PREAMBLE:

Sean Aughey, SDA Audio; Just so as to not loose anyone here I thought I should explain what follows!

First off, we start with an extremely eloquent piece of work in the form of an e-mail feedback from an extremely satisfied SDA Audio, T.H.E. customer.

Sorry in advance to those manufacturers whose products are thought of as less than stellar!

This e-mail really is a very worthy review in itself though the real 'icing on the cake' happens when Bob Ross of 'Recording Magazine' fame gets involved with a discussion on the 'Recording Audio Professional' News Group, (RAP) which culminates in an independently verifiable advertising story line that I could just 'pinch' myself for. Advertising of this level is hard to come by when you are PAYING for it, but for FREE?!

-Woa

ONE VERY SATISFIED CUSTOMER's REVIEW:

Hi, Sean! It's David here in Lakefield, Ontario.

Well, when I first talked to Taylor and launched myself on this little sonic expedition, little did I realize what it was going to involve! As they say, one thing leads to another.

My initial mistake was having blind trust in the new digital sound technology and the prosumer industry that has grown up around it.

Cheap, "high-quality" recording for the masses. I just called up Sweetwater, told a salesman what I wanted to do, let him sell me the core of what he suggested, and picked up the rest on my own here in Canada.

After playing with the new toys for a bit, with the edge of initial excitement worn off, it becomes painfully clear that I "can't get there from here." Like heavy makeup on a whore, no amount of EQ or software effects can forever hide the truth: Absent real quality at the core, the ostensible sonic and cost benefits of digital are the empty promises of marketing flacks. All that bandwidth and dynamic range, dressed up with nowhere to go.

I was fairly certain that the low-end AKG mics I had purchased were not cutting it for me, but little did I know that this was just the beginning of the problem. Once you lift up the hood and begin to examine and challenge each link in the sound chain, the real weaknesses in the "good enuf" engineering behind some of this digital gear is exposed. Of course, the mics I received from you instantly made a huge difference in the quality of the vocal tracks. But by then, I knew that what I was hearing and what someone with a real studio would hear from these mics were two very different things—things which I had to try to equalize.

Next was getting rid of that horrible ART tube pre and plugging in the FMR RNP8380 pre I was fortunate enough to get from Mercenary Audio (those little suckers are in very short supply). More dirt and cobwebs off the sonic window pane. But when I rented a Nuendo 8 I/O A/D D/A converter and bypassed that whole section of the MOTU 828, I at last began to see the light, clearly and brightly. The Nuendo may not be up to an Apogee or a Lucid, but what a difference it made!

I now realized that what I was hearing before was the sonic equivalent of dot matix print quality compared to laser. So now the 828 is just my Firewire interface box, a hardware router for the AudioDesk software I use, and a glorified headphone amp.

Suddenly, the harsh, "digital" upper-mids and highs are resolving into rich, crystalline "air," that complex matrix of infinitely ascending harmonics that breathe life into the audible wave forms of vocals and the sounds of acoustic instruments. The brittle turns supple, and all the detail I have been missing comes dramatically into focus.

I have been busy. Last week I took advantage of my proximity to Toronto by running in and renting and borrowing a bunch of mics in the THE price range from Long & McQuade, Steve's Music, and some national distributors. By the time I returned home, I had about $10,000 worth of mics in my studio/office: nothing exotically expensive, but serviceable, well-regarded equipment from Rode, AKG, Studio Projects, and others.

Friday I worked feverishly to record the same 30-second vocal/guitar sound bite in as many different configurations as were useful for evaluation purposes. You will be pleased to hear the results.

First of all, I simply don't get what all the fuss is about concerning Studio Projects. Yes, some of the mics are nice for the money, but they certainly didn't blow me away. In my opinion, the T3 tube mike was the best of the bunch, but even it couldn't stand up to the (less-expensive) AKG SolidTube. Studio Projects fit and finish is laughable: Not only do they look cheesy, but the grill from the end of one brand-new mic literally fell off in my hand when I stuck it into the shock mount.

I will admit to being a real sucker for the AKG sound. Yes, I know it's not accurate, but it's not accurate in such a good way—warm, velvety, luscious. I really, really like the 414 for vocals on my particular voice; it would be a decent guitar mic, too, but not on my old Guild twelve. (It picks up the massive bass end and just rolls it around.)

The 414 is still a contender, though, for vocals alone. I particularly like the ability to switch to a figure-8 pattern; the big null zone virtually eliminates bleed-through from the guitar.

And now the THE stuff. By the time I conducted this test, I had the KA-04 pre and four capsules: the KR-33A, KR-25A, KR-2C, and the KR-3H.

I made a mistake in not ordering a second pre because it prevented me from using various combinations of THE mics for both voice and guitar at the same time—something I will soon rectify. First of all, in general, even to my rock n' roll-ravaged ears, all these THE mics sound far—FAR—better than they have a right to considering cost, compared to all other mics tested. They all share an accuracy, a pristine clarity, and what I can only term a sense of sonic integrity that was unique among all the units I tested in this price range.

