Some random musings from a recent mic shootout . . .

I think you were unfair to the GT mic. Though I will say you qualified your comments. I have a GT SM 51 (the tube model, cardioid only), and while I wont use it on everything, it is excellent for female vocals on pop, folk, country, and about anything that doesn't involve SCREAMING, hehe. I usually record direct to DAW through either a Joemeek Q series or an RNC. However, with the GT mic tube mic, I can pop it direct into my Aardvark Q10 pre and go. Smooth, slick, and some lovely lower end color. This is not a good mic for sparkle and sheen. It is, however, excellent for thickening up squeeky or thin vocalists. It is also nice for eliminating the "tinny" factor in cheap guitar rigs (read "solid-state") or thin reed instruments.

I will also add that these mics appear to be getting discontinued by a lot of retailers, and can be found on the net now for as low as $199. Definately worth considering for the mic closet...

just my 2 cents=)
 
I thought it sounded very focused. But probably a little too focused, if that makes any sense. I would love to hear it on electric guitar.
 
Geekgurl, just a word on NTK. It's one of my 2 main vocal mics (the other is C3). It really gets along with a Joemeek preamp, and it must be warmed up. When you put your hand on it, it should be about the temperature of touching a person. Depending on the temperature in your studio, this can take 10 minutes or an hour, and it doesn't sound right when it's cold. And I assure you Chess, whatever I'm going to use this for, it won't be an N'Sync cover!-Richie
 
The problem with tests like these, is that the result varies a lot with the source.
I did a similar test with a B.L.U.E Bottle and Catus, Brauner VM-1, CAD E-300, Soundelux U95s, DPA LD mic, Alesis/GT AM61 and AM11, Audio Technica 4060 and a vintage Neumann/Gefell UM57.

First, the UM57 was totally useless, had a large hole in the mids, probably this mic was in less then stellar shape.

The singer I used for the test has a voice with a strong midrange, and mics with strong mids didn`t suit his voice.

The Brauner was the best for his voice, really clear with a incredibly nice breathiness.

Second was the AT 4060, also really clear, and had a certain smoothness I missed in the Brauner.A favorite too.

The CAD E-300 sounded a lot like the VM-1 , only smaller. A great mic!

Soundelux U95s had a midrange "honk" that sounded strange with his voice.

Alesis/GT Am 61 was somewhat thin sounding.

DPA was really clear and natural. But it was a bit "boring"....

BLUE Catus,good, but too dark.

Blue Bottle (B6 Capsule) Sounded BIG, loud and fat, incredibly good mic, only the presence of the VM-1 was lacking. Sounded bigger though.

Alesis/GT AM11 Surprisingly good, a great value. Nice and clear, with some fatness to it.


On MY voice , the Soundelux was the best, incredibly "in your face" quality

At 4060 was my second choice, really smooth but still clear.

My conclusion is: You need a LOT of mics to cover different singers and instruments, no single mic is "the best", I will probably purchase most of the mics tested, but over some time of course.........

Amund
 
Last edited:
Neve said:
The problem with tests like these, is that the result varies a lot with the source.

Not to mention that opinions will vary even more depending on the listener's personal taste.

Althouh I admit I declared a "winner," so to speak . . . what I should have said was that it was a winner based only on my personal criterea . . . which in this case was something with more of a neutral sound.
 
KSM32

Just a note on the KSM32 as a piano mic:

There is a respected studio near here that I spend most of my outside studio $ in if I really want something recorded well. The guy there absolutely LOVES the KSM32 on his studio grand piano. He can't say enough good things about it on that application. (Actually he never takes it down.)

Just one opinion.

Jason A.
 
Chessrock,

Obviously KSM32 would be the better mic overall. Let's say that on some recordings I want to get a honk sound like N'sync/Backstreet Boys/Britney..... will this work with the KSM32 also or would the NTK be better?... how about the SM7?
In my case the vox I'm recording would be a male vox such as the range of the Backside Boys(Backstreet).
 
