|
Post by Guitar on Mar 7, 2019 7:53:26 GMT -6
The old C12 has that "tinsely" thing going on in the highs, the clone sounds a little more plain and straight ahead. popmann "boring" is the perfect descriptor for the C12 sound for me, kudos for thinking of that. It's not exciting, maybe even a little crude, but it works on a lot of sources. When I watch these kinds of videos it makes me want to build more microphones... a few hours on the bench like Tim said. So satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 7, 2019 8:38:05 GMT -6
In the early 90's I did a live session with my band in a great studio. The engineer brought out a vintage C12 like he'd found the holy grail. Funny thing was, it sounded absolutely amazing, just incredible. Smooth, present huge. Until I sang on a vintage U67 years later it was the best mic I'd used. Now that I pay more attention to mics, I'd pick a U67, U47 or a Chandler REDD first, but those vintage mics sure do have that little something extra we can never seem to find on most newer mics.
When I do my own shootout videos I choose to do different takes instead of setting up two or four mics and trying to sing to the middle of them. I've been criticized for doing it that way, but if you look at the video, the mic on the bottom is getting a more direct feed than the mic on top. They're set too high for where he's standing. So one will get more proximity effect.
Now, my way has it's own faults, different takes can mean different volume levels, affecting the stridency of a mic, and of course, it's tricky trying to sing from exactly where you sang last time. I leave the mic stand where it is, switch mics, sit exactly where I sat previously. I've found I can get the feel for a mic this way although it isn't scientific. Also, I prefer to hear a mic I sing directly into, not above of below a little.
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Mar 7, 2019 9:16:56 GMT -6
In the early 90's I did a live session with my band in a great studio. The engineer brought out a vintage C12 like he'd found the holy grail. Funny thing was, it sounded absolutely amazing, just incredible. Smooth, present huge. Until I sang on a vintage U67 years later it was the best mic I'd used. Now that I pay more attention to mics, I'd pick a U67, U47 or a Chandler REDD first, but those vintage mics sure do have that little something extra we can never seem to find on most newer mics. When I do my own shootout videos I choose to do different takes instead of setting up two or four mics and trying to sing to the middle of them. I've been criticized for doing it that way, but if you look at the video, the mic on the bottom is getting a more direct feed than the mic on top. They're set too high for where he's standing. So one will get more proximity effect. Now, my way has it's own faults, different takes can mean different volume levels, affecting the stridency of a mic, and of course, it's tricky trying to sing from exactly where you sang last time. I leave the mic stand where it is, switch mics, sit exactly where I sat previously. I've found I can get the feel for a mic this way although it isn't scientific. Also, I prefer to hear a mic I sing directly into, not above of below a little. I agree on doing separate takes. The main reason being, one of the biggest deciding factors in choosing a mic for me is how the singer hears him or herself through the mic. It totally factors into the performance. Certain mics seem to pull the best performance out of you and others feel like you're singing against a brick wall. I always wonder in shootouts like the sweetwater one, which mic is he hearing in his headphones?
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Mar 7, 2019 11:28:57 GMT -6
^11k, to be exact
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 7, 2019 11:37:01 GMT -6
" I always wonder in shootouts like the sweetwater one, which mic is he hearing in his headphones?"
That's an interesting question seawall. I doubt they switched mics in his cans. One thing I often dislike about mic shootouts is the singers aren't usually very good. This guy was OK, but kinda soft in general. Now I'm not saying I'd prefer Axel Rose, just someone with some range and power singing softly, a bit louder, then hitting it harder.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 7, 2019 11:42:44 GMT -6
popmann, I guess there aren't any prog fans in here. haha
|
|
|
Post by tskguy on Mar 7, 2019 14:06:06 GMT -6
I can easily buy a 50% failure rate - if you're talking completed capsules. The rejects would be stripped down and reskinned.
I don't believe you can really CNC a skinning job. Also, CNC machines can't always do as well as a human craftsman for precision even for the metalwork - there's always a range of tolerance, but the human craftsman would be a heck of a lot slower.
How fast is Shannon? I would guess the answer is "not very".
