RMMGA/RAP postings on internal mics for amplifying acoustic guitars (1997-1999)

60 Messages in 31 Threads:

Small Mike Exploration

From: ErikThor <erikthor@aol...>
Subject: Small Mike Exploration
Date: 6 Feb 1997 17:28:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I am organizing an outing with a local (to the SF bay area) retailer
(Bananas at Large) to explore the world of small "clip on" type mikes for
use with violins. Bananas at Large is willing to try to get a bunch of
these things in one place where a number of us can spend a few hours
sticking them on fiddles and whatever else we so desire, and listen for
the differencs etc.

A few questions come to mind. I'd appreciate any answers be sent to me
at:

<erikthor@aol...>

1.) The questions are, any ideas about the best way to go about this?

2.) Any thoughts on omni vrs directional (see letters at end of this
post)?

3.) Here's the current list of mikes I'm hoping will be there, any other
suggestions?

Countryman (Isomax II, omni, cardiod, hypercardiod, and bidirectional
models)

Beyer TG-X5
Beyer other?

Sony ECM-55B multi-dircetional condenser
Sony ECM-44B
Sony ECM-66B
Sony ECM-77B

Crown GLM-100 omnidirectional

	(Recommened by Darol Anger)
Radio Shack clip-on mike, $40 (expensive one)

AKG C410
AKG C411
AKG C416
AKG C419
AKG other?

Audio Technica Pro35R (needs power-pack or phantom power)
Audio Technica Pro 7A (I have one of these)
Audio Technica ATR35S (inexpensive lavalier)
Audio Techinca AT803B (omni)
Audio Technica AT831B (cardiod)
Audio Technica ??

Sure SM11 lavalier
Sure MX 183 (omni)
Sure MX 184 (super cardiod)
Sure MX 185 (cardiord)

4.) Anything we should be aware of that I'm missing?

Thanks,

erik hoffman
oakland CA

Some interesting letters:

*********************************
From Chris Grampp,

I read your post and suggest you try a Radio Shack clip-on mike - thety
cost about $40.00 (get the "expensive" one, not the cheapie for $10 less),
and sound almost as good as really expensive ones. I have one if you want
to come over and try it.

Chris

**************************************
From Chuck Aronson:

	A while back a friend arranged for me to talk to Darol Anger about
this very subject. After checking out every mike in existence, his
overwhelming preference was for the Crown GLM 100. I had 2 reservations
about this. First, the Crown GLM 100 is an omnidirectional mike and I
wasn't able to ask him if that didn't create feedback problems on-stage or
if he used in-the -ear monitors to eliminate that problem or what. There
is a unidirectional version - the Crown GLM 200, but he didn't mention
that. The second reservation was not about the Crown GLM 100, but about
the disadvantages of having a mike attached to your fiddle, namely not
having control over the volume while you are playing. With a separate
mike, you simply place the fiddle closer to or further from the mike.
Also, you need to have an on/off button to shut the mike off when you are
tuning or telling off-color jokes between tunes.
	I might be interested in going over to Bananas anyway depending on
how the timing works out. Let me know if/when it's happening.

Yours in true fiddleity,

	Chuck
***********************************

I posed the first question to Darol, and he wrote back:

Dear Erik,

	We're using Crown GLM-100 omnidirectional condenser mics, mounting
them on a clip arm (comes with the mic) right behind the bridge, between
the top and the strings. Or if you need more detail just to the left side
of the bridge about a 1/4 inch off the top, between the F-hole and bridge.
Not over the F-hole! If you're not playing with drums, they work great,
even with loud monitors.
	Because the mic is omni, you can get it right down on the top
without it loading up in the low-mid frequencies, and it picks up the
strings and air around the box too,. The signal is stong enough so that
monitor levels short of stupid don't really affect it much. The cardioid
models just feed back at about 250 hz. It sounds as good as mics that cost
3 times as much. We've compared it with Sennheisers, Sonys, Countrymans (I
think the same element but the Crowns are built tougher) and these things
sound great. Crown decided to continue making them after we started
recommending them, I guess.
	We run them through a full-range PA system, of course. Most of the
folks that play outdoor festivals and no-sound-check situations are using
the Baggs/GLM combination, with that little Baggs belt pack or a rack
mixing unit to combine the signals. The pickup sound is still not right,
as far as I'm concerned, but Baggs seems to be the best, unless it's a
solid body instrument; then I'd say the new bridges by Barbera sound the
best.
DA

Lapel Mike??
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@netcom...>
Subject: Re: Lapel Mike??
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:20:31 GMT
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies

In article <01bc16be$84a5ffc0$<0bb132cf@defau...>> "bkj" <<hitchhand@midamer...>> writes:
>Does anybody know of a cordless lapel mike that has good audio quality?
>Most of the ones that I have tried sound like your in a bucket with little
>gain possible before oscillation begins.

Well, none of them are really all that good. But if you spend a lot of
money for the Vegas or the Sennheisers, you can get surprisingly better
performance than the cheapies.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Battery type for Mini-Flex?
From: Betty Lee <leebe@fhs...>
Subject: Re: Battery type for Mini-Flex?
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 23:20:27 -0500
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)

Steve,

The Mini-Flex is manufactured by Ken Donnell, Donnell Enterprises, 624
Shasta St. #B, Yuba City, CA, 95991, phone/fax (916) 671-6692.

According to a letter that I have from Ken, dated May 1992, the dobro
model is #635 and requires a 13mm hearing aid battery, which you should
be able to buy fairly easily from local shops. If in doubt, give Ken a
call. The "guitar" model, #135, does, of course, take a AA battery.

Happy playing.

Charles Tauber

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Steve Leigh wrote:

> Thank you very much. I sure appreciate any help you can give me.
> --Steve
>
> Betty Lee <<leebe@fhs...>> wrote:
>
> >No, but I'll be in my shop on Saturday and will look up the phone number
> >of the manufacturer, whose name escapes me at the moment. (I've
> >purchased a number of Mini Flex pickups from them.) I'll
> >post the phone and fax number to this newsgroup later; you can call the
> >manufacturer and ask.
>
> >Charles Tauber
>
> >On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Steve Leigh wrote:
>
> >> I have a Mini-Flex mic installed in a steel-bodied Dobro which
> >> requires a button battery from Radio Shack. Radio Shack cannot tell
> >> me what the battery is other than it's a hearing aid battery. Does
> >> anyone know who's battery I can replace it with?
> >> --Steve

.

Clip on Guitar Mic ? [2]
From: Rick Deevey <88deeveyr@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: Clip on Guitar Mic ?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 12:50:06 GMT
Organization: Sympatico

On Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:11:03 -0800, <Alimar-D@worldnet...> wrote:

>I came across an Audio Technica DRG 95 clip on condensor mic that clips
>onto the bracing inside the guitar. The cord then runs out of the sound
>hole. No drilling, etc. Has anyone had any experience with this mic? How
>does it sound ? What about placement inside the guitar? I have a Taylor
>612C and I don't want to use anything thats permanent.

Mark,

A couple of years ago, I saw Dougie MacLean performing live. He was
using 2 Taylors with different tunings and a Sony Tie-clip mic.

 He had fashioned a wire bracket which fastened friction-fit style to
the bottom of the sound hole and it held the microphone in front of
the sound hole about 3-4 inches off the strings.
Sounded fantastic and strangely, had no feedback problems. When he
switched guitars, he just slid the mic bracket off of one and onto the
other.
The only drawback was that cord hanging in front of him all the time
(he stepped on it once during a workshop on a minor stage) and the way
he had to strum further back toward the bridge to avoid hitting the
mic. But the sound was great, as I say. And it was probably not a very
expensive set-up either.

The problem with internal microphones that I've noticed is the boomy
sound they pick-up, increasing feedback amongst other problems (though
I have heard great results from an internal hyper-cardiod mic as
well). But this was a neat solution.

Rick Deevey

My "Reply To:" address is altered to avoid getting auto-mailed spam in my E-Mail.
To reply, remove the "88" at the front of the address.


From: Jeff Wilson <no@address...>
Subject: Re: Clip on Guitar Mic ?
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 21:52:46 GMT
Organization: The Benchmark Company

Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

>Hi folks-
>
>The AT831b (around $150 with a belt-clip preamp) comes with a little
>clamp to mount it outside the guitar just below the soundhole.
>I personally find this very awkward; it's easy to bump into the mic.
>I use the mic inside my guitar.
>
>A number of artists and recording engineers have raved about a
>particular Radio Shack lapel mic. However, RS no longer sells the
>model in question. Panasonic has discontinued the electret
>mic capsule used in this mic, and RS has put out newer units that
>reputedly don't sound nearly as good. On the bright side, if you
>know what to look for and are lucky, some RS stores have the old
>mics in sales bins for half the previous price (ie, around $15).
>The one to look for is the model 33-1052.

When I was on my quest for one of the Radio Shack mics, I repeatedly had RS
salesmen try to forcefull steer me to an "identical" or "better" mic
instead of the specific one I was looking for (the 33-1052). Beware, the
new product SKU is very similar, so make sure you get the EXACT one Tom
suggests.

The mic comes with a tie clasp holder that looks like some kind of
alligator clip with the teeth on only one side. I took a small file and
removed the teeth, then filled the clasp with a dot of silicon caulk. This
produced a small clip with padded jaws that won't mar the finish around the
soundhole.

When I use it, I clip it inside the guitar on the treble side of the
soundhole. This, combined with the piezo pickup in the bridge, produces a
very genuine, warm sound that I find very pleasant and records very nicely.
Since I don't have a blending preamp, I just run to the two sound sources
into channels one and two on my Crate acoustic amp.

Jeff Wilson

email: (don't reply to the header address - it's there to reduce spam)
<JeffWilson@compuserve...> -OR- <jeffreyjwilson@worldnet...>
---------------
Posted by Dan Brandon on February 24, 1997 at 21:56:18:

In Reply to: Re: Good live mics for ac gtr? posted by Louie Hall on February 19, 1997 at
10:02:33:

Well, I thought I'd add my two cents with an approach that no one else has mentioned. Reinforcing
acoustic instruments can be tricky, especially if you're trying to get rock-band levels. Most loud
bands use ony pickups and don't even hassle with mics, in my experience, and put up with the
necessary compromises in sound quality. Working with an acoustic act that liked to move around
a bit and not be limited by standing in front of mics, I got some Countryman Isomax 2 minature
omni (yep) condensors and mounted them inside the instruments. Countryman recommends
aiming the front of the element at the back of the guitar, just slightly above the wood (we used
velcro, others use double stick tape), PZM style, because if the element faces the strings there will
be some high frequency phase cancellation between the direct sound and the sound relecting off
the back of the guitar into the mic. Frankly I could never really tell in a live situation. I think the
omni design makes the placement factor a little more forgiving than most mics. Anyway, I used
these mics mainly for high end sparkle, EQing out most of the low and low mid, which is supplied
by the bridge pickups. My main complaint with the pickup sound is that they are a little dull and
two dimensional sounding. I only send the pickups to the monitors, of course, for feedback
reasons, but you can add quite a bit in the house to sweeten up the high end. They sound pretty
decent on tape also, and you don't have the problem of the distance from instrument to mic
changing. This is a pretty versatile mic, by the way - sounds great on mandolin, and provides a
much smoother tone on bowed upright bass than a pickup (I'd stick to the pickup for plucked bass,
though - more punch). I even use them inside digereedoos - the bass response is immense.
Anyway, the other mics mentioned sound great, and may be your safest bet, but if freedom of
movement and consistency of sound are an issue, you may want to try these mics out (they're also
not that expensive).
-------------------------------

Soundhole condenser mics
From: Bob Mills <decision@tigger...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole condenser mics
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 97 21:34:11 GMT
Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site

In Article <<331C83D3.41C67EA6@spacenet...>>, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

>The Radio Shack mic used by Carthy and Gregson is a now-defunct
>model, the 33-1052. ...
>The newer capsules, used in the newer RS mics, reportedly don't
>sound nearly as good.... I have one,
>and though it is certainly worth $15, it doesn't compare to
>a more expensive mic like the AT831b.

I've been following this thread with some interest but no time to reply 'til
now. I'm the "Taylor dreadnaught user with mic in the middle of the guitar
back" mentioned by Paul Stamler. Except that both of those statements are
slightly off. My guitar is a Taylor 812c, which is very small, not a
dreadnaught, and has a cutaway. I'll say more about mic position below.

I run a recording studio dedicated to acoustic recording, I'm not sloppy
about sound, and I have a lot of experience recording guitars. I'd like to
offer my frankly strong opinions about the use of internal mics.
Opinions, right?

First, I'm talking live use, not recording, with internal condensors. The
inside of a guitar is a stupid place for any of us to put a mic. For live
gigs, we have excuses; for recording, virtually anything is better.

Having said that, the element you use doesn't make a whole lot of
difference. Most of the cost of a commercial mic is in design of the
acoustic plumbing, the packaging, the interface, and of course, marketing.
I have tried putting VERY expensive miniature mics inside my guitar, but I'm
currently using a $1 element from Digikey glued inside it, and it works just
fine, thanks. The quality of whatever PA and hall I happen to play make a
much bigger dent in my sound than that element, I assure you.

Where you position whatever you put inside the guitar is the thing to
worry about, not the mic element. This is different for every guitar, and
probably for every player (I like some spots better for fingerstyle, others
for flatpick). While it's good to see if we can find trends in what works
and doesn't work, there is no silver bullet on this, so don't assume you can
just take someone else's results off the shelf and go.

That said, some basic differences in guitars may suggest different
approaches. Small-bodied guitars like my Taylor or Martin 000's like the
internal mic thing since they aren't as boomy to start with. On my guitar,
like most, the big challenge has been to reduce the boxy, phasey sound that
comes from reflection-cancellation in the midrange.

That's why I tried putting the element in the middle of the back, under the
theory that I'd get less reflection there. That worked GREAT, but it
doesn't offer as much feedback rejection as I'd like. Now I use an
adaptation of the Martin Carthy method: glued to the brace just above the
soundhole, between the 2nd and 3rd strings (Martin's is under the 2nd
string), and aimed straight down the long axis of the guitar (his is aimed
along the brace, at the top bout). The point is not that any of these spots
is THE ONE (all places inside a guitar are awful, just some less than
others). But they are places to start. Changes of about 1/3 inch make a
significant difference in cancellations and string balance and tone, in my
experience.

The differences are subtle enough that you need to tape your experiments so
you can compare them later. It's hopeless wrestling the mic around and
playing and trying to remember what it sounded like 2 moves ago. Compensate
for volume vs. tone: it's well known that just making something louder by
only 1-2 dB sounds better (although volume is good, it's not the only thing
you're after).

Sorry this is long, but I also want to say a word about packaging. My
current rig is unbelievably light and non-intrusive on the guitar - a
condenser element the size of a pencil eraser with a skinny shielded wire
salvaged from one lead of a walkman headset running to the endpin jack.
I'll bet the whole thing weighs less than a US penny.

