My impression of the Studio Projects demo CD...

[tubedude]

I'll go ahead and post this here, too, so if anyone is interested in another take on these mics they can read it...
I just finished doing a thorough observation of that very demo CD... here were my findings...
I was monitoring on a pretty crappy system, and overall, I could not hear much of a difference in the preamps at all, although the Neve and the V72 seemed to sound best to me, but it may have been my imagination.
I could, however, hear a pretty good difference in the mics. The qualities and lack thereof are damn near impossible to desribe, but the C1 I liked least of the 3, and I could not decide if I liked the C3 or T3 better. The C1 had a more up front sound and seemed kind of flat, like it had very little air to it. Air not being exactly the word I want, but it'll have to do. Maybe clarity is the word. The T3 and C3 had a certain clarity, or maybe seemed more intimate, than the C1. It sounded as if the vocalist was more up in your ear, which is what I like. I would have preferred everything be run through only 2 different pres with a couple of other mics instead, like a TLM 103, an NTK, and the famed U89 that the C1 is often compared to. I would say the C3 had a more Neumannesqe sound than the C1, but none of them had that same creamy texture that is Neumanns high end mics. I did like all of them to an extent, but the C1 certainly was the lesser of the 3. To me it sounded flat and without the clarity that the other possesed. I'm probably saying the same things 3 times, but I'm just typing as I'm thinking here. If you are interested in any of these mics, skip on up to the C3 when you start comparing with your other possibilities, you'll probably much happier. As for the price difference between the C3 and T3, I would have to hear them on a better system to distinguish if the extra cost is justified, but it is very possible that it is, especially for digital recording.
The tracks with the C1 reminded me alot of the Marshall V67 tracks that I have heard, and many of them I was not entirely happy with. I think the C3 kind of kills the V67 and C1, when you get right down to it. I also listened to that one dudes track on here the other day, with the C1, and it seemed kind of flat and not as intimate as I like. That same guy is taking delivery on a C3 and is supposed to post some tracks here and there, and we'll see how much better they turn out. My money is on his new tracks, though. For sure. The T3 does have a slightly different quality than the C3, but it might just depend on taste. I could not decide between the two on this sytem.
Hope this helped, I'm just rambling while its fresh in my head. Skip the C1, get the C3. Just my opinion. In a few weeks I'll do a new test on a better system.
Peace.

 

[BBB]

Dammit tubedude! I was all set to pick up a C1 or V67 and you go and burst my bubble.

However, isn't that the trend with good budget mic's lately? A ggod one comes out for a good price and everyone screams its accolades. Eventually, people start picking apart its deficiencies. See the Rode NT1 for a good example.

 

[chessparov]

tubedude, you got me curious enough to get my C1 (I haven't used for
over a month!), and mess around with it last night.
My signal chain is C1 to Aphex 107 tube mic pre to Behringer 802A mixer
(makes a good headphone amp!), and listened to with a set of
AKG 240 DF's. Test subject (me!) has a strong baritone/2nd tenor voice.

Anyway, I think what you're hearing is mostly a product of mike positioning
on the CD (I'll probably ask for a copy soon), as on my voice the C1 has
the rich warm sound of a vintage mike. The trick seems to be judging how
much distance from the mike you need. The 2nd tenor part of my range
still had the nice sheen I remembered, however, on the lowest portion
(a bass-baritone's low F, for example), of my range I needed to back off
more than I expected-no big deal. I was also engaging the bass roll-off
switch on the Aphex to cut "mud". Although even Alan Hyatt says he
prefers the C3 and T3's sound, I'd feel comfortable even cutting a
commercial record with the C1, especially with a better mic pre.

 

[alanhyatt]

BBB,

Well I have to chime in here. Tubedude did say he was using a crappy monitor system. We did the recordings on a PT rig, and used very good monitors.

It is not that the C1 is a bad mic. The C1 is a great mic in my opinion, but I have always said the C3 and T3 are better. I think Tubedude just likes the C3 and T3 better according to his ears.

