One consistent recommendation was the Schoeps line of microphones. I was lucky enough to find a deal on a pair of used Schoeps CMC64s (CMC6 modular bodies and MK4 cardioid capsules) a few years ago, and even though they were fairly expensive I bought them because I knew that once I had a pair of Schoeps, I could no longer blame the microphones for my less than satisfactory results.

Now, a few years older and hopefully wiser, I have come to realize that the difference between most mics is pretty subtle, the difference between preamps and a/d converters is even more subtle, and the big differences come in the instrument, the performance, and the room. Of course, believing that equipment has a minor impact has not kept me from buying more gear. Mics and audio interfaces, monitors and headphones, sometimes I just can’t resist trying something new.

A New Toy (er, Tool)

Since I’ve discovered the fun of videography I’ve found even more gear to consider. The recent Homebrewed Music comparison of stereo mics for the Kodak Zi8 stimulated my interest in a microphone that is widely recommended as an excellent medium priced tool, the Rode NT4. This mic combines the two capsules and electronics of the Rode NT5 small diaphragm condenser in a single body visibly similar to the NT3 model. This mic includes the option of using a 9 volt battery for power if 48 (or 24) volt phantom power is not available. It also comes with adapter cables providing either a conventional pair of XLRs or a 1/8″ stereo miniplug for cameras and field recorders. The NT4 doesn’t come up on the used market very often, but with a little patience I found one at an attractive price and added it to my collection.

One thing about high end (that is, high priced) gear like the Schoeps mics, in my little home studio they tend to stay in the drawer. Since Schoeps prices have gone up steadily for the last few years, my mic collection has become an investment as well as tool set, and I’ve become a bit protective of the “good stuff.” If I need a mic for a quick recording, I’m much more likely to pull out a less expensive unit, and the NT4 has been getting plenty of use lately. It’s simple to set up, useful with various recording systems, and sounds pretty darned good to me.

Shootout Time

In fact, it sounded so good, I started wondering how it might compare to the hallowed Schoeps CMC64. Once I listened to them side by side, would I still think the NT4 sounded darned good? I’ve gone into some detail on the procedure needed for a meaningful mic test, and I’ve done some other comparisons. But a recent flurry of “what is the best mic” postings on various guitar forums triggered a desire to evaluate the Rode and Schoeps side by side.

Naturally, I set the mics up as close as possible to the same position, using the same stereo arrangement. The Rode is constructed as a fixed X-Y array, so I used a stereo bar to mount the CMC64 pair in the same configuration.

Schoeps CMC64 and Rode NT4

I connected both mic systems to the Echo Audiofire Pre8, and set the gain by eye. Next I setup Reaper to record two stereo tracks, and applied the Sonalksis FreeG meters to each track. This excellent plugin let me know that my preamp gain settings were within a couple of db of each other, as close as I am likely to get with the small gain controls of the Pre8. After recording, I pulled the files into Adobe Audition where I use the Group Waveform Normalize function to set the perceived average levels to – 12 dBFS.

It’s All in the Listening

Just listening to the tracks they sounded pretty similar, so I pulled the tracks into foobar2000 to use the ABX utility. Under this audio microscope I quickly discovered that I could recognize the files as different. The Rode recording was very (and I mean very) slightly “lighter,” less full than the Schoeps track. When I checked the frequency response curves I saw that the Rode had a reduced bass response and more pronounced emphasis on the highs compared to the MK4 capsule of the Schoeps.

NT4 frequency response showing low cut and high boost

CMC64 frequency response. more linear than the Rode

I immediately wondered if I could reduce the difference with some EQ. Back into Adobe Audition, where I used the Parametric Filter, adjusted to the opposite of the Rode frequency response graph, to process the Rode track and save it to a new file.

After this processing, I could no longer tell the files apart when I ran ABX in foobar2000. In the first test I made six consecutive correct choices with no incorrect ones, a better than 85% certainty that I could tell them apart. When I compared the Rode file with EQ to the Schoeps file, my results fell apart, with three incorrect choices out of four tries.

