R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic  (Read 6603 times)

Randirainbow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« on: September 03, 2008, 07:39:19 pm »

Anyone try this microphone yet and have an opinion?    Cool
Logged
Searching for the truth. One take at a time

http://www.myspace.com/loghousestudio

JGauthier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2008, 01:06:28 am »

Im interested to hear opinions on the noise floor with this mic.
Logged

Reddirt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2008, 07:51:19 am »

I have one and have not employed it in any exhaustive way but my first sketchy impressions are thus:

On the retailer's site the strummed  steel acoustic  demo was wonderfully free of cadioid proximity artifacts such as are present with my km84s and  other cardioid mics. -so that sold me straight up.
However, in my only serious recording use of it so far I preferred the 84 on a plucked nylon  classical piece. The 84 was more true to the source . the Woodpecker was a bit edgy and drew attention to itself which we didn't want.

I have done some rough vocals : it's about as susceptible to 'plosives as a good condensor  which is good.
It is surprisingly bright  with a very hot level for a ribbon.
Has a certain euphonic/smooth  flavour but I need to check that out in a more demanding way.

Noise floor is relatively high and may compromise it's use with low level sources; with reasonably robust levels it shouldn't be a problem.

Presentation and packaging are right up there if that counts for anything - the shockmount / case are great.

I perhaps am hoping by default to get a high end condensor from  this ribbon if you know what i mean; so far it feels like money well spent (B-stock $699) but some more demanding sessions are needed to firm up the picture.

Sorry to be a bit undefined but hope this helps.
Cheers, Ross
Logged

JGauthier

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2008, 06:56:53 pm »

Definitely let us know if it continues to work for you. Time tells all!

When the B-stock prices went out, it seemed to generate a lot of interest in this mic- being they could be had for a bargain at the time.

I wonder if that will carry over to new units as well.

Im in the market for a ribbon but keep holding out for an RCA 44bx, not that the two have much in common other than being ribbon mics!

I'd also be interested to hear a comparison to the Royer 122! Though its almost twice the price.  
Logged

Randirainbow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2008, 03:29:34 pm »

Reddirt wrote on Fri, 05 September 2008 04:51

I have one and have not employed it in any exhaustive way but my first sketchy impressions are thus:

On the retailer's site the strummed  steel acoustic  demo was wonderfully free of cadioid proximity artifacts such as are present with my km84s and  other cardioid mics. -so that sold me straight up.
However, in my only serious recording use of it so far I preferred the 84 on a plucked nylon  classical piece. The 84 was more true to the source . the Woodpecker was a bit edgy and drew attention to itself which we didn't want.

I have done some rough vocals : it's about as susceptible to 'plosives as a good condensor  which is good.
It is surprisingly bright  with a very hot level for a ribbon.
Has a certain euphonic/smooth  flavour but I need to check that out in a more demanding way.

Noise floor is relatively high and may compromise it's use with low level sources; with reasonably robust levels it shouldn't be a problem.

Presentation and packaging are right up there if that counts for anything - the shockmount / case are great.

I perhaps am hoping by default to get a high end condensor from  this ribbon if you know what i mean; so far it feels like money well spent (B-stock $699) but some more demanding sessions are needed to firm up the picture.

Sorry to be a bit undefined but hope this helps.
Cheers, Ross




Hi Reddirt ..  Have you had a chance to use this mic yet for any vocals?  If so, can I get your impressions? I have used it and found that it is so hot that I can get a strong signal and no noise without a lot of gain. I have a big project coming up and plan to at least audition it for both male and female vocals



Logged
Searching for the truth. One take at a time

http://www.myspace.com/loghousestudio

Reddirt

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2008, 08:43:37 am »

Sorry for the slow reply Rr ; just busy.
You are right; with an average strength vocalist noise should not be an issue.
I still haven't had the chance to use it  on vox with a client however i have rehearsed myself with it and observe it to be a bee's brighter than I would personally prefer; perhaps in a perfect world  I would have preferred a more traditional ribbon "flatness" and added the extra zing if required with a good eq . ( I am being really picky here)
Having said that , it does have  nice even mids, a sense of mojo and is definitly worth an audition . Pre was GR ME-1NV.
Cheers, Ross
Logged

Randirainbow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2009, 01:20:49 pm »

Randirainbow wrote on Wed, 03 September 2008 16:39

Anyone try this microphone yet and have an opinion?    Cool


BUMP!
Logged
Searching for the truth. One take at a time

http://www.myspace.com/loghousestudio

MrJoshua

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2009, 04:00:07 pm »

It's somewhat of an old topic, but I thought I'd chip in my two cents about this mic.  Keep in mind that I don't do this professionally - I'm a hobbyist/home studio guy who spends way more time and money on this stuff than he should.  So, take anything I say with a grain of salt.

