m160 vs m130

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

Post Reply
permanent hearing damage
buyin' gear
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:55 pm
Location: philly
Contact:

m160 vs m130

Post by permanent hearing damage » Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:57 am

which is more versatile? i have a decent ribbon collection, though only one voiced brighter (m500) and am thinking of going in on a pair of either of these for use as drum overheads and/or guitar amps. currently using a pair of joly modded RSM5s for these purposes, so maybe sticking to fig8 makes the most sense as I seem to like that pickup pattern? or maybe hypercardoid would give me more options, esp if I ever wanted a wider pickup pattern?

these are voiced pretty damn similarly, if not the same, no?

User avatar
Recycled_Brains
deaf.
Posts: 1971
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Albany, NY
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by Recycled_Brains » Wed Jan 16, 2019 12:38 pm

Never used an M130, but you def. won't regret an M160. They're so great. Far as pick up pattern, the M160s are tight. I find they give a lot more left / right separation than condensers I've used. I like that about them. You can take advantage of that to get some good tom separation in your OH mics, because there is less of that "smear" (for lack of better term) in the center.

I love em as OH's and on guitar amps. I'm a little weary of them on super loud 4x12's, but sometimes I just say "fuck it" and do it anyway. Haven't blown one yet. Also probably my favorite acoustic mic.

If the M130 is anything like them, I'd say you can't go wrong. Being able to do Blumlein would be cool for sure. I'm guessing you get a little more ambient tone out of the 130s since you have that rear lobe to pickup more room tone. M160s are fairly dry and very focused in my experience. I record in a lot of shitty rooms, so it's helpful.
Ryan Slowey
Albany, NY

http://maggotbrainny.bandcamp.com

User avatar
I'm Painting Again
zen recordist
Posts: 7042
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 2:15 am
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by I'm Painting Again » Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:37 pm

i'd go with the 160

you can do an M/S with your figure 8 - essentially use that in place of the 130
it's different and useful in ways the 8 pattern is not

definitely agree tight pattern dry and focused

i don't get a big bottom end out of mine but i do get a meaty great kick sound if its out in front of a kit

130 sounds quite different - it's designed for the sides of the 160 so more loose and roomy

User avatar
I'm Painting Again
zen recordist
Posts: 7042
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 2:15 am
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by I'm Painting Again » Wed Jan 16, 2019 1:42 pm

160 is like a better smoother sm57 - it's known to work on anything you throw at it - a lil bit upper lift to it as well like a 57 - so it's very much not like your typical ribbon

standup
re-cappin' neve
Posts: 603
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by standup » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:20 am

I assume they are designed to sound the same, other than the pattern difference. Were they designed for mid/side recording? A friend of mine had an m130 and we compared it to my much older m160, and they sounded very much the same.

If you like fig 8 patterns and have a room with a high ceiling, the m130 might be great for drum OHs. I’ve used fig 8 for OH in my basement with a heavily insulated ceiling,the results were not bad.

User avatar
emrr
buyin' a studio
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:21 am
Location: NC
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by emrr » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:41 am

I use these in MS all the time, frequently as drum OH. The 130 on it's own is a little darker up top but they sound very similar, more similar than one of them to any other ribbon. I don't have high ceilings either.....

Being a bit of a MS junky, I'd want one of each over a pair of one type. I usually pick a different ribbon type if I'm using a pair of 8's for Blumlein, though at close distances I prefer to use that as MS too. I rarely use spaced OH or X/Y. I'd not hesitate to put a 130 on one guitar amp and 160 on another at the same time.

I don't find one more versatile than the other, really. M160 maybe if you consider hypercardioid ribbon the rarer attribute. Hypercardioid has a direct to reverberant sound ratio of 2 while figure 8 is 1.7, so there's some difference there but not as much as many people assume.

mic pattern comparison
Doug Williams
ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Tape Op issue 73

permanent hearing damage
buyin' gear
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:55 pm
Location: philly
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by permanent hearing damage » Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:52 am

i've messed around with MS a bit for drum room and OH but never fell in love with it. I seem to prefer a pair of omni or cardioid mics for those jobs. I have a huge room, but as i'm likely moving operations by the end of the year, i'm unsure what my room situation will be like.