Please understand I am not saying you are implying the C1 is not good, but I think every situation will be different and one would pick either the C3, T3 or C1...including Tubedude.

Its funny at the shows at our demo booth how everyone picks different models as their favorite, but I always say it will be different in you're own studio.

Don't judge until you hear this CD for yourself, and remember, it is not you're voice you are listening to. The vocalist we used, who by the way was awesome still likes his U87 better for his voice, so keep in mind the CD is just that, another demo.

Alan Hyatt
PMI Audio Group

 

[tubedude]

Chess- Demo the C3 next to it, you might see what I mean....

 

[JuSumPilgrim]

A couple of points:

I dont think you can hear a mics true sonic characteristics by listening to it in a mix---post EQ and post compression.


I think some people here have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that oftentimes gear that costs more is not better than gear that costs less. Different maybe, not better. It gets slightly irritating when certain people are forever advocating the pricier option even when a cheaper item is revolutionary in its quality/price ratio and clearly a better choice than many options 2, 3 and 4 times its price. I wonder if theyre being truthful or just relying on the price differential to make a value judgement.

 

[chessparov]

tubedude, I'm "afraid" I might like the C3 too much!
Actually my first priority is to improve my recording medium next year
(presently 4 track minidisc), to a better digital set-up (ADAT or DAW).
After that I plan on upgrading my mic pre, and (possibly) getting MORE mikes.

P.S. Alan, does the singer on the CD mainly sing tenor? Bass (type) singing notes
sound killer on the C1! (Although I still believe this is a fine all-round mike)

 

[tubedude]

"I think some people here have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that oftentimes gear that costs more is not better than gear that costs less. Different maybe, not better. It gets slightly irritating when certain people are forever advocating the pricier option even when a cheaper item is revolutionary in its quality/price ratio and clearly a better choice than many options 2, 3 and 4 times its price. I wonder if theyre being truthful or just relying on the price differential to make a value judgement."

I hope to God you arent talking to me, because I'm pretty careful about what I do these days, and I admitted right away that I couldnt hear much difference between the preamps.... when I got to the C3 stuff, the 1st thing I thought was "now THAT preamp sounds better than the others" and it turns out it wasnt the preamp at all, it was the mic. Also, each vocal with each preamp was also included solo as well as with it in the mix. That helped a little too, but not much. The C3 simply sounded better if it was 20 times the cost or $50 cheaper. Generally I can hear differences in preamps, especially certain ones, thats why I advocate high end preamps. I readily admitted that I could not hear much difference on this CD with this monitoring system. I can only say that the C3 sounded better than the C1, and I had no other mic to compare it to at the same time in the same mix, so I did not. A TLM 103 might kill them all, or vice versa. Can't say, cause it wasnt on that CD. The C1 might be revolutionary to you, but not to me. I placed it in the same ballpark as the Marshall, which to me is not revolutionary either. I have yet to hear a single person on this board post something that had that intimate up close in-your-ear sound with the Marshall or the C1. The C3 tracks did get a little closer, in my opinion. My goal is to find Sjoko's vocal clarity and intimacy without spending that kinda bank. Gonna be awhile before that happens, but it might eventually. Ever heard his vocal tracks? Wow.
Anyway, umm, I dunno.
Peace.

 

[alanhyatt]

I hear what you are saying Tubedude, but with all due respect, the track Imagine did was pretty darn good despite my hearing a lot of sequencing and synths. I always prefer real musicians playing horns, drums etc., but even so, the song he did was good and the track sat well to me. The C1 in my opinion did sit very well in the mix, and the detail was quite good.

The Avalon is not my first choice of mic pres, but even so, it did a good job. I am thrilled you liked the C3...believe me, that makes me very happy, its just I really liked what Imagine did, and I liked the girls voice as well, so I don't want to discount that.

peace to you

Alan Hyatt

 

[chessparov]

Re: "close in your ear sound"

Guys, I was wondering about two things to help make the vocal sound
more intimate;
1) Use more compression (ala Joe Meek style?)
2) Experimenting with an enhancer.