From there, a cable runs to an external pack I wear on my hip, which was
made in England for concertina mics (MicroVox). One nice thing about that
unit is that it has a gain control on it. This plus the the adapter cable
and a second mic element on velcro mean that I can swap from the guitar to
my mandolin to screaming tenor banjo without mixer changes. Or change from
a fingerstyle piece vs. smacking the hell out of the guitar with a pick.
All in about 16 bars of music.

What I don't like about my setup:

  (a) terminates in an unbalanced (and not very hot) lead
  (b) 9v batteries are gross. I get about 100 hours, still not good enough
What I don't like about the commercial solutions I've seen:
  (a) cost a lot of money
  (b) have a lot of stuff to go wrong
  (c) also use 9v instead of phantom power
  (d) don't have as good a user interface as my rig
  (e) sound different but no better than what I've got
Lots of opinions, a few factoids. Some may even be accurate.

Bob Mills <decision@tigger...>
NoiseToys phone: 1-908-359-1837
PO Box 513 Princeton, NJ 08542 USA
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bobmills

Soundhole Condesor mikes
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Condesor mikes
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 15:51:00 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Hi Rob-

Unfortunately your question can't really be answered, except perhaps
by another person with the very same guitar you have (and perhaps
not even then). The sound you get from any brand of internal
mic depends critically on location. There are places in the
guitar where moving the capsule a half inch can drastically change
the tone (though most locations aren't nearly so sensitive). You
just have to experiment a lot.

My AT831b came with a clip to mount it outside the guitar, hanging
to the side of the soundhole. I wasn't too impressed with the
sound in any such position, and also found them very inconvenient.
I fingerpick and strum in a variety of locations (for different
timbres), and there was no place to mount the mic so that it
didn't get in the way at some point. Most folks that use these
mics use them inside their guitars.

As for internal mounting, many newer guitar mics are coming with thin
goosenecks, but I don't know where you can get bare goosenecks
of the right size from (if anyone knows, please post!). I myself
mount my AT831b capsule in a little piece of foam. I just used
tape to experiment with sticking the foam in various positions.
When I settled on one, I used some "removable" 3M/Scotch foam mounting
squares for posters. I put "removable" in quotes because once
the stuff is on an unfinished wood surface for some time, it
really does not come off!

Some folks mount the capsules very close to the back or side or
top, to simulate a PZM microphone geometry. I personally did not
find good results with such setups. YMMV.

For the record, my current favorite position has the foam block
stuck to the bottom of my Sunrise pickup! The mic capsule
is pointing toward the bridge.

Good luck,
-Tom Loredo
Joe Mills
---------------------------------------------
Thanks for asking about the "Mills mic".

It is an electret condenser mic, 1/4 x 1/8 x 5/8 inches. As for
specifications, I like to tell folks it is "ear tested" and "picker
approved". There are basically two models.

I have been told the mic has been used on a variety of instruments
including guitar, fiddle, banjo, mandolin, dobro, upright bass, violin,
viola, cello, piano, string harp, even overhead drums, and horns.

The "custom version" for installing on or into an instrument. This
version is supplied with 18" cable, a clip for mounting (ie to the wood
brace inside, chin rest, pick guard,etc), and basic installation
instructions. It needs remote power of 6 to 20 vdc, usually supplied
from the preamp ( Pendulum, Baggs, Fishman, Rane, etc.).

The "studio version" is supplied with an 8' cable with the balanced
electronics in the xlr housing. This version requires 48vdc phantom
power.

The "custom version" is $ 175.00 US.
The "studio version" is $ 229.00 US.

From: Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
Subject: Re: Mic pickup for acoustic sound
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 14:20:38 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

Though it seems to me that Len has a good product (I link to it
on my AG pages) as he's claimed in numerous such posts, I have
yet to see a comment or review by anyone using them with acoustic
guitar. Sounds to me like they're worth a try, so if anyone
gives 'em a go, do post a review here.

The mics I hear the best comments about are the Donnell Mini-Flex
and the Joe Mills mic. I've heard the Donnell on several occassions
and it sounds very good---for an internal mic. In my opinion,
no internal mic or pickup sounds as good as a good external mic.
If you stick your ear right next to your guitar while you're
playing, you'll understand why and your appreciation of how
good pickups have come to sound will probably grow: what we
hear a couple feet or more away from the guitar is nothing like
what you "hear" right at a small part of the guitar, or in the box.

Since you already have a piezo/mic setup, it sounds like a natural
option would be to get a different "blender" (a trade name) that
lets you choose as much or as little of each signal as possible.
THE Blender (by Fishman) lets you do this, as does the better
Rane AP-13 and the EXPENSIVE stereo preamp unit by Pendulum.

There are numerous amplification links at the AG site:

  http://www.museweb.com/ag/
Look on the "Technology" page under "Amplification." It includes
some manufacturer links.

Peace,
-Tom Loredo
From: blee <<leebe@fhs...>>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic
Subject: Re: Removable soundhold pickups: opinions wanted
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 12:15:34 -0500
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (NewServer)

There is also the Miniflex family of products, which has yet to be
mentioned in this thread. Essentially, they are a condenser microphone on
a goose-neck. The conventional models are installed trhough the end pin
hole while a new model can be mounted to the outside of the guitar, along
side the bass edge of the fingerboard. They aren't for everybody, but are
certainly worth considering as a good option. I like them, anyway. The
new version doesn't require an end pin hole for installation - excellant
for classical guitars. The new model can be installed or removed in seconds.

Charles Tauber

On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Ronnie wrote:

> I have recently tried both the dean markley and fender lace sensor bronze
> soundhole pickups. Of the two the dean markley was the better sounding.
> Though not satisfied I sold my returned my seagull and paid a bit more for
> the same model with a fishman under-the-saddle pickup. The difference truly
> is amazing. My suggestion is to install a fishman matrix. That comes with a
> endpin preamp which means only drilling a tiny hole through the bridge and
> enlarging the endpin hole. Neither of these "intrusions" will alter the
> sound or lower the value of your guitar (if done by a reputable technician).
>
> Mark
>
> Peter K. Anagnostos wrote in message
> <01bd033a$0dfccde0$<49dab4cf@uymfdl...>>...
> >I'd like to amplify my Lowden without installed a pickup system. I've seen
> >that Dean Markely and Seth something or other make pickups that install
> >uninstall easily on the soundhole.
> >
> >Any opinions would be appreciated.
> >
> ><peterka@en...>
>

Recording Acoustic guitarHel, Recording Acoustic Guitar
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Recording Acoustic guitarHel, Recording Acoustic Guitar
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 18:37:20 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

Yes, the AT831b is the version with the mic capsule attached to a battery
pack (1 AA battery) providing a balanced mic output. It also has a low
frequency rolloff setting.

I personally am not crazy about the sound with it clipped outside the
soundhole, and I really dislike the mounting method---there was no place
on my guitar where it didn't get in the way. In my playing I change my
right hand position a lot to get different timbres. If your hand is
pretty much always in one place, you may very well find a good place
for it.

I would not consider this mic, mounted with the soundhole clip, as a
viable solution for micing the guitar in a project studio. You really
want to use a mic well away from the guitar for that, in my opinion.
YMMV.

I personally use the mic inside my guitar, to supplement signals from
one or more other transducers. My live setup has a Sunrise soundhole
pickup and a B-band undersaddle pickup. I rely on the Sunrise for the
bass, the B-band more or less full range, and the mic for the mids and
highs. Internal mics and mics near the soundhole have a big problem
with the low frequency body resonance (around 120 Hz in most guitars),
that can give you a muddy sound or cause lots of problems with feedback.
If you are playing as a soloist at low stage volumes, you may be able to
get by with just a mic and EQ. Otherwise, relying on just an internal or clipon
mic is asking for trouble, in my opinion.

If you use the mic with one of the acoustic guitar preamps designed
to "phantom power" a mic capsule (like the Fishman Blender or Rane AP13),
you need only the capsule (AT831c, I think), not the battery pack.
The AT831b can be had for about $120, I think, but the capsule alone
is more like $70.

I just reviewed 4 mic capsules for live use with acoustic guitars, and
my favorite was the Joe Mills mic. Designed for use with a box like
the Blender or AP13, and costly ($175), but the best-sounding option
among the ones I tested. Surprisingly, a $15 Radio Shack lapel mic
(the discontinued 33-1052) sounded quite good as well, nearly the same
as the AT831. But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, since Paul Stamler
has been saying this capsule is good for quite a while.

A full review of the AT831b is at Ty Ford's web site:

    http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Live acoustic guitar amplification is a frequent topic on the acoustic
guitarists newsgroup, rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic. There are links
to lots of info about it on my AG web site:

   http://www.museweb.com/ag/
Good luck!
Tom Loredo

Pendulum AKG C416 mini mic
From: Kenny Smilovitch <kls@total...>
Subject: Pendulum AKG C416 mini mic
Date: 14 Jan 98 21:36:00 GMT
Organization: Entrepreneurs Advisory Program

I am selling an AKG acoustic guitar mini mic mounted on a gooseneck. This
mic is perfect for the Pendulum SPS-1 Preamp system but can run with any
phantom powered preamp. $250 Canadian.

Audio Technica ATM15a soundhole mic advice... [6]
From: John Griffin <jgriffin@spectranet...>
Subject: Re: Audio Technica ATM15a soundhole mic advice...
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 23:38:22 -0500
Organization: Still Point

In article <<hadcockp-1401982056090001@1cust245...>>,
<hadcockp@li...> (Peter Hadcock) wrote:

>I also use a an AT831 (as does Tom Loredo), but I use mine externaally. It
>works fine with my Lowden but not so well with my Thompson. Both have
>saddle transducers but the Lowden's factory EMG has much less bass
>response (than the Thompson's Fishman) which the mic makes up for as well
>as well as a larger soundhole (less air "rush"). In my application ( a
>small church group) the levels are not very high so I do not have feedback
>concerns either.
>
>All in all, I have been very pleased with the AT831 but, as with anything,
>it all depends on a variety of factors (The application, instrument,
>etc.).

ATM15a mics have just been discontinued. I picked one up today for half
price. I don't know what the difference is between the ATM831b and the
ATM15a (or the Pro 7a for that matter). They all look alike and according
to the specifications they seem to perform the same.

I just tried the ATM15a on my Larrivee LJ-10 and found the bass extremely
heavy. I have to cut way back on the bass control and boost the treble to
get a natural sound. Sliding the mic back in the slot as far as it will go
makes things a bit better. Engageing the bass cut-off position makes it a
bit better still.

Does anyone else find this to be the case?

John G.

--
________________________________________________________
| John and | <jgriffin@spectranet...> |
| Valerie | <jgriffin@astral...> |
| Griffin | <johnweg@aol...> |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| "Still Point" | It's Not Too Late... |
| Moffat Ontario Canada | To have a Happy Childhood |

 --------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Audio Technica ATM15a soundhole mic advice...
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 15:07:29 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy folks-

John, thanks for the update on the status of the ATM15a. I've found
that almost all internal mics are extremely bass heavy. That's probably
why those with power pacs usually have a bass rolloff switch, and it's
also presumably why the Fishman Blender and Rane AP13 preamps have
bass cut controls. I said "almost" because a partial exception are
the Donnell mini mics. I just tested their newest one, the #138
that quick mounts in the soundhole, and it had noticably less bass
than any other mic I tried (AT831, Mills, Radio Shack). It still needed
a cut at about 130 Hz in my guitar to sound good, but the bass problem
is not as bad as with other mics. I wrote to Kenn Donnell about this,
and he confirmed that the mic was designed with a built-in bass rolloff.
It also rolls off highs above 16kHz to avoid feedback up there. In
my opinion, for use in combination with another pickup where you have
some EQ control for the mic (as with a Blender or AP13), these tradeoffs
are overkill---in the mids and highs, the Donnell sounded the least
natural of the mics I tried. However, if you want to use a mic by
itself and/or have limited EQ control, the Donnell may be a good solution.

By the way, Donnell is offering a special introductory price on this
mic of $50 until Feb 1. Its mounting is unusual and will probably not
be the best choice for someone wanting a pretty permanent installation.
But if you want something that can be easily removed (to move to another
instrument perhaps), or that requires no drilling or gluing to mount,
it's worth considering.

Regarding the AT831, Audio Technica sells it as the AT831b with a
battery pack (providing balanced out and bass rolloff) and a lapel
clip and external soundhole clip for around $120 street price. However,
if you are mounting it as an internal mic for use with a preamp that
can power it (like a Blender or AP13 or Pendulum), you do not need
the clips or battery pack. You can order the capsule by itself; I
think it's the AT831c; it's about $70. There is a full review of
the 831b at Ty Ford's web site: http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Audio Technica ATM15a soundhole mic advice...
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:59:30 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Hi folks-

> i would think any "soundhole" mic would sound terrible. remember the sound of
> he acoustic guitar is the wood, not the strings. mic the wood!

Just to clarify... I and many others have noted here many times that
right near the soundhole is a bad place to put a mic. Donnell calls
the #138 mic a "soundhole" mic only because of the mounting,
which is a clip that attaches outside the guitar and puts the mic
inside the guitar via a gooseneck that goes in *thru the soundhole*.
You can put it well inside the guitar, and indeed in my tests it
was not at the soundhole. With all the mics I've tested, there is
no position in my guitar where they are not bass-heavy (with the
partial exception of the #138 previously noted). Josh's experience
is either particular to his guitar or particular to his mic. It's
not too surprising. In his review of the Radio Shack mic, sound
engineer Paul Stamler noted that it sounded exquisite in Martin
Carthy's guitar attached right at the neck block, but that he was
unable to duplicate this sound quality in another guitar. The sound
field in a guitar is very complicated, with the unfortunate
consequence that there are no universal internal mic solutions to
the amplification problem.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Josh Karnes <karnes@usa...>
Subject: Re: Audio Technica ATM15a soundhole mic advice...
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:23:02 -0600
Organization: LIM

> > i would think any "soundhole" mic would sound terrible. remember the sound of
> > he acoustic guitar is the wood, not the strings. mic the wood!
>
> Just to clarify... I and many others have noted here many times that
> right near the soundhole is a bad place to put a mic. Donnell calls
> the #138 mic a "soundhole" mic only because of the mounting,

gotcha!

> Josh's experience
> is either particular to his guitar or particular to his mic

well hopefully i can soon determine that for a fact. my friend is currently
using the mic in his Larrivee L-09 and he also has another guitar
(Alvarez-Yairi) that we might try it in. his son has a cheapo Tak or yamaha or
something like that that we could put it in as well. in fact, anyone in austin
who wants to partake in this experiment, feel free to contact me. alls ya need
is a regular endpin jack hole and we'll try my mic. if it turns out that it
indeed is not just my guitar, but the mic, then i'll go ahead and disassemble
the mic and see who made the capsule and if there are any other markings so we
can add this to the collective wisdom.

just let me point out, this mic FLOORED me when i first heard it, and believe it
or not i have even used it in the studio plugging straight in on more than one
occasion (but of course, this is way taboo imho).

