FYI - Thinking of getting a Marshall mic - you need to read this!

bvaleria

bvaleria

New member
Posted by Harvey Gerst on the R.A.P. (rec.audio.pro) NG -

Ok, my pinched sciatic nerve thing died down, and Alex and I finally got around to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the testing was done formally, and it's all pretty subjective, but in talking to Brent Casey at Marshall, he pretty well confirmed what I heard, so I think my comments will be of some use to people here.

Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll off the assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms materials, the porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the line consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics (about the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson, Karl Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that Brent Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender in the mic market.

All the mics looked well made, and we had no problems with any of them, or the supplied shock mounts. Noise levels weren't a problem with any of the mics, although we didn't do any testing with really quiet instruments.

One of my concerns was consistancy from unit to unit. After we got the first batch, I had Brent send some extra units (off the shelf) so I could actually compare two units for possible differences. I'm happy to report that all the units I received were consistant and would do fine as stereo pairs.

All tests were done thru a Great River MP-2, with the microphone under test polarity reversed and nulled (to match initial levels), then normalled to do the actual comparison. We used the level controls on the GR to note differences in gain.

While I listened to the mics in the studio using headphones, Alex listened in the control room, using our main speakers (wall-mounted JBL-4311Bs, with a Cerwin Vega subwoofer). We compared notes and in almost every case, Alex and I agreed completely on the results (so we didn't hafta trust my "rock-n-roll shot ears").

The units we listened to included:

1 Marshall MXL "The Fox" hand-held dynamic.
1 Marshall MXL-1000 hand-held condensor
2 Marshall MXL-600 small condensor mics
2 Marshall MXL-603 small condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-2001 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-2003 large condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-V67 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-V77 tube large condensor mics

Comparison mics included:

1 Neumann TLM-103
2 matched Oktava MC012s w/cardioid capsules
1 Lomo M3 large condensor mic on MC012 body
1 Shure SM-7 dynamic
1 Shure SM-58 dynamic
1 Nady SCM-1000 multi-pattern condensor

The results:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mics we didn't like:

Marshall MXL-2001 $130?? Sorry, I can't find the MSRP right now. Harsh top end, thin bottom, compared to the TLM-103. It was a little warmer than the Nady SCM-1000, but the Nady had a smoother top end. The 2001 is everything that I don't like about all the really inexpensive large diaphragm condensor mics that I've listened to over the years, including the AKG C3000, the Oktava 219, and some of the early AT low cost units.

Marshall MXL-600 $270 Veiled top end and exaggerated low-mid, compared to the Oktava MC-012. About 1 dB lower output than the Oktava. It just sounded very dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.

The mics we did like:

The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people having a few around for live gigs.

Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.

(The lack of proximity effect that I noted in an earlier report about the 2003, was due to me accidently hitting the bass rolloff switch while I was putting it in its shock mount. When I noticed normal proximity effect with a second unit, I discovered my screwup.)

Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.

Marshall MXL 1000 $99 This was the hand-held condensor mic that Marshall was pushing as a KM-105. It totally sucked as a hand-held vocal mic. Brent Casey suggested I try it without the end ball, and I discovered it was basically the 603 in a Shure-type body. Without the ball end fucking up the sound, it was identical in sound to the 603.

Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect). It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.

Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks, and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103, with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67. And it just happens to sound great, too.

The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).

Well, that's the results - it wasn't a fancy test, and YMMV, but overall, I think it might be helpful to some people, especially if you're a "bottom feeder" studio as we are. As I mentioned earlier, Brent said that our tests pretty much agreed with his findings, and that at least confirmed that we were all hearing pretty much the same things.

Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Click to expand...
 
Cool info...

Thanks for this post - after learning about the 600 & 603s, I've been waiting for someone to do a comparison/review. Musician's Friend has a special on the MXL1000 and the Fox dynamic - (2)MXL 1000 & (1)FOx dynamic for $149 - Now I'm considering using the MXL1000 (w/out the ball) as drum overheads.
 
thanks for that bruce.

Wow. An mc012 from the marshall room only for only $99?
wow

and a tlm 103 sounding mic for $600 new. I can't wait till they appear on ebay maybe for about $350
 
what I found interesting about the review was the speakers Harvey auditioned them on...the JBL 4311's...which I also use. Apparently Harvey worked at JBL at one time, and in another forum, he said he could tell what speakers someone did a mix on. I thought...wow...yeah..golden ears, my foot. Anyway, I sent him a CD of some of my stuff (said he actually liked it and was recorded well...humpff, hummpff..thank you, thank you...), but said..."yeah...sounds like they where mixed on some JBL's" ....wadda ya know???

