C
chessrock
Banned
darrin_h2000 said:
Uh . . .no. It's a lot like the v67, but the original transformer had some sort of ringing problems, quality control supposedly varied, causing a lot of them to sound harsh.
Uh . . .no. It's a lot like the v67, but the original transformer had some sort of ringing problems, quality control supposedly varied, causing a lot of them to sound harsh.
alanhyatt
PMI Audio Group
ScienceOne said:
ScienceOne,
I am pleased you are very happy with your C1. There are many great mics out there, and everyone has their opinions as to which are better than others, but it really does not matter.
As long as you are happy with the mic, then everything you wanted to acheive...you have. If it was a 4033, a V67, an NTK, or any other mic that you were happy with, then I, and I hope we are all very happy for you. You are off to a great start, and we are glad you shared it with us. Soon you will find the advantages of getting more gear into your hands as you gain more experience and look to different mics for different applications, as well as outside mic amps for additional flavors....
Doug Quance
2006 Cave Roast Chairman
tdukex said:
I don't know about lately, but my take on Peavey in the past went like this:
If it wasn't a bass guitar, or a CS-800 power amp... then I wouldn't own a Peavey anything.
I remember buying into their specs on the DECA power amps. I tried for a couple of days to make those sorry amps push. Fucking weak... what can I say. Luckily, I was a good customer, so I got to return them.
I also had a Peavey Noise Inserter... aka mixing board. Piece of pure shit.
But I was much younger and ignorant back then.
Now, I'm just older and ignorant.
G
GrooveBassman
New member
Funny thing about peavy electronics. My next door neighbors kid is an engineer for peavy. Except for a year or two of trombone he's never played. He's never recorded. He's never ran live sound. Hell I don't think he even really listens to music(j/k). Now if I were a music company I would insist my engineers have some background in music. It just makes sense.
Stefan Elmblad
New member
Henrik said:
The blind test consisted of various Shure mics, one Neumann TLM103, several ADK's, a few Studio Projects, one ECM8000 and some I've sure forgotten. Each recorded through about 10 different preamps.
I had NO information on the mics or the pre's. Not knowing which was which and not even knowing what 10-12mics and 10 pres we were talking about.
The test turned out, to my ears, like this.
Neumann was clear winner, I knew I heard a Neumann there. ECM8000 sounded boxy, but would prolly do better on various instruments, since the test was voice only.
Shure sounded muffled compared to the rest, thats ok too, since all the rest was LD condensers. And then we had the SP and ADK..and to my ears ADK was better. Which leaves SP just over the cheap dynamics and the ECM8000.
I may add that other listeners preferred SP over ADK maybe, but among hundreds of listeners, almost all picked the TLM103 as really outstanding. So the SP sounds like Neumann hype is BS.
Just like all other XXX sounds like Neumann is. SP sounds like SP. Neumann sounds like Neumann. Neumann is the benchmark we all refer too as good sound, the SP is not. Maybe in 20 years, but today its just a newcomer.
Michael Jones
New member
Ever notice how so many mics get compared to a Neumann?
hmmmm.....
hmmmm.....
Stefan Elmblad
New member
That's cause they've been the industry standard for great sound since modern-day recording begun.
Just the fact that all companies puts quotes on their sites that they're mics "sounds as good as Neumann" proves which mics you should really be looking at for good sound.
Just the fact that all companies puts quotes on their sites that they're mics "sounds as good as Neumann" proves which mics you should really be looking at for good sound.
Meshuggah
New member
Fridens liljor, Stefan
What ADK mics did you listen to?
Gott Nytt
What ADK mics did you listen to?
Gott Nytt
alanhyatt
PMI Audio Group
Stefan Elmblad said:
Stefan,
Well I don't have a problem with your statement, but then again, you must know that your statement is only your opinion. Many people find ADK and SP better than the TLM103, but that is their opinion. I am sure many find the 103 better.
The beauty of all of this is that everyone here offers their opinions, but it does not make your opinion or others correct. It only makes your opinion....well, yours.
Any mic that works is a good mic. What you hear as good may be bad to others and vice versa. No disrespect, but the facts are the facts...opinions are just opinions.
Stefan Elmblad
New member
alanhyatt said:Stefan,
Well I don't have a problem with your statement, but then again, you must know that your statement is only your opinion. Many people find ADK and SP better than the TLM103, but that is their opinion. I am sure many find the 103 better.
The beauty of all of this is that everyone here offers their opinions, but it does not make your opinion or others correct. It only makes your opinion....well, yours.
Any mic that works is a good mic. What you hear as good may be bad to others and vice versa. No disrespect, but the facts are the facts...opinions are just opinions.