> The sound
> field in a guitar is very complicated, with the unfortunate
> consequence that there are no universal internal mic solutions to
> the amplification problem.

man, acoustic amplification is a major problem which to my ears is best solved
with a regular old mic on a stand out front. this only works for very very
specific gigs though. the internal mic has been the best alternative i have
seen, perhaps accompanied with something else and blended with EQ so you get the
low-lows from another source and the highs from the mic to reduce feedback.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                                              josh_karnes:
         shileen's husband, jordan and hannah's daddy, guitarist, drummer,
     composer, songwriter, audiophile, computer geek, mechanic, carpenter,
                             wannabe gourmet chef, keeper of the faith <><

From: John Griffin <jgriffin@spectranet...>
Subject: Re: Audio Technica ATM15a soundhole mic advice...
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:58:15 -0500
Organization: Still Point

In article <<34BFDDC6.33504ECA@usa...>>, <karnes@usa...> wrote:

>well hopefully i can soon determine that for a fact. my friend is currently
>using the mic in his Larrivee L-09 and he also has another guitar
>(Alvarez-Yairi) that we might try it in. his son has a cheapo Tak or yamaha or
>something like that that we could put it in as well. in fact, anyone in austin
>who wants to partake in this experiment, feel free to contact me. alls ya need
>is a regular endpin jack hole and we'll try my mic. if it turns out that it
>indeed is not just my guitar, but the mic, then i'll go ahead and disassemble
>the mic and see who made the capsule and if there are any other markings so we
>can add this to the collective wisdom.

Thanks for the replies on this subject. Since I posted the original
article, I have done some experimenting. I play the ATM15a through a
Peavey Ecoustic 112 (which I also use with the XLR out jack for gigs). I
find that with the Master Presence control turn up to 7 and the EQ
controls fairly flat, and the bass rolloff switch on the mic engaged, I
now get a very sweet and natural sound from my Larrivee LJ-10.

When I hook up my Seagull 12-string, however, I have to turn down the 2
bass EQ sliders and raise the treble a tad. In fact the guitar sounds best
when you can almost draw a straight line at the angle from lower bass
setting to a raised treble.

When I hook up my Gibson 1948 Southern Jumbo, I flatten the EQ and back
off the Presence and it sounds light, airy and natural (although it
doesn't have the resonance of the Larrivee that I can feel through my
shoes.

John G.

--
________________________________________________________
| John and | <jgriffin@spectranet...> |
| Valerie | <jgriffin@astral...> |
| Griffin | <johnweg@aol...> |
|--------------------------------------------------------|
| "Still Point" | It's Not Too Late... |
| Moffat Ontario Canada | To have a Happy Childhood |

 --------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Audio Technica ATM15a soundhole mic advice...
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:04:48 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy folks-

Actually, the PZM response is not a property of a mic element, but
of its mounting. Paul Marxhausen's online document detailing the
use of Panasonic elements in a guitar I believe describes the results
of his experiments with PZM mountings in the guitar, which didn't
seem to work too well for him. I belive Eric Aceto (Ithaca Stringed
Instruments) does custom mic installations with Panasonic cartridges
mounted in PZM fashion, and has had good luck with it. But I don't
know for sure.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Building Electret Mic
From: Frank Filipanits Jr. <newspost@NOSPAMcoolstufflabs...>
Subject: Re: Building Electret Mic
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 10:58:48 -0800
Organization: Cool Stuff Labs Incorporated

In article <6cfke6$ngr$<1@lyra...>>, <cmh@eng...> (C.M.
Hicks) wrote:

> David Daye <<ddaye@postbox...>> writes:
>
> >I have an application for Radio Shack type electret mic
> >capsules in very confined space
> >
> >I've heard suggestion that an electret element, plus some
> >sort of transistor and not a lot else, can be connected
> >into balanced wiring (haven't tracked down the suggestor).
>
> Correct. See my web page (www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~cmh).

I've had great success with a set of Mics I made from scratch based on
Christophers' schematics and the Panasonic capsules available from Digikey.

Here is the excerpt from his web page for the method I used:

Method 2

      +-----o---------------------330R--------+
      |     |                                 |
      |    2k2                 +---10k----+   |
      |     |                  |          |   |
      |     |                  |       E--o---|--------------- COLD
      |     o---------||----o--o-------B      |
      |     |         1u0   |          C      |
      |     |+              +-100k-+   |      |
      |  CAPSULE                   |---o------o
      |     |-              +-100k-+   |      |
      |     |               |          C      |
      |+    o---------||----o--o-------B      |
     10u    |         1u0      |       E--o---|--------------- HOT
      |-    |                  |          |   |
      |     |                  +---10k----+   |
      |     |                                 o----+
      |    2k2                               +|    |+
      |     |                                12V  10u
      |     |                                -|    |-
    --o-----o---------------------------------o----o---------- GROUND
Notes:
  1) The component "12V" is a 12 Volt zener diode
  2) Component EBC is a PNP bipolar transistor, eg BC479
     Ideally these should be hand-picked for low noise and
     matched gain. Bear in mind that VCE can be up to about 36V.
  3) The 1u0 capacitors should be high quality plastic film types
  4) This circuit will fit in the existing RS box, but a metal one
     is recommended for the additional screening it affords.
  5) The circuit may benefit from the addition of 22pF capacitors in
     parallel with the two 100k resistors.
  6) For minimum hum pickup the two 2k2 capsule bias resistors should
     be accurately matched.
  7) The 10u capacitor in parallel with the zener should be a tantalum
     type, and can have a 10n plastic film cap in parallel if you wish.
  8) The cable to the capsule should be twin+shield. The shield should
     be connected to ground near the zener diode, and left unconnected
     at the capsule.
  9) The polarity of the capsule is important. The + side is the one 
     connected to the casing. (Odd but true, at least in the case of
     the RS PZM.)
 10) The pinout given is the standard for XLR3 mic connectors.

I've done a number of recordings with them and people are regularly blown
away with the sound I'm able to get. I use them as PZM's, taping the
element to a large flat surface (ie. piano lid, window, etc.).

I made a few modifications to accomodate a switchable battery/phantom power
circuit with an LED to indicate when the mics are powered, and also a
switchable pad as I found the output to be very hot, often overloading the
board inputs.

Best of luck to you.

Frank Filipanits Jr http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~franko
Cool Stuff Labs Incorporated http://www.coolstufflabs.com
**** To reply via e-mail, remove "NOSPAM" from the reply address ****

DIY gooseneck mike
From: Joe Mahan <mahan@who...>
Subject: DIY gooseneck mike
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 1998 18:20:11 GMT
Organization: UBPG

(following a recent thread about internal gooseneck mikes)

I dissected a cheapo mike/headset for reverse-engineering purposes.

The rigidly-flexible component is heavy copper wire.

For the electrical stuff, Paul Marxhausen has covered it thorougly.

The mechanical part:

cut a piece of 12-gauge house wiring to desired length.
get a ring-lug from the auto-parts store and solder it onto one end-
this end is used for mounting the rig.

thread your mike cable and the copper wire through a piece of
windshield-washer tubing. Solder your mike on and pull it snug.
Use RTV or some glop for strain relief if desired.

Screw the ring-lug to your neck tail-block for internal use, or if you
have a strap button on the heel of your neck you can attach the
ring-lug under your strap button, for an external mike.

Joe Mahan

Pickup Suggestions for Seagull SM6 Acoustic
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Pickup Suggestions for Seagull SM6 Acoustic
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:17:54 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hi Karl-

A few months ago I did a "shootout" test comparing 4 different internal
condenser mics ranging from a $30 Radio Shack lapel mic (which uses a
$3 Panasonic condenser element!) to the $175 Joe Mills mic. The results
were surprising enough to me that I had a guitarist buddy of mine come
over and rate them himself, "blind," and he duplicated my results. The
surprise was that the cheap radio shack mic sounded remarkably like the
mic that was then my standard, the ~ $100 AT831b, and for use in a dual
source setup sounded better than the more expensive Donnell soundhole
mic. The Mills was the only one that really stood out as sounding
noticably better, but it also costs a lot more.

In fairness, if you want to use an internal mic alone in a simple setup
with no fancy external EQ, the Donnell would be the best---the others
are all too boomy in the bass (Ken Donnell made his mic to roll off
the bass). But in a dual source setup, you would usually roll off the
bass on the mic with your preamp, in which case the other mics win.

I recently added a 5th mic to the list, the element that comes with
the B-band Core dual source version. It sounds just like the Radio
Shack/Panasonic mic.

My recommendation---if you are picky about tone and can afford it, go
for the Joe Mills mic. Otherwise, inexpensive mics do about as well
as the $70 or $100 mics.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Mics (was "Awesome B-Band!")
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Mics (was "Awesome B-Band!")
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 13:53:41 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

George-

Gotta agree with Larry on the mic issue. I A/B'ed a bunch of internal
mics (AT831, Mills, Donnell soundhole, Radio Shack 33-1052, B-band)
and found astonishing little difference between the AT, RS, and B-band
(especially surprising considering the range in price and different
polar pattern of the AT). The Mills was the only standout; definitely
the best of the bunch (but also the most expensive) and worth it if
you have the $$. The Donnell is the odd man out---it's intended for
use by itself (ie not part of a dual-source setup) and thus has
a built in EQ correction that eliminates boominess, at the expense
(to my ears) of accuracy in the top end. For dual-source use, I
don't consider this a good compromise---one would probably roll off
all the lows anyway, and rely on the mic for accurate highs.

George, if you are the experimenting type, I'd love to hear what you find
if you use the AT or Shure elements. If you're not, I suspect you're
not missing much by sticking with the B-band element, but I can't
say for sure.

I should also emphasize that the sound field inside a guitar is very
complicated, and a particular element can respond quite differently
at different locations and in different guitars. It's tough to make
a general recommendation. FYI, the guitar I tested the elements in
is an Olson SJ. At one point I had 4 different elements in there at
once---lots of wires coming out of the soundhole! I recorded them
simultaneously on a 4-track so I could compare them with the exact same
signal, and without the actual guitar filling the room with its acoustic sound.

Instructions on how to modify the Core preamp so you can add a
different element and not have the Core provide it "phantom" power
(ie, so you can use your Blender or AP13 for that, and thus save
battery life) are available right on the B-band web site in a PDF file.

Someone asked about the frequency response. I don't have any official
info about this, but based on my speculations on the origin of the
element (don't ask for details because I won't provide them!), I believe
it's a 20-18k or 20-20k omni element. But there's a lot more to what
makes a mic sound good than its frequency response, so even though
these specs look impressive, they don't by themselves guarantee a good
sound ($3 Panasonic mic elements like the one used in the RS 33-1052
have these specs). Equally important are the polar pattern, distortion
figures, and the dynamic response, but the former is only sometimes provided,
and dynamic response (as a waterfall plot) almost never. I suspect it's with
these 3 specs that the Mills wins out, but since no one provides
them, it's hard to say for sure.

This gets us to the issue of 2-wire vs. 3-wire mic elements. Condenser
mic elements are actually more than just the actual condenser mic
element itself---they have a little circuit in them that "buffers"
the raw mic signal, because it is very delicate (extremely high impedance,
for the techies out there) and will be adversely affected by even
very short cables. Three wire elements give you a bit more access to
this internal circuitry, allowing the preamp designer more control over
the signal (techies: you can control the FET bias). It's obviously
easier to use 2-wire elements, but their distortion figures tend to
be somewhat compromised by the simpler topology---the price for
simplicity. You can convert most 3-wire elements to 2-wire simply
by connecting the right two of the wires together. Instructions for
a variety of mics are available at the page for the AP13 preamp
at the Rane web site (http://www.rane.com/). An outstanding web
site, by the way, with tons of useful audio info.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

2-wire vs. 3-wire electret mics (was B-band.*)
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: 2-wire vs. 3-wire electret mics (was B-band.*)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:13:05 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Hi Joe-

***Tech alert! This stuff will bore the heck out of most readers!! 8-)***

I've never seen a 3-wire capsule of the type you mention; thanks for
alerting me to their existence! Of the pro capsules I'm aware of,
the 3-wire versions (the AT831 capsule is a popular example; I believe
the Crown capsule sold by Fishman is the same way) provide
you access to ground (for the electret element) and both the
source and drain of the internal FET. This lets you choose the
appropriate source-to-ground resistance (and hence gate bias voltage)
for your particular application (power voltage, sound level). The two-
wire elements have a particular resistance fixed in the capsule. This
means you are not really free to adjust the gate bias. This can
strongly affect the linearity of the capsule (ie, distortion), especially
for high volume levels (it's loud inside a guitar!).

Just out of curiousity, let us know who makes the 3-wire capsules
you're speaking of. How do they sound to you?

> With the two-wire jobby, you supply the bias resistor
> and the bypass cap, so you can do things like max out the bias voltage
> for greater headroom,

This works as long as the gate bias is large enough that you aren't
bottoming out on negative peaks. That is, this adjustment only lets
you increase the positive-going headroom.

> and tweak the bypass to roll off the boomy
> bottom, if desired.

This "tweak" is possible, but not recommended. Where the rolloff
will be will depend on the impedance of the preamp you plug into. Most
pres have impedances substantially larger than the typical bias
resistance (20k and 2k are typical values for these) so the rolloff
shouldn't depend much on the input Z, but some capsules
use larger bias resistance (15k for some AKG elements) so the preamp
input Z becomes important. Best to reserve EQ for a later stage, unless
you have a buffer after the capsule.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

joe mills mic
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: joe mills mic
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 14:53:35 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

Mike-

The Mills mic is omnidirectional, so it doesn't matter which way
you point it. Just try moving it. There is no single place that
works on all instruments with all mics. The soundfield inside
a guitar is very complicated, and in some locations (esp. near
the soundhole) moving the mic an inch can dramatically change
the tone. Just play around a lot, and don't rule anything out
a priori.

Some placements for the record:

John Martyn uses a Radio Shack lapel element attached near
the neck block.

Pendulum recommends installation of their AKG mini mic so
it is under the top, a bit away from the soundhole, on
the treble side a bit toward the bridge.

Phil Keaggy's old Olson setup, when he used a Fender M1
mic, had the mic under the top between the bridge and
the edge of the soundhole. (He now uses a Baggs Dual
Source, which I think has the mic fixed to the module.)

I presently use a mic element attached to the bottom of
my Sunrise pickup (i.e., about 1 1/2 inches inside the
soundhole).

Eric Aceto, a local luthier, likes to mount elements on
the back, in a custom wood mount that gives them a bit
of a PZM type of response. I've heard some very good
sounds with this setup.

So as you can see, all kinds of things can work....

Finally, I personally don't believe the rather low mass
of these mics will noticably affect your acoustic tone if
you happen to use a top brace for mounting.

Good luck, and let us know how it works in the end. The Mills
is probably the finest mic out there, and you should be able
to get a good sound with it. Of course, make sure you use
the "low cut" switch on the Blender....