Based on this test, it seems that a little digital EQ can make a Rode NT4 sound like a Schoeps CMC64 when recording me playing solo acoustic guitar (in this room on this day). This is not to say that an NT4 is “as good as” a pair of Schoeps mics, of course. The Schoeps modular system supports many different capsules for different pickup patterns and uses. And a pair of mics give much more flexibility in placement than a fixed X-Y stereo mic. But in this one very limited use, simple stereo recording of a solo acoustic guitar, the NT4 reduces the complexity and cost while delivering sonic results that I find completely satisfactory.

Try for yourself. Here are the files (these are CD spec 44.1 khz 16 bit PCM wave files, so they’re large – about 14 Mb each):

Download O.wav
Download P.wav
Download Q.wav

One of these is the Schoeps, one is the Rode without EQ, the other is the Rode with EQ. Ideally you’ll use an ABX tool to listen carefully and determine if you can tell the files apart. However you choose to listen, post a comment here with your impressions and I’ll email you the identity of the three files.

***** June 17, 2010 Update *****
When I posted links to these files on the Acoustic Guitar Forum the folks there quickly zeroed in on the Schoeps CMC64, so I went back to foobar2000 ABX and, sure enough, once I found the right place to listen, I could hear the difference between the Rode, even with EQ, and the Schoeps. Which goes to demonstrate an important aspect of ABX testing – it’s quite possible to miss differences, due to tiredness or predisposition or some other cause.

My understanding of microphones and audio says this myth is not true. I’ve been told by knowledgeable experts that mic sensitivity is linear below physical clipping regardless of the transducer technology. I actually asked this question some time ago over on rec.pro.audio – a usenet discussion forum where professional audio engineers hang out. Some of their responses were rude, but they basically established that preamp gain is all that is required to match sensitivity between a dynamic and a condenser mic. Here’s a link to that thread.

Now I believe those guys. I thought it might be interesting to devise a demonstration of sorts, by plugging in a dynamic and condenser mic, playing a reference tone through a speaker in front of the mics, then adjusting preamp gains so the levels match. Then I could generate a quieter and quieter test signal by walking away from the mics making noise. Recording this diminishing sound with both mics would tell me if one could “hear things” the other could not.

Oh No!! Is the Myth True?

To my amazement, when I did conduct a demonstration for myself, I could hear more distant, quieter sounds on the condenser mic. It seemed as if the myth was true.

I knew the error was not the physics or engineering of mics, but rather something I had overlooked in setting up my test. After a day or two of research and pondering the light came on. I realized that the different pickup patterns of the two mics made my calibration procedure wrong. I was calibrating for direct, on-axis sound, but I was measuring diffuse off-axis sound. I needed to do the calibration using only the diffuse sound field, which meant moving the speaker some distance from the mics during the calibration.

A Better Test Design

At this point I also figured out that I didn’t have to move the noise source to reduce the level of the test signal, I could create test tones that got lower and lower in level and play them back from the same spot as the calibration (well, duhhhh).

Here’s the result. For the best fidelity, here’s 45db-66db-xt.wav. Or if your connection is a bit slow, the compressed version is 45db-66db-xt.mp3.

You’ll need to download one of the files and pull it into a player that can select only the right or left channel. The mic in the left channel is the condenser, a Shure KSM141. The mic in the right channel is a dynamic, the Shure SM57. This is a little excerpt from the demonstration recording. I selected the area from -45 to -66 dBFS, which is where the test tone slipped into inaudibility. I raised the level of these files substantially and there is plenty of broadband noise, so be careful not to play them too loudly. The condenser mic is in the left channel, the dynamic in the right. Listen to first one side, then the other, and see if you can hear tones at lower levels from one mic or the other.

Conduct Your Own Demonstration

If you’d like to conduct this demonstration with your own mics and room, all you need is a calibration tone and a test tone series. You can generate the calibration tone in most audio editors, and you can download my test tone series.

