|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 28, 2015 12:01:17 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kidvybes on Nov 28, 2015 14:08:27 GMT -6
Frankly, I think I'm hearing too much compression going in (hyping sensitivity on all mics)...I'd lose the WA76 and opt for something more gentle/transparent ITB...great voice!
(BTW, you have the MKID listed twice)
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 28, 2015 14:27:35 GMT -6
Frankly, I think I'm hearing too much compression going in (hyping sensitivity on all mics)...I'd lose the WA76 and opt for more something more gentle/transparent ITB...great voice! I will probably go back and take off the second round of comp - too late to fix the comp going in.  Live and learn. On the other hand, it didn't take that long to swap out the mics. If I have time tomorrow, and while I have the mics - I'll go back and retake them all. I will say this, the differences are ASTOUNDING listening directly from my DAW. SoundCloud seriously mushes things up. Fixed - but you'll have to re-cast your vote now. There are two 3U mics. |
|
|
|
Post by kidvybes on Nov 28, 2015 14:39:10 GMT -6
Frankly, I think I'm hearing too much compression going in (hyping sensitivity on all mics)...I'd lose the WA76 and opt for more something more gentle/transparent ITB...great voice! I will probably go back and take off the second round of comp - too late to fix the comp going in. Live and learn. On the other hand, it didn't take that long to swap out the mics. If I have time tomorrow, and while I have the mics - I'll go back and retake them all. I will say this, the differences are ASTOUNDING listening directly from my DAW. SoundCloud seriously mushes things up. Fixed - but you'll have to re-cast your vote now. There are two 3U mics. ...removing the second round of comp may be fine...of course it's all "season to taste", but sometimes it's best to go very light when tracking as you can always hit it harder ITB...I can hear the compression more than I think is necessary, but that's just my personal taste...good job otherwise... |
|
|
|
Post by stratboy on Nov 28, 2015 18:36:48 GMT -6
Hoping for inexpensive happiness.. No voting for "Other," but you're all welcome to recommend others in this thread. Chain = Dizengoff D4 -> Warm Audio WA76 - > Just a little MJUC inside the box, and some verb sauce to taste. Shure KSM27Audio Technica AT-40333U MKID (V2 fig 8) 3U MKID (V1 cardiod) Rode NT1A3U GZ47 FET (fig 8) 3U GZ47 FET (cardiod) trying to to listen to these, but soundcloud is saying the tracks are private and locked. Am I doing something wrong? |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,957 
|
Post by ericn on Nov 28, 2015 19:47:09 GMT -6
Honestly the compression is getting the way of me seeing what's really what, I am one who wants shootouts tracks rare and clean, but that's me.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 28, 2015 21:35:58 GMT -6
Honestly the compression is getting the way of me seeing what's really what, I am one who wants shootouts tracks rare and clean, but that's me. Thanks eric - Looks like I'll have to go back and rerecord w/o comp. |
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 28, 2015 21:36:53 GMT -6
Hoping for inexpensive happiness.. No voting for "Other," but you're all welcome to recommend others in this thread. Chain = Dizengoff D4 -> Warm Audio WA76 - > Just a little MJUC inside the box, and some verb sauce to taste. Shure KSM27Audio Technica AT-40333U MKID (V2 fig 8) 3U MKID (V1 cardiod) Rode NT1A3U GZ47 FET (fig 8) 3U GZ47 FET (cardiod) trying to to listen to these, but soundcloud is saying the tracks are private and locked. Am I doing something wrong? Should work just fine - the locked pass is build into the url, e.g. for the 4033.. soundcloud.com/m57/at-4033/s-pMUzB |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Nov 28, 2015 21:47:29 GMT -6
I mean no offense by this at all..
a mic shootout should have a super neutral pre, and no compression whatsoever, there is no way to make a reasonable character judgement otherwise IMV, mics have their own compression characteristics that need to be sussed out without additional compression.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,957
|
Post by ericn on Nov 28, 2015 21:51:08 GMT -6
Honestly the compression is getting the way of me seeing what's really what, I am one who wants shootouts tracks rare and clean, but that's me. Thanks eric - Looks like I'll have to go back and rerecord w/o comp. Thanks ! |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 28, 2015 22:47:57 GMT -6
Tony makes a good point. But first, the track sounds great, well done M57.
Now, I'm shooting out two mics this weekend myself, and at first, I just plugged the new one into the signal chain I always used and hit record. The thing is, that mic needs different settings to be its best, and my basic go to settings weren't right. I had the WA76 and the EQP-1A in the chain after my Dizengoff D4 preamp. Tomorrow, I'm going to do a shootout with just my Apollo's preamp, then just the D4. It's painful to listen to music in a shootout this way, just flat, no enhancements, but it's important to see what's really going on before seeing how it fits into tracks, takes compression, EQ, reverb, etc.
In this shootout, there's definitely compression getting in the way, but all things being equal there, I think the Rode sounded best. Each mic had it's faults, the Rode is a little crispy crunchy, but I think it's the closest to a U87 in this shootout, and in a way, that's the benchmark here I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 29, 2015 6:51:56 GMT -6
In this shootout, there's definitely compression getting in the way, but all things being equal there, I think the Rode sounded best. Each mic had it's faults, the Rode is a little crispy crunchy, but I think it's the closest to a U87 in this shootout, and in a way, that's the benchmark here I believe. So much on my plate, I may not get around to re-recording these in the raw. I don't doubt that the differences are masked by all the compression, but I swear the SoundCloud conversion totally wrecks things from there. When I listen to these in Logic, the differences are night and day. Anyway, both with this and on my piano shootout thread, I've been pleasantly surprised by the performance of my Rodes mics. Here's my order of preference starting with the least preferable. 5. Audio Technica AT 4033 - This sounded strained and boxy yet thin. Easily the most different sounding mic in the shoot out, I could imagine using it on a set of BVs that I wanted to sound distant or in a different room, etc. 4. 3U MKID - Didn't matter ..fig 8 or cardiod - it just lacked dimensionality and came across flat. 3. Shure KSM27 - This mic actually surprised me - I though it sounded quite good when pushed, opening up with detail, but on some of the softer phrases it became brittle - losing both warmth and sparkle. 2. 3U GZ47 FET - In fig 8 mode, the GZ47 was just OK - so I switched to cardiod and it opened up. It gave the NT1A a run for it's money - there are things I actually like more about it than the Rode mic. With a different singer, the GZ47 could easily be the winner. I found it to be more open in the upper-mids and perhaps a bit more detailed than the NT1A, but it was just not as flattering, and ultimately I'm looking for a mic for my voice. 1. Rode NT1A - I agree with Martin that this one seems to be the benchmark, best handling what I see as the compromise between detail, warmth and sparkle. That said, I can't say I'm thrilled with the microphone overall. I'm coming to the realization that mics in this price range are just not going to stand up to the big boys. Looks like I'm gonna have to put my wallet where my mouth is (almost literally). A big thanks to Jesse for loaning me a number of these - as well as many of the mics I used in the piano shootout. |
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Nov 29, 2015 13:33:44 GMT -6
Before you spend big bucks try the new Rode NT1 www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/NT1Kit shot this out against miktek cv4, beeznees james, the original nt1, sm7b it killed them all and it was not even close on different voices the new nt1 was the clear winner so much so after 2 weeks i sold my cv4 no regrets, Rode claim they spent over a million dollars of RND on this mic that would be more than anyone else has spent. There is no reason you cannot build an awsome sounding mic for a few hundred dollars compare a mic to a smart phone or tv no comparison in which one requires the most effort and skill. The other option is send your NT1A to Shannon. |
|
|
|
Post by kidvybes on Nov 29, 2015 16:48:09 GMT -6
Figure-8 for a solo vocal?...the only time I do that is with ribbon mics (where I have no choice) and then I back them up to some sort of isolator to deaden rear-side response...generally it's between cardioid and omni for solo voice, IMHO...
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Nov 29, 2015 16:50:04 GMT -6
Figure-8 for a solo vocal? Yeah - I heard that if you use it with a baffle behind the mic it can add some dimensionality.. Figured I give it a try. (no pun intended). |
|
|
|
Post by chasmanian on Nov 29, 2015 17:09:08 GMT -6
kidvybes, if you don't mind commenting, how often might you prefer omni over cardioid for singing accompanying yourself on acoustic guitar (with only 1 mic, and no pickup on the guitar......so the 1 mic is your only capture device)?
if this is too off topic, or a hijack, please disregard.
no impoliteness intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 30, 2015 9:20:14 GMT -6
Honestly, I completely disagree with everyone saying these tracks should be as clean and pristine as possible.
Here's why.
Because you won't use the mics that way.
What good is knowing what a mic sounds like by itself if the tonality changes when loaded differently, used with different preamps, or different compression or different EQ during mixing?
Since it's your choice, and you're going to have to use whatever you buy, make sure it sounds the best how you would normally use it, with compression and EQ and so forth. Find one that works will all this stuff and you'll have your winner.
|
|
|
|
Post by kidvybes on Nov 30, 2015 9:32:36 GMT -6
Honestly, I completely disagree with everyone saying these tracks should be as clean and pristine as possible. Here's why. Because you won't use the mics that way. What good is knowing what a mic sounds like by itself if the tonality changes when loaded differently, used with different preamps, or different compression or different EQ during mixing? Since it's your choice, and you're going to have to use whatever you buy, make sure it sounds the best how you would normally use it, with compression and EQ and so forth. Find one that works will all this stuff and you'll have your winner. IMHO, the best way to present a shootout/comparison like this is to post completely raw WAV vocal tracks for each microphone and a separate matching backing track, and make them all downloadable...that way each of us who are interested can download both the vocals and backing track, import into our DAW of choice and add treatment to taste... In the current format, as my initial post stated, there's no way to judge these mics objectively when there's that level of compression applied from the get-go...I own a few of the mics included, and with all due respect, they don't sound as they are represented here (poorly applied treatment skews proper representation)...just my .02c... |
|
|
|
Post by kidvybes on Nov 30, 2015 9:46:24 GMT -6
kidvybes, if you don't mind commenting, how often might you prefer omni over cardioid for singing accompanying yourself on acoustic guitar (with only 1 mic, and no pickup on the guitar......so the 1 mic is your only capture device)? if this is too off topic, or a hijack, please disregard. no impoliteness intended. ...for me, I tend to use omni primarily when I want to reduce proximity effect on a closely miked lead solo vocal...on tube mics that have 9-position polar-pattern control on the PSU, I often use a variable position one or two steps towards omni from cardioid...this position gently reduces proximity and brings a slight bit of room into the track (assuming you don't have a problematic room)...tracking vocals with guitar accompaniment using the dedicated omni position introduces a lot of "room" into the mix, so your room should be properly treated to make the best of omni position... |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 30, 2015 9:49:15 GMT -6
Honestly, I completely disagree with everyone saying these tracks should be as clean and pristine as possible. Here's why. Because you won't use the mics that way. What good is knowing what a mic sounds like by itself if the tonality changes when loaded differently, used with different preamps, or different compression or different EQ during mixing? Since it's your choice, and you're going to have to use whatever you buy, make sure it sounds the best how you would normally use it, with compression and EQ and so forth. Find one that works will all this stuff and you'll have your winner. IMHO, the best way to present a shootout/comparison like this is to post completely raw WAV vocal tracks for each microphone and a separate matching backing track, and make them all downloadable...that way each of us who are interested can download both the vocals and backing track, import into our DAW of choice and add treatment to taste... In the current format, as my initial post stated, there's no way to judge these mics objectively when there's that level of compression applied from the get-go...I own a few of the mics included, and with all due respect, they don't sound as they are represented here (poorly applied treatment skews proper representation)...just my .02c... Understood, but he's asking folks to pick a mic and he's essentially looking for form an opinion of his own based on the opinions of others. I find that fundamentally flawed. To pic a mic that works with his gear and his setup, he should audition them exactly as they are used, with all the effects in place. That's the only way to know how it'll sound. Besides, it's regular practice to use tons of compression on vocals in the mix. Your point is valid about the mic changing character with compression, but listening to a mic without compression doesn't tell you anything about how it'll react or sound in a mix WITH compression. That's my point. You're essentially saying to pick a mic on it's character but completely guess on how it will sound in the full mix. That's asking for trouble. Another example of my point.. Just trying using a C12 on a bright female singer.. Sounds good solo. Put it in the mix? Nothing but top end comes through and something with more body could have done the job much better. |
|
|
|
Post by kidvybes on Nov 30, 2015 10:01:59 GMT -6
IMHO, the best way to present a shootout/comparison like this is to post completely raw WAV vocal tracks for each microphone and a separate matching backing track, and make them all downloadable...that way each of us who are interested can download both the vocals and backing track, import into our DAW of choice and add treatment to taste... In the current format, as my initial post stated, there's no way to judge these mics objectively when there's that level of compression applied from the get-go...I own a few of the mics included, and with all due respect, they don't sound as they are represented here (poorly applied treatment skews proper representation)...just my .02c... Understood, but he's asking folks to pick a mic and he's essentially looking for form an opinion of his own based on the opinions of others. I find that fundamentally flawed. To pic a mic that works with his gear and his setup, he should audition them exactly as they are used, with all the effects in place. That's the only way to know how it'll sound. Besides, it's regular practice to use tons of compression on vocals in the mix. Your point is valid about the mic changing character with compression, but listening to a mic without compression doesn't tell you anything about how it'll react or sound in a mix WITH compression. That's my point. You're essentially saying to pick a mic on it's character but completely guess on how it will sound in the full mix. That's asking for trouble. Another example of my point.. Just trying using a C12 on a bright female singer.. Sounds good solo. Put it in the mix? Nothing but top end comes through and something with more body could have done the job much better. ...I totally disagree...you're saying we should choose what is essentially the "lesser of the evils" based on what might be due to his limited engineering skills with his gear?...that's how you help a friend trying to choose a mic that performs well on his voice?... ...how about those of us who are skilled enough to do each of the mics justice in the mixing process, demonstrate how good the mics can sound, and then instruct the guy what treatment is recommended so he can make the best of the process, and maybe learn a little something along the way... ...frankly, the 1176 is pretty aggressive if applied a bit too much in the tracking process...take that out of the equation, and recommend more subtle treatment that will make choosing the best microphone for his voice a more constructive process...just my .02c... |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Nov 30, 2015 10:39:58 GMT -6
I'm shooting out two mics currently, and I'm making my final decision today. I first tried the new mic in a completely finished track, just redoing a vocal. I then compared the new vocal to the original, first using the exact same channel strip, then tweaking the new mic track's channel strip differently to adjust in the best way for the new mic's sound. Then I compared vocals again. The new mic was better.
Next, I compared the mics completely flat, with a guitar and vocal. No processing at all. The old mic was a little better in some ways, but had some harsh moments.
Today, I'll do a complete production with the new mic, setting all my gear to maximize the tone of each track, then see how it felt using the new mic on everything.
My point being both approaches are "right". It helps to hear it completely flat, and with all your gear. So to me, neither way of testing is complete without the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Nov 30, 2015 10:43:56 GMT -6
Understood, but he's asking folks to pick a mic and he's essentially looking for form an opinion of his own based on the opinions of others. I find that fundamentally flawed. To pic a mic that works with his gear and his setup, he should audition them exactly as they are used, with all the effects in place. That's the only way to know how it'll sound. Besides, it's regular practice to use tons of compression on vocals in the mix. Your point is valid about the mic changing character with compression, but listening to a mic without compression doesn't tell you anything about how it'll react or sound in a mix WITH compression. That's my point. You're essentially saying to pick a mic on it's character but completely guess on how it will sound in the full mix. That's asking for trouble. Another example of my point.. Just trying using a C12 on a bright female singer.. Sounds good solo. Put it in the mix? Nothing but top end comes through and something with more body could have done the job much better. ...I totally disagree...you're saying we should choose what is essentially the "lesser of the evils" based on what might be due to his limited engineering skills with his gear?...that's how you help a friend trying to choose a mic that performs well on his voice?... ...how about those of us who are skilled enough to do each of the mics justice in the mixing process, demonstrate how good the mics can sound, and then instruct the guy what treatment is recommended so he can make the best of the process, and maybe learn a little something along the way... ...frankly, the 1176 is pretty aggressive if applied a bit too much in the tracking process...take that out of the equation, and recommend more subtle treatment that will make choosing the best microphone for his voice a more constructive process...just my .02c... Choosing any device for mixing is a choice between lesser evils. More people choose devices based on what they don't do poorly vs. costs. I.E., a mic that isn't noisy or nasal and costs less than xxx.. I don't see this as inherently bad at all. It may not be what the pros do when choosing a mic, but it's still what the majority of buyers do. I also don't pass judgement on his mixing skills. I feel as if your statement is dangerously close to passing judgement on his mixing skills based on a couple of single tracks hastily thrown up on a forum.. I still say that the best way is to test mics in your own setup. The forums can, and have, led people astray. Just look at all the mics that GS hype practically made stars overnight, and then the next month they were all sold for losses in the classified sections as the hype died down and folks realized their mistakes.. Oh well, to each his own and M57 is free to follow the course that he feels most comfortable with. |
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 30, 2015 10:50:40 GMT -6
Feel free to disregard my input, since I'm picking a mic that I own and loaned to you, but I think the GZ47FET sounded the best, but lacked a bit of top. The Rode sounded a bit crispy to my ears. I think I'd prefer to add a touch of top end eq to the GZ than to try to remove the sizzle from the Rode.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Nov 30, 2015 11:38:59 GMT -6
I don't mind compression on a shoot-out, as long as the same compression is applied to all microphones being shot-out. What is especially important is microphone positioning and preamp gain matching!
|
|
Live and learn. On the other hand, it didn't take that long to swap out the mics. If I have time tomorrow, and while I have the mics - I'll go back and retake them all.
