| GHS Soundhole Mic [2] |
|---|
From: John Chamberlain <jmcfache@email...>
Subject: GHS Soundhole Mic
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:25:10 -0600
Hey there RMMGAers,
Anyone out here familiar or have experience with this setup? I am looking
at purchasing the external mount version of this condenser microphone and
wanted to know if anyone could tell me about it...
Thanks,
John Chamberlain
From: Geoff Rodgers <webfolk@lineone...>
Subject: Re: GHS Soundhole Mic
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:17:35 -0000
Organization: Customer of Planet Online
John Chamberlain <<jmcfache@email...>> wrote...
> Anyone out here familiar or have experience with this setup? I am looking
> at purchasing the external mount version of this condenser microphone and
> wanted to know if anyone could tell me about it...
I have the very same, and I find it excellent, especially on my Fylde
[sounds like I 'filed' the papers away in the bin- see other thread]
Goodfellow [small body, solid mahogany b&s/solid cedar top] when played into
my amp. I only have a very cheap electric amp, [I don't amp up a lot] but on
both h&l channels it sounds good and clear, very acoustic. I also play it
though a Tech21 sansamp Acoustic DI and this makes it sound fantastic. Even
without the DI it is good reproduction. With the DI I have much more control
over the response and don't have to stand in front of the amp to switch
on/off adjust etc.
It is fitted in seconds, non-intrusive when fitted, in fact it can hardly be
seen, and the box on the back doesn't get in the way. Sometimes the wire
comes from the wrong place and is best looped over your strap. It is best
kept in the guitar case, [you just never know when you'll need it,] and has
the advantage of being totally interchangeable between instruments. I also
have a bouzouki and a mandolin [I never amplify the banjo - but that's
another story] and with the non-marking Velcro pads permanently [except for
cleaning] in place then the pickup is very versatile. I hasten to add that
the DI certainly helps in getting the settings right without having to
adjust the amp.
Two minor criticisms. [1] The pickup comes with two Velcro pads, I needed
three for my instruments and had to buy a pack of two, they are quite
expensive. [2] Some sort of 'silent' switch on the unit to enable unplugging
without the 'click' would be good.
Playing it through a PA system is just superb.
All in all I'm one very satisfied customer.
No alterations to my guitar [or other instruments] and excellent acoustic
sound reproduction.
--
__ _ / \/ \ Geoff Rodgers| ||=O==========(:::]
\__/\_/
| Advice on pickup for acoustic wanted [2] |
|---|
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Advice on pickup for acoustic wanted
Date: 21 Feb 2000 17:37:46 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Harald Kaada in Norway wrote:
>I am going to buy a pickup for my acoustic in the next few days.
>My local dealer recommended the Highlander IP-1. I have also been
>considering buying a Fishman acoustic matrix.
>If any of you have>experience with these systems, or if you can recommend
other systems in>the same price range I would be happy to know!
Harald, I have a Highlander in my McAlister baritone guitar, and it is an
extremely true-sounding pickup. It has active electronics, which means that it
has a preamp already built in - all of the Highlanders feature this.
I also have a lot of LR Baggs pickups in my other guitars, and those are superb
as well. You can get the Baggs gear in either passive or active versions, and
I choose to go with the active versions, for simplicity's sake.
As another poster suggested, the pickup alone will give you a good, usable
signal, but for true acoustic sound it's best to combine this pickup signal
with a microphone.
I have not had a whole lot of luck with internal microphones, and this is
exacerbated by the fact that as a multi-instrumentalist I take a few
instruments with me to a performance and switch off. So what I do is combine
an internal pickup with a stage microphone. It's certainly easier to get the
truest sound this way, with fewer feedback problems.
Sometimes finding the proper placement for an internal microphone can be very
difficult, and I've never really been completely happy with the sound. Using a
decent quality external mike in conjunction with a good pickup is very simple
in comparison.
Hope this helps.
Wade Hampton Miller
From: Bob Dorgan <d77737@epix...>
Subject: Re: Advice on pickup for acoustic wanted
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 17:58:59 GMT
Organization: Free Wades
Unsung96 wrote:
>
> << I have not had a whole lot of luck with internal microphones (snip)>>hojo
>
> Not to start a flame fest but I've definitely screwed with this for several
> years also. Decide I like it, decide I don't, etc. but at best even with the
> highest of dollar gear it's going to sound like a great recording of the INSIDE
> of a guitar, no?
Hmmm. Never thought of that way.
Other than the feedback issue, external mics do the cleanest job of
amping an acoustic. (IMHO)
I just don't like being tied down to an external mic. I did that for a
long time, and I like the freedom to prowl about some.
Bob Dorgan
| Pickup For Recording? [2] |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Pickup For Recording?
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 15:46:42 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
George wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention that I also have an old Radio Shack clip-on mic
> (#33-1052). It's several years old, but seems to work. Is this the one
> that people sometimes refer to here as a decent guitar mic? Any
> suggestions on mic placement?
FWIW: That little mic has a bit of a legendary status as a particularly
good mic for using inside some guitars. Martin Carthy uses one, and it
has been very favorably reviewed in Recording magazine by Paul Stamler.
However, Stamler himself noted that in his own guitar he could never
get it to sound as great as it did in Carth's---the quality of sound
from internal mics depends a great deal on not only the mic element,
but also placement and the guitar itself.
Well, just thought I'd point out that despite its low cost, this isn't
a bad piece of gear to have around (RS doesn't sell that particular
model any more). However, for recording I'd probably rather use
an SM57 outside the guitar (or a cheap small diaphragm condenser mic
like the Shure BG series) than any pickup I've ever heard. The RS
mic element is good to have for part of a live setup, but not a
great tool for recording.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: john novack <novac@pacbell...>
Subject: Re: Pickup For Recording?
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:10:03 -0800
Organization: SBC Internet Services
i saw martin carthy recently and can attest to the wonderful sound of his
old martin with the radio shack mic. beautiful warm and natural.
Tom Loredo wrote:
> George wrote:
> >
> > I forgot to mention that I also have an old Radio Shack clip-on mic
> > (#33-1052). It's several years old, but seems to work. Is this the one
> > that people sometimes refer to here as a decent guitar mic? Any
> > suggestions on mic placement?
>
> FWIW: That little mic has a bit of a legendary status as a particularly
> good mic for using inside some guitars. Martin Carthy uses one, and it
> has been very favorably reviewed in Recording magazine by Paul Stamler.
> However, Stamler himself noted that in his own guitar he could never
> get it to sound as great as it did in Carth's---the quality of sound
> from internal mics depends a great deal on not only the mic element,
> but also placement and the guitar itself.
>
> Well, just thought I'd point out that despite its low cost, this isn't
> a bad piece of gear to have around (RS doesn't sell that particular
> model any more). However, for recording I'd probably rather use
> an SM57 outside the guitar (or a cheap small diaphragm condenser mic
> like the Shure BG series) than any pickup I've ever heard. The RS
> mic element is good to have for part of a live setup, but not a
> great tool for recording.
>
> Peace,
> Tom Loredo
| AKG guitar mic or internal mic |
|---|
From: sp <sampark@mail...>
Subject: AKG guitar mic or internal mic
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:51:55 -0400
I ran across an AKG instrument mic that can attach to the outside of a
guitar. I don't recall where I saw it and what the model number was.
Does anyone know anything about this or how it sounds?
I was thinking it could be a good alternative to a stand mounted mic in
front of the guitar, which always seemed a bit cumbersome.
AKG tends to make nice sounding mics, so I'm definitely interested.
