|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 19, 2016 8:59:27 GMT -6
John's started a post about Upton Microphone's ELA M251 style mic. It's an excellent example of how sometimes the hype is true, and that a new mic can equal a classic mic, or be so close as to negate the difference for all but the highest end studios. I did an incredible high end mic comparison with the help of Jeremy Gillespie at the amazing Barbershop Studios, where he engineers and produces. We compared 6 mics, four of them were triple mint world class holy grail microphones, two, new designs.
Here's a preview. The new mic featured here was not designed to mimic or clone the original, it was designed to be "in the general direction of", but be it's own animal, it just happens to be very close. See what you think, and I'll reveal the mics in a little while.
The mics were not positioned like the picture shows, they are butting heads, east, west, north and south. I was far back enough that they all got the same exact signal. I only had this photo to show.
This is just a simple acoustic guitar and vocal. No processing at all on the mic, they're completely flat, all I did was add a pinch of reverb, because I like listening to it that way.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/mic-shootout-2-mic-1
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/mic-shootout-2-mic-2
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 19, 2016 9:13:50 GMT -6
Level-matching is SOOO important when they're this close.. Mic #1 seems ever so slightly louder to me. When I try to manually level-match, I get the sense that #2 may have a little more of a bump at 200hz maybe? Other than that, I can't hear a difference - they sound identical to me.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 19, 2016 9:19:11 GMT -6
It is, I tried, but I don't know how to exactly level match. I'll try again. Mic 2 did have less gain than all the other mics, but it was still hot enough, all it needed was a little push to be equal.
M57, I just went back, bounced it a again and tried to get the levels a little closer, see what you think..
If you guys here can help me level match, please do.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 19, 2016 9:41:18 GMT -6
Much better. #2 MAY be hotter now - but more likely it's the bump - I do think #2 has a slight bump down there somewhere with a gentle Q. Maybe from 200-500ish. Of course, with no reference, it's hard to say which is flatter. That's the kind of thing I would deal with with an EQ anyway, but with high frequencies not so much.. Like I said, they sound pretty identical to me up top - and the difference on the bottom is this side of negligible.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 19, 2016 10:40:48 GMT -6
The mics were run straight into the SSL 9000, no outboard preamps.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 19, 2016 10:42:07 GMT -6
I prefer Mic #1 here. It handles the esses better every time you sing "I can see..."
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 19, 2016 11:00:14 GMT -6
I prefer Mic #1 here. It handles the esses better every time you sing "I can see..." Agree, though I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. I thought I compared S's the first time, but maybe that was before the level match. The S's are bit more tamed with #1, but interestingly enough, right after the "I can see.." in the very first line, when he sings "..Fires Falling," the Fs in #2 are more flattering. They are related, right? Go figure. If I had to choose my descriptors, I might say the sibilance freqencies are 'thinner' with mic #1 just as easily as I would say that mic #2 doesn't handle the S's as well.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 19, 2016 11:21:38 GMT -6
I prefer mic 2 even with the harder esses. Mic 1 feels a little too congested to me, but either would be usable for sure.
Tascam UH-7000 > AKG Q701 Tascam UH-7000 > Adam S1A
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 19, 2016 11:23:24 GMT -6
I prefer Mic #1 here. It handles the esses better every time you sing "I can see..." Agree, though I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. I thought I compared S's the first time, but maybe that was before the level match. The S's are bit more tamed with #1, but interestingly enough, right after the "I can see.." in the very first line, when he sings "..Fires Falling," the Fs in #2 are more flattering. Â They are related, right? Â Go figure. If I had to choose my descriptors, I might say the sibilance freqencies are 'thinner' with mic #1 just as easily as I would say that mic #2 doesn't handle the S's as well. Yeah there's just a certain, buttery, soft ess thing I look for in a mic. May just come from the fact that I'm a sibilant singer.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 19, 2016 12:13:38 GMT -6
I prefer mic 2 even with the harder esses. Mic 1 feels a little too congested to me, but either would be usable for sure. Jesse votes with his sinuses.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 19, 2016 12:34:45 GMT -6
I do hope these mics are considered more than just "usable", yikes ;-)
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jul 19, 2016 13:16:50 GMT -6
Do you guys mind mentioning what monitor system you are using when listening to the examples?
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 19, 2016 13:41:26 GMT -6
D Box DA-->Dynaudio BM5a MKII, treated room.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 19, 2016 13:47:46 GMT -6
Hey Martin, can you set these in to be downloadable? I'd like to pop them into ABXer to see how accurate I am blind.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 19, 2016 13:50:58 GMT -6
M-Audio BX6 - right now poorly positioned in treated room. ..that's why I'm primarily relying on my trusty ATH-M50x's Of just about the same concern is we're all listening to a Soundcloud file - but then - so is the most of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 19, 2016 14:25:56 GMT -6
The files are on the way to you Jesse..
