|
Post by rowmat on May 4, 2017 12:12:35 GMT -6
Don't know why but this is all I get when I try to access the Sweetwater mic shootout page...
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 4, 2017 18:49:59 GMT -6
Maybe try going to Sweetwater first, and then find the link to the shootout? That worked for me.
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on May 4, 2017 20:35:15 GMT -6
Maybe try going to Sweetwater first, and then find the link to the shootout? That worked for me. It appears to be an iPad issue. Crashes Safari everytime and won't load with Firefox. Can access it on my MacBook.
|
|
|
Post by stam on May 5, 2017 6:43:36 GMT -6
There is no point to compare microphones without any processing. They will all sound similar, some with more bototm end, others with less but no drastical differences.
It is only when you compress and EQ the signal when you start hearing the microphones character and how it reacts to EQ.
My suggestions is to download the files, process them with a 76-2a chain, add some 12k, cut some 80hz midly and listen again, the differences between mics will become much more drastic.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 5, 2017 8:08:45 GMT -6
I've experienced something like what Stam is describing. Monster mics sounding a little plain, and cheap mics sounding OK when completely flat. You can hardly tell the difference sometimes. Yet, when your tracking a lead vocal, it's painfully obvious when a mic has a edge that bugs you, like some of the Chinese capsule mics do.
That's why when I did my high end shootout, I added a little reverb to the track, and it really helped. I used a vintage U47, M49, U67, C12, and two newer mics. Using the U67, I could hear a cleaner and wider reverb sound, even though the settings were identical!
Jeremy Gillespie, the engineer behind my shootout last summer did mention that the U67 was especially good at taking EQ, so that would be a factor you can't hear in a shootout.
I also like to compare finished vocals done with mics I'm interested in. Lyle Lovette's "Road to Ensenada" sounded so good to me, I wrote the engineer, Nathaniel Kunkel, and he kindly gave me some details. Lovette used a "vintage blacK U67" from the studio the album was done in, and a C24 on the guitar ( stereo mic C12). He also said the bleed was part of the sound, but that's been a benchmark of mine ever since.
Still, in the Sweetwater shootout, I found the Telefunken U47 and the Chandler neck and neck for the gold medal, and the Manley was competitive, so I definitely got a good general idea of how those mics might sound. The shootout might be a good way to at least narrow down some choices.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on May 5, 2017 9:24:49 GMT -6
Picking labeled files hardly brings subjectivity 🤓😎
|
|
|
Post by jin167 on May 5, 2017 9:36:24 GMT -6
blind test is overrated.. the look of the gear and its brand is the biggest part of its sound didn't you know silly
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on May 5, 2017 9:37:21 GMT -6
There is no point to compare microphones without any processing. They will all sound similar, some with more bototm end, others with less but no drastical differences. It is only when you compress and EQ the signal when you start hearing the microphones character and how it reacts to EQ. My suggestions is to download the files, process them with a 76-2a chain, add some 12k, cut some 80hz midly and listen again, the differences between mics will become much more drastic. I have to disagree, most I have known and delt with are looking for the mic that dose the least harm, and while at some point yes will evaluate with some processing, always have started with the barest chain when evaluating mics, it's all about what the mic brings to the party on its own , not with EQ dynamics and verb.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on May 5, 2017 9:44:53 GMT -6
blind test is overrated.. the look of the gear and its brand is the biggest part of its sound didn't you know silly Shiny gear with big knobs always sounds better 😂😃
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 5, 2017 10:35:58 GMT -6
Ericn said, " it's all about what the mic brings to the party on its own , not with EQ dynamics and verb".
Maybe that's true, but it's possible my ears are adjusted to analyzing a mic's tone quality better after some processing. In my shootouts, I settled on no processing at all, except for a pinch of reverb. Something about a completely flat sound is so unnatural to me, it distracts me from hearing the mic. I know that sounds strange.
|
|
|
Post by stam on May 5, 2017 12:16:39 GMT -6
Its about how the mic REACTS to that processing, you will never leave a vocal recording untreated in a record. You will always compress it, EQ it and FX it, sometimes heavily, sometimes subtle, but you will and that is where a good mic starts sounding totally different to a bad mic.