Otherwise, which internal guitar mics sound good? I demoed one once before,
but wasn't that impressed. I think it was a miniflex.
I'm still in search of a way to amplify my guitar without a saddle pickup
for various reasons (need for holes, need for saddle adjustment, compromise
unplugged sound, permanance of installation, etc.)
I was thinking of using my Sunrise with some sort of mic setup.
Thanks
| condensor mic/internal [4] |
|---|
From: PETER <petermaryNOpeSPAM@iprimus...>
Subject: condensor mic/internal
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:42:16 -0700
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here
I,m looking to hot up my guitar by adding a internal condenser
mic. which brands are there and does anyone know their web sites.
or maybe I should get rid of my current pezio and by one of the
mic/pick-up systems that are aruond eg LR baggs,Fishman,Maton
My guitar is a maton made in oz where I live It's a small body
with cut-away I guess you could say it looks a bit like a OLSEN
and they have just bought one of these dual system's out.
maybe the cheaper options would be to get the condensor separate
and put it in my self.......It's hard to get much of anything
down here in aussie land...except flies and Japanese tourists
and sun spots on your skin
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
From: john bj <desert2000@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: condensor mic/internal
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:19:50 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
PETER wrote:
> I'm looking to hot up my guitar by adding a internal condenser mic.
Which brands are there, and does anyone know their web sites? or maybe I
should get rid of my current piezo and buy one of the mic/pick-up
systems that are around (eg, LR Baggs,Fishman,Maton). My guitar is a
Maton made in oz, where I live. It's a small body with cut-away. I guess
you could say it looks a bit like a OLSON, and they have just bought one
of these dual systems out. maybe the cheaper option would be to get the
condensor separate and put it in myself.......It's hard to get much of
anything down here in aussie land...except flies, and Japanese tourists,
and sun spots on your skin.
Well, if you don't currently have a pickup in your guitar at all, it's
probably simplest to get one of the many dual systems out there. It
mostly depends on your budget and how many options you'd like. Some
websites are: www.fishman.com, www.lrbaggs.com, www.b-band.com I
believe each of these systems allow you to order without their mic so
you can pick your own (Crown mics are very popular), but if I read the
concensus correctly, the quality of the mic used makes little difference
in this application. Personally, I find B-Band pickups without mics
are more than adequate for live performance, but I'll add an external
mic to blend for recording.
Depending on your application (studio versus stage, band versus solo,
etc), an external mic may work for you (Shure SM-57 or SM-81, for
example, see www.shure.com). I've known folks who have successfully
used a lavalier mic clipped onto the soundhole (changing the teeth grips
for rubber pads).
Just a taste of the possibilities - I hope it helps.
peace and joy,
jbj
--
(e-mails should be sent to desert2000 @ NOSPAM yahoo.com)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@aol...>
Subject: Re: condensor mic/internal
Date: 21 Jun 2000 18:29:58 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I,m looking to hot up my guitar by adding a internal condenser
>mic. which brands are there and does anyone know their web sites.
>or maybe I should get rid of my current pezio and by one of the
>mic/pick-up systems that are aruond eg LR baggs,Fishman,Maton
>My guitar is a maton made in oz where I live It's a small body
>with cut-away I guess you could say it looks a bit like a OLSEN
>and they have just bought one of these dual system's out.
>maybe the cheaper options would be to get the condensor separate
>and put it in my self.......It's hard to get much of anything
>down here in aussie land...except flies and Japanese tourists
>and sun spots on your skin
I looked for quite awhile to find the "best" pickup/condenser microphone
combination (at least to my ears). I treied all sorts of combinations, over
and over. The clear winner is the K&K transducer and the Joe Mills condenser
microphone (although the AKG 416B is a great mike too). The K&K is
significantly "better" sounding than any other piezo/transducer. Most of the
prepackaged mikes that come with Fishman and Baggs are junk.
---
Stephen T. Boyke
From: Rich McCarthy <richmccarthy@home...>
Subject: Re: condensor mic/internal
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:08:33 GMT
Organization: @Home Network Canada
>>I,m looking to hot up my guitar by adding a internal condenser
>>mic. which brands are there and does anyone know their web sites.
>>or maybe I should get rid of my current pezio and by one of the
>>mic/pick-up systems that are aruond eg LR baggs,Fishman,Maton
>>My guitar is a maton made in oz where I live It's a small body
>>with cut-away I guess you could say it looks a bit like a OLSEN
>>and they have just bought one of these dual system's out.
>>maybe the cheaper options would be to get the condensor separate
>>and put it in my self.......It's hard to get much of anything
>>down here in aussie land...except flies and Japanese tourists
>>and sun spots on your skin
I recently , on a whim, bid in an online auction for a piezo contact
pickup--a "woodpicker". To my surprise, I won--for 31 $US.
I tried it yesterday on my Larrivee. Quacky tone.
Then with my Baggs DI box. Nope. Still quacking.
Then, for comparision, I tried my other guitar with the baggs system.
Hands down winner!
There was no way to get a decent acoustic tone out of the piezo.
My baggs system has the soundhole volume and mic/undersaddle control.
But I am not fond of the Baggs mic. I rarely mix it in the output. The
undersaddle pickup , in combo with the Baggs DI, is very satisfactory.
I may, at some point, try a Joe Mill mic in this setup....
Rich
| Help with EMF mic please [7] |
|---|
From: Steve Cuss <steveandlisa123@my-deja...>
Subject: Help with EMF mic please
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:44:03 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Hello All,
I want to say up front that I have greatly appreciated all the help
given to me directly and indirectly regarding acoustic amplification.
I continue to learn a great deal.
I decided to add the emf mic and fishman blender to my b band but
getting an odd tone out of the mic. With the b band, it does add a
dimension to the tone but doesn't make it sound better. Actually, the
mic (alone) makes my Thompson sound a bit like a Dobro. I have played
with the phase switches, eq and levels but it still has that
inherent "hollow" sound. With a 33% blend (66% b band/33% mic) I can
still hear that "dobro" sound. I used to own a Baggs dual source
system and its mic didn't have this same tone. The mic is placed on
the treble side of the lower bout, close to the sound hole, pointing
away from hole, slightly toward the bottom end of guitar. If anyone has
suggestions, I would welcome them. Is this a normal tone for the emf
mic? (this one is apparently the "new improved mic.")
thanks as always
Steve Cuss
--
my deja email address is a spam catcher.
My permanent address since 1996 is <cuss@juno...>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpamOnRMMGA...>
Subject: Re: Help with EMF mic please
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:24:08 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <8jab2t$90q$<1@nnrp1...>>, Steve Cuss
<<steveandlisa123@my-deja...>> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I want to say up front that I have greatly appreciated all the help
> given to me directly and indirectly regarding acoustic amplification.
> I continue to learn a great deal.
>
> I decided to add the emf mic and fishman blender to my b band but
> getting an odd tone out of the mic. With the b band, it does add a
> dimension to the tone but doesn't make it sound better. Actually, the
> mic (alone) makes my Thompson sound a bit like a Dobro. I have played
> with the phase switches, eq and levels but it still has that
> inherent "hollow" sound. With a 33% blend (66% b band/33% mic) I can
> still hear that "dobro" sound. I used to own a Baggs dual source
> system and its mic didn't have this same tone. The mic is placed on
> the treble side of the lower bout, close to the sound hole, pointing
> away from hole, slightly toward the bottom end of guitar. If anyone has
> suggestions, I would welcome them. Is this a normal tone for the emf
> mic? (this one is apparently the "new improved mic.")
