TRICK!!!: how to make your ME66 mic sound like a MHK416 mic

[Jose di Cani]

HI

As a fanatic sequencer musician (9 years of experience) I know how to spice up or make something sound like it should sound. So I was thinking about the senheiser mic recording ( ME66 Quiet (2,725kb and MKH416 Quiet (2,725 kb) that can be found on this site (http://www.dvinfo.net/articles/audio/tanaka2.php).

I took these 2 samples and imported them in CUbase sx 2. I then used 4 plugins on the audio channel ( me66) to see if I could make the ME66 sound like a MKH416. I have to say It was a easy job, besides the lack of the bass response. The ME66 simply doesn't record any low bass frequency, so it is hard to add bass there. YOu CAN modify the upper part where the ' SSSS' is and the telephone notch frequencies are.

WHat Did I do to make it sound similar?

I made a photo of my pc screen. Check out the foto for details.http://pic14.picturetrail.com/VOL537...9/71877668.jpg

I used WAVES (Vst plugin) frequency simulation to see what kindof frequency curve both mics had. As you can see on the pic, the mkh has lots of frequency beneat the 70 hz. The ME has nothing there (rolled off). I fyou look in the top area, you see that the ME has too much freq in the 3000-5000 area. The ME in the original 'quiet' recording souned harsh. why? Too much freq in the 3000-5000 area. The same freq that is boost up in cheap radios to simiulate a boost in volume, but actually the radio is cheating cause you ears are more sensitive for that frequency range. So I lowered that range with Waves EQ plugin. I also added some bass in the 80-100 area with PSP VIntage warmer which is a analog warmer to boost up the lower part a bit (gives that numman feel). Check the 125-250 range of the MHK416 track (down, right side of the screen). It is way higher than the ME. Why? lots of bass there. YOu can fix that with adding a little more bass there. :). Oh yeah, there is a waves plugin out there to add extra low to the LOWER frequency range, called MAXXBASS ( do a review google on it). I also noticed that the MHK sounded a bit comrpessed to me in the upper part (smoothen out). YOu can use a multi-band compressor ( free vst plug ins are on the net) I am so audio-horny telling all these tricks. I love this.

You can also save the freq simulation curve of the MHK audio track and import it in the other ME66 audio track. EASY!!!! YOu have the same curve, but the only thing that lacks is the bass. Tweak a bit and voila.

I soloed both tracks and I couldn't see any differences besides a slight deeper bass. The harshness of the ME was gone and sounded like the upper freq range of the MHK. NO ' SSSS' anymore and my ears could handle the ME output. That simple.

SOLUTION:

YOu can substract or get rid of frequencies, but you cannot create new frequencies. THIS MEANS: BUY a cheap microphone with lots of bass. The higher freq part is always covered. DOn't buy a 25$ mickey mouse mic. I am talking about mic in the 250-600$ range.
SO look for a cheap mic which has lots of bass (no roll of) and you are the man! WEHy spend 10000000 dollars if you can fix it afterwards with simulation analog ' warm up' plugins. We live in a digital era. Evrything can be done to fool the client. Same with adding colour effects in adobe after effects. :)

[Bryan Beasleigh]

The MKH 416 has the ability to isolate a voice in a sea of bedlam. No trick in the world can do this. Part of the sound of a mic is it's ability to reject unwanted sound.

[Emre Safak]

As Bryan said, you can only manipulate what your microphone has captured. This is why, at the end of the day, you still need a good mic. Furthermore, fixing a bad recording quickly becomes tedious. Nevertheless, the ability to manipulate the character of recording is very useful. Now you can seamlessly mix recordings from both mics. I can do analogous things visually, but have yet to learn how to translate it into audio.

[Bryan Beasleigh]

It's the old analogy "Crap in /Crap out"

[Jose di Cani]

Thanks for the replies.

' Garbage in=garbage out' does apply for profesionals. They can sometimes hear the small differences. But i fyou know what the strenghts are of the MKH mic, then you can use those strenghts and translate them to audio frequencies. YOu can easily FOOl a ' standard' movie addict. They will not notice the difference. If you got the money, sure..go and buy the mhk for conversations outdoor. BUt every mic nowadays (1000$ and lower) all use chips. And in this pc world we live in it is so easy to fix things and to achieve the same sound that was obtainted in the older days with valve tubes and stuff like that.