The same applies to preamps.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on May 5, 2017 12:46:47 GMT -6
Its about how the mic REACTS to that processing, you will never leave a vocal recording untreated in a record. You will always compress it, EQ it and FX it, sometimes heavily, sometimes subtle, but you will and that is where a good mic starts sounding totally different to a bad mic. The same applies to preamps. Sharing this post with to Multiple Grammy winning vocalists as I finish short session " No we hire you because you have the ability to select Stuff that doesn't need tweaking" when you work with talented Vocalist on the level of These or JK , Cowboy or Vincent the mics job isn't to take processing nicely it is to do no harm ! In my years of selling mics the guys with the platinum albums and awards never said " I want a mic that takes EQ well" no they wanted "A mic that captures what's going on so I don't need to fuck with it" ! I used to make a ton fixing projects where guys thought a mic took this or that well, I would rent them a mic that captured what they wanted and remove most of their prosseing !
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 5, 2017 12:53:54 GMT -6
Both Stam and Ericn make good points. You certainly would prefer to start where you need the least amount of processing, but there's little doubt how the compressors, reverbs and EQ's work with a particular mic are important too. I bet the Chandler EMI REDD or the Telefunken U47 don't need as much help or any help for that matter at capturing what they wanted, but I'd also bet when you hear that mic on a record, there's some compression, some reverb, maybe some delay and possibly a little EQ, so that's important too.
For me, when listening to files comparing mics, I'd prefer a little understated processing, as long as it's the same for all the mics being compared.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on May 5, 2017 13:15:19 GMT -6
Both Stam and Ericn make good points. You certainly would prefer to start where you need the least amount of processing, but there's little doubt how the compressors, reverbs and EQ's work with a particular mic are important too. I bet the Chandler EMI REDD or the Telefunken U47 don't need as much help or any help for that matter at capturing what they wanted, but I'd also bet when you hear that mic on a record, there's some compression, some reverb, maybe some delay and possibly a little EQ, so that's important too. For me, when listening to files comparing mics, I'd prefer a little understated processing, as long as it's the same for all the mics being compared. A lot of this goes to the idea of the sound of vinyl! A big part of that sound was the talent and quality of the voice of those behind those records. You didn't try to make somebody sound like Springsteen if they didn't have the qualities of Springsteen! If they asked you nodded and captured what they could do ! You want an era that sounds like Vinyl? Simple formula Talent, talented writing, talent to capture a talented performance! Play music capture it don't manufacture it ! Scary thing about this approach is you will find the $50 dollar Behringer is way better than you think, and the Chandler will be magical! While it's not a Classic M7 or CK12 the more I listen the more it has that dimensional magic ! Bock has it the Tele Elam as well , the 47 has the tone but lacks that wow!
|
|
|
Post by aamicrophones on May 5, 2017 14:53:31 GMT -6
Seems like a lot of folks like the sound of the Chandler over all others. What I expect you are hearing is the negative feedback used in the Redd 47 preamp used in the microphone. The Redd 47 preamp had 24db to 52db of negative feedback in 6db steps.
I built one up one day with a Neve 1073 input transformer and it did make everything you put into the preamp sound really punchy, full and smooth. I still have the prototype here but its on the back burner at the moment.
There are some advantage to negative feedback in audio amplifier circuits.
1) Negative feedback can increase the stability in high gain situations.
2) Using negative feedback can reduce noise in thre amplifier chain
3) Negative feedback can decrease non-linear distortion is multi-amplifier stages.
4) The bandwidth of an amplifier can be increased with negative feedback.
5) An amplifier with negative feedback will have an increase in its input impedance. This is helpful when you are coupling a condenser capsule into a microphone circuit. If for arguement sake we say an LDC condenser element has a capacitance of 70pf then it will have a reactance of 22 meg ohms at 100hz and a reactance of 113K ohms at 20khz. This capsule would have a reactance of 52Meg ohms at 40hz and you would need to load it with 520 meg to have a flat response down at that frequency.
6) Negative feedback also reduces the output impedance of the circuit so a lower ratio output transformer can be used. The REDD 47 had an output transformer with a 7:1 ratio.
So, I suggest that is what we are hearing in the Chandler microphone, which to my old ears sounds like the Chandler is smoothing out the transients a bit.
Negative feedback will reduce gain so usually two gain stages are required.
We use negative feedback in our MT8016 solid state preamp which has two 30db negative feedback gain stages that are coupled in tandem.
The gain of each stage is brought up together and like the Redd 47 microphones just seem to sound better through the MT8016.
