Next step, Mics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Innovations
  • Start date Start date
Innovations

Innovations

New member
OK, after listening to a lot of advice here I have bought the first piece of gear for my own home studio, a nearly new Edirol UA-5. For those who remember my posting on the newbie forum I will be recording mostly voiceovers of myself (a deep rich baritone) but also would like to occasionally be able to do things like record my church choir or or school orchestra or record environmental sounds.

OK, so now comes the choice of my first good microphones. I think I need something with good baritone vocal quality but also good all-around characteristics. And of course I want a deal (who doesn't). What I am currently looking at is the MXL V93M (aka 2003) being sold for 99.99 at Musician's Friend.

What is your opinion of this choice?
 
A lot of voiceovers are done with large diaphragm dynamics - Shure sm7 ($299) Sennheiser MD421 ($299) or EV RE20 (you don't wanna know how much!!! These sound great-very smooth on vocals, and also get use on drums and brass/saxes. Cheaper LD dynamic alternatives would include Audoi Technica Pro25 ($79, I haven't used it on vocals so I can't vouch for it) or the Peavey PVM520i, which a few people around here, myself included, really like (I've used it on singers, but not voiceovers though). It would be worth considering these for your voiceover duties, but they will not be that useful to you in recording choirs/orchestras like a condensor would be. LD condensors like the v93 can be used for recording of choirs/orchestras, but more often small diaphragms are used - and some great ones can be gotten cheap - Behringer ECM8000 $40, Marshall MXL603 $75, Oktava MC012 $99 (but beware of the oktava quality control - it's bad, and some of the MC012's don't sound that great). These are unlikely to work for your vocals though.

I realise that your budget is probably slim, so my suggestion is really this:
Try out as many mics as you can on your voice and see which sounds best for your budget, and don't exclude LD dynamic mics. And if you do end up getting a dynamic for your vocals, you could add a pair of mics for recording other stuff from about $80 up.

Obviously, if you do get a LD condensor for your voice, you can use it to record other stuff, and you can choose between getting another of the same model or a pair of different mics when you want to move up to recording in stereo.

Good luck,
Steve
 
Steve, you illustrate the big picture problem that I have. Should I go for a specific purpose mic for my primary need and plan on adding more specific purpose microphones later or make my first mic a broad performer and then add specific purpose mics later.
 
I like the specific purpose idea . . . however, if you're looking for a multi-purpose type mic, I would hop on ebay and look for an Audio Technica 4033. It's a really good jack-of-all kind of mic. And just a great mic to have, period.
 
Should I go for a specific purpose mic for my primary need and plan on adding more specific purpose microphones later or make my first mic a broad performer and then add specific purpose mics later
Click to expand...

That's a tough call, man. I'd say, if your main thing 80% of the time or more is voiceovers, get a mic that makes your voiceovers sound great. If you find that an MD421 or 4033 or SM57 or whatever is the perfect mic for your voice, you may never need another one. Try as many as you can lay hands on, including those you can't afford right now, because it may be worth your while to save a little more before splashing out.

If you need to be more versatile, then you need a versatile mic selection. A pair of ECM8000's is only $80, and that's a great way to get started on location/ensemble recording. Or if a studio projects B1 or Marshall Electronics MXLv67 suits your voice well, a pair of those will only cost $160.

It's all options, but I guess it's up to you to prioritise depending on how you're going to use things.

Good luck,
Steve
 
SteveMcB said:
....Or if a studio projects B1 or Marshall Electronics MXLv67 suits your voice well, a pair of those will only cost $160.
Click to expand...
This is interesting because the V67 and B1 were mics that I was seriously considering before realizing that the price of the V93 (2003) included the shockmount and the V67 and B1 did not. Depending on what you figured the shockmount was worth the price of the three microphones was pretty much the same or cheaper for the V93. And at least on paper the 2003 looked like a better mic.

So can anybody give give a good idea about how the V67 compares to the v93 (2003)?
 
Innovations said:
So can anybody give give a good idea about how the V67 compares to the v93 (2003)?
Click to expand...

v67 = warm, muddy.

v93 = bright, harsh.
 
chessrock said:
v67 = warm, muddy.

v93 = bright, harsh.
Click to expand...
These type of descriptions remind me of the old Martin Mull line that writing about music is like dancing about architecture.

Maybe I'll go over to the listening sessions to try to get a feel for what you are describing but what I am guessing is that the 2003 has a slightly larger and thinner and thus livlier head that does not smooth out the waveform at all. Both of them seem to have pretty flat response curves with the exception of the 2003 having no bass drop off all the way to 20 hz and a significant rise above 20khz (althoug that would put it above hearing) and the V69 has a slight bump below 20khz. So I don't think that the difference is in frequency response.
 
Don't forget that those frequency response graphs are put together often by the advertising guys not the mic engineers! And response changes with axis/polar pattern etc. So be guided by the sound, not the specs if you can!

Steve
 
SteveMcB said:
Don't forget that those frequency response graphs are put together often by the advertising guys not the mic engineers! And response changes with axis/polar pattern etc. So be guided by the sound, not the specs if you can!
Click to expand...
The if you can is the dilemma. I don't want to go to a music store and make some guy set up and run a half dozen a/b tests and then say 'Wow, thanks. Now I'm off to musiciansfriend.com to save some bucks."

So I went to thelisteningsessions.com to do some comparisons. The impression that I got was that on the 2003 I could hear the resonances of the guitar body distinct from the sound of the strings, particularly the low frequency resonances on the low string. Also when the strings were strummed together I could easier make out the attack on each string. Is this consistent with the descriptions of 'warm, muddy' versus 'bright, harsh'?
 
Last edited:
Innovations said:
These type of descriptions remind me of the old Martin Mull line that writing about music is like dancing about architecture.
Click to expand...

:D lol. I've never heard that one, but it's good. I suppose it's not quite as hard as describing color to a blind person, but still the same general idea.

What I meant to say by bright/harsh and warm/muddy was to present both the Yin and Yang of each mic.

If used correctly and/or on the right source, your best case scenario is that you would get a pleasantly bright sound from the v93. However, used in the wrong context, I've noticed that mic to be on the harsh side. Particularly when I use that mic on multiple tracks.

Apply the same analogy to the v67, and I think you can get the gist.

In my opinion, they are both color mics. If they were football players, I wouldn't consider them every-down players. They would either be 3rd-down pass-rush specialists or a change-of-pace, short-yardage running back. Great for specific tasks, but a liability if you plan on using them on every down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top