>
> thanks as always
>
> Steve Cuss
Steve,
You don't mention your "settings" on the Blender.
Make sure that the Low-cut is "in" (active) on the mic side, and I would
suggest rolling off the bass knob as well. The B-band side can be run
flat...remember, you do NOT want to optimize the sounds seperately, you
want to work with them together for the best sound. If you added the
Pocket Blender (not the Blender), use BOTH cuts (always) on the mic side.
You may also want to lessen the degree that the mic is pointing towards the
back of the guitar...point the "business end" of the mic a bit more across
the plane of the sound hole.
Let us know if this helps at all.
Larry Pattis
"Life is just a bowl of Larrys"
Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com
Liberal Palette Records
http://liberalpalette.com
From: <xyzjefsu@worldinter...>
Subject: Re: Help with EMF mic please
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:58:44 -0500
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:44:03 GMT, Steve Cuss <<steveandlisa123@my-deja...>> wrote:
> If anyone has
>suggestions, I would welcome them.
I've found that having the mic at the same plane as the top of the guitar, facing into the soundhole, gives the best
tone.
Here's a pic of one, next to a soundhole pickup:
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/jefsu_63139?d&.flabel=fld8&.src=phJeffrey
remove xyz to reply
From: john bj <desert2000@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Help with EMF mic please
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:06:21 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Steve Cuss wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I want to say up front that I have greatly appreciated all the help
given to me directly and indirectly regarding acoustic amplification. I
continue to learn a great deal.
>
> I decided to add the emf mic and fishman blender to my b band but
getting an odd tone out of the mic. With the b band, it does add a
dimension to the tone but doesn't make it sound better. Actually, the
mic (alone) makes my Thompson sound a bit like a Dobro. I have played
with the phase switches, eq and levels but it still has that inherent
"hollow" sound. With a 33% blend (66% b band/33% mic) I can still hear
that "dobro" sound. I used to own a Baggs dual source system and its
mic didn't have this same tone. The mic is placed on the treble side of
the lower bout, close to the sound hole, pointing away from hole,
slightly toward the bottom end of guitar. If anyone has suggestions, I
would welcome them. Is this a normal tone for the emf mic? (this one is
apparently the "new improved mic.")
Hi Steve,
I've had roughly the same experience with my B-Bands and decided to skip
the mic altogether. I tried a couple of different mics in my D-35, but
kept getting what was, to me, an annoying, hollow, ringy sound. I also
tried a mic in my 555 with the same results. I tried pointing the mic at
the bottom, out the soundhole, parallel to the top, treble side, bass
side, etc., but was never really happy with the sound I was getting. I
kept missing the fabled "sweet spot". A friend has a Taylor 614ce with
the Fishman mic built into the little side panel thingy - when they
switch to mic-only, they get the same kind of sound, only with a bit
more bass.
The last thing that occurred to me was that it sounded like the mic was
sitting inside a small box and then it hit me: duh! an internal mic IS
sitting inside a small box. It must sound that way because <gasp>
that's the way it sounds in there!
That's my 1/2-cent theory anyway. I've found that an external mic
placed really close to the sound hole (like 1mm away from the strings)
can sound that way too, btw, only with more bass). Anyway, I don't like
the internal mic sound, so I don't use them.
One last thought - as I've worked on my CD-II contributions I've found
that the B-Bands really do sound virtually identical to an external mic,
only they're more sensitive to the little thumps and bumps that happen
when you play. I'm about to mix the second cut and may slip in some
mic-only, B-Band only sections so folks can see if they can discern any
difference.
peace and joy,
jbj
--
(e-mails should be sent to desert2000 @ NOSPAM yahoo.com)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Help with EMF mic please
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:21:32 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Steve-
The tone available with an internal mic is a very guitar-specific thing.
There is no universally best mic, position, or EQ curve. Paul Stamler,
an audio engineer who writes for Recording magazine, related an
interesting story to me about this. One of the best live guitar tones
he ever heard was from Martin Carthy, who uses a cheap Radio Shack lapel
mic (the legendary 33-1052) stuck at the end of his neckblock in the guitar---
and nothing else. Paul thought the sound was awesome! Carthy has a
000-18. Paul had good success with the same mic in the same position
in his 00. But it sounded horrible there in his friend's Taylor; a better
tone came from mounting it behind the soundhole on the back of the guitar.
And in some guitars it seems there may be no good place for an internal
mic.
So I don't think any of us can give you and easy answer to your question,
other than encouraging you experiment like crazy. I would only add that
you try to figure out what exactly you want from the mic, and keep that
in mind when experimenting. For example, most folks with a dual source
setup like the mic for the top end, relying on the pickup for the low end
and mids. If so, you may find a position with a nice top end tone
has a lousy bass tone and a honky midrange (excess midrange gives you
that dobro quality). If it's top end that you're looking for, follow
Larry's advice and roll off the bass as you experiment. A few players
like the mic for the bottom end (Brooks Williams comes to mind). In this
case, you'd look for something different in your mic position hunting.
Good luck, and please let us know what you end up doing.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Help with EMF mic please
Date: 27 Jun 2000 21:31:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Tom Loredo wrote an interesting post, as always, talking about internal mics.
I'm starting to dabble with the thought of internal mics again, having been
put off by them for years with the sort of endless hassles that others have
described. My own success rate with them has NOT been good.
To quote Tom:
>The tone available with an internal mic is a very guitar-specific thing.>There
is no universally best mic, position, or EQ curve.
I can concur with this. Each box is different.
But Martin Carthy's success with a cheapo lapel mic is probably largely due to
the characteristics of his mahogany Martin 000-18, which gives a very flat,
even response without a lot of boominess.
So starting with a good, tonally balanced guitar would seem to be one
requirement.
Tom continues:
>And in some guitars it seems there may be no good place for an internal>mic.
I have to say that my experience would fall in line with this...
>So I don't think any of us can give you and easy answer to your question,
But, Tom - we WANT easy answers! That's why we COME to Usenet!
Here are two observations that I'll offer: one is that the best internal mic
sounds I've heard and have gotten have been in fairly low volume situations
where I could hear myself pretty well to begin with.
Every other time I've heard a good internal mic sound it has been with a
touring professional who's been high enough in the food chain to bring his or
her own sound tech to mix the sound from the house.
If the situation doesn't match one of those two circumstances - low volume and
ability to hear one's self, or the services of a very good sound tech running
sound from the house - the internal mics seem to actually get in the WAY of
getting a decent stage sound.
The other observation I'll make is that the Fishman internal mic setup sounds
better than most, by far, when simply plugged in and used (rather than by
someone who can take the time to get everything tweaked just right.) I'm
normally not a big fan of Fishman gear, but they seem to have engineered this
one well.
I'm planning to get the internal Highlander mic with the Highlander pickup that
Roy McAlister is installing on the guitar that he's building for me, so I'll be
running it through a Baggs Mixpro.
That's for church, where I deliberately keep the miking simple and don't close
mic any instruments. But for those occasions when I'm up onstage at a festival
or a concert where I haven't had the chance to get a soundcheck, I think I'll
probably just run the pickup and continue to use an external mic for the
ambient sound.
We'll see - that guitar hasn't even been built yet, so there's plenty of time
to get THAT one figured out.
Wade Hampton Miller
From: Steve Cuss <steveandlisa123@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Help with EMF mic please
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 03:28:47 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Wade and all who replied:
I won't be able to really play with the mic until Saturday, but I plan
to try the three basic suggestions offered and will try to post a
response next week. In line with Wade's musings, here is what I have
learned over the last three years of quest for great amplified tone:
1) As per Wade, my mic and/or b band sounds best when the gain is the
lowest. If I want more gain and still a decent sound, I do better by
struming and picking a little harder. High PA gain with soft fingers
doesn't sound good to me. The quieter the amplified sound, the more
authentic it sounds to me.
