AEA vs Shiny Box Ribbon (Samples)

Okay,

So I have been threatening to have a friend around to savour my cooking and with my wife out for the evening I called him up on the spur of the moment to enjoy my chicken stir fry.

Anyways, what should happen to arrive this week, my Shiny Box 46 Ribbon Mic. First off I must say this mic looks far more elegant in real life and very well built. But I digress....

He owns a couple AEA's, so bought them around to listen to.

After surviving my culinary best and a bottle of red wine later, we set about throwing up some mics to A/B.

Anyways, what should happen to arrive this week, my Shiny Box 46 Ribbon Mic from our trusty DIY friend, FUM. First off I must say this mic looks far more elegant in real life and very well built. But I digress....

After surviving my culinary best and a bottle of red wine later, we set about throwing up some mics to A/B.

We were not 'precious' on mic placement as time was against us but settled on having the mic about 1 foot away, and pointing it towards the 12 fret on my Acoustic and I laid down a pass or 2. I used my DIY Green Pre, as it was about the only pre I have to give a decent amount of clean gain, over 60db's worth. No low cut, or processing in any way.

In my hast I noticed that my placement had moved from the R84 to the R92 on the front side (which we tracked first), luckily we did both front and rear lobe recordings, the samples below are of the rear mic lobes on all 3 mics as they are the most accurate and representative. Both lobes on all the mics sounded similar, being Figure 8.

I don't want to comment on the recordings just yet, I'd like your feedback, bearing in mind the price of each mic to performance ratio (I nabbed prices off Sweetwater for the AEA's and have each price listed next to the mics) when listening to the samples.

My 46 is the stock standard variety, with factory trano. I am tempted to grab a Cinemag when I get some cash and swap it out and do some further tests. The output on the the stock trano is about 6-10db's hotter than either of the AEA's and I had to knock it back a notch on the Green to bring it in line with the AEA's.

All the files are 44.1 Khz, 16bit, and are about 2.5Mb each in size.

So without further a do...

Shiny Box 46 $150
AEA R92 $810.00
AEA R84 $1,000.00


Post your thoughts...

Cheers

Matt

(I know he is really hoping for the Shadow Hills agency as well... Pucho, Mesmer... PLEASE!!!! PRETTY PLEASE!)...

Click to expand...

talk with peter he is incharge.

I know... I did drop him a mail, I never heard back... I think he doesn't like me :sad: Mesmer if you are out there, help, LOL!

Back to the Ribbons...

Matt

Great stuff, Matt.

I like it when people do stuff like this. It's never science, but I think you've highlighted some major differences with respect to the first two mics posted here.

I decided to listen to the R92 first, and thought it sounded good.

Then, for comparison, I listened to the Shinybox. What a difference. I was surprised. Going back to the R92, the Shinybox just sounds more like a classic ribbon to me.

The SB 46 has the typical ribbon sound, big proximity effect, realistic sound, and a nice treble which is smooth.

I'm not sure about the R92. I think it may be designed specifically to sound that way. There seems to be much less proximity effect and as a result, it sounds a little small on that acoustic. It would be cool to hear it on electric guitar though.

With some eq, I'd choose the SB 46 here.

I'm looking forward to hearing the R84. I don't suppose you have a Beyer M160, do you? I think it would suit that acoustic guitar sound.

Thanks Rodabod,

I was quite suprised by the R92 as well. The R84 clip is up (Thanks to Neeno for helping out getting it up), you will find it more akin to the SB 46.

I don't have a Beyer, and never had a chance to listen to one, would be nice through.

Thanks again

Matt

I'd say my favorite of the bunch is Shiny Box. I'll probably buy one soon. I hope.

IMO you cant judge too much about a mic on an acoustic guitar, its among the pickiest of picky things to record, mic placement is EVERYTHING and you do wind up reliant on the acoustic space you happen to be in.

even though the human voice is absolutely the pickiest thing out there, for doing these tests, you can get your mic placement more or less exact if you put the vocalist right up against the element and in doing so, even with a figure 8, you do eliminate a good deal of the acoustic space on the recording.

the less variables that can be eliminated in a comparison, the more valid it becomes. All three clips posted sound really nice, but by listening to them, I would have absolutely no idea which mic to use on a session. One anecdote for relevance-

