MXL 2003a/Cr-24 vs. Blue Spark vs. CAD M179

K

Kierkes

Member
Here's a link to some of my stuff.

Brendan K. Schatzki's sounds on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
SeanTheMalloy's sounds on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free

The tracks were recorded on a DMP3 going into an FMR RNC and Tascam US-1641:

EV 635a: Be My Valentine, Choose, Flower Song, The Way You Look Tonight
AT 4033: Flower Song Practice
SM7b: Confrontation, Lily's Eyes
EV N/D767a: This Is The Moment, Feeling Good <(That was a weird way of singing I tried) Turn Off The Lights (This one is in the second channel)

I think the best indications to how I sing normally would be This Is The Moment, Turn Off The Lights, and Lily's Eyes (Lily's Eyes is a lot more classical, especially starting at 1:30). I will be trying to do both.

I also apologize for the poor mixing job; I've been trying to get a certain sound out of all of these microphones, and the only one that has come close was the 635. Also note that I sold my SM7b to a friend of mine who does metal. Seemed like a better fit for him.

At any rate, I am getting rid of the AT 4033; It's not really something that enjoys my voice. I'm talking about a few very different microphones, as you can tell from the title. So instead of asking you all blindly, I have decided to bring up the pros and cons I can see so far with each microphone.

MXL 2003a/Cr-24: If I go this route, I won't hesitate to get the Cr-24 package. I just like it better. I've heard so many amazing things about it, and I've been very impressed by the fact that MXL created the circuits of the microphone to mitigate the K67-type capsule's HF peaks. (Yeah, I've read Joly's stuff.) It seems to kick butt at being a vocal microphone, and it also seems to be very good on guitar, which I don't anticipate recording much, but I am certainly leaving that possibility open. I'm also quite shallow, and think the chrome finish on the mic is sexy as hell.

Blue Spark: When I first heard about the Blue Spark with its special 'focus switch' I was turned off, since I had a feeling the microphone was gimmicky. But I've been reading and people actually REALLY seem to like it! Even on things like guitar and others. I know it's touted as a vocal microphone primarily, but the reason this has come up is the fact that it's immensely popular. It seems to lack the warmth and depth of the 2003a/Cr-24, but I need to know, since I don't think anyone has bothered comparing the two, since they're different beasts entirely.

CAD M179: I have been thinking about this microphone for some time, since it's quite a marvelous piece of work, from what I've seen. The odd thing about this is that people don't seem to like it on vocals. I have no idea why, and no one has been terribly clear about it. But I do know it's neutral, and even though I record mostly my voice now, I'm thinking seriously of breaking away partially from MIDI, which I work with almost exclusively right now. This means that I may be recording completely random things, like refrigerator doors, or something. I think the neutrality and versatility of this microphone may open new creative possibilities.

Feel free to take points under each microphone and apply it to the others.

I really appreciate the help. Thanks!
 
just a small correction. mxl didn't create the k67 compensation circuit. they just finally realized that it shoudl be there and finally started implementing it. the circuit was designed by neumann decades ago. and many other companies, like cad, have been doing that for years and years with k67 caps and making them sound wonderful (m179, original e300, m9, and so on).

don't give mxl credit - they made aliving out of making mics like the 2001 and 2010 - k67 WITHOUT compensation circuit, and they still sell those bits of garbage.

but I'll get back to actually trying to help you in a future post (I have to work now!).

cheers
 
I used cad m179 on vocals all the time. as long as you listen and have some idea of what you will want to change in the eq in the mix, it works great. (I should clarify, I have many other mics, some are much better for vocals, but when mobile recording the cad is always there and often works when time is short because I know I can eq it into what I want during the mixdown... where using the wrong choice of actual vocal-eq'd mic will screw it up later).

