one of the most popular choices. And I can say that the multi-pattern feature of the M179 makes it a very versatile mic that can fill many roles.
Fran
Ted said in post # 46,
on September 2nd, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Fran,
The differences are audible, but much smaller than typical forum claims would have you believe. Moving or angling the mic by 1/2″ would likely result in much greater difference than changing mics would, and a great recording could be made with any of these mics.
Having said that, I have never heard any of these mics, so I can’t provide an educated guess as to which is which. Please email me the results for this and your previous test.
Thanks and best regards,
Ted
Fran Guidry said in post # 47,
on September 3rd, 2011 at 12:52 pm
Ted, I just emailed you the key.
Fran
Marc said in post # 48,
on September 14th, 2011 at 3:07 am
I liked F the best but this one was very close i gotta see the key Fran lets do the next test on vocals
Fran Guidry said in post # 49,
on September 14th, 2011 at 6:45 am
Thanks for stopping by. I just sent you the key.
Fran
Bryon said in post # 50,
on October 17th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Hi. I know this is old, but could you send me the key?
I liked all but F. Can’t say between H, I or G which I like better. I did notice the flatter response of G, but I can’t say it’s better than the slight scoop on H & I.
Thanks!
Fran Guidry said in post # 51,
on October 21st, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Hi, Byron, sorry it took me so long, but I finally emailed you the key.
Fran
Tom said in post # 52,
on November 22nd, 2011 at 5:16 pm
I like F and G. Please send me the key.
Tom
Igor said in post # 53,
on January 19th, 2012 at 3:47 am
At least you were honest enough to admit it. Many guys aren’t. Not only are they not honest enough to admit it to themselves, but they encourage others to make the same mistakes they did.
Charles said in post # 54,
on February 2nd, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Hi Fran,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to do these shootouts. I find them very helpful and entertaining. I see that this is over two years old, but since it looks like you’re still emailing the mic identities…
F and I seem to share the most similarity with each other. Likewise for G and H. F and I sound a little smoother to me, where as G and H might have a little more high end detail. For me, I found F and I more pleasant, while G and H were bordering on harsh in this particular application. I’m guessing that F and I are the LD’s and G and H the SD’s:
F- KSM44
G- CMC64
H- KSM141
I- M179
Fran Guidry said in post # 55,
on February 2nd, 2012 at 5:05 pm
Charles, I just emailed you the key.
I don’t know if you pay attention to cognition and bias issues, but we humans simply can’t operate without bias, and all the rigamarole with matching and blinding is a very minimal effort to defend against the limits of our perception and decision making systems.
These clips with the labels on them are worse than useless for comparative listening. The knowledge of the source will be a large part of the listening process and the decision will be made on grounds other than the objectively audible differences.
Besides, its a lot more fun this way (grin).
Fran
William Bajzek said in post # 56,
on April 4th, 2012 at 5:08 am
Hi Fran,
Right now I record through a CAD m179, through a Yamaha mixer, into my R09hr or my Canon T3i depending on whether I’m recording just audio or video. I’ve been thinking about lots of ways in which I could improve my recording setup lately, including replacing my Edirol R09hr, saving up for some Schoeps mics, etc. But your shootouts may have convinced me that I should just get a second m179 for stereo and be done with it. I think I hear a tiny difference in the treble on these four mics, but I can’t get better than 60% ABXing these. At least no difference that would make one far better for my classical guitar.
I’ve never had any mics that cost more than $400 for the pair, but I always come back to the CAD. My mixer’s nothing amazing but with those two running line into my Edirol, I can get a noise floor lower than the average on professional CDs that I’ve heard.
One thing I have noticed is that I felt like the audio in my youtube videos (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9447EDDD2C1E1E17) all sounds dull to me compared to my Edirol recordings, at first. But the Edirol has a pretty strong treble boost to it. What I’m getting recording into the camera may just be more flat. It contributes its own noise floor, unfortunately, but for Youtube I don’t mind so much.
William Bajzek said in post # 57,
on April 4th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
OK, I gave it another go a few more times, until I could get 80-100% each time. I don’t have a clue which mic is which, because I have only used the CAD, but here are my impressions, in order of my preference.
f warm. my favorite
i very similar to f with higher treble peak. a little deeper
g a bit thin and boxy, but just slightly
h harsh in the upper midrange. the most obviously different from the others.
Fran Guidry said in post # 58,
on April 4th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Hey, William, sorry I failed to respond with the key after your first post. I’ll email it to you right away.
