maddrummer
New member
I heard that one of the $80 MXL mics are very similar in design and sound to the TLM 103. Just curious to know if this is a general veiw or not and which MXL it is. Thanks
which MXL is like a TLM 103?
- Thread starter maddrummer
- Start date
Strange Leaf
New member
Sorry to disappoint you, but there are no $80 mic in the world that sounds like the Neumann TLM103.
With that said, I heard that the MXL 990's shockmount fits the TLM103, so they're at least physically similar in some ways.
With that said, I heard that the MXL 990's shockmount fits the TLM103, so they're at least physically similar in some ways.
maddrummer
New member
O trust me know disappointment. I was just curious of which one it was that someone else was talking about. Next I gotta see which one of the Behringer boards sounds like Neve. Thanks
Fab4ever
Getting better
Don't shoot me, I'm just the guitar player....
But I seem to remember Harvey Gerst saying something like the MXL V77, a tube mic and Marshall's most expensive mic at around $300-$350 street, sounded like the Neumann.
I have the mic and like it a lot, but I'm an amateur who has never used a Neumann - so I wouldn't dream of comparing them!
Fab
But I seem to remember Harvey Gerst saying something like the MXL V77, a tube mic and Marshall's most expensive mic at around $300-$350 street, sounded like the Neumann.
I have the mic and like it a lot, but I'm an amateur who has never used a Neumann - so I wouldn't dream of comparing them!
Fab
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
Posted by Harvey Gerst on the R.A.P. (rec.audio.pro) NG -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
bsanfordnyc
New member
I don't know shit about microphones, but after doing a lot of reading on this website I decided on the MXL V67 last weekend. It was a toss-up between that and the SP-B1. MAN this thing sounds great!! I'm glad to hear a professional confirm my amateurish opinion 
It's my first experience with condenser mics, so I have nothing for comparison, but my voice sounds great through this thing and so does my acoustic guitar.
You say it lists for $270 but I've seen it going for between $80-$100 on ebay and Sam Ash.
Cheers,
Ben
It's my first experience with condenser mics, so I have nothing for comparison, but my voice sounds great through this thing and so does my acoustic guitar.
You say it lists for $270 but I've seen it going for between $80-$100 on ebay and Sam Ash.
Cheers,
Ben
malcolm123
New member
bsanfordnyc said:I don't know shit about microphones, but after doing a lot of reading on this website I decided on the MXL V67 last weekend. It was a toss-up between that and the SP-B1. MAN this thing sounds great!! I'm glad to hear a professional confirm my amateurish opinion
It's my first experience with condenser mics, so I have nothing for comparison, but my voice sounds great through this thing and so does my acoustic guitar.
You say it lists for $270 but I've seen it going for between $80-$100 on ebay and Sam Ash.
Cheers,
Ben
Yep !
I have them both. The V67g and the SP B1.
The V67g wins hands down for vox.
I like them both though, but I just haven't found a need to pull down the V67 and replace it with the B1 yet.
For their prices, Both are a good addition.
Malcolm
Fab4ever said:
I have the SP B1, the MXL V77, the V69 and the Neumann M149.
A couple of years back at Amsterdam AES there were the TLM103 and the M149 standing next to each other in working order, both with a Sennheiser HD580 headphone. So I could compare the 103 and 149, with my own voice of course.
The difference was significant, IMHO the 149 sounds a lot better.
The MXL V77 comes quite close to the M149, again on my voice.
But, on violin, upright bass, accordeon, percussion, acoustic guitar, saxophone, clarinet, trumpet, trombone, piano, many voices and other instruments, the M149 comes out as the winner.
Nevertheless, the V77 is a very nice sounding microphone. I haven't have much recorded with the SP B1 yet, but for a $79 mic it sounds great.
mrface2112
Well-known member
i'd like to see someone compare the V77 and the V69 and see how they stack up against the M149 and TLM103. i know where my bets lie, but it's always nice to see the difference.
if someone wants to loan me all 4, i'll be glad to do it and get back to y'all.
BTW, i love my B1 on snare, mic'd amps, hihat and some vocalists. i consider it to be the LDC (or MDC) version of an sm57.
wade
if someone wants to loan me all 4, i'll be glad to do it and get back to y'all.
BTW, i love my B1 on snare, mic'd amps, hihat and some vocalists. i consider it to be the LDC (or MDC) version of an sm57.
wade
Flatpicker
...
Me too.mrface2112 said:
Han, where does the V69 fit in with these mics?
Flatpicker said:
The V69 mogami sounds bigger than the V77 and it has more high end, so it sounds a bit hyped IMHO.
But I can imagine some vocalists prefer it over the V77, which sounds more neutral.
This is just with voices, but the quality of a microphone should be experienced by recording many sound sources.
I recorded a big band recently and the V69 did a very good job on bariton sax. The V77 and M149 were both used for tenor saxes and there wasn't much difference in sound actually.
To make the picture complete: MD441's on trumpets, MD421's on trombones, a Beyer ribbon on acoustic bas, two AKG C451's as room mics and the usual stuff on drums, 421's, D12. Beyer 201 on snare. Oh... the SP B1 on guitar, nice warm (jazz) sound.
Anyway, the V69 sounds quite different from the V77, which I like more, great mic!
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
I wonder which Volkswagon is most like a Ferrari?-Richie
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
I think you just made my point, Han, and no, but I've driven a viper quite a bit. And if you want to know what the front brake discs on your Ferrari cost, you just ask your mechanic, Guido. He takes care of all of that.-Richie
Check out the Volkwagen W12. It won't be embarassed by a Ferrari.....
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-VW-W12-Coupe.htm
http://www.fantasycars.com/1/2001/VWW12/vww12.html
http://www.seriouswheels.com/top-VW-W12-Coupe.htm
http://www.fantasycars.com/1/2001/VWW12/vww12.html
MXL V69 vs Neumann M149 - tube mics on an Acoustic Guitar
http://forums.dm-gremlin.com/viewtopic.php?t=68&sid=c8454e3b280e91a33e1051af5926e1c5
Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions
http://forums.dm-gremlin.com/viewtopic.php?t=68&sid=c8454e3b280e91a33e1051af5926e1c5
Dan Richards
Digital Pro Sound
The Listening Sessions