Richard Monroe said:
Geekgurl, just a word on NTK. It's one of my 2 main vocal mics (the other is C3). It really gets along with a Joemeek preamp, and it must be warmed up. When you put your hand on it, it should be about the temperature of touching a person. Depending on the temperature in your studio, this can take 10 minutes or an hour, and it doesn't sound right when it's cold. And I assure you Chess, whatever I'm going to use this for, it won't be an N'Sync cover!-Richie

Richie or anyone else,

Is a certain amout of warm up time typical of mics that require phantom power? Or for that matter of mics in general?

Nice post Chessrock. I have the Ksm 44 and am just approaching coming to grips with it. The sound, A shock at first, is fast growing on me.
(edited by barry the dummy who cannot seem to get any ones name right.)
 
Last edited:
What Track Rat said.- When you pick up the NTK, it's like cold steel. When it starts to feel like a warm body to touch, it's ready.
Since that post, I've added B.L.U.E. Kiwi to the cabinet as a main vocal mic, but the NTK still sees a good amount of duty.-Richie
 
pkmusic said:
Obviously KSM32 would be the better mic overall. Let's say that on some recordings I want to get a honk sound like N'sync/Backstreet Boys/Britney..... will this work with the KSM32 also or would the NTK be better?... how about the SM7?
In my case the vox I'm recording would be a male vox such as the range of the Backside Boys(Backstreet).

If that's the kind of sound you're after, then I think the NTK will get you there quicker. It just kinda' screams "pop vocal" to me. The KSM32 won't get you there "out of the box," so to speak. You'd have to do some generous EQ work either during or after the fact -- jack those highs up and scoop the mids pretty good to get that extra air and sparkle (ala N-sync, Britany, etc.). It's too neutral, as is.
 
chessrock said:
Here are some musings from a recent mic shootout I got a chance to partake in. The following were the subjects: *Rode NTK, *Audio Technica 4047, *Shure KSM32, *Groove Tubes GT67 (I believe that was the number) Tube mic. All of these were around $500 price tag. Very informal. Plugged them all in to a Mackie board and just went at it.

In particular, we (a friend and I) were interested in seeing how these mics handled sibilances, plosives, sudden changes in our voices, and how it responded all over the spectrum from low to high. So anyway, we did the key jangle, we sang scales to tounge twisters of the likes of "Peter Piper," "Seven Sinbad Sailors sailing the seven seas," etc. etc.

We also tried talking/ranting/screaming in a very nasal fashion in to each one, so as to get an idea for the honk factor.

* Audio Technica 4047 -- Good high-end sparkle. Good low-end growl, great mid-range honk. All-around, a pretty cool mic. This mic seems to exaggerate whatever you are trying to do with your voice. A mic with character that will cut through a mix like buttah.

My only beef was with the honk factor. This is a colorful mic, and it is aggressive in the upper mid-ranges. When I talked like Fran Drescher in to it, it was almost too believeable. Because of the way this voice exaggerates whatever you're trying to do with your voice, I can see it being a great asset for voice-overs -- particular cartoon / comedic and the like.

This mic would sound extremely good on the right voice, and/or micing a guitar amp . . . but not on everything. Pretty F 'in good, overall. Probably Not f'in great.

* Rode NTK -- This is a cool mic. Careful with the plosives. Wow, listen to that proximity effect. The high end on this thing is silky. Exaggerated, but silky. The low end seems smooth. But uh-oh. What's this. I'm talking like Fran Drescher again, and there's that annoying "HONK ! ! "

The louder and honkier I talk/scream in to this thing, the more the mic exaggerates this honk factor. I'm noticing a pattern. I guess a lot of these mic manufacturers seem to enjoy boosting that range around 2-3K and again around 6K.

I guess that's the sound though. If you want to sound like Britney or the Backstreet boys, you gotta have that high-mid stuff going on, I guess.

All in all, though, I must admit that the NTK sounds "cool." I like this mic the way I like fattening food and sweets. I want it and I crave it, but I know it won't be good for me in the long run. If I were to use this a lot, then just about everything I record will have a particular sound stamp. It's the sound of modern pop vocals. If modern-day chart-topping pop vocals are what you want -- Britney, Justin, N-sync, etc. . . then this is a great mic.

