Is wider frequency response better in small condensers?

JPS

New member
I was looking around and pricing an MXL 603 and an audio vendor claims that his SE-1 is a better mic than the MXL 603. The SE-1 is also made in China (as I was told my the salesperson) by the same company where the MXL 603 originated. Anyway, the frequency response on the SE-1 is 30 hz-18khz, while the 603 is 20 hz-25 khz. Other specs look pretty similar.

Any opinions on how the reduced frequency response would probably translate in actual recording? What would be the disadvantage or advantage or a narrower response in a small diameter condenser? Any opinions are welcome. This mic is about $89.
 
"better"

Actual upper and lower limits of frequency response are not determining factors in the slightly different ranges of these two mics. The 603's claimed extra 7k of response above the other mic is mostly above the audible range and definitely above the "useable" range for recording (unless you are trying to record bat echolocation). A much more telling spec would be frequency response curves. If you're going for accurate response, small diaphragm condensers generally have flatter response curves than their large diaphragm counterparts.
 
The basic claim was that the SE-1 is an "upgraded" version of the MXL 603. You have a good point that the response curve will provide much more info. I'll see if I can get this. Evidently, SE Electronics is an attempt by a Chinese company to directly market their mics in the US. I am curious, but very sceptical.
 
If the SE-1 is a rebadged model similar to the higher priced Marshall MXL-600, I would avoid it. The highs are muffled, it sounds boomy, and wouldn't be as much of a general purpose mic as the 603 is. I'd compare them directly if I were you.
 
Harvey, the SE-1 is definately made at the Feilo Electronics plant in Shanghai, as I was told by the SE employee, and probably all of their mics are. The owner of SE Electronics is also a VP at Feilo Electronics. This suggests a very strong tie and more direct marketing. I was also told that the MXL 603 is made by a group of "retired employees" from the Feilo plant. There was no mention where these "retired employees" make the MXL 603. But the SE employee indicated there is not a direct connection between the MXL 603 and Feilo. The argument is that the SE-1 is better because they have access to all of the costly high tec equipment that the Feilo plant uses.

Concerning the MXL 600, RECORDING ENGINEER posted on 10-8-2000 that the 603 is manufactured at 797 Audio in Beijing, so the SE-1, MXL 603 and MXL 600 appear to all be different mics. I looked at the frequency response that SE faxed to me. I don't have a location to post this file, so I will attempt to describe it. This chart looks to be centered around 30 db.

From 18-130 hz the response raises gratually from +23 db to +30db. The response is flat and constantly +30 db from 130 hz to about 1.2 khz, then it rises gently from 1.2-4.5 khz to +34 db. At this point it starts to act a bit strange. The curve swings back down to +31 db at 6 khz, swings up to +36 db at 7.5 khz, back down to 30 db at 12 hz, then peaks at +38 db at 15 khz, then sharply downward to the end of the response.

In a way I found the answer to my initial question. The lowest note on a piano is about 25 hz, so there should be no problem using this mic for acoustic guitar. It is interesting to note that the frequency response of the MXL 603 actually begins at 30 hz, according to their own chart on their website, yet they quote a response to 20 hz in the specs. Oh, well.

Any ideas what this gyration toward the end of the frequency response indicates?
 
"retired employees" - isn't that an oxymoron?

This chart looks to be centered around 30 db.

That's not good. It should be "centered around" 0 db. That 15K peak is probably not too fun, either. BTW, the origins of many of these Chinese mics are the source of much confusion. To me, it appears that 90% of them seem to come from one of two manufacturers, 797 Audio or SoundKing, even if the vendor (rebadger?) claims otherwise. Other manufacturers are Fenglei in Shanghai and Tenlux in Taiwan. This is the first I have heard of Feilo Electronics. Whether any of these manufacturers are better than any other, I couldn't say. I would make sure that they undergo some sort of QC process. I know Marshall does QC and seem to have consistent quality. I have a 603 and I like it, but if you're interested in the SE-1, why don't you buy one and let us know if its any good?
 
About the response curve, the MXL charts were centered at 0 db. With the SE-1 chart I assumed that it showed the full test where a 30 db signal is emmitted and then response is mapped at the various frequencies. I don't know much about this but the rise and fall around 30 db indicated too me the results were not transfered to a more standard format.

About Chinese manufacturers, RECORDING ENGINEER posted quite a lot of info on the Feilo Electronics plant (5-18-2000) and said that this plant was the manufacturer of the ADK A-51, Audix CX-101. Joe Meeks JM-47 and MXL 2001. In addition the SE employee confirmed that the SE-1 is manufactured at Feilo, as were some ADK mics.

