Does anyone have the Nov. Sound-on-Sound review of the Marshall v67?

chessrock

Banned
I kinda' like some of their reviews. Without re-typing the whole thing, if any subscribers out there could maybe share the gyst of it . . . maybe a few quotes? Cliffnotes style?

I'm just curious. I'm also too cheap to actually SUBSCRIBE and get the info. myself . . . especially when someone else can tell me for free. :)

Thanks!
 
Here you go....

I just subscribed for 3 e-sub issues, cause I was interested in this article and a few others! The things I do for u guys!

------------------

MXL V67

Though the MXL V77 (reviewed by Hugh Robjohns in SOS January 2001) was a valve microphone, the MXL V67 uses no valve -- the V stands for vintage, apparently. Once again there are no pad or roll-off switches, but the outward appearance is livened up by a striking green paint job, complemented by a gold-plated basket and gold legending. The basket is circular, rather than the more traditional 'squashed' shape, and incorporates a dual-layer structure for better wind shielding.

On paper, it looks technically similar to the MXL 2001 (which I reviewed back in SOS October 2000, and which was provided for comparison), with a very flat response up to 20kHz, a fixed-cardioid response and a 25mm, gold-sputtered six-micron diaphragm. Again the sensitivity is 15mV/Pa, the signal-to-noise ratio is 80dB and the maximum SPL is 130dB, though the recommended uses, after vocals, now include close-miking guitar amplifiers and drum overhead miking.

The brass body houses a FET preamp with a balanced transformer output stage, and closer inspection reveals that the circuitry is identical to that of the MXL 2001, aside from the part number on the transformer. If the capsule is also identical (and I've no way of telling if it is or not), it is difficult to see how the cost difference between the two models can be justified, though I'll reserve judgement until after the listening tests.

Changing to the visually distinctive MXL V67 revealed that the tonality is indeed quite different to the other MXL mics, so unless there's a lot of magic in that transformer, I have to assume that the capsule is in some way different. The high end is all there, but it seems less splashy and more tightly controlled than on the other mics in the series. The low end also seems very supportive. It isn't quite a tube-mic sound, but it is warm, comfortable and focused without sounding obviously coloured. Comparing this mic with the Rode NT1, I found that the two sounded somewhat similar. The Rode was slightly more coloured sounding, but the characteristic warmth and focus were definitely similar. Of course, mics have a habit of sounding different again when used with different singers, so you really need to give your prospective purchase a good try out before finally deciding.

The V67 might be more competitive if bundled with a shockmount.
 
Thanks, Axehead.

Taking one for the team. We like that. You have a bright future around here.

So what was his final verdict? Was that it? It sounds similar to an NT1? I'm disappointed. No "Wow, this thing sounds exactly like a Neumann!" or "Major league sound at a Minor league price," or anyting like that. Hmmm.

Should have come with a shockmount? What the hell else does this guy want for a mic that cheap? A complimentary hand job from Marshall Electronics' CEO?

Sheesh.
 
Thanks, axehead! :)

If its not too much trouble, could you post that whole review? I'm really interested to see what they say about the MXL 1006 and 2003, and how they compare those mics to the V67.
 
MXL 1006, 2003 and V67 Capacitor Microphones

Do these low-cost condenser microphones from Marshall Electronics' MXL range have what it takes to stand out from an ever-increasing number of competitors?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul White

MXL is a subdivision of the US company Marshall (no connection with Marshall amps) and their range of studio microphones comprises nine different models running from the sub-£100 hand-held MXL 1000 capacitor microphone up to the MXL V77 tube microphone at around £700. In common with many other cost-effective capacitor microphones, these models appear to utilise Chinese components, though Marshall themselves are located in Los Angeles. I've picked three mics from the new range that I feel will appeal to the project studio owner, the least costly of which is the no-frills MXL 1006, a large-diaphragm capacitor microphone with a fixed-cardioid pickup pattern.

MXL 1006

The MXL 1006, costing a little under £130 in the UK, is a recent addition to the range and features a large-diaphragm (25mm) capsule with a 6mm gold-sputtered membrane. The circuitry is all solid state and incorporates a transformerless, transistor output balancing stage yielding a useful frequency response of 30Hz to 20kHz, with the response rolling away gently above around 16kHz. It has a respectable sensitivity of 15mV/Pa, an A-weighted signal-to-noise ratio of 80dB (referenced to 1Pa sound pressure), and can handle SPLs up to 130dB before distortion exceeds 0.5 percent. A fine but tough wire mesh protects and screens the capsule while the familiar locking ring at the XLR end of the cylindrical brass body is used to secure the mic to the included standmount. A plastic carry case is provided. The brochure describes the finish as champagne, but 'metallic beige with a hint of khaki' might be more accurate, lending the mic a slightly military look.