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Pick-up Troubles
From: Sweet98261 <sweet98261@aol...>
Subject: Re: Pick-up Troubles
Date: 11 Oct 1998 22:53:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I know of a great guitar mic. It is manufactured
by Applied Microphone Technology. It
produces the natural sound of the instrument.
My friend just purchased the mic and he
loves it. My friend said Paul Simon is
using it. When I first heard it , the mic sounded so natural I could not
believe he
was miked. He told me that AMT has a webb
site-www,Appliedmic.com

              Good Luck
Internal mics; was: Anyone going to NEFA? [2]
From: Bob Mills <decision@tigger...>
Subject: Internal mics; was: Anyone going to NEFA?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 98 21:16:46 GMT
Organization: Verio Northeast

In Article <<365081F7.F70D6204@spacenet...>>, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

>This year RMMGA participant Bob Mills (who performs as "Mills")
>was selected as one of the mainstage performers, and did a
>killer set! He also had a great guitar tone, though we never
>got cleared up how much of it was his onboard condenser mic
>element and how much was the external mic the sound company
>was using. Definitely one of the best guitar tones from
>mainstage, whatever he was doing. And a lovely set. He used
>this very cool foam pad mute on two songs to produce a unique
>and evocative tone to accompany his singing. Check him out
>if you like your folk music to pay heed to
>traditional sounds while still having a contemporary element.

<Blush>Thanks, Tom!</Blush> [sorry, not all s/w supports the blush tag]

I asked Tom before my showcase if he would listen specifically to my guitar
sound, since most folks can't sort out your playing/tunings/axe from the
amplification chain, and here was a golden opportunity to have an expert
guitarist AND sound tech check it out in a big venue.

I later spoke with Mark Weber, who did the mix, and it was as I thought an
SM-81 on the stand. Although I asked too late for him to remember
_exactly_, Mark said that my internal mic sounded particularly good earlier
at the sound check, so he used less of the 81 than with others, maybe about 25%?

So what I was using, to recap, was a little omni electret mic element
bummed from a friend. It's fastened via double-backed tape to the middle of
the back of the guitar, which is the position I found to produce the least
phasing and boxiness in this particular guitar (Taylor 812c, a small-body
cutaway) after 2-3 days of experimentation with my dat machine. I formerly
used the Martin Carthy position (under the end of the fingerboard, between
the 2nd & 3rd strings), and that has a nicer top end, but more phasing in
the mids and less isolation.

The signal runs via a cable made by unzipping half a cheap stereo headphone
cord (the lightest shielded cable I had laying around) to the endpin jack.
From there it goes to a Microvox preamp/power supply, which terminates in a
1/4" jack, so then usually to a direct box.

There's nothing magic about the Microvox box, it's really simple even to a
total electronics dolt like me (although that may mean I'm missing something
important...). Hence my question last week about moving the essentials of
it (battery/resistor/cap) inside the guitar.

If you started from scratch to do it that way, using my custom cabling
approach [!] plus electret element, I'd guess the total cost including your
first battery is well under $10. Okay, $20 if you need an endpin jack...

My silly wild-assed guess as to the keys for this working are: (1) omni
element, (2) small guitar, (3) tons of experimentation with a dat recorder.
Position is everything, and totally different from one guitar to another,
and of course it's a total PITA to do, and of course moving it a half-inch
makes all the difference - argh! With the omni element, it becomes mainly a
contest to reduce the boxiness. Bass isn't too bad with the omni and small
body, and that you can eq, but comb filtering you can't eq.

Tom, didn't you say the Mills (no relation) mic is an omni? And that
quality-wise there are basically 2 internal mics, that one and all the rest?
If that's true, then given my experience, I submit that the inside of a
guitar is such a crazy acoustic environment that it being an omni is crucial.

Having claimed a small guitar works best, this approach is the pits in my
Baby Taylor so far, probably due to the wierd internal baffles.

By the way, not to make this sound like a back-slapping contest, but what a
pleasure to meet Tom! He's a great guy, and his session on Sunday at NEFA,
describing and demo'ing all of the approaches we've been hashing over here,
from transducers to outboard, was like a bravura performance, as he spun
from source to source, running sound, talking and playing. He has a serious
talent for explaining tough ideas accurately in just a few words (have YOU
ever tried defining phase cancellation to a novice in 10 seconds?!?!?). I
certainly learned a heckuva lot! As a bonus, he also brought along one of
just about all the latest live performance gear out there for guitarists.

Oh yeah: he's no slouch on the guitar, folks.

mills (my wife calls me that, too)
mailto:<decision@tigger...>
- new music from generations of tradition -
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bobmills


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Internal mics; was: Anyone going to NEFA?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:14:49 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

After lots of good advice/comments on internal mics, Bob Mills asks:

> Tom, didn't you say the Mills (no relation) mic is an omni?

Yes.

> And that
> quality-wise there are basically 2 internal mics, that one and all the rest?

Of the 6 I've listened carefully to, yes, that's my experience. These
include the Joe Mills, an AT831, the Crown that comes with the Fishman
setup, the B-band mic, the Radio Shack label mic (33-1052), and a $3
Panasonic mic element. I've read good things here about the new
Highlander mic, but haven't heard it so I can't offer any comment.

Many thanks to Bob for the public kind words about the NEFA workshop!

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Mics for acoustic guitars? [2]
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars?
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 16:16:58 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy-

<JVAJJ1234@aol...> wrote:
>
> Jamie, It's more commonm to have a mic/pickup combination than just a mic
> alone.

Definitely true. But see below.

> Check out the Fishman Blender systems which utilize a Crown GLM-200
> mic and the Acoutic Matrix undersaddle pickup. It's about the best there is.

Got to disagree with this one. When I hear bad setups, it's usually
this one. I have occassionally heard it sound good, though; perhaps
it's simply a matter of it being more popular than competing setups and
thus abused in greater numbers. 8-)

That said, a B-band dual source setup is far superior to a Matrix/Crown
setup, in my opinion. It's also cheaper and easier to install. Use
DejaNews to find recent reviews of B-band products in this newsgroup.

Regarding just using an internal mic, it's unusual, but not at all
unheard of. The first person I heard do it effectively is Lee Murdock
(from the Chicago area, I believe). He uses Donnell mini flex mics,
which in my opinion are the best out-of-the-box solution for an
internal-mic only setup, unless you want to carry a rack of EQ with
you. Ken Donnell adjusts most of his mics to inherently roll off
the low end, which is usually what is over-emphasized in internal
mics. In a dual-source setup, you usually have a preamp with EQ
(like a Blender or Rane AP13) that you use to completely roll off
the low end on the mic signal, making up for it with the pickup signal.
The Donnell has this kind of low end rolloff largely built in. I tested
a bunch of internal mics last year, and the Donnell is the only one
that sounded reasonable plugging right into the board. The others
all were unusably boomy.

Our own Bob Mills gets a pretty good sound using an inexpensive
element (Microvox?) mounted on the back of his guitar, inside,
facing the front. He spent a long time playing with the position
to get one that worked without sounding too boomy and picking up
too many internal reflections (creating a nasty boxiness to the
sound). So it is possible to get that to work. Similarly, Martin
Carthy is rumored to get a great sound using a $30 Radio Shack
lapel mic (the 33-1052, now no longer made) mounted on his neck
block. But a fellow who engineered one of his shows found it not
to work well at all in that position in his guitar---what works and
what doesn't in this regard is unfortunately very instrument-dependent.

If you are going to go with a dual-source setup, the
Donnell would be my least favorite. In my opinion, the mids and
top ends of other mics are superior to that of the Donnell, provided
you have a Blender or other such device to roll off the low end.
In particular, the Joe Mills was far and away my favorite for
dual-source use. All others (ranging from a $3 bare capsule to
a $100 Audio-Technica element) sounded pretty much the same; the Mills
was the only standout. So if you can afford the $175 price tag, it's
money well spent. Otherwise, for dual source use, a cheap element
will probably be adequate. A good basic one comes with the dual
source B-band setup, for example (www.b-band.com).

So in summary, for plug-and-play internal-mic-only use, try the
Donnell mics, and be prepared to play a lot with mic position.
For dual source use, go with the Mills if you can afford it;
otherwise, use something cheap.

A good source for the Donnell mics is First Quality (www.fqms.com).
Their catalog shows all his models. The one I tested is the
soundhole pickup, which mounts from outside the guitar. The
miniflex series (also sold under the Rane label) mount from
inside, off an endpin jack. I believe Ken also makes mics
without the rolloff, but they are more expensive and I did not
test one of them.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Bob Mills <decision@tigger...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars?
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 98 18:58:30 GMT
Organization: Verio Northeast

In Article <<3666FFC9.B7F13B9@spacenet...>>, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:

>Our own Bob Mills gets a pretty good sound using an inexpensive
>element (Microvox?) mounted on the back of his guitar, inside,
>facing the front. He spent a long time playing with the position
>to get one that worked without sounding too boomy and picking up
>too many internal reflections (creating a nasty boxiness to the
>sound). So it is possible to get that to work. Similarly, Martin
>Carthy is rumored to get a great sound using a $30 Radio Shack
>lapel mic (the 33-1052, now no longer made) mounted on his neck
>block. But a fellow who engineered one of his shows found it not
>to work well at all in that position in his guitar---what works and
>what doesn't in this regard is unfortunately very instrument-dependent.

To clarify a few points:

(1) Yes, I use a MicroVox, but the only operative part of that rig is the
preamp box, which is outside the guitar on my hip. The element is just
some random electret element from Mouser (an engineer in Cambridge gave me a
handful 6 years ago - I have no idea which one it really is, he said they
were less than a dollar each, which is hard to square up with the current
catalog). Note that this element, the Martin Carthy rig, AND the Joe Mills
mic is they are all omni. Interesting, eh!?!?!?!

(2) I engineered for Martin Carthy for a week some time back. As I recall,
the lapel mic is actually on a brace under the finger board, so it's not far
from the edge of the soundhole (not on the block). I definitely remember
the orientation: between the 2nd & 3rd strings but closer to the 3rd, and
facing the 'upper' side, perpendicular to the long axis of the guitar.

(3) I had absolutely no problem getting good sound from Martin, and would
question the competence of any engineer who did. His rig DOES put out a
fairly big 'smile curve', i.e., reduced midrange, but it sounds natively
very sweet, not boomy, and in practice I decided not to eq it at all.
That's part of his sound, that thumpy thumb-driven style that he invented.
There's a difference between boomy (bad) and thump (Martin really presaged
hip-hop!).

(4) Martin doesn't play the same instrument as the rest of us, it is really
more like a plucked cello. He tunes CGCDGB, using two B strings for the top
2, and the heaviest acoustic set available (.014-.060, but with the 2 B's
it's .018-.060). And this on that tiny Martin guitar!!!

mills
mailto:<decision@tigger...>
- new music from generations of tradition -
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bobmills

Fishman Rare Earth vs. Sunrise (blending system cost) [6]
From: Forward Shifted <olnick@bigfoot...>
Subject: Re: Fishman Rare Earth vs. Sunrise (blending system cost)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 18:50:21 GMT
Organization: DIGEX, Inc. - Beltsville, MD - http://www.digex.net

Tom,

I contacted Fishman about this, and they essentially said that your
statement below does not apply here.

While they (not surprisingly) won't reveal the actual manufacturer of the
mic used in the Fishman Rare Earth Blend, I quote:

"it's definitely a very high end, high quality product. It's made
by one of the top mic manufacturers in the world to specific specs for the
Fishman Rare Earth. You were right in questioning the info you received. If
$3.00 mics sounded great, they wouldn't make expensive ones, and we'd all
save money."

Given that it is being made to specific specs, I doubt that the Panasonic
element is being used here.

Joe

Tom Loredo wrote in message <<36684C3A.6984FB17@spacenet...>>...

>
>Joe: The cheap elements actually sound quite impressive, and have quite
>good signal to noise. Martin Carthy uses a $30 Radio Shack lapel mic
>(which is nothing more than $3 Panasonic element with a cable and
>battery case) and engineers rave about his live acoustic tone.
>
>> Is there anything unique about the Mills or Crown elements that would
allow
>> me to differentiate them visually?
>
>Yes; both the Mills and the Crown look very different from most other
>elements. The cheap ones are little cylinders. The Mills is a polished
>brass flat rectangle with a little round screen on one side. The Crown is
>a black plastic flat rectangle with a screen in an indent on one side.
Each
>of these sells for over $100 by itself, which is why I've presumed that,
>like the other multi-source setups available, Fishman is using a cheap
>element. Judging from the picture in the adds, it sure looks like they
>are using one of the cheap cylindrical elements, though it looks like
they've
>mounted it in a fancier housing than Radio Shack uses! 8-)
>


From: Ben Han <benhan@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Fishman Rare Earth vs. Sunrise (blending system cost)
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 1998 22:18:02 GMT
Organization: Monmouth Internet

Hi Joe,

I have a Rare Earth Humbucking Version. I got it without the mic
because I prefer having the brilliance switch. Also, I figured that
if I want a mic, I would probably spend the money and get a Joe Mills.

Just a few comment about the reply Fishman gave you about the mic:

1) I would imagine that most companies sincerely believe and will
advertise their products as being the best in the market. If they
don't think that their products are the best, they probably should be
spending money to improve them or develop better products (or maybe
get out of the business).

2) Whatever type of mic is used in the RE Blender, whether expensive
or not, high quality or not, will have to be "custom manufactured" and
custom fitted for the RE Blender. Though their statement sounds
impressive, it's not unlike Texas Instruments saying that the keys on
the TI-34 calculator was custom manufactured for them. I'd take it
with a grain of salt.

Ben Han
<benhan@nospam...>


From: Ville Nummela <vnummela@xxxomega...>
Subject: Re: Fishman Rare Earth vs. Sunrise (blending system cost)
Date: 08 Dec 1998 18:07:23 +0200
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology

"Forward Shifted" <<olnick@bigfoot...>> writes:

> Tom,
>
> I contacted Fishman about this, and they essentially said that your
> statement below does not apply here.
>
> While they (not surprisingly) won't reveal the actual manufacturer of the
> mic used in the Fishman Rare Earth Blend, I quote:
>
> "it's definitely a very high end, high quality product. It's made
> by one of the top mic manufacturers in the world to specific specs for the
> Fishman Rare Earth. You were right in questioning the info you received. If
> $3.00 mics sounded great, they wouldn't make expensive ones, and we'd all
> save money."

> Joe

> Tom Loredo wrote in message <<36684C3A.6984FB17@spacenet...>>...

> >Joe: The cheap elements actually sound quite impressive, and have quite
> >good signal to noise. Martin Carthy uses a $30 Radio Shack lapel mic
> >(which is nothing more than $3 Panasonic element with a cable and
> >battery case) and engineers rave about his live acoustic tone.

Joe, notice that Fishman talks about mics and Tom discusses elements
only. There's a big difference between the two!

Relatively good quality elements - that is, condenser capsules with
essentially flat response - can be had for a few dollars. But in
addition to the element you need a housing, and that's the costly
part. The housing shapes the capsule's frequency response, transient
response, directionality, distortion, protects it and hopefully also
rejects mechanical noise. It ain't easy to design a good one, which is
why good mics cost so much.