The only problem is that in my town of Chicago, everyone and their brother has been swept away by a particular band that goes by the name of Wilco. Anyone familiar with this sound will understand where I'm coming from. Terms like "raw," "natural," "accurate," "transparent" all come to mind.

* Groove Tubes Tube mic -- I wasn't particularly thrilled. More honk than the NTK. Less high-end exaggeration, though. Overall, I would have to say it sounded extremely focused on the plus side (moreso than any of the others tested), somewhat thin on the minus side (also much moreso than the others).

Grade: Incomplete. I'd honestly have to hear this one on different sources to get an idea of what it really brings to the table. There might be something this mic would really excell at.

*Shure KSM32 -- The hands-down winner, to me. I've heard this mic described as being bland by some, exciting by others, but just about no one can say it sucks.

And these are all fitting descriptions, because no, it certainly doesn't suck. It is very bland . . . if you consider a truly professional, accurate and realistic portrayal of how the sound really is to be bland.

I was actually quite thrilled with it's blandness. I did my best immitation of a chainsaw, and never at any time did I get that annoying mid-range, piercing honkification so common with the other subjects in the test. It won the "Six-simple-simon" sibilance test hands-down. It won the "Peter-piper" plosive test by a long-shot. These aren't very glamorous tests to pass, but they are important in the real-world.

That's not to say there wasn't at least some ear candy going on. There is just a hint of high-end sparkle in the 10-11k range with this mic. Yet only the slightest hint of the 3-6K sweetening was evident, as well. When giving it the low-voice Barry White / Darth Vader test, this mic also seemed to have the tightest, cleanest, most-controlled lows and low-mids.

In short, this mic handled everything I could throw at it and never even blinked. Easily the smoothest, most professional-sounding of the bunch I tested on this particular day. Probably still not f'ing great . . . but really damn f'ing good.

It's tough to describe why I liked this mic. If I had a younger sister or a daughter, and she were dating this mic, I would approve. It doesn't have the sexiness factor of the NTK, or the sometimes annoyingly exaggerated quality of the Audio Technica. But it seems like it would have better manners. It would be a more faithful companion, and would quietly and unassumingly get the job done without the need to hog the spotlight. It seems like it would be a very cooperative, selfless team player and good all-around citizen of the microphone world.

Great test. It would be interesting to try them all out with a decent pre-amp as the Mackie is decidedly a honking piece of shit in it's own right. The only mic that I am familiar with is the Groove Tubes GT44 (it is what you tested? No?) and it did not fair well with a Mackie pre-amp but changed it's attitude considerably with better pre-amps. The GT44 is shockingly great with my Avalon M5 and Great River pres.
 
I believe he did mean the GT67.

I'd like to know how chess thinks the MD1b fits in with this lot, as he did test it a while back :)
 
Talk about a blast from the past. Was that from three years ago? I was a better writer back then. What the hell happened? I'm gettin' to be an old fart-knocker, I guess.

If I remember correctly, it was the GT-67. The Groove Tubes MD-1B is a really mellow-sounding mic, by the way. Midrangy, but in a cool way. Not airy like most modern condensers. Sounds good on distorted amps. It's Rock & Roll. Eddie VanHalen used to use it, as did Matthew Sweet ... what else can you say? :D
 
Neve said:
My conclusion is: You need a LOT of mics to cover different singers and instruments, no single mic is "the best", I will probably purchase most of the mics tested, but over some time of course.........

Amund


I didn't see any MXL mics on your list. I talking about the Marshall MXL mics from dealers other than Guitar Center and Musicians Friend. Like the V69 Tube Mic, V6 Silicon, V67G Condenser, 604, V76T, 770, 2003, or 2006. I own several of each and use them in my personal studio. These mics blow me away!

Paul
 
Wow, missed this first time around. Good review Chessrock. However it lacks your normal acerbic comments I have grown to know and love. :p :D

I concur on all points regarding the 4047 and NTK which are the only two I own. I have my eye on the KSM44 also as I have heard good things from many sources about it and the KSM32.
 
Back
Top