|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 20, 2016 9:26:08 GMT -6
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/mic-shootout-2-mic-1
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/mic-shootout-2-mic-2
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/mic-shootout-2-mic-3
https%3A//soundcloud.com/martin-john-butler/mic-shootout-2-mic-4
Ok guys, here are the other two mics from the same session. I won't drag this out too long. I feel the first two mics demonstrated that a new mic can get you close to a holy grail sound, and with some careful tracking and choice of preamps, be almost indistinguishable. This is the better shootout because we had 4 mics positioned so that I could sing at all 4 simultaneously, so it's the same take and equally balanced. On the six mic shootout, I sang a verse and chorus into each one, but was clearly at slightly different distances and positions, so the results are skewed. It was helpful to me because I was trying to hear the general character of the mics and not trying to produce the perfect shootout session., but not so great for posting.
These two mics are also, one classic, one new..
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 20, 2016 11:00:53 GMT -6
I just changed mic 4. It was lower in volume than the rest. Since I raised mic 2 a little to try level matching, it's only fair I try the same with mic 4.
I'll reveal the mics soon, but would like your unbiased opinion of mics 3 and 4 first.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jul 20, 2016 11:19:28 GMT -6
3 and 4 are closer for me. I prefer 3.
Out of all these, Mic 1 is the one I would want, by a good margin. I would guess it's the 47.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 20, 2016 12:41:33 GMT -6
Yeah - Mic 1 was by far my favorite. I liked 4 too. Mic 2 seemed scooped in comparison with exaggerated lows and highs and sibilance issues. Still not bad at all, all of them sound really good.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 20, 2016 12:43:46 GMT -6
I'm a little confused as to how this is setup, though. So mic 1&2 - one vintage one new? and then same for 3-4? Is there not a duplicate phrase we can hear on each mic?
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 20, 2016 12:43:54 GMT -6
1,3,2,4 in that order. I agree about #1 by a good margin, with each mic in succession becoming tighter in the mid-range (3kish?), with 4 noticably more pinched. In fact, #4 was the first one I listened to, and I thought to myself, "Hmm.. seems a bit tight." I thought 3 and 2 we're very respectable. #3 handled the S's nicely, but even there - I'd give #1 the nod.
Edit: I'm surprised #4 is getting such high marks - it was easily the most distinguishable from #1 for me.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 20, 2016 12:47:35 GMT -6
In No.2, I hear that pointedness that I can't seem to get rid of in any new mic I buy. You can hear it in "I can see the fires..." I mean, it's fine, but now I'm preconditioned to hear it because I deal with it so much. I didn't hear it nearly as pronounced in the first take. We're talking nerd level stuff here. BUT, to me, it's the difference in something distracting me from the vocal with a pronounced upper midrange push in places...where number one didn't change at all. That make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 20, 2016 12:47:54 GMT -6
1,3,2,4 in that order. I agree about #1 by a good margin, with each mic in succession becoming tighter in the mid-range (3kish?), with 4 noticably more pinched. In fact, #4 was the first one I listened to, and I thought to myself, "Hmm.. seems a bit tight." I thought 3 and 2 we're very respectable. #3 handled the S's nicely, but even there - I'd give #1 the nod. Edit: I'm surprised #4 is getting such high marks - it was easily the most distinguishable from #1 for me. That's exactly my take too. Listening again, there was a big lift on #4 at 10kish...or whereever the air shiite starts.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 20, 2016 12:50:39 GMT -6
Ah...I see, 1/2 same phrase, 3/4 same phrase. All 4 are different mics, right?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 20, 2016 12:52:26 GMT -6
3 and 4 are closer for me. I prefer 3. Out of all these, Mic 1 is the one I would want, by a good margin. I would guess it's the 47. Here's my totally stupid and probably totally wrong guess as to which mic was which. 1 - 47 or 67 2 - Blackspade 3 - C12 or Soyuz 4 - M49 or Soyuz
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 20, 2016 13:03:24 GMT -6
Martin Dropboxed me the files for 1 and 2. I popped them into ABXer for some comparisons and I'm preferring 1 over 2 now. I thought it was too meaty when listening yesterday, but I think I'd rather deal with cutting a little meat rather than cutting extra bite. Dropping these things into ABX is SOOOO much easier for comparisons over using Soundcloud and having to click around back and forth and never click the right stop and stuff. Haven't listened to 3/4 at all yet.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 20, 2016 13:13:37 GMT -6
Very close John. Here ya go guys:
Mic #1 Mint, Vintage U47
Mic #2 Blackspade's new UM-17R
Mic #3 Soyuz 0-19 FET
Mic #4 Mint Vintage Telefunken C12
* I wish I had the Soyuz 0-17 there. judging by the $1500 less expensive 0-19 FET, I think the Soyuz 0-17 would have given that beautiful benchmark U47 a run for its money.
