Best way to record mandolin?

I feel to be completely misunderstood. I never claimed my test to be proof of a flat response or other basic reproduction qualities that are of basic importance. To get a meaningful result about the frequency response (on axis as well as off axis) there is need to have an anechoic room and other rather expensive equipment covering the full audible range. I don't have that.

The purpose of my test was simply to verify if all the units are consistent to reasonable degree. If my understanding of english is good enough that means the question whether the all units behave alike. That is neither good or bad with respect to other qualities. It may be a fault not having been able to extend my test to lower frequencies. However if the units all behave alike, there is no sense of making a selection as Phil G Howe claims. It is a completely different story if you are pleased with the performance or not. That is up to personal judgement and the available budget.

I feel to be completely misunderstood. I never claimed my test to be proof of a flat response or other basic reproduction qualities that are of basic importance. To get a meaningful result about the frequency response (on axis as well as off axis) there is need to have an anechoic room and other rather expensive equipment covering the full audible range. I don't have that.

The purpose of my test was simply to verify if all the units are consistent to reasonable degree.

But that's the point - I don't think that you can prove that they are consistent just by looking at one very narrow and easy to replicate characteristic. That's not the one that varies that much...

Let me say that I am first a musician, then a recording buff. I am one who uses his ears to make qualitative judgments about these sorts of things. Steve, I think, comes at it from an engineer's standpoint, and likes to quantify things as much as possible when making comparisons. I worry if the recorded sound that I reproduce is going to sound like my client's mandolin, and if he will be happy with it,  rather than if the microphone I'm using has a perfectly flat response under 100 Hz (hypothetical parameter...) 

Now I will be the first to admit that the human ear and brain have shortcomings for making comparisons, but I really don't care if my ears are not the same as someone else's. By extension, I really don't care if Behringer microphones are judged to be just as good as Neumann's, or a better value than AKGs, or whatever. As I said, I have no doubt that there are cheap microphones that would satisfy my ears. If you feel that Behringers are those mics, I applaud you. You have found good value, but you don't need to convince me in these pages. I view and appreciate the comments as information, nothing more.

I have tried a very few Behringer mics, some of their preamps, and several mixers of the Xenyx line. Almost universally dissappointing. Preamps especially were exceptionally noisy, both stand-alones and in the mixers. This was about 5-7 years ago, but I really haven't worried if the Chinese have learned anything in that time, or have made improvements to the line. I am happy with what I've got. I have Neumanns, AKGs, Rodes, and several TOA microphones that were relatively cheap in their day. I don't care either what name is on the mic, I'll use whichever I think is best for the situation.

I am, however, going to try a pair of the B-5s and see what my ears tell me. I'll report back.

Let me say that I am first a musician, then a recording buff. I am one who uses his ears to make qualitative judgments about these sorts of things. Steve, I think, comes at it from an engineer's standpoint, and likes to quantify things as much as possible when making comparisons. I worry if the recorded sound that I reproduce is going to sound like my client's mandolin, and if he will be happy with it,  rather than if the microphone I'm using has a perfectly flat response under 100 Hz (hypothetical parameter...) 

I don't think that's entirely fair about me, but I'll tell you what I found out about this over the years:

I discovered a very long time ago that some equipment sounded considerably better than other seemingly similar kit. I subsequently discovered along the way something that the subjectivists often find quite difficult to accept - and that is that if you compared the appropriate parts of the specifications, you could generally tell pretty well whether a particular piece of equipment was going to cut the mustard or not. Sometimes it's not so easy to tell what the appropriate parts of the specifications you have to compare is going to be - and for a long time, it was also very difficult to measure some of these parameters - but ultimately, what your ears can ultimately tell you and what you can measure correlate pretty well.

