|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 15, 2023 20:09:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by teejay on Jun 15, 2023 20:57:02 GMT -6
1. FleA
2. BU87i
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 15, 2023 21:19:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by reddirt on Jun 15, 2023 21:32:01 GMT -6
I reckon A is the BU 87 . B is the Flea.
Preferred B, it had warmth and width
Cheers, Ross
|
|
|
|
Post by paulcheeba on Jun 15, 2023 21:59:48 GMT -6
1 Feel this sounds pretty rough. Quite probably stock Flea capsule. For me the F47 sounds much better.
2 Much easier on the ear possibly the BU87. I have a pair of these great mics.
Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jun 15, 2023 23:15:23 GMT -6
Preferred Mic #2 on your voice also.
It's more "relaxed".
Am guessing BU87 too.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by gmichael on Jun 16, 2023 4:28:03 GMT -6
1.I'm not a fan of this mic on this voice.
I like what I can hear of the mic, but I'm hearing more of the chain though.
It's a fairly uneven sound but to me it sounds more like the wrong preamp type or something in the chain is fighting the tone
An 88 series Neve type pre would sound beautiful
The upper mids aren't articulate enough for this voice for my taste although the mic itself sounds like it's of a high quality.
This has to be the 47. I find it too dense for the voice type but maybe it's the chain doing that?
2. Quite sybillant around 5-5.5k (and 8k if I'm guessing).
That could be several things.
Again I hear more chain than mic
But I'm also hearing too much upper palate sybillant energy, realigning the singer and the mic could change everything
But to my ears, the wrong preamp on the mic, possibly the chain configuration getting jostled around would
dramatically reduce the spittiness.
I'm guessing this is the BU87.
For this voice, if I only had these two mics to choose from,
I would use this mic and try BU87>Langevin DVC> MAAG> Weight Tank> ITB maybe
Thanks for posting the examples, they both sound like very very good microphones from what I can hear of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by teejay on Jun 16, 2023 5:36:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 16, 2023 7:09:20 GMT -6
1.I'm not a fan of this mic on this voice. I like what I can hear of the mic, but I'm hearing more of the chain though. It's a fairly uneven sound but to me it sounds more like the wrong preamp type or something in the chain is fighting the tone An 88 series Neve type pre would sound beautiful The upper mids aren't articulate enough for this voice for my taste although the mic itself sounds like it's of a high quality. This has to be the 47. I find it too dense for the voice type but maybe it's the chain doing that? 2. Quite sybillant around 5-5.5k (and 8k if I'm guessing). That could be several things. Again I hear more chain than mic But I'm also hearing too much upper palate sybillant energy, realigning the singer and the mic could change everything But to my ears, the wrong preamp on the mic, possibly the chain configuration getting jostled around would dramatically reduce the spittiness. I'm guessing this is the BU87. For this voice, if I only had these two mics to choose from, I would use this mic and try BU87>Langevin DVC> MAAG> Weight Tank> ITB maybe Thanks for posting the examples, they both sound like very very good microphones from what I can hear of them. I'm with you on this one. I think we hear things similarly. The right microphone preamp for every microphone is crucial. Learn your pairs and use them to present mics at their best. Mic B: I have a new BEEZNEES mics BU87, the single pattern non-coincident figure of 8 one, and it is MAGICAL through a Neve '1073' Audioscape 1290 or matt@IAA Iron Age QP5, and insanely like a vintage U87 through a Locomotive WT72! That sibilance doesn't occur in those pairings. Mic A: Sounds a little wooly. I'm not a fun of wool or mud. Not being critical of you Jesse! Just giving some honest feedback. Might be an odd pairing of mics. With a de-esser in the mix, I could live with B. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 16, 2023 8:14:38 GMT -6
Don’t be afraid to criticize. I’ve got thick skin and ALWAYS appreciate honest feedback. It’s the best way to improve.
This wasn’t really meant to be a public shootout when I recorded it, we just did a quick check of the two mics when we went to record. I just picked up the BU87i and ran it through the chain I was using with the Flea. We picked what we liked and went with it.
We’re probably going to create some content around either this song or another where we do some purposeful shootouts of different gear. Few different mics into pre with no processing. Or same vocal through a few different compressors, etc. Any suggestions for this stuff is welcome too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jun 16, 2023 8:16:27 GMT -6
gmichael, I agree that popping the weight tank after the MAAG may have smoothed it out a bit more. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jun 16, 2023 10:17:45 GMT -6
But for my newest Rap personna...
"Woolly Mammoth".
I'd want FLEA>ART Tube MP.
With a genuine Chineseum Toob.
The finest that Mass Production can generate.
Hmmm. "Mass Production".
Good for those church dates.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jun 16, 2023 11:56:09 GMT -6
Mic1 feels a little like 1940s to me. Pretty cool how thick it is. If this is for swing era could be worth working with this. There is a some magic in this one. But it does need some EQ, esp 4kHz and up detail.
