G
gilwe
New member
Last edited:
S
soundchaser59
Reluctant Commander
Well, I should start by saying Thanks! For posting this link! Many people are very curious to hear these clips and compares!
But then I just read a few posts explaining why mic comparison clips, more than any other type of clips, are not very useful. What preamps? What guitars? Which player? What channel strips? What room? Which AD chips? What software? etc.etc.etc....... all can determine the peculiar sound of any given clip.
And another post explaining why no one should care because, in the end scheme of all things studio, nobody can really.....really......really hear the difference. Nobody will ever listen to an album and start asking questions like "Why'd they use THAT mic?" or "Why didn't they treat the room with more expensive auralex?" or "What were they thinking using that kazoo sounding reverb on it?" or "Couldn't they have used a more expensive channel strip with better eq and neve pre's..." or whatever..... Like if they made the entire song over again from scratch, everything identical except maybe switch out the $500 dollar mics for the $5,000 dollar mics, nobody would really.....really.......really be able to tell the difference. etc...etc....etc.....
Now, having reminded myself that those wet-blanket pessimistic-but-honest posts are out there, give me the link to the compare clips and let me listen and listen again! I will still derive at least an hour's worth of entertainment value - if nothing else - from listening for differences and at least pretending that I can appreciate what the clip maker tried to do for us!
So thank you for the link! I, for one, will listen to all of the clips repeatedly!
But then I just read a few posts explaining why mic comparison clips, more than any other type of clips, are not very useful. What preamps? What guitars? Which player? What channel strips? What room? Which AD chips? What software? etc.etc.etc....... all can determine the peculiar sound of any given clip.
And another post explaining why no one should care because, in the end scheme of all things studio, nobody can really.....really......really hear the difference. Nobody will ever listen to an album and start asking questions like "Why'd they use THAT mic?" or "Why didn't they treat the room with more expensive auralex?" or "What were they thinking using that kazoo sounding reverb on it?" or "Couldn't they have used a more expensive channel strip with better eq and neve pre's..." or whatever..... Like if they made the entire song over again from scratch, everything identical except maybe switch out the $500 dollar mics for the $5,000 dollar mics, nobody would really.....really.......really be able to tell the difference. etc...etc....etc.....
Now, having reminded myself that those wet-blanket pessimistic-but-honest posts are out there, give me the link to the compare clips and let me listen and listen again! I will still derive at least an hour's worth of entertainment value - if nothing else - from listening for differences and at least pretending that I can appreciate what the clip maker tried to do for us!
So thank you for the link! I, for one, will listen to all of the clips repeatedly!
G
gilwe
New member
http://www.purewaveaudio.com/media/testmp3/
That's a lot better than the previous link
Attention - they used prefixes like P for "Piano", "C" for "Cymbals" and "CT" for Cymbals recorded via tube mics (although they missed with the 2200 and 3300 as they are not tube mic).
Also, I personally do think you CAN definately hear the difference or at least different characters of different mics on mixed and mastered recordings.
BTW, that page definately gave me a LOT of idea about how the SE mics sound in general. You can definately hear why the U67 is so much used for vocals (it just sounds the most natural); I personally didn't like the SE1,2 and 3 at all. All other SE's as well are way too bright to my taste and exaggerate the "ssss" and "zzzz" very easily. Didn't like the 5600 as well.
On the piano the Gemini sounds just fabulous ! On vocals it sounds as fat as the U67, still has some exaggerated high frequencies for vocals. Sounds so much better on the acoustic guitars than the U67 and the others in comparison.
If I had to make a purchase for a SE mic I would only go for the Gemini.
The AT4050 sounds very flat and well balanced, as most people claim about it. But it sounded also very boring to my ears.
But I'm hot on the Gemini
That's a lot better than the previous link
Attention - they used prefixes like P for "Piano", "C" for "Cymbals" and "CT" for Cymbals recorded via tube mics (although they missed with the 2200 and 3300 as they are not tube mic).
Also, I personally do think you CAN definately hear the difference or at least different characters of different mics on mixed and mastered recordings.
BTW, that page definately gave me a LOT of idea about how the SE mics sound in general. You can definately hear why the U67 is so much used for vocals (it just sounds the most natural); I personally didn't like the SE1,2 and 3 at all. All other SE's as well are way too bright to my taste and exaggerate the "ssss" and "zzzz" very easily. Didn't like the 5600 as well.
On the piano the Gemini sounds just fabulous ! On vocals it sounds as fat as the U67, still has some exaggerated high frequencies for vocals. Sounds so much better on the acoustic guitars than the U67 and the others in comparison.
If I had to make a purchase for a SE mic I would only go for the Gemini.