My opinions regarding the SP mics are of course mine and no one elses. In the test ADK and SP were about 50/50 in who liked it or not (what we all agreed on was that the TLM103 was above all in sound, as it should be considering the price.), but if I add in the fact (and I do) that I believe ADK's mics to be poorer built in terms of quality, I rather buy a SP anyway. Cause the difference in sound wasn't all that great. To me. Also, I rather not make up my mind regardign two manufacturers of microphones based on their cheapest products, cause that doesn't tell the whole story of what they CAN build.
That's my opinion.
The fact is (I can it facts since in a blind test with hundreds of people, all heard more or less the same.) that in this particular test, under these conditions, everyone voted the Neumann as clear winner with a very noticable step up in sound from the other mics. ADK vs SP was about even more or less.
Also, the SP VTB-1 preamp was in the test too, and was one of the top rated preamps... both in clean mode and with more tube sound dialled in.
No disrespect meant, and none wanted.
Last edited:
Stefan Elmblad
New member
I wanna add that Im not here to badmount SP mics, or any other btw. Im just tired of the neverending comparison (by many manufacturers) to Neumann. Truly good and usable mics in a studio have a character of their own. If it's just going to sound close to something else at less dollars then it's destined to become a substitute.
SP mics sound good. But they will always sound like a SP mic. Same for ADK, same for all other mics. Nothing wrong with that, I just feel that the "sound like Neumann" references gets in the way for people who want to eplore the mics themselves.
If I got Neumann, and I hear your mics sounds like it, then I have no reason buying it. If I have Neumann and hear people say, these SP justs sounds great, I check them out.
My meaning being that the endless comparisons to a different brand may do more harm than good, and automatically place SP (or other brand using the same quotes and such) second to that brand. Why do that ? Let people find out for themselves, and maybe find a mic that is happy to go alongside another brand. In this case the Neumanns.
I got Neumann myself, that doesn't mean I can't or won't use a SP mic. But I won't use a brand X mic to get the brand Y sound. That would be the wrong way to go.
On the other hand, I applause Studio Projects for breaking into the microphone jungle and I love them for products like the LSD2 mic for it's innovative design and that it clearly is a product that isn't "standing in" for other mics. This is a beast of it's own, and if it's a good sounding mic too, I'm sure I will add it to my mic collection. Cause it does something of it's own.
Maybe Im just babbling here. Hope you see my point Alan, and keep up the good work.
SP mics sound good. But they will always sound like a SP mic. Same for ADK, same for all other mics. Nothing wrong with that, I just feel that the "sound like Neumann" references gets in the way for people who want to eplore the mics themselves.
If I got Neumann, and I hear your mics sounds like it, then I have no reason buying it. If I have Neumann and hear people say, these SP justs sounds great, I check them out.
My meaning being that the endless comparisons to a different brand may do more harm than good, and automatically place SP (or other brand using the same quotes and such) second to that brand. Why do that ? Let people find out for themselves, and maybe find a mic that is happy to go alongside another brand. In this case the Neumanns.
I got Neumann myself, that doesn't mean I can't or won't use a SP mic. But I won't use a brand X mic to get the brand Y sound. That would be the wrong way to go.
On the other hand, I applause Studio Projects for breaking into the microphone jungle and I love them for products like the LSD2 mic for it's innovative design and that it clearly is a product that isn't "standing in" for other mics. This is a beast of it's own, and if it's a good sounding mic too, I'm sure I will add it to my mic collection. Cause it does something of it's own.
Maybe Im just babbling here. Hope you see my point Alan, and keep up the good work.
J
jslator
New member
Stefan Elmblad said:
How so?
kjam22
Member
SP C-1 vs ADK 51S. I recorded a short acoustic guitar solo song. Used both mics. Set them side by side in front of the guitar. Panned the SP C-1 to the left.... and the ADK 51s to the right. You can listen to them on the exact same recording at.....
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=2124&alid=-1
The song to listen to is called "Happy New Year"
Mics were about 1/2 inch apart. About 16 inches from the guitar. Guitar is a Martin D-41.
http://www.nowhereradio.com/artists/album.php?aid=2124&alid=-1
The song to listen to is called "Happy New Year"
Mics were about 1/2 inch apart. About 16 inches from the guitar. Guitar is a Martin D-41.
J
Jonkan
New member
I happen to know what test stefan is talking about.
its here (in swedish)
http://www.holmerup.org/mic_pretest/
the files are here in a big zip: http://www.holmerup.org/mic_pretest/rubbet.zip
let me just say this:
The levels where not at all matched between the mics. Since the tlm103 is a very hot mic its not at all difficult to see why alot of people chose it as their favourite.
I did the same test over again, but after having normalised all the levels, and i myself did not feel that the neumann sounded better anymore. Just different, and with less selfnoise.