2) I have dismissed the "it sounds like an unplugged acoustic, only
louder" myth and now simply search for a "as close as I can get for the
money I've paid" sound.
3) I need to remember that its all about music and creativity and not
get caught up in a fraction of an improvement for a guy who is
ultimately an amatuer who loves to play and gets to play in public
sometimes. Electronics is fascinating and the quest for a great pickup
can be intoxicating but I would do better spending that time practicing
technique. Same can be said for time on rmmga. I spent $300 adding a
mic and blender to the guitar. At this point, I can't justify that for
my situation. (Full time student who is an amatuer guitarist.)
Anyway, I'm not ready to sell the rig yet! I'll try to the advice
given and respond more thoroughly next week.
best wishes
Steve Cuss
--
my deja email address is a spam catcher.
My permanent address since 1996 is <cuss@juno...>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
| Acoustic Amplification FAQ? |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Amplification FAQ?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:51:56 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
I've been gone for a few weeks, or else I would have jumped in sooner.
It seems the phantom/phase issues are clarified in this thread, but
perhaps the following is worth spelling out in any case. I'll copy
below a 1998 post of mine from rec.audio.pro about phantom powering.
Here I'd only like to add that the reason for the confusion lies
with the manufacturers.
Manufacturers have long been lazy about terminology regarding both
remote powering and polarity reversal. Phantom powering and bias
powering (also called "T" powering) are both forms of remotely
powering a device (typically a mic). Bias power has been
called "phantom power" by acoustic guitar preamp manufacturers
since the beginning, as far as I can tell (starting with Fishman's
first Blender). They should have known better, I suppose, but
the power does appear to the user to be "phantom" in the sense
of having an invisible source. This is not the sense in which
the word is used in P48 phantom power (the kind supplied by a
console), but it is perhaps worth noting that even this use of
the word "phantom" was argued about among manufacturers in the
not too distant past (see below).
Regarding the polarity/phase confusion: Consider a sine wave,
going off to the infinite past and future. Reverse its polarity
by multiplying by -1. Alternately, shift its phase by 180 degrees
by moving it 1/2 cycle to the left or right. The results of these
processes will be indistinguishable. So for this example, polarity
reversal and phase shift (by +- 180 degrees) are equivalent. This
presumably is why for a long, long time one has seen the word "phase"
next to switches on audio equipment that reverse polarity. The
problem is that real audio signals are not infinite sine waves.
Even when they are largely sinusoidal, they are finite in length.
More importantly, they usually consist of many frequencies at once,
with complicated dynamics. For a real signal, then, polarity shift
is not equivalent to phase shift (and you have to be a little
careful even defining what you mean by phase shift for real signals).
The buttons almost uniformly labeled "phase" on acoustic guitar
preamps are all polarity reversal switches. To give a little
credit to Rane, the AP13 labels them "invert" (i.e., polarity invert).
A further source of confusion is failing to distinguish between the
characteristics of mic elements and complete microphones. Thus
Larry talks about Crown elements that run off of low voltage power,
and Rick counters that all the Crown mics he knows of require P48
phantom power. Both are right. The actual electret elements used
in the Crown GLM series run off of low voltage bias power. When
sold as complete mics with 3-wire XLR cables, they have internal
circuitry that derives the required power from the P48 power provided
by a standard mixing console. In fact, very many lapel mic elements
that are sold in P48 XLR mic configurations run with low voltage
bias power. A list giving some details is available at the Rane web site:
http://www.rane.com/pdf/note131.pdf
This is a companion document to the AP13 preamp. This is the 1999
version, a shortened version of the original which, if I remember
correctly, provided significant additional info including a note
pointing out that the AP13 provides "T" (i.e. bias) power, not
phantom power. Too bad they revised that part!
Peace,
Tom Loredo
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Old rec.audio.pro post ~~~~~~~~~~~~
| phantom power |
|---|
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: phantom power
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 14:40:14 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Mike Rivers wrote:
>
> In article <<xZCw08UqdIgM090yn@freenet...>> <avare@freenet...> writes:
>
> > There are two types of phantom powering used these days: P48 and T12.
>
> No, there's only one type of Phantom powering, and that's Phantom
> powering. Initially, it was specificed as 48 volts (P48), but there are
> now defined systems at 24 and 12 volts (designations left to the
> imagination of the reader). "T" powering is something else, as you
> described reasonably accurately, and, actually, it's not very common
> today.
>
> If you had said "there are two types of REMOTE powering", I wouldn't
> have picked on you.
>
Howdy-
Mike is right (as usual) insofar as technical standards are concerned.
But if you get involved with acoustic guitar amplification, "T" powering
is extremely common for powering lapel mic elements mounted inside
acoustic guitars, and this powering scheme is (unfortunately) usually
referred to as "phantom powering" even by manufacturers. See, for example,
the most popular preamp/mixer for two-transducer acoustic amplification,
the Fishman Acoustic Blender/Pocket Blender.
It's funny; if you read back in the JAES 10 or 15 years ago, you'll see
there was a bit of controversy in the condenser mic literature over what
to call the "48 v on pins 2 and 3" type of powering. In their paper on
the SM81, Shure was rather adament that this should not be called
"phantom power;" their suggestion was "simplex power."
What is "phantom" about true phantom power is that, like a phantom, it
can "vanish"---e.g., on a dynamic mic, the mic acts as if the 48v was
not there. This is why it's important, as Mike said, to distinguish it
from T power. T power does not vanish; it is possible for it to damage
a transducer if it is on when it shouldn't be. This can't happen with
phantom power and modern mics with XLR connectors (though I'm told
even true phantom power will damage some old RCA ribbon mics which are
sensitive to DC potentials between the signal pins and ground).
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Acousit amplification made simple by Tom Loredo..... [4] |
|---|
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpamOnRMMGA...>
Subject: Acousit amplification made simple by Tom Loredo.....
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:19:28 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
O.K., this is what my pal Tom sent me after I explained about Harold
"discovering" bias power, and how it is technically different from "phantom
(P48) power"
<<<<<Hi Larry-
Thanks for the followup. Yup, I know about "bias power" and have
posted about this in detail in the past. But the manufacturers
keep calling it phantom power, so the confusion keeps arising.
As I recall, Rane makes the distinction, if not in their manual,
then at least in a tech note. But everyone else fails to
distinguish it from "true" (i.e, P48 to use its technical name)
phantom power. This is why I usually put "phantom power" in quotes
in my own posts (since it isn't really phantom power). Bias power
is also known as "T" power (I thought that was because the circuit
topology resembles a letter T, but someone once told me it's from
the german term for "bias power"---I don't know for sure).
> Apparently calling what
> Fishman, Rane, Pendulum, et al, call phantom power is a misnomer
Actually, Pendulum uses real phantom power to power their SmartCord;
but if the stereo SmartCord can power an internal mic, it must convert
it to bias power.
> I am still curious what would happen if you left a mini-mic in a two
> wire configuration, and managed to go into the XLR input (which two
> of the three conncetions, DON'T ask me!) of a Mackie board with the
> phantom power turned on! What in the world would happen?
This depends crucially on what pins you use. If you connect it to
the signal input pins (2 and 3), nothing would happen---no danger
to the mic, and most likely no signal (no good signal, anyway).