For a guitar's second source, sufficiently good results can be
achieved by merely sticking a simple cheap capsule to a wire. The
B-band optional mic is one such devise, which is why they can offer
the upgrade for a very reasonable price. One can try to get better
results designing a good housing - the Mills mic for example (I
believe) - but it also greatly adds to the cost. The element itself is
not necessarily of any higher quality.

That said, there are expensive capsules too. If a flat response is not
enough, be prepared to shell out some serious dough. One might, for
example, require a large dynamical range, fast transient response,
ultra-low noise, extremely large passband, or some other special
property depending on the application. For a guitar's second source,
this is not really necessary, so a relatively cheap one will usually
suffice. (Of course one can easily find some real crappy cheap
elements too, so don't take this as a generalization!)

Note that a good many capsules already have some part of the housing
permanently attached to the element. This may be one of the reason why
the two are often confused. Maby also why Fishman specifically
mentions their special specific specs :-)

GFTT (uwp)

        Ville
# Ville.Nummela"at"iki.fi ("at"=@) http://www.iki.fi/vnummela/
# Note: To reduce spam, my return address has been modified.
# Tampere University of Technology, Finland. All opinions are mine.
# MAKE MONEY FAST (Hall of Humiliation): http://ga.to/mmf/


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Fishman Rare Earth vs. Sunrise (blending system cost)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 14:49:23 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Joe et al.-

Almost all of the condenser mic elements for all manufacturers
are made by just a few companies, mostly in China. Even the best
multi-kilobuck large diaphragm condenser
mics use elements that cost below $100. The expense comes in selection
from among elements, modifications, and designing the housing and electronics
as Ville mentioned. As a professional recording engineer you
probably know this (this topic has been beaten to death on
rec.audio.pro, for example), but it's worth mentioning here because
others may not know it, and Fishman's ambiguous response to you
may have made you temporarily forget it. 8-)

As I've reported here before (and I'm not at all alone in these
observations), I've tested a half dozen internal mics in my guitar
(4 of them at once, compared via simultaneous multitrack recording)
including a $3 bare capsule in a block of foam at the end of
a cable, a $30 Radio Shack lapel mic, an $80 guitar mic by
Audio-Technica (AT831b), a $100 Donnell mic, the Crown that comes
with the standard Blender setup, and the $175 Joe Mills mic.
They all sounded remarkably similar, except for the Mills which
had a boomier bass but a much more natural top end. In a dual
source setup, the mic is never used flat; usually the low end
is seriously rolled off. Once you do that with the Mills, it
alone stands out from the rest as being worth any extra expense.

Particularly amazing to me was how similar mics with very different
polar patterns sounded.

A hint to what's going on may be in the Mills pamphlet---he doesn't
quote any frequency response specs, but says his mics are "ear
tested and picker approved." The inside of a guitar is such an
unnatural place to be "listening" to a guitar that the usual
attributes one looks for in a good external mic are probably not
as relevant as one might thing. Joe Mills seems to have struck
a very nice balance, whatever he's done.

Anyway, Fishman may not be using a $3 element, but if they are
spending even $20 on it, they are nuts. Their "high end"
and "top mic manufacturer" remarks could very easily be in
reference to the few Chinese electret element manufacturers
that produce the vast majority of electret elements in use,
with typical costs in the $3 range in quantity. So maybe
they are spending $5 on the element. ;-)

I do not mean to be critical specifically of Fishman here (or
to be critical at all)---my remarks apply equally well to
the mics that come with multi source setups from Baggs and EMF
and Bourgeois and True Tones. I never said the mics were not
worth the extra money we are charged for them---it is worth
paying for a quality housing, mounting, cable, and electronics. My
challenge was to Joe's statement that to duplicate the quality of mic
sound from the Rare Earth Blend, one had to invest over $100 in
a mic. This is highly unlikely.

Below I'll append some recent discussion on the cost of condenser
mics from rec.audio.pro, for the record.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

From: <kludge@netcom...> (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Panasonic condensor mic elements repackaged as hi end mics?
Message-ID: <<kludgeEtGuzr.C8x@netcom...>>
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
References: <<3564DD42.1563@netaxs...>>
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 14:59:50 GMT

In article <<3564DD42.1563@netaxs...>> <lxh2@netaxs...> writes:
>Is this true that those $3 mic elements have found their way into some
>expensive mics? Wow! How's that for adding value to a product?

Here is a hint: on a typical consumer product, the parts cost is about 10%
of the final cost of a product.

On a typical pro audio product, the markup is even higher, because it's not
possible to amortize the cost across as many units.

So, on a typical $300 mike, less than $30 goes into parts. This is just
life. And yeah, most of the capsules used in condenser mikes in the
under-$500 range are the Panasonic, Primo, or Lectret capsules, most of
which are selling for less than five bucks.

The thing about the cheap electret capsules is that the huge production
makes for good economies of scale.

If you don't like it, make your own capsules.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: <guysonic@aol...> (GuySonic)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Panasonic condensor mic elements repackaged as hi end mics?
Date: 24 May 1998 22:30:57 GMT

In article <<kludgeEtGuzr.C8x@netcom...>>, <kludge@netcom...> (Scott Dorsey)
writes:

>Subject: Re: Panasonic condensor mic elements repackaged as hi end mics?
>From: <kludge@netcom...> (Scott Dorsey)
>Date: Sun, 24 May 1998 14:59:50 GMT
>
>In article <<3564DD42.1563@netaxs...>> <lxh2@netaxs...> writes:
>>Is this true that those $3 mic elements have found their way into some
>>expensive mics? Wow! How's that for adding value to a product?
>
>Here is a hint: on a typical consumer product, the parts cost is about 10%
>of the final cost of a product.
>
>On a typical pro audio product, the markup is even higher, because it's not
>possible to amortize the cost across as many units.
>
>So, on a typical $300 mike, less than $30 goes into parts. This is just
>life. And yeah, most of the capsules used in condenser mikes in the
>under-$500 range are the Panasonic, Primo, or Lectret capsules, most of
>which are selling for less than five bucks.
>
>The thing about the cheap electret capsules is that the huge production
>makes for good economies of scale.
>
>If you don't like it, make your own capsules.
>--scott
>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>-

As a manufacturer that uses OEM mic capsules for the patented DSM stereo
microphone, I can add from experience that whatever capsule is used, it's
rarely adequate in the native as-supplied-OEM form for making a quality product
without extensive modification (both mechanical, acoustical, and electrical) to
bring out the best qualities while eliminating or minimizing the weaknesses.

This takes know-how, time, and specialized materials/tools to turn that (often
viewed as) 'sow's ear' into more of a desirable 'silk purse'.

The type of wire used to connect to the capsule (we use a custom 'Star-Quad'
for exceptional external electrical noise immunity) can also effect the signal
and mechanical performance of any capsule....... using slightly stiff mic cord
telegraphs cord handling noises directly to the capsule (I use custom extra
flexible 450 strand cord for this) and the method of mounting the capsule is
all important to the quality of being acoustically neutral to sound reception
(no tonal colorations) and elimination of any mechanical handling noises
(without needing any shock mountings).......... and this is only some of
capsule mounting considerations.

In addition, Stereo microphones demand a very stable, precision match of the
capsules. Time/labor intensive Gain Stabilization and full-bandwidth
procedural tests for gain/phase match is just one of the additional processes
necessary when using any OEM capsule for this application.

Providing a finished product with exceptional performance and value to the end
user is the ultimate intent of this manufacturer who uses OEM
capsules.......... users of the DSM microphones generally agree that I more
than succeed in meeting both of our expectations........... the company list of
repeat customers is a good indication of the measure of succeeding in these
matters.

Best Regards in Sound & Music, Leonard Lombardo
Sonic Studios(tm) "Making Audio History With DSM(tm) Microphones"
Ph.541-459-8839 USA Free:1-888-875-4976 WEB: www.sonicstudios.com
"A bit of knowledge coupled to a great deal of wisdom serves us best"
From: <hammonsjames@mindspring...> (James E. Hammons)
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Pro Audio Manuf Mark-Up Methods
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 06:25:26 GMT
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

$3 panasonic mic elements are smaller in diameter than most other small mics
which have about a 1/2" diaphram. Now you could shape it like a B&K measurment
microphone and make a small diameter extension on a larger body. Then you could
sell it on its high frequency response which no human can hear but it's true.
You would have to ignore the fact that the small diameter makes it impossible to
have a good signal to noise ratio. Ever seen or heard of a mic that looks like
that? Now you know who uses the $3 panasonic element and thats in single
quantities lord knows what they pay.

The other capsule is the chinese copy of the U-47 capsule which everyone seems
to use. They are cheap because of poor quality control and 10 cent an hour
labor. But some select these or reassemble them to improve quality. If you
were to use these you might call your mic rodent to designate the ratty origin.
No one would notice the pun.

James E Hammons

<mail@steen-mansion...> (hank alrich & lanis lebaron) wrote:

>Harvey Gerst <<harvey@ITRstudio...>> wrote:
>
>> >>However, when somebody takes a
>> >>$3 item and turns it around and sells it for several hundred dollars
>> >>with extensive modifications
>> >
>> >>They should disclose the fact that they are using a modified $3 mic
>> >>element
>>
>> Extending that type of thinking, suppose I'm a sculptor and I start with a
>> $3 piece of marble. After I've finished my sculpture, should I disclose the
>> "fact" that it's a $3 piece of marble with "extensive modifications"? Should
>> that influence my selling price or a purchaser's desire to buy it? Isn't
>> there some value added by the modifications that may significantly add to
>> the $3 part cost?
>
>Typical artistic egotism. Sculpture should be sold by the pound. Why
>wouldn't that also work for microphones?
From: <kludge@netcom...> (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Pro Audio Manuf Mark-Up Methods
Message-ID: <<kludgeEtKJ2C.9nq@netcom...>>
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies

In article <<356c5cb7.4020353@news...>> <hammonsjames@mindspring...>
writes:
>$3 panasonic mic elements are smaller in diameter than most other small mics
>which have about a 1/2" diaphram. Now you could shape it like a B&K measurment
>microphone and make a small diameter extension on a larger body. Then you could
>sell it on its high frequency response which no human can hear but it's true.
>You would have to ignore the fact that the small diameter makes it impossible to
>have a good signal to noise ratio. Ever seen or heard of a mic that looks like
>that? Now you know who uses the $3 panasonic element and thats in single
>quantities lord knows what they pay.

That's true. You could also put baffles around it and rig it up into a
side address microphone, with the baffles altering the off-axis response to
try and make it like a large diaphragm mike. Ever seen anyone do that?

Let's face it, guys, 99% of the electret mikes out there use sub-$3 mass
produced capsules. Give it up.

>The other capsule is the chinese copy of the U-47 capsule which everyone seems
>to use. They are cheap because of poor quality control and 10 cent an hour
>labor. But some select these or reassemble them to improve quality. If you
>were to use these you might call your mic rodent to designate the ratty origin.
>No one would notice the pun.

Yeah, but you'd be surprised who else is using these. Admittedly some folks
are replacing the diaphragm on them, but this is really the #1 capsule used
for large diaphragm mikes.

It's not "the other capsule," it's just one of many popular cheap capsules
out there.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: EveAnna Manley <<emanley@manleylabs...>>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Subject: Re: Pro Audio Manuf Mark-Up Methods
Date: 26 May 1998 10:58:01 -0700
Organization: <http://www.manleylabs.com>

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> In article <<356c5cb7.4020353@news...>> <hammonsjames@mindspring...> writes:
> >$3 panasonic mic elements are smaller in diameter than most other small mics
> >which have about a 1/2" diaphram. Now you could shape it like a B&K measurment
> >microphone and make a small diameter extension on a larger body. Then you could
> >sell it on its high frequency response which no human can hear but it's true.
> >You would have to ignore the fact that the small diameter makes it impossible to
> >have a good signal to noise ratio. Ever seen or heard of a mic that looks like
> >that? Now you know who uses the $3 panasonic element and thats in single
> >quantities lord knows what they pay.
>
> That's true. You could also put baffles around it and rig it up into a
> side address microphone, with the baffles altering the off-axis response to
> try and make it like a large diaphragm mike. Ever seen anyone do that?
>
> Let's face it, guys, 99% of the electret mikes out there use sub-$3 mass
> produced capsules. Give it up.
>
> >The other capsule is the chinese copy of the U-47 capsule which everyone seems
> >to use. They are cheap because of poor quality control and 10 cent an hour
> >labor. But some select these or reassemble them to improve quality. If you
> >were to use these you might call your mic rodent to designate the ratty origin.
> >No one would notice the pun.
>
> Yeah, but you'd be surprised who else is using these. Admittedly some folks
> are replacing the diaphragm on them, but this is really the #1 capsule used
> for large diaphragm mikes.
>
> It's not "the other capsule," it's just one of many popular cheap capsules
> out there.
> --scott

OK. I'm not afraid. I'll go on record that we use the Chinese U-47 copy
capsule on our Manley Ref. Cardioid Mic and our Langevin CR3A. It ain't
a bad capsule at all. We've been using them for almost ten years now and
found long term they hold up really well too. I order them in about
200pcs at a time ONLY in the winter. Now don't laugh, but this does make
a difference in the quality as the humidity at the capsule factory is
decently severe in summertime there. This capsule is significantly more
expensive than the electret capsules, don't worry. (On the order of 30
times I guess...) The fact is, we don't have to reject many for bad
sound or noise and since they are made all at the same time, the
consistancy has been very decent. Sure all capsules have a little
"flavor" of sound to them but the range of said flavor is within a
workable tolerance for us. I make checker sets out of the rejected
capsules. More of these are rejected with screwdrivers through the
diaphragm (construction error on our part--- whoooops!) rather than poor
sound. In these ten years I maybe have enough reject capsules for only a
couple o' checker sets....

David Josephson makes our Manley Ref. Gold capsule here in California.
This costs about ten times more than the chinese capsule and there is no
way I don't think that I could ever get him to deliver 200pcs at one
time even if I paid him in advance or went up to his place help him make
'em myself, even if I could sell that many Gold mics in a year.... hey
DJ, stop reading this post and get back to the bench!! My October order
is still backordered!!!!! :>)

Kudos to Brad Lunde for an informative and decently accurate assessment
of Pro Audio Manufacturer's MarkUp Methods. He knows his stuff.
--
Cheers, EveAnna Manley
Manley Laboratories, Inc. 13880 Magnolia Ave. Chino, CA. 91710
Tel: (909) 627-4256 Fax: (909) 628-2482
<http://www.manleylabs.com>
From: <kludge@netcom...> (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Pro Audio Manuf Mark-Up Methods
Message-ID: <<kludgeEtMzL6.1AC@netcom...>>
Organization: Institute for Boatanchor Studies
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 22:24:41 GMT

In article <<356C90D2.3839@netaxs...>> <lxh2@netaxs...> writes:
>I think you all missed my point. I do not care if said mfr is using
>cheap mics, or if said mfr is using crappy parts. The marketplace will
>decide which mfr will survive. But sometimes the marketplace is slow to
>react correctly until facts can be had.