I did a record with an engineer long time ago who turned out to be quite an amazing engineer. The only mics we had on the session were 421's and sm58's. There were probably 15 or so all together. Before the band came in, he had me set everything up and with his lips basically touching the grille on the mics, spoke into each then repeated. After the second or third round he labeled each mic kick or snare or guitar cabinet or acoustic or vocal, whatever. It was a really interesting thing to have seen and has worked out for me to be a really great way to select mics. you can tell a ton about the frequency response when comparing mics, especially same models, when you get right up on them and speak. I dont know if there is any correlation in physics with mic capsules, but I have noticed casually over the years that generally the more prominent the proximity effect is with a cardioid, the more brutal its off axis coloration is going to be, with the one blaring exception to this "rule" being the 4038. the 4038 does have the most powerfull null of any fig 8 I have tried so maybe that ties into things, I dont know.

dave

Dave,

Do you want me to try and sing after half a bottle of wine :shock: LOL

The reason I did the samples in case anyone was wondering, and which I didn't make clear, is that I've heard people, not so much on this Forum, but on others wondering 'How Ribbon like does a Budget Ribbon sound?

I was quite impressed with the Box's performance when compared with mics a couple times more the price, and my answer would be, 'very'.

I hope that puts it in context.

Thanks for your comments, some interesting food for thought, esp on the 58's.

Cheers

Matt

counting to ten is much more useful for comparison, people will change a performance on three different mics, shit, they'll change performance on one mic in three takes. Most people can count to ten three times with little incident.

Its great to hear samples but best if there is some baseline of comparison.

at least you didnt use a flute, those things are impossible to record consistently, haha.

dave

Mic test a/b comparisons will always be difficult and as I said, are never science.

But, I think these samples give a good demonstration of the sounds of these mics. I can hear a good guitarist, a good acoustic guitar and little room colouration.

With this in mind, I think I know vaguely the sonic differences between these mics and can at least choose my favourite mic for acoustic for your session.

I like the R84. It has a nice, fairly classic ribbon sort of sound. I was expecting more bass (proximity effect) from it, but it seemed like a good balance. I did notice that there was a slight muddiness (somewhere in the midrange) compared to the ShinyBox, but maybe it's just because the ShinyBox has that slightly "scooped" sound.

Thanks again for the demo files.

I like the Shinybox the best, mainly for the low end. Obviously too much for accoustic guitar but it makes me wonder what it would be like on kick drum or a 4X12.

I have an M200 (and an M130) and its just about my fave mic on acc guitar, except you have to get it really close and still use heaps of gain...like up to 80db on quiet picking. This makes it really noisey but the top end is just so good I still like it. It doesnt have anywhere near the low end of the Shinybox though - I think its rolled off electronically.


M

I thought the shinybox sounded a little muffled compared to the other two but thats probably because I own an R92 and have used an R84 quite a lot.


The R84 is a typical Ribbon al la RCA 44. Very prone to proximity effect on top of what is already a rather bass heavy mic by design. The R92 on the other hand suffers very little from the proximity effect. It was designed for close micing amps and other close encouter applications.

I've had wonderful results using a pair of R84s for OH and a R92 on kick.

[quote author="Sammas"]I thought the shinybox sounded a little muffled compared to the other two but thats probably because I own an R92 and have used an R84 quite a lot.


[/quote]


my thoughts exactly, but i will say that for the price difference i could work around it....

i think a shiny box is next on my list...

i thought the AEA mics had sweeter mids to them, but there isnt $700 worth of difference though...

So, I found these very intereting as I have two of the Shinybox's myself.
But mine are the 23's. And I have also listened to the other demo's.
I've been doing alot of testing recently with those and the G7's I just
built, along with those side-by-side with a 57, a measurement mic, C1, a tcm1150 and a few others. (I don't have any other ribbons..

I have them setup in a vocal booth with a event 20/20 on a chair playing into the mics placed right next to each other.

Does anybody thing that sort of comparison would be usefull?
It's uising the chimera 4(v4) channel for mic pre, just finished that too.
I mean, the speaker response be the same for every pair of mics, see the problem with this acoustic guitar comparison is and every time it is, is that I don't know how boxy the acoustic guitar was. I could definately hear the "scoup" or that it seemed low-end loaded, but my 46's are definately not that way, they flat and have that ribbon highend that rocks. Definately a ribbon and a g7 type mic is a sonic combo that's definately making me smile bigtime, so how to put that best togeting in like a MS combo is my next goal.


As far as playing for a source it will be awhile again befor I have the full kit setup in test mode, but I will say that the shiny box's in MS mode is the best drum sound I've ever had out of overheads. ever. Now if I could get the high-end sparkle of the G7 added in, I doubt I could top that sound close miced, with anything minus the kick, and I think I'd only need that for metal type clicky-effect music.

[quote author="Lo-Fi"]i thought the AEA mics had sweeter mids to them, but there isnt $700 worth of difference though...[/quote]

can you tell this by listening to one solo'd track?