/jonas
its here (in swedish)
http://www.holmerup.org/mic_pretest/
the files are here in a big zip: http://www.holmerup.org/mic_pretest/rubbet.zip
let me just say this:
The levels where not at all matched between the mics. Since the tlm103 is a very hot mic its not at all difficult to see why alot of people chose it as their favourite.
I did the same test over again, but after having normalised all the levels, and i myself did not feel that the neumann sounded better anymore. Just different, and with less selfnoise.
/jonas
C
chessparov
New member
Things will get even more interesting when Stephen Paul's microphone
comes out...
Chris
comes out...
Chris
P
pundit
New member
C1 versus C3
I recently compared the C1 and C3... the C3 being the multi-pattern version. As for the hype floating around suggesting a C1 sounds like a U87... it does NOT!
I own a Neumann U77 which is similar, but not identical to a U87. A friend also owns an 87 and we also compared both Neumanns with a C1. The C1 sounds noticeably different to both these Neumanns.
The Neumanns were a little thicker in the lo-mids and not as hyped in the upper mids as the C1. On certain things the C1 sounded more 'impressive' due to it's coloration. But by the same token there were certain things that it wasn't so suitable for. Thinnish female vocals being one. The Neumanns were never really bad on anything. This is the reason the mics like the 87 are really an industry standard in the world of recording. Sure not everyone loves them. There is always another mic that, in a given situation, will sound better on a particular source. But there are not many condenser mics that could be used on almost anything and still produce an acceptable recording than something like a 87. It's sort of a all rounder. Hence a standard.
Several reviewers have also stated that a C3 in cardioid mode sounds just like a C1... BULLSHIT YET AGAIN! They are quite different sonically. The C1 has a higher output than the C3... about 3 to 4db, I would guess, and much greater proximity effect. The C1 can get quite thick in the lo-end up close... in fact too much. Any closer than six inches really brings on the boom factor.
Also the C1 has more of an upper mid-range presence while the C3 appears a little smoother in this region but offers more 'air' even further up the scale than the C1. If anything the C1 is more colored than the C3, in a nice kind of a way, but I found the upper mids bordering just a little too much on the edgy side for my liking. Not much... just a touch. Still plenty of people really like this mic. Though I would want to avoid using cheap harsh sounding pre's with these mics.
So irrespective of the multi-pattern option on the C3, I think it is a superior sounding mic to the C1, which of course everyone is wetting their pants over. If you can afford the extra hundred dollars or so definately check out the C3.
Incidently I purchased two C3's.
I recently compared the C1 and C3... the C3 being the multi-pattern version. As for the hype floating around suggesting a C1 sounds like a U87... it does NOT!
I own a Neumann U77 which is similar, but not identical to a U87. A friend also owns an 87 and we also compared both Neumanns with a C1. The C1 sounds noticeably different to both these Neumanns.
The Neumanns were a little thicker in the lo-mids and not as hyped in the upper mids as the C1. On certain things the C1 sounded more 'impressive' due to it's coloration. But by the same token there were certain things that it wasn't so suitable for. Thinnish female vocals being one. The Neumanns were never really bad on anything. This is the reason the mics like the 87 are really an industry standard in the world of recording. Sure not everyone loves them. There is always another mic that, in a given situation, will sound better on a particular source. But there are not many condenser mics that could be used on almost anything and still produce an acceptable recording than something like a 87. It's sort of a all rounder. Hence a standard.
Several reviewers have also stated that a C3 in cardioid mode sounds just like a C1... BULLSHIT YET AGAIN! They are quite different sonically. The C1 has a higher output than the C3... about 3 to 4db, I would guess, and much greater proximity effect. The C1 can get quite thick in the lo-end up close... in fact too much. Any closer than six inches really brings on the boom factor.
Also the C1 has more of an upper mid-range presence while the C3 appears a little smoother in this region but offers more 'air' even further up the scale than the C1. If anything the C1 is more colored than the C3, in a nice kind of a way, but I found the upper mids bordering just a little too much on the edgy side for my liking. Not much... just a touch. Still plenty of people really like this mic. Though I would want to avoid using cheap harsh sounding pre's with these mics.
So irrespective of the multi-pattern option on the C3, I think it is a superior sounding mic to the C1, which of course everyone is wetting their pants over. If you can afford the extra hundred dollars or so definately check out the C3.
Incidently I purchased two C3's.
O
ozraves
New member
Re: C1 versus C3
Good analysis of these mics. I would differ on one thing. I have not found a mic preamp that the C1 sounds bad with. It sounds good with the Audio Buddy. The best match I've found so far is the Grace 101.