Clearly you've never worked with modern cnc then.. Easily 0.001" repeatable tolerances.. if you pay the money for it. And if they're really paying 1000$ COGS for a capsule, then yes, they're probably getting single mil tolerance. And I never said cnc skinning. I said a room full of people like Shannon. If he can do it with few failures, so can they. So I have some real world experience, All of my machining is held at .001 and beyond in some cases!! Especially the ck12. The sad truth regarding the 12 capsule is that you can have seemingly perfect metal work but once the capsule is skinned and then tested for capacitance and frequency response it often takes a few hours of testing and changing things that can be changed.. ( I need to keep some secretes ) before you get it perfect. And what Shannon does is very very different than what Tfunk does. Shannon can take days to get one sounding correct using 1.2 micron mylar. Trust me that does not scale when doing production. Eric Heiserman
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Mar 7, 2019 15:50:01 GMT -6
Totally agree with MJB's methodology on mic testing. This is also what JJ Blair prefers, and that's good enough for me! Chris
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,982
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Mar 7, 2019 16:41:15 GMT -6
" I always wonder in shootouts like the sweetwater one, which mic is he hearing in his headphones?" That's an interesting question seawall. I doubt they switched mics in his cans. One thing I often dislike about mic shootouts is the singers aren't usually very good. This guy was OK, but kinda soft in general. Now I'm not saying I'd prefer Axel Rose, just someone with some range and power singing softly, a bit louder, then hitting it harder. I always tried to leave a reference mic up through out a shoot out so you could compare the tested mic to the reference on every take to get an idea of what each take was bring to the party, the reference was not monitored during tracking unless that was the talents choice.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Mar 8, 2019 10:41:39 GMT -6
" I always wonder in shootouts like the sweetwater one, which mic is he hearing in his headphones?" That's an interesting question seawall. I doubt they switched mics in his cans. One thing I often dislike about mic shootouts is the singers aren't usually very good. This guy was OK, but kinda soft in general. Now I'm not saying I'd prefer Axel Rose, just someone with some range and power singing softly, a bit louder, then hitting it harder. I always tried to leave a reference mic up through out a shoot out so you could compare the tested mic to the reference on every take to get an idea of what each take was bring to the party, the reference was not monitored during tracking unless that was the talents choice. When I was jumping from studio to studio trying mics I always kept a mic with me that I knew well to hear it in the same space and set up.
When I do a shoot out I generally put the mics together, because in my experience recording other singers the performers always latched onto the mic where they gave the best performance and not which mic necessarily sounded the best. Of course this creates a few different variables. Different mics like different positions; The FleA 49 likes a little distance of maybe 1ft or more, while my U87ai likes to be a little closer for the artist to work the proximity, my BLUE mic really depends on which Cap you're using, etc. Usually the first pass of microphone tests weeds out the few that don't work for the singer or genre, and more detailed individual tests can be used to confirm which is the best mic for the job.
These days most of the time I have a pretty good idea which of my mics will work and generally will only put maybe 2 up to try with a new artist, or even just the one mic and only change it out if it really doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 8, 2019 11:10:37 GMT -6
There is no perfect way to shoot out mics. Every method is flawed to great or lesser degree. Proximity, take, location, what the singer is monitoring, etc. all come into play and make it extremely difficult to really get an accurate feel. The only way really is to have the mic(s) over time to get a good feel.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Mar 8, 2019 11:24:47 GMT -6
There is no perfect way to shoot out mics. Every method is flawed to great or lesser degree. Proximity, take, location, what the singer is monitoring, etc. all come into play and make it extremely difficult to really get an accurate feel. The only way really is to have the mic(s) over time to get a good feel. Ain't that the truth. The sign of a good mic is that come tracking and mixing time, it just works without much attention to it.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 8, 2019 11:44:15 GMT -6
This is why there's really only one valuable shootout....time+experience. So, pick that reference and keep it throughout. The is why I recommend people START by buying an Sm7b. You'll be able to get most of your money back out once you find your magical personal vocal mic...but, it's relatively cheap and WILL give you read ready result. IME....on any singer. I can't say that about most modern LDCs. It's easy to get caught up in the immediate "sexiness" of some curvy tube LDC's response on first playback....but, keep that Sm7 up for the session....take it all the way to end....so you can sit both in a mix. That's the other issue with "mic shootouts"--if you think that the sound/capture of the single instrument with no processing is "the benchmark"--it's not. It IS valuable data. You can hear nuances that might get lost in mix processing. It's valuable--yes you want that....TOO. But, you need to sit it in a mix. I've said a million times that the classics are not the classics because they're the best for every voice. They're the classics because they nearly always work on ANY voice. Even if you're not a "C12 voice"--it will work. You might rightfully prefer the 49 or 67....but, the C12 will work. And if you put up a C12 and a 67, one WILL be apparently better for the singer, decision made BY THE ENGINEER, let's make some music. A ChinaCap Copperhead from Tele MIGHT be better than both on THAT singer....but, if it sucks on 8/10 singers, you don't want to put it up. Because if you DID--yo'd have to put up 900 mics to find the ultra bestest ever. And time is money. The GOOD side of that, for a PROJECT STUDIO OWNER, is that Lisa Leob's voice is better on a 4033 than the C12s they used most of her career. In direct comparison...and....so--boom, she gets off pretty cheap, right? Lisa cold be you. But you NEED to start with the baseline. No WAY someone would put up a 4033 for a light girly voiced folk singer in the 90s. When there's a C12 right there in the closest? So they used a C12, and that's likely all most people have ever heard. Pretty sure it sounds FINE....but, the 60s forward "classics" are about batting average, rather than absolute fidelity. Circle back to the first line now.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 8, 2019 12:19:48 GMT -6
I've probably said this before and I'm sure that some will disagree with me, but one of the major reasons that I dislike and distrust mic "shootouts" is the (to me) misguided idea that all conditions need to be kept the same for each mic being tested. The reason is that, although doing this tests all the mics involved under the same conditions (or as close to same as possible) it does not test any of the mics at their optimum performance. One mic may be at its best a a slightly (or not so slightly) different distance than another, it might interact with a particular type of voice differently, It might respond to differences of technique differently, etc. Consequently in a typical shootout although all the mics might be tested under equal circumstances, none of them may be being tested under optimum circumstances for that mic.