My MXL 2001 sounds great on my female singer/partner...and that makes me happy. I have never really tried it on anything much else however. Off axis...it sounds like you throw a couple of beach towels over it!! Just a little off axis helps to smooth things out, if needed.

the imitation C12...I'm gonna be a sucker for that one. A little "wow appeal" always works wonders in my studio. (what the hell is an Arp Odyssey?)
 
CyanJaguar said:
thanks for that bruce.

Wow. An mc012 from the marshall room only for only $99?
wow

and a tlm 103 sounding mic for $600 new. I can't wait till they appear on ebay maybe for about $350
Click to expand...

Hey Harvey,

Well, the v77 is now less than $300 brand new and so I guess its time.

Would you say that its the best $300 mic out there for vocals. Is it smoother than the v67 or C1? Ifit sounds exactly like a neumann tlm103, I dont know what I am waiting for.
 
First of all, that review is almost a year old - I wrote it January 12th of this year, but that is the complete review of the Marshall mics. I also did one on Oktava mics way before that.

No, the V77 is not "identical to the TLM103", but it does have some similarities, as I said in the review. There were some quality control problems in some batches of early 603Ss and some V67G, but Marshall quickly replaced all those units immediately.

Since that review, I've tested the T.H.E. mics (http://www.theaudio.com) and they were a very good mid to expensive mic line.

The Studio Project mics were similar to the Marshall mics and were also a very good value, good looking, and well built. The Studio Project C1 sounded similar to the Marshall V67G, and I would be happy to use either mic.
 
THanks harvey.

With all respect, I read it scratching my head, wondering "Ok, so is this mic a good value or nay"?

Here are some questions I would really like answers for, if you can help me.

You said that you liked the v77 at $600.
Is it smoother than the v67 or c1?
Is it as smooth as the tlm103?
Is it a better vocal mic all around than the v67 or C1, in your opinion?
Does it sound similar to the v67 around 700-1.3 khz?
Does it have the tube sound?

Sorry to impose like this, but I dont trust magazine reviews anymore.


Lastly, you mentioned the THE mics. I listened to the nevaton mics and I liked them as much as the TLM 103. I even preffered one. Would you say that the THE mics are this quality? Would they be a good vocal mic?

I am looking for a supersmooth yet highly detailed mic. Is there any hope this side of $500?

Thanks HArvey. You know I appreciate you sir.
 
A complete non-sequiter...

...but since this thread surfaced... I posted this on my old name -- postcount on BVALERIA plus my current postcount comes to 3413... making me the second highest poster next to drstawl! :eek:

If that doesn't deserve a new title, I don't know what does?!?!?!? ;)

Sorry... now back to this regularly-scheduled thread.........

Bruce
 
good information im starting to like marshall as well due to the low price and same similarities as most top quality mics........

have u heard of the mxl v93m............if so what are your takes on it...........
 
It was my understanding that the v93 was the same mic as the 2003, which was in the review piece and got a thumbs up.

I'd be interested in reading that review of the Oktava mics. Is there a link to it somewhere? Anyone?

Be seeing you.
 
who the hell brought back a thread by Bvaleria.....we kicked his punk ass off this BBS a long long time ago......
 
I've always wondered how the MXL 603s compare to the Rode NT5s. Are the Rodes worth the extra $150 or would I be wasting my money? (I'm mostly interested in recording acoustic string instruments) Anyone?

-Flatpicker
 
I can't really think of anything sounding a whole lot better than the 603 to justify an extra hundred bucks in price. You might be wasting your money.
 
This is from an 8/30/99 post I did to rec.audio.pro:

Somebody wrote:
The GC Oktavas are wildly uneven in performance and quality. The Oktavas from www.oktava.com go thru 4 additional quality control tests and come with 3 capsules (cardioid, omni, and hyper-cardioid). You may have to go thru a dozen from Guitar Center to find one that'll work well.

Joe yoshka1@aol.com (Yoshka1) answered:
I followed all the threads concerning these mics from the beginning. I have to admit that I was VERY reticent to buy from GC because of the bad press it got here and on r.a.p. Basically it came down to economics. A pair of cm-700's was about $500 after tax and a pair of 012's from oktava.com (with 6 capsules etc.) was about the cost of a single km-184 or $600. So I walked into GC did a listening test with the only 2 012's they had and ended up buying them both for $300. The grills on each capsule dont match and the silver paint is slightly different but they sound wonderful on acoustic guitar and overheads. A big concern for me was whether the mics would be fairly matched in their frequency response because they were "supposed" to be terrible in this regard. I can't tell the difference. One might be a hair brighter but i'm not sure and until I see the graph from a spectrum analyzer I'm going to go on believing that any difference is acceptable. These mics are very quiet, extremely sensitive, have great transient response and sound good. I believe this fits the description of mics that work well. So what happenend? Did I get extremely lucky or have the reports of GC's Russian scrap been greatly exaggerated.