The statistics on ABX are interesting. In order to achieve a fair degree of certainty you need to have a sufficient number of trials and a sufficient number of successes – 13 right out of 16 trials is generally considered a demonstration of audible difference, while anything less could easily be achieved by guessing in a reasonable number of cases. The Hydrogen Audio forum seems to be a place where this gets discussed a lot.
In any case, your observations add a lot of value to the discussion, thanks very much for participating. I know that it’s actually hard work to do these kinds of comparisons when the differences are so small.
Fran
Cindy said in post # 59,
on May 17th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Hello Fran, I’m very new to this, but I’m gonna be recording an acoustic guitar soon- which led me here.
Personally, I>F>G>H
I feel that “I” covers the spectrum and it’s still able to bring out the bright tone of the guitar. F on the other hand is a bit lacking of what “I” is able to produce, and G maybe missing a little mids, and H is very harsh and I feel that the sounds coming out are quite messy :/ But when I attempted to put F and G together, I actually quite liked the sound!
P.S. I might be very off and I haven’t used any of those mics before so pardon me, but I’m curious to know the key! Thanks for the clips!
Cindy
Fran Guidry said in post # 60,
on May 17th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Cindy, thanks for commenting. I’ve sent you the key.
Fran
Ton said in post # 61,
on August 17th, 2012 at 11:07 am
Hi there,
I just bumped into this, doing some research about the M179. Thanks for the shootout. And, very nice playing!
Hope you still read these comments, I would love to get the key.
I liked the best, very tight lows, smooth highs. Of course I hope it’s the CAD
but my guess is the Schoeps. I liked H the less, a bit on the harsh side. Both F and G would be perectly usable. Haven’t worked with either of these mics so can’t tell for sure.
Thanks mate, good job.
Fran Guidry said in post # 62,
on August 17th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
I’ve sent the key via email. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Fran
Miško said in post # 63,
on December 14th, 2012 at 6:04 am
Hi, Fran, guys and girls.
Tested using crap desktop satelites, el cheapo’s, but some difference still perceivable. Done ABX test in foobar2000.
First impression:
F a bit flat at first
G a bit flat at first
H right on better than F & G
I At first impression this sounded the best, smooth mid, and transparent highs
ABX-test:
F against G: – G is brighter, more transient in the highs; however scored 3/6
G against H: – G is brighter, more transient in the highs; however again scored 3/6
H against I: – I is more lifelike, better transients and tonal balance; score 5/6
G against I: – I is more natural, highs are less harsh and the whole sounds more as a… whole
F against H: – F more natural strings, rounded, highs less pronounced; scored 6/6
F against I: – I is more natural, rounded sound, more lifelike; yet scored only 4/6
My favourite is I, followed by F, but that could be heavily under influence of cheap speakers.
Notice: when the concentration is better the score seems to get higher. Perhaps.
I might repeat the test with the good speakers and/or Nokia BH-905i headphones.
The model names of this mikes tell me nothing. I am new to it. Thus rather impartial. I would expect that “I” is the most expensive, and “F” perhaps affordable best buy.
I understand your guitar obsession, Fran, but the human voice is mentally and physiologically the easiest medium to distinguish. Educated sound engineers know this when trying out the studio monitors.
Thank you form sharing this with us. I only have Zoom H2 and had thoughts about upgrading with H2n or H4n as I record choral music but the question is, is the H4n’s pre amp really so much better than H2n’s. Sony doesn’t impress me.
Am I the last contributor here in 2012?
Fran Guidry said in post # 64,
on December 14th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Thanks for your detailed comment. I’ve sent you the key via email.
Just to mention, real confidence in detecting a difference comes with 13 correct our of 16 trials.
Fran
pang said in post # 65,
on April 28th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
Hi Fran,
Could you send me the keys? It’s amazing to hear how similar these mics are to each other. I wanted to get a pair of m179 and I’ve been a little hesitant until now. Thanks for posting this.
Fran Guidry said in post # 66,
on April 28th, 2013 at 4:26 pm
I sent the key via email. And since you mentioned the M179 specifically, I added that other folks have experienced issues with the M179 and their audio interface, preamp, or recorder.
Apparently some devices that advertise 48v phantom do not implement it properly and fail to deliver the specified maximum current. And the CAD M179 is among those mics that do draw the maximum. This leads to poor performance, especially when pairs of M179s are employed.
I think it’s a very useful mic, but I recommend confirming the max current capacity of the device you want to plug it into.
Fran