Topic: Flattest Low Pro Omni's ?

[adrianf74]

@Gutbucket: The +4dB bright grids are a little punchier/crunchier on paper than the 4061's so I'd tend to agree that they'll sound a little less smooth than the 4061's with soft-boost grids.    I already find the 4061's with the soft-boost grids to be too punch for my ears.  I'm not even going to talk about the +8dB very bright grids because they look awful on paper.  I'd consider getting in contact with Countryman and see if you can buy a pair of flat grids -- I'm sure they'd sell you a pair for a very small price (or point you in the direction as to where you can get some).  I'd definitely suggest against running the mics without the grids but they'll sound "wrong" either way.  Check out Bryonsos' post above with the links to the archive. 

And yes, you need to use good mics and EQ to get the results you want.  Even with the CA-14's, which I liked the sound of the most, I needed to do some minor tweaking to a few bands here and there to get what I wanted.

@Bryonsos: Nice samples.  007 or not, the mics will still sound good either way. 

[Gutbucket]

Certainly keeping my mind open until I can try the B3 flat grids.  Things just didn't work as well for me as I'd hoped either with or without the +4s.

Openly taped, on an omni bar.

Listening now, sounds good.

I want to remind everyone not to overlook the elephant in the room here- frequency response changes (and directional response changes) imposed by most any non-open mic mounting configuration will be far larger than the minor deviations from flat we've been discussing here and will usually manifest over a considerably larger frequency range. 

My open setups which have miniature omnis suspended in more or less free space or placed in pressure spheres similar to those in the gefell photos above sound very different from my non-open setups.  Almost like a different mic was used.  There are similarities in response and EQ approach in many ways, but they are quite different in otherways.  Miniature omnis act like very different mics depending on how you use them, which is part of their coolness if you ask me.

None of that is reflected in the manufacture's published response curves.  I take all the published curves for miniature omnis with a grain of salt anyway.  All of them are smoothed generic responses which hide any irregularities and are measured from something like 6" or 12" away- neither how we use them, nor how standard full sized mics are measured.

[adrianf74]

I'll go a step further, Gutbucket.  I'd also caution everyone that any mic in any room (good or bad sounding) will always sound different based on the sound tech, method of mic placement and actual mic placement.  I've heard awful rooms sound passable (with a good tech) and awesome rooms sound terrible (with a bad tech).  Add a mic into the equation and it's a truly hit and miss thing.  In fact, I've been to shows which sounded great in the room and like crap when I listened back.

That said, I can only generalize about what I like and don't like from what I've heard after many captures that I've done myself.  I've only heard other people's B3 recordings (some open, some not-so-open and some very serious 007 action) and I can say that I do like what I hear overall.   One size does not fit all. 

[yates7592]

I have not used many types of omni's, but from my experience the B3's are as flat as they come. Never used the boosts, always just the flat grids. They are almost too flat and neutral, I often boost 2-3 dB's around 1kHz to 4kHz to sweeten up a tad to taste.

[John Willett]

That's not flat! What's that .6db ripple above 10k? lol...

An honest frequency response curve of a great omni with a nickel diaphragm. 

[aaronji]

@Gutbucket: The +4dB bright grids are a little punchier/crunchier on paper than the 4061's so I'd tend to agree that they'll sound a little less smooth than the 4061's with soft-boost grids.   

Impressive how you can characterize how the mics will sound from just looking at their frequency response curves...

I want to remind everyone not to overlook the elephant in the room here- frequency response changes (and directional response changes) imposed by most any non-open mic mounting configuration will be far larger than the minor deviations from flat we've been discussing here and will usually manifest over a considerably larger frequency range. 

My open setups which have miniature omnis suspended in more or less free space or placed in pressure spheres similar to those in the gefell photos above sound very different from my non-open setups.  Almost like a different mic was used.  There are similarities in response and EQ approach in many ways, but they are quite different in otherways.  Miniature omnis act like very different mics depending on how you use them, which is part of their coolness if you ask me.

None of that is reflected in the manufacture's published response curves.  I take all the published curves for miniature omnis with a grain of salt anyway.  All of them are smoothed generic responses which hide any irregularities and are measured from something like 6" or 12" away- neither how we use them, nor how standard full sized mics are measured.

Spot on.

And, to echo SmokinJoe and yates7592, I personally find the high-frequency boost is pretty necessary a lot of the time.  With both the 4060s and the MKE2s, I have EQ'ed it away but, generally, ended up preferring the recordings with the bump intact.  An acquaintance who uses the MK2S (which maybe has a bit more of a bump than the DPAs or Senns) feels the same.  YMMV and all...

[Gutbucket]

I find I usually prefer a slight emphasis from the presence range up with omnis.  In many, though not all situations where that might sound over bright, I most often just need to reshape the curve slightly so as not exagerate a specific range.  Sometimes a minor cut at 7 or 10kHz or something in an otherwise broad, low-Q response response bump does the trick.  There are situations were I'd need no emphasis, like on-stage close to the drum kit with lots of high frequency energy from cymbals, but I can counter-act that transparently with a broad EQ de-emphasis without much problem.  So overall, I'd rather have a slight emphasis most of the time rather than not.  But again, I'm primarily interested in the general response smoothness and easy 'EQ-ability' more than the raw response itself.

My Gefell cardioids have a significant bump too, more than the 4060, but one which is also smooth and managable with EQ.

I know many around here purposefully choose not to or just don't want to deal with EQing things and that's cool.  But If I had to choose mics to use based on their response alone, without any EQ, I'm sure I would feel frustrated more often..  and would probably want a lot more mics!