From the supplied frequency plot, it can be seen that the MXL 1006 has a nominally flat response with only the gentlest of presence peaks centred at around 12kHz. It is clearly designed as a low-cost vocal recording microphone, but, as with many such designs, it will also work well for acoustic instrument recording and it may be used as a drum overhead mic.

MXL 2003

The somewhat higher-priced MXL 2003 (£399 in the UK) is similarly styled to the MXL 1006, though black and a little longer. As with the V77, a suspension shockmount is included -- it's a shame that such a mounting isn't included with the other more expensive MXL models, as this would make them even more competitive. The 2003 features a larger 27mm, gold-sputtered diaphragm a mere three microns thick and includes a three-way 6dB/Octave, 150Hz roll-off switch that incorporates a 10dB pad option. The signal-to-noise is quoted as 77dB and the frequency response is slightly unusual in that it is very flat all the way to 20kHz, then instead of falling off, it actually starts to tip up slightly. The output stage is electronically balanced (no transformer) and the polar response is fixed cardioid.

Again, the mic is primarily intended for vocals, but may also be used for acoustic instruments, including piano. It's also recommended for miking guitar amp or for use as a drum overhead, where its maximum SPL handling of 130dB (140dB with pad switched in) should ensure the sound stays clean at all levels.

MXL V67

Though the MXL V77 (reviewed by Hugh Robjohns in SOS January 2001) was a valve microphone, the MXL V67 uses no valve -- the V stands for vintage, apparently. Once again there are no pad or roll-off switches, but the outward appearance is livened up by a striking green paint job, complemented by a gold-plated basket and gold legending. The basket is circular, rather than the more traditional 'squashed' shape, and incorporates a dual-layer structure for better wind shielding.

On paper, it looks technically similar to the MXL 2001 (which I reviewed back in SOS October 2000, and which was provided for comparison), with a very flat response up to 20kHz, a fixed-cardioid response and a 25mm, gold-sputtered six-micron diaphragm. Again the sensitivity is 15mV/Pa, the signal-to-noise ratio is 80dB and the maximum SPL is 130dB, though the recommended uses, after vocals, now include close-miking guitar amplifiers and drum overhead miking.

The brass body houses a FET preamp with a balanced transformer output stage, and closer inspection reveals that the circuitry is identical to that of the MXL 2001, aside from the part number on the transformer. If the capsule is also identical (and I've no way of telling if it is or not), it is difficult to see how the cost difference between the two models can be justified, though I'll reserve judgement until after the listening tests.

Testing, Testing...

To gain a meaningful insight into how these mics performed, I compared them with a number of known studio mics, with some interesting results. My first point of reference was the Rode NT1 -- though this is officially a more expensive mic, it's worth noting that its current street price is almost on a par with the MXL. On vocals, the Rode delivered a slightly smoother sound, but the MXL 1006 sounded a bit more open at the high end, no doubt a feature of its presence peak. Overall it sounded reasonably natural, with a nice touch of warmth coming in when used at close range, though I felt I could detect a small amount of coloration to the sound when comparing it against more expensive studio mics such as the AT4033. The metalwork also tended to ring slightly if tapped -- the similarly-structured MXL 2001 fared rather better in this respect. Putting the sound into perspective though, the project studio owner looking for a competent capacitor vocal microphone at the lowest possible cost should be pleasantly surprised at just how good the results can be from a microphone of this type.

The MXL 2003 is recommended for situations where extra presence and transparency are needed, and that pretty much backs up my practical findings. Indeed, with some singers, the character of the mic can be slightly aggressive, as I found out during a recording session with a certain particularly raunchy female vocalist, but for anyone in need of air and projection, it actually works very well for adding sparkle without harshness. At the same time, the bottom end remains full and warm, but without the slightly soft character produced by the transformer models in the range.

Changing to the visually distinctive MXL V67 revealed that the tonality is indeed quite different to the other MXL mics, so unless there's a lot of magic in that transformer, I have to assume that the capsule is in some way different. The high end is all there, but it seems less splashy and more tightly controlled than on the other mics in the series. The low end also seems very supportive. It isn't quite a tube-mic sound, but it is warm, comfortable and focused without sounding obviously coloured. Comparing this mic with the Rode NT1, I found that the two sounded somewhat similar. The Rode was slightly more coloured sounding, but the characteristic warmth and focus were definitely similar. Of course, mics have a habit of sounding different again when used with different singers, so you really need to give your prospective purchase a good try out before finally deciding.

Summing Up

These MXL mics are attractively priced in the UK and their build quality is generally good, as is the performance, even at the lower end of the price scale, but, because of the subjective nature of microphone tonality, if you're thinking of buying one of the more expensive mics in the range, I'd recommend that you line it up against a few of its competitors and see what works best for you. After all, we now have some superb low-cost mics to choose from, with manufacturers such as Audio Technica and AKG doing their best to match prices with budget imports while maintaining European build quality. In this price war, the consumer is most definitely the winner.