The fact is, that just about everyone is using the same cheap electret
capsules. I dare you to name someone making an electret mike who
isn't, other than DPA.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."


From: Forward Shifted <olnick@bigfoot...>
Subject: Re: Fishman Rare Earth vs. Sunrise (blending system cost)
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 1998 22:21:30 GMT
Organization: DIGEX, Inc. - Beltsville, MD - http://www.digex.net

Tom,

I was originally responding to a posting by Pierre Debs on 12/3/98 that
said:

"I think the Rare Earth w/mic is around $250.00. The sunrise w/ buffer
box can be had from $275-300. Not much more expensive. "

To which I responded that Pierre was comparing a system with a mic & blender
to a system that had neither. It wasn't a fair comparison.

I went on to try and show that to get a comparable system with a Sunrise,
one must add in the cost of the mic, and a unit to mix or blend the two
signals.

Tom, you know that the actual diaphragm used in any commercial (or custom)
microphone is a fraction of the total cost. I am not in any way disagreeing
with this.

The $100 figure that I quoted for a mic similar to the one used in the
Fishman Rare Earth Blend was a hypothetical figure for a similar microphone
totally based on commercial prices. Go and try to find a commercial
condenser microphone for less. It was a ballpark figure used for a
hypothetical comparison.

The idea was to compare a Sunrise-equipped blender system to the Fishman
Rare Earth Blend system, using off the shelf prices for both. Compare
apples to apples here. You want to turn this into a discussion of
microphones.

Even if you include your $3 Panasonic element, you still have to add in the
cost of the blender/mixer, which pushes the cost of a Sunrise blender system
to almost twice what the Fishman Rare Earth Blend costs. And the Fishman
has other advantages (on-board blending, integrated preamp, smaller
soundhole blockage, etc.). That's what Pierre and I were discussing.

And I don't understand why you had to quote 17k of newsgroup postings to
confirm what I said to Ville, which was that the assembly affects the
overall sound response from a mic. What was the point? I already said as
much to Ville.

And finally, didn't you contradict yourself in your last post by saying:

>My
>challenge was to Joe's statement that to duplicate the quality of mic
>sound from the Rare Earth Blend, one had to invest over $100 in
>a mic. This is highly unlikely.

Right after saying:

>I never said the mics were not
>worth the extra money we are charged for them---it is worth
>paying for a quality housing, mounting, cable, and electronics.

Exactly! You are referring to integral parts of a microphone. The
diaphragm element is only one part.

Tom, you seem to be implying in this thread that all condenser mics are
basically the same. You're saying that for a given application (use inside
the guitar, and blending in with a pickup), it makes no difference what you
use. While any mic may technically work (better than none), I rather doubt
you will find agreement among audio engineers that the choice of mic will
make no difference. The question is, how audible are the differences? Even
two mics of the same brand and model usually sound at least slightly
different. That they share the same element is irrelevant.

Let me know when you've actually had a chance to try out the Fishman Rare
Earth Blend for yourself, Tom. I would be curious what you think of the
system.

Joe

Tom Loredo wrote in message <<366D82C3.B0698931@spacenet...>>...
>Joe et al.-
>
>Almost all of the condenser mic elements for all manufacturers
>are made by just a few companies, mostly in China. Even the best
>multi-kilobuck large diaphragm condenser
>mics use elements that cost below $100. The expense comes in selection
>from among elements, modifications, and designing the housing and
electronics
>as Ville mentioned. As a professional recording engineer you
>probably know this (this topic has been beaten to death on
>rec.audio.pro, for example), but it's worth mentioning here because
>others may not know it, and Fishman's ambiguous response to you
>may have made you temporarily forget it. 8-)
>
>As I've reported here before (and I'm not at all alone in these
>observations), I've tested a half dozen internal mics in my guitar
>(4 of them at once, compared via simultaneous multitrack recording)
>including a $3 bare capsule in a block of foam at the end of
>a cable, a $30 Radio Shack lapel mic, an $80 guitar mic by
>Audio-Technica (AT831b), a $100 Donnell mic, the Crown that comes
>with the standard Blender setup, and the $175 Joe Mills mic.
>They all sounded remarkably similar, except for the Mills which
>had a boomier bass but a much more natural top end. In a dual
>source setup, the mic is never used flat; usually the low end
>is seriously rolled off. Once you do that with the Mills, it
>alone stands out from the rest as being worth any extra expense.
>
>Particularly amazing to me was how similar mics with very different
>polar patterns sounded.
>
>A hint to what's going on may be in the Mills pamphlet---he doesn't
>quote any frequency response specs, but says his mics are "ear
>tested and picker approved." The inside of a guitar is such an
>unnatural place to be "listening" to a guitar that the usual
>attributes one looks for in a good external mic are probably not
>as relevant as one might thing. Joe Mills seems to have struck
>a very nice balance, whatever he's done.
>
>Anyway, Fishman may not be using a $3 element, but if they are
>spending even $20 on it, they are nuts. Their "high end"
>and "top mic manufacturer" remarks could very easily be in
>reference to the few Chinese electret element manufacturers
>that produce the vast majority of electret elements in use,
>with typical costs in the $3 range in quantity. So maybe
>they are spending $5 on the element. ;-)
>
>I do not mean to be critical specifically of Fishman here (or
>to be critical at all)---my remarks apply equally well to
>the mics that come with multi source setups from Baggs and EMF
>and Bourgeois and True Tones. I never said the mics were not
>worth the extra money we are charged for them---it is worth
>paying for a quality housing, mounting, cable, and electronics. My
>challenge was to Joe's statement that to duplicate the quality of mic
>sound from the Rare Earth Blend, one had to invest over $100 in
>a mic. This is highly unlikely.
>
>Below I'll append some recent discussion on the cost of condenser
>mics from rec.audio.pro, for the record.
>
>Peace,
>Tom Loredo
>

<huge archive of newsgroup postings clipped>


From: Bob Mills <decision@tigger...>
Subject: Re: Fishman Rare Earth vs. Sunrise (blending system cost)
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 98 18:58:39 GMT
Organization: Verio Northeast

>Tom, you seem to be implying in this thread that all condenser mics are
>basically the same. You're saying that for a given application (use inside
>the guitar, and blending in with a pickup), it makes no difference what you
>use. While any mic may technically work (better than none), I rather doubt
>you will find agreement among audio engineers that the choice of mic will
>make no difference. The question is, how audible are the differences? Even
>two mics of the same brand and model usually sound at least slightly
>different. That they share the same element is irrelevant.

I use just an electret element inside my guitar, and have gotten tone that a
lot of people like when compared side-by-side with the standard undersaddle
and dual source approaches.

HOWEVER, the inside of the guitar is such a hostile environment in terms of
comb filtering that I don't believe changing around mic elements/capsules
will accomplish anything that isn't dwarfed by that factor, so I agree with
Tom, with the following exception: I use an omni element, and I think that
is the only important difference. Other than that, no mic change will matter.

I've run a recording studio for the past 6 years, I have a reasonable
complement of mics and know their differences for various applications. All
of those differences pale in comparison to the phasing nonsense inside a
guitar box, and the enormous change in THAT nonsense from moving the element
a half inch. If you _did_ stuff a Neumann inside the guitar, it would do a
great job... of picking up crappy sound.

>Let me know when you've actually had a chance to try out the Fishman Rare
>Earth Blend for yourself, Tom. I would be curious what you think of the
>system.

I tried it. Sounded great, very convenient. Also buzzed like HELL under
flourescents (tried 2 different units). Useless, in my opinion.

mills
mailto:<decision@tigger...>
- new music from generations of tradition -
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bobmills

mic elements (was: Fishman Rare Earth ...)
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: mic elements (was: Fishman Rare Earth ...)
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 1998 14:01:25 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Howdy again folks-

In case any techies are reading this thread, I want to make one more
observation about the mics I compared. Two of them (the AT831 and
the Crown) are 3-wire mics as they come from the factories. Condenser
mics have built-in simple first stage preamps that consist almost
entirely of a FET (Field Effect Transistor). 3-wire elements give
you control over how to bias the transistor; two wire elements do
not. For the tests I did, I connected two wires on these mics
together so they could be used where a 2-wire element is used. This
is required if you use them with any standard dual source preamp,
like a Blender or Rane AP13; the instructions on which wires to
tie together for various models are available at Rane's web site.

My point in bringing this up is it may well be true that these
elements would stand out from the cheaper ones if one used them
in a way that took advantage of the 3rd wire. This is not something
you'd be able to do with standard equipment, so for most people it
will be a moot point. I'm hoping it would make a difference,
though---I've learned how to make the cheapo elements act like
3-wire elements, and I'm playing with this idea for those who,
like me, like to "do it yourself." Anyway, maybe the extra
capabilities of these more expensive elements are noticable only
in setups not possible with existing acoustic guitar amplification gear.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Anyone ever use the Microvox?
From: Bob Mills <decision@tigger...>
Subject: Re: Anyone ever use the Microvox?
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 98 18:58:35 GMT
Organization: Verio Northeast

In Article <<36680070.326888530@news...>>, <jdyer@fte...> (jd) wrote:
> Has anyone ever used the Microvox system, specifically the
>Duo? (http://www.microvox.demon.co.uk/duopage.htm).
>If so, any thoughts'd be appreciated. I'm curious how the
>microphone sounds.
>thanks.

Hi Jamie,

Yes, I use the single MicroVox on all my instruments. Have done so for 8
years with my band instruments (tenor banjo, mandolin, etc), and also the
last 2 years performing live with my Taylor 812c.

The important thing about the mics in the MicroVox system is that they are
omni, which sounds way better but is more feedback prone. In my band
experience, this was not a problem in acoustic bands, except in one venue.

However, with the guitar, I've taken to putting the element inside, which
actually sounds pretty good compared to outside (having the omni outside
would pick up bleed from the monitors, which compromised the sound). This
has also cut the feedback situation, but it might still be a problem with a
larger guitar.

mills
mailto:<decision@tigger...>
- new music from generations of tradition -
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bobmills

Mini-Flex, Fishman, ???
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Mini-Flex, Fishman, ???
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1999 16:00:36 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Hi Kent-

The mini flex mics are unique beasts. If you were asking what
mic to use as part of a dual-source setup (mic+pickup), I'd say
stay away from them. In such a set up you'd be using an external
Blender-type box to combine and equalize the signals, and you'd
be rolling off all the low end from the mic. Once you do that,
pretty much all the other internal mics available sound better
than the Mini Flex.

However, if you are using a mic *by itself*, and aren't going
to be carrying around a preamp and EQ for it, the Mini Flex is
the only way to go. Ken Donnell has "built in" a low end
rolloff, making this mic basically the only mic that sounds
okay by itself inside a guitar. I've heard pretty good sounds
from it (Lee Murdock comes to mind).

Be aware that a mic-only setup is the setup most prone to
feedback. So if you are playing with a band or in a noisy
bar, this may not be the way you want to go---dangerous if
you have high stage volume!

Two cautions. (1) Be prepared to spend some time moving
the mic around; depending on the guitar, the sound quality
can vary substantially with mic position. That's why these
things are on a gooseneck! (2) The larger the guitar, the
more likely you are to have trouble with low end mud/boominess.
A D28 may be a problem. I've only tried the various mics
I've tested (6 including a Donnell) in a smallbody (SJ) guitar.
I don't know if the Donnell's low end rolloff is adequate
for a larger guitar. One nice thing is that Ken has an
externally mounted version (the Soundhole Mic, #138 I believe).
Even if you are considering an internal one, if your dealer
has teh 138, you should give it a try in the store to see if
you like the tone. This is the one I tested and own (though
I confess I don't use it in my own guitar; I have a 3-source
setup for which other mics are superior).

As for pickups, I am not fond of the Fishman undersaddle
pickups (Matrix, Thinline), and have not heard their soundboard
pickups and thus can't comment on them. Much better sounding
(and easier to install) as far as undersaddles is the B-band
by EMF (http://www.b-band.com). They are fairly new, so your
dealer might not yet know about them, but they are worth seeking
out. As for soundboard pickups, the McIntyre is the most highly
regarded (with the possible exception of the Trance Acoustic Lens).
They are reasonably priced, but for all soundboard pickups you
will need a separate preamp. In contrast, almost all modern
undersaddle pickups (including the Matrix and B-band) come with
a small built-in preamp.

If you are serious about your tone, I suggest you consider
the B-band dual source version. It doesn't cost much more than
the single-source one. It will require an external mixer like
a Pocket Blender. However, before investing in the Blender,
you could always just use the B-band signal by itself, getting
the Blender later when you've saved up for it. First Quality
(http://www.fqms.com/) is a good source for almost all of
this gear (Fishman, B-band, McIntyre).

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Internal mic - mounting ideas?
From: <pmarxhausen@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Internal mic - mounting ideas?
Date: 26 Feb 1999 15:42:44 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska-Lincoln

I've been playing with these mikes again since I need to play at church through
a PA. (BTW, read how to wire these up at
ftp://ftp.engr.unl.edu/pub/eeshop/ecmike.txt)

My experience with mikes inside was that I was getting boxiness and odd
coloration no matter where I put the mike inside. What I haven't tried
is suspending it inside, like some of the goosnecks do.

For quite a while I used a very flat mounting on the top surface of the
guitar, under the strings between the bridge and soundhole. This worked
pretty well without a lot of "boom" or resonance. Then, I stuck it on
a small plexiglass dingus so it was out in front of the guitar, like
a PZM mike. Now, this sounded pretty good and for once seemed to get
rid of strong body resonance. But once I got into a PA, the sound leakage
problem these mikes always have became insurmountable. I could not
get enough gain without picking up everything in the immediate area. This
would work OK if it were just me and my guitar, but with an ensemble it
was a failure.

So I am back to mounting closer to the guitar. I punted and stuck one of
my elements next to the soundhole, on top, just peeping over the edge
of the hole, facing in. And by golly, that was passable. Not great, you
still have your primary body resonance to wrestle with, but not bad either.

(And in this case, I killed that body resonance by doing something terrible
from a hi-fi perspective: I just grabbed the bass EQ knob on my PA channel
and rolled it all the way off. This would not sound great for solo playing,
but in an ensemble with piano, percussion, and bass guitar, you have a lot
of other stuff filling in that low-end and low-mid territory, and if I
don't kill my bass I 1) muddy up the total sound of the group 2) promote
feedback and 3) my guitar doesn't cut through, mostly because I can't
get enough gain before feedback. With the bass radically cut, my acoustic
is up loud and really in your face. So much for getting the "true sound
of your guitar."

In fact, this has pushed me towards A. Legg's point of view, expressed here
recently, that it ends up being somewhat futile trying to capture your prized
guitars true tone with all these inadequate mikes, pickups, etc. and you'd
be better off buying an instrument designed for amplification. To this end
I hope I can find some way to buy an Ovation Celebrity for live/amplified
gigs. Not that I will leave my treasured Alvarez to crumble in it's case,
but when it's time to amp up, you need something that works. Plus the
Ovation has some ergonomic advantages I like, and may really need as I ramp
up my playing time.)

