|
Post by adamjbrass on Oct 29, 2018 14:29:45 GMT -6
When I was a nubile intern at Mercenary Audio -- I was sure that Fletcher asked me to set up two E609 as Room mics. So I did. He was usually putting room mics SUPER wide apart across the warehouse. So as the session progressed, and he brought those mics up on the desk, he reamed me for putting them up and not hearing him properly. I totally forget what mics he originally asked for, but he actually humoured me on the choice. We listened to them as room mics and determined that they were totally useless!!! It was a funny experience. I felt pretty dumb. Since then I have used these mics, mainly in a live sound reinforcement setting, for electric guitar. I saw Fletcher use them a lot in the studio for toms, or electric guitar. But I never thought they sounded good at all. Sometimes they worked, but mostly, I found them bright for a dynamic. Pretty thin too. But on certain cabs, they sounded good. Stuff that has too much bass or mud. One time, during a blues show, I put one on my Oahu 9 Watt amp with a Shure Bullet going into it for Harp [hamonica]. I thought it was pretty good for that. I don't like them on Toms at all.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Oct 29, 2018 14:33:45 GMT -6
When I was a nubile intern at Mercenary Audio -- I was sure that Fletcher asked me to set up two E609 as Room mics. So I did. He was usually putting room mics SUPER wide apart across the warehouse. So as the session progressed, and he brought those mics up on the desk, he reamed me for putting them up and not hearing him properly. I totally forget what mics he originally asked for, but he actually humoured me on the choice. We listened to them as room mics and determined that they were totally useless!!! It was a funny experience. I felt pretty dumb. Since then I have used these mics, mainly in a live sound reinforcement setting, for electric guitar. I saw Fletcher use them a lot in the studio for toms, or electric guitar. But I never thought they sounded good at all. Sometimes they worked, but mostly, I found them bright for a dynamic. Pretty thin too. But on certain cabs, they sounded good. Stuff that has too much bass or mud. One time, during a blues show, I put one on my Oahu 9 Watt amp with a Shure Bullet going into it for Harp [hamonica]. I thought it was pretty good for that. I don't like them on Toms at all. I've mostly used them for live blues harp amps too. Sometimes those harp amps are pretty murky and need a bit of the razor. The hanging trick is by far their greatest achievement though.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Oct 29, 2018 16:07:39 GMT -6
Well I tracked a song with the 609 and 906 on two separate guitars today... I've got no complaints I'm very happy with the sounds I've been getting.
One of the main features for me as well is the compact and flat form factor, they stay out of the way in my "permanent installation" kind of setup. Everything is ready to track at a moment's notice, keeps the ideas flowing.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 22, 2019 22:00:42 GMT -6
I bought a 906 to compare to my 609. 50/50-ish in initial testing, of which I haven't done much.
I like either of them better than a 57 most often these days.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 23, 2019 0:58:13 GMT -6
The first German Mic in my life that goes back after the first guitar take. Grainy HF, lack of definition in the low end...
One of the live guys told me I should try it...
Zennheiser Zip Sound? LOL
I have a few of them I got to use on guitars and drums for punk shows where I don't want to risk better mics.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 23, 2019 1:00:20 GMT -6
Well I tracked a song with the 609 and 906 on two separate guitars today... I've got no complaints I'm very happy with the sounds I've been getting. One of the main features for me as well is the compact and flat form factor, they stay out of the way in my "permanent installation" kind of setup. Everything is ready to track at a moment's notice, keeps the ideas flowing. Yeah, same form factor as a 409.
Too bad they don't SOUND like a 409.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 23, 2019 2:15:42 GMT -6
They ain't that far apart. The 409 does sound better. By a small but not insignificant amount in my opinion. But man, it's always a chuckle/eye roll to me how this type of thing gets snowballed into ridiculousness in the gear community.
You listen to the ABs and go, "Yeah ok, that 409 does have some extra life to it. Definition, dimension...nice midrange...The 609 sounds like a little flatter version of that same basic sonic footprint"...and then you go onto the forums and every gearBlastr9000, direct from mom's basement, is like "THE 409 iIS GOD’S GIFT TO GUITARS! The 609 is the shittiest piece of garbage I've ever smashed to pieces with my PRS, bro!!! Unusable, it's a disgrace to microphonezzz!"
|
|
|
Post by stormymondays on Feb 23, 2019 3:18:17 GMT -6
In my studio, the 409 sounds killer. The 906 sounds acceptable. I sold it, then bought it again at half-off as a useful live mic.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Feb 23, 2019 7:31:23 GMT -6
I bought a 906 to compare to my 609. 50/50-ish in initial testing, of which I haven't done much. I like either of them better than a 57 most often these days. I'm trying a 906 for the first time on a session today.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 23, 2019 9:12:15 GMT -6
I ended up selling the 609--it was just too bright.
I still swear by my 906 though, I wish I had a few more. It delivers what I want on my marshall half stack. I'd like to try one on bass cab.