User avatar
I'm Painting Again
zen recordist
Posts: 7042
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 2:15 am
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by I'm Painting Again » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:20 am

I maintain they sound different - by "quite different" I did not mean extremely different - different enough though for someone to say "quite different" LOL - 160 gets ~5dB rise curve between 1k and 10k - coincidentally in the range where the human ear is most sensitive - and it extends more than typical ribbon toward 20k - 130 is flat from 200Hz to ~6k where it falls off 10db out to 20k - those and the polar patterns and proximity effects of each mark the differences pretty completely

the tone/vibe is generally similar (maybe the xfrmrs? and small dual ribbon design) and they are definitely more alike to each other than typical ribbons

Beyerdynamic makes some awesome mics - is there a bad sounding one out there ?

User avatar
emrr
buyin' a studio
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:21 am
Location: NC
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by emrr » Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:23 pm

permanent hearing damage wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 7:52 am
i've messed around with MS a bit for drum room and OH but never fell in love with it.
I first felt good about MS once I tried it with well matched mics, which M130/160 would be. It can be unpredictable with mismatched types, especially things like a side ribbon with a mid condenser, or even a pair of LDC's. Done with matched types with identical sensitivity seems to present a good blend right out of the gate.

But you may mean something different......
Doug Williams
ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Tape Op issue 73

User avatar
vvv
zen recordist
Posts: 8675
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 8:08 am
Location: Chi
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by vvv » Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:53 pm

permanent hearing damage wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:57 am
... though only one voiced brighter (m500) ....
:hearts: (thanx, roscoenyc)
bandcamp; vlayman;
THD; Geronimo Cowboys;
blog.
I mix with olive juice.

permanent hearing damage
buyin' gear
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:55 pm
Location: philly
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by permanent hearing damage » Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:39 pm

emrr wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:23 pm
I first felt good about MS once I tried it with well matched mics, which M130/160 would be. It can be unpredictable with mismatched types, especially things like a side ribbon with a mid condenser, or even a pair of LDC's. Done with matched types with identical sensitivity seems to present a good blend right out of the gate.

But you may mean something different......
i dunno, i've only tried with matched mics - 414s (not a matched pair, but pretty damn close - 5 Serial numbers off) and 4050s. never tried mixing and matching, but might be worth a shot. i dunno, the out of phase sides just don't feel right to me for some reason?

User avatar
emrr
buyin' a studio
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:21 am
Location: NC
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by emrr » Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:04 am

permanent hearing damage wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:39 pm
emrr wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:23 pm
I first felt good about MS once I tried it with well matched mics, which M130/160 would be. It can be unpredictable with mismatched types, especially things like a side ribbon with a mid condenser, or even a pair of LDC's. Done with matched types with identical sensitivity seems to present a good blend right out of the gate.

But you may mean something different......
i dunno, i've only tried with matched mics - 414s (not a matched pair, but pretty damn close - 5 Serial numbers off) and 4050s. never tried mixing and matching, but might be worth a shot. i dunno, the out of phase sides just don't feel right to me for some reason?
I don't personally think it works all that well with LDC's, the patterns are too sloppy. If the sides seem strange, they're usually too loud in the blend. You can't really make side info louder than a certain point, then it all starts falling apart, gets....phasey and less distinct.

Anyway, hope you're happy with whichever mic you land on, I like them both.
Doug Williams
ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Tape Op issue 73

User avatar
DrummerMan
george martin
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:18 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: m160 vs m130

Post by DrummerMan » Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:33 am

I finally used some m160s in a session about a month ago. The first was a mono overhead in a blind test with a 4038, old sm57, and some condenser I'm forgetting, to pick the best one for the recording. M160 was instantly the best (with the 57 coming in 2nd for an "interesting" sound).

Then we needed something tighter than the tube LDC we were using on Flute. I didnt think the m160 was going to be the thing but dammit if it didnt sound just perfect.

Now I want a pair very very very much. Dammit.
Geoff Mann
composer | drummer | Los Angeles, CA

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 146 guests