--Steve
www.mojopie.com
pundit said:
Good analysis of these mics. I would differ on one thing. I have not found a mic preamp that the C1 sounds bad with. It sounds good with the Audio Buddy. The best match I've found so far is the Grace 101.
--Steve
www.mojopie.com
P
pundit
New member
Re: Re: C1 versus C3
The pres I used with the C1 were Neve 3115 module with a Phoenix Audio Class A output stage, some homebuilt pre's using a LM394 supermatched pair and Mackie VLZ PRO pre's.
The Mackie's were the worst, tending to emphasis the 'edge' factor. The other two were both very good but of course the Neve offered more of it's own signature.
Fortunately, apart from bargain priced good sounding mics, we are now seeing the same situation in preamps.
I wouldn't mind hearing some of the SP's through a RNP, or that matter a Sytek, which I borrowed some time back.
Funnily enough the entry level B1 sounded more acceptable throught the Mackie than the C1. The B1 seems a bit more neutral with slighty less upper-mids for the Mackie to screw with.
Anyway just my 2cents!
Cheers
P.S. Using the direct outs on the Mackie and bypassing the rest of the channel strip improves the results quite a bit. To me the Mackie always sounds like it's got a slight bit of high end 'excitment' even with the eq set flat. Avoiding that path altogether seems to clear things up a bit.
Hi Steveozraves said:
The pres I used with the C1 were Neve 3115 module with a Phoenix Audio Class A output stage, some homebuilt pre's using a LM394 supermatched pair and Mackie VLZ PRO pre's.
The Mackie's were the worst, tending to emphasis the 'edge' factor. The other two were both very good but of course the Neve offered more of it's own signature.
Fortunately, apart from bargain priced good sounding mics, we are now seeing the same situation in preamps.
I wouldn't mind hearing some of the SP's through a RNP, or that matter a Sytek, which I borrowed some time back.
Funnily enough the entry level B1 sounded more acceptable throught the Mackie than the C1. The B1 seems a bit more neutral with slighty less upper-mids for the Mackie to screw with.
Anyway just my 2cents!
Cheers
P.S. Using the direct outs on the Mackie and bypassing the rest of the channel strip improves the results quite a bit. To me the Mackie always sounds like it's got a slight bit of high end 'excitment' even with the eq set flat. Avoiding that path altogether seems to clear things up a bit.
O
ozraves
New member
Re: Re: Re: C1 versus C3
I wouldn't use the Mackie w/o going out at the inserts. I haven't used a C1 with a Mackie or a Behringer. But, I know about the edge you're talking about from the Mackie.
I've heard a couple people comment on the B1 being a surprise and preferring it over the C1. I'm going to be reviewing the B series soon. I would love to try out the whole C series in one setting as well.
pundit said:
I wouldn't use the Mackie w/o going out at the inserts. I haven't used a C1 with a Mackie or a Behringer. But, I know about the edge you're talking about from the Mackie.
I've heard a couple people comment on the B1 being a surprise and preferring it over the C1. I'm going to be reviewing the B series soon. I would love to try out the whole C series in one setting as well.
alanhyatt
PMI Audio Group
Re: Re: Re: Re: C1 versus C3
It is interesting about the B Series. It is voiced much differently than the C Series. Of course this was done by design so they would be another addition to the C Series rather than "be" another C Series mic.
They really do have a more neutral sound more like an AKG. I am not comparing the two, but the B3 for example does well next to a 414, especially when you consider it is only $159.00. As AKG is a very popular mike, the B Series seems to be preferred by many people over the colorization of a C Series for various applications.
I prefer the older 414's...I am not a big fan of the new ones, but for $799.00 for a new 414, I would be looking into getting several mics for that.
In either case, the B Series is getting a good deal of attention, so that of course makes us happy. Getting lower cost mics with quality sound into your hands is why we are here in the first place.
Let us know what you think after you review the B Series.
ozraves said:
It is interesting about the B Series. It is voiced much differently than the C Series. Of course this was done by design so they would be another addition to the C Series rather than "be" another C Series mic.
They really do have a more neutral sound more like an AKG. I am not comparing the two, but the B3 for example does well next to a 414, especially when you consider it is only $159.00. As AKG is a very popular mike, the B Series seems to be preferred by many people over the colorization of a C Series for various applications.
I prefer the older 414's...I am not a big fan of the new ones, but for $799.00 for a new 414, I would be looking into getting several mics for that.
In either case, the B Series is getting a good deal of attention, so that of course makes us happy. Getting lower cost mics with quality sound into your hands is why we are here in the first place.
Let us know what you think after you review the B Series.
Similar threads
- slothbin
- Studio Building & Acoustic Treatment
- Cloneboy Studio
- Recording Techniques