Posted: Wed 13.08.03, 3:03 pm Post subject: Re: unbiased mic reviews
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a review I did of the Marshall line of microphones on January 12th, 2001. It was written for rec.audio.pro, but got picked up and quoted in a lot of newsgoups, magazines, and BBS groups. I think I pointed out some bad products and why I thought they were bad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