But, the other thing that I learned a long time ago is that it's very easy to have your ears fool you. As an absolute reference, your ears really aren't up to much at all, in fact. And that has been proved time and time again by a lot of people; you can easily be fooled into thinking that you can hear things that really, you can't. And just as importantly, it happens the other way around as well. Often, this comes down to minimising artefacts, one way or another, and often it takes a long time for people to recognise what it is that's actually making the difference. Sometime things that sound superficially acceptable become quite irritating over time, and often less 'exciting' sounds become generally more acceptable on a long-term basis. A lot of things follow from this, but ultimately what it comes down to is that on any given occasion, you stand the best chance of making a good lasting recording, or even just a straightforward reproduction of something if you know that the type of equipment you are using is the best it can be in its class - whatever is appropriate. And the 'appropriate' bit is important...

So for instance no, I wouldn't give a stage vocalist who's belting it out anything less than a very rugged mic, even though it measures like an old dog (take a bow, Shure) - and if I was recording a lot of brass, I'd cheerfully consider using ribbon mics (that I'd be very unlikely to use otherwise) for it. But there are vocal mics and vocal mics - and ribbons and ribbons. By and large the manufacturers of these know when they've produced a viable product, and charge accordingly for it; these days you very rarely get owt for nowt, and the exceptions are remarkable, and often well-known. And it is very rare that this happens with microphones; the old Tandy PZM immediately springs to mind, but not many more do. If something is generally acceptable for a task, it will stand the test of time, and the above examples do, even if they aren't technically perfect - they represent a combination that works, even though it might not be the best achievable result technically.

But when it comes to making ultimately satisfying recordings, there's no way that I'm just going to judge a microphone simply by listening to it. I want to know more about it than that, although often you can tell what it is you're listening to. Generally though, you can only do this as an immediate comparison against something else. This isn't foolproof - which is where other aspects of the specification become important. One place that a lot of cheap mics fall down is in areas like intermodulation distortion - which really isn't so easy to measure reliably, but it is possible, with a little care. If a manufacturer actually quotes this in a specification, then generally it will be good. Don't look for it in Behringer specs though; I've seen results published that show that one of Behringer's better mics (ECM8000) has IM distortion figures 15-20dB higher than some other mics - admittedly some rather better ones from Sennheiser were the immediate comparison, but this would generally be the case for cheap Chinese mics. To produce mics with better figures takes a lot more manufacturing care, and, like it or not, the Chinese really aren't too good at this. That said, SE are improving a bit - but then look at the prices they are now charging. Says it all, really.

Rode, on the other hand, have invested heavily in a much better production system for microphones, and have stopped importing Chinese capsules - they are making their own, simply because they can make them better.

I was playing musical instruments well before I was recording them, even though I don't play so much now. I don't worry so much about whether the client's instruments sound superficially okay - that's generally the easy bit. I'm more concerned about whether they still sound all right next year - and generally they do if you record them with higher-quality mics. My clients come back - but I think that they'd be less likely to if they thought they'd get away with recording themselves using cheap equipment. If somebody's paying me to make an acoustic recording, then generally what they are paying for is a higher-quality recording than they can make for themselves; they'd probably use Chinese mics, so there's no way that I can afford to do the same thing. I initially chose AKG, and later DPA and Soundfield - I could just as easily swapped a couple of those for Neumann, Schoeps, Sennheiser, or one or two other possibilities, but I can't think of a single Chinese mic I'd actually want to use.

All the evidence that I read, for example that relating to Gretsch guitars, suggests that where people work sensibly with Chinese production teams, results can be superior to those that were in evidence when the products were made in the west.

What I think I'm saying is that, if there is a problem, it is more likely to be at the European/American end of the chain.

Certainly, in the example I quote of guitar manufacture, the publicity photos of the production areas and the end results seem to make it inevitable that we will all be using mainly Chinese products pretty soon.

Mics are perhaps a little different, but still the basic requirements are efficient mechanisation coupled with intelligent, thorough human input, artistic and technical.  Plus proper management. Hopefully Behringer are learning and improving.

