Session 5 is coming soon. We tracked a Larrivée DV-05 with 34 large diaphragm mics through an ELBERG MP8 mic pre.

The Mics:

AKG 414 TLII
AKG 414 B-ULS
Red5 Audio RV8
Red5 Audio RV10
Neumann TLM-103
Studio Projects B1
Studio Projects B3
Studio Projects TB1
Studio Projects C1
Røde NT1000
MXL 990
MXL V67
MXL 1006
MXL 2001
MXL 2003
SE Electronics SE3600
Audio-Technica AT4040
Audio-Techinca AT4047
AKG C2000
Audio-Technica AT4050
AKG C3000
Oktava MK319
CAD M179
SE Electronics Z3300
Røde NT1-A
Røde NT3
Behringer B1
Røde NTK
MXL V69 Mogami Edition
ADK A51-TC
Red5 Audio RV15
AKG SolidTube
SE Electronics Z5600
CAD E100

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions

Dot,
Looking forward to it!
Hans

Session 5 is now online and available.

Feedback welcome!

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions

The levels are still all over the place... which pretty much renders the loudest mics as the coolest... which in a theoretically objective analysis such as this renders it meaningless... that, and you have zero documentation on mic positioning... each microphone will have a specific spot where it 'couples' best with an instrument... where one 'couples' best may not be where another 'couples' best... and none of these have been represented nor illustrated... another aspect that leaves the process as 'quite unscientific'.

There are a myriad of other flaws within the process, not the lest of which is having less than no reference to the "source" tone. In other words, this myriad of flaws are just too difficult to define and remedy.

Having performed a series of 'tests' like this a few years back I understand the immediate benefit to those that are actually in the control room performing these kinds of tests... and how utterly useless they are to an 'after the fact audience'.

I applaude you on the effort you have expended for these tests... but as I found more flaws than benefit with both the tests M-A performed, as well as things like the "3D Audio microphone" and 3D Audio mic-pre" tests of a similar nature... I find your 'listening tests' of zero value to the community.

I'm quite sure that you are learning a ton from these tests... but I implore you to add a stronger "disclaimer" to the test pages that reinforce that these tests are not to be taken as any form of 'gospel truth'.

With that said... I think you're doing somewhat of a service to the community if you post a photo of the "mic placement" with each of the mic tests (including the pre-amp tests), as well as a definition of the exact 'gain staging' employed for each and every mic amp. Different gain stagings will lead to different tones from the pre-amps [while you have them listed, it would be much cooler if you gave a variety of different gain stages for each pre... and did indeed show all of the several of the various microphone placements and how different mic postitions along with different pre's will provide a myriad of varying results].

Best of luck with all you do... it's an excellent idea... the "excecution" can still use some refinement.

Fletcher
Mercenary Audio

Or hangin' with Harvey Gerst at:
PSW's "recpit"

Hi Fletcher, thanks for your comments.

There's no intention of any of this being the gospel truth. And none of these sessions purport to be scientific.

The levels are actually pretty consistent. Of course, even if each mic level was measured to the nth degree, there's still variations over the numerous performances. Since we can't introduce a compressor or limiter into the equation, the only way to get exact levels every time is with a perfectly repeatable performance - such as on the Drum Machine in Session 4.

We will be doing some sessions that are just concerned with different mic positions.

As someone who was in the room and played the guitar, I think these recordings still give the listener information as to the various characteristics of the different mics.

To only A/B two different pieces of gear on one source would, admittedly, be too limiting. The idea here is that we are presenting mics and mic pre-amps on many different sources and over different sessions.

Anything we learn on these sessions - good or bad - will be applied to future sessions - and your feedback is appreciated.

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions

Once again, thank you Dan!

A quick question: why does every mic in this test except for the CAD E-100 sound like it has a tad of reverb? Does the E-100 reject room reflections that well? For some reason I liked it. I also liked the Z5600, the AT4050, the AT4040 and of course the AKG 414s.

I can’t help but wonder what these mics would sound like for flat-picked guitar. I would suspect the "harsh" ones would be more easily detected.
Tim

but I think every clip of the acoustic sounds good and perhaps more importantly, usable. It's interesting to try to discern the different qualities of the mics based on my preconceptions of them. for example, the 414's sounded nothing like what I expected.

At any rate, I really appreciate the time and effort you've put into TLS.

Tim, the CAD and also the SE 3600 seem to not pick up much of the room sound. The recordings were done in a studio approx 25' X 25' - so there may be a bit of reflections getting picked up.

We do have flat-picked tracks that will be available on CD soon.

Mike, I'd agree that most everything actually sounds pretty good - and definitely usable. There are some of the mics I prefer more than others, but nothing sounds bad.

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dot:
Tim, the CAD and also the SE 3600 seem to not pick up much of the room sound. The recordings were done in a studio approx 25' X 25' - so there may be a bit of reflections getting picked up.

We do have flat-picked tracks that will be available on CD soon.

---

I'd LOVE to have that one! Please post here or email me when it becomes available.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dot:
Mike, I'd agree that most everything actually sounds pretty good - and definitely usable. There are some of the mics I prefer more than others, but nothing sounds bad.

---

Well, I was kind of disapointed with ADK-51. On the other hand, I was suprised that the Behringer B-1 sounded as good as it did. Also I wasn't as impressed with the Studio Projects mics when directly compared to the 414s, the AT4050, and the SE5600. Of course, the SPs are great for the money, but I wish I'd just went ahead and bought the real McCoy, or at least an AT4040.