If you can’t figure out how to create a tone in your favorite audio workstation software, download Audacity and install it (I recommend the Beta 1.3.xx or later version). Start Audacity and choose

Generate | Tone

then fill out the Tone Generator form:

Waveform: Sine
Frequency (Hz): 1000 (a 1 Khz test tone is the normal industry standard for basic testing)
Amplitude: .6 (a very loud long 1 Khz tone can damage your speakers and possibly your ears)
Duration: 600 seconds (10 minutes should be enough)

Click OK and you’ll see a strange solid waveform. That’s your calibration tone. Just export it from Audacity:

File | Export
Save as type: (either MP3 or WAV Microsoft signed 16 bit PCM)
(Choose a directory and file name)

You can download my test tone file here. The test tone file contains volume level announcements and 1000 Hz tones starting at -9 dBFS and going down to -90 dbFS in 3 dB increments.

Here’s a screen shot of the test tone file:

Mic sensitivity test tone in Adobe Audition 3

and a sample of the tones, starting at -9 dBFS and going to some of the lower level tones:

To conduct your own demonstration, connect two mics to your recording system. Place the mics at least 6 feet from the speaker, then play the calibration tone. Adjust the preamp gain so the two mics show the same input levels. Do this very very carefully, this is the most critical step in the process.

Next, simply play the test tone file while recording the two microphones. You’ll want to wait until a quiet part of the day, and be prepared to sit very quietly while the test file plays. When you’ve completed recording the test tone sequence, listen to one of the tracks you just recorded. When you can no longer hear the test tone, switch to the other track (other mic) and listen again. If your experience is like mine, the test tones will fall into inaudibility at the same level for both mics.

Better Recording By Knowing Our Tools

Mics are fascinating devices, but they’re engineered objects in the physical world. We can make better use of them if we have a better understanding of the way they really work instead of relying on incorrect assumptions and erroneous analogies. In the past audio testing required lots of expensive dedicated equipment, but now with our computer audio systems we can easily perform simple but fairly sophisticated evaluations of our audio gear, and learn to make better recordings in the process.

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.

Sometimes when I’ve listened to mic samples I thought I heard these dramatic differences, but after a bit I realized that I was listening to different performances, not different mics. Sure the mics had been changed, but the player was hitting the strings differently and playing different riffs at a different volume – so how could I tell what part of the difference was the mic, and what part the player?

Since then I’ve tried to do some mic tests of my own, and I’ve tried to educate myself on audio testing. At this point I’m beginning to think that the differences in microphones are a lot more subtle than I had been led to believe, which makes a careful test even more important. As I’ve mentioned before, very small differences in volume are registered by our ear/brain combination as differences in quality rather than loudness. I’d like to demonstrate the steps I now take to try to make my mic comparisons, and preamp and a/d comparisons, meaningful.

Mic Setup

The mics need to be close together, but not interfere with each other. I try to determine the location of the diaphragm, the part of the microphone that gets hit by the sound waves, on each mic, and align them along that position. This is pretty easy with large diaphragm mics, often a bit tricky with small diaphragm units. All the mics should be on axis to the source or all should be equally off axis. Check pattern switches, rolloff settings, pads, any feature of the mic than changes its response. I’ve missed this step a few times.

I also arrange the mics so they don’t interfere with each other. For instance, it’s not a good idea to tie a bunch of small diaphragm mics into a bundle, because the ports behind the capsule contribute toi the frequency response and pattern of the mic. If those ports are blocked the mic is not performing normally.

There are three mics being compared in this example. The CAD M179 is a low cost continuously variable mic in an unusual looking housing. One salesperson began a drumbeat for these mics and they are now widely recommended in internet recording forums. The Rode NT2a is one I’ve used before. I think it does a fine job of capturing audio with low noise and no noticeable distortion, but many forum posts are negative toward Rode in general and the NT2a in particular. The Audio-Technica AT3035 has recently been discontinued, replaced by the AT2035. In the past I’ve read a wide range of comments about this mic, with some calling it a secret gem and others decrying its overwhelmingly bright character.

