I just added a couple of v67g's to my live sound mic package and thought i would give them a few quick runs in the studio to see what they were like. The testing we did was pretty unscientific since thats the way recordings are usually done. Basically, I ran it with no EQ, and picked a good average gain setting on my D&R console (pretty clean preamps to see what the mic itself really does).
The mxl v67g really surprised me on the only thing I tested which was a male vocal. I could have used it on an album without any real hesitation and without too much processing. The sound was very "crisp" with a lot of high frequency "air". It seemed pretty pronounced in the high mid area (4k to 7k) and on this particular vocalist would have needed some treatment for the ssss stuff. The low mids around 200 to 600 seemed a little attenuated to me which left the vocal sounding a little thin. However, I did not expect much out of a $100 mic so in the end I was actually pretty pleased with it's performance. A low mid boost centered at 300 hz on the console really helped to warm it up, and a high cut at about 4k helped the "sizzle" and made it more usable, but would still require a little treatment later on for my taste. The high sizzle that the mxl exhibited was pretty close to fizzing out with this singer (who was pretty strong and has excellent mic technique). That grainy ness could be a useful thing on certain tracks, but was certainly something to be aware of. Not a mic I would ever really want to let a preamp clip with on a vocalist.
The second mic we tried was a Blue Blueberry. I left the EQ flat and the gain set exactly the same, even used the same cable. This I guess is just one way it was a non-scientific test. I made no attempt at level matching. I really wanted to see how the different mics handled gain. The Blueberry was a good 4 or 5 db hotter on average. The Blueberry really filled those low mids up that the mxl didn't seem to capture, and the highs were all there like the mxl, but had a smoother more natural feel to them. The Blueberry would not have taken much treatment to get the tracks where they needed to be. Then again, with the price difference, one would hope it would be this way.
The last mic we tried was an AKG 414 Buls. This mic was quite a bit different. The highs were not as extended as the other two, but the mids were strong and punchy. This was the mic that performed differently than I expected by a long shot. I expected the AKG to sound much different than it did. The lows were not as big as the Blueberry, but much more solid than the mxl. The highs I felt like I actually wanted to boost on the 414 where I would not have on either of the other two mics.
In the end I felt like the 414 was probably a more accurate representation of the singer, but the Blueberry allowed the track to be captured more like we would want it for album vocal. The mxl would certainly have been usable, but would not have been my choice on this day. Once again though, this is comparing a $100 mic to some pretty tried and true mics that cost considerably more. So in the end, I will probably add a pair of mxl v67g's to my stock. Knowing what they will and won't do will allow me to use them on the proper sources with the proper treatments.
Just for fun we also through the v67 through my Chandler TG2 for a take as well. I must say the Chandler with the v67 really narrowed the gap between the Blueberry and the 414 when run through the D&R preamps. The Chandler made the top end on the mxl much more pleasing than the D&R did, and the lows were a little more present as well. Then again, that is what the Chandler was designed to do, and I already know form many sessions of experience that the Blueberry becomes a very powerful mic with the Chandler preamping it. It becomes very aggressive in a mix without ever sounding strained. Tracks just to tend to really pop out and find their own place with the Chandler behind them.
Just my quick unscientific real world test and thoughts
When I have time, I am going to give the mxl 604's a run on acoustic
The mxl v67g really surprised me on the only thing I tested which was a male vocal. I could have used it on an album without any real hesitation and without too much processing. The sound was very "crisp" with a lot of high frequency "air". It seemed pretty pronounced in the high mid area (4k to 7k) and on this particular vocalist would have needed some treatment for the ssss stuff. The low mids around 200 to 600 seemed a little attenuated to me which left the vocal sounding a little thin. However, I did not expect much out of a $100 mic so in the end I was actually pretty pleased with it's performance. A low mid boost centered at 300 hz on the console really helped to warm it up, and a high cut at about 4k helped the "sizzle" and made it more usable, but would still require a little treatment later on for my taste. The high sizzle that the mxl exhibited was pretty close to fizzing out with this singer (who was pretty strong and has excellent mic technique). That grainy ness could be a useful thing on certain tracks, but was certainly something to be aware of. Not a mic I would ever really want to let a preamp clip with on a vocalist.
The second mic we tried was a Blue Blueberry. I left the EQ flat and the gain set exactly the same, even used the same cable. This I guess is just one way it was a non-scientific test. I made no attempt at level matching. I really wanted to see how the different mics handled gain. The Blueberry was a good 4 or 5 db hotter on average. The Blueberry really filled those low mids up that the mxl didn't seem to capture, and the highs were all there like the mxl, but had a smoother more natural feel to them. The Blueberry would not have taken much treatment to get the tracks where they needed to be. Then again, with the price difference, one would hope it would be this way.
The last mic we tried was an AKG 414 Buls. This mic was quite a bit different. The highs were not as extended as the other two, but the mids were strong and punchy. This was the mic that performed differently than I expected by a long shot. I expected the AKG to sound much different than it did. The lows were not as big as the Blueberry, but much more solid than the mxl. The highs I felt like I actually wanted to boost on the 414 where I would not have on either of the other two mics.
In the end I felt like the 414 was probably a more accurate representation of the singer, but the Blueberry allowed the track to be captured more like we would want it for album vocal. The mxl would certainly have been usable, but would not have been my choice on this day. Once again though, this is comparing a $100 mic to some pretty tried and true mics that cost considerably more. So in the end, I will probably add a pair of mxl v67g's to my stock. Knowing what they will and won't do will allow me to use them on the proper sources with the proper treatments.
Just for fun we also through the v67 through my Chandler TG2 for a take as well. I must say the Chandler with the v67 really narrowed the gap between the Blueberry and the 414 when run through the D&R preamps. The Chandler made the top end on the mxl much more pleasing than the D&R did, and the lows were a little more present as well. Then again, that is what the Chandler was designed to do, and I already know form many sessions of experience that the Blueberry becomes a very powerful mic with the Chandler preamping it. It becomes very aggressive in a mix without ever sounding strained. Tracks just to tend to really pop out and find their own place with the Chandler behind them.
Just my quick unscientific real world test and thoughts
When I have time, I am going to give the mxl 604's a run on acoustic
