What's New
•Tab: Alegria falseta (4/8)
•Articles: Soleá Accompaniment (1/16)
•Tab: Soleá por Baile (1/16)
•Toque: The End of an Era (12/23)
•Toque: Manchego! (11/1)
Quick Links
Recent Articles
•Soleá Accompaniment
•Practice Tips for Beginners
•Free Tab on the Internet
•Alegrias Accompaniment
•Foot Tapping for Bulerías
•Returning to A [book review]
•Palmas in Brief
•Sevillanas Accompaniment
Recent Tabs
•Alegria falseta
•Soleá por Baile
•Bulerías falseta
•Tangos falseta
•Sevillana (E min)
•Alegrias por Baile
•Almoraima (bulerías)
Metronomes
•Metronome
Demo
•Alegrías
(120 bpm)
•Alegrías
(144 bpm)
•Bulerías
(180 bpm)
•Bulerías
(200 bpm)
•Rumba
(180 bpm)
•Rumba
(200 bpm)
•Sevillanas
(120 bpm)
•Sevillanas
(135 bpm)
•Siguiriya
(144 bpm)
•Soleá
(90 bpm)
•Tangos
(120 bpm)
•Tangos
(144 bpm)
Support RF !
I have a tendency to include references, appositions, and other errata in my text as I write. As I realize that not everyone cares for such digressions, however, I generally "hide" them in scripts. To access this "additional information," just click on the boldfaced text. To expand all errata at once (brave soul!), click here.
Gear Review: Condenser Microphones for Flamenco Guitar (2/2)
[part 2 of 2--read part one here]
Results: The Mics
Of the five mics I compared, here is how they stacked up:
Peavey PVM 38i. This is my “daily” dynamic microphone and the baseline of my comparison. I actually still use this mic regularly for dance classes since my little portable amp doesn’t have phantom power. This mic gets the job done—and has certainly been durable and reliable over the years—but it isn’t going to blow anyone away with its clarity or ability to pick up delicate overtones or resonance. Of course, when playing for a dance class, durability and the ability to create feedback free volume in a confined space easily trumps subtleties of tone: a dynamic mic is the clear choice here. For playing weddings, receptions and the like, however, clarity and nuance carries more importance (for me, anyway) than volume. Hence:
Shure SM57A Beta. This is actually another dynamic mic. I wasn’t planning on testing any other dynamics, but the sales guy at my local music store was really pushing this one as a “live sound” mic. I think I know why: condensers are notoriously difficulty with live sound in the feedback department. But I don’t know if this sales guy (nice though he was) fully appreciated the fact that I was planning to amplify an instrument as delicate as a nylon string guitar. Granted, not all flamenco is “delicate,” but the whole point of looking for a condenser mic is to find something that will represent the whole range, no?
So how did it perform? Better than my PVM, of that there is no doubt. Unsurprisingly, however, it was nowhere near as clear as the condensers. And at $140, the difference wasn't significant enough to inspire me to replace the dynamic I already own with the SM57. It was useful in what follows, though, to be able to compare a “higher end” dynamic mic (the SM57 is literally an “industry standard”) with the mid-range condenser mics I was testing.
Audio-Technica AT 3031. At $170, this mic was near the top of my price range. It also made a very clear argument for how much clearer and nuanced my playing sounds through a condenser: it was palpably fuller and brighter than the SM57. The difference was so pronounced, in fact, that when I went from one mic to the other, the change was as significant as if I had just replaced a set of old strings (dynamic) with brand new ones (condenser). With a condenser, the guitar just “sings” more. Beyond the dynamic/condenser difference, though, of all the mics I tested, the AT 3031 picked up and represented the broadest frequency range: my overtones were rich and full and my sustain was just silly. When I tested out one particularly delicate passage of Petenera, this mic clearly stood out as the obvious best choice.
When I tried out a bit of rasgueado, however, the AT 3031 started to sound harsh an unforgiving. I then went through a few numbers in my regular repertoire: for single notes and delicate passages, the AT 3031 was great. For anything louder or a bit more raucous, however, it was brash, even a bit grating. Granted, I could tone down my playing to minimize these effects, but the whole point of this exercise is to find a mic that fits me—not to fit me to a mic. My overall assessment? If I were a classical player, this would be the mic I would want. As I’m not a classical player, however—and even though it is the most responsive mic of this group—this mic wasn’t the one for me.
