New MXL Mic

[Flatpicker]

I just went to the MXL site and noticed this: MXL 2006
I had heard that this mic was on it's way, but wasn't sure when they'd be out with it. Supposedly, the difference between this and their other mics is that it actually has some decent parts in it instead of the same old junk (that means I don't have to modify it! ). It could very well be another "best under $100" mic.

Just thought I'd give you the "heads-up"

[timboZ]

Originally Posted by Flatpicker

It could very well be another "best under $100" mic.

Looks like time for another poll.

[Mach5]

coool. how do you think this compares to the v67?

[paddyponchero]

Originally Posted by Mach5

coool. how do you think this compares to the v67?

It's got a pretty drastic peak at 12k - this one is going to be very bright - I would say it will be the antithesis of the V67

[timboZ]

Originally Posted by paddyponchero

It's got a pretty drastic peak at 12k - this one is going to be very bright

As bright as the 2004?

[Flatpicker]

Originally Posted by paddyponchero

It's got a pretty drastic peak at 12k...

Yeah, I noticed that. I’m pretty surprised by it too, because the MXL rep I spoke with insinuated that it would be a little darker on top and more open sounding. It is basically an upgraded 1006 – same housing, circuit, and capsule, but better components.

[Harvey Gerst]

Originally Posted by paddyponchero

It's got a pretty drastic peak at 12k - this one is going to be very bright - I would say it will be the antithesis of the V67

"Bright" is usually down lower, around 3 to 6kHz. A 12kHz peak will usually adds some "sheen" to the top end, not a bad thing. I haven't heard it though.

[chessrock]

I think the deal with these is that it's basically one of the Shanghai mics that already has the Dorsey mod sorta' built-in. If that makes any sense. But then, I think most all of their models are starting to adopt it, from what I can gather.

Not that this actually means their mics sound any good or anything. Perhaps just "less crappier" than they would have sounded otherwise?

[Flatpicker]

The 1006 circuit is similar to the “Dorsey” circuit, which is actually variation of a Schoeps design where bipolar transistors are used instead of a conventional transformer for matching the microphone’s output impedance to the preamp’s input impedance.

In this type of circuit, the quality of the coupling capacitors between the capsule and the FET, and the FET and the bipolars can make or break the quality of the sound. This has been a major “Achilles Heel” for off-shore production. For some reason, it is difficult to have decent capacitors in a Chinese (or Russian, for that matter) production line. Same goes for decent transformer core metal. Don’t ask me why that is tho, cause I don’t have a clue. Anyway, the 2006 supposedly overcomes this hurdle.

The 1006 (and 2006, I’m guessing) differs from the “Dorsey” circuit in that it utilizes a voltage multiplying circuit that enables it to apply some extra voltage to the capsule. This makes the capsule more sensitive and can improve the signal to noise ratio. FWIW, the original Schoeps circuit also utilizes the voltage multiplying circuit.

[chessrock]

That's pretty much what I was getting at -- in much more detailed terms.

What's interesting to note is that the Marshall mxl-990 (from what I understand) and the MCA SP-1 (also distributed by Marshall) ... both utilize the mxl 603 capsule, along with the Schoeps-style circuit you describe.

That's interesting in the sense that some of these cheaper MXL mics may actually be some of their better models ... not to mention that the 990 and/or sp-1 may actually represent improvements on the 603 ... for less money. Kinda' makes you wonder why you'd want to shell out more money for their so-called better models.

[Paj]

If the 990 is an improvement on the 603, it's not a sonic one. It does make a superior bludgeon, however.

Paj
8^)

P.S.: The Paj Mod for converting the 603 into a 990: Surround it with any medium-sized General Mills cereal box. Please remove the cereal first.

[Flatpicker]

Originally Posted by chessrock

...What's interesting to note is that the Marshall mxl-990 (from what I understand) and the MCA SP-1 (also distributed by Marshall) ... both utilize the mxl 603 capsule, along with the Schoeps-style circuit you describe...

Yep. And if they'd put decent capacitors and other components in them, you could use them for something besides a paperweight.

Originally Posted by chessrock

...not to mention that the 990 and/or sp-1 may actually represent improvements on the 603...

No, not better. IMHO it's just a way for MXL to make some bucks selling the same old re-packaged thing. The average musician-joe goes to GC, sees a 990 for $69 and thinks he has hit paydirt! It's just a marketing thing (and a good one, btw!), not an improvement.

[chessrock]

I suppose it would be an improvement if the 603 didn't use the Schoeps deal. I have no idea if it does or not.

It's a good capsule, though. I still think these mics are really useful. They're bright, but it's a good bright, and from what I understand, they make great candidates for mods.