Cheers, Dave
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 5, 2017 15:00:45 GMT -6
How it sounds in a mix with signal processing for a number of different singers is the test. Often as not nothing beats a U87 or 67 even though they may sound better flat.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,817
|
Post by ericn on May 5, 2017 15:16:42 GMT -6
Seems like a lot of folks like the sound of the Chandler over all others. What I expect you are hearing is the negative feedback used in the Redd 47 preamp used in the microphone. The Redd 47 preamp had 24db to 52db of negative feedback in 6db steps. I built one up one day with a Neve 1073 input transformer and it did make everything you put into the preamp sound really punchy, full and smooth. I still have the prototype here but its on the back burner at the moment. There are some advantage to negative feedback in audio amplifier circuits. 1) Negative feedback can increase the stability in high gain situations. 2) Using negative feedback can reduce noise in thre amplifier chain 3) Negative feedback can decrease non-linear distortion is multi-amplifier stages. 4) The bandwidth of an amplifier can be increased with negative feedback. 5) An amplifier with negative feedback will have an increase in its input impedance. This is helpful when you are coupling a condenser capsule into a microphone circuit. If for arguement sake we say an LDC condenser element has a capacitance of 70pf then it will have a reactance of 22 meg ohms at 100hz and a reactance of 113K ohms at 20khz. This capsule would have a reactance of 52Meg ohms at 40hz and you would need to load it with 520 meg to have a flat response down at that frequency. 6) Negative feedback also reduces the output impedance of the circuit so a lower ratio output transformer can be used. The REDD 47 had an output transformer with a 7:1 ratio. So, I suggest that is what we are hearing in the Chandler microphone, which to my old ears sounds like the Chandler is smoothing out the transients a bit. Negative feedback will reduce gain so usually two gain stages are required. We use negative feedback in our MT8016 solid state preamp which has two 30db negative feedback gain stages that are coupled in tandem. The gain of each stage is brought up together and like the Redd 47 microphones just seem to sound better through the MT8016. Cheers, Dave There is something in that Capsule as well it has a dimensal quality That you hear in good M7's and C12's ! Old Gefell's have it in spades the newer ones much less Thirsch/Flea have it less than old Gefell more than modern. I Hear it in Tim's & MBHO as well. In the past I have called it the you are in the room factor, It's this holographic Quality the classics have even when using a single mic. I hear a bit in The Tele 251, but not the 47 !
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 5, 2017 16:36:58 GMT -6
I agree there's something very special going on in that Chandler EMI 47.
Bob summed it up nicely, and that's why I prefer a little processing on mic shootouts. Nothing compromising, just enough to show how it will probably sound when you use it under typical circumstances. I used only a little reverb in my shootout precisely because didn't want any why didn't you do it this way or that way pushback.
I'll mention this though, when I compared the U47, M49, U67, C12, Soyuz 0-19 and Blackspade UM-17R, the mics were all going through an SSL 9000 board's preamps. After the shootout we quickly tried four of the mics through a vintage Neve preamp. The SSL killed the Neve, sorry to say. So much so, I didn't even want to bother trying to record them with it since I was pressed for time anyway.
Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 5, 2017 18:25:06 GMT -6
Did you guys see this? It's a Vintage King mic shootout. It's huge, but more wieldy, even though there's a lot of chit chat. Get some coffee, and prepare to take a little time out, it's worth it if you're always looking for your holy grail mic. The Telefunken U47 takes the prize here. The Bock is impressive, and the Manley is quite good.The REDD 47 wan't available at the time. Now that would've made it really interesting. I'll have to check out the Sweetwater mic files tomorrow. That is one of the best shootouts I have ever witnessed. Well worth the time for "U47" fans like myself. I picked a few favorites from that. I really like the Flea and the more expensive Wunder. It's just so interesting to focus on the tiny details of what makes a vocal mic great. The ones I picked are more clear sounding. The vocal sound I am going for is increasingly transparent or invisible, with the impossible addition of mojo to make it great.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on May 5, 2017 18:32:50 GMT -6
There's always someone who feels they simply have to call bullshit on shootouts, (not referring to anyone here). I feel the opposite, and find them more often than not, helpful and enlightening. When I chose the Blackspade UM-17 almost five years ago when looking for a serious mic under $1,000, I had only heard a few sound files and read a little about it. At that time, it was essentially the $1,895. Telefunken AK47, put together by hand by Oliver Archut with a different badge. When I got it home to try for myself, it sounded exactly like the files I'd heard and used to make my decision. This wasn't one isolated shootout that was good, there have been many more shootouts that have helped me a lot. B&H's mic shootout's are reasonably informative too. Yes, you have to suspend your taste and disbelief for a moment and focus on the sound quality. I have made a lot of important, and successful, decisions this way myself!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 5, 2017 19:12:39 GMT -6
