A bottom feeder mic shootout . . . right here . . . right now!

[Kelly Dueck]

I've been lurking for some time and love this bbs! So please forgive me if my first post is rather "bold."

I've attached an mp3 that features a quick "shootout" between several popular, low-cost, chinese-made condensers, namely the MXL V67G $219, MXL 2001-P $179, NADY SCM-1000 $149, MXL 603s $79 and a newly introduced tube mic called the SE Electronics SE5000 $299. This one looks like an AKG C12 knock-off and sounds . . . well . . . download the file to find out for yourself.

Technical notes:

All mics went into the same pre on an Aardvark 24/96 soundcard, using the same cable recording at a 16-bits and 44.1Khz. Gain was set to the same level for each for comparison of "hotness". Distance from mic was about 6" for each mic, regulated by the use of a nylon pop-filter. The mp3 is encoded at 192 Kbps

I used each mic to record the same short spoken-word passage describing the theory behind condenser microphones, followed by a section of very short clips recorded with each mic so as to allow for an easier comparison before one's audio memory becomes unreliable.

Of course this is a very specific shootout, for a very particular application -- spoken word. However, since most of the mics are large-diaphragm condensers, very commonly used as "vocal mics" I thought it would be a useful starting point. The small diaphragm 603s is included mostly for interest's sake and, truth be told, was hard to use without getting a lot of "popping" in the signal.

The mics were recorded in a typical crowded home-studio setting with a computer fan screaming in the background. I could have gated it out but I didn't want to effect the signal path in any way. It's hardly scientific, I know, but I hope you find it interesting, nonetheless.

Also, the file is almost 4 Meg so be patient!

Kelly Dueck

 

[The Axis]

Thanks Kelly...

I appreciate your effort, but I have to admit that I really can't tell much difference after the conversion to MP3 and listening on my very mediocre computer speakers. I can hear the slightly higher sibilence of the MXL603s and the V67 sounds about as "natural" as any in the bunch.

Since you are able to hear the originals in detail, I would actually appreciate your personal opinions and comments. Particularly on:
1. Self noise level of each. Are the 603s noticeably higher in background "hhhhhhhh" ?
2. Which mike sounds most faithful to the source. Not necessarily "good" just "accurate", particularly on more wide-ranging instruments, such as acoustic guitar. My own personal bias is that I hate the sound of the mikes that have a "presence" boost, because it overemphasizes the twanginess and upper harmonics of guitar strings. Any comments ?
3. Any other impressions on each that stand out in your mind ?

Also, I often disable my computer fan when recording (I shove a stick in the blades !) This doesn't damage the fan, and doesn't overheat the computer as long as I keep it short !

Peace,
Rick

 

[Tekker]

Very cool

But unfortunatly I think that answers my question about the SE 5000 (I'm assuming you saw that thread). I was hoping for so much more from that mic, but on the bright side, I just saved myself $299.....

I definitly liked the V67g (for your voice and the narration) the best, and I kinda had to go back and forth over second place but I think the SCM 1000 just barely beat out the MXL 2001, next comes the MXL 603s, then the SE 5000 comes in last (but gets some points for stylish good looks). But that is just what sounds "better" to my ear, which on do you think represented your voice "accuratly"?

I was listening through a set of aiwa CD-player speakers and even worse headphones, so I know I'm not hearing the full potential of these mics, but I really did like the V67g, (with or without the sucky speakers) it sounded very full and had more low end to it than the other mics (I think I'm sold).


Thanx for taking the time to do this, 'really appreciate it.

-tkr

 

[Prism]

I am only an amateur, so my opinion may not really mean anything, but this was my impression of the mics:

The V67 and the MXL2001 sounded fairly similar, except the V67 struck me as having a somewhat "bigger" sound, for lack of a better term. The MXL2001 seemed a little thinner and quieter...maybe not as much proximity effect as the V67. The SE5000 looked better than it sounded. This one seems to either have poor frequency response, or just no proximity effect...but I could be completely off. It sounded like the top end was kind of jacked up. I would've liked to hear something musical in the shootout, like a nylon-stringed guitar (something a little more mellow than steel) The SCM-1000 seemed to have very low noise, and less top end. To my ears, it sounded pretty nice. I also like the 603s...It sounds like we can hear some reflections from the walls, but I guess that would be pretty typical for a small diaphragm condenser. I was using headphones as reference, but I'm going to use my speakers today. (I downloaded it at around midnight last night, and I didn't wanna wake anybody up )

Isaiah

 

[Slackmaster2K]

I thought that the V67 and 2001 sounded very similar, but the 2001 sounded more realistic. Both sounded pretty good though not very natural, which might be a good thing. The Nady and the SE were both really harsh. The 603 sounded like total shit to me...the level seemed inconsistant and I'm hearing distortion or some kind of pop (which might not be the mic i guess).

