microphone bias and reasons

[CoolCat]

Rob's video 210 stoked some interesting points and got me wondering too.


I had watched this video, thought right away "is there's any "magic"?" Answer: no, I didn't hear any magic.
All the mics used are very decent, the Rode is very decent and well built and sounds fine. SM7b, AKG414, U87AI..classics.
(Mic Preamps too, and again, no "Magic Dust Sound" in my preamps.)

At least I could hear some differences with mics in tracks Ive done past 6 months, more so than preamps , in a listening session this morning.
Group 1. bass present, boomier in the lows HPF could take some out, but more Radio DJ bass present
Group 2. clarity in speech, with less boomer-bass, which would sit well in a song mix, or where clarity is wanted.
meh...not much there.

some mics and preamps are 1/.10 the cost. hmm? how bias does price of an item impact our ears?

Bias- I read a book, Glyn Johns or Ken Scott and they were talking about how biased they were for using only the standard Neumann and tube mics for all sessions for years!...but were one day forced into using different mics in a session and found these "other mics" worked just fine too, changing the bias.
Bias can be changed apparently. Mics other than a U47 or 67 are ok to use too.

Good video Rob.... and interesting topic imo.

Don't you have the AKG with the transformer?
those prices have gone up.
U87AI prices have gone up.
Rode NT...not so much. ...I noticed my $129 AKG P420 is back up to $259 at guitar center.

 

[rob aylestone]

Re: the transformer - no. All the 414's I have are XLS versions and none have the extra polar patterns, which always annoyed me - One I bought after 2010, which was when the extra ones were added, but it must have been old stock. I never even noticed as for 90% of the time they stay on cardioid. after I did the video, I put the 414 back in the case with the other two, a bit kind of disappointed with the way the video went. I was really guilty of just memory insisting the 414 beat everything else. You can pick up NT1-A for really silly money now, so I do think that for many people who perhaps just have one dynamic, and want something a bit brighter/cleaner/clinical/revealing (enter your own words here) then a second hand NT1-A could be really sensible if you don't have lots of money. I have a pair of TLM103 mics that I use for stereo recordings when the 414s were in use elsewhere, but I always thought they were a sort of second choice. Perhaps I should get one of those out and see if they too beat the 414 - but I'm not sure two mistakes close together would make me very happy.

What other weird opinions do I have? Well I prefer the EV 320 to the RE20. Again, I made this decision a while back too. Maybe this is also a faulty memory?

 

[TalismanRich]

Things I noticed in the video:

The background noise of the SM7b was notably higher than the 414. It was thinnner sounding.
The 414 had a fuller low range on the voice. More "chest". Overall pretty natural sounding.
The U87ai had more upper mids and less low range than the 414. Sibilants (like when you said "seven") were higher.
The NT1A was closer in overall balance to the U87ai than the 414. Sibilants were stronger than the U87. I think that's where most complaints come from. There's probably a peak in the 8-10K range that gets excited.

I've never use the NT1A. I have the NT1 which from comparisons I've heard vs the NT1A seems to tame the sibilants and adds a bit of fullness to the bottom. I've done comparisons of my mics, all in a similar price range. NT1, Miktek 300, Warm 47jr, Studio Projects B3, AKG P420, MXL992 and V67. They all have slightly different tonal character, but they all give a pretty decent representation of the actual voice or instrument.

Usually when I get a new mic, I'll set it up vs others I own and have used successfully and test it on acoustic guitar, voice and tambourine. Of those tests, the tambourine usually shows the greatest difference. It's probably related to the high frequency bump that most condenser mics have in the 8-15kHz range. They all seem to vary in frequency and level.

I've done the same with my SDC mics. AKG P170, Rode M5, Lauten LA120, CAD GXL1200, even some cheap Behringer C2 mics. The CAD and AKG sound nearly identical. The M5 has less bottom, which works with my Taylor 310. The Lautens are very well balanced but a touch noisier. The C2s were ok but noisy.

I have used other mics, AT 4040, Rode NT2a and NTK. They all work, and can make good recordings. None have opened the heavens and let the light shine with the power and glory! Likewise none have made everything sound like it was covered in molasses. Maybe I'm not as sophisticated as some users, and I'm sure my aural acuity is much worse than many younger folks.

Just because two things aren't identical, it doesn't mean that one is bad and the other good. They might be equally wrong, but in opposite directions.

 

[rob aylestone]

I think my choice to use the SM7B as a sort of constant was perhaps less sensible than I intended. I do have an SM7dB too that doesn't need the in-line preamp, but too late to change now I think. One thing that did occur to me a few weeks back was when watching (of all things) a 40 year old kids program - Sooty and Sweep - and one episode was set in a TV studio and they were messing with a Fisher Boom. All those old, and still quite a few currently, get recorded with quite distant mics, and nobody ever comments on the sound, yet in audio recording we put it under a microscope?