As for preamps, my friends considered SSL a big step down from MCI and Neve a step down from API and Quad-Eight.The three people I know who have used an A-Range consider it the best solid state console. The best I've ever heard were a custom Deane Jensen solid state along with Altec and Langevin tube preamps.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 5, 2017 20:46:49 GMT -6
There is no point to compare microphones without any processing. They will all sound similar, some with more bototm end, others with less but no drastical differences. It is only when you compress and EQ the signal when you start hearing the microphones character and how it reacts to EQ. My suggestions is to download the files, process them with a 76-2a chain, add some 12k, cut some 80hz midly and listen again, the differences between mics will become much more drastic. Very wise. That makes me really want to try your 87!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 5, 2017 20:51:22 GMT -6
Seems like a lot of folks like the sound of the Chandler over all others. What I expect you are hearing is the negative feedback used in the Redd 47 preamp used in the microphone. The Redd 47 preamp had 24db to 52db of negative feedback in 6db steps. I built one up one day with a Neve 1073 input transformer and it did make everything you put into the preamp sound really punchy, full and smooth. I still have the prototype here but its on the back burner at the moment. There are some advantage to negative feedback in audio amplifier circuits. 1) Negative feedback can increase the stability in high gain situations. 2) Using negative feedback can reduce noise in thre amplifier chain 3) Negative feedback can decrease non-linear distortion is multi-amplifier stages. 4) The bandwidth of an amplifier can be increased with negative feedback. 5) An amplifier with negative feedback will have an increase in its input impedance. This is helpful when you are coupling a condenser capsule into a microphone circuit. If for arguement sake we say an LDC condenser element has a capacitance of 70pf then it will have a reactance of 22 meg ohms at 100hz and a reactance of 113K ohms at 20khz. This capsule would have a reactance of 52Meg ohms at 40hz and you would need to load it with 520 meg to have a flat response down at that frequency. 6) Negative feedback also reduces the output impedance of the circuit so a lower ratio output transformer can be used. The REDD 47 had an output transformer with a 7:1 ratio. So, I suggest that is what we are hearing in the Chandler microphone, which to my old ears sounds like the Chandler is smoothing out the transients a bit. Negative feedback will reduce gain so usually two gain stages are required. We use negative feedback in our MT8016 solid state preamp which has two 30db negative feedback gain stages that are coupled in tandem. The gain of each stage is brought up together and like the Redd 47 microphones just seem to sound better through the MT8016. Cheers, Dave I'm pretty sure they used the Millennia and not the built in pre. Are you saying it's in the path?
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on May 5, 2017 20:58:19 GMT -6
Its about how the mic REACTS to that processing, you will never leave a vocal recording untreated in a record. You will always compress it, EQ it and FX it, sometimes heavily, sometimes subtle, but you will and that is where a good mic starts sounding totally different to a bad mic. The same applies to preamps. Sharing this post with to Multiple Grammy winning vocalists as I finish short session " No we hire you because you have the ability to select Stuff that doesn't need tweaking" when you work with talented Vocalist on the level of These or JK , Cowboy or Vincent the mics job isn't to take processing nicely it is to do no harm ! In my years of selling mics the guys with the platinum albums and awards never said " I want a mic that takes EQ well" no they wanted "A mic that captures what's going on so I don't need to fuck with it" ! I used to make a ton fixing projects where guys thought a mic took this or that well, I would rent them a mic that captured what they wanted and remove most of their prosseing ! I think picking the "right" mic - one that fits with the singer's voice is a given. But I totally get Stam when he says there's a big difference in how mics take EQ. Some mics have better quality midrange than others and I think that is directly attributed to the quality of the sputtering, the depth and continuity of the backplates, the holes drilled, etc. have you ever gotten into that never ending cycle of trying to EQ a vocal? Pull this out and it gets harsh over here and so on and so on. Mics that take EQ well seem to have quality tones evenly distributed through the frequency range. I also agree that I've never seen a session where a back didn't need some semblance of EQ to make it fit with the rest of the mix.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on May 5, 2017 21:20:05 GMT -6
Case in point, I was just sending the link to my high end mic shootout files on Soundcloud when I discovered four of the six very same files at Dropbox, solo, completely flat, with no acoustic guitar. You can tell their different, yes, but that way they all sound way too similar and weird to make a good judgement.
In the shootout as I posted it, I added only a pinch of reverb, and included an acoustic guitar to accompany the vocal, and each mic was distinct and quite different.
It was so obvious which mics are better suited to me that way, but flat, they were so out of context, you really couldn't say with any certainty which was better at all.
|
|