The AT4050 sounds very flat and well balanced, as most people claim about it. But it sounded also very boring to my ears.
But I'm hot on the Gemini
Last edited:
homestudioguy
Well-known member
The 2200 and the 3300 sE mics werent available when i went to listen to the samples for male and female voices.gilwe said:
I own the 2200A and can say that it does not emphasize sssss and zzzz easily. In fact it has less emphasis on high end material than my CAD M9 and much much less than my previously owned Studio Projects C3.
I personally liked the SE3 on cymbals as it controlled the brilliance but didnt overly subdue it.
S
soundchaser59
Reluctant Commander
The only variable that they do not describe is the guitar player. When I did my own tests, I found that I could skew my own results just by wearing headphones. When the sound changed in the phones from a different mic or switching from tube pre to solid state pre, I would play differently. I had to record my tests with no phones or monitoring of any kind, just to make sure I didn't play the guitar differently each time based on what I heard in the phones. They dont say if this guitar player was just playing solo with no phones, or if he was listening to a feed from the control room. Same question goes with the vocal tests.
I'm surprised at how similar all the SE's sound.....but liked the fuller signal of the SE2200 and the SE3300. The AT sounded a tad bit lite by comparison. I did hear some boxy resonance on certain freq's, but that's probably the guitar because I hear it on all the clips.
That U67 sounds nice, better than the AT. I'm not knocking the AT at all, I've had nothing but good experiences with AT mics (all rentals). I think what I'm hearing is just that the AT is not as hot as the other mics. If I turn it up to play at the same volume, it sounds just as good. When played at the same volume, I cant tell the AT from the SE's. In fact, given how similar these all sound, I would buy the SE1 "B-Stock" from fullcompass for $120. The extra $$$$$ for all the others just doesn't make a big enough difference in sound judging by these clips. (clips which I think are reasonably well done according to the test description given on the page.) At least in my basement setup I cant see the extra $$$$$ making any audible difference!
I was surprised with the voice tests how similar they all sound, including the U67. I could hear a smoother something-that-I-cant-quite-describe in the U67 vocal test, but I'm not convinced that I prefer it over the other mics enough to justify the extra big $$$$ bucks. I wish they would have thrown in the SE1 on the vocal tests just for reference. I was also surprised that the Audix mics sounded so similar to the SE and the Neumann. I have been wondering about the Audix line, this is the first chance I've had to hear what they sound like.
I guess the only thing this test page left me wanting was a bigger variety of mics to compare to side by side. But I have heard soooo much about the SE mics and never heard them isolated like this. I'm impressed. And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the SE mics made in the USA? That fullcompass price is hard to pass up, and I'm told they still have a bunch of them to get rid of. (No, I dont work there! I just buy all my mics there! Hard to beat their prices!)
Thanks again for the clips and the link! Very informative for my needs and my situation! - SC
I'm surprised at how similar all the SE's sound.....but liked the fuller signal of the SE2200 and the SE3300. The AT sounded a tad bit lite by comparison. I did hear some boxy resonance on certain freq's, but that's probably the guitar because I hear it on all the clips.
That U67 sounds nice, better than the AT. I'm not knocking the AT at all, I've had nothing but good experiences with AT mics (all rentals). I think what I'm hearing is just that the AT is not as hot as the other mics. If I turn it up to play at the same volume, it sounds just as good. When played at the same volume, I cant tell the AT from the SE's. In fact, given how similar these all sound, I would buy the SE1 "B-Stock" from fullcompass for $120. The extra $$$$$ for all the others just doesn't make a big enough difference in sound judging by these clips. (clips which I think are reasonably well done according to the test description given on the page.) At least in my basement setup I cant see the extra $$$$$ making any audible difference!
I was surprised with the voice tests how similar they all sound, including the U67. I could hear a smoother something-that-I-cant-quite-describe in the U67 vocal test, but I'm not convinced that I prefer it over the other mics enough to justify the extra big $$$$ bucks. I wish they would have thrown in the SE1 on the vocal tests just for reference. I was also surprised that the Audix mics sounded so similar to the SE and the Neumann. I have been wondering about the Audix line, this is the first chance I've had to hear what they sound like.
I guess the only thing this test page left me wanting was a bigger variety of mics to compare to side by side. But I have heard soooo much about the SE mics and never heard them isolated like this. I'm impressed. And correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the SE mics made in the USA? That fullcompass price is hard to pass up, and I'm told they still have a bunch of them to get rid of. (No, I dont work there! I just buy all my mics there! Hard to beat their prices!)
Thanks again for the clips and the link! Very informative for my needs and my situation! - SC
S
soundchaser59
Reluctant Commander
gilwe said:Also, I personally do think you CAN definately hear the difference or at least different characters of different mics on mixed and mastered recordings.