Here’s a picture of a mic array arranged for testing. A cheater clamp that fastens to the mic stand main tube can help fit an extra mic into the array. Adapters to attach mics at an angle can be very handy as well.

Three large diaphragm mics in an array for comparison

I often hear this arrangement, with all the mics equidistant from the source, criticized because different mics work best in different positions. I strongly suggest that if you wish to evaluate different positions you try all the mics in all the positions. It’s a little more trouble, but it’s a great learning opportunity, and omitting this step means no valid comparison can be made. We’re right back to asking what part of the difference is the mic, what part is the location with no way to answer the question.

Of course, my aim here is different from trying mics and positions to get a good recorded sound. I’m after data, not art. When the aim is art, the ears rule!

Equipment wise, you can do a useful comparison with as few as two recording inputs. In fact, comparisons that are done two by two are probably the most revealing and useful. Still its fun to line up three or four mics for a single session – in which case it’s helpful to have four identical channels, especially if the comparison will be made public. In my experience, more posters will criticize a change in preamp than will mention a change in performance, amazingly enough.

Here’s a video that illustrates the setup process and takes you through gain calibration, discussed below:

Microphone Comparison - A Tutorial - part 1 of 2 from Fran Guidry on Vimeo.

Gain Calibration

Once we’ve arranged the mics to capture a single performance we need to minimize the volume difference in the our samples. I like to start with a test tone played into all the mics from a speaker only a foot or so away. A 1000 Hz tone is not very challenging, so even a low cost computer speaker can be used as the source. A test tone is easy to come by and it doesn’t need to be calibrated for volume since we’re interested in relative rather than absolute levels.

I’m using Reaper to conduct this test, and a little inquiry on the Reaper user forum and learned about MDA Test Tone, a plugin that provides the beep.

In Reaper I created a project with MDA Test Tone on one track, and three tracks for recording the three mics. I also adjusted the range of the Reaper console meters. With these connections in place I hit record and adjusted the preamp gain for each mic so they all were very close to -18 DbFS.

Next I discarded these recordings and captured three more tracks to store a consistent level for each mic. These 1000 Hz tones are used to fine tune the track levels later.

Recording

In the next video we actually do a little recording. After all the setup and calibration work, the recording process is anticlimactic. Move the calibration speaker, tune up the guitar, hit Record in Reaper, play a few bars, and we have our clips in the can. Be sure to record the clips on the same tracks as the reference tones we created in the last step. That way when we adjust the reference tones we adjust the clips at the same time.

For straight mic comparisons, I like to position the guitar about 32″ from the mics. This avoids proximity effect and hopefully presents a fully developed guitar sound to the mics, instead of one mic picking up the neck of the guitar while another picks up the bridge.

Here’s the video demonstration of recording simultaneous tracks and fine tuning the gain:

Microphone Comparison - A Tutorial - part 2 of 2 from Fran Guidry on Vimeo.

Volume Fine Tuning and Rendering

As the video illustrates, working with that 1000 Hz test tone can be pretty annoying, but we need to delve into it one more time. Actually, this time we can turn the volume down, because we’re adjusting levels “in the box” – that is, internally in the computer.

The helpful folks at the Reaper Forum pointed me to the Sonalksis FreeG plugin. This tool adds high resolution metering and gain adjustment we can use to tweak the levels of our clips that last little bit.

Simply place the Reaper track cursor so the recorded test tone will be played, reset the FreeG meter, and play a bit of the clip (the space bar starts and starts playback). Note the RMS level, and repeat for each track. Then, to be fair, apply a gain adjustment to each track so they all show the same RMS level. In the video I’m fiddling with the Gain knob using the mouse, but after I recorded the session I realized that you can simply type the desired gain change into the value box, making it very easy to get the level just right.

Finally, click and drag the cursor to make a time selection of the recorded clips, then render each track separately as illustrated in the video. It’s a good idea to render to 44.1/16 format if you plan to make the clips public, because everyone can play this CD standard format.