<<<<<<< Email: pmarxhausen "at" unl "dot" edu >>>>>>>

Miniflex/Donnell Mics [2]
From: Hojo2X <hojo2x@aol...>
Subject: Re: Miniflex/Donnell Mics
Date: 3 Mar 1999 02:03:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Jack -

While some folks swear by their Miniflex mics, several friends and I got them a
couple of years back, and spent most of our time swearing AT them. These
weren't the cheapo low-end models, either - mine retailed for around $275 at
the time, and one friend went so far as to get the $450 "studio grade" model.

None of them sounded very good, even the top dollar one, try as we might to
experiment with mic location inside the guitar air chamber.
None of them had any gain to speak of, and the tone was mediocre at best.

Out of the half dozen friends and personal acquaintances of mine who got caught
up in that "Great Alaskan Miniflex Fad" of 1996, only one of them still has one
in his instrument, and that's there only because he hasn't bothered to take it
out. He's using another guitar as his main ax now, and probably has the same
strings on the one with the Miniflex that he had on the instrument when he
installed it.

Short answer: a bunch of us spent a bunch of money, but all ended up thoroughly
disgusted with the damn things. For around the same money you can get a
Fishman blender or a Baggs Dual Source setup, either of which sound a lot more
natural and work a whole lot better.

At least in my experience. Your mileage may vary.

But I CAN tell you that I wouldn't take a Miniflex as a GIFT, nor would any of
the professional musicians I know who've used them.

But maybe they've improved the design since then....don't just take my word for
this. Check around, and see what others say.

A couple of important points to get covered, though: what sort of volume level
is the happy Miniflex owner using it at, and how much experience with other
systems do they have?

From what I've seen, many of those happiest with the Miniflexes are using them
in low volume situations like church (not nightclubs or festivals) and many of
them have not experimented with other, technologically current pickup systems.
(1970's era Barcus-Berry block pickups are a little outmoded by now, and don't
really serve as a valid basis of comparison.)

Wade Hampton Miller


From: DADGADTune <dadgadtune@aol...>
Subject: Re: Miniflex/Donnell Mics
Date: 3 Mar 1999 04:11:00 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Jack,

I first heard a Miniflex at a Helicon concert in 1992. Robin Bullock was using
a model 135 (Approx $125) in a Marin J-40 and a Sobol cittern in an auditorium
seating 2000. The instruments sounded incredible and purely acoustic. I
bought one immediately. I have since bought 4 more. Evertime I sell a guitar
with a Miniflex the buyer insists on leaving the mic in because it sounds so
good amplified. This has happened twice now.

I use the Minflexs for coffee houses, either solo or in groups of up to 4
instruments, including guitar, banjo, hammer dulcimer, flute, and viola. I
love them. They sound purely acoustic, are inexpensive, maintenance free
(except for a cheap AA battery every year. I use them in a Taylor GAWS, a koa
custom Taylor, a Larrivee OM-09 and a Martin D--35 playing everthing from solo
fingerstyle to Celtic, folk, and bluegrass.

I also have a LR Baggs ribbon transducer in the D-35. Guest what... I use the
sound hole Miniflex mike in this instrument instead of the internal pickup due
to the superior sound of the mics. I only use the Baggs as a last resort if I
am extreme lazy.

An experienced professional sound guy and acoustic guitarist told me two years
ago that my Larrivee with Miniflex sound hole mic was the best sounding
acoustic he have ever mixed.

I love the products and highly recommend them. I have owned the mid and high
end versions. I found the low end version to sound very good, but not have
much gain. I prefer the middle range the most (135 model). I have a 148
(expensive) but get the same results from the 135 and 138.

Larry

Best non-permanent guitar pickup?
From: Bob Lusk <boblusk@aol...>
Subject: Re: Best non-permanent guitar pickup?
Date: 30 Apr 1999 21:59:38 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I use a audio technic pro 7a mike on all my instruments except guitar. I
attach it with a non permanment velcro taht I got from 1st quality. It
switches easily from instrument to instrument, although sometimes I have to
adjsut gain. It's actually intended fro guitar and I have used it there also.
about $100

Bob

                                    Bob Lusk
                                    61 Wurts Street
                                    Kingston, New York, 12401
                                    boblusk@aol.com

pickup vs. microphone
From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Re: pickup vs. microphone
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 09:52:26 -0700
Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus

Holey moley, for $400 you can buy a pretty nice pickup!

Try an AKG C411 stick-on mic. I did all the acoustic guitar tracks on my CD
with either one or two of them. The are about 1/2 inch long by 3/8 inch
high and wide. They stick on with some very inert, silly-putty-like stuff.

These things need phantom power so a good addition, if you don't have a
board that'll do it, is either an ART Tube PAC or a Joe Meek VC3. Both of
these will give you some nice compression and a very warm sound.

You should experiment with the placement but somewhere around the bridge is
a good place to start.

They will feed back in extreme situations and will also pick up really loud
room sounds while recording, but they are pretty ideal for most all
situations. I don't know why AKG doesn't push them more.

I used both on my CD - go to the MP3.com address in my sig and get either
Nothing Lost, that's one C411 through the Joe Meek, or Red Georgia Clay,
where both acoustic guitar tracks were recorded with two C411s, one at each
end of the bridge, through two Tube PACs, panned left and right. Hey, if
you want to see how it sounds with real fidelity, buy the CD from my website
:) <blatant advertising> There's a link to AKG on my website too.

This setup isn't as good as a Manley or Neumann mic in a good room, but for
home recording, and less than $10,000 worth of gear, it's pretty good.

--

___
http://www.dpsound.com/johnwms.htm
http://www.mp3.com/HandPicked

JCilove wrote in message <7gkesm$<fnd@dfw-ixnews8...>>...
>Get A L.R Baggs Duel Source. I just put one in my J-200 and the sound is
>incredible. Price is $219.00 from Mucisians Friend.
>Anjie Mittra <<a.mittra@ugrad...>> wrote in message
>news:<372D1A92.A436E497@ugrad...>...
>>I am looking for a good way to amplify/record an acoustic. I currently
>>have a cheap acoustic with a pickup in the bridge, but it sounds lilke
>>s&*t when it is plugged in - like a _really_ cheap electric. I intend
>>to buy a new acoustic, but I'm not sure if I should go for one with a
>>pickup built in, buy a separate pickup (one of those "clip on" kind of
>>ones that fit in the soundhole) or get a good mic instead (a condenser
>>mic?).
>>
>>The guitar will be used most of the time for live performace, where I
>>need to put it through a PA, and sometimes for recording.
>>
>>Does anyone have any advice/comments? I have about $700 (roughly
>>$US400) to spend.
>>
>>Dave (please reply to: <d.hall1@unimelb...>)
>>
>
>

removable pickups for recording ? [3]
From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Re: removable pickups for recording ?
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 18:22:15 -0700
Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus

x-no-archive: yes
--
Bill wrote:
>
> Realizing that a condenser mike or a permanent pickup installation is
> probably preferred for recording, but if I chose to use a removable
> magnetic type pickup, going into a Joe Meek VC3 preamp.....what model do
> you think would perform best ?
>
> Duncan's Tube ?
> others ?
>
> Thanks for any input
>
> Bill

I really like the AKG C-411. It's a stick-on microphone. Same element
as their C-418 clip on mics. I used one with a VC3 to mic my Larrivee
for my CD and it came out very nice. There's examples of the result on
both MP3.com and AMP3.com - see the .SIG.

These also work well live. Only down side is that they need phantom
power. I don't think I'd get a built-in pickup on a guitar any more now
that I've discovered these things. Street price is under $150.

--
http://www.dpsound.com/johnwms.htm
http://www.mp3.com/HandPicked
http://JohnWilliams.amp3.net


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: removable pickups for recording ?
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 15:30:16 -0400
Organization: Cornell University

John-

What do you mean about the 411 being a "stick-on" mic? Is it a lapel
mic that clips outside or inside the guitar? Or something else entirely?

Curious,
Tom Loredo


From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Re: removable pickups for recording ?
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 13:32:29 -0700
Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus

I really should post a picture of one of these little buggers on my website.

Remember the old Barcus-Berry pickup? Even if you don't, the C411 is about
3/4" x 1/2" x 1/2" and comes with some very inert, silly-putty-like stuff
that you use to stick it to your guitar. It IS a mic though, not a contact
pickup or piezo thing.

It's made for micing acoustic instruments. I've used one on steel and nylon
string guitar, acoustic bass, mandolin, and violin, all with very good
results. We used one in the "real" studio for a guy who jumped around too
much for a close mic. We used a distant mic in conjunction with the 411 and
the sound was very good.

I've found that sticking it either to the bridge or to the top near the
bridge sounds best. You can use two also, one at each end of the bridge, to
get a very nice stereo sound with little danger of nasty phase
cancellations.

I did the stereo thing on "Red Georgia Clay" and a couple of others on my
CD. You can hear it at either AMP3.com or MP3.com - follow the link in my
.SIG.

--

___
http://www.dpsound.com/johnwms.htm
http://JohnWilliams.amp3.net
http://www.mp3.com/HandPicked

Tom Loredo wrote in message <<37558648.EBEFAE6C@spacenet...>>...
>John-
>
>What do you mean about the 411 being a "stick-on" mic? Is it a lapel
>mic that clips outside or inside the guitar? Or something else entirely?
>
>Curious,
>Tom Loredo

Removable Pickup For Classical & Acoustic
From: <soundman@soundout...>
Subject: Re: Removable Pickup For Classical & Acoustic
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 12:27:22 GMT

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 20:55:12 GMT, <rtoomey@nospam...> (Ronan
Toomey) wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 20:48:07 GMT, <soundman@soundout...> wrote:
>
>>If you like the idea of an inexpensive miniature condenser microphone
>>that sits just below the soundhole and can be moved from instrument to
>>instrument, try the British made Microvox system.
>>I don't have their url to hand but search for Microvox and ye shall
>>find.
>>
>
>Alistair,
>
>Do you have any experience of the Microvox? What is the sound quality
>like? Which model is most suitable for steel string acoustic?
>
>
>__
>Sonas agus siochain,
>Ronan.

Alan Hughes, maker of Microvox, is the first to admit that his gear is
made for the large market of semi-pro musicians. In other words, there
are many pro-audio mini-mics which are of higher quality, but also
higher price. But still, lots of UK pros use Microvox.

The fact is, a mini-mic is so close to the sound source that the
signal strength is very good. So noise isn't really a problem. And the
mics are electret, so the accuracy is very good. The housings are
carefully thought out to maximise volume before distortion occurs ( a
problem for all mini-mics).

So I have no hesitation in recommending Microvox. The only
disadvantage, as I see it, is this: like all budget-priced mini-mics,
the capsules are omni-directional. Despite careful construction of the
housing, they are more feedback-prone than uni-directional mini-mics.
But of course, they are far less feedback-prone than a dynamic mic on
a stand in front of your instrument. As long as you don't use the
Microvox as your sole sound source in a loud rock'n'roll environment,
you'll be OK. If you want to get louder, use the Microvox Duo system
which combines a mini-mic with a pickup and comes out on two separate
channels.

To sum up:

Much better acoustic sound than a pickup.
More feedback-resistant than a mic, less resistant than a pickup.

Good luck

Alistair

Sound Hole Pickup
From: Geoff Rodgers <email@rodgers-clan...>
Subject: Re: Sound Hole Pickup
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:13:42 +0100
Organization: Customer of Planet Online

Patrick Family <<wscp@newportnet...>> wrote in message
> Anyone have any recommendations under $100.00... under $75.00 would be
even
> better... for a simple, slip in and play it pickup that will work with all
> my guitars?

Try the 'Soundhole Mic' #1312 from GHS @ $99.95

 http://www.ghsstrings.com/soundholemic.html
  __  _
 /    \/   \ Geoff Rodgers
| ||=O==========(:::]
 \__/\_/  geoff@rodgers-clan.freeserve.co.uk
www.rodgers-clan.freeserve.co.uk

Soundhole Mic [9]
From: JohnS16545 <johns16545@aol...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Mic
Date: 02 Dec 1999 21:04:02 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

>I saw John Sherman do something similar when he dropped in
>on an open mike here some months (year?) ago, using it with
>his then new cedar topped Taylor (5xx ?), and it sounded great
>so I think he must have figured out the secret. If he's reading
>this thread, maybe he'll offer some insights. RU there, John?

Sorry, Chuck, for the delay-- I only just became aware of the query. If I've
figured out any secrets, it's just dumb luck, I think-- what you heard was an
Audio Technica G-95 condenser mic, which clips on to the brace adjacent to the
soundhole of the 514C I play. It's goosenecked so that the mic is pointing at
the back more or less perpendicular (or orthogonal for hair-splitting
mathematicians) to the back surface, 1/4" to 1/2 " away, and centered more or
less directly beneath the soundhole. The only processing was provided by the
Reston-Herndon Folk Club's mixing board, so you'll have to ask whoever was
doing sound that night where they had it set :-).

When I have the luxury of more extended prep for sound I use a Seymour Duncan
Acoustic Environment Control box. This has a parametric notch filter for
low-mids, which I've found to be 90% of the problem. If feedback is a problem
(big sound system in too reverberant a room, for instance) I ditch the mic and
go with a Dean Markley mag pickup. I don't particularly like the tone I get
that way, but the audience seems to, and I will not spent mental energy
during a gig worrying if things are tweaked exactly right-- they rarely are.

I played a B-band equipped guitar where I teach and was mightily impressed at
the naturalness of the sound it had (I hate piezos). Mating it properly to the
instrument sounds like a very non-trivial exercise, though. You may see me with
one next time around--

Hope this helps,

John

John Sherman


From: AcoustiKal <acoustikal@aol...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Mic
Date: 03 Dec 1999 05:42:13 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

I may be late with this ( didn't see the thread from the beginning), but one of
the dirty little secrets of the acoustic amplification world, is the use of an
el-cheapo Radio Shack tie-clip condensor mic in guitars. I was turned on to
these by both Clive Gregson and Martin Carthy, after commenting to both, on
different occasions, how good their sound was. Apparently, they are not the
only ones using it, either.