Of course that makes the whole concept of online comparisons and demos somewhat questionable...
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 8, 2019 12:49:09 GMT -6
There is no perfect way to shoot out mics. Every method is flawed to great or lesser degree. Proximity, take, location, what the singer is monitoring, etc. all come into play and make it extremely difficult to really get an accurate feel. The only way really is to have the mic(s) over time to get a good feel. Ain't that the truth. The sign of a good mic is that come tracking and mixing time, it just works without much attention to it. Yup. Case in point - Gefell UM70. ALWAYS loses in shootouts. It has very minimal proximity effect, so by the time you put up 3-4 mics and back the singer off, the UM70 comes out sounding thin and wimpy. Work the mic like it should be worked, and it's a winner almost every time. Go figure....
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Mar 8, 2019 13:10:50 GMT -6
I agree mostly with John Eppstein and drbill, but not completely. When popmann said, "This is why there's really only one valuable shootout....time+experience". I've found great value in many mic shootouts and found every mic shootout I thought was well done to be helpful. I've bought a couple of mics based on shootouts and they were exactly what I thought they'd be.
I do know drbill makes a great point about mic testing not being an equal thing. That's why I choose to do different takes and set the mic up for its best sound. Then, I simply match playback level after recording. I also feature solo and full track files, because it is in the mix you really get a sense of how it will work. I also use a small pinch off reverb, I find flat shootouts strange and odd sounding.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Mar 8, 2019 13:30:04 GMT -6
That's why I choose to do different takes and set the mic up for its best sound. Then, I simply match playback level after recording.. That's essentially what you'd do if you were recording a vocal for a song, right? Put up a bunch of mics, and do different takes on them, listen back and choose. But there you have the advantage of being in the studio, adjusting for mic position, pulling in or away if needed, and actually USING the mic you chose. If it turned out not so great, you'd move back to one of the another ones. All of those things are not available for "online mic shootouts" unfortunately. They are what they are. Indicators, but not proclamations of superiority for any particular mic. A good starting point. Add to that, if you're building a mic locker for use with all kinds of singers vs. yourself only, it complicates matters greatly. Or maybe it makes it simple.....just buy more mics.
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Mar 8, 2019 13:53:19 GMT -6
The old UM70 is "my" vocal mic. You're right--to get any proximity you need to be within like 3".
I've always wanted to try the Innertube head amp for it....but, honestly--I'm not vein, but a guy who is gluten sensitive and who HATES beer singing into a beer bottle is just weird. I feel like, couldn't they just grab some $99 donor mic for the metal tube? Or use the flashlights they build THEIR bodies out of....?
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Mar 8, 2019 13:54:32 GMT -6
BTW, FYI, I didn't mean any offense when I said "that guy". I didn't know his name.... I know. It just struck be that the more working class musicians go into hocking gear...at some point, we’ll all be “that guy”....Im waiting for him to be called “that Sweetwater guy”....as hes likely reaching a biggr audience than Spock’s Beard, Jonatha Brooke, Kevin Gilbert, and Genesis during the “No Phil” era did.... off-topic.... I was wondering how many people know who Nick is. He's one hell of a drummer and a good singer too. I first heard about him when he played a bit with Kevin Gilbert to support the Thud album (GREAT!) Sorry to take this off topic. I love to see guys I truly admire get a larger audience, even if it's at Sweetwater. :-) Not that I have anything against them at all. I've bought a ton of gear from them and even played there a couple times while on tour. Nice people, great store but this was mostly a post about Nick. I really wish he would have got more recognition. He's doing some great stuff with Big Big train now. I wish him all the best. ok... back to mic talk...
