Is the MXL v67 similar to the SP C1?

Guys, I have to back DJL on this one..............way, way, waayyyyy back, Harvey, in response to a question from me, and answering directly to me said ..........(and it isn't a direct quote)...........considering I already had a C1, that due to the similarity between the C1 and the V67 that he doubted that purchasing a V67 would be worthwhile..............I think his exact words were more definitive than that, however, at the time there was no doubting his meaning.

Also, from memory, this was said before the V67's could be had for such low prices, which may have had some bearing on his comments.

Personally, these days I would like to have a V67 in my closet, but while the Aust., RRP (list) is $599 AUST., ($389 US) there is no way in hell.

:cool:
 
Over at the listening sessions, session 5, both are used on acoustic guitar. They sound very different to me, but neither sound all that great on acoustic guitar, IMHO. If I ever get my hands on a V67G, I put up some vocal clips comparing the two. (Why hasn't someone already done that?)
 
Gidge said:
...I know the Marshall MXL-V67Gs are consistent, but I can't guarantee that's also true of the Sound Projects C1 - al least, not yet...
Click to expand...
I would guess it's the other way around since the C1 uses more expensive, higher tolerance electronic components than the V67G. Let us know what you find.
 
MrZekeMan, listen dickweed.... I thought I remembered him saying sometihing to that effect. And now I am saying... IF YOU HAVE ONE YOU DON'T REALLY NEED THE OTHER, and the V67 cost less, and I prefer the V67 more.
 
Middleman said:
First 2 things..

1. I am so tired of SP drum beaters I could spit.
2. The V67G is much more useable across numerous vocals I have recorded vs. the C1 - Warmer, thicker not ringy sounding and harsh like the C1.

Ozraves nailed it with the AT 4040. That is going to be my next mic.

The V67G used to be much more expensive not sure why they have dropped the price except maybe it wasn't selling all that well until Harvey endorsed it. Rightfully so, it has a very unique and usable sound.
Click to expand...

Mark Gifford, a fine professional engineer and the moderator of the HC recording forum, agrees with you about the V67 versus the C1. But, I feel just the opposite. One mic preamp designer/manufacturer pointed out to me one night that these mics tend to be good for the money but of more limited use than advertised compared to their more expensive brethren. The more my ear gets educated the more I've found this statement to be true.

Steve
www.mojopie.com
 
So the 4040 is a more expensive mic than the V67g with similar characteristics? I like my V67g but Iwouldnt mind owning a better more expensive mic that could give me the same tonal characteristics as the V67g.

Would I hear a signifcant difference between the V67g and the 4040 ? How would I benefit by purchasing a 4040?

I was considering the V69, I was read where Harvey thought it was like a V67g on steroids or something.


Thanks

Malcolm

Edit Yeah I ment V69. Thanks
 
Last edited:
malcolm123 said:
So the 4040 is a more expensive mic than the V67g with similar characteristics? I like my V67g but Iwouldnt mind owning a better more expensive mic that could give me the same tonal characteristics as the V67g.

Would I hear a signifcant difference between the V67g and the 4040 ? How would I benefit by purchasing a 4040?

I was considering the V69, I was read where Harvey thought it was like a V67g on steroids or something.


Thanks

Malcolm

Edit Yeah I ment V69. Thanks
Click to expand...

i wouldn't compare a v67 to an at4040. i think the at4040 is a mic with great sonics. the difference would be signficant. i haven't thought about the tonal characterists of the at4040 enough to give you a fair description.

steve
www.mojopie.com
 
DJL said:
MrZekeMan, listen dickweed.... I thought I remembered him saying sometihing to that effect. And now I am saying... IF YOU HAVE ONE YOU DON'T REALLY NEED THE OTHER, and the V67 cost less, and I prefer the V67 more.
Click to expand...
Well awwwwwright then.

Now we're getting somewhere puddin'. Thanks for participating. Let's break this down now and see if we can see a difference. Statement #1:

HARVEY GERST SAID if you have one you really don't need the other.

Statement #2:

DJL SAID if you have one you really don't need the other.

Do you see the difference here puddin? Statement number #1 quotes a respected authority on microphones. Statement number #2 quotes a deflated troll. D'ya see how the two statements might be interpreted differently? How the reader might give credence to one and completely disregard the other?

When Gidge called you on this initially, you just refused to show the cards in your hand. Instead, you posted some silly, witless, and torturously garrulous thread, that supposedly supported your deception.

At least in your recent thread, you admitted that the words were indeed your's and not Harvey Gerst's. Your making progress, puddin'.
 
As MrZekeMan pointed out....

Harvey Gerst said:
Harvey Gerst

Do you think these mics are close enough in performance that it negates the usefulness of having them both?

No, there are voices that have energies in different ranges that will excite differernt resonances in microphones. Even mics that sound this close will sometimes differ greatly in how they handle a specific instrument or a specific voice. If you plan on having a studio, having both makes sense. If it's just gonna be for you and your voice, find the one that works best for your voice and go with that.
Click to expand...

what this shows is that both can be right.....if you are only recording one voice, find the ONE that fits best for YOU.......if you are building a mic locker, yes they are different enuff to have both....end of discussion........
 
Well it was worthy of discussion in my view Gidge. The implication of the SP troll was that these mics are identical, to the extent that if you have one you don't need the other. He falsely quoted Harvey to substantiate that. Harvey never said that.

If you are looking for the best mic for your own voice, you don't need either one of these mics if a SM57 is what gives you the magic.

Zeke
 
malcolm123 said:
So the 4040 is a more expensive mic than the V67g with similar characteristics? I like my V67g but Iwouldnt mind owning a better more expensive mic that could give me the same tonal characteristics as the V67g.

