Ted Perlman said:
[Ted Perlman is a "recognized, well-respected engineer", but I find it difficult to believe him when he says that a mic is "exactly the same" and "completely different" in the same article]
Ted, that first part is very true. I definitely know who you are and I very much respect the work you've done. Alan has stated that he doesn't think the C1 sounds exactly the same or better than a U87. He just thinks it's a pretty good mic for a very low price. I agree with him on that, 100%.
Nice try at a "flame", but it won't work. I stand by my comments.
It was never meant to be a flame at you, but it was meant to point out how even very qualified listeners can miss important information about a product by their enthusiasm over a first listen to a product, especially at a noisy trade show, listening over unfamiliar headphones. Only much later, after you've used something for a while, do the actual subtle differences start to appear. But your initial statement that it sounded, "EXACTLY the same as a U87- NO DIFFERENCE" created both a buzz, and an unhealthy legacy for hype that Alan is still trying to live down.
The C1 sounded "exactly" like the U87 at the NAMM show display when we first heard it. We went from the U87 to the C1 and back and forth over and over again. They were so similar I couldn't tell the difference. However, the reason I said the C1 actually sounded "better" was because after using it for a few weeks on sessions and then mixing those tracks, I began to notice I didn't have to add as much hi end eq to the vocal tracks as I did with a standard model U87 - they seemed to have a slight presence boost that I hadn't noticed previously. A very pleasant hi end boost but also very subtle - you could miss it at first listen. So my statement makes perfect sense. There are a few other under $1,000 mics that exhibit that kind of presence lift besides the C1 - the ADK "Vienna" and the Audio Technica 4033 come to mind. It makes perfect musical and business sense - these mics are competing against the big boys in both name and sound. If they have a slight edge in any way, that will help them to keep their valuable slots in the mic cabinets of studios worldwide.
Ted, come on; even you will have to admit that saying "it sounded EXACTLY the same as a U87- NO DIFFERENCE" is a pretty absolute statement, coming from an engineer of your stature.
Does the C1 hold it's own against the big guys? For some singers, in some situations, I honestly believe the answer is a resounding yes. But, are there other recording situations, where the Neumann U87 would be the better choice?
Ted, I would suggest that you think long and hard before answering that one. From your review, it sounds like you're saying, "No, the C1 would always be my choice over a Neumann U87".
Ted, there was no "flame" intended in my post, nor was it my intention to belittle you in any way. I have way too much respect for your engineering skills to do that. But, to me, it's a good example of how even a great engineer can be misled by a first listen to a new product, at a noisy trade show, listening over unfamiliar equipment. (I'm assuming that the headphones you listened to at the show were not the usual environment you listen in.)
We agree that the C1 is a good, useful microphone, at a very attractive price. I don't agree with you (and neither does Alan, judging from all the conversations I've had with him about this) that it sounds like a U87 on every source.
Again, I apologize if my "review" of your "review" sounds like a flame; that wasn't my intent. That you find the SP mics useful is not surprising to me; I share your opinion wholeheartedly.
