New MXL mics - New Flagships

PhilGood

PhilGood

Juice box hero
I see all these new and exciting mics from Marshall (MXL) and I look at the specs, which look good on paper for the most part, and I look at the prices (which are now getting up there with boutique mics) and I think "hey, maybe they're learning and doing something new! Something like - better capsules and a simpler curcuit!"...but then...I look inside the grill...and there's that same capsule mount...with that same capsule.....and then I wonder "what sort of compensation circuit is on the inside of this thing to tweak it enough to look this good (albeit not flat by any means) on paper?" Then I shudder.

I guess that's why we've never heard of one of their mics being "special" or having "that magic". Just enough 'meh' to be usable.
 
How 'bout the "Revelation" - gotta love that name. This mic uses a single layer headbasket.

There's a funny story about how MXL sent out a press release for this mic to a UK-based publication with a picture of my own 319 Floating Dome mod with single layer headbasket instead of their own mic. duh.

Yeah. MXL have driven prices and profits down so far they've got no where to go but up now. Gold this, Revelation that. Forget about trophy wives - they've got a trophy mic now for the bling crowd!
 
MichaelJoly said:
How 'bout the "Revelation" - gotta love that name. This mic uses a single layer headbasket.

There's a funny story about how MXL sent out a press release for this mic to a UK-based publication with a picture of my own 319 Floating Dome mod with single layer headbasket instead of their own mic. duh.

Yeah. MXL have driven prices and profits down so far they've got no where to go but up now. Gold this, Revelation that. Forget about trophy wives - they've got a trophy mic now for the bling crowd!
Click to expand...

Needs a Peltier element to really look cool! And still serve no purpose!
 
The "Revelation" doesn't even achieve figure 8! Just "Supercardioid"! I guess they couldn't find the extra voltage in the P.S.!:eek::mad:
 
OK! Here's my official post for all the search engines!

MXL cares very little about quality sound!! What you end up with might sound good as a single track, but put a bunch of them together and you'll certainly see where the flaws lie. They still use a capsule that produces inferior results, but they try to find ways to alter the signal to make it usable rather that start from scratch and make a capsule (usable with a decent circuit) that has the basis for decent sound.

Until they take that approach I would stay away at all costs! Unless, like me, you're only buying their stuff for the shells and turning them into decent, usable mics!
 
Why not try:

listening to a mic before passing comment. That's what I try to do.

Incidentally, the Revelation achieves full figure 8 pattern. Something that would have become apparant had you actually tested it.

Regards

Roy Harper

MXLMICS

roy@marshallelectronics.net
 
Hey ya Roy ....after reading the article about the revelation. I was glad to see that MXL keeps an eye on how there microphones are being modded and making adjustments in accordance, striving to make a great sound capturing device.



:cool:
 
Mxl

Well, contrary to some opinion, all of us here at MXL are passionate about the sound of our microphones. All of us are active in professional recording, and our mics get extensive use and testing in top flight studios prior to being released for sale, often subtle changes being implemented between the pre-production and final sales versions to take into consideration comments from industry professionals.

Customer feedback is very important to us, and we take all suggestion and constructive criticism very seriously indeed.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance at any time.

Kind regards

Roy@marshallelectronics.net
 
Roy, I've owned more than a few MXL microphones. Well over 20. 6 years ago I began studying microphone construction and engineering in great detail. To the point of obsession. I've made friends with some of the best people in that field. There are some things I can tell based simply by what I've seen in the past and by what I can see you're currently doing.

You're still basing every design off a K67 style transducer, and not even one with the same dimensions as a real K67. Its known for its rise above 5k with a peak about 10k when properly tuned. To alter that rise and get a flatter response you're doing one of several things. You're tensioning the diaphragm to a different weight, changing the dampening holes slightly, pre-EQ'ing the signal or introducing negative feedback into the circuit.

Given the three MXL 960's I've had and the amount of components on the circuit board (anyone want to play 'count the capacitors and resistors'?) I would venture its either EQ or feedback. The problem I would have with either of those methods would be the reduction in gain, which would increase the floor noise. That would then have to be filtered. In either case, the response is achieved through correction, which alters the wave form.

