# What Mic+Pre for Overall Sampling



## gsilbers (Jan 29, 2017)

Im upgrading and looking for other options on general stereo sampling (Big, med perc, stringed guitar like instruments, etc) mic and pres.
Im debating between neumann km184 with stereo neve dpa.
or the new warm audio wa87 (u87) clones with their 4 ch api pres clones. 
They sound surprisingly close but no "cool name" factor. 
There are so many options i know. budget is around the choices above. 

not sure if to go the clear /transparent like avalon pre. or colored neve. 
Im all over the map.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 29, 2017)

What sort of budget? What are you upgrading from?

I would look into the Oktava MK-012. They seem to be comparable to the km184 for a fraction of the price. You could then get some different mics as well with the rest of the budget. I'm not sure how the modded ones compare.

I'd consider the Slate VMS over the wa87 since you then get many more "clone" options and the pre for it. In the audio demos they stand up surprisingly well to other U47 clones which cost 5x as much. You could get both transparent and colored from a single mic/pre.

I would also wait to see how the new Slate ones sound. They're claiming to pretty much be identical to a number of other mics but I'm not sure how much you can actually get out of a $150 mic.


----------



## synthpunk (Jan 29, 2017)

In regards to pres I like your choice of sonic signatures, if you can only go one way initially then I would ask myself what do I really prefer soundwise. To me I find the Neve house sound a little more warm, silkier, musical, and Woolly. Where if I was doing a lot of Rock and guitar-based music I might go for an API. I've always found the api's that I've used a little more granier sounding than Neve.

One other option If you don't mind going lunch box 500 series format I use four Rupert Neve Designs Portico 511 pres with an adjustable silk control they can go from very clean to quite silky and Musical, are priced very well, and to me have the distinct advantage of actually being designed by the genius himself.

Also having a lunch box format allows you to add other flavors of pres and components such as eqs and compressors down the road as well.

I also understand that warm audio is currently in the design stages of a neve clone something to keep in mind if you want to wait for that.

Hope that helps a little good luck and let us know what you end up with.


----------



## Joe_D (Jan 29, 2017)

If you are going for lifelike, I personally think that uncolored and accurate equipment is best. If color is necessary, I like to add it in post-processing. Once you add it during recording, you can't remove it.

For sampling instruments, I would go for clean and highly accurate small diaphragm mics (unless you're sampling instruments for rock use, etc. where "mojo" rules). Schoeps are the best I've used, but the Neumann KM184's would be a good choice (I haven't used them, but I have used and like very much the older KM84's). I personally bought Beyerdynamic MC930's instead; they are very similar to the KM84, and at about half the price of the KM184. Check out shootouts at Gearslutz, especially on the "Remote Possibilities…" forum, where many fine classical recording engineers have posted examples of the top contenders. There, the better DPA (and their parent, B&K) mics are often mentioned, as are Josephson's and Microtech Gefell M930's (which are larger diaphragm than the others I've mentioned). In years past, I made a lot of good recordings with older AKG C451's (though the newer ones are a different design; I think they're electrets - no harm in that, but they're not the same mics).

I would avoid the Oktava MC012's for stereo use; they were the first good cheap small diaphragm condensers on the market, but their quality control is all over the map. I have two, with two capsules for each one (card and omni), and the capsules pairs don't match very well in frequency response. That's important for imaging and capturing a coherent representation of an instrument. My Beyerdynamic MC930's came factory-matched, with individual frequency response graphs that are very, very close.

If your recording space is acoustically beautiful, then omni's are really great to use. Omni's capture the complexity of sound radiation in a space like nothing else. Also, a true pressure omni (with one diaphragm, unlike, say, the dual-diaphragm U87 or C414 switched to omni mode) is totally free of proximity effect (unnatural boomy bass), so you can record extremely close to a source. Also, the bass extension (how low it goes, and how accurately) on omni's is often phenomenal. If your space is not so great, or if you want a dry sound, I'd definitely go with card's, though.