I did a shootout before this that included these mics, plus the U67 and the M49, but i did each mic one at a time, so it's subject to differences just from my position changing and from vocal changes after 6 takes. Still, I did it as a general guide to explore the sound qualities of these classic mics, and I could certainly "get" why each was considered one of the 5 greets mics ever made. Down the road, I'll post the 67 and M49 files anyway.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 20, 2016 15:22:59 GMT -6
3 and 4 are closer for me. I prefer 3. Out of all these, Mic 1 is the one I would want, by a good margin. I would guess it's the 47. Here's my totally stupid and probably totally wrong guess as to which mic was which. 1 - 47 or 67 2 - Blackspade 3 - C12 or Soyuz 4 - M49 or Soyuz See this is where I'm totally in the dark.. We pretty much agree on how they sound so I'm feeling better and better about my ears these days, but you guys can actually hazard a reasonable guess at what they are.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jul 20, 2016 16:47:08 GMT -6
I'll be the first to say I wanted to very much so hate the Soyuz. It looked like an ugly duckling next to the classic mics, almost as if they tried to make it campy.
It did prove itself though, and I'm sold. I very much so want to check out the tube version and also the SDC they make.
I put the Soyuz through one of our vintage La-2a's set to limit with about 2db of GR at the loudest part of the vocal, and it got it extremely close in sound quality to the 47.
Is it a 47? Nope! But if I was going to buy a mic for my setup at home I'm pretty sure it would be this one. Its just THAT good to me for the money it costs.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 20, 2016 16:51:15 GMT -6
Jeremy, don't listen to the Soyuz 0-17, you'll want it, badly. The $1,500 less FET will do just fine :-)
"is it a 47? Nope! But if I was going to buy a mic for my setup at home I'm pretty sure it would be this one. Its just THAT good to me for the money it costs.
Agree.
* forgot to say, don't try the 0-11 either, you'll want that too. If you put a K84 and the Soyuz 0-11 in front of me and said pick one, I'd take the 0-11, and I use the K84 a lot, I love it, and I know it well.
The Soyuz design can seem tacky with all that gold, but it is solid brass, and so beautifully made, you end up forgiving the glitz and grow to like it after a while
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 20, 2016 17:54:49 GMT -6
That was really nice for a Fet mic. Definitely interested in hearing the tube version - which is usually the slightest bit bigger on the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 20, 2016 19:04:03 GMT -6
Just for comparison, here's the Upton with verb. I think these are good examples of U47s and 251s. That 47 sounds awesome...and you can hear that velvety, reedy think that the 251 does.
https%3A//soundcloud.com/johnandkris/upton-effected
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 20, 2016 19:08:03 GMT -6
One of my friends who I sent the files to just wrote this to me. jeremy, guys, can you confirm this? " Thanks for the files, very interesting! One thing about your shootout though: in the files you posted, the phase of the U47 is flipped. That explains the HUGE difference in sound between Mic 1 and Mic 2 when listening on headphones. Out of phase sounds wider, softer, with bigger low-end etc... Only noticed when I solo'd the U47 and UM18R together by mistake, and they almost cancelled each other out "
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Jul 20, 2016 19:39:39 GMT -6
Love the C12. "I can Hear the babies crying" gets a little froggy on the others but with the C12 it highlights the smoothest part of your register for your vocal style. God I want one.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 20, 2016 19:39:44 GMT -6
Well, I've never experience out of phase being "bigger in the low end"...only opposite, in fact. When something is out of phase, it's smaller with the bottom and top rolled off. Also, a mono file can't be "out of phase" as far as I know. It has nothing to be out of phase with. I guess you could say its phase is reversed with transients peaking the other direction, but it wouldn't affect the sound. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jul 20, 2016 19:51:14 GMT -6
I agree John, I think the phase would only really matter if there were more than one track.
My favorites seemed to be #1 and #3, with #1 being the winner for me. U47 for breakfast, then. I've got a Peluso 2247 SE but it probably doesn't sound quite as nice as that!
I also correctly guessed the C-12 in the blind listen. That's a pretty distinctive tonality that's not too terribly hard to point out once you've gotten to know it.
|
|
|
Post by mulmany on Jul 20, 2016 19:56:03 GMT -6
Well, I've never experience out of phase being "bigger in the low end"...only opposite, in fact. When something is out of phase, it's smaller with the bottom and top rolled off. Also, a mono file can't be "out of phase" as far as I know. It has nothing to be out of phase with. I guess you could say its phase is reversed with transients peaking the other direction, but it wouldn't affect the sound. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. [b You are correct. Phase is a relationship. In this case between Martin's voice and the capsule It's not an issue until other waveforms are incorporated. I have never had "out of phase" having a bigger bottom end. That's normally the range that cancels the most.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 20, 2016 20:09:37 GMT -6
My friend said when he accidentally solo'd mic 1 and 2 together, they almost cancelled each other out..
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 20, 2016 20:09:39 GMT -6
One of my friends who I sent the files to just wrote this to me. jeremy, guys, can you confirm this? " Thanks for the files, very interesting! One thing about your shootout though: in the files you posted, the phase of the U47 is flipped. That explains the HUGE difference in sound between Mic 1 and Mic 2 when listening on headphones. Out of phase sounds wider, softer, with bigger low-end etc... Only noticed when I solo'd the U47 and UM18R together by mistake, and they almost cancelled each other out "The two mics are out of phase with each other. It won't effect anything when listening to the mics individually.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Jul 20, 2016 20:10:49 GMT -6
My friend said when he accidentally solo'd mic 1 and 2 together, they almost cancelled each other out.. I tried it, they don't "almost cancel", but do sound wonky together because there is some cancellation.
|
|