On my Vox AC30 I did a little shootout, and picked the "secret weapon" vintage Shure SM59 as my current go-to for that amp. Kind of surprising, I've been sleeping on that mic.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 23, 2019 14:30:19 GMT -6
They ain't that far apart. The 409 does sound better. By a small but not insignificant amount in my opinion. But man, it's always a chuckle/eye roll to me how this type of thing gets snowballed into ridiculousness in the gear community. You listen to the ABs and go, "Yeah ok, that 409 does have some extra life to it. Definition, dimension...nice midrange...The 609 sounds like a little flatter version of that same basic sonic footprint"...and then you go onto the forums and every gearBlastr9000, direct from mom's basement, is like "THE 409 iIS GOD’S GIFT TO GUITARS! The 609 is the shittiest piece of garbage I've ever smashed to pieces with my PRS, bro!!! Unusable, it's a disgrace to microphonezzz!" The 409 is a LOT MORE than a mic for guitar cabs - in fact it's almost wasted there. When I was still close micing drums a lot the 409 was one of the best dynamics I've used. It's an excellent live performance vocal mic. It does a lot of other things well, too. Unfortunately Sennheiser refuses to reissue it, claiming that it would be "too costly", which is an utter crock of bull, especially considerting the inflated prices that vintage units sell for these days.
As I've frequently pointed out, A/B "shootouts" are generally a pretty lousy way to evaluate microphones. They never tell the full story,. they nearly always have some bias built in (either intentionally or by accident) and, by setting up each mic in a more or less identical position for so-called "fairness" they almost never have most mics set up in a position that is optimum for that mic. Shootouts and A/Bs nearly always miss the characteristics that make a particular mic "special". For example a straight A/B inmvolving a KM84 will invariably ignore completely the thing that makes that mic more special than almost all other SDCs because shootouts invariably focus on close range, on axis performance and ignore everything else.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 23, 2019 14:41:20 GMT -6
Shure SM59 ... Kind of surprising, I've been sleeping on that mic. That must have been uncomfortable!
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 23, 2019 14:48:08 GMT -6
Shure SM59 ... Kind of surprising, I've been sleeping on that mic. That must have been uncomfortable! LOL. They say Jimi used to sleep with his guitars, maybe there's something to it.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 23, 2019 15:31:11 GMT -6
They ain't that far apart. The 409 does sound better. By a small but not insignificant amount in my opinion. But man, it's always a chuckle/eye roll to me how this type of thing gets snowballed into ridiculousness in the gear community. You listen to the ABs and go, "Yeah ok, that 409 does have some extra life to it. Definition, dimension...nice midrange...The 609 sounds like a little flatter version of that same basic sonic footprint"...and then you go onto the forums and every gearBlastr9000, direct from mom's basement, is like "THE 409 iIS GOD’S GIFT TO GUITARS! The 609 is the shittiest piece of garbage I've ever smashed to pieces with my PRS, bro!!! Unusable, it's a disgrace to microphonezzz!" The 409 is a LOT MORE than a mic for guitar cabs - in fact it's almost wasted there. When I was still close micing drums a lot the 409 was one of the best dynamics I've used. It's an excellent live performance vocal mic. It does a lot of other things well, too. Unfortunately Sennheiser refuses to reissue it, claiming that it would be "too costly", which is an utter crock of bull, especially considerting the inflated prices that vintage units sell for these days.
As I've frequently pointed out, A/B "shootouts" are generally a pretty lousy way to evaluate microphones. They never tell the full story,. they nearly always have some bias built in (either intentionally or by accident) and, by setting up each mic in a more or less identical position for so-called "fairness" they almost never have most mics set up in a position that is optimum for that mic. Shootouts and A/Bs nearly always miss the characteristics that make a particular mic "special". For example a straight A/B inmvolving a KM84 will invariably ignore completely the thing that makes that mic more special than almost all other SDCs because shootouts invariably focus on close range, on axis performance and ignore everything else.
I agree that a single AB shootout doesn't tell the full story. But if you want a more complete picture, you can do more comparisons and get it. Want off axis? Compare off-axis. Want close? Far? Edge of the cone? Center? Compare those. I do stuff like that and keep them in comparison PT sessions. Reference them all the time. Much better than memory alone, in my view. But my point in posting that comparison is that, clearly, when people think the 409 is the greatest thing since sliced bread and *despise* the 609, it's not credible. To me anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 23, 2019 15:39:45 GMT -6
I agree. For the most part someone else's test is "Someone else's test."
I find them generally useful for a basic idea, sometimes enough to buy something.
I seem to remember watching an e906 vs SM57 video on guitar cab that got me into buying a 906 for myself.
You can compare and eliminate variables, from the more broad and specific experiences that you have with the exact gear in question.
|
|
|
Post by din on Feb 23, 2019 15:55:30 GMT -6
One of the worst mic's I've ever used.
|
|
|
Post by WKG on Feb 23, 2019 16:42:50 GMT -6
The E609 is not a bad mic and certainly workable, I never just dropped it in front of the speaker cone...