The most versatile solution would be the Schoeps MK5 capsules (remember that you'd have to buy the preamp/body also), which are single diaphragm and mechanically switchable between omni and card, but they're very pricey. I didn't have the money for that, so I ended up with a pair of the Shure KSM141's, which follow the same mechanically switchable design (but with a different diaphragm and electronics). For the price, they're excellent mics.

The only budget small diaphragm mics I would recommend are the Line Audio CM3 wide cards (or the OM1 omni's, which I don't have), which you can get from NoHype Audio. You can check out many recordings at GS for those as well; pretty darned impressive for the price.

As for a preamp; here again, if you want a truly accurate representation, I'd go with fast (great transient response) and clean. There are lots of good shootouts at GS (again, I would recommend the "Remote Recordings" forum, since classical engineers make their living capturing "lifelike"). I own and use the DAV BG1 most often, but Millennia, Gordon, Grace etc. will also give you lots of detail (I don't have the Gordon or Grace; just going by recordings). Even Audient or the better RME pre's will give you a pretty accurate representation (I use both). Line Audio pres (which I haven't used but have heard many recordings of) are clean and neutral as well, and are quite cheap for the quality, if you want a budget option. I intend to order the Pueblo Audio battery-powered ISLETA preamp once it is out; engineers I know swear by Pueblo's pristine representation, and the (industrial quality) battery power should be great for some remote/unusual recording situations.

As you can see, I'm in the "clean" camp; whether or not that's right for you is for you to decide, or course. But when I used sampled acoustic instruments, I want them to be as true to the source as possible.


----------



## mc_deli (Jan 29, 2017)

Ooh to have some of those Grace or Millennia 500 series pres...


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Jan 29, 2017)

Joe_D said:


> I would avoid the Oktava MC012's for stereo use; they were the first good cheap small diaphragm condensers on the market, but their quality control is all over the map. I have two, with two capsules for each one (card and omni), and the capsules pairs don't match very well in frequency response. That's important for imaging and capturing a coherent representation of an instrument. My Beyerdynamic MC930's came factory-matched, with individual frequency response graphs that are very, very close.



Are yours the Chinese or the Russian? Up until a few years ago I believe they were mostly Chinese unless you got one of the really old ones.

Did you get a matched pair from them? I got a matched pair plus a separate one. They all came with individual frequency response graphs for each capsule. While the pair and the separate are quite different, the pair are pretty close according to the graphs. I haven't done extensive testing to see how close the actually sound.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath (Jan 30, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I would look into the Oktava MK-012. They seem to be comparable to the km184 for a fraction of the price.


I have both. To my ears the Oktavas are by no means comparable to the Neumanns sound wise. At least for stringed instruments as the OP mentioned. I always would go for the Neumanns.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 30, 2017)

Interesting point about the Omni pattern to record room sound.

thanks for all the infos


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 30, 2017)

synthpunk said:


> In regards to pres I like your choice of sonic signatures, if you can only go one way initially then I would ask myself what do I really prefer soundwise. To me I find the Neve house sound a little more warm, silkier, musical, and Woolly. Where if I was doing a lot of Rock and guitar-based music I might go for an API. I've always found the api's that I've used a little more granier sounding than Neve.
> 
> One other option If you don't mind going lunch box 500 series format I use four Rupert Neve Designs Portico 511 pres with an adjustable silk control they can go from very clean to quite silky and Musical, are priced very well, and to me have the distinct advantage of actually being designed by the genius himself.
> 
> ...



most of the time when i price out two lunch box pres its about the same as a stereo rack pre. 
but each case varies.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 30, 2017)

Joe_D said:


> If you are going for lifelike, I personally think that uncolored and accurate equipment is best. If color is necessary, I like to add it in post-processing. Once you add it during recording, you can't remove it.
> 
> For sampling instruments, I would go for clean and highly accurate small diaphragm mics (unless you're sampling instruments for rock use, etc. where "mojo" rules). Schoeps are the best I've used, but the Neumann KM184's would be a good choice (I haven't used them, but I have used and like very much the older KM84's). I personally bought Beyerdynamic MC930's instead; they are very similar to the KM84, and at about half the price of the KM184. Check out shootouts at Gearslutz, especially on the "Remote Possibilities…" forum, where many fine classical recording engineers have posted examples of the top contenders. There, the better DPA (and their parent, B&K) mics are often mentioned, as are Josephson's and Microtech Gefell M930's (which are larger diaphragm than the others I've mentioned). In years past, I made a lot of good recordings with older AKG C451's (though the newer ones are a different design; I think they're electrets - no harm in that, but they're not the same mics).
> 
> ...



i was thinking the same about going clean but then there spitfire using u67 w neve and tape recorders. 

as for clean i was thinking avalon since its used a lot here in la for post vo.


----------



## synthpunk (Jan 30, 2017)

The new API 8 space LB is about $425 if that helps, and of course it gives you room to expand down the road, and is portable.

Yes, Spitfire use the Neve Monserrat pres @ air when they record there.



gsilbers said:


> most of the time when i price out two lunch box pres its about the same as a stereo rack pre.
> but each case varies.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 31, 2017)

synthpunk said:


> The new API 8 space LB is about $425 if that helps, and of course it gives you room to expand down the road, and is portable.
> 
> Yes, Spitfire use the Neve Monserrat pres @ air when they record there.



http://vintageking.com/neve-1073lb
http://vintageking.com/neve-1073-dpa

hmm yeah, I guess its cheaper going lunch box. I guess Ive been looking at used prices for the rack versions before.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 31, 2017)

I've tested a couple of times and prefer 87's over small diaphram mic's for strings. There's more body.


----------



## wst3 (Feb 1, 2017)

I'm not certain one microphone can fit all sampling situations, but if push came to shove I'd start with a pair of Schoeps CMC6/MK41 microphones and add a larger capsule pair later, and based solely on personal experience I'd get a pair of TLM-193s, but there are other . I'd also (eventually) add a pair of ribbon microphones, the Royer or Shure would both be good choices. Now that I type this I might even add them before a pair of LDCs. 

For a preamplifier I'd use the Millennia Media HV-3, no debate for me.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 1, 2017)

jamwerks said:


> I've tested a couple of times and prefer 87's over small diaphram mic's for strings. There's more body.





I liked the warm audio comparison. there is a small difference but very good.


----------



## gsilbers (Feb 1, 2017)

wst3 said:


> I'm not certain one microphone can fit all sampling situations, but if push came to shove I'd start with a pair of Schoeps CMC6/MK41 microphones and add a larger capsule pair later, and based solely on personal experience I'd get a pair of TLM-193s, but there are other . I'd also (eventually) add a pair of ribbon microphones, the Royer or Shure would both be good choices. Now that I type this I might even add them before a pair of LDCs.
> 
> For a preamplifier I'd use the Millennia Media HV-3, no debate for me.



yes, that was my concern as well.

Im looking at diego stocco videos


and he is using mostly the rodes nt5. which in a comparison to the Neumann km184 they seem to be somewhat close. 



obviously they sound different but for the price the rodes sound very good.


----------



## wst3 (Feb 2, 2017)

The _RØDE_ microphones are really good, really consistent, but I'm afraid I don't hear the parallel to the KM-84 or the KM-184. I should confess I don't really like the KM-184, it does not sound like a KM-84. I keep listening to demos of microphones that purport to sound like a KM-84. Michael Joly has a model he designed that sounds like a cross between a KM-84 and a CMC6, I'd really like to play with a pair of those in person. Mojave has their MA-100 and MA-101 which sound really good, and have a vibe similar to the KM-84.

All that said, I'm not sure the KM-84 is a great sampling microphone. It has a pretty strong character, and that's great if you want to sound like <fill in the blank>, but probably not so great if you want something more malleable. The Schoeps CMC6 remains at the top of my list - if I could afford one<G>. For now I'm very happy with the Earthworks SR-77, not sure why I didn't think to mentioned that earlier.


----------