   I tried it myself (this was in the deep, dark pre-Blender days...LOL) and
liked the tone, although I couldn't get it loud enough for my purposes in many
loud situations without feedback. But, if you are playing folk clubs and the
like, and don't need a ton of gain,it's a $15 experiment worth trying!
 -Kaleb Aichim
21st century acoustic adventurer


From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Mic
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 11:18:53 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd

I use one of these for my mountain dulcimer. Main problem with them is
that the little clip thing can bite teeth marks into guitar tops, and is
hard to get inside the sound hole on to a brace. Also the cable is
silly-long - like 20 feet of very thin spahgetti - and the jack plug is
a big thing which houses a battery to power the mike. The sound is
excellent, top grade, just as good as a Miniflex or any other small
condensor mike. The volume is good if you buy the $30 dollar version not
the $15 dollar one (assuming Radio Shack has a similar choice of grades
of tie clip mike in the States as Tandy do in the UK). I deliberately
bought the most expensive choice, as it was still ultra cheap compared
to guitar mikes. One day I may shorten the cable and devise a mounting
for this mike, but at the moment it's useful to have it available to put
in any non-amped instrument.
DK

AcoustiKal wrote:
>
> I may be late with this ( didn't see the thread from the beginning), but one of
> the dirty little secrets of the acoustic amplification world, is the use of an
> el-cheapo Radio Shack tie-clip condensor mic in guitars. I was turned on to
> these by both Clive Gregson and Martin Carthy, after commenting to both, on
> different occasions, how good their sound was. Apparently, they are not the
> only ones using it, either.
> I tried it myself (this was in the deep, dark pre-Blender days...LOL) and
> liked the tone, although I couldn't get it loud enough for my purposes in many
> loud situations without feedback. But, if you are playing folk clubs and the
> like, and don't need a ton of gain,it's a $15 experiment worth trying!
> -Kaleb Aichim
> 21st century acoustic adventurer


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Mic
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 14:56:02 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Hi folks-

AcoustiKal wrote:
>
> I may be late with this ( didn't see the thread from the beginning), but one of
> the dirty little secrets of the acoustic amplification world, is the use of an
> el-cheapo Radio Shack tie-clip condensor mic in guitars. I was turned on to
> these by both Clive Gregson and Martin Carthy, after commenting to both, on
> different occasions, how good their sound was. Apparently, they are not the
> only ones using it, either.

The mic in question, the Radio Shack 33-1052, has been discussed quite
favorably in Recording magazine on at least two occassions. Unfortunately,
it was discontinued several years ago, and none of the models that replaced it
have received the same kind of reviews. If anyone has experience with
the 33-1052 and newer ones and can offer a comparison, I'm sure I'm not
the only one who would love to hear what you have to say.

I found a 33-1052 in a RS discount bin a couple years ago for about $10;
its tone was remarkably similar to that of my Audio Technica AT-831c
mic element, when placed in the same position in my Olson SJ. I also
compared it to other elements (a bare $3 Panasonic element, B-band
mic element (not the undersaddle pickup), Donnell soundhole mic, Joe
Mills mic). Not as natural a high end as the Joe Mills mic, but
comparable to the chearper elements.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Troubleman (Jay Brown) <troublemanNOtrSPAM@rocketmail...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Mic
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:20:50 -0800
Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here

In article <<19991203004213.14212.00000428@ng-fi1...>>,
<acoustikal@aol...> (AcoustiKal) wrote:
> I may be late with this ( didn't see the thread from the
> beginning), but one of
> the dirty little secrets of the acoustic amplification world, is
> the use of an
> el-cheapo Radio Shack tie-clip condensor mic in guitars. I was
> turned on to
> these by both Clive Gregson and Martin Carthy, after commenting to
> both, on
> different occasions, how good their sound was. Apparently, they
> are not the
> only ones using it, either.
> I tried it myself (this was in the deep, dark pre-Blender
> days...LOL) and
> liked the tone, although I couldn't get it loud enough for my
> purposes in many
> loud situations without feedback. But, if you are playing folk
> clubs and the
> like, and don't need a ton of gain,it's a $15 experiment worth
> trying!
> -Kaleb Aichim

Maybe they work better than the high $$$ bowtie-soundhole mics? I'm not
sure of the brand, but the guy in charge of the sound system at my
church bought a bunch bow-tie clip type soundhole mics for the
guitarists, back before I started playing there. Combined with the way
he EQ's the guitarists, they sound absolutely horrible (unless you like
alot of *pick-click*); you'd beg for a piezo. That's left a bad taste
with respect to soundhole mics....

jb

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


From: Dick Schneiders <dickschnei@aol...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Mic
Date: 04 Dec 1999 00:25:40 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com

Tom Loredo wrote:

>The mic in question, the Radio Shack 33-1052, has been discussed quite
>favorably in Recording magazine on at least two occassions. Unfortunately,
>it was discontinued several years ago, and none of the models that replaced
>it
>have received the same kind of reviews.

Just as these things were being discontinued, I went to the local Radio Shack
and bought out all they had. I got 6 or 7 of them, as I recall. I gave a few
away to friends that needed a cheap way to mic their guitars. I tried to use
them in some of my guitars, and while I did like the sound very much, it was a
bit of a problem avoiding feedback and they were somewhat sensitive to bass
boominess if placed in the wrong place. I played a few gigs with one of these
in a guitar, but eventually went to a Seymour Duncan Woody soundhole pickup and
then to the Fishman Rare Earth Blend. Where I really found these mics to shine
was in my ukuleles. The ukes are by nature devoid of bass boominess and
feedback was rarely a problem if I stayed out from in front of the speakers.
The sound was wonderful and I suspect that for any instrument that doesn't have
a lot of bass response, like a mandolin or violin, they would work very well.
I usually simply attached the alligator clip to the top of the uke, with cloth
around the teeth so that it didn't chew up the wood. A couple of times, I
played with the mic attached to my lapel, or a neck tie, and it still picked up
the sound of the uke just fine.

I still have a couple of these lying around unused. An electrical engineer
friend of mine took one of them and removed the battery/preamp box and put on a
XLR connection instead of the mini-plug. He loved it.

I did read a comparative review between the 33-1052 and the replacement
version, and they said that the newer one was not nearly as accurate and clean
sounding for use on instruments. I don't remember where that review came from,
though. These things were designed for the purpose of using as a lapel mic
and recording speaking voice. The fact that the 33-1052 was so good sounding
for musical instruments was basically an accident.

Dick Schneiders


From: wcollings <wcollings@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Mic
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:30:29 -0500
Organization: Road Runner

I just bought one of the $35 Radio Shack lapel mics (#330-3003) for the sole
purpose of recording and hearing myself play. Once I got it up an running
thru something that would provide sufficient gain, I used it to record the
guitar on a VHS hi-fi recorder. I am quite pleased with the sound for that
application. Sounds like a real guitar. Really quite impressive and, if
feedback is not an issue, far more realistic than an piezo undersaddle
pickup.

Bass strings are a little boomy, but a quick dial of a bass tone control
knocks that right down.

Here's a couple of tips:

a) Radio Shack sells a little package of self adhesive soft foam stick-on
"feet". Two of those pressed onto the alligator teeth provides a nice safe
surface for clipping one side of the clip to the guitar.

b) The other side of the clip has a tiny jewelers screw protruding that
could damage a guitar. This screw holds the actual plastic mic clip in
place. Loosen the screw and rotate the mic holder. Alignment tabs will lift
the clip slightly -- enough the screw no longer protrudes when retightened.
This also allows you to aim the mic in whatever direction you want.

c) a piece of duct tape cut to size will provide a soft cushion for that
side of the clip. I just clip the padded alligator clip to the edge of the
sound hole (treble string side) near the neck and aim the mic at the
strings. The mic is at string height no more than an inch away from the
high-E string, but not in the way for any normal strumming. In this
position, it will also pick up your singing voice reasonably well...unless
you are just hammering full chords.

Getting enough gain to go into a line level input is a problem. A mic input
on a cassette deck would work. The mic input on my computer soundcard didn't
work very well -- you have to run the gains all the way up and I got all
kinds of digital interference noise. The cheapo Radio Shack mixer also does
not work -- it is a passive mic mixer and does not provide any gain. I've
been able to make it work by going into the mic input on a boom box and
coming out the headphone output into the tape deck or the computer. This
works fine and provides simple tone controls. The volume control on the boom
box lets you adjust gain. Set the volume about a quarter of the way up,
crank down the bass about halfway, and the thing provides a nice clean (if
not audiophile grade) signal to a line input. I'm sure it's a cheapo IC
preamp circuit -- but more than adequate for the frequency response of a
mini condenser mic.

I'll continue to look for a better mic pre-amp. The Fishman (et al) outboard
EQs would probably be ideal, but I think they are way overpriced at $150 for
a cheezy little preamp circuit and a couple of EQ sliders. I've also seen a
cool little adjustable gain tube mic preamp by ART that looks like it might
be the cat's meow. It appears like it might provide also work for going
direct to a line input with an electric guitar or keyboard - with enough
switchable input gain available to drive the tube hard and get a little
distortion if that's what you want. But, at $100 and lacking any EQ, I think
I'll stick with my jury-rigged boombox preamp/EQ for now and keep exploring
the options.


From: midgaard serpent <midgaard@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Mic
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 21:29:17 GMT
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.

I use a Radio Shack Lavalier Mic taped to my soundboard of my Mandolins
and Guitars for recording, by avoiding the soundhole location you
eliminate the Bass BOOM. I only use this for recording tho, not for
preformance.

--
http://www.geocities.com/Nashville/Bluegrass/8674/

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Soundhole Mic
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 14:49:48 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Dick Schneiders wrote:
>
> I tried to use
> them in some of my guitars, and while I did like the sound very much, it was a
> bit of a problem avoiding feedback and they were somewhat sensitive to bass
> boominess if placed in the wrong place.

I've corresponded with Paul Stamler (one of the Recording reviewers
who reviewed the RS 33-1052 very favorably) about this mic, and both
of us found that its usefulness was very much a function of the instrument.
Stamler has engineered for Martin Carthy and loved the sound Carthy
got with one mounted on his neck block. However, on Stamler's own
guitar, that position didn't work well at all, and as I recall no
position was able to get quite the quality that Carthy was able to get.
The sound field inside a guitar is incredibly complicated, and the
response functions of mic elements (vs. direction and frequency, etc.)
are themselves complicated; put the two together and it's pretty much
impossible to guarantee anything.

Peace,
Tom Loredo

Guitar mics question [6]
From: Graham <gghamvest@sprynet...>
Subject: Guitar mics question
Date: 22 Dec 1999 01:18:11 GMT
Organization: SPRYNET

Has anyone experience using only an internal, mounted mic? I want to be
able to plug in my OOO-28EC and I'm not to excited by undersaddle pickups.
I have a Baggs dual source in my Gibson and prefer the mic sound up full,
so I've been thinking of simply mounting an internal mic.

I've seen Audio-Technica's Pro-95 for around $100. Any other choices in
that range. I also want to limit cutting into the Martin. Endjack only.

Thanks,
Graham (too tapped out to buy a framus) Vest
--

To e-mail me remove "ham" (so I can avoid spam)


From: Chris Stern <cwstern@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: Guitar mics question
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 22:37:46 -0500

I have used several different types and have always got the same result
-feedback!!

Chris


From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Guitar mics question
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:44:22 +0000
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd

I have removed my end-jack mounted Miniflex from my Lowden O-10. The
sound was fine but the big jumbo body is just too much for the mike to
handle without feedback. The 000 body, I have already commented, would
suit it far better. You can have the Miniflex with instructions,
original box etc for $80 (it cost me $120) including postage from UK -
let me know if you're interested. It is possible to wire an undersaddle
pickup through it as well and use a stereo lead, but if you do this, you
get permanent battery drain. This is how I first had it arranged and the
batteries were still fine after six months, but I found I needed to use
mono leads for some people's amps and changed to have two separate jacks
in the Lowden. DK

Graham wrote:
>
> Has anyone experience using only an internal, mounted mic? I want to be
> able to plug in my OOO-28EC and I'm not to excited by undersaddle pickups.
> I have a Baggs dual source in my Gibson and prefer the mic sound up full,
> so I've been thinking of simply mounting an internal mic.
>
> I've seen Audio-Technica's Pro-95 for around $100. Any other choices in
> that range. I also want to limit cutting into the Martin. Endjack only.
>
> Thanks,
> Graham (too tapped out to buy a framus) Vest
> --
>
> To e-mail me remove "ham" (so I can avoid spam)


From: Andrew P. Mullhaupt <amullhau@zen-pharaohs...>
Subject: Re: Guitar mics question
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 14:58:11 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises

Joe McNamara <<jomack@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<19991222104653.01032.00000291@ng-ch1...>...
> >Has anyone experience using only an internal, mounted mic? I want to be
> >able to plug in my OOO-28EC and I'm not to excited by undersaddle
pickups.
>
> If your budget can swing it, take a look at Fishman's Rare Earth Blender,
which
> combines a magnetic pickup with a mic, mounts in the sound hole and is now
the
> solution we suggest for through saddle Martin instruments.

I agree completely. My wife uses the Rare Earth Blender in her 000-28EC and
it sounds fine.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt


From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Guitar mics question
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 19:54:36 -0500
Organization: Cornell University

Graham-

As Chris noted, internal mics are the transducer type most prone to
feedback. However, I have seen them used effectively, at least in
a small coffeehouse, soloist setting. If you like to play really loud,
or with a band, using an internal mic alone is probably asking for
trouble.

Also, being unfamiliar with the details of the dual source, I wonder
if having the mic up all the way corresponds to having the pickup off.
If not, you haven't really heard just the mic.

Finally, I strongly suspect that the Dual Source has a low cut filter
on the mic, so I doubt you are hearing what most internal mics will
sound like alone in your guitar. To use one by itself, you almost
always need serious low cut, more than is typically provided on a
lapel mic with a "low cut" switch. This is true even in a dual
source setting, which is why preamps like the Blender have a low cut
function on the mic channel.

In my opinion, if you want to go this route, you need some kind of
external EQ that will let you cut the boom you'll get from most mics.
The exceptions are the Donnell Mini Flex models that have a built-in
low cut. These are the only internal mics I know of that I would
consider using as-is, without external electronics, and indeed Ken
Donnell designed them with just such a simple use in mind. For my
tastes, one gives up accuracy in the high end with these mics compared
to, say, a Joe Mills mic; but that's the price you are paying for
the simplicity of the setup. I've seen at least one pro performer
use the Donnell alone in his guitars, and the sound was reasonable,
though not outstanding to my ears.

Peace,
Tom Loredo


From: Graham <gghamvest@sprynet...>
Subject: Re: Guitar mics question
Date: 23 Dec 1999 01:20:02 GMT
Organization: SPRYNET

I realize with the dual source I don't hear only the mic, it definitely has
a low end roll off, the piezo covers that end. I have used the
Audio-technica that clips on the sound hole. I borrowed one before I got
the dual source in my Gibson. The sound was great except it picked up other
sounds, like my breathing...:-(, it was also cumbersome.

I play out primarily in coffee houses and small clubs, so high volume is
less of a problem. I do also have a rare earth, the humbucker, not the
blender. It sounds good, but.....The complaints I had heard about the
miniflex were from a friend with who used it with his dreadnoughts, he,
too, complained of boominess.

I'd love to use another baggs dual source but it seems navigating inside
the small body of the OOO may be hard.

So it sounds as if the miniflex is possible in a small body, mics work
better in smaller settings and some sort of EQ may be useful to roll off
the bass.
Thanks for the feedback...
--

To e-mail me remove "ham" (so I can avoid spam)


This web page is a resource of AG and was prepared by AG webslave Tom Loredo.
File created: Fri Oct 4 14:53:46 EDT 2002