The 48V appears on both of these pins, so the mic element would
see 48 minus 48 = 0 volts across it. In fact, that's the point of
phantom power---when it is connected to a mic that doesn't need
it (e.g., a dynamic mic whose coil would be connected accross
pins 2 & 3), the mic doesn't notice it---it disappears like a
phantom! But if you connected the mic between either of the
signal pins and the ground pin (1), say goodbye to the mic!
Basically, as long as there is no ground path (a wire to pin 1 that
connects to circuitry that uses pin 2 or 3), phantom power will not be
detectable by the attached component. Of course, dynamic mics typically
have a wire connected to pin 1, but it's just the shield of the cable
(to reduce noise pickup by the signal wires), and has no connection
to the mic element.
By the way, many lapel mics that take P48 phantom power are actually
electret elements that use a few volts of bias power internally;
their circuitry merely converts the P48 power to bias power onboard.>>>>>
Tom,
You really ARE da' man. Thank you.
What is quite interesting to me is if I took a Crown GLM-200 and used it as
a three wire mic, I'm guessing that it would probably work fine plugged
into a Mackie XLR input. Since we cannot do that via the B-Band Core, or
the Matrix, or whatever internal pre-amp, being limited to the two-wire
set-up, as you so succinctly said, "say goodbye to the mic." Which is what
Ruskin questioned my saying, him having little knowledge of the gear we're
talking about, and ME having no ability to explain to him the technical
side of this!
Such is life.
O.K., El, NOW I'm going to go play guitar......
Larry Pattis
"Life is just a bowl of Larrys"
Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com
Liberal Palette Records
http://liberalpalette.com
From: <hedberg@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Acousit amplification made simple by Tom Loredo.....
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:59:35 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
In article <<LarryPattis-ya02408000R1907001519280001@news...>>,
LarryPattis@NoSpamOnRMMGA.aaa (Larry Pattis) wrote:> [Larry says:]
> > I am still curious what would happen if you left a mini-mic in a two
> > wire configuration, and managed to go into the XLR input (which two
> > of the three conncetions, DON'T ask me!) of a Mackie board with the
> > phantom power turned on! What in the world would happen?
> [Tom replies:]
> This depends crucially on what pins you use. If you connect it to> the signal input pins (2 and 3), nothing would happen---no danger
> to the mic, and most likely no signal (no good signal, anyway).
> The 48V appears on both of these pins, so the mic element would
> see 48 minus 48 = 0 volts across it. In fact, that's the point of
> phantom power---when it is connected to a mic that doesn't need
> it (e.g., a dynamic mic whose coil would be connected accross
> pins 2 & 3), the mic doesn't notice it---it disappears like a
> phantom! But if you connected the mic between either of the
> signal pins and the ground pin (1), say goodbye to the mic! [...]
One additional observation. If you were to connect the mic to pin 1 and
either pin 2 or pin 3, you would be hitting the mic with 48V and Tom
says this would likely fry it. Even if the voltage were not sufficient
to fry the mic, however, you wouldn't be able to get any audio signal
into the board. In order to get a signal in, it needs to be on pins 2
and 3 (where the phantom voltage is not apparent). The point I am
making is that it is not only because the 48V is too great of a
potential that you can't connect the mic directly to the board. It's
also because the power/signal transmission methods of the two systems
are incompatible.
Harold
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpamOnRMMGA...>
Subject: Re: Acousit amplification made simple by Tom Loredo.....
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:14:57 -0600
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <8l58bs$d6v$<1@nnrp1...>>, <hedberg@my-deja...> wrote:
> In article <<LarryPattis-ya02408000R1907001519280001@news...>>,
> <LarryPattis@NoSpamOnRMMGA...> (Larry Pattis) wrote:
>
> > [Larry says:]
> > > I am still curious what would happen if you left a mini-mic in a two
> > > wire configuration, and managed to go into the XLR input (which two
> > > of the three conncetions, DON'T ask me!) of a Mackie board with the
> > > phantom power turned on! What in the world would happen?
> > [Tom replies:]
> > This depends crucially on what pins you use. If you connect it to
> > the signal input pins (2 and 3), nothing would happen---no danger
> > to the mic, and most likely no signal (no good signal, anyway).
> > The 48V appears on both of these pins, so the mic element would
> > see 48 minus 48 = 0 volts across it. In fact, that's the point of
> > phantom power---when it is connected to a mic that doesn't need
> > it (e.g., a dynamic mic whose coil would be connected accross
> > pins 2 & 3), the mic doesn't notice it---it disappears like a
> > phantom! But if you connected the mic between either of the
> > signal pins and the ground pin (1), say goodbye to the mic! [...]
>
> One additional observation. If you were to connect the mic to pin 1 and
> either pin 2 or pin 3, you would be hitting the mic with 48V and Tom
> says this would likely fry it. Even if the voltage were not sufficient
> to fry the mic, however, you wouldn't be able to get any audio signal
> into the board. In order to get a signal in, it needs to be on pins 2
> and 3 (where the phantom voltage is not apparent). The point I am
> making is that it is not only because the 48V is too great of a
> potential that you can't connect the mic directly to the board. It's
> also because the power/signal transmission methods of the two systems
> are incompatible.
>
> Harold
I believe you, Harold.
And THEN Tom Loredo sent this to me:
<<<<<At 6:09 PM -0400 7/19/00, Tom Loredo wrote:
Hi Larry-
I just read the thread (well, most of it!) and posted something.
I didn't address the "when will the mic blow up" issue; if you
care to add anything from my email about that, go ahead.
Larry wrote:
> What is quite interesting to me is if I took a Crown GLM-200 and used
> it as a three wire mic, I'm guessing that it would probably work fine
> plugged into a Mackie XLR input.
Actually, that may kill the Crown as well, if you mean that you'd take
the element as Fishman provides it and connect the 3 wires to the
Mackie. For the 3-wire elements I know about in detail, the third wire
allows external circuitry to control the bias on the transistor that is
built into the mic element (to optimize its behavior in a way not
possible with 2 wire elements). When Crown sells the mic as an entire
package, there may be a bit of circuitry built into the XLR connector
that takes the P48 power and uses it to lower-voltage circuitry that
actually interfaces to the mic element that Fishman sells "bare". But
I can't tell any of this for sure from the Crown Audio web site. It
could be that their bare GLM can handle 48V across it (though I doubt
it). An example I know more details about is the Audio-Technica AT831
series. The bare element is a 3-wire element like the GLM. But when
you buy it with an XLR connector (AT831b), there is a little bit of
circuitry that regulates the P48 power down to just a few volts for the
mic and other circuitry to run off of. A giveaway that this is what is
going on is that for many such mics, they will run off a wide range of
voltages (the AT will run off of something like 5 to 52 V; the Crown
GLM200 XLR mic will run off of 12 to 48 V). This is a hint that inside
the mic somewhere, there is a regulator taking whatever comes in, and
creating a stable low voltage supply for the mic circuitry to use.>>>>>
So Rick, the answer is indeed that these internal mics will fry if you try
to run them straight into a mixing board.
How do I know this?
Tom Loredo told me so.
Larry Pattis
"Life is just a bowl of Larrys"
Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com
Liberal Palette Records
http://liberalpalette.com
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acousit amplification made simple by Tom Loredo.....
Date: 20 Jul 2000 01:07:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Thanks to Larry for asking the questions in the first place, Tom for answering,
and then Harold and Larry expanding upon the various technical details.
This is precisely the sort of information-sharing that marks Usenet newsgroups
at their best.
Thanks again.
