1. The Rules have been updated regarding posting as a business on TGP. Thread with details here: Thread Here
    Dismiss Notice

KM184 v. Studio Projects C3-clip inside

Discussion in 'Recording/Live Sound' started by Greggy, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. Greggy

    Greggy Member

    Messages:
    13,472
    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Antipodes To All That is Sacred and Pure
  2. LSchefman

    LSchefman Member

    Messages:
    13,448
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    I only have computer speakers here at my office, so bear that in mind. #2 sounded a bit more full-range, but on these little speakers, #2 also sounded shmooshier, which I kinda liked.

    Not much help, huh? ;)
     
  3. Greggy

    Greggy Member

    Messages:
    13,472
    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Antipodes To All That is Sacred and Pure
    I'll wait a couple of days before pulling back the curtain on this one. More later.........
     
  4. MichaelK

    MichaelK Member

    Messages:
    6,479
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Fort Mudge
    Interesting.

    Just a thought about these comparisons of clips in general: there are probably conditions under which a U47 would sound like **** compared to a $20 Peavey. (sorry, couldn't resist)

    In other words, these things are usually more a comparison between two recordings than between two mics. If someone was really to do a fair shootout it would have involve trying them side-by-side a whole bunch of different ways; e.g. close, distant, on the neck joint, on the bridge, below the bridge, on-axis, off-axis, etc. Like we all have the time to do that for free.

    Even then, the "better" mic in general might not be the better choice for that particular instrument.

    That said, overall I like the guitar sound in the first half of the clip more than in the second. It had a touch more character. But I think in both cases I might have positioned the mic closer and for a little more body resonance, less pick/neck sound.

    By the way, I was just listening on headphones.
     
  5. Greggy

    Greggy Member

    Messages:
    13,472
    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Antipodes To All That is Sacred and Pure
    Interesting comments. The choice of instrument is key here. My parlor has a pronounced midrange in the room, relatively weak low end and moderate high end, to my ears of course. I like it for single note leads and fingerpicking. It is at its worst when strumming with a flat pick, as in these clips. I don't want to disclose mic positions yet. Suffice to say the I could have made the KM184 sound bassier by moving the mic if I wanted to. Not so with the C3. Would have to resort to eq for that.
     
  6. Antero

    Antero Member

    Messages:
    1,448
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Both are pretty trebly.
     
  7. TAVD

    TAVD Guitar Player Gold Supporting Member

    Messages:
    3,466
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    MD
    Right on, and 1 sounding slightly less trebly to me would be my pick.
     
  8. leper messiah

    leper messiah Member

    Messages:
    1,757
    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    N. Carolina
    I vote for the first recording. The higher frequencies were a bit more defined.
     
  9. elambo

    elambo Member

    Messages:
    2,362
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    I'd say you're about 6 inches to a foot away from the sweet spot in both cases. Way too much treble, very little midrange and bass, and not just because of the higher nature of the part you're playing. It sounds to me like you've rolled off most of the bass, but you said you didn't. Even smaller bodied guitars should have more bottom. I'd guess that you're placing the mic up towards the frets and probably not very close to the guitar. When I use a 184, I ALWAYS start at the 12th fret, about 10" away and at a 15 degree angle, then adjust from there, moving closer to the sound hole if I need more bass and further from it if I need less. Even with a C3, which I also have, I'd start in a similar place.

    If I had to choose between the two it would be #2. It would need a lot of eq, but the bass and midrange that's there is better defined and the whole recording is slightly more balanced.

    What kind of guitar is that?
     
  10. RichKelley

    RichKelley Member

    Messages:
    163
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    Washington State
    I'd say the first take was the 184. Clear trebles, lots of detail. If the source doesn't have bass, the mic isn't going to give you any help. I have two of these mics. The second mic had more bass and seemed a bit less clear - less detailed.

    It's hard to know for sure without hearing the actual instrument.

    What works on a specific recording really depends on the instrument, the song, the sound one wants, the sound of the other instruments (if there are any).

    Rich
     
  11. elambo

    elambo Member

    Messages:
    2,362
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    I listened the first time on iPod headphones on a laptop, but now that I've heard both samples on studio monitors, I'm no longer sure that I'd pick #2. On monitors it seems like there's better definition from the pick attacks, but not as much from the consitently ringing note (a D?) in the first sample. Based on the single-note runs at the end, I'd also assume that #1 is the 184. The 2nd has more of the large capsule sound.

    I think you should mic the guitar again at a better position and rerecord. At the current position, the two mics are too similar.
     
  12. LSchefman

    LSchefman Member

    Messages:
    13,448
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Bearing in mind all of the other comments, and now having listened with decent headphones, I still prefer the tonal balance of #2. #1 sounds a little thin to my ears.

    #2 is less articulate, which is why i said "smooshy", but I still prefer it as a recording.

    I do get the feeling that #2 was miked a little too close for that mic, 'cause I think some of the smooshiness is woof from the soundhole, but the compressor may have something to do with this, or the mic preamp.
     
  13. Greggy

    Greggy Member

    Messages:
    13,472
    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Antipodes To All That is Sacred and Pure
    I agree generally. What you need to know is that the parlor guitar is pretty bright to begin with. The first clip is the C3 and the mic position is just barely on the bridge side of the soundhole about 10 inches out and angled about 10 degrees towards the bridge. Not usually my first choice of positions, but the C3 was too thin and bright up the neck. The second clip is the KM184 at the 14th fret about 4 inches off and angled 45 degrees or so towards the soundhole. While I'm intentionally trying for a trebly percussive sound, I agree that these are too bright. I still need to experiment.

    I posted another clip in the Soundclips section if interested. Altered the mic positions a bit.

    Thanks.
     
  14. Greggy

    Greggy Member

    Messages:
    13,472
    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Antipodes To All That is Sacred and Pure
    Thanks guys. I generally tended to hear things on this clip like Les. The second clip (KM184) sounds fuller and would probably sit better in a mix. But I agree with others that the brightness is an issue. No problem though, as I can move the KM184 up the fret board and capture more soundhole, I've had to do this numerous times before.
     
  15. Greggy

    Greggy Member

    Messages:
    13,472
    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Antipodes To All That is Sacred and Pure
    It's a Cort Earth 900, solid cedar top and solid mahogany back and sides, bone saddle added at Eddies. I know Cort doesn't get respect, but this guitar was made known to me by a local musician who had used is in the studio with good results. To me, it's pretty much a 1 trick pony, given its limited low end. But sounds its best fingerstyle, where the mid range stands out when mic'd right (8-10 inches back at the 15th fret and angled slightly at the soundhole). Some refer to it as an old school sound, kinda similar to earlier tones of the 20s and 30s. I'm not an expert on that, so don't know. A limited use guitar, at least in my hands. But I like it and it only cost $400.
     
  16. LSchefman

    LSchefman Member

    Messages:
    13,448
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    If the second clip is the KM184, I'm pretty sure the smooshiness is the proximity to the soundhole/soundboard. I'd move the mic back a little, and get less soundhole. With the 184, you'll still get the fullness.

    I used KM 140s and 184s (and 84s) for years. I have always liked what they do.
     
  17. Greggy

    Greggy Member

    Messages:
    13,472
    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Antipodes To All That is Sacred and Pure
    With my recording setup, and to my ears, I begin to lose definition when the 184 is 10 or more inches off the fretboard. And anywhere around the soundhole, fuggetaboutit. Of course, all this could change when I buy a real acoustic guitar. I sold my Guild a couple of years ago, bad move.

    Edit:yes, clip 2 is the 184.
     

Share This Page