Blind Comparison

I have had the experience many times of listening to mic comparison clips and clearly hearing the difference between them when I knew their identities, then finding that I could not hear a difference at all when I hid the identification in some way. Even getting momentarily confused about the source of the clips has been enough to change what I “hear”. Our brains are at least as important as our ears in defining what we hear, and our brains like new stuff, shiny stuff, expensive stuff. So when we know a clip was made with our shiny new expensive mic, we’re going to “hear” how wonderful it sounds.

For a test to be meaningful, we need to hide the identity of the clips somehow. This is pretty hard to do when working by ourselves. The foobar2000 audio player offers one solution, with the ABX testing utility built-in, as described in this blog post. This is a powerful tool, because it not only offers a way to test clips double blind, it helps us determine if we can hear any difference at all before we try to determine a preference.

Mic comparisons are useful for our own recording knowledge, but it’s even better to share. There are lots of folks hanging out at recording forums on the internet who are looking for information about mics and other recording gear. I like to contribute when I can by posting comparison clips, but I think it’s important to make the original post without identifying the devices used. It’s more informative, and more fun too.

So here are the three clips I recorded in the video, with no EQ, no compression, no reverb, no processing of any kind except to match volume levels and trim ends. To recap, the three mics being compared are the CAD M179, Rode NT2a, and Audio-Technica AT3035. Naturally the clips are not in the order listed.

download 20090625-J.wav
download 20090625-K.wav
download 20090625-L.wav

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.

Figure 8 mics have a pickup pattern that looks like this:

but it’s important to remember that this diagram is a 2D representation of the 3D pattern in space. Basically the pattern looks like two balloons on the front and back grills of the mic, with a null, or area of minimum sensitivity in between.

So for the vocal mic we aim the “balloon” of sensitivity at the singer’s mouth and the plane of minimum sensitivity at the singer’s guitar or uke or mandolin. And we arrange the instrument mic with its diaphragm pointed at the instrument but the plane of the null at the singer’s mouth. It’s more complicated to describe than it is to do.

Here’s a video that demonstrates this technique:


Vocal - Guitar Separation using Figure 8 Mics from Fran Guidry on Vimeo.

Certainly other mic patterns could be used, but no other pattern has a deep a null, and no other is as easy to aim. If you need to record a self-accompanied vocalist, a pair of figure 8 mics, either large diaphragm switchable condensers, or bidirectional ribbons, would be a good investment.

The problem has been that there are not a lot of omni mics around. The market doesn’t seem that interested in omnis, so the manufacturers are not interested. In the five years or so that I’ve been recording and buying gear, I would guess that models of directional mics in the marketplace outnumbered omnis by 20 to 1 or more, and almost all the hip new inexpensive mics have been directional.

In the last year or so, though, Jon O’Neil and his Naiant Studio Store has begun selling a very inexpensive omni microphone which Jon builds himself. He use readily available capsules, adds his own active electronics, and mounts the whole thing in an XLR connector shell. The result is compact, rugged, and inexpensive. I think they work pretty well, too. Here’s a brief comparison of a pair of Naiant MSH-1 omnis to a pair of DPA 4061s:

Naiant MSH-1
DPA 4061

The DPAs carry a list price of $429, and they require an adapter to connect to standard mic preamps that adds about $75 to the cost. Even used they cost about 10 times as much as the Naiant MSH-1 costs new. It’s certainly true that the DPA can be used in more applications, because it’s very small and unobtrusive, and the two different mics are not equivalent, but just on the basis of sound quality, I think they’re amazingly close.