P.S. I have a BBE unit-hmm might be interesting!

 

[ruebarb]

hey alanhyatt

out of curiousity, besides the preamps I suspect are being designed or in the works, what Mic preamps do you like if you're not fond of Avalon.

I just bought a Joemeek VC1QCS - but I've not had time to hook it up yet.

RB

 

[Imagine]

Tubedude,

I'm a little puzzled by your opinions concerning the C1-C3 or T3 for that matter. What kind of preamp / system are you using?

There are God knows how many microphones on the market, that really never see the light of day. Personally, I think Alan's definitely happy we're all talking about his mic. They'll come a day, when the chatting will stop, and he's going to have to create another mic to trigger another on going conversation.

You mentioned your analysis concerning the C3 and T3 were done through a couple of crappy speakers... What the heck was that all about? When an article from Mix mag is written by Roger Nichols, you can bet your sweet ass, he isn't judging his equipment through a pair of "crappy speakers". You also mentioned that you had yet to hear someone on this board post something that had that intimate up close in-your-ear sound with the C1. I played the mix I posted for a very well known engineer whose name I won't mention to protect his privacy, and thought it was definitely a modified U87. It all comes down to a good product and talent that can solidify it.

You don't have to like anyone's product, and I'll respect a valid opinion, but if you're going to judge anything, get yourself a decent pair of speakers.

Imagine

 

[tubedude]

I do have a decent environment to monitor on, but I wasnt there when I listened to the CD. I think you've gotten offensive about that track, but dont get that way, I never said I didnt like it, cause it sounded great... I just think that, well, nevermind... it doesnt really matter...
As for the system I DID listen to that CD on, its not a great system, but I know what things sound like on it, to the point that I can mix things on it with some degree of precision, though not great. So its a familiar system that I did the listening on. Familiarity is far more important than the actual system in many cases. Knowing what a system sounds like, being "used" to it. Ya know?
No, dont take offense, it sounded great for that track, but its not exactly the mileage that I personally am looking for. Dig?
I would still like to hear that same track done with a C3 and then a TLM 103, and maybe that C12 I think you spoke of. I think the C3 would take it, maybe I'm wrong. Can't wait to hear your input on the T3.
I'll trade you a C1, C3 and a T3 for a C12
Peace.

 

[alanhyatt]

rubarb,

I did not say I did not like the Avalon, I said it was not my favorite and not the first one I go to, but I own two of them.

As for my favorite, it is hard to say. I love the Neve1089, the Manley VoxBox, my go to mic pre is the Joemeek VC2, but I like so many mic pres. I like the V72, the Focusrite Red, API, hell, I have been using the little VT-1 so much lately to voice it, I am very fond of it now, but just like mics, I use a lot of different ones that will help me get what I am after.

The VC1QCS is a very good unit, and I use it often, so you should have a good amount of fun with that one.

Alan Hyatt
PMI Audio Group

 

[BBB]

Please understand I am not saying you are implying the C1 is not good, but I think every situation will be different and one would pick either the C3, T3 or C1...including Tubedude.

I'm glad you mentiond that because, on review of my post, it may have implied that was what I was thinking. What I meant to say was that I was set on the C1 or v67, but now I might consider the C3 if it comes closer to the "in your ear" sound. I'm looking forward to hearing the CD to make my own judgments.

Matt

 

[BBB]

I dont think you can hear a mics true sonic characteristics by listening to it in a mix---post EQ and post compression.

Actually, it can help a lot to hear an instrument in the mix. Quite often a product can sound great alone, but doesn't obtain the right niche in the mix.