If I had to make a purchase for a SE mic I would only go for the Gemini.
The AT4050 sounds very flat and well balanced, as most people claim about it. But it sounded also very boring to my ears.
But I'm hot on the Gemini
I dont see how you can compare mics using recordings that have already been mixed and mastered. Mixing and mastering would change the character of everything. How can you compare if you are not using raw tracks all done vanilla on the same gear?
I dont hear the differences you describe in the SE mics, I dont hear the sssss or zzzzzzz emphasis. But I'm not using reference monitors to listen.
I do agree with you about the U67. I can hear the difference there, it was the only one I coudl actually hear an obvious tonal difference. I understand why it is a "go to" mic for vocals, I just dont think the extra cost is justified for people working at home and not making a living in the studio. Everything in my "chain" is definitely weaker than that mic, so it wouldn't do me any good to buy one.
S
soundchaser59
Reluctant Commander
Am I correct in thinking there are no ribbon mics in those tests?? Darn it! I wanted to hear me some good ribbon!
G
gilwe
New member
You're welcome.
But anyway, I can't see how you can gudge when no monitors are used... Of course many hi fi systems will reduce the level of high frequencies.
On both my Samosn 65a and the AKG271 headphones I work with I could hear way too many highs with all of the SE's - which makes much sense, if you will look at the frequency response of all those mics. They all have a slope at 10K and above.
The Nuemann is great on the vocals but sounded very tame on the acoustic guitar, I will still pick up the Gemini as an all-around mic, among those who are in test on that page. Still has a little bit of exaggerated highs but sounds amazing on the piano and great on the guitar. And of course you may get different results with other mic positions, preamps and players - but somehow I always like to hear the "raw" type of recordings, where you just place the mic and play. This tells a lot about the characted of the mic.
I think that what that comparison page if most useful for is just to understand by how much the difference between a 200$ mic and a 6000$ one can get.
But anyway, I can't see how you can gudge when no monitors are used... Of course many hi fi systems will reduce the level of high frequencies.
On both my Samosn 65a and the AKG271 headphones I work with I could hear way too many highs with all of the SE's - which makes much sense, if you will look at the frequency response of all those mics. They all have a slope at 10K and above.
The Nuemann is great on the vocals but sounded very tame on the acoustic guitar, I will still pick up the Gemini as an all-around mic, among those who are in test on that page. Still has a little bit of exaggerated highs but sounds amazing on the piano and great on the guitar. And of course you may get different results with other mic positions, preamps and players - but somehow I always like to hear the "raw" type of recordings, where you just place the mic and play. This tells a lot about the characted of the mic.
I think that what that comparison page if most useful for is just to understand by how much the difference between a 200$ mic and a 6000$ one can get.
S
soundchaser59
Reluctant Commander
Well, I was using my AKG 240 phones, and I wasn't attempting to judge the quality of each mic clip. I was only trying to hear differences among them. I didnt' hear much difference between them, althought the U67 was the only one that was obviously different.
After several listens I think I can hear a very subtle difference in high freqs with the SE mics, and I think I know why you say it is too much, but it just wasn't enough of a difference for me to say the SE mic would sound bad on my basement gear. All of my gear is "weaker" than a link like the U67 or TLM193 would be, so my gear wont do justice to a good mic like that, and that's all I was trying to evaluate from the clips.
After several listens I think I can hear a very subtle difference in high freqs with the SE mics, and I think I know why you say it is too much, but it just wasn't enough of a difference for me to say the SE mic would sound bad on my basement gear. All of my gear is "weaker" than a link like the U67 or TLM193 would be, so my gear wont do justice to a good mic like that, and that's all I was trying to evaluate from the clips.
G
gilwe
New member
Yah know.... I keep listening to the files again and again, and the more I listen to them the more I like the Gemini over any other one in the that comparison test - even better than the U67 ! It is just much more detailed and warmer (the U67 is a more "balanced" sounding mic). The 5600 is not bad, but you can hear less bottom end and less fattness with the single tube SE mics (i.e ICIS, 5600) than with the Gemini. Actually, the warmth and the fatness of the Gemini *may* be a little problematic sometimes, when you want a more natural "real world" sound from the source. But the vocals, piano and acoustic guitar that are in test sound so warm, detailed and full with the Gemini, like no other mic did on those recordings.
At this point, I think I'm going for either the Gemini, ICIS or Z5600a. The Gemini would be my first pick, but again, it's costy. But again, I'm not sure I'd like that colour over anything I am going to record, although it just makes everything sound "wow"... so much detailed, warm, focused... intimate.