Joe,

I think you were very lucky, if they're reasonably flat and similar to each other. No guarantees that they're flat, but it sounds like they'll work for your needs. A matched pair should sound exactly the same, but aging can have different effects on a microphone's frequency response, depending on the quality control in the factory. I hope your mics age gracefully.

I had the opportunity to listen to some of the Oktava mics from Taylor Johnson (www.oktava.com), and I thought I'd share my findings with anyone that might be thinking about getting any of these mics.

The 3 microphones I listened to were:
the MC-012 (with the 3 capsules - $269),
the 33mm large diaphragm Lomo capsule for the MC-012 body ($329),
and the MK-319 (which is the 219 in a round "47-type" body - $279).

I compared them all to my Neumann TLM-103 (around $1,000), since it has become a good standard workhorse for many different things around here. None of the tests were particularly scientific, but I've been around good mics most of my life. Here's how they compared:

MC-012 w/Cardioid capsule: Good bottom end compared to the omni capsule, but very prone to popping. About 1.5 to 2 dB more bottom than the omni. The top end was about the same as the omni. You must have very good mic technique with this capsule and a pop filter is a must. Best working range was about 8" away, aiming it at my lips about 15 to 20 degrees, off-axis. I think it would be useful for cymbals, some vocals, horns, room ambience, and acoustic guitars.

MC-012 w/Hyper-Cardioid capsule: Low end about the same as the omni capsule, but also prone to popping. About the same bottom as the omni. The top end was about 1.5 dB lower than the omni, resulting in a pretty warm sound but the top end could have been a little brighter for my tastes. It would be very useful for bright, edgy singers. Best working range was about 8" to 12" away, and 15 to 20 degrees, off-axis.
I think it would be useful for snare, cymbals, some vocals, violin, and acoustic guitars.

MC-012 w/Omni capsule: Good smooth bottom end. The top end was about 1 dB lower than the Neumann TLM-103. My favorite among the 3 capsules, but it still popped if you got in really close (around 2"). I think it would be useful for cymbals, brass, acoustic guitars, and violin.

All 3 were pretty smooth, with very little of the edginess of the small, inexpensive condensor mics (like the AKG C1000). I'd recommend a pop screen for all 3 capsules.

MK-319 large diaphragm Cardioid capsule: Top end was similar to the Neumann, but a little lower, less sparkle. About 1.5 dB less bottom than the Neumann. It didn't have that Neumann "bigger than life" sound. It did remind me of some of the Audio Technica large mics, like the 4050. Definitely more useful than my AKG C3000 (which sold for 4 times more when I bought it). I think it would be useful for cymbals, brass, vocals, violin, room ambience, and acoustic guitars.

MC-012 body with Lomo 33mm large diaphragm Cardioid capsule: If I didn't know better, I'd swear I was listening to one of the old big Neumanns. Top end was similar to the Neumann, but a little lower, smooth but not overly bright. About 2 dB more bottom end than the Neumann. It had that Neumann "bigger than life", up close sound. It didn't have the sparkle, but the warmth and "personal" quality made it my favorite of all the Oktava mics. At times, it almost sounded like a good ribbon microphone. I think it would be very useful for vocals, brass, room ambience, and acoustic guitars.

In order of preference, this would be my choices:

1. The MC-012 with the Lomo head. For under $600, I would have 4 different mics in my closet. The Lomo head is outstanding, the 3 smaller additional capsules add a lot of versatility.

2. Hard choice between the MC-012 and the MK-319. If I needed a big mic in the studio to impress clients, the 319 is the way to go - it looks expensive and sounds damn good for the price.

If I needed something that I could use for a lot of different situations, I'd go with the MC-012 with the 3 capsules.

I hope this is helpful. It wasn't very scientific, but it was a lot of fun.
 
Harvey,

As far as the LOMO head on the mc012, do you think that configuration could be as versatile as a TLM103? I mean I have heard very good results with the TLM103 on everything like acoustic guitar, vocals, and very nice results from Michael Jones on the piano.

I guess I would be afraid to pay so much for a mic that would be a one use mic or limited use mic. I mean a C12 will cost you, but it seems like I have heard of it being used to mic everything.

Just wondering
Beezoboy
 
LOMO...

I read somewhare on this board (I think) that the 012's pre just isn't quite powerful enough to get the best outta the LOMO head or some shit.....Anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top