Slackmaster 2000

 

[Kelly Dueck]

The 603 was very sensitive to popping and outright overloading so I had to move my mouth off axis from time to time to avoid excessive distortion. This would explain the somewhat less consistent levels. Also this mic is not really designed for close vocal work anyway -- it's an "instrument mic" and frankly sounds killer on stringed instruments in an x-y or ortf configuration.

A note about the NADY. I used it in cardioid pattern (it's a three-way multi-pattern dual diaphragm mic). I find that it has a somewhat tighter, darker tone better suited to some singers. I've gotten good results on instruments when used as a bi-polar, spaced pair. Omni is pretty good, too.

I personally don't hear a hell of a lot of difference between the 67 and the 2001 thought the 67 is somewhat smoother and "bigger" to my ear.

As for the SE5000 . . . well, I'll admit I find it a bit on the bright side, too. I just got the thing yesterday. It doesn't come with any instructions of any kind and it's the first tube mic I've ever used. I wonder if it needs to be "warmed up" for awhile before use. I pretty much just plugged 'er in and hit record. The instructions with the Nady suggest warming up the mic for 10 minutes for best results. I think I'll do some more tests this weekend.

Cheers

 

[Tekker]

SE 5000

I was more than a little dissapointed in that mic and being a tube mic (tube = warmer), that thing just sucked IMHO (the MXL 603s I thouhgt sounded a whole lot better). Let us know how it sounds though when it warms up, because I can't justify buying that mic "just because it looks cool", I would like something that I could acutally use too.

Also if you get a chance, try out the new Studio Projects C1 (which has been causing quite a commotion around here), I would like to hear how that one sounds in compaired to the others too. I think I'm wavering between getting the C1 and the V67g.....but I can't decide....

I thought that the SCM 1000 sounded really similiar to the MXL 2001 even moreso than the V67g. I actually had to put these into Cakewalk and edit out the SE 5000 in between them so I could hear them together and also because after listening to the SE 5000 the SCM 1000 seemed to sound a lot better. And after doing that (and walking around the room a bit) I think that I liked the MXL 2001 a bit more now.

Thanx again

-tkr

 

[Kelly Dueck]

The SE5000 gets a second chance

Here's a link to clip of a sample tune I slapped together friday night to test the SE5000 in the context of a complex mix. It seems this mic's hyped-up top end helps it cut through full mixes reasonably well, especially on soft sounding voices such as mine.

Don't pay much attention to the quality of the music -- or the overall mix, for that matter -- the whole thing was done in about two hours. There aren't even lyrics, as you'll hear!

I guess the lesson to be learned from the preceeding shootout is this: Different mics sound different (even individual units of elite mics -- just ask Harvey). As a result, they have different uses. In fact I don't mind having a number of mics that sound radically different. It simply gives me more colours available to me on my tracking pallet.

However, there's no excuse for a downright BAD sounding mic. I used to think the SE5000 fell into that category . . . I'm not quite so sure anymore.

BTW, Tekker, warming up the mic didn't seem to produce any descernable difference in timbre with the SE5000.

Have a listen to the clip and see what you think.

Tech details:
Again, recorded into an Aardvark Pro 24/96 at 16-bits and 44.1 KHz using Cabletek cable. Mixed in Cakewalk Pro Audio 9.0 with Sonic Timeworks, dB-Audioware, and Arboretum plug-ins, as well as Sonic Implants soundfonts. This time I dampened my computer a bit and used some home-made open-cell foam baffles to create a "vocal booth" and control flutter echoes. The Mp3 was encoded at 160 Kbps.

Kelly

 

[Kelly Dueck]

Sorry . . . I screwed up!

Woops, I forgot that unix servers are fussy about case sensitivity in file names. NOW you should be able to download the puppy.

Let's try this again

 

[darrin_h2000]

Do you work in a Music store

If you do see if you can do this test with the new octiva mic and the new berringer( they say its a rode nt2 with thier name on it). those were the cheap mics i was hoping to purchase. (by the way the bottom feeder for nady is the scm900 at 79.00 at musicians friend. I may get two of these for drums overhead).

try them on drums and acoustic guitar. Thanks

 

[Kelly Dueck]

Unfortunately I don't work in a music store so I won't be able to test the mics you mentioned. The Octavas come highly recommended but apparently the MXL 603s sound almost identical, according to Harvey Gerst.