it's rather similar sounding to that mxl but with a tiny bit more of what I feel actually makes a good vocal mic (tiny speck of presence, tiny dip in sibilance, tiny speck of air) compared with a ruler flat measurement mic. but the 2003 has similar qualities, maybe a speck more warmth than the cad. with either of those mics in a busy mix or in a rock mix you'll want to eq up the presences like mad, which is what a true vocal mic does.

the spark has a little more presence and air yet than the cad and a little less bass yet, so it's a little bit more of a vocal mike, isnt' it? :-)

but it's still such a subtle off-from-flat eq plot that it does work remarkably well on guitars and other instruments. And you can get in nice and close to add some warmth and it performs slightly differently because it has a smaller diaphram/capsule. I actually really like SDC and MDC on many vocals, LDC isn't always best, and the spark is a mic I always keep around.

and, stupid though this is, singers perform better on sexier mics pretty often. the spark is decidedly sexy.

the 4033 and sm7 are more true vocal mics than any of your list, but I personally dislike the sm7 for something it has in it's midrange on most human singers (as opposed to inhumans like plant or jackson). for example I don't love it on the chile peppers lead singer or on similar artists, but it's what they use. the 4033 is great on some singers, not on others, but does have that same curve I'm talking about where it emphasizes presence, deemphasizes sibilance, and emphasizes air again. but it does so in a rather specific way that is very individual and not good in all situaitons.

so the mxl, cad or blue mics will be more universally useful to you.

the cad is an incredible technological design and very versatile. it can be bit shy on warmth if you're out a foot from it, but get in close and it's sexy sounding imho especially after eqing up the presence and air points.

the spark is the prettiest and by a company that makes some of the greatest vocal mics of today (kiwi, blueberry, bottlecaps series and the infamous blue bottle). It's their only entry level pop/commercial-vocal type of mic compared to blue's other affordable bottle-styled mics such as the baby bottle (ribbon-like, lacking in highs but waaarrrmmmmmmmmmm) or the bluebird (big mid presence push but lackign in highs and definition... like an sm7 with the mid switches turned on... not my favorite on most vocals). of those three blue mics I grab the spark to try on most singers, never the bluebird, and rarely the baby bottle unless the voice is really harsh or we're going for the sound of neil young's harvest album (with ribbons as well for example).

edit: oh and just one more thing... the spark can have a subtly scooped sound to it through the middle frequencies. this can be amazing on acoustic guitars and some items you want to sit well in the mix, but if you use the same mic on everything (including lead vocals) it will of course need some compensation on the main element (such as the lead vocal... bump up a low Q 2kHz area maybe 4db or so, possibly). but again it just works as is on some voices.

With some really amazing vocal mics at my disposal recently I would probably put the spark on all bg vocal parts and a more middy present vocal mic (kiwi or similar) on lead vocals. but that's with thousands of bucks of mics at the ready.....
 
Last edited:
dkelley said:
just a small correction. mxl didn't create the k67 compensation circuit. they just finally realized that it shoudl be there and finally started implementing it. the circuit was designed by neumann decades ago. and many other companies, like cad, have been doing that for years and years
Click to expand...
Oops. I knew that, but I reread my post. Definitely sounds like I think MXL made it. :P

dkelley said:
I used cad m179 on vocals all the time. as long as you listen and have some idea of what you will want to change in the eq in the mix, it works great. (I should clarify, I have many other mics, some are much better for vocals, but when mobile recording the cad is always there and often works when time is short because I know I can eq it into what I want during the mixdown... where using the wrong choice of actual vocal-eq'd mic will screw it up later).

it's rather similar sounding to that mxl but with a tiny bit more of what I feel actually makes a good vocal mic (tiny speck of presence, tiny dip in sibilance, tiny speck of air) compared with a ruler flat measurement mic. but the 2003 has similar qualities, maybe a speck more warmth than the cad. with either of those mics in a busy mix or in a rock mix you'll want to eq up the presences like mad, which is what a true vocal mic does.