Id think youd want to hear the mic in a mix before making a statement like that. The whole point of ribbon mics is where they put things in a mix... That "sweter mids" on the solo'd track may equate to just enough lift at the right frequency to not have to EQ the vocal to get it to sit where you want it. If you dont have the right EQ to "fix" the darker mic, well there goes your $700 having to build an eq AND you are now running through an additional active stage in your mix. Maybe the mic isnt worth the $700, but maybe it is, often these difference are subtle but yet critical ESPECIALLY if you are in a studio that only has EQ's with stepped gain... When your choice is no eq or +2dB, mic selection is absolutely critical on some sources and that tiny boost winds up saving the track.

dave

Steve and Wes talked me into ordering an R84 at the AES show over the weekend. Of the samples above, I liked the R84 the best. the Shinybox seemed to have some thunderous lows, and some sparkly highs...but nothing in between connecting the two. The R92 sounded good to me at the show, but in your sample above I thought it very mid heavy....almost the opposite of the Sinybox.

Certainly, for the money, the Shinybox is a no brainer. I'll use mine in places that I am afraid to place the AEA for fear of ribbon siezure (just how fragile are they? Wes Dooley has me scared stiff)

Also, the R84 is probably the best representative of a classic ribbon (barring the R44!) so for all intents and purposes it seems to me like a good first choice in the world of ribbons.

I am hopig he R84 will help me with two particular vocal issues I am having. One is for classical/jazz female vocals, where the vocalists seem to think of AR as a bad thing. Also, I am hoping to get rid of some of the mouth and lip noise that my condensers seem to zoom in on. The second is for male vocals where the voice is very mirange, thin and edgy. So far it sounds like razor blades no matter what I do, but in real life it's actually quite good. the closest I have gotten to usable is an SM57, but there is a lack of magic.

Thanks for the comparison. Never mind the scientific end of it. Ribbons are more forgiving with regards to their sweet spot, so for me the samples (although not a perfect comparison) are pretty telling.

Shane

.
thanks Matta... perfect A/B aside, it's helpful here too.

Id think youd want to hear the mic in a mix before making a statement like that.
Soundguy with the nice reality-check. His advice of thinking ahead to the mix while tracking has really helped my (still neglible) tracking/mixing skills.

From the as-little-eq-as-possible POV impression was highs were all nice, but the 46 wav would be a little too bass-heavy in a mix, and could muddy the low-end of the whole mix. Or not. (dep. on music-type, room, placement, volume, instrumentation, pres, mix, tape vs DAW, player suck-factor, etc.) Also couldn't determine the guitar's sound/quality as easily with the 46.

Like I imagine the 46/guitar wav a good fit in a duo recording with dobro or banjo. The AEAs might be too present there, and the 46 could add some bass-energy. But adding a bass, 46 might add mud in the bass-presence realms... maybe not-so-good? The 84 and 92 seemed to define the low end better, which for what I mix means ac guitar tracks play nicer with other tracks. IMO many lesser-quality guitars already have trouble with low-end definition, and you might get the 64 wav sound from a just-okay guitar and R84 or R92. Tough without hearing the guitar/room in person, but the R84 wav seemed most usable overall.
Thanks again, Paul

Hi Folks,

Just a update (almost 2 years later!)

I finally got around to doing the Cinemag mod on my Shiny Box 46 mic. I picked up the trano in March of this year while Stateside and was holding out to wait until I could do a A/B I felt was fair enough to evaluate.

Well last week I picked up a Radial Pro RMP Reamp box and DI'd a short clip of me playing my telecaster and then reamped it into the Fender 600 tube amp I picked up a few week ago as I felt it was the fairest way to A/B using the same performance.

I decided not to compress/normalize and present the samples as they are, with the same performance, mic placement and amp settings, so any difference in volume between the 2 samples is caused by the transformer swap out.

Stock Shiny Box 46 2.5 MB
Cinemag Shiny Box 46 2.5 MB

I think/feel the Cinemag really opens the mic up, the stock while not bad just doesn't seem as open and 3D.

Cheers

Matt

I just did the same thing a couple weeks ago, and made the same observation. The next step is a comparison with and without the waffle/grill blast shield thingy.

I bought 2 of the first batch of OEM Shiny Box 23 mics. and while auditioning the mic I noticed what I thought was a resonance so when I put in the Cinemags (which I planned to do all along) I put polish cloth into the HUGE bottom assembly. Now the bass is quite manageable. I also hear that taking out the inner screen helps, but I have yet to try it. All FWIW...

:guinness: