Here was a review by Harvey Gerst that I found on another thread...
Originally Posted by Harvey
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject:
Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:23:51 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<This has been posted to BOTH rec.audio.pro AND alt.music.4-track.>
Ok, my pinched sciatic nerve thing died down, and Alex and I finally got around
to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the testing
was done formally, and it's all pretty subjective, but in talking to Brent Casey
at Marshall, he pretty well confirmed what I heard, so I think my comments will
be of some use to people here.
Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll off the
assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms materials, the
porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the line
consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics (about
the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson, Karl
Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that Brent
Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender in the
mic market.
All the mics looked well made, and we had no problems with any of them, or the
supplied shock mounts. Noise levels weren't a problem with any of the mics,
although we didn't do any testing with really quiet instruments.
One of my concerns was consistancy from unit to unit. After we got the first
batch, I had Brent send some extra units (off the shelf) so I could actually
compare two units for possible differences. I'm happy to report that all the
units I received were consistant and would do fine as stereo pairs.
All tests were done thru a Great River MP-2, with the microphone under test
polarity reversed and nulled (to match initial levels), then normalled to do the
actual comparison. We used the level controls on the GR to note differences in
gain.
While I listened to the mics in the studio using headphones, Alex listened in
the control room, using our main speakers (wall-mounted JBL-4311Bs, with a
Cerwin Vega subwoofer). We compared notes and in almost every case, Alex and I
agreed completely on the results (so we didn't hafta trust my "rock-n-roll shot
ears").
The units we listened to included:
1 Marshall MXL "The Fox" hand-held dynamic.
1 Marshall MXL-1000 hand-held condensor
2 Marshall MXL-600 small condensor mics
2 Marshall MXL-603 small condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-2001 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-2003 large condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-V67 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-V77 tube large condensor mics
Comparison mics included:
1 Neumann TLM-103
2 matched Oktava MC012s w/cardioid capsules
1 Lomo M3 large condensor mic on MC012 body
1
Shure SM-7 dynamic
1 Shure SM-58 dynamic
1 Nady SCM-1000 multi-pattern condensor
The results:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mics we didn't like:
Marshall MXL-2001 $130?? Sorry, I can't find the MSRP right now. Harsh top end,
thin bottom, compared to the TLM-103. It was a little warmer than the Nady
SCM-1000, but the Nady had a smoother top end. The 2001 is everything that I
don't like about all the really inexpensive large diaphragm condensor mics that
I've listened to over the years, including the AKG C3000, the Oktava 219, and
some of the early AT low cost units.
Marshall MXL-600 $270 Veiled top end and exaggerated low-mid, compared to the
Oktava MC-012. About 1 dB lower output than the Oktava. It just sounded very
dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.
The mics we did like:
The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had
good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure
SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back
sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people
having a few around for live gigs.
Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
(The lack of proximity effect that I noted in an earlier report about the 2003,
was due to me accidently hitting the bass rolloff switch while I was putting it
in its shock mount. When I noticed normal proximity effect with a second unit,
I discovered my screwup.)
Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are
easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the
singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd
probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also
a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
Marshall MXL 1000 $99 This was the hand-held condensor mic that Marshall was
pushing as a KM-105. It totally sucked as a hand-held vocal mic. Brent Casey
suggested I try it without the end ball, and I discovered it was basically the
603 in a Shure-type body. Without the ball end fucking up the sound, it was
identical in sound to the 603.
Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's
very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect).
It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference
in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.
Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks,
and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a
C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even
more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103,
with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male
vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared
very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you
wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67.
And it just happens to sound great, too.
The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the
Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the
V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
Well, that's the results - it wasn't a fancy test, and YMMV, but overall, I
think it might be helpful to some people, especially if you're a "bottom feeder"
studio as we are. As I mentioned earlier, Brent said that our tests pretty much
agreed with his findings, and that at least confirmed that we were all hearing
pretty much the same things.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