My $0.02

Dan, one thing that might help us all - Being there at the session and hearing the guitar in person, which mic do you think was the most accurate in duplicating the guitar's sound? This would give us a reference to judge the others by.
Thanks.
Tim

I had to listen to these several times to measure them on their relative strengths and weaknesses.

While some had stellar high ends, few had well defined lo ends. Here is the way I evaluated them.

1. Lo End clarity
2. High end clarity
3. Mid range clarity - this was the most revealing test I believe. Those middle notes just get buried on a lot of these and this is where the melody line was. I think this was the most revealing of their characteristics.
4. Emotional response - Which ones just stood out on an emotional level. Musical sounding. YMMV as Fletcher always says.
5. Tonal pleasantness. Some of these had brutally harsh high ends.

It all came down to one mic for this guitar as a stand alone solo, the AT 4040 to my ears.

Great job Dot, there are always difficulties i.e. volume fluctuations but this was the best of your sessions, I believe, for revealing the characteristics of the different mics.

By the way, the Neumann 103 really fell flat on this one. I was surprised that it was not nearly as interesting or even useful for niche tonality as say the CAD, SP or Marshall mics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Middleman:
...3. Mid range clarity - this was the most revealing test I believe. Those middle notes just get buried on a lot of these and this is where the melody line was. I think this was the most revealing of their characteristics...

...5. Tonal pleasantness. Some of these had brutally harsh high ends...

By the way, the Neumann 103 really fell flat on this one. I was surprised that it was not nearly as interesting or even useful for niche tonality as say the CAD, SP or Marshall mics.

---

These were my thoughts as well, and yeah, I thought the Neumann sounded terrible.

Oh, and another thing, Dan, where was the Blue Baby Bottle? I've heard from several sources that they sound great on acoustics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tim H.:
Dan, one thing that might help us all - Being there at the session and hearing the guitar in person, which mic do you think was the most accurate in duplicating the guitar's sound?

---

Tim, I wish I could say. Accurate? I don't wanna cop out... I guess for "accurate" I'd say none of them. We're talking about a $2000 primo Larrivée in a good room being miked through an excellent hand-built ELBERG mic pre.

For the Mic Pre CD we've just finished recording we tracked the Larrivée with a Schoeps small condenser through a lot of pres - and while I'd say it was certainly a step up - I still wouldn't say it's "accurate". But to give you some kind of referencing guide, I'd say the AKG 414 B-ULS might be a good one. The 414 has long been one of my favorite large condensers for acoustic guitar.

There's a lot of mics in this session that I'd use and recommend though - depending on the track and the sound I was looking for.

As I mentioned in my response to Fletcher - the idea here is that you can listen to different mics, pres and sources over different MP3 sessions - and soon - on the CD's, too. That way, using that aural info, plus reading reviews and comments by others, you'll be able to get an overall better picture of how all this different gear sounds. We're just trying to provide another piece of the puzzle in the info game for folks.

Middleman, glad you enoyed the session. I should say that Session 5 was coded at 192 bitrate. I will post the session again at 320 bitrate when I get my laptop running again.

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions

Tim, we'll have several Blue mics on the next batch of sessions.

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dot:...There's a lot of mics in this session that I'd use and recommend though - depending on the track and the sound I was looking for.

As I mentioned in my response to Fletcher - the idea here is that you can listen to different mics, pres and sources over different MP3 sessions - and soon - on the CD's, too. That way, using that aural info, plus reading reviews and comments by others, you'll be able to get an overall better picture of how all this different gear sounds. We're just trying to provide another piece of the puzzle in the info game for folks.

---

Dan, I understand what you and Fletcher are trying to say - In MY room with MY preamp, using MY converters and MY source, the outcome is going to be different. Still, after talking, reading, and listening to everyone’s opinions and hype for countless hours on end, TLS is still, BY FAR the most conclusive source we have. The only thing better would be to bring the mics into our studios and try them ourselves, which just isn’t possible. So, in that light, I have nothing but praise and thanks for your efforts in this amazing, un-heard-of feat. THANK YOU DAN!

Tim

I noticed the ID3 tags don't necessarily match the file name:

TLS-Track-20-Session-5.mp3
Title: Track 21

TLS-Track-21-Session-5.mp3
Title: Track 22

Many of the files are like this. Track 27 says it's track 34, track 33 says it's track 28...

Please fix!

www.marktaw.com
www.prosoundreview.com

marktaw, I put the MP3's in a slightly different order so that all the tube mics would be at the end. The MP3 filenames are in the correct order.

This is the first I'm hearing about the ID3 tags after tens of thousands of downloads of Session 5.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll put everything in its proper ID3 order when I repost the session at 320 bitrate.

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions

Cool Deal. Glad I could help you out.

Any chance you might do a re-amped project? I figure re-amping may help reduce variables in the person's playing.

I'd love to see a "one mic lots of pre's / one pre lots of mic's" giant shootout with something that's going to produce the same sound every time you hit record.

www.marktaw.com
www.prosoundreview.com

marktaw, we've talked about re-amping an electric guitar, but so far - that's been one of the easiest to record.

On vocals, I can't see doing it.

I do keep recording the Drum Machine part into different pres as we get them in. At some point I expect to have a big collection. It's been more telling about the pres than we would have thought.

Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions

[This message was edited by Dot on 03-09-04 at 10:29 PM.]