I ended up selling it though.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 23, 2019 17:01:13 GMT -6
I think people try to stick it where they'd stick a 57 and then it's too bright. Further out towards the edge, it's lovely. Sounds more relaxed and dimensional than a 57. Sometimes you want that band-passed nasal bark the 57 gives but sometimes you want it to sound more lifelike. The 609/906 do a better job at that in my estimation.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 23, 2019 17:11:54 GMT -6
The 409 is a LOT MORE than a mic for guitar cabs - in fact it's almost wasted there. When I was still close micing drums a lot the 409 was one of the best dynamics I've used. It's an excellent live performance vocal mic. It does a lot of other things well, too. Unfortunately Sennheiser refuses to reissue it, claiming that it would be "too costly", which is an utter crock of bull, especially considerting the inflated prices that vintage units sell for these days.
As I've frequently pointed out, A/B "shootouts" are generally a pretty lousy way to evaluate microphones. They never tell the full story,. they nearly always have some bias built in (either intentionally or by accident) and, by setting up each mic in a more or less identical position for so-called "fairness" they almost never have most mics set up in a position that is optimum for that mic. Shootouts and A/Bs nearly always miss the characteristics that make a particular mic "special". For example a straight A/B inmvolving a KM84 will invariably ignore completely the thing that makes that mic more special than almost all other SDCs because shootouts invariably focus on close range, on axis performance and ignore everything else.
I agree that a single AB shootout doesn't tell the full story. But if you want a more complete picture, you can do more comparisons and get it. Want off axis? Compare off-axis. Want close? Far? Edge of the cone? Center? Compare those. I do stuff like that and keep them in comparison PT sessions. Reference them all the time. Much better than memory alone, in my view. But my point in posting that comparison is that, clearly, when people think the 409 is the greatest thing since sliced bread and *despise* the 609, it's not credible. To me anyway. Well, I've owned both and while I really hoped that the 609 would be more than superficially similar to the 409, in my experience it isn't so. But maybe we're listening for different things or using them on different sources.
As to "the greatest thing since sliced bread" I no longer think that any moving coil dynamic mic would really qualify. 441s are pretty good, but they're pretty cumbersome.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 23, 2019 17:16:39 GMT -6
I think people try to stick it where they'd stick a 57 and then it's too bright. Further out towards the edge, it's lovely. Sounds more relaxed and dimensional than a 57. Sometimes you want that band-passed nasal bark the 57 gives but sometimes you want it to sound more lifelike. The 609/906 do a better job at that in my estimation. Yes, it's TOO BRIGHT. A large diaphragm moving coil mic really shouldn't be that hyped in the high mid. It's another example of Sennheiser's current bias towards the "modern sound" that confuses brightness with detail.
BTW, I don't even stick a 57 where "people" stick a 57.
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 23, 2019 18:11:56 GMT -6
I think people try to stick it where they'd stick a 57 and then it's too bright. Further out towards the edge, it's lovely. Sounds more relaxed and dimensional than a 57. Sometimes you want that band-passed nasal bark the 57 gives but sometimes you want it to sound more lifelike. The 609/906 do a better job at that in my estimation. Yes, it's TOO BRIGHT. A large diaphragm moving coil mic really shouldn't be that hyped in the high mid. It's another example of Sennheiser's current bias towards the "modern sound" that confuses brightness with detail.
BTW, I don't even stick a 57 where "people" stick a 57.
It’s funny. I’m a 70s junkie and nothing in my rig goes for “modern” and yet I like the 609 (off center) on cabs. Go figure. I like 57s too, just find the 609 to sound more like the amp and less like a mic. All subjective. Still trying to decide if I like the 906 more or not. Kind of a toss-up at this pint, though I’ve only tried a couple tones comparing them.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 24, 2019 0:29:29 GMT -6
Still trying to decide if I like the 906 more or not. Kind of a toss-up at this pint, though I’ve only tried a couple tones comparing them. WEell, if it's a toss-up at this pint, try a fifth!
(ducks....)
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 24, 2019 1:03:44 GMT -6
Still trying to decide if I like the 906 more or not. Kind of a toss-up at this pint, though I’ve only tried a couple tones comparing them. WEell, if it's a toss-up at this pint, try a fifth!
(ducks....)
Heh. Sage advice.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 24, 2019 9:21:56 GMT -6
I think people try to stick it where they'd stick a 57 and then it's too bright. Further out towards the edge, it's lovely. Sounds more relaxed and dimensional than a 57. Sometimes you want that band-passed nasal bark the 57 gives but sometimes you want it to sound more lifelike. The 609/906 do a better job at that in my estimation. That's a good description of why I like my e906, I agree wholeheartedly. SM57 is very colored. e906 is more pretty and clear sounding. Lifelike, like you said. The old SM59 is sort of in that direction too. Speaking of cheap microphones I guess. Expensive stuff is a different ballgame.
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 24, 2019 15:13:58 GMT -6
One of the worst mic's I've ever used. Even though it's one of the most 'happy face' of all mics? The E609 is not a bad mic and certainly workable, I never just dropped it in front of the speaker cone... Yeah, it has ALL that pesky midrange EQ'ed out for you, in advance! Heh heh . . . says it all.
|
|