 

[darrin_h2000]

If he has accses to all the microphones maybe he could be talked into doing a comparason for us using accoustic inst,drums, and vocals. This could be a useful comparison for us poor dudes out here.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

If he (Harvey) has access to all the microphones, maybe he could be talked into doing a comparison for us using acoustic inst, drums, and vocals. This could be a useful comparison for us poor dudes out here.

Sorry, but that's a real problem for me, Darrin. Here's why:

I own a commercial 24 track studio that stays pretty damn busy all the time. To set up a mic shootout of that scale, I need to get a drummer (my son plays drums, but he lives around 25 miles away, and his time is very limited), match levels, and very carefully switch back and forth on guitar, vocal, and drums to insure that there is nothing else that might color the test. Moving a mic by as little as 1" could profoundly change the test results.

The mp3 conversions may also influence the final results. If I were going to do this for real, it would be transfered to CDs where I can monitor the quality at each stage of the recording process to ensure that you hear exactly what I heard.

The best I can offer is an informal comparison, based on two sets of trained ears (my almost 50 years of experience in the music business, and my son's 15 years in the music business, as a first rate engineer, and as an award winning producer).

As I've suggested before, do a search on some of the mics you already own that I've talked about before and see if my opinions match yours. If they do, chances are you'll agree with me on mics you haven't heard. If my opinions are different from yours, then you shouldn't be relying on my evaluations.

I bought a set of Tannoy System 2 monitors once, based on a review I read. I usually like the sound of the bigger Tannoys and the review made it sound like these were the same sound, but in a smaller box. A dealer I knew had a set and I got a good deal on them, or so I thought.

When I got them home, and actually lived with them for a few months, I came to the conclusion these were a nice looking piece of shit. I sold them for about 1/2 of what I paid for them. They had a massive honk at 400 Hz, that I couldn't get rid of and it made them unusable for monitoring.

Finding low cost bargains is fun for me, and I've tried to pass along what I've discovered to others, but it's not what I do for a living - I'm a recording engineer. Anything else is spare time stuff, for fun and my own enlightenment.

 

[darrin_h2000]

Thanks anyhow but still an all arround mic comparison would be great for everyone. Too bad consumer reports doesnt do a comparison of gear like this. using professional engineers and a controlled envirement.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

For higher end mics, there's Lynn Fuston's excellent 3D Mic Shootout, or the Alan Sides' Mic Locker disc.

For really controlled testing, I'd want a 20 grand B&K test setup and an anechoic chamber, good down to at least 125 Hz. While a studio is a "controlled" environment, it's not a "neutral" environment - all studios have some degree of coloration, due to the basic design of the studio. That's why some studios have a "good room" and some don't. A good room means that it has a pleasant coloration.

While it sounds like it should be easy to do, it really isn't. In Los Angeles during the mid 70s, I had a test lab set up for my guitar amplifier company where I could actually do real testing on speakers, amplifiers, and even mics. I was the only guitar amp company to have that kind of setup in L.A. at the time - not Fender, not Yamaha, nobody. To get any more detailed, you would hafta go to JBL's megabucks testing facility, and even then, we shared much of the same test equipment.

 

[CyanJaguar]

Its funny,

I was just talking to mike at bayview proaudio about doing a test like this, if they would give me the mic for a really cheap price. He refused( I wanted to pay $150). But mike over there is a really nice guy.

He actually said that he compared the se5000 to the rode ntk, and I'm thinking yeah right.

Anyhow kelly. I read somewhere that some tubes need an hour to fully warm up. So that might have been a slight disadvantage.

I think that it sounded really good in the mix. Quite smooth, but I am listening on headphones. In the spoken word, it was lacking.

Do you think that you could do like an acapella thing. I don't want to write off this mic as a contender. Especially since its tube and it looks so good.

peace

 

[darrin_h2000]

Yeah untill the tubes are hot they dont sound near as good to me. thats why in the olden days there was a standby switch on the old tube stuff so the tubes would stay hot all the time. and whenever you would plug in they would sound good.

 

[Kelly Dueck]

The SE5000 is growing in me

I've been playing around with my SE5000 in a few more contexts such as recording a vocal over top of a simple acoustic guitar (miked with MXL 603's). I'm finding, that in my opinion, this mic is really cut out for sung vocals in the context of a mix. In fact the sound of this thing is really starting to grow on me. There's a definite tube warmth there in the low mids that I simply don't hear with my other mics and the spoken word clip doesn't do justice. I'll try and post a little clip encoded at something like 300 kps to show what I mean.

 

[Tekker]

Hey Kelly,

If you wouldn't mind, do you think that you could post a clip of the V67g along with the SE5000? I'd really liket to hear these two up against each other in a mix (in the same set up & environment).

Thanx

-tkr

 

[CyanJaguar]

me too kelly