I am thinking about the SE-1, but I have been doing a little testing with the Studio Projects C-1 and C-3 that I already have, and I am coming to the conclusion that the acoustic guitar sounds pretty crisp and clean when miced above the bridge. If I get the SE-1 I'll post on it. I guess $89 won't break the bank, but it would be nice to have a 603 to compare it with. That would put me up to about $180 plus shipping for the combo. Mabey I could get the mics with a two week return option, and the loser goes home.
 
I don't trust published charts all that much. If I did, the C1 would be an omni, not a cardioid, according to their published polar response chart. In fact, the printed C1 polar pattern chart is the polar pattern for their C3 in omni mode. Some of the Marshall charts are also wrong.

My big concern with Chinese mics (and the GC Oktavas) is about consistancy from unit to unit. Marshall, Manley, and the Sound Room (and I'm hoping Sound Projects) have been able to hold consistancy in their products.
 
JPS...... "maybe I could get the mics with a 2 week return option, and the loser goes home." There's no better way to compare 2 mics (or 2 or more of anything) than in your own environment. When I e-mailed Musician's friend about 2 different items, the response I got was "try them both and see". So I did. I don't care much for the Rode NT1. Why? Because when I bought one and compared it to the AT 4033 it was noticeably inferior. Not necessarily bad, just not as good (and to be fair, the AT costs twice as much). For the price of shipping 1 back, you get the peice of mind knowing that you made the right choice. Hope his helps.
 
SE-1 vs MXL 603

Well, I was curious enough to get both mics. So, I ordered a set of MXL 603's and a set of the SE Electronics SE-1 for my comparisons. My setup is a Digi 001 on a GA-7DX motherboard with a 1.2 Athlon.

When I first fired up the two mics, the most obvious difference was the db output. The MXL 603 is a pretty hot mic when compared the SE-1. Adjusting the volume levels made quite a bit of difference. When micing about 8 inches from the bridge, I set the volume on the pre at about 80% with the MXL603. For the SE-1, I had to max out the Digi pre to get the same sound level. Unfortunately, the Digi doesn't have db indicator lines on the meters, so I can only guess as the amount of difference, but perhaps 3 db, or even 4. The SE-1 should still be fine for close micing situations. But it gives me the impression that the MXL 603 will be more versatile and will be able to handle more applications when micing further away.

At equivalent recording levels, the MXL603 had lower mic/pre noise and was easily visible on the meters. Concerning sound, I seemed to me that the MXL603 had a slight bit more definition in the recording when compared to the SE-1, but this was a pretty close call and not real evident. The response was nearly identical to the MXL 603 once the recording levels were equal. If there was an upside to the SE-1, I believe I detected slightly less proximity effect. But it wasn’t enough to make a substantial difference.

There was quite a difference in the cover protecting the capsule. The MXL 603 has a very fine mesh screen and you can easily see the capsule below. It is very wide open for sound to easily enter. On the other hand, the SE-1 cover over the capsule appeared to be part of the casting. It was very heavy metal with a “hub and spoke” design, and a heavy screen underneath. It looked like only 50% of the opening above the capsule was open space where sound could enter. It seems to me this might me responsible for the diminished db output and possibly the slightly lower proximity effect. In general I felt the MXL 603 had better db output and a little better sound definition, and was the better mic. So, the SE-1 will get a long UPS ride back to California this coming week.

Since I already have a Studio Project C-1, which I picked up in March, I thought I would see how it sounded on acoustic guitar in comparison to the small condensers. I had to listen carefully to discern the differences between the SE-1 and the MXL603 on the acoustic guitar (once they were at the same recording volume), but the C-1 gave a more obvious sound difference. The C-1 was positioned 8-12 inches above the bridge, and I recorded finger picking and strumming on a Takamine ND15C. The C-1 gave a much “fuller” sound (there’s that word) and had a nice natural presence. I would also say it was “smoother” and/or “silkier” than the MXL603. (The “Mic Adjectives” thread has greatly improved my musical vocabulary and given me more choices!) I felt the definition was good and I didn't hear any weird treble notes. I like the C-1 for strumming. At the bridge position and with my guitar, there was a better high-mid-low balance than on the MXL603. It surprised me I could hear the high notes more clearly in a strum on the C-1 than I could on the MXL603. I thought it would be the other way around. The mids seemed to be somewhat more prominent on the 603. I plan to work a little more with the C-1 and 603 to see if the combination will improve things. I suspect it will.
 
Back
Top