[bleyrad]

603's do have EXCELLENT capsules. They are KM84 copies, and pretty decent ones at that. There's nothing wrong with the circuit design either, though some cheap capacitors are used. I changed 5 of the caps in mine to good ones, but the difference was pretty slim anyway - a slight tightening of the bass, and that's it. There's not much you can do in terms of significant improvements to a 603, but IMHO you don't really need to. Mine sound great on everything I throw them up to. They make fantastic rock drum overheads.

[paddyponchero]

Originally Posted by Harvey Gerst

"Bright" is usually down lower, around 3 to 6kHz. A 12kHz peak will usually adds some "sheen" to the top end, not a bad thing. I haven't heard it though.

I have a pretty drastic notch in my hearing between 3 and 5 khz - tend to over compensate - always get someone who can still hear to master

"adds some "sheen" to the top end, not a bad thing"
I certainly wouldn't be using one as an overhead with my sabians

[Flatpicker]

Originally Posted by chessrock

I suppose it would be an improvement if the 603 didn't use the Schoeps deal. I have no idea if it does or not.

It's a good capsule, though. I still think these mics are really useful. They're bright, but it's a good bright, and from what I understand, they make great candidates for mods.

Yes, they do use the Schoeps circuit and yes they are good capsules. It's just that they use those nasty sounding ceramic capactiors instead of polystyrene (1000pf) and metal films (.22uf). I here a pretty significant difference when switching out the 1000pf ceramic with a polystyrene. (Probably never heard of them in China. )

[chessrock]

Originally Posted by bleyrad

603's do have EXCELLENT capsules. They are KM84 copies, and pretty decent ones at that.

Uh-huh. Bingo.

[bleyrad]

Originally Posted by Flatpicker

Yes, they do use the Schoeps circuit and yes they are good capsules. It's just that they use those nasty sounding ceramic capactiors instead of polystyrene (1000pf) and metal films (.22uf). I here a pretty significant difference when switching out the 1000pf ceramic with a polystyrene. (Probably never heard of them in China. )

Funny, that's pretty much exactly the mod that I did to mine. (EDIT: just realized you're on the prodigy-pro forums. cool!)
I like to try to eliminate any psychological element from affecting my judgement when I do things like this so I did a reasonably accurate before & after recording on acoustic guitar through an API 312 clone... and like I said, the mod made almost no difference to the sound.
I wanted to believe the mod made it better, because I spent a fair bit of change on getting some good Panasonic caps from Digi-Key for this, and in fact when I first played back the "after-mod" recording I got pretty excited and thought, "damn, that sounds awesome and much better!" But then I listened to my "before-mod" recording and realized that it sounded awesome too.
I definitely didn't notice any decreased grainyness (not that they were in the least grainy to begin with) or better clarity or smoothness, or any change in the high-end (which is the much more important spectrum for me, as I mostly use them as overheads). The bass was ever-so-slightly tighter, and that's it.

[Innovations]

Well, owning a 2003 (actualy the V93M) I really can't say that the description of the 2006 impresses me. The frequency response chart seems to show a very steady rise all the way to 12 as opposed to a much flatter chart on the 2003 (even though it is known as bright) Also the p.olar pattern does not seem to have as much off-axis rejection as the 2003

[Flatpicker]

Originally Posted by bleyrad

(EDIT: just realized you're on the prodigy-pro forums. cool!).

Same here.

Originally Posted by bleyrad

...because I spent a fair bit of change on getting some good Panasonic caps from Digi-Key for this...

Did you use a 1000uF polystyrene between the capsule and the FET? You have to get them at Mouser. This makes the most difference.

I'll be modifing one for a friend in the next 2 or 3 weeks. I'll post "before" and "after" mp3s.

[paddyponchero]

Originally Posted by Flatpicker

Same here.

Did you use a 1000uF polystyrene between the capsule and the FET? You have to get them at Mouser. This makes the most difference.

I'll be modifing one for a friend in the next 2 or 3 weeks. I'll post "before" and "after" mp3s.

) 1000uF POLYSTYRENE that would be five times the size of the mic at least!!! Can you post wavs instead mp3s are useless.

[crazydoc]

Originally Posted by paddyponchero

) 1000uF POLYSTYRENE that would be five times the size of the mic at least!!! Can you post wavs instead mp3s are useless.

I think he meant a 1000F capacitor - about the size of a Hum-V.

[Flatpicker]

Oops! pF of course!

[MadAudio]

Hmmmm. This thread appeared just as my self-imposed 1-year ban on buying new mics is almost over. I like the MXL's I own already...

Nah, what I really want to get is some small cap condensors for my toms.