Mic2 has a more typical signature, highs are present, mids more laid back. If this is a swing band playing at Disneyland this is what I’d use. (Not a knock, DL sound is very impressive)
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 16, 2023 12:34:03 GMT -6
Mic1 feels a little like 1940s to me. Pretty cool how thick it is. If this is for swing era could be worth working with this. There is a some magic in this one. But it does need some EQ, esp 4kHz and up detail. Mic2 has a more typical signature, highs are present, mids more laid back. If this is a swing band playing at Disneyland this is what I’d use. (Not a knock, DL sound is very impressive) Pretty cool. A high school buddy of mine runs a lot of the sound at Disneyland actually. They have a HUGE number of A Designs REDDI boxes there. |
|
|
|
Post by gmichael on Jun 16, 2023 16:52:23 GMT -6
1.I'm not a fan of this mic on this voice. I like what I can hear of the mic, but I'm hearing more of the chain though. It's a fairly uneven sound but to me it sounds more like the wrong preamp type or something in the chain is fighting the tone An 88 series Neve type pre would sound beautiful The upper mids aren't articulate enough for this voice for my taste although the mic itself sounds like it's of a high quality. This has to be the 47. I find it too dense for the voice type but maybe it's the chain doing that? 2. Quite sybillant around 5-5.5k (and 8k if I'm guessing). That could be several things. Again I hear more chain than mic But I'm also hearing too much upper palate sybillant energy, realigning the singer and the mic could change everything But to my ears, the wrong preamp on the mic, possibly the chain configuration getting jostled around would dramatically reduce the spittiness. I'm guessing this is the BU87. For this voice, if I only had these two mics to choose from, I would use this mic and try BU87>Langevin DVC> MAAG> Weight Tank> ITB maybe Thanks for posting the examples, they both sound like very very good microphones from what I can hear of them. I'm with you on this one. I think we hear things similarly. The right microphone preamp for every microphone is crucial. Learn your pairs and use them to present mics at their best. Mic B: I have a new BEEZNEES mics BU87, the single pattern non-coincident figure of 8 one, and it is MAGICAL through a Neve '1073' Audioscape 1290 or matt@IAA Iron Age QP5, and insanely like a vintage U87 through a Locomotive WT72! That sibilance doesn't occur in those pairings. Mic A: Sounds a little wooly. I'm not a fun of wool or mud. Not being critical of you Jesse! Just giving some honest feedback. Might be an odd pairing of mics. With a de-esser in the mix, I could live with B. Interesting about the non coicident BU. I didn't know Ben was making any but the multi and the cardioid versions. Did you get a pair or which other mic are you pairing the BU with? I'm after a FET F8 mic but coincidental, to pair with a FET 251 style mic in omni. Tracking untrained choirs or whatever closely resembles
choirs!
Also I agree about preamp or channel strip selections, it's an imperative sometimes taken for granted or often coming down to what we have on hand. It's ludicrious to think we'd buy preamps specifically for a given one off task, but it's also a conundrum because there is logic to it. For a voice like in the examples, I would not prefer any Carnhill coupled front end but if that was my choice, the shelves of the 1081 would be priceless to have access to in imhO.
But the DVC can have a similar impact. I know it's not a much discussed box but I think with certain mics and certain sources where a darker image is preferred but without sacrificing the openness and air, it's a worthy consideration. The ruby red version is what I'm referring to, 2 point shelves with a very pultec like curve, but it's own thing really.
Boosting/cutting a band above or below what might bother us til that offending behaviour disappears is a strategy to consider I think, but some might find that less than intuitive or it goes against their own approaches.
In any case, I think it's time I get on to Ben again and get myself sorted out on my F8 want (needs). I sold my BU87c to help pay for my 251's and immediately felt the gaping hole in my clutch of choices. Maybe the multi pattern with suffice and at the same time he can put a CK12 capsule in my Cremona. I really like the Cremona for choral stuff as it is but if I can get an even smoother air response considering how fast it's transient response is, I'd take it and I reckon Ben would be the guy who could sort that and elevate the microphone beyond anything I expect from it.
Lovely mic though, make no mistake!
Apologies for going off topic a bit. Mods delete if offends. The profile of this mic example really shores up a lot of my core acquired understandings about this type of female voice. C12 or 251 would be my first attempt, and that would free me up to look at non tube preamps or strips. Z'all a matter of taste though isn't it!
have a great day folks g
|
|
|
|
Post by stam on Jun 16, 2023 17:02:58 GMT -6
Wow
Mic 1 sounded anemic and complete lack of clarity. Sounds awful to be honest, like a blanket is covering the mic. Like a bad M7 capsule.
Mic 2 is better, clarity and presence. Clear winner.
Just my 0.2
|
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Jun 17, 2023 13:28:22 GMT -6
Did I miss the reveal of which is which?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygunz21 on Jun 17, 2023 16:00:15 GMT -6
Mic 1 had a "boxiness" sound, and 2 was much more tamed, smooth, and would need minimal processing.
|
|
antbar
Junior Member
Posts: 75
Member is Online
|
Post by antbar on Jun 17, 2023 16:20:47 GMT -6
Another vote for mic #2. Mic #1 got in the way of the vocal, but mic #2 sounded like "singer singing song."
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 17, 2023 16:54:20 GMT -6
Mic 2 in this instance.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jun 17, 2023 17:30:29 GMT -6
Did I miss the reveal of which is which? Mic number 2 is a Condenser. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 17, 2023 18:30:08 GMT -6
Did I miss the reveal of which is which? Mic number 2 is a Condenser. Chris I think they are both Condensers Chris. One is a FET and the other Tube though.... |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jun 17, 2023 18:32:59 GMT -6
Well, I found the difference in volume substantial... on first listen I thought 2 but then after I started listening around 15 secs in and adjusted the volumes I thought 2 was too thin.
I think my preference would come down to the track around the vocal...
I get the feeling I could maybe EQ 1 to sound pretty nice...
honestly neither span my wheels much..
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jun 17, 2023 20:26:09 GMT -6
Mic number 2 is a Condenser. Chris I think they are both Condensers Chris. One is a FET and the other Tube though.... A little hedging Dr. Bill.  Chris |
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jun 17, 2023 21:52:37 GMT -6
I thought 2 of the same things Wiz did in that mic 2 was louder ,......and that mic 1 would take EQ easily to where you want to go since it seemed fairly even in Freq from top to bottom, verses mics that have a narrower presence point you either like or have to manage depending on the source .
|
|