Would I hear a signifcant difference between the V67g and the 4040 ? How would I benefit by purchasing a 4040?

I was considering the V69, I was read where Harvey thought it was like a V67g on steroids or something.


Thanks

Malcolm

Edit Yeah I ment V69. Thanks
Click to expand...

Yes, it was Harvey that said the V69 is like the V67 on steroids.

There is a similar thread over at prosoundweb in Harvey's forum:

http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=5936

here's a quote from there from edion2:

A couple of months ago I borrowed the 4040 from a local store and set it up for a male vocal session side by side with a Studio Projects C1. I tracked both through a Focusrite Voice Master with no EQ, Compression or de-essing. The Output gain was different cause as expected the C1 gave me a few db more output than the 4040.

It was immediately apparent that I liked the C1 sound better than the 4040. The C1 didn't make me want to reach for the EQ where as the 4040 made me feel a little more "air" was needed and the warmth in the bottom end was a little lacking.

I love my C1 and I am very used to its sound. I tried the 4040 because of a review that raved about it. Sorry, for me the C1 at $100 less still is the clear winner.

Here are a couple of reviews on the C1.
Click on the "End user review of the month" then click on various reviews of the C1.

http://www.studioprojectsusa.com/reviews.html

Although the 4040 is a nice mic, I find it to be more neutral and artificial in sound much like my AKG C3000B. I didn't have it then but the Studio Projects B1 at $79 sounds very similar to the 4040 IMHO. $79 B1 v.s. $299 4040? Hmmm... Its your money.

I think AT4040 is a very good mic, I just think there is a much better choice in that price range.

Just my 2 cents... that might save you a chunk o bucks! You wouldn't mind that, would ya?

Here's another thread with more info, esp. re: MXL tube mics (and contains Harvey's steroid quote.)

http://recpit.prosoundweb.com/viewtopic.php?t=5410

Part of the problem is that we all hear differently. Our rooms and monitors are different, our external ears, ear canals, eardrums, and inner ears are all made differently. Most important, our brains are different, and we like different sounds.

I think in many aspects our choice of mics (and many other things) have more to do with individual tastes (which of course depend a lot on experience and education) than with any "gold standard" that many of us are always searching for.
 
i put the at4040 through a great river mp-2nv and an a designs mp-2 and it sounded pretty good. i'll admit i used the at4040 in checking out several mics at the house. it reminded me of a blue dragonfly, which is also a nice mic by the way. anyhow, in the trenches use is what everything is all about and not a/b tests on a vocal. i'm in a heavy recording rotation right now so the at4040 will get a shot at proving itself in real use.
 
So MrZekeMan, now that your trolling this thread... what do you think about the C1 and V67?
 
Last edited:
hey ozraves, let us know what you think of the 4040 once you start putting it to work. BTW, mojopie.com is an excellent site!
 
DJL said:
So MrZekeMan, now that your trolling this thread... what do you think about the C1 and V67?
Click to expand...
Pot----->Kettle.

Neither of them sound great on my voice. My voice has a nasal quality that is not terribly becoming. The best mic in my locker, or that I've ever tried on my voice, is a TLM-103.

The C-1 tends to get the nod more often on vocal sources than the V67 over here.

I would really like to listen to a T-3 and V77. Or...

Stephen Paul's new mic. I hope I've got the money to get one when they come out. I don't see how the mic could possibly be anything but amazing with Stephen's genius behind it.

Taylor
 
MrZekeMan said:
Pot----->Kettle.

Neither of them sound great on my voice. My voice has a nasal quality that is not terribly becoming. The best mic in my locker, or that I've ever tried on my voice, is a TLM-103.

The C-1 tends to get the nod more often on vocal sources than the V67 over here.

I would really like to listen to a T-3 and V77. Or...

Stephen Paul's new mic. I hope I've got the money to get one when they come out. I don't see how the mic could possibly be anything but amazing with Stephen's genius behind it.

Taylor
Click to expand...

Quit smoking that crap...

Well, you may be right... if there ever is a new Stephen Paul mic and if PMI doesn't cut too many corners...

Thanks for you C1, V67 comments.
 
ozraves said:
i put the at4040 through a great river mp-2nv and an a designs mp-2 and it sounded pretty good. i'll admit i used the at4040 in checking out several mics at the house. it reminded me of a blue dragonfly, which is also a nice mic by the way. anyhow, in the trenches use is what everything is all about and not a/b tests on a vocal. i'm in a heavy recording rotation right now so the at4040 will get a shot at proving itself in real use.
Click to expand...

I also will be interested in hearing about the results.
 
I don't know guys. I just used tested the V67 and SPC1 with a client of mine this weekend (after the V69's power supply got fried). Those mics are waaaayyy different to my ears.... almost night and day. Compared to the V67, my C1 sounded more "chesty" with the notable high frequency sparkle. The V67 has a little high frequency stuff going on, but not nearly enough to compare to the V67 to my ears (a fuller-bodied mic). Either way, both are decent budget mics. I intend on trying the V67 on floor toms soon. I think that may be a great application for its voicing.

Steve,
You really got me thinking about that AT 4040. I've not been a fan of the AT mics since using the 4033 and 4050 extensively a few years back. I found the 4033 way too nasaly. The 4050 was better and a much more desireable mic, but still not my favorite. I'm curious about the 4040, but the frequency response chart for the 4040 has a noticeable peak from about 5-8kHz. I know those rarely tell you anything useful, but it "looks" like the same ole' 40-series that I used to know. :confused: Still interested though. Anyone have samples of the 4040?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top