Wade Hampton Miller
| GHS Sound hole mic, opinions? [2] |
|---|
From: WALLBUG1 <wallbug1@aol...>
Subject: GHS Sound hole mic, opinions?
Date: 14 Aug 2000 04:06:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Does anyone use this mic for amplication of their acoustic? I was wondering how
it is. Thanks for any info.
From: Larry Sprigg <gsprigg@aol...>
Subject: Re: GHS Sound hole mic, opinions?
Date: 14 Aug 2000 10:11:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I used the model Miniflex 135 internal mount and the 138 soundhole mount before
GHS bought distribution of this line from Donnell Enterprises. I always got
excellent sound quality from them. The mobility of the soundhole mic was nice
if one uses several guitars.
Feedback was a bit more of a problem than typical pickups.
To reply via E-Mail, please remove the "nojunk" from my address
| Internal Mic Position [6] |
|---|
From: Tim Helmen <thissong@pclink...>
Subject: Internal Mic Position
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 04:34:12 GMT
Organization: Onvoy
For all you users of internal microphones, I wonder where you position them.
I've got a B-band pickup/mic combo in my Taylor 712. I find if I get the
mic in the column of the soundhole or very near it, there is a tremendous
amount of boom and I have to roll off huge amounts of low end. If I move it
farther back into the guitar, there's less boom, but also less string sound,
less sparkle.
Either way I can get an acceptable sound mixing it with the pickup. I'd
just like to be able to get a more balanced frequency response, especially
as I use the combo for recording and like to get a bit of a stereo image.
Where in the body is your mic and at what is it aimed?
Tim Helmen
From: <xyzjefsu@worldinter...>
Subject: Re: Internal Mic Position
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:31:52 -0500
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 04:34:12 GMT, <thissong@pclink...> (Tim Helmen) wrote:
>For all you users of internal microphones, I wonder where you position them.
>
>I've got a B-band pickup/mic combo in my Taylor 712. I find if I get the
>mic in the column of the soundhole or very near it, there is a tremendous
>amount of boom and I have to roll off huge amounts of low end. If I move it
>farther back into the guitar, there's less boom, but also less string sound,
>less sparkle.
>
>Either way I can get an acceptable sound mixing it with the pickup. I'd
>just like to be able to get a more balanced frequency response, especially
>as I use the combo for recording and like to get a bit of a stereo image.
>
>Where in the body is your mic and at what is it aimed?
>
>Tim Helmen
I find, that in the same plane as the top, and aimed into the body, at around 8 o'clock on the soundhole.
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Internal Mic Position
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 10:03:37 +0100
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
In article <<vn9kpscpfjmqcm18u9t3q3khg18cessbjo@4ax...>> ,
<xyzjefsu@worldinter...> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 04:34:12 GMT, <thissong@pclink...> (Tim Helmen) wrote:
>
>>For all you users of internal microphones, I wonder where you position them.
>>
>>I've got a B-band pickup/mic combo in my Taylor 712. I find if I get the
>>mic in the column of the soundhole or very near it, there is a tremendous
>>amount of boom and I have to roll off huge amounts of low end. If I move it
>>farther back into the guitar, there's less boom, but also less string sound,
>>less sparkle.
>>
>>Either way I can get an acceptable sound mixing it with the pickup. I'd
>>just like to be able to get a more balanced frequency response, especially
>>as I use the combo for recording and like to get a bit of a stereo image.
>>
>>Where in the body is your mic and at what is it aimed?
>>
>>Tim Helmen
>
> I find, that in the same plane as the top, and aimed into the body, at
> around 8 o'clock on the soundhole.
>
Recommended normal position for small internal mikes is just about under
where you would plant your pinky (not that again!) and 1/8th to 1/4 inch
away from the wood, aimed at about 45 degrees. Aiming towards the soundhole
produces a more stringy, airy sound and aiming back into the guitar a woody,
dense sound. DK
--
Subscribe to our magazines by secure CC transaction - get Freelance
Photographer, The Master Photographer or Minolta Image:
http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Make me rich! Buy my CD or listen to my songs and instrumentals:
http://www.mp3.com/DavidKilpatrick
Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
From: Hmemerson <hmemerson@aol...>
Subject: Re: Internal Mic Position
Date: 16 Aug 2000 11:24:17 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Tim asked:>For all you users of internal microphones, I wonder where you
position them.
>
Hi Tim,
I've been using the Fishman-Crown GLM-200E for almost 7 years now and I've
installed at least 50 systems, like mine, in all kinds of instruments, from
parlor to dreadnaught and jumbo size.
Without exception, I've gotten the best results with the mic facing the back of
the guitar, BUT NOT parallel to it. That gives way too much boom to deal with.
I think of the sound hole as the opening of a hose through which water is
flowing. I then try to "deflect" the "water" to make it go sideaways, if you
catch my drift. This way, the mic is not catching the brunt of the bass waves.
Looking at the guitar, the mic is plainly visible on the bottom edge of the
hole (treble side). Certainly, each instrument needs to have the mic moved a
bit this way or that, but it takes no more than a minute or so to determine a
good location. The GLM-200 is a hyper cardioid mic and so it is extremely
directional, which I think helps matters. It aims where you point it, though I
sense that it's the bassy part of the sound that is more control-able by this
directing of the focal plane.
By the way, I use only a sound board transducer (Fishman SBT-E) in conjunction
with the mic and both are put through a Fishman Pocket Blender.
I am endorsed by Fishman as well, though I came to use this stuff long before
that relationship occured.
If' you'd like to read a little bit more about my setup and how I came to it,
check out the Martin Sounding Board Newsletter and read the latest issue. It's
called "One Unique approach to acoustic amplification" Hope this helps.
Take care,
Howard Emerson
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Internal Mic Position
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 16:18:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Hmemerson <<hmemerson@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20000816072417.23163.00000066@ng-fa1...>...
> Tim asked:>For all you users of internal microphones, I wonder where you
> position them.
> >
>
> Hi Tim,
> I've been using the Fishman-Crown GLM-200E for almost 7 years now and I've
> installed at least 50 systems, like mine, in all kinds of instruments,
from
> parlor to dreadnaught and jumbo size.
> Without exception, I've gotten the best results with the mic facing the
back of
> the guitar, BUT NOT parallel to it. That gives way too much boom to deal
with.
> I think of the sound hole as the opening of a hose through which water is
> flowing. I then try to "deflect" the "water" to make it go sideaways, if
you
> catch my drift. This way, the mic is not catching the brunt of the bass
waves.
> Looking at the guitar, the mic is plainly visible on the bottom edge of
the
> hole (treble side). Certainly, each instrument needs to have the mic moved
a
> bit this way or that, but it takes no more than a minute or so to
determine a
> good location. The GLM-200 is a hyper cardioid mic and so it is extremely
> directional, which I think helps matters. It aims where you point it,
though I
> sense that it's the bassy part of the sound that is more control-able by
this
> directing of the focal plane.
> By the way, I use only a sound board transducer (Fishman SBT-E) in
conjunction
> with the mic and both are put through a Fishman Pocket Blender.
> I am endorsed by Fishman as well, though I came to use this stuff long
before
> that relationship occured.
> If' you'd like to read a little bit more about my setup and how I came to
it,
> check out the Martin Sounding Board Newsletter and read the latest issue.
It's
> called "One Unique approach to acoustic amplification" Hope this helps.