[bryonsos]

I have not used many types of omni's, but from my experience the B3's are as flat as they come. Never used the boosts, always just the flat grids. They are almost too flat and neutral, I often boost 2-3 dB's around 1kHz to 4kHz to sweeten up a tad to taste.

As an omni addict I'd like to make the distinction between flat (response) and natural (sounding). My go to mic is the Avenson STO-2 which is both. A rare thing indeed, and why they sound fantastic. A flat response means it picks up everything equally and will take some EQ without fuss. Some mics are hit or miss as to whether they will take EQ without sounding worse. While natural means it recreates the moment reliably. For concert taping, I strive to recreate the moment as much as possible. Turn up the volume, close your eyes and you're there again. The Gefells mentioned can get there with some EQ, and sound fantastic. I'd love to play with them some day. I'm not familiar with the Senns John mentioned, but the entire suite of Schoeps omnis sound like ass. They may be good for close miking etc., but for taping they're not. To my ears, they lack the low end definition, come across smeared and muddy, and somehow manage to sound like the mics were even further from the source than they really were. The Scherpies will argue with this, but that's just them trying to justify the money they spent. The DPAs are really good too, but they're not better than the B3s for low pro. YMMV

[JD]

I am a big fan of omni's. My favorite for low-prow is the Nevaton MCe400's, they do have a boost in the high end though. I was also a big fan of my Avenson STO2's when I had them,
although I found the high end to be a little shrill when recording bluegrass. To me they just made the banjo hard to listen to. I have much love for my DPA 4060's, although they don't get out much these days.

I have been using my Nevaton MC51's in the omni pattern on stage lip recordings lately with good success. Not the flattest of charts, but no real large bumps either..... http://www.nevatonmics.us/uploads/nev_mc51e.pdf

But as far as the most realistic sounding omni in my arsenal, I would have to say it's my Gefell sms2000's with the m27 caps. Incredible caps, but again, they don't get used here all that much.
Not that flat of a chart though,  they have a 5db bump in the top end......




Edit to add---Never mind, I just saw that the OP was inquiring about low pro omni's, my bad..

[George]

Big fan of the B3's here as well, after using the 4061's in the past.  I've pulled some really sweet sounding  and open taping recordings with the B3's.   I wasn't taping as much when I owned the 4061's so they didn't get the same amount of use as the B3's so now (nearly a monthly visit to City Winery alone).  The at853 sub-cards are my second favorite mikes.  I've grabbed some impressive recordings with them.   They sound ultra smooth and musical to my ears.  Of course, ymmv 

[George]

I need to get some flat grids to try on my B3s.

I only have the +4dB bright grids for them and the recordings I've made using them are brighter and less smooth sounding to my ear than DPA 4060/4061 using the short grids.  More importantly, I have far more difficulty EQing those +4 grid B3 recordings to get things to sound the way I want than I do with 4060/61 recordings.  Perhaps the flat grids will allow me to do that.  If so I'll be thrilled.  However, at this point I'm content spending 2.5 to 3x more for the DPAs.  Well worth it to get the results I want. 

You need to choose mics that are suitable for your situation, or be prepared to EQ.  That's my 2 cents worth.

Truth!

I'll go farther- it's not either/or but both!

[edit- I've also tried the B3s with no grids, hoping to eliminate grid-caused boost resonance issues, but had similar EQ difficulties and that moved getting flat grids for them to the back burner]

This was not a  job obviously, but I knew there would be a bunch of tapers there so I thought I'd play with my new toys. Openly taped, on an omni bar. I was pleased.

http://archive.org/details/furthur2012-07-11.bryonsos

What a great recording, very pleasing to my ears 

[bryonsos]

I need to get some flat grids to try on my B3s.

I only have the +4dB bright grids for them and the recordings I've made using them are brighter and less smooth sounding to my ear than DPA 4060/4061 using the short grids.  More importantly, I have far more difficulty EQing those +4 grid B3 recordings to get things to sound the way I want than I do with 4060/61 recordings.  Perhaps the flat grids will allow me to do that.  If so I'll be thrilled.  However, at this point I'm content spending 2.5 to 3x more for the DPAs.  Well worth it to get the results I want. 

You need to choose mics that are suitable for your situation, or be prepared to EQ.  That's my 2 cents worth.

Truth!

I'll go farther- it's not either/or but both!

[edit- I've also tried the B3s with no grids, hoping to eliminate grid-caused boost resonance issues, but had similar EQ difficulties and that moved getting flat grids for them to the back burner]

This was not a  job obviously, but I knew there would be a bunch of tapers there so I thought I'd play with my new toys. Openly taped, on an omni bar. I was pleased.

http://archive.org/details/furthur2012-07-11.bryonsos

What a great recording, very pleasing to my ears 

Thanks Georgios! I was very pleasantly surprised and happy with their performance. I've upgraded this from my  rig to my  and travel rig. I'm making an omni bar out of some old TV rabbit ears that will collapse down to 8" or so, but will expand out to 3'. Should be great for traveling light.

[Chuck]

bryonsos What, if any EQ did you apply to that Furthur recording? It does sound very good. 

[Gutbucket]

I'm making an omni bar out of some old TV rabbit ears that will collapse down to 8" or so, but will expand out to 3'. Should be great for traveling light.

 

[bryonsos]

bryonsos What, if any EQ did you apply to that Furthur recording? It does sound very good. 

Nada. I rarely EQ my recordings before releasing them into the wild. Everyone has a different playback system, I let them EQ to their taste.

IMHO, headphones are the best way to listen to an omni pull.