I've also seen the types of transformers used in MXL mics. Putting one of them into a high end tube mic causes a veil to be dropped over the sound. If you're using transformers like this I can't take you seriously.

I'll take your criticism with a grain of salt, because you're right I haven't heard the new ones and I'm basing my opinion on past experience and my own knowledge of mic building. You'll have to take my criticism with a grain of salt too, because I'm by no means just some newbie talking smack for no reason. Perhaps when you start designing your own capsules and use signal purity instead of correction or compensation I will take MXL completely seriously.

Cheers!
 
Criticism

No one here at MXL is averse to constructive criticism, and of course you are entitled to your opinions.

I personally believe that MXL microphones represent outstanding value for money, and there are numerous top flight engineers who use our products, and with whom we liaise in order to continually improve our products. Whilst I appreciate that we all have different tastes and perceptions when it comes to mic selection, it has always been our goal to make microphones that are affordable as well as truly functional. I believe we have achieved that goal, and where are many thousands of MXL microphones being used successfully worldwide.

All of our microphones are designed, and engineered here in our facility in southern California, and the entire team are involved in the process prior to a microphone being released for sale.

I wish you continuing success, and thank you for taking the time to voice your opinions, although I do not necessarily agree with your conclusions.

Regards

Roy@marshallelectronics
 
Can't say that I agree that a compensation circuit will increase noise. It could, but it shouldn't. First off, gain is cheap and easy, so I don't think output level need be adversely affected. It's possible to set output to nearly any value required; phantom power provides quite a large amount of headroom. Thus, it is also not really necessary to worry about lack of headroom in a mic with a +10dB HF peak--even if real-world signals were flat response, it's not hard to design a circuit that is very low distortion well beyond 0dBV output. True, it might require a few more components, but the belief that fewer components are always better is facile.

Next, the components following the capsule FET should always have lower noise than the FET itself, that's a basic of proper electronic design. So if EQ is applied to that signal, then the capsule + FET noise will decrease together with the signal. That might not be the absolute best method, since arguably EQ should only ever be applied at line level (or digitally, as may apply), but as a practical matter if the noise performance of the system is not materially harmed--and it need not be--then there is no foul giving a customer a corrected microphone rather than expecting the customer to manage such correction themself. Is not Mr. Joly's main complaint with the Chinese K67s that they failed to incorporate the required filter? If so, then it's perhaps a lot cheaper to release a K67-correcting VST than perform a physical modification of the microphone ;)

But such filter must be carefully designed to offset the emphasis of the capsule. If done so, given that microphones are minimum-phase devices, then the filter can improve the phase response of the system.

All of this is not to say that MXL mics are great, or whatever (I've seen the shiny gold one once, but I don't think I've heard any in person), but the criticism that a mic is bad because it has a lot of components in its circuit is not sustainable. Heck, a modern C414 has an MCU . . . my latest greatest are running about 30 components, including *gasp* an IC, and there is no question in my mind that's much nicer than the nine or ten I started with . . .
 
Thanks for your input:

I am afraid that I have to admit, I am not an electronic engineer. So I have limited comprehension of the intricacies of circuit design. I am, and have been for over 40 years however, been very active in recording, both as a musician, and as a recording engineer. So I have used some of the worlds "finest" mics, and in all probability some of the worst as well. Personally, I happen to like most of the mics we produce. It's what keeps me excited about working for MXL, and I personally have used every mic we produce at some stage whilst recording. I would not be so bold as to say that I "never" use any competitors product, as there are occasions when I am looking for a particular color or "flavor" and use whatever mic works for that purpose.

As I said in a previous posting though, we take feedback from end users, and industry professionals seriously, and wherever possible act upon them to continue improving our products. So thank you again for your feedback, and although some of it is somewhat beyond my range of knowledge, you can rest assured, it will be read by our engineers as well.

Kind regards

Roy Harper
MXL Microphones
 
openreel24 said:
listening to a mic before passing comment. That's what I try to do.