> Take care,
> Howard Emerson
Howard,
Intersting take on the infernal (Internal)mic placement question. Set it 45to 90 degrees opposed to the sound-- will have to try that.. I was about to
say that sound hole mics are just plain in the wrong place for good sound--
as my experiance lends me twards the fingerboard around where it meets the
body of the guitar for mic placment(not possible with a sound hole mic)
I usually when meeting a guitar for the first time will have the ownerplay in what ever style they want and I will crouch next to the instrument
and turn my ear to the soundboard then scan the guitar for a pleasing
sound.That is where I will place the mike or mikes if needed when a guitar
has several good sounds.
George Gleason
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Internal Mic Position
Date: 16 Aug 2000 14:52:08 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hey Tim. I have that exact set-up and I had the same problem when positioning
the mic according to B-Band recommendations. Now I have the mic clamped to the
top on the cross brace just behind the sound hole. It's then bent toward the
upper bout on the treble side at about a 30-40 degree angle. It works great.
I wouldn't say I get a lot of "sparkle" but the boom is gone. Yours may have a
sweeter high end being a GC model when mine is a jumbo. Anybody?
BTW, the advice I received on this mic placement came from Larry Pattis, an
avid B-Band user and artist endorser. I can't remember his email address but
you'll see him around here sooner or later. Hope this helps. Let us know how
it goes.
Enjoy the Journey,
Mitch
| Most disappointing gear acquisition? [2] |
|---|
From: Hojo2x <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Most disappointing gear acquisition?
Date: 23 Aug 2000 04:16:10 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I had a stomp box electronic tuner that cost over $75, ate batteries like there
was no tomorrow, and took longer to find the note than I could do it by ear. I
think it was an Ibanez, if memory serves.
Then I had a used PA with a powered mixer and two speaker columns that I paid a
hundred dollars for when I was first starting out, but even the folks who sold
it to me told me that it was a total piece of shit. Got me started, though,
and I replaced it soon enough.
Can't even remember the brand.
But my biggest single disappointment, frankly, was a succession of Donnell
Mini-Flex mics. I had a tradeout with a luthier when I had paid him a deposit
for an instrument that he decided to not build. He repaid me in parts,
including several of these Mini-Flexs.
There were a couple of grades, and I put them in a couple of instruments.
These were not the cheapos, but the fairly expensive ones.
I sold the remaining two or three to friends.They sounded fairly good in the repair shop at low volumes, but hideous onstage
with booming bass and feedback problems. We kept trying to find the ultimate
position to point the mics, but we couldn't get them to work well at all - they
never sounded realistic or even halfway decent at stage volumes.
Eventually all of us ended up pulling them out and discarding them. I felt bad
because I had talked them up and several buddies tried them, but we all had bad
experiences.
Since frequenting the newsgroup I've seen the occasional post from folks who
have Mini-Flex mics and just love them, but they clearly have had much better
luck than I have. After what I went through, I wouldn't put another one in a
guitar at gunpoint.
Wade Hampton Miller
From: Chris Stern <chrisstern@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: Most disappointing gear acquisition?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:36:24 GMT
I'd agree with the Miniflex. I have one that has never been anything other
than a disappointment. Also I've been underwhelmed by the Fishman Rare Earth
Blender I have on my Martin OM42PS. I've spent hours searching for the
"sweet spot" and fiddling with eq etc but have never been satisfied. Wish I
had put a Matrix in instead as I have in my other Martins and my Arvin at a
fraction of the cost.
These days the cases supplied with many very expensive guitars do not
provide adequate protection. It's time Martin and others offered Calton or
equivalents as an option.
Does anyone else hate the yellow tweedy variety? They mark easily, my cats
love'em for scratching and they seem very flimsy. At least those I have come
into contact with anyway.
Chris
"Hojo2x" <<hojo2x@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20000823001610.13286.00000472@ng-fe1...>...
> I had a stomp box electronic tuner that cost over $75, ate batteries like
there
> was no tomorrow, and took longer to find the note than I could do it by
ear. I
> think it was an Ibanez, if memory serves.
>
> Then I had a used PA with a powered mixer and two speaker columns that I
paid a
> hundred dollars for when I was first starting out, but even the folks who
sold
> it to me told me that it was a total piece of shit. Got me started,
though,
> and I replaced it soon enough.
>
> Can't even remember the brand.
>
> But my biggest single disappointment, frankly, was a succession of Donnell
> Mini-Flex mics. I had a tradeout with a luthier when I had paid him a
deposit
> for an instrument that he decided to not build. He repaid me in parts,
> including several of these Mini-Flexs.
>
> There were a couple of grades, and I put them in a couple of instruments.
> These were not the cheapos, but the fairly expensive ones.
>
> I sold the remaining two or three to friends.
>
> They sounded fairly good in the repair shop at low volumes, but hideous
onstage
> with booming bass and feedback problems. We kept trying to find the
ultimate
> position to point the mics, but we couldn't get them to work well at all -
they
> never sounded realistic or even halfway decent at stage volumes.
>
> Eventually all of us ended up pulling them out and discarding them. I
felt bad
> because I had talked them up and several buddies tried them, but we all
had bad
> experiences.
>
> Since frequenting the newsgroup I've seen the occasional post from folks
who
> have Mini-Flex mics and just love them, but they clearly have had much
better
> luck than I have. After what I went through, I wouldn't put another one
in a
> guitar at gunpoint.
>
>
> Wade Hampton Miller
| Olson SJ/Baggs LB6x/AKG416 |
|---|
From: Chris Stern <chrisstern@mediaone...>
Subject: Olson SJ/Baggs LB6x/AKG416
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:55:10 GMT
Thought you might like to know I added an AKG416 internal mic to my Olson SJ
to go with the Baggs LB6X . First gig tonight and through the Pendulum
preamp it sounded amazing. The Mic has been adapted by Greg at Pendulum to
fit properly. I haven't spent more than a minute or 2 looking for the "sweet
spot", it seems to sound superb where it is and I had no feedback problems.
Had lots of people asking my about my equipment and commenting on the great
sounding guitar. Added a (very) little bit of chorus/reverb/delay with my
Quadraverb to give enhanced depth.
Chris
| Internal mic vs external mic..... [3] |
|---|
From: Stephen <stephenu@webtv...>
Subject: Internal mic vs external mic.....
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
I have been debating for some time about adding an internal mic to my
B-band. I have heard some folks say that they tried it and went back to
using just the pickup. They had claimed it didn't make much improvement.
I was wondering if a condenser mic clipped on the outside of the guitar
would work better? What would be the advantages/disadvantages of using
one? Obviously all mics are susceptible to feedback but wouldn't it
sound better being outside of the guitar?
Thanks,Stephen
From: john bj <desert2000@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Internal mic vs external mic.....
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:59:30 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
Stephen wrote:
> I have been debating for some time about adding an internal mic to my
B-band. I have heard some folks say that they tried it and went back to
using just the pickup. They had claimed it didn't make much improvement.
I was wondering if a condenser mic clipped on the outside of the guitar
would work better? What would be the advantages/disadvantages of using
one? Obviously all mics are susceptible to feedback but wouldn't it
sound better being outside of the guitar?
Hi Stephen,
I'm one of the guys who tried a B-Band with internal mic and went back
to just B-Band. That said, on my cut in the upcoming RMMGA CD-II, I use
an external mic blended with the B-Band and get, I think, a much better
sound. The reason a B-Band alone works for me live is that my primary
gig is playing in a fairly loud band setting.
Even on solo gigs (weddings, coffeehouses), I find the B-Band by itself
is plenty adequate. So, for me, that leaves recording and the
occasional "more discerning crowd" gig where I'd add an external mic to
blend with the B-Band. Of course, in the "more discerning" arena, it's
often a very small group where I wouldn't be electronically amplified
anyway.