PC plug-ins have evolved to great machines, able to do the same exact thing. It takes a little bit more work, but you can save your presets and use 1000 plugins one 1 track.

I have the edited wav version at home (I used the maxbass to add the lower bass) and I must say....it sounds pretty similar to me. PLay it for some teenagers and they will not notice the difference, especially if you add background music and stuff like that.

[Bryan Beasleigh]

Jose
At the end of the day, all that matters is your satisfaction. If you are happy with a moic then that's all that is important.

[Graham Bernard]

The 66 does have a BAss Roll-off Dip switch. Have you got this active? I can imagine that this would remove . . bass.

Graham

[Jose di Cani]

graham,

The test they did on this site was to compare both mics. I reall y don't know if they cut of the bass fromt the 66. Analyzing the tracks shows a heavy roll of above 120 hz or so. So I also read that the 66 had more down there, so I don't know if the test was valid. You never know it without having actually being there on the moment of recording both mics.

[Jose di Cani]

WHY DO I THINK That the test of the ME-66 and mhk is NOT CORRECT??

In their comparison I noticed a roll-off in the ME-66. I thought well that is because the ME-66 has no bass, but I checked out the specs and it says:


me-66: Pick-up pattern: Super-cardioid/lobar
Frequency response: 40 - 20,000 Hz +/- 2.5 dB

SO it has 40 hz on the low side and the mhk has 50, so basically the ME_66 has a little more bass, so I do NOT understand why in their tests the ME-66 was recorded with a bass-roll at 120 hz (40-120hz=80z). What happened with the rest of the 80 hz that should have been there? I analyzed the samples with frequency analyzers and yeap....so test them out yourself in the shop.

[Graham Bernard]

Sorry, Jose, I don't understand your, "I analyzed the samples with frequency analyzers and yeap....so test them out yourself in the shop." . . .

Best regards,

Grazie

[Alessandro Machi]

Don't trust a comparitive test done in the computer world unless you know absolutely positively that NO COMPRESSING was done when the signal was being imported.

The best tests in my book are done with analog recording.

I think two of the most useful, reliable, and portable analog recording formats are BetaCam SP and S-VHS/VHS Stereo, or S-VHS/VHS linear stereo with dolby noise reduction.

Record your various mikes to those formats and compare the results.

A standard mixing board can do a lot to fill out the sound.

The only reason to use an ME-66 is if you don't want to deal with phantom power issues. This point always seems to get lost when this topic is brought up.

As for sound isolation, too much isolation is actually a bad thing if you are in a crowded environment. The very factors that may make the ME-66 not as good in a controlled environment may favor the ME-66 in an uncontrolled environment.

I like that I hear other sounds (at a lower level) besides the primary sound because it makes the overall sound, sound real. When I set up a mike and have to leave it and walk away, the last thing I want is for it to be super-isolated so that if the person moves I completely lose them.

The ME-66 still gives me a decent signal even when a perfomer moves. (although not if they move 15 feet away in a lateral direction)

The sound is definitely too tinny if one rolls off the bass, but that function is strictly to be used if one is in a windy, outdoors environment. I have had situations where the wind died down and I have been able to add bass back in after the fact even when it had been rolled off in the original recording.

[Bryan Beasleigh]

Well put Alessandro

I did comparison clips recorded through a Sound devices 302 or Mix Pre and onto a Marantz PMD 670 flash recorder. my files were all PCM uncompressed. I did post mp3's along with the wav files so those will narrow bandwidth could still partake.

Even with these uncompressed examples you are still at the mercy of your Digital to Analog converters. Even full analog will be coloured by the equipment used. At least with a comparison, all files are being treated the same.

[John Hartney]

I once put a 635 in a condom and it sounded like I was wearing a raincoat in a shower.. .. really strange.

[Alessandro Machi]

<<<-- Originally posted by John Hartney : I once put a 635 in a condom and it sounded like I was wearing a raincoat in a shower.. .. really strange. -->>>

Um, do you often wear your raincoat in the shower?

[Graham Bernard]

I understand that SOME people pay good money for this type of footage! - LOL . . Grazie ;)