On the other hand, there's the ICIS which is much, much less costy. I can get it for about 300-350$ ONLY !! amazing price for such a beautiful sounding tube mic ! Also, always keep in mind that the sound character can change and get even better with a NOS tube in it, so there's a lot to experiment with it.
As for the Z5600a, I must say it sounds a bit too bright to my ears, on both the vocals and acoustic guitars - which isn't so good (was it the mic positioning / axis ??). But on the other hand it is much more versatile as it has 9 pattern combinations !! So technically it is idial as an all-around mic. But would a different tube make it less brighty and fuller sounding ?? I can't know till I try.
So the decision to be made in this case is not simple.
As for the 2200 / 3300 - they sound very good for their price, but I would consider them mid level mics, far from sounding as good as the 3 mentioned above, but very good competitors to the AT4050, AT4033 and other FET mics at the same price.
So now, it's the Gemini, ICIS or Z5600a I have to decide about.
At this point, I think I'm going for either the Gemini, ICIS or Z5600a. The Gemini would be my first pick, but again, it's costy. But again, I'm not sure I'd like that colour over anything I am going to record, although it just makes everything sound "wow"... so much detailed, warm, focused... intimate.
On the other hand, there's the ICIS which is much, much less costy. I can get it for about 300-350$ ONLY !! amazing price for such a beautiful sounding tube mic ! Also, always keep in mind that the sound character can change and get even better with a NOS tube in it, so there's a lot to experiment with it.
As for the Z5600a, I must say it sounds a bit too bright to my ears, on both the vocals and acoustic guitars - which isn't so good (was it the mic positioning / axis ??). But on the other hand it is much more versatile as it has 9 pattern combinations !! So technically it is idial as an all-around mic. But would a different tube make it less brighty and fuller sounding ?? I can't know till I try.
So the decision to be made in this case is not simple.
As for the 2200 / 3300 - they sound very good for their price, but I would consider them mid level mics, far from sounding as good as the 3 mentioned above, but very good competitors to the AT4050, AT4033 and other FET mics at the same price.
So now, it's the Gemini, ICIS or Z5600a I have to decide about.
Last edited:
G
gilwe
New member
Another listening... Now I can clearly say that the ICIS sounds warmer than the Z5600a. I like it much better on both the vocals and acoustic guitars.
... and now I read that the ICIS has been optimized for vocals mainly. Interesting. The Z5600a is still very nice, but as I find myself using mainly cardiode pattern and due to the fact that the Z5600a is also double the price of the ICIS, it's either the low budget ICIS (leaving the extra cash for a nice preamp - I have been using the pre's in my Fireface800 so far, or even adding the 3300 as a complimentary), or going for the amazing sounding Gemini, which is found to sound much superior to everything else in the test - this is one of a hell good sounding detailed warm mic !
... and now I read that the ICIS has been optimized for vocals mainly. Interesting. The Z5600a is still very nice, but as I find myself using mainly cardiode pattern and due to the fact that the Z5600a is also double the price of the ICIS, it's either the low budget ICIS (leaving the extra cash for a nice preamp - I have been using the pre's in my Fireface800 so far, or even adding the 3300 as a complimentary), or going for the amazing sounding Gemini, which is found to sound much superior to everything else in the test - this is one of a hell good sounding detailed warm mic !
Last edited:
V
ver1ver2
New member
Nice link!
I was listening through my k271 headphone and heard some obvious diferences: now, what I heard (just training my ears
):
- Every SE mic sounds much brighter on whatever source compared to the neumann (especially noticed this on guitar)
- Most 'condensers' sound much brighter and less 'full' (sometimes muddy) on cymballs than most tubes (I guess this could be predicted)
- At both male and female vocals the SE isis sounds as if sound from the monitors is circling through the mic back to the speakers back to the mic.. (don't know the word... 'rondzingen' in dutch). I don't like it. I didn't know any charactaristics / prices from the mics but on vocals I liked the SE-Z5600 best from the start. I believe for recording (pop) vocals, it will need the least EQ treatment to fit the mix. (but then.. im just a noob )
anyway each other listen
I was listening through my k271 headphone and heard some obvious diferences: now, what I heard (just training my ears
):- Every SE mic sounds much brighter on whatever source compared to the neumann (especially noticed this on guitar)
- Most 'condensers' sound much brighter and less 'full' (sometimes muddy) on cymballs than most tubes (I guess this could be predicted)
- At both male and female vocals the SE isis sounds as if sound from the monitors is circling through the mic back to the speakers back to the mic.. (don't know the word... 'rondzingen' in dutch). I don't like it. I didn't know any charactaristics / prices from the mics but on vocals I liked the SE-Z5600 best from the start. I believe for recording (pop) vocals, it will need the least EQ treatment to fit the mix. (but then.. im just a noob
)anyway each other listen