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Mar 8, 2019 17:29:38 GMT -6
I think Nick has an exceptional voice. BTW How does that 'ol Oktava 319 that "you rescued" stack up nowadays vs. these "biggies"? Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Mar 8, 2019 23:55:17 GMT -6
I think Nick has an exceptional voice. BTW How does that 'ol Oktava 319 that "you rescued" stack up nowadays vs. these "biggies"? Thanks, Chris I liked the 319 so much that I found some guy selling a couple more and I picked them up and modded them as well. They do sound good and if I wasn't so spoiled, I'd use them a lot more. These days, I have two main vocal mics. 1) Wunder CM7 GS/M7 (suprema upgrade) 2) Miktek CV4 with a Beesneez K7 capsule. They actually sound very similar in the U47 vein. The 319 has just a touch more edge than either of these two so I've been using them as room mics and sometimes overheads. I did use them on a full album project on upright bass. They did a good job but on the current sessions, I switched between a KM84 and a MC930 on the upright bass. They just had a little more evenness over the full frequency range. I also have an AT4060 with a Mullard tube that works on some voices. Its got a real sweet and airy sound but hasn't been used in a while. And...(2) MC-012, (2) AT4050, (1) AT4047, (2) ADK A51, i5, ATM63, (4) SM58.... etc... I have enough mics, but I still get excited about trying ones I don't have. Junkie. BTW, I met Nick last year in the studio at Sweetwater. Super nice guy and didn't seem to have any weird ego thing going on. Down to earth and easy to talk with.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Mar 9, 2019 10:14:54 GMT -6
I think Nick has an exceptional voice. BTW How does that 'ol Oktava 319 that "you rescued" stack up nowadays vs. these "biggies"? Thanks, Chris These days, I have two main vocal mics. 1) Wunder CM7 GS/M7 (suprema upgrade) 2) Miktek CV4 with a Beesneez K7 capsule. They actually sound very similar in the U47 vein. The 319 has just a touch more edge than either of these two so I've been using them as room mics and sometimes overheads.
Hi Mcirish
Can you tell me more about the sonic difference on your 2nd mic when you went from the stock capsule on your Miktek CV4 to the Beesneez K7 in it ? I have a Miktek CV4, and though it's a good mic, I have considered either trying a different capsule or selling. Any thoughts you have on the difference in sonics before and after the capsule switch would be appreciated, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Mar 11, 2019 8:18:17 GMT -6
These days, I have two main vocal mics. 1) Wunder CM7 GS/M7 (suprema upgrade) 2) Miktek CV4 with a Beesneez K7 capsule. They actually sound very similar in the U47 vein. The 319 has just a touch more edge than either of these two so I've been using them as room mics and sometimes overheads.
Hi Mcirish
Can you tell me more about the sonic difference on your 2nd mic when you went from the stock capsule on your Miktek CV4 to the Beesneez K7 in it ? I have a Miktek CV4, and though it's a good mic, I have considered either trying a different capsule or selling. Any thoughts you have on the difference in sonics before and after the capsule switch would be appreciated, thanks!
Absolutely. The CV4 sounded OK stock but has a nasty zing in the top end. I originally bought it because people were saying it was very U47ish and I had the CM7GS/M7 and wanted another mic that had a similar quality. I especially wanted something smoother to use on an alto voice that has a bit of a hard edge in the upper range. The CM7 worked fairly well but I only had one. So I started looking. I stumbled on the Oktava MK319 and the various mods. I did them all and was truly surprised at how nice it sounded. That was a super cheap investment and great learning experience. Still, I wanted something even smoother on top so I bought the CV4 used. We did a shootout with CM7, MK319, AT4060, CV4. I was pretty unhappy when we found that the CV4 was the harshest of all those mics. It had a similar sound to the AT4060 but with an edge that I couldn't dial out. Side note.. for a nice airy top end, the AT4060 is really very good. It's way smoother than the CV4. So, I set the CV4 off to the side and figured I should sell it. Every once in a while I would try it on something. It never worked on anything. that bitey top end was unusable to me. I didn't like it on any instruments either. On a whim, I started investigating modifying it. First thing I needed to do was draw out the schematics so I could see how it was designed. My thought at first was that it was a K67 type design and they didn't have the right feedback cap in it to tame the high end. What I found was that the electronics of the CV4 are actually very nice. It seems to be directly based on one of Oliver Archut's U47 designs. It's nearly identical to his U47 Alternative Tube schematic. So, I figured the basic circuit can't be the problem, so it has to be the capsule. I searched around and saw that Ben at Beesneez was making a K7 capsule that was in the K47 range and figured I would give it a try. I sent Ben way too many emails but he answered them all. Well, I got the capsule but I made a mistake and ordered the M7 capsule by mistake. I tested it and it was defective. No high end at all. I contacted Ben and he sent me a K7. The first test was a night and day difference. I know many guys say there is a difference when there is none or a very slight change. This isn't that case. The CV4 went from a mic I was going to sell, to the most used mic in my studio. It sounds great. It has a similar quality to the CM7, which has a Theirsch Red in it. I honestly can't say which I prefer. The K7 is a great capsule. At least the one I got is fantastic. Sorry for pulling this off topic.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Mar 11, 2019 10:34:42 GMT -6
Hi Mcirish
Can you tell me more about the sonic difference on your 2nd mic when you went from the stock capsule on your Miktek CV4 to the Beesneez K7 in it ? I have a Miktek CV4, and though it's a good mic, I have considered either trying a different capsule or selling. Any thoughts you have on the difference in sonics before and after the capsule switch would be appreciated, thanks!
Absolutely. The CV4 sounded OK stock but has a nasty zing in the top end. I originally bought it because people were saying it was very U47ish and I had the CM7GS/M7 and wanted another mic that had a similar quality. I especially wanted something smoother to use on an alto voice that has a bit of a hard edge in the upper range. The CM7 worked fairly well but I only had one. So I started looking. I stumbled on the Oktava MK319 and the various mods. I did them all and was truly surprised at how nice it sounded. That was a super cheap investment and great learning experience. Still, I wanted something even smoother on top so I bought the CV4 used. We did a shootout with CM7, MK319, AT4060, CV4. I was pretty unhappy when we found that the CV4 was the harshest of all those mics. It had a similar sound to the AT4060 but with an edge that I couldn't dial out. Side note.. for a nice airy top end, the AT4060 is really very good. It's way smoother than the CV4. So, I set the CV4 off to the side and figured I should sell it. Every once in a while I would try it on something. It never worked on anything. that bitey top end was unusable to me. I didn't like it on any instruments either. On a whim, I started investigating modifying it. First thing I needed to do was draw out the schematics so I could see how it was designed. My thought at first was that it was a K67 type design and they didn't have the right feedback cap in it to tame the high end. What I found was that the electronics of the CV4 are actually very nice. It seems to be directly based on one of Oliver Archut's U47 designs. It's nearly identical to his U47 Alternative Tube schematic. So, I figured the basic circuit can't be the problem, so it has to be the capsule. I searched around and saw that Ben at Beesneez was making a K7 capsule that was in the K47 range and figured I would give it a try. I sent ben way to many emails but he answered them all. Well, I got the capsule but I made a mistake and ordered the M7 capsule by mistake. I tested it and it was defective. No high end at all. I contacted Ben and he sent me a K7. The first test was a night and day difference. I know many guys say there is a difference when there is none or a very slight change. This isn't that case. The CV4 went from a mic I was going to sell, to the most used mic in my studio. It sounds great. It has a similar quality to the CM7, which has a Theirsch Red in it. I honestly can't say which I prefer. The K7 is a great module. At least the one I got is fantastic. Sorry for pulling this off topic. The apologies are mine for pulling this off topic, but thanks to all for your patience, and to you mcirish for your great info. I almost pulled the trigger once before on trying that Beesneez K7 capsule as I have 2 mic's it could work in. I also remember I came across a thread or two from a few years back on different sites where Klaus also had good things to say about the Beesneez K7. For the strength of the US dollar against the Aussie making the cost of the capsule not bad at all I'll give it a try. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Mar 12, 2019 5:53:23 GMT -6
There is no perfect way to shoot out mics. Every method is flawed to great or lesser degree. Proximity, take, location, what the singer is monitoring, etc. all come into play and make it extremely difficult to really get an accurate feel. The only way really is to have the mic(s) over time to get a good feel. Ain't that the truth. The sign of a good mic is that come tracking and mixing time, it just works without much attention to it. Ain't that the truth! A lot of experience with various microphones really helps as well. The more you know how a particular mic sits a vocal (or key instrument) in a final mix, the more you'll know which one to lean towards when you're picking it for the voice in front of you. Shoot-outs can be deceiving at times.
|
|