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Jul 19, 2016 14:43:12 GMT -6
#2 doesn't sound like a "high end mic" to me. You mean it's expensive? If this is a choice for you, the answer is #1, and not by a little.
that said....re:gain matching, with different mics, that actually wholly subjective. You can choose to use objective level readings to do it....but, will you use peak level or average RMS? It's more useful to do a more psychoacoustic match--but, even that is crazy challenging to try to achieve with mics of a differing frequency balance.
One will always be louder or softer....and it won't necessarily even be the same one--depending on what someone listens on....you can only hope for "close enough for rock and roll".
But, it's also not really all that helpful to hear flat response tests anyway for a vocal....without the mixed track and some discussion of what it took to get from here to there, shootouts only show serious technical deficiencies....They rule out bad choices if you know what you're listening for/to--they don't help you pick the best of the good. IMO/E. Like here, #2 is out--whether that's the vintage or the new mic doesn't matter, it's a bad choice for you. Again, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Jul 19, 2016 14:53:30 GMT -6
They would need to be level matched, but both will work, but I like the second one better.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 19, 2016 15:02:18 GMT -6
Just a tease but, there's a $13,000 difference in cost between the two.
Popmann, I used the term "high end" because in the comparison we had 4 of the 5 most sought after mics in the world, in triple mint condition.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Jul 19, 2016 15:11:18 GMT -6
I will have to do some other comparisons on some other monitors. That was my first impression on headphones that impart their character. I will listen again later on different monitors, and see if my opinion changes. I didn't read the whole thread, so I am just listening and stating my quick opinion. I promise to read it later when I have more time.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 19, 2016 15:31:02 GMT -6
Further on down the road, Jeremy and I may do this with a fully produced track, that would allow us to hear how they all compare in a full band mix.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 20, 2016 8:46:38 GMT -6
Waiting for John or cowboycoalminer to join in before I reveal the models. I will also post the other mics files soon.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jul 20, 2016 8:58:45 GMT -6
#2 doesn't sound like a "high end mic" to me. You mean it's expensive? If this is a choice for you, the answer is #1, and not by a little. But, it's also not really all that helpful to hear flat response tests anyway for a vocal....without the mixed track and some discussion of what it took to get from here to there, shootouts only show serious technical deficiencies....They rule out bad choices if you know what you're listening for/to--they don't help you pick the best of the good. IMO/E. Like here, #2 is out--whether that's the vintage or the new mic doesn't matter, it's a bad choice for you. Again, IMO. Spend enough time on gear sites, and you'll be convinced you need a 10-20K vocal chain for a 'good sound'... Sorry, but even an SM57 hanging off an SSL-9000 is high-end... Sure, one of these mics needs a bit of help to get there. A big sounding outboard pre-amp to give it some life, some intelligent processing, and some more careful consideration when tracking. That's why it's $13'000 cheaper... But neither of these mics are a bad choice for Martin. I'd say pick the one who's vibe you like, and get to work... and take your wife to dinner if you bought the cheaper one.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 20, 2016 9:13:20 GMT -6
#2 doesn't sound like a "high end mic" to me. You mean it's expensive? If this is a choice for you, the answer is #1, and not by a little. But, it's also not really all that helpful to hear flat response tests anyway for a vocal....without the mixed track and some discussion of what it took to get from here to there, shootouts only show serious technical deficiencies....They rule out bad choices if you know what you're listening for/to--they don't help you pick the best of the good. IMO/E. Like here, #2 is out--whether that's the vintage or the new mic doesn't matter, it's a bad choice for you. Again, IMO. Spend enough time on gear sites, and you'll be convinced you need a 10-20K vocal chain for a 'good sound'... Sorry, but even an SM57 hanging off an SSL-9000 is high-end... Sure, one of these mics needs a bit of help to get there. A big sounding outboard pre-amp to give it some life, some intelligent processing, and some more careful consideration when tracking. That's why it's $13'000 cheaper... But neither of these mics are a bad choice for Martin. I'd say pick the one who's vibe you like, and get to work... and take your wife to dinner if you bought the cheaper one. Worth pointing out that we don't know which is $13k cheaper at this point.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 20, 2016 9:17:22 GMT -6
I'd say pick the one who's vibe you like, and get to work... and take your wife to dinner if you bought the cheaper one. ..at a very nice restaurant in the country of your choice.
|
|