mxl v77 tube mic

[postalblue]

anyone used or auditioned one? any good?
it's being sold for around $300.

adriano
http://www.indiepages.com/postalblue

 

[midimark1]

I read a review somewhere on that mic. They seemed to like it alot. I've been waiting for someone to reply here.....but no one has. I heard a salesman at Washington Music Center say that
it sounded better than the new V69 tube mic. When I get a chance I'll download some of your tunes. I always wanted to go
to Brazil.

Mark

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Last week, on the Barbara Dane sessions (you can look her up on the Internet if you don't know who she is), I started with an RCA 77DX ribbon mic for her vocals, but switched early on to the Marshall MXL-V77 with a big improvement in the sound.

That doesn't mean the V77 will always beat the 77DX, but for this singer, it did beat it. I had a pop filter in front of the mic, but it bothered her, so I removed it, let her sing from an inch or two away, and lived with the occasional pops.

 

[Ola Lagarhus]

I must thank you, Harvey Gerst, for recommending the Marshall
V67 microphone. I did a vocal session a week ago and the female
singer really liked the sound. I was able to record her without
the use of EQ - only experimenting with angling the mike and
a pop filter. That mike really has a tube-like midrange.

I have thought of having a real tube based mike - so why not a Marshall(?).... I wonder if the sonics would be that much different between a Marshall mxl V67 and the mxl V77?

Ola Lagarhus
Norway

 

[midimark1]

Hey Harvey...how would you compare the V67 to the V77?

Mark

 

[Harvey Gerst]

To me, the V77 is more "neutral-sounding".

 

[midimark1]

So neutral-sounding.... I asume...is a good thing. I know you've got to be tired of some of the same questions over and over again, but I'd value your opinion more than anybody elses. If you
could only aford one mic for under $ 500, which would it be? If you
can't answer here for one reason or another, that's cool. You are
welcome to e-mail me.

Mark

 

[Ola Lagarhus]

Well, I guess I`ll have to buy one Marshall V77 so I can hear the
difference. I don`t have a RCA 77DX, but it would be fine to have a tube mike that might be better in some situations...or better for some voices.
Can the Marshall V77 be had for around $300?...where...?

 

[postalblue]

C1

Mark,

I don't really have hands on experience with a lot of mics, but from what I gather from various bbs' I usually log on to, the Studio Projects C1 is THE mic under $500, and maybe under $1K, according to many reviewers. For that amount, you can also get the Studio Projects C3 or the Rode NT1000 or NTK (tube) or the Shure KSM32. Then there's the V77, which I haven't heard yet. But there's also a lot of talking about some other great under $500 mics, like the ADK 51's or the NADY 1050. Lots to choose from.

Ola,

You can find the V77 at http://www.8thstreet.com. They're quick and reliable. I've bought from them before, and liked it.

Adriano
http://www.indiepages.com/postalblue

 

[Harvey Gerst]

So neutral-sounding.... I asume...is a good thing. I know you've got to be tired of some of the same questions over and over again, but I'd value your opinion more than anybody elses. If you
could only aford one mic for under $ 500, which would it be? If you
can't answer here for one reason or another, that's cool. You are
welcome to e-mail me.
Mark

Yes.... and no - "neutrality" CAN be a good thing. The problem is very complex as to picking only one mic for something - at any price. I can foresee some situations where a $189 V67 could beat out a $10,000 U47.

But if I HAD to choose a vocal mic, this is the way I'd break things down:

Best under $500 dynamic vocal mics:
Shure SM-7
Shure SM57
Sennheiser 421
EV RE20
Beyer Soundstar II
Beyer 260 w/ Stephen Sank 77DX modification


Best under $500 condenser vocal mics (large):
Oktava MC012/Lomo M1 head
Marshall MXL V67G
Marshall MXL V77
Marshall MXL 2003
Studio Projects C1
Studio Projects C3
Soundelux U195? (the inexpensive one)

 

[midimark1]

Thanks Harvey. I've been using sm-57s for about 30 years. Great
all around mic. I like the EV's too. Would it be better to get a
multi-pattern large d. condencer like the C3 or MXL-2003 than just a cardiroid? I"ll be recording vocals...a.guitar...sax....oh yea,
my daughters trying horibly to sing with Britney Spears seq's..
(pause.....time for my medication!)

Mark

 

[CyanJaguar]

I am just waiting for a sample of the rode ntk. From reviews I've read, the v77s is very good. If it sounds anything like the v67, I believe them. I tried to get my v67 back, but the guy would not part with it. We like it that much. I guess the tube sound would be somewhat of a step up.

 

[midimark1]

Thanks Harvey. I've been using sm-57s for about 30 years. Great
all around mic. I like the EV's too. Would it be better to get a
multi-pattern large d. condencer like the C3 or MXL-2003 than just a cardiroid? I"ll be recording vocals...a.guitar...sax....oh yea,
my daughters trying horibly to sing with Britney Spears seq's..
(pause.....time for my medication!)