This year Naiant began selling the MSH-2, a mic based on a larger capsule. Jon describes this mic as having lower noise and a gently falling high end compared to the MSH-1. I’m a sucker for an inexpensive omni, so I ordered up a pair. Here’s a recording using one of these new mics alongside an industry standard for microphone quality. I’m using a John Hardy M-1 preamp and Lynx2 converters. This time I set up the Naiant MSH-2 on one channel and a Schoeps CMC6/MK2 on the other. I mounted the mics so they were a few inches apart and about 6 inches from the Martin OM-18GE. Here are the two mono files that resulted:

Naiant MSH-2
Schoeps CMC6/MK2

I can hear some slight differences, although they’re pretty subtle. By turning up the volume and listening to the extended “tail” or decaying signal, I can hear a higher noise level in the Naiant track. But considering that the Schoeps costs about $1400 and the Naiant costs $35, I’d call the similarity pretty amazing. Certainly if someone asked me for an inexpensive microphone to record solo acoustic guitar, I’d be quite comfortable recommending the Naiant MSH-2.

Over at the Acoustic Players Forum a Dutch fingerstyle player and Taylor enthusiast named Eltjo Haselhoff started a thread describing his technique for EQing various pickup systems to make them sound more like a guitar recorded using a microphone. He developed a piece of software that compares a piece of music recorded using a mic and a pickup at the same time. The software then defines settings to use with a graphic EQ to make the pickup recording sound more like the miked recording. His results are pretty impressive to many of us.

In the meantime, Doug Young has been demonstrating Har-Bal in some of our sessions together. This is a piece of software that the creator describes as the “worlds first visual mastering software.” One of the features of Har-Bal 2.2 is a quick tool to EQ one file so it resembles another tonally. I decided to experiment with Har-Bal and some pickup and microphone recordings.

I pulled out my Kathy Wingert Model E (You can see pics of it here.) This guitar has a B-Band AST 1470 soundboard transducer pickup system installed, and I’ve been told that it sounds pretty good in amplified situations. I set up a pair of EV RE16 mics in an X/Y configuration, pointing at the bridge at a 45 degree angle, and about 12″ from the guitar. I ran the mics through a John Hardy M-1 preamp, into my LynxTwo-C soundcard, and into Adobe Audition 1.5. I plugged the pickup into a Baggs Para Acoustic DI (PADI), took the XLR out and connected to Channel A of an FMR RNP preamp. This fed another channel on the LynxTwo-C, and I configured Adobe Audition to record this single channel on both sides of a stereo track.

I played a simple Hawaiian vamp and recorded both sources. I kept the recording short because I wanted to present the material as a .wav file instead of a compressed MP3 file. I normalized both files to -2 db so their peak levels match.

The pickup recording: PEQT-PUP.wav
The microphone recording: PEQT-RE16.wav

I don’t think it’s very hard to hear the difference, and I think most people would prefer the microphone recording.

Now what can Har-Bal do for us? I loaded the microphone track as a reference, then loaded the pickup track as the active file. I chose the IntuitMatch cursor and passed it over the pickup track. Har-Bal computed an EQ set that would bring the pickup closer to the tonal balance of the microphone track. The result was not identical, but much closer. And to my ear the result was pretty impressive.

The Har-Bal adjusted track: PEQT-PUP-EQ.wav

I still prefer the microphone track, but I could certainly live with the adjusted pickup track. Perhaps a little tweaking with reverb or delay might add a little of the “air” and “body” that are still missing. It certainly seems worth exploring further.

Since I just snagged some new mics on Ebay I decided to try them out as live performance tools. The mics are a pair of Electrovoice RE16 dynamic hypercardioids. These mics have the “Variable-D” feature that reduces proximity effect.

I used one RE16 for my vocal introductions and the other pointed at the bridge of my Martin OM-18GE. The mics were plugged into my very modest Peavey powered mixer, which was driving one pole-mounted Klipsch Heresy speaker.

I also recorded the show, using the tape out jack on the Peavey to feed the line in connectors on my Marantz PMD-670.

The results were interesting. It took a lot of attention to keep from bumping the guitar into the mic. I’ll probably try moving the mic to the 12th fret area, next time. The audience seemed happy with the balance and volume, but on the recording the guitar is pretty quiet, and the typical coffee shop background noises are pretty loud. I did think the tonal quality of the recording was pretty acceptable, and I’m looking forward to trying some “studio” tests with these mics.

In the meantime, I put two of the tunes from the Pac Bay show up at the Kaleponi.com Music Page.