Even with my damaged hearing, the high end seems wide open, with a sense of soaring on up to infinity through the ultra frequencies. These positive qualities seem to become more obvious and pronounced with every improvement in the sound chain. Many other mics did not fare as well. Perhaps it is that the cleaner the window, the easier it is to detect flaws in the glass.

I will start with the guitar. For my solo singer/songwriter stuff, I use an old standard-body Guild twelve, a customized '66 F-212 with a big, brash, bass-driven, in-your-face sound that manages to stay balanced through all the complex jangle; it's an instrument with a lot of character and heart that has been exceedingly hard to single-mic.

Classic "warm" mics quickly suck up and choke on the bass. Lesser smaller-diaphragm mics have trouble resolving all the varying dynamics of the complex twang while still providing full bass. This would, in fact, probably be a great guitar to mic with a matched stereo pair were I going for that kind of sound. I have to say that in a different context, I might well go with the KR-C2; it absorbs everything that instrument throws at it without letting the sound get muddled or harsh.

This would be an ideal mike for recording acoustic guitar set in a complex instrumental arrangement or a small ensemble. In my case, however, the guitar IS the ensemble. On the majority of my material, it will be the only instrument, and it will be single-tracked and single-miked. For lack of any other bass or percussion, I need the guitar mic to convey the bass-strings drive and resonance without overwhelming the mids and highs. As great as it is, the KR-2C does not seem to capture the full oomph and drama of the bass to the degree I would like. I asked for the KR-3H (the hypercardioid) to see if I could achieve any significant improvement in bleed-through from the vocals while largely retaining all the great characteristics of the 2C. This experiment was not successful: Bleed-through was not significantly improved over the 2C, and the 3H, perhaps predictably, performed somewhat less well than the 2C in picking up bass. My impression is that this is a great mic, but clearly the wrong mic for this particular job.

This brings me to the KR-25A. I had already done some very promising work with this one on vocals, and thought I'd now give it a whirl on guitar as part of the second round. So I positioned it opposite the twelfth fret, about 6" away, angled slightly down and swiveled toward the sound hole, basically the same standard configuration I had used with the two smaller-diaphragm mics. Well, I was not prepared for something billed as the "Swiss Army mic" to absolutely blow me away as the hands-down winner among all the mics I used. This one did it: great resolution of all the complex harmonics and rapid transient tones; fabulous, transparent reproduction of the bass without boominess; balanced, effortless rendering of the full range of the instrument's sound and character from close proximity.

I was also impressed with its ability, when only slightly angled down toward the carpeted floor, to resist vocal bleed-through. I would say that among all the non-figure-eight mics I tested on the guitar, the KR-25A had the best performance in this regard. This is my guitar mic: I will be keeping it.

Having said that, this could also be my vocal mic, in which case I will need another KR-25A capsule plus pre (more on that later). In another context, and perhaps with someone else's voice, the KR-33A would be "the one." I get the impression that this is designed to carry the vocal through thickets of string and horn arrangements or acoustic/electric ensembles—not my situation at the moment. For lack of this factor, it also seems that it would be more effective for a baritone or soprano voice where the mid-range emphasis is more appropriate. With my minimalist context and strong male tenor, I find the KR-25A to be absolutely wonderful. Others have said, and I have to agree, that the 25A has a marvelous ability to provide what seems to be a nearly transparent sound window without seeming merely neutral and uninspiring. As Bob Ross noted in his article in "Recording," there is just a soupcon of something that makes the sound of this mic lively and interesting while remaining incredibly balanced and uncoloured.

I would also suggest that the term "Swiss Army mic," while acknowledging a notable capacity of multiple functioning, does not quite do it justice. To compare it to a Swiss Army knife is to suggest that, like a jack of all trades, it serves in many roles adequately while distinguishing itself in none of them. Perhaps this is not really the case. I would call it a "Renaissance mic," which like the Renaissance man who is notable for his mastery of multiple disciplines, generally excels in at least some of the roles in which it is capable of serving.

So here is where I stand now. I want the KA-04 and the KR-25A as my guitar mic. I have not yet decided 100% between the 414 and another 04 & 25A, - (Sean, SDAAudio -David went with another KR-25) for my vocal mic. (I would love to have both; one advantage of the 414 is its ability to switch into figure-eight mode for really good minimizing of guitar bleed-through.) And because I have only one KA-04, I have also not been able to record with two THE mics together and should do so to determine what the overall sound will be.

So I would appreciate your shipping me another KA-04 and KR-25A (putting it on the same credit card you used before). And as I write this, it occurs to me that if I do wind up with two 25As, it would be nice to have a matched pair, if this is possible - (Sean, SDAAudio -It is). How can we do that? I will not be keeping the 2C or the 3H but see no sense in shipping them back until I have decided on a vocal mic, since that would mean two courier shipments instead of one. Since I will be resolving this issue in very short order, I thought that this would be o.k. with you. I am also wondering if you have additional copies of the excerpted "Recording" article that you could send me. I would like to be able to give these to people who I have got interested in T.H.E. products.