All that said, I know a few folks who get a great sound clipping a mic
to their soundhole and have the quieter venue where a fixed external mic
will work. I tried a clip-on mic once and my only adjustment was to EQ
out a lot of bass. Prior to the B-Band, I had a very quacky Martin
Thinline. Before that, I just used whatever external mic that was on
hand: typically a Shure SM-57 or -58. I still have a couple of 20 year
old Electro-Voice N/D-257A mics that I use when I'm on my own. I used
them before I got any pickup (one for voice, one for guitar) and have
been real pleased with them.
Giant disclaimer: this is just my experience and taste. I'm a "muso",
not a sound guy, so there may be all kinds of problems I'm overlooking
from their end. But still, I hope this helps. ;-)
peace and joy,
jbj
--
(e-mails should be sent to desert2000 @ NOSPAM yahoo.com)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
From: <cwtwang@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Internal mic vs external mic.....
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 03:08:54 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
In article <<1060-39C6AC42-25@storefull-618...>>,
stephenu@webtv.net (Stephen) wrote:> I have been debating for some time about adding an internal mic to my
> B-band. I have heard some folks say that they tried it and went back to
> using just the pickup. They had claimed it didn't make much improvement.
> I was wondering if a condenser mic clipped on the outside of the guitar
> would work better? What would be the advantages/disadvantages of using
> one? Obviously all mics are susceptible to feedback but wouldn't it
> sound better being outside of the guitar?
> Thanks,Stephen
Nothing really sounds as good to my ears as a great external mic but
feedback problems abound! Also, you get stuck in one place.
For recording, internal mics are not good and were only designed for
stage. A lot of pros use the Joe Mills Mic and I was told by Keith Little
(former guitar player for Ricky Scaggs-Keith is a monster player) that it
is his choice (I heard it also, and I never heard a guitar sound better
on stage!!) it is said to be the best (First Quality Music Supply Catalog
has them: http://www.fqms.com/ ).
I think that when properly used and separately EQed (big factor) from
your other
source (in your case, a B-Band) either with a stereo cord from your
guitar to two separate channels of your board or amp (cheapest way) or
through the EMF Entity,a Raven Lab,a Fishman blender,a Rane, or a
Pendulum, that very good internal mics add a more natural sparkle to the
amplified signal. It is nice to have the mic there for your own
satisfaction with tone and for those audiences who appreciate and hear
the difference (maybe 5% of them do).
If cost is an issue (it is for me or I would have a Joe Mills Mic and a
Baggs Ribbon transducer installed in my guitar right now) and /or your
audiences are relatively loud, and you generally like the sound of your
B-Band, then I would stick with just the one-source with a really good EQ
(Boss is easy to use, dependable, and not very expensive) and make life a
heck of a lot simpler.
(This is all IMHO)
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
| Performance Mic for acoustic |
|---|
From: <dunwell.guitar@dorje...>
Subject: Re: Performance Mic for acoustic
Date: 29 Sep 2000 14:22:46 GMT
Organization: Dunwell Guitar - Reply to dunwell.guitar "at" dorje "dot" com
In article <<39D4C013.6C8A6115@vt...>>, noodle <<dmirolli@vt...>> writes:
>Hello,
>
>Could you fine folks give me your suggestions on which microphone to get
>(under $250) for micing an acoustic guitar on stage. There will also be
>a drummer, bassist, 3 vocalist and a keyboard player. Stage volume is
>not very loud (it's a contemporary worship & praise band. I'm interested
>in hearing opinions and experiences.
>
>Also, are there any really good soundhole pickups out there ?
>
>thanks again,
>
>Dan Mirolli
>
As far as the mic question, you may want to contact Joe Mills
(Music City Audio, PO Box 160371, Nashville, TN 37216; [615] 227-3542)
Joe Mills <<jgmills@bellsouth...>>
He makes an internal mic. This requires external power like a PADI or similar
or additional internal source. Good guy, easy to work with.
FWIW,
Alan D.
| My microphone decision |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: My microphone decision
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:12:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> Yes he did.
> And the pickup was a Fishman SBT.
> I'm not sure what brand and model the internal mic was, but the sound
> was excellent.
> I helped him set up for the show the following night, and his set up and
> sound check didn't take more than 15 minutes.
> Bob Dorgan
It was a crown glm angled at 45 degrees off axis of guitar body--I would
have like to tweek the fingerlakes show BUT thats just the way I am--nobody
should be happy till I'm happy :-)
George"always futzzing"Gleason
| Good, cheap pickup? |
|---|
From: <pmarxhausen@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Good, cheap pickup?
Date: 5 Oct 2000 01:41:05 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska-Lincoln
<bsondahl@my-deja...> wrote:
> I'm playing with a bunch of plugged in people and think I finally ought
> to get a pickup for my Martin 0018. I'd like good quality sound at a
> cheap price. Is this a contradiction in terms?
Just my 2 cents . . . I'm more and more sold on using microphones
if you are in a situation where you don't need coliseum-level
volume or have to fight a lot of other loud bandmates. For quite
a while I used home-made mikes mounted in or near the soundhole,
and many folks who've tried the same after reading my account of
how to do this at http://greentea.unl.edu/shop/text/ecmike.txt
say they've been surprised by their results. But when I started
playing in church every Sunday, my kludged-together mountings
weren't sufficient and I bought a Trinity guitar pickup system
from www.gollihur.com. While this sytem does include some
piezo sensors, I find I generally use only the internal mike.
I roll most of the bass off at the mixing board and use no
other effects or EQ, just the Trinity preamp, and I've gotten
a lot of compliments on how true the sound really is out in
the congregation.
Couple nights ago I heard a couple cool guys do a folk
concert with guitars which had what I'm almost certain were
piezo bridge type pickups. Great tunes and a great time,
but hearing the all-too-common rubbery piezo tone really
gave me a jolt and made me realize how good I have it now.
That said, I've heard really nice tones from all sorts of
different technologies, but right now I'm liking mikes and
if you go with the home-made project, you can get a LOT
of bang for your $$$$.
paul marxhausen ```` ``````` ````````````` ```````````` ```````````` ``````````
`` ` ` ` ` ` university of nebraska - lincoln ` ` ` `` ` ` `` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` grace ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` happens ` <<<<<<< Email: pmarxhausen "at" unl "dot" edu >>>>>>>
| Harp: on-stage amplifying |
|---|
From: Whizz <zzz@zzz...>
Subject: Re: Harp: on-stage amplifying
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 20:25:53 +1300
Organization: Paradise Net
"ScotFraser" <<scotfraser@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20001204020656.20363.00003018@ng-bj1...>...
> <<Any hints on amplifying a classical harp onstage: suggested mics or
> transducers/pickups to reduce monitor feedback and placement problems?
What
> are the tradeoffs between the 2 techniques please. Rest of the band is
> vocals, acoustic gtr and acoustic bass (both DI'd)>>
>
> With acoustic guitar & bass the stage level should be reasonable enough
that
> you don't need to cranl monitors to a ridiculous level. You could just mic
the
> harp conventionally with one or two condensers aimed at the sound board.
If the
> musicians start demanding a lot of level you can stick a condenser mic in
one
> of the sound holes around back & then EQ out the boxy resonance. If you
want it
> to sound like a harp & not a synth don't use pickups on it.
>
>
> Scott Fraser
My suggestion would be a Danish Pro Audio DPA 4060 mounted internally.
This mic system was developed by Greg Jackman for strings, and used for the
orchestral recording with Metallica among others.
http://www.soundnetwork.co.uk/news.html
http://www.dpamicrophones.com/