the spark has a little more presence and air yet than the cad and a little less bass yet, so it's a little bit more of a vocal mike, isnt' it? :-)

but it's still such a subtle off-from-flat eq plot that it does work remarkably well on guitars and other instruments. And you can get in nice and close to add some warmth and it performs slightly differently because it has a smaller diaphram/capsule. I actually really like SDC and MDC on many vocals, LDC isn't always best, and the spark is a mic I always keep around.

and, stupid though this is, singers perform better on sexier mics pretty often. the spark is decidedly sexy.

the 4033 and sm7 are more true vocal mics than any of your list, but I personally dislike the sm7 for something it has in it's midrange on most human singers (as opposed to inhumans like plant or jackson). for example I don't love it on the chile peppers lead singer or on similar artists, but it's what they use. the 4033 is great on some singers, not on others, but does have that same curve I'm talking about where it emphasizes presence, deemphasizes sibilance, and emphasizes air again. but it does so in a rather specific way that is very individual and not good in all situaitons.

so the mxl, cad or blue mics will be more universally useful to you.

the cad is an incredible technological design and very versatile. it can be bit shy on warmth if you're out a foot from it, but get in close and it's sexy sounding imho especially after eqing up the presence and air points.

the spark is the prettiest and by a company that makes some of the greatest vocal mics of today (kiwi, blueberry, bottlecaps series and the infamous blue bottle). It's their only entry level pop/commercial-vocal type of mic compared to blue's other affordable bottle-styled mics such as the baby bottle (ribbon-like, lacking in highs but waaarrrmmmmmmmmmm) or the bluebird (big mid presence push but lackign in highs and definition... like an sm7 with the mid switches turned on... not my favorite on most vocals). of those three blue mics I grab the spark to try on most singers, never the bluebird, and rarely the baby bottle unless the voice is really harsh or we're going for the sound of neil young's harvest album (with ribbons as well for example).

edit: oh and just one more thing... the spark can have a subtly scooped sound to it through the middle frequencies. this can be amazing on acoustic guitars and some items you want to sit well in the mix, but if you use the same mic on everything (including lead vocals) it will of course need some compensation on the main element (such as the lead vocal... bump up a low Q 2kHz area maybe 4db or so, possibly). but again it just works as is on some voices.

With some really amazing vocal mics at my disposal recently I would probably put the spark on all bg vocal parts and a more middy present vocal mic (kiwi or similar) on lead vocals. but that's with thousands of bucks of mics at the ready.....
Click to expand...
So you seem quite partial to the Spark then. I will certainly consider it then!

I know about the way the 4033 is supposed to function on voice, but as I've learned, there's something bizarre about the way it picks mine up.

And how funny that you of all people would reply to this when we're engaged in a gearslutz thread about the M179! :D
 
Affirm my purchase! (Cad M179) - Gearslutz.com

Now I'm just delusional; I could have sworn you were in that thread too, moresound. :P

dkelley seems to think that the Blue is ideal for me and the CAD is a workhorse that with close-miking I can get a great sound out of. You don't seem to have a real opinion on the Cr-24 package though...It seems to me right now, according to dkelley alone, considering that he didn't include stipulations for the 2003a that the suitability for vocals and versatility of each of my three prospects are inversely proportional. To be expected, although the CAD seems to get some free points for its variable pattern.
 
Kierkes said:
Affirm my purchase! (Cad M179) - Gearslutz.com

Now I'm just delusional; I could have sworn you were in that thread too, moresound. :P

dkelley seems to think that the Blue is ideal for me and the CAD is a workhorse that with close-miking I can get a great sound out of. You don't seem to have a real opinion on the Cr-24 package though...It seems to me right now, according to dkelley alone, considering that he didn't include stipulations for the 2003a that the suitability for vocals and versatility of each of my three prospects are inversely proportional. To be expected, although the CAD seems to get some free points for its variable pattern.
Click to expand...



No I wasn't but I did read it. I like the part where Kelly thinks the Cad should have a boob job. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top