Now back to my recording with AKG mic.

...What I think I'm saying is that, if there is a problem, it is more likely to be at the European/American end of the chain...

While at dinner this evening with my wife, I heard another episode in the continuing saga of production of goods in China. Where I live in Western Canada, it's oil country. My wife is the manager of one of the largest companies that supplies valves to the oilfield, and all manner of petroleum and petro-chemical production plants. Everything from the tiniest water valve up to huge 48 inch electrically controlled numbers for pipelines.

Valve production in North America has almost ceased to exist. I believe that there is only one major foundry that is still actively producing with it's own casting and machine rooms. Most production has switched to China. My wife's company has gone so far as to station a quality-control person at the factory over there, but it's a joke! He can't have eyes everywhere and the production flaws that get by him cause all manner of headaches for sales people back here. Valve bodies that are supposed to be poured in one go are apparently sometimes poured in two, and there are inclusions, pits, and all sorts of flaws evident internally. These things are supposed to be magnafluxed,and scanned for internal faults, but it's becoming obvious that the scans that are accompanying the valves are forgeries. There is such a huge problem with quality control over there that the head office in Houston is apparently considering re-opening an American production facility and saying goodbye to the Chinese and their crappy production.

No, I'll wager that the problems are mostly at THAT end...

In Behringer's case it's a double whammy - they opened and manage a factory in China. And since they were dedicated to producing the cheapest product that ostensibly works even before this, the whole thing is like the blind leading the blind!

But hey, the Chinese are cheap. A mate of mine gets plastic cases moulded in China because this is an order of magnitude cheaper than getting it done here in the UK. He ends up throwing away quite a few - simply because they have no concept of quality control or checking, apparently. And whether anybody likes it or not, that's going to be the situation with any Chinese manufacturer - if they are selling it cheap, it's because there's no quality control. OTOH, if a UK manufacturer is selling it cheap, it's because he's desperate. And the Chinese are driving him to the wall with their ultimately dissatisfying products. It's a downward spiral until somebody halts it, I'm afraid.

Back to the mandolin for a second....

I can give a "plus 1" to the use of the AKG 451EB/CK1 combination with the 391 a very close second choice.  I have several of both in my mic kit and they serve me well...some of the 451s are about 18 years old and still going well.

However, for a cheaper alternative, may I suggest the SE Electronics SE1A.  Yes, they're Chinese but the quality is remarkably consistent from mic to mic.  I have several of these as well and often use them alongside the much more expensive AKGs with very good results.

Depending where you are, some SE distributors (UK for sure and I think in the USA too) will offer a 7 day free trial--might be worth seeing if you can have a listen.

Bob

However, for a cheaper alternative, may I suggest the SE Electronics SE1A.  Yes, they're Chinese but the quality is remarkably consistent from mic to mic.  I have several of these as well and often use them alongside the much more expensive AKGs with very good results.

As I mentioned above, SE are about the only Chinese manufacturer actually improving. I think that the SE-1a was one of the first products that came out of their new factory, it being an upgraded (and quieter) SE-1. If you do a price comparison in the UK, the SE-1a comes out at about 5-6 times the price of the cheap Bheringer C-2 SDs - and could just as easily be 5 times as good, for all I know at present. Those Behringers are so cheap that you can't apparently buy just one - they come in pairs only. As a comparison, the new AKG C451B comes in at about twice the price of the SE-1a.

I have a pair of matched C451Bs.  I 'upgraded' from a matched pair of Rode NT5s (Rodents  ).

I loved the NT5s but once I actually built a studio I could hear that the NT5s IMO were a little 'harsh' in the top end.
Mind you there is really nothing wrong with them and I still use them every now and then.

But once you hear the 451's there is no comparison especially in a purpose built room but I guess that's what you pay for.

In fact I am in the middle of a session where I am using both a single 451 and a Rode Classic II on an acoustic guitar - it sounds great.  Mind you it would be even better if I could have used one of my Martins rather than his Taylor!

I'm curious if any of you have ever tried MXL 993s.  I'm not the least bit interested in doing so myself (how's that for a caviat?), but a comment was made to me recently about how pleasant a recording sounded made with them.  If an A/B comparison had been possible, I suspect this person would have found them less pleasant.

I've never recorded with the MXL993 but did use a pair live once (trying them out for a friend who had just bought them).  I put them on drum overhead duty and, compared to the 451s I usually use in the same position, the sound was flat and lacking brightness/definition.

Bob

I've never used or knowingly heard MXL993s so I can't really comment about the sound, except to say that they are relatively early Chinese, and subject to all of the fluctuations in manufacture you'd expect. The first thing I read about them suggests that they aren't exactly SD mics either - the spec says they have 20mm gold-spluttered diaphragms. Incidentally there's nothing particularly magical about gold in this context; the state and tension of the mylar, and backplate accuracy are far more important. The other thing to notice from the spec is that we aren't exactly talking about anything like a flat response, either... and it's relatively noisy for the capsule size. And if that's their idea of what a cardioid response looks like, well... all I have to say is that it looks more like a hypercardioid.

But you can't really tell what the mic is like from any of this, because none of it is properly specified at all in that document. The S/N ratio and equivalent noise figures simply don't add up* - it's either quieter than they say or (more likely) the S/N is worse. And since when have you measured impedance in Watts? I wouldn't want to breed from that microphone or its specification...

*1Pa = 94dB. The S/N ratio ref 1Pa is defined in dB as the difference between the reference level and the equivalent noise floor, to all intents and purposes. So for a noise floor of 18dB, you end up with a S/N ratio of 96-18 = 78dB, not 80. They really haven't been very careful with this.

All the C451s I have are not the 'new' ones like that, but the interchangeable capsule original ones, and most of them have been upgraded to get around one or two little problems - mainly with noisy/odd-sounding capacitors.

At least since I was informed about "odd-sounding" capacitors it is time for a seriously educated engineer to abandon discussion. There are many objective terms to describe a bad capacitor but certainly not that one.

Therefore it seems more appropriate to leave the experts play in a league of their own where they generously can handle such terms without need for proof. It includes probably the same members which notice improvements by using gold covered mains connectors and oxygen free copper cables, and many more other magics !

At least since I was informed about "odd-sounding" capacitors it is time for a seriously educated engineer to abandon discussion. There are many objective terms to describe a bad capacitor but certainly not that one.

Therefore it seems more appropriate to leave the experts play in a league of their own where they generously can handle such terms without need for proof. It includes probably the same members which notice improvements by using gold covered mains connectors and oxygen free copper cables, and many more other magics !

Ah, well that's where you'd be completely wrong - there's plenty of objective, measured evidence about capacitors and the effects they have. Ceramic capacitors are noted in the literature for being susceptible to microphonic and dielectric absorption effects, and AKG's tantalums (the real problem here) were early ones - and are a known and acknowledged problem - and I'm talking about faults, not anything to do with the transmission of sound in this particular case.

But on the subject of capacitor sound and distortion - well, if you are only prepared to refute this on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, and refuse to admit that capacitors exhibit different distortion characteristics, that's hardly my problem... and if you'd like to read the best measured evidence of the differences I've ever seen, then read Cyril Bateman's articles about this in Electronics World in 2002. Just for you, I've found an on-line version of it, so you'll have no excuse - here. And if you still don't believe this, just bear in mind that Cyril gives you all the information to be able to test this for yourself - that is if you don't mind rather a major construction project and have some suitable measurement kit.

You may have a serious education, but it doesn't appear to be a very comprehensive, or open-minded one...

And what exactly is wrong with calling the cracks and rumbling noises that I managed to get rid of at a stroke 'odd-sounding' anyway? Seems like a perfectly reasonable description to me.