These truly are great mics!

Thanks!

— David

'Heads -up' from our satisfied customer, David.

Assuming you may not have already seen it, I thought you might be interested in this RAP post by Bob Ross: It is an eloquent and articulate defense of why he thinks some of the T.H.E. mics float in the same rarified air as Schoeps, DPA, Josephson, and high-end Neumanns--kind of a supplement to his original review.

He was responding to my invoking his name after I was ambushed by Ty Ford for daring to suggest this very possibility. The thread is called "T.H.E. vs. Schoeps" and ran for most of last month - (November 2003 in RAP). Scott Dorsey, Ty Ford, and David Satz had all previously suggested otherwise; the actual extent of their experience with the T.H.E. line was not clear, although with Ty Ford, it appears to be a single sample of a KA-04/KR-3H that he thought was too noisy. I get the impression that they are all somewhat offended at the very idea that stuff from upstart T.H.E. should be compared to venerable "sacred objects" from Schoeps et al and that they are not basing their evaluation on actually spending time with the mics.

All the best,

-- David


RECORDING AUDIO PROFESSIONAL, (RAP) News Group Forum; Bob Ross

I'm going to humbly but confidently disagree with Scott, Ty, & David's all-too-quick dismissal of the T.H.E. microphone line. I got to spend 3 or 4 months using 6 different models of T.H.E. microphone extensively when I was reviewing them for Recording Magazine (October 2001 issue), and I've used the Schoeps CMC6/MK4 mic often enough to be familiar with its performance in a good number of situations.

Of course, this is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison: none of the T.H.E. mics I used happened to be a small diaphragm cardioid (I had 2 different large diaphragm cardioids, a small diaphragm subcardioid, and 2 different measurement omnis), whereas the CMC6/MK4 (only Schoeps I've used) is a small diaphragm cardioid. So bear with me.

And then let me say that as far as I'm concerned, there are 2 and only 2 ways an expensive microphone can be of value:

#1, it can realistically capture what it is transducing with such extreme accuracy that it renders itself invisible; it disappears and all you hear is the instrument you're trying to record.

Or #2, it lends a euphonic coloration that so wonderfully compliments the signal you are transducing that it practically defines the iconic sound of that instrument...this coloration is either so coveted that it allows you to forgive any inaccuracies, or it is so subtle that it does not interfere with the perception of the mic's accuracy.

If an expensive mic can't pull off either of those tricks, it's "not in the league with" any other mic that can. (Plus it's overpriced.)

In my experience, a Schoeps CMC6/MK4 is a textbook example of #2 above...or more specifically #2b: its euphonic coloration is so subtle that it does not interfere with the perception of the mic's accuracy. Especially on woodwinds, acoustic guitars, drum overheads, certain voice applications, and certain coincident pair ensemble applications, this particular Schoeps mic is enviably accurate, and yet even more lusciously über-realistic. There's something dreamily surreal about how real it is, if that makes any sense. IOW, if you step back & try to compare it to the source objectively, you conclude that it is adding something that's not "really" there...but man does it sound good!

And on some instruments -- most notably close-miked grand pianos, I'm sure there are other examples -- the CMC6/MK4 has just never worked for me. YMMV, obviously.

In comparison, several of the T.H.E. mics fall squarely into the #1 camp: the KR-25A 1" cardioid capsule on the KA-04 body is one of the most neutral, invisible, hyper-accurate microphones I've ever had the pleasure to use...perhaps only superseded by T.H.E.'s TT-3M measurement omni. Now *there's* a mic that just disappears, gets out of the way & leaves nothing between you and the instrument.

And I absolutely fell in love with the KR-2W subcardioid on acoustic steel string guitar. It's not "accurate" by a long shot, but what it contributes to that instrument is so perfectly complimentary to the way you ideally want that instrument to sound in a pop/rock recording that the notion of "realism" is rendered moot. #2A, in spades.

So...are apples "in the same league" as oranges? Depends where you draw those league boundaries. I've certainly had occasion to hear the Schoeps mic do some total fairy-dust magic that I never quite got from the T.H.E. mics, so maybe in that regard they're not in the same league? But I'm trying to think of a mic that's remotely as close in terms of achieving those objectives (#1 & 2 above) without costing more....uh... nope, drawing a blank. Okay, so what mics do #1 or #2 reliably and with certainty at *any* price point? Well, Schoeps, of course...Josephson Series Six, yep, DPA 4000 series (on *most* applications), some Neumann KM84's (emphasis on some), some M-G
- (Microtech Gefell) SMS2000's (emphasis on some), and...uh, well, some T.H.E.'s.

That's it. All done, game over. *There's* your league.

AKG? Shure? Audio-Technica? Minor league, dude...those are the Pawtucket Sox in comparison.

Hey, I don't work for T.H.E. or get a kickback, I just loved the shit out of those mics. One of these days I hope to actually buy a few of them!

But regardless of where you draw your personal league lines, they are contenders. Check 'em out.

/Bob Ross