MXL 1006/2003/V67 £129/£399/£279

pros
Something suitable for all budgets.
Good sound quality.
Stand adaptors and carry bags included.

cons
No pad or roll-off switches.
The V67 might be more competitive if bundled with a shockmount...and if it came with complimentary hand job from Marshall Electronics' CEO (he wrote that...honest!)

summary
A well-designed range of mics to suit all budgets, but competition in this market area is extremely hot at the moment, so it's worth comparing these mics with as many of their competitors as possible.

----

So, no ground breaking final verdict I'm afraid!

axehead
 
Thanks!

Hand jobs aside ( ;) ), you're right, there's no concrete conclusion.

Typical of gear reviews these days, I guess. They don't want to piss off the advertisers.

I can't say I like seeing the V67 likened to an NT1. I finally have a V67 on the way and if it sounds no better than an NT1 I'll not be too pleased.
 
I don't know where the reviewer was coming from, but the V67G doesn't sound anything like the NT-1 to me. I found the NT-1 to have a harsh top end and similar in sound to some of the newer AKG and Audio Technica mics and more similar to the MXL2001 mic.

As near as I can hear, the "magic" of the MXL V67G IS in the transformer and in the shell design.
 
I think Harvey will agree with me on this one. The variable factors of microphone recording is endless. Everything plays against how a mic will sound that day, in that room. The room, the singer, the placement, the humidity, the temperature, the age of the capusule, and more play havoc on a mics performance. It is a never ending battle. While reading reviews are fun, as is listening to MP3's of shootouts, opinions and test results of them can and will change in another variable on any given day.

If you all did the same tests in your room as the reviewer did, or as Harvey did, your results would most likely be different. Some would go the same way, but just as many would go the other. The only test that matters is the test you do in your room or home. It is your ears that matter, not the ears of others. We and others can provide guidelines for you based on our ears and opinions, but that is the limit. The ultimate decision comes down to you.

Do the homework! :D

Alan Hyatt
PMI Audio Group
 
Yup, Alan, I do agree in principle, but some ears are better trained than others. That's why a mic with a hotter output or a peaked top end may sound better to people that are just starting out. I would trust your ears Alan, a dozen times quicker than I would a person who has only one or two mics in their locker.

Why? Not because you happen to sell SP mics. It's because you're a recording engineer and you've heard some of the great old mics, and you know how different mics can be, and you take all those factors into account when you make pronouncements about other mics. That only comes with experience - it can't be taught.

When you do this shit for a living, you begin to hear the differences after a while and what will work best for a particular session becomes more obvious to you. After a while, you also learn what things to avoid, like mics with excessive high end peaks that may only work well for a few things.

Yes, it comes down to "ears" but "ears with years" is still the better combination for me.
 
Nothing finer than an "aged" bottle of wine...ey Harvey! :D

regards my friend,

Alan Hyatt
PMI Audio Group
 
Yes, and for the record Alan, I can tell when you take off your salesman's hat and put on your engineer's cap.

I don't think your opinions would change in the slightest about some of the mics you've mentioned, even if you never sold a mic in your life. I value your opinion as an engineer, even though some may think it's a ruse to sell more of your mics. It's not, and I wish more people would recognize that.
 
I recently met with someone who i was quite lucky to meet

who taught me some very valuable lessons about equipment

He shocked me with what he could achieve using something as simple as his computers inbuilt monitor mic

Then continued to play songs for me he had recorded using very simple if little gear at all.

he sighted sm57,s as being quite usefull if not very underated in their vast amount of uses and proved to me what could be done with very little on hand.

He really needed to shock me like this because i may not have changed my mind had he not done so.

In the end i realised experience and knowledge in this field would take you miles further then owning every piece of equipment on the planet.

Less is sometimes more you can do wonders with very little and it more comes down to using what you have balanced with doing what you know will get the job done right.

Some of the greatest recording people could do miracles with a sm57 or less and we would all swear blind in comparison tests that they were using some special mic or magic mic pre when in fact what they are really doing is applying what their years and ears have taught them over the period of time to produce something really magical no amount of mics or mic pres or high end gear will make your recordings better only "YOU" can do that

Some high end stuff i agree is nice and yes can help but in the wrong hands you may as well have nothing at all because all that money has been thrown away in the pursuit of cheap go fast get there quick knowledge.

I myself fell into this trap and it was only recently i decided id take another long look at alot ive said and maybe theres alot i should have listened too as well.