I've had a Woodpecker for over a year now, and I seem to have a real love/hate relationship with it.  When I like it with a source I REALLY like it.  When I don't like it, I REALLY don't like it.  For comparison, the other ribbon mics I own are a pair of Cascade Fathead II w/ Lundahl transformers, a ShinyBox 46MX, and a ShinyBox 46MXC w/ Cinemag transformer.

Compared to the other ribbons, the active Woodpecker outputs a much hotter signal (which of course would be expected since it's active).  It doesn't really sound like what I expect from a ribbon, though.  It has much more top end than any of the other mics, almost more along the lines of what I expect from a large-diaphragm condensor.  Because of that I find myself reaching for it in applications where I normally use a condensor as opposed to situations where I'd try a regular ribbon.

It has become my go-to mic for acoustic guitar on rock songs.  It manages to capture a detailed and natural sound that takes EQ well, while keeping the top end much livelier than a normal ribbon mic.  I don't particularly like it on electric guitars, although I'd be hard pressed to explain exactly why.  It just doesn't seem to smooth the top end like a normal ribbon does, while simultaneously not providing that midrange bump like a 57 that helps cut through a mix.  It can work alright with a cleaner guitar sound, but for distorted electrics it just doesn't do it for me.  However, I've heard other people say they like it so take that for what it's worth.

I like it for percussion when I want a good, natural sound with some room in it.  And every once in a while I reach for it on vocals, but I normally reach for the Gefell MT-71S first on those.

All in all a mixed review, I suppose.  It's a good, useful mic, but like every mic it works better on some things than on others.  I consider it to be well worth the price, though.  If you can try one out, I recommend doing so.
Logged
Joshua Lovvorn

Berolzheimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2709
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2009, 08:47:12 pm »

MrJoshua wrote on Thu, 02 July 2009 13:00

It's somewhat of an old topic, but I thought I'd chip in my two cents about this mic.  Keep in mind that I don't do this professionally - I'm a hobbyist/home studio guy who spends way more time and money on this stuff than he should.  So, take anything I say with a grain of salt.




Well for a hobbiest you seem to have a very good handle on how things are working for you, and how to describe them.

Welcome to PSW!

Logged
The film sound side of my life:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0077235/

A bunch of songs I've recorded and/or mixed are here:
http://www.zget.me/billionaires/

MrJoshua

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2009, 11:40:01 am »

Thanks for the welcome.  Smile  I've been reading here off and on for years, but never have posted anything.  This particular mic is one I've had for a while, though, so I thought I'd chime in.

Logged
Joshua Lovvorn

Barish

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 476
Re: Comments on BLUE Woodpecker mic
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2010, 06:53:47 am »

I've found this to be a fascinating FOK mic when paired with a Blue Blueberry in M/S mode a while back, and I have repeated the same configuration a number of times since then.

Here's a test recording I've done with them a while ago. Mic pre used is Millennia Media HV-3D into 96I/O. Raw tracks 24/44.1 (if you have never worked with M/S files, a quick tip for you: duplicate the S track, and invert it. Then hard pan S track to L and its inverted duplicate to R. Make sure that their faders are matched and then group them so that they move up and down together at all times respectively on L and R channels. M track will remain centered and can move up and down independently in order to give you the flexibility to play with the stereo width):

http://www.analog-digital-acoustics.com/downloads/MicTestVol 1/Take_1/Take_1_Improvize_Blue_BLUEBERRY_M.wav

http://www.analog-digital-acoustics.com/downloads/MicTestVol 1/Take_1/Take_1_Improvize_Blue_WOODPECKER_S.wav

Enjoy.

B.
Logged
M Ozturk
Pages: [1]   Go Up