Is the MXL v67 similar to the SP C1?

[DJL]

Much of the B1 talk about being somewhat neutral is in direct comparison to the C1, a noticeably brighter mic than the B1. Bottom line, the B1 can be used in many situations where people would use more neutral sounding mics in comparison to the "scooped mids" variety (e.g. male vocals, overheads, guitar cabs, room mic for drums, etc...) That's what I was getting at ... but I'm sure you wouldn't let that stop you.

The C3 is scooped some at about 4kHz... but, your not saying the V67, or C1 have "scooped mids" are you?

 

[Rev E]

IMO, the C1 has a "scooped" sound. Either that or the high frequency boost is prominent enough to make the mic, as a whole, sound as if it were scooped. Bottom line, the C1 has far more high-end sheen than the B1. Do you disagree? So we're back to point zero, the B1 is a less-hyped or less-scooped than the C1, which is what I said to begin with... what was the point in all of this again?

 

[crazydoc]

IMO, the C1 has a "scooped" sound. Either that or the high frequency boost is prominent enough to make the mic, as a whole, sound as if it were scooped. Bottom line, the C1 has far more high-end sheen than the B1. Do you disagree? So we're back to point zero, the B1 is a less-hyped or less-scooped than the C1, which is what I said to begin with... what was the point in all of this again?

Post count?

 

[DJL]

IMO, the C1 has a "scooped" sound. Either that or the high frequency boost is prominent enough to make the mic, as a whole, sound as if it were scooped. Bottom line, the C1 has far more high-end sheen than the B1. Do you disagree? So we're back to point zero, the B1 is a less-hyped or less-scooped than the C1, which is what I said to begin with... what was the point in all of this again?

The point is... neither the V67 or the C1 has a scooped mid.

 

[Rev E]

Perhaps you're just waay too intelligent for this or maybe you don't do enough recording to know, but there are many ways to achieve a certain sound. For instance the same sound that one may call "scooped" could very well be accomplished by scooping out a chunk of the midrange. A similar sound could be achieved by boosted highs and lows. The EQ on something like that creates a high and low range that are more pronounced than the mids, thus creating a similar sound to a "scooped" sound.

 

[DJL]

To use one of your favorite saying... the "bottom line" is... the V67 and C1 do NOT have scooped mids... and the B1 is NOT a flat uncolored mic.

 

[crazydoc]

Neither looks "scooped" to me, though if you boosted the B1 a few dB below 1K it would be.

However, these are the companies' generic graphs, and probably don't have much to do with reality.

 

[Rev E]

Yeah, but how does it "sound?" Or does that not matter anymore while you're using my "sayings?"

 

[DJL]

Yeah, but how does it "sound?" Or does that not matter anymore while you're using my "sayings?"

Read my replies in this thread again.

 

[DJL]

Neither looks "scooped" to me, though if you boosted the B1 a few dB below 1K it would be.

However, these are the companies' generic graphs, and probably don't have much to do with reality.

Thanks for posting the C1 and V67 graphs... how about posting one for the B1 too? Thanks.

 

[crazydoc]

Thanks for posting the C1 and V67 graphs... how about posting one for the B1 too? Thanks.

Those were the B1 and the V67 - here's the SPC1 - doesn't look much different than the B1. hmmm...

 

[DJL]

It looks a little different to me... the B1 looks like it has a little bit of a smoother bumped up high end than the C1 and a bit of a rolled-off top end... and IMO, that's about how they sound too.

Anyway, getting back to the V67 vs the C1... the V67 is closer to being flatter than the C1 and the C1 is brighter sounding than the V67.

 

[tdukex]

Dang, that V67 is pretty flat all the way to 10 kHz. That's unusual, at least from what I've seen, which isn't a whole hellofa lot now that I think about it.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

I have some ocean front property in Phoenix that you might be interested in buying, and a bridge in New York that I'm selling cheap.

 

[acorec]

I have some ocean front property in Phoenix that you might be interested in buying, and a bridge in New York that I'm selling cheap.

I AM interested in that ocean front property. How much? Where is it? Can I see it?

Oh boy. I think I will get a great deal..............

 

[DJL]

I have some ocean front property in Phoenix that you might be interested in buying, and a bridge in New York that I'm selling cheap.

Hi Harvey... welcome back to the homerecording forums. Now that your back maybe you can tell us more about your view on the C1 vs V67... and the C1 vs B1? I know your an older man now and some of your high end hearing is gone but I'd still like to know what your take is about all this and maybe you could ask your son Alex to shed some light on this subject for us too. Does Alex also think the V67 and C1 sound "damn close" to each other? To my ears the V67 is closer to being flatter than the C1 and the C1 is brighter sounding than the V67... and the B1 is a little smoother on the high end than the C1 and is not as bright sounding. Oh, and do you think the B1 is a flat uncolored mic?

 

[tdukex]

I have some ocean front property in Phoenix that you might be interested in buying, and a bridge in New York that I'm selling cheap.

Well...now, I am interested in oceanfront property in Phoenix. Will you accept a personal check from my Mexican brother-in-law drawn from a Tijuana bank?

Do yo actually have some insight to add to the thread, Harvey? Or are ya just trollin'?

 

[Harvey Gerst]

If you think those are "real" or "representative" curves on the MXL and SP websites (or even close), then my sales offer has equal merit, and should be discussed as seriously.

I'm not dissing any of the mics being discussed; just saying those curves are not particularly useful for making any sort of informed decision about the relative merits of the mics being mentioned. And unless you know from experience how "visual" curves translate to real world "audio" conditions, you're at a severe disadvantage.

Sorry tdukex,

I thought I was adding some insight to the thread, albeit in a humorous fashion, or so I thought. I'm certainly not trolling, nor am I "back".

I believe I covered microphone specifications in a pretty thorough fashion in the big thread, with even specific references to MXL and SP frequency response curves.

Never mind. Sorry for getting involved. Make of those curves what you will.

 

[DJL]

If you think those are "real" or "representative" curves on the MXL and SP websites (or even close), then my sales offer has equal merit, and should be discussed as seriously.

I'm not dissing any of the mics being discussed; just saying those curves are not particularly useful for making any sort of informed decision about the relative merits of the mics being mentioned. And unless you know from experience how "visual" curves translate to real world "audio" conditions, you're at a severe disadvantage.

Sorry tdukex,

I thought I was adding some insight to the thread, albeit in a humorous fashion, or so I thought. I'm certainly not trolling, nor am I "back".

I believe I covered microphone specifications in a pretty thorough fashion in the big thread, with even specific references to MXL and SP frequency response curves.

Never mind. Sorry for getting involved. Make of those curves what you will.

Well, cover it again now in this thread... to my ears the V67 is closer to being flatter than the C1 and the C1 is brighter sounding than the V67... and the B1 is a little smoother on the high end than the C1 and is not as bright sounding. What do you think? Oh, and do you think the B1 is a flat uncolored mic? I don't.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Since I lost my notes to the first tests, I plan to do another full round of testing on the SP mics soon, and I'll be comparing them with some of the MXL mics, among others. I'll be posting it on my forum, and you're free to copy all or any part here, if you wish.