The mixer i own is only a tascam m3500 maybe not a mixer with pres and eq to everyones liking but it certianlly has more mic pre,s then i can use at this stage the person i have been talking about showed me a cd he had recorded and produced with an identical desk like the one i own a dam fine job too he said to me you know there was no high end mic pres or anything here just the desk was used i guess at this stage my jaw was hanging out just a few more inches and i though ohhhhh man i better take along hard lookat my wants list again and go learn a bit more before i go out shopping for any more stuff anyway i think the message here is quite simple

there is no fast track to the stairway of audio heaven


use what you have and use it well only buy another piece when its really what you need not what you think you need
 
I quite agree. Although my next purchase is essential. I need a mic, as the only one I've got is a karaoke mic that I've stepped on, and hence it's all a bit mangled....plus it sounds arse...as you'd expect :)

But, having said that, it's difficult to get over my GAS (gear aquisition syndrome). It's not that I think getting new gear is the key to great recordings. It's not, but it sure is fun!! :D
 
go get yourself a new sm57 and learn all its tricks the ins and outs with it once your there you too will enjoy the other mics with their different flavours i too tried to fly to quickly now im just going to read more and try not to piss anyone off with questions i may not need to ask for now

also you dont need so much great gear to make great recordings as much as you need great know how because with the know how you will achieve that sound in your head and also save a few bucks in the process i love all the great gear too but its all no use in my hands at this stage
 
I wish I had your self restraint, but alas I don't. What you say is exactly what I should be doing, but it's difficult. If I spent more time actually learning how to use my kit, as opposed to reading about the next bit of kit that I want, then it would help for a start! I only need a few more things, and then I'll have the complete set up that I want. Obviously, I could then go and upgrade each link in the chain, but once I've got all the basic stuff then I feel my creativity will be unleashed. I feel a bit constrained at the moment as I'm missing a few links from the chain.

As for a mic. An SM57 is a good suggestion, but I'm gonna splash out on a AT4033. I know it goes against what you say, but I really want a proffessional mic as part of my set-up.
 
In the end what you do is up to you but i will say this to you all the great mics and equipment in the world will assist you 0%
if you do not trully know how to put these to good use

believe me get the sm57 @79.00 and if you feel you cant restrain yourself maybe lash out on a mxl v67m@ 129
with those two mics you will be able to do wonders in time and if they dont do it for you buying something for more money will do even less.

why is that?

Well you cant buy experience by owing all the mics and gear in the world as i said what ive sugested will serve you well you can take the advice or spend the cash and from experience now
i do know the latter will do no more for you then what ive sugested
 
Trebles, you make some good points.

It is very true that if you know what you're doing, you can create masterpieces using nothing but 57's and Mackie boards. Just like some very great works of art have been done using just one or two colors.

But after a while, everything you churn out will start having a certain sound. Like everything you do is recorded on a 57 and a Mackie board. Sometimes, it's good to try different things just for the sake of having a different texture, or a different color to add to the palet when you feel the urge. Gear lust aside.
 
quote taken from safarisound



I felt the same way around 15 years ago. I would listen to my favorite recorded music and wonder how in the world they made everything sound so accurate. I would try and try and try, but never achieve satisfiying results. Like you I would excuse my equipment and reason that once I had the latest mic, preamp, eq, and compressor I would be able to create the accurate Hi-Fi recordings I admired. As an engineer I have had the chance to work with some of the finest musicians, producers, and engineers such as Al Schmitt, and Elliot Shiner. The most imortant rule that I learned is to really listen and judge your sound before applying any processing. We often reach for the eq before we even tried changing the mic position or switching the mic itself! You would be surprised at the amount of eq that some of these engineer apply...were talking 1 to 3dB tweaks, Yet the sound that comes across is so rich and accurate! Why? Knowing when not to eq and proper mic placement makes all the difference. An entire session can be recorded with SM57's , with proper mic placement and judicous amount of eq I gaurantee that you would never know the difference. I guess what I am really trying to say is that as you gain more valuable experience recording, you will learn to make better more accurate sounding recordings of your own. Trust me

does this now let you see what others say too not only me do yourself a favour it took me ages to work all this out now i see clearly now woahhhhhhhh slow yourself up a little or you will be back saying gee i got this great mic and guess what i dont sound any better to me etc etc read and learn why im telling you this
 
Harvey Gerst said:
some ears are better trained than others. That's why a mic with a hotter output or a peaked top end may sound better to people that are just starting out.

Ain't that the truth. That's one of the big problems with visiting the Mic display at Mars. Sure, you can A/B a bunch of cool mics. However, small gain differences completely bias the perception of the mics' tone and quality.

That's why you get so many newbies, or oldbies, asking "What's the best mic for X?" This place is a much better forum to ask the question than a music store where the salesman has an interest in making a sale on the product with the highest profit margin.


Matt
 
trebles,

That's some good advice to help prevent GAS (gear aquisition syndrome). I personally can fall into that trap. Some people can post "it's the engineer, not the gear, use the stuff you have" 100 times, but it gets stale. Your post reiterated the concept in a refreshing light.


Matt
 
Back
Top