 

[chessparov]

I placed a BBE model 262 Sound Maximizer in my same signal chain
mentioned earlier, and the results seemed interesting.
The lo contour dial was at unity gain (noon).
Without any effects, other than a bass roll-off switch, for vocals the C1
sounded best between the BBE entirely bypassed or up to about 2 db
of "process". The effect of the process dial was to cut some of the
thickness of the C1's tone, and to make the vocal a bit more up front.
Any more than that and it started to get a little shrill.
If you were running a vocal through a bright reverb ("plate like"),
my assumption is that you'd want even less enhancement on it.
For those that have the exciter section in the original Joe Meek VC3,
or VC1QCS this might also prove useful to experiment with.
I doubt this would turn a Porshe (C1) into a Ferrari (C3 or T3),
yet it could add a few octane to the fuel!

 

[alanhyatt]

Using an enhancer/exciter can get you good results, but I would never use it while tracking because if you put too much on, you can't get it off. It is better to use an enhaner/exciter in the mix, if you need it at all.

I find adding more of the Jomeek compressor will help sit the vocal in a mix very well, but not everyone has a Joemeek, and I am sure there are many that don't want them either, but another cool effect is to simply double your vocal track and and play with the pans between the tracks to shift the image, or start trying stereo micing.

Alan Hyatt
PMI audio Group

 

[Imagine]

I do have a decent environment to monitor on, but I wasnt there when I listened to the CD. I think you've gotten offensive about that track, but dont get that way, I never said I didnt like it, cause it sounded great... I just think that, well, nevermind... it doesnt really matter...
As for the system I DID listen to that CD on, its not a great system, but I know what things sound like on it, to the point that I can mix things on it with some degree of precision, though not great. So its a familiar system that I did the listening on. Familiarity is far more important than the actual system in many cases. Knowing what a system sounds like, being "used" to it. Ya know?
No, dont take offense, it sounded great for that track, but its not exactly the mileage that I personally am looking for. Dig?
I would still like to hear that same track done with a C3 and then a TLM 103, and maybe that C12 I think you spoke of. I think the C3 would take it, maybe I'm wrong. Can't wait to hear your input on the T3.
I'll trade you a C1, C3 and a T3 for a C12
Peace.
___________________________________________________

No worries mate... I don't care what people think of the track. As long as the executives are happy with it, I'm happy with it. The download was there, so people can listen to one persons perception.

My main concern was listening to a CD on a bad set of speakers and then evaluating, even if you are familiar with the "crappy speakers" Perhaps, you can upload one of your mixes, using the C1-C3 or T3? I'd be very interested in hearing other people's mixes.

Imagine

 

[tdukex]

Well, I gotta tell ya, I just listened to the CD for a third time, and although there is a difference between the mics and pres, THEY ALL SOUND GOOD! Picking a favorite combo is like picking a favorite color. Somedays I like deep sky blue, others I like sunny yellow. Sometimes I'm attracted to a good verdant green. It all depends on what mood I'm in.

My first listen revealed I usually liked the Red 1 pre and the C1. To me, the C1 seemed to be more in your face. My second listen a few days later confirmed and also contradicted some of my earlier choices. By my third listen I was leaning toward what I perceived as the smoother sound of the C3 and T3, and I was beginning to like the Neve and the V72. Also on my third listen I knew which mic and pre I was hearing. Could that have colored my views. You bet.

I'm not that sophisticated, but good is good. We can get a dozen different people to split sonic hairs a dozen different ways each but when all the splitting is exhausted we are still left with three very nice sounding mics and five very nice sounding mic pres--each of a slightly different color.

And for all those people who insist on claiming (without having experience) that Joemeek pres heavily color the sound and that you can't get a transparent, clean track out of a Meek should listen to this CD. It will open your ears. It's the optical compression that gives you that Meek color. By bypassing the Meek compressor, Alan has shown that in the right hands this $600 unit can easily hold its own in a distinguished field.

Bottom line for me: with the right $230 mic and $600 pre it is possible to produce professional quality tracks. You can argue with me if you want, but I'm not hearing you.