Mark

 

[Ola Lagarhus]

Thank you Harvey - you gave a very good answer!

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Thanks Harvey. I've been using sm-57s for about 30 years. Great
all around mic. I like the EV's too. Would it be better to get a
multi-pattern large d. condenser like the C3 or MXL-2003 than just a cardiroid? I"ll be recording vocals...a.guitar...sax....oh yea,
my daughters trying horribly to sing with Britney Spears seq's..
(pause.....time for my medication!)

Mark

For vocals, any of the large diaphragm mics I named will do a decent job on most voices - not all. For acoustic guitar, I like the Audix TR-40, or almost any small condenser mic. For sax, I use the Sennheiser 421 or the Shure SM-7.

 

[notCardio]

Harvey,

I noticed you said SM57 for vocals, not a 58. Why? I thought a 58 would be preferred for vocals, with a 57 of course being used in more instrumental situations. I can't remember ever hearing anyone say that they preferred a 57 over a 58 for vocals as a rule, not for some isolated incident where it just happened to sound better on one particular singer's voice, just like I've never heard anyone say that they like to use 58's for snare.

Just curious

 

[Harvey Gerst]

The ball end of the SM-58 adds a great deal of coloration to the sound, compared to the SM-57. For me, I find the SM-57 (with a foam windscreen works fine for vocals and is a lot more versatile mic to have around a studio. Very few working studios have SM-58s.

 

[notCardio]

Harvey,

When you say coloration, could you be more specific? More proximity effect (less?), muddy, brighter, etc?

Also, about the list that you posted here about your choices for the best vocal mics under $500: would you break that down into generalizations of the most likely application for each of those mics? I know that every situation is different, and that exceptions abound, but in what situations are you mostly likely to reach for mic A first, when would you automatically reach for mic B, etc. For instance, would you start with mic A for nasally male country singers and distance choir, mic B for female soul singers who are really belting it out, mic C for low, gravelly voiced males, etc.

I know it's a lot to ask, but it woud help give a lot of us a good place to start looking.

And as always, if you've done something like this already, my apologies and could someone pojnt me to it. I don't seem to have a lot of luck with the search engine.

Thanks a lot.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Harvey,

When you say coloration, could you be more specific? More proximity effect (less?), muddy, brighter, etc?

It's a little hard to describe in words. The Shure SM-58 is a great stage mic, but in the studio, it's less versatile than it's brother the Shure SM-57. The internal screening and the ball end don't seem to work well for serious recording efforts, whereas the Shure SM-57 with a foam screen seems to do fine for several different voices.

Also, about the list that you posted here about your choices for the best vocal mics under $500: would you break that down into generalizations of the most likely application for each of those mics? I know that every situation is different, and that exceptions abound, but in what situations are you mostly likely to reach for mic A first, when would you automatically reach for mic B, etc. For instance, would you start with mic A for nasally male country singers and distance choir, mic B for female soul singers who are really belting it out, mic C for low, gravelly voiced males, etc.

You're really talking about experience here. When I first hear a singer, a number of mics spring to mind that I "think" might enhance the singer's voice. If I'm looking for warmth, I might try a ribbon, a large condenser mic, or even a good dynamic, depending on the specific voice.

As I pointed out in the "big" thread on "diaphragm size/polar patterns", all mics have resonances (little peaks that will only show up on certain held notes). Those "peaks" can enhance or mess up a good vocal sound. Different singers "excite" different peaks, so a mic that's great for one singer may suck when you try to use it on someone else (even though you think they have similar voices).

The biggest asset you can bring to a new vocal recording session is a lack of preconceived opinions on what will work and what won't work. If you go into it with an open mind, you can quickly eliminate a lot of mics and find the right mic for the singer. It's really hard to explain in print - it just takes a lot of time to learn the characteristics of each mic in your collection.

For example (going after the "warm sound" mentioned above), I might try a large diaphragm condensor mic up close, or a ribbon in figure 8 mode, to get the most proximity effect I can, or a dynamic mic at point blank range. Once I get close to the sound I'm looking for, then I'll start messing with eq if I must, but I usually don't use ANY eq during the recording phase, only during mixdown. I will use compression though.

I know it's a lot to ask, but it woud help give a lot of us a good place to start looking.

And as always, if you've done something like this already, my apologies and could someone pojnt me to it. I don't seem to have a lot of luck with the search engine.

The big thread about "diaphragm size and polar patterns" is really the place to start if you want to learn all this. It won't be fast, but you'll learn a lot about choosing mics, their quirks, and how important placement is.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I've been doing this for a long time and I have always prefferred the 57 to the 58 for all applications. The windscreen just takes away some of the immediacy of the recording....it sounds like you're singing thru a towell....which, in effect, you are. The 57 has a more immediate and transparent sound compared to the 58