Incidentally, the Revelation achieves full figure 8 pattern. Something that would have become apparant had you actually tested it.

Regards

Roy Harper

MXLMICS

roy@marshallelectronics.net
Click to expand...

hey, i agree! i use an mxl 990 and 991 that i got years ago in a pack, and they sound really great; i highly recommend them! they sound as good as any other mic ever!
 
mshilarious said:
Can't say that I agree that a compensation circuit will increase noise. It could, but it shouldn't. First off, gain is cheap and easy, so I don't think output level need be adversely affected. It's possible to set output to nearly any value required; phantom power provides quite a large amount of headroom. Thus, it is also not really necessary to worry about lack of headroom in a mic with a +10dB HF peak--even if real-world signals were flat response, it's not hard to design a circuit that is very low distortion well beyond 0dBV output. True, it might require a few more components, but the belief that fewer components are always better is facile.

Next, the components following the capsule FET should always have lower noise than the FET itself, that's a basic of proper electronic design. So if EQ is applied to that signal, then the capsule + FET noise will decrease together with the signal. That might not be the absolute best method, since arguably EQ should only ever be applied at line level (or digitally, as may apply), but as a practical matter if the noise performance of the system is not materially harmed--and it need not be--then there is no foul giving a customer a corrected microphone rather than expecting the customer to manage such correction themself. Is not Mr. Joly's main complaint with the Chinese K67s that they failed to incorporate the required filter? If so, then it's perhaps a lot cheaper to release a K67-correcting VST than perform a physical modification of the microphone ;)

But such filter must be carefully designed to offset the emphasis of the capsule. If done so, given that microphones are minimum-phase devices, then the filter can improve the phase response of the system.

All of this is not to say that MXL mics are great, or whatever (I've seen the shiny gold one once, but I don't think I've heard any in person), but the criticism that a mic is bad because it has a lot of components in its circuit is not sustainable. Heck, a modern C414 has an MCU . . . my latest greatest are running about 30 components, including *gasp* an IC, and there is no question in my mind that's much nicer than the nine or ten I started with . . .
Click to expand...

Great, but all their flagship mics are tube.

Gain isn't cheap in a tube circuit. It comes with a price. In a tube microphone if you add 1pF, 2pF, 4 pF, up to 10pF of feedback from the anode back to the grid the gain decreases by orders of magnitude. This is a common method of using negative feedback and is used in the Neumann M49 and M50. Try it sometime. You then raise the gain and the self noise from the tube is very apparent. The M49 has an internal switch to put the mic in cardioid only position and puts 4db of gain back into the signal and lowers the noise level. Granted in any tube circuit there is a level of built in feedback. My stance comes from the observations of many engineers that the introduction of negative feedback into the circuit (e.i. in the Neumann U67 for German broadcast specs) while flattening the signal also makes the mic a bit lifeless. As we all know, flat mics are some of the most boring mics. In the U47 the flat response of the M7/K47 capsule is actually EQ'd by the grill to add some of the brightness back into the sound. MJ doesn't feel that route is acceptable, whereas I do. It a natural effect that works! With a quality clean tube circuit behind it, it makes for the pinnacle of vintage sounds. The Ela M 251 is very similar in those respects. There's a reason those mics are sought after and top dollar is paid for them. If you want to alter the response by adding a whole other circuit for correction then the signal mist have to pass through additional components including capacitors. In a good tube gain stage, the best capacitor is no capacitor. In what I consider to be the absolute best tube mics in the world the most capacitors the signal passes through is two. None of them are absolutely flat in the response.

I will concede that Marshall's quality and overall sound has improved and still made very affordable. Although with their new flagship above the $1000 range they may have just stepped across the "affordable" category for most users, so again I have some problems with the claim. When they started out they were bright, harsh mics with the exception of the V67 and V77, which I found to be two of the best mics they made (albeit one was 797). They have made strides to make their mics better and I have no doubts they are a bit better. I would argue they could be made possibly stellar if they took a different approach than the current direction they've been taking.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top