MXL 993. This was one of two MXL mics I tried. It had much the same palate and tone profile as the 604 (described at length below). In fact, I had a hard time deciding, given my ear and the use I was putting it to, whether there was any appreciable difference at all between the 993 and the 604 (aside from the price stickers: $150 for the 993, $100 for the 604). Perhaps it was a bit sweeter—but it was reeeaaaaly hard to tell. In any case, it wasn’t $40 sweeter. Case closed.
MXL 604. Of all the new mics I tried, this one was the least expensive. In terms of responsiveness, it didn’t sound to my ear as sensitive as the AT3031. Delicate passages (like the one in the petenera) sounded much fuller with the MXL604 than with either dynamic microphone, but didn’t quite “sing” the way they did with the AT3031. The MXL604, however, was even across the entire dynamic range of my repertoire. It wasn't quite as sweet on the slow, delicate stuff, but it represented those passages with the same fidelity as it represented my rasgueado. Again, if I were a classical player, I would have gone for the 3031 hands down. The difference here was tangible—and, to my ear, easily worth the $70 price tag increase. But since I'm not a classical player I need something that will be consistent—both for slow passages and for energetic rasgueado. I can EQ some brightness in, but I can't EQ consistency.
Another thing I liked about the MXL 604 was its “color.” For the most part, I suspect, one doesn’t want a microphone to “color” one’s sound—good mics are supposed to be transparent, to pick up what’s in front of them and add nothing to the mix. I found the MXL 604, however, to be a bit dry, a bit crispy. For other musical styles (or other instruments), this might be pure horror show, but for me, it’s just the variety of “flamenco sound” I’m going for.
Finally, there were a couple qualities of the MXL 604 which, while not “deal breakers” in any way, warmed me up to it. One was that, particularly compared to the AT 3031, it had almost no handling noise. When I moved it around in the mic stand, it didn’t create anywhere near the racket the AT 3031 did. Granted, one doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) do this much during a performance, but if you do have to adjust something, it’s better not to draw attention to it.
The other nice touch with the MXL mics (both of them) was the literature included—tips on miking different instruments for different occasions. For the guitarist, for instance, they recommended miking not over the sound hole (as most people do—and which tends to be boomy), but rather miking over the 12th fret. In this position the sound tends to be a bit more balanced tone-wise. And it also give you options: if you want a bit more base, angle or move the mic toward the bridge; if you want more treble, angle or move the mic toward the nut. Simple, but easy—and effective. Granted, now that I know this, if another mic had sounded better for my overall needs, I wouldn’t have gone for the MXL. I appreciate the tip all the same.
And Finally?
As you’ve no doubt surmised by now, the mic I finally ended up keeping was the MXL 604. I’ve played a number of gigs with it since (through the Fishman SoloAmp) and have been quite pleased with it. I have also noticed, in comparing it with my dynamic mic, that although feedback is a slightly more sensitive issue with a condenser, the clarity of my tone with the MXL 604 in many ways makes up for the slightly lower volume it requires. One might think of it as a kind of cutting: with a sharper blade, you need less force; if your blade is dull, you'll have to lean into it more. Granted, if "loud" really is required, I can eke out a bit more volume before feedback with the dynamic microphone (i.e. "lean into it"), but we really are only talking about “a bit” here. Bizarre circumstances notwithstanding, I’ve found this “brute force” trade-off often hard to justify.
I don’t mind pointing out, too, that the mic I finally chose was the least expensive of all those I tested. It just so happens that the least expensive mic of these four gave me the sound I liked best. If I were miking a different kind of music, I might well have chosen something else. In this case, however, the “sweetest” (and most expensive) mic turned out not to be the best mic for my overall purposes.
Your purposes (and circumstances), of course, are bound to be different than mine. The whole point of this little tale, however, is not to push any one particular product. My goal has been rather to share with you one way to navigate the bewildering maze of sound support products out there. Given the equipment choices we have as musicians, finding the right tool for the job can be daunting. With a little perseverance and some liberally applied nerdery, however, such obstacles need not long stand in one's way.
Comments on this article
