Studio Projects B1 vs. AKG Perception 200 vs. CAD GXL 3000

Which condenser mic is the best???

  • Total voters
    16
O

OnlyGrace

New member
Hey guys, sorry for posting so much about finding the right condenser mic, but i'm just trying to find the right condenser mic!!! :confused: So can you guys give me some reviews on which of these 3 I should buy? I need primarily for vocals, but it's needed for acoustic guitar, also.

Thanks for your time and patience :) , Jacob
 
OnlyGrace said:
Hey guys, sorry for posting so much about finding the right condenser mic, but i'm just trying to find the right condenser mic!!! :confused: So can you guys give me some reviews on which of these 3 I should buy? I need primarily for vocals, but it's needed for acoustic guitar, also.
Click to expand...

They're all pretty bottom of the barrel, IIRC. If I were you, I'd probably go with a CAD M177. They're only about $20 more than the GXL3000.

http://www.rmcaudiodirect.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=M177

(On the site above, you have to add to cart to see the real price, which is $119.)
 
Maybe the original B1. The current B series is a little harsh, IMHO. Not awful, but not great. *shrugs* I do agree about the build quality, though---they're tanks.
 
What's so wrong with a Perception 200? :confused: I bought mine from a pawnshop three years ago (yeah, yeah; if it was so good it wouldn't be in a pawnshop :rolleyes:), so who knows how the original owner treated it? And yet it's still looking new three years later with me using it, but then I look after my gear. Seems solid. Does it have too much top end? I dunno. I EQ and compress it, and it sounds good enough for me. Maybe my standards are lower. But I believe it's called 'pre-emphasis'. The manufacturer might expect you to EQ and compress it, so to avoid you complaining their mic sounds muddy, they extend the top end. It's no big deal. And I would never trust anyone's opinion if they qualify their statement with acronyms like 'IIRC'. If you don't actually have the mic, don't say anything about it, positive or negative. Or, blab away. That way I can find more in pawnshops for pennies on the dollar. :D
 
ranjam said:
And I would never trust anyone's opinion if they qualify their statement with acronyms like 'IIRC'. If you don't actually have the mic, don't say anything about it, positive or negative. Or, blab away. That way I can find more in pawnshops for pennies on the dollar. :D
Click to expand...

I second that. I have a perception 400 (same as 200, with multipattern) and I'm totally happy with it.
To the original poster....I'd just go to your local music store and try each one out yourself...your ears are your best tool, you make the call.
 
qrs said:
I'd just go to your local music store and try each one out yourself...your ears are your best tool, you make the call.
Click to expand...

It may not be 'enough' of a test. Borrow or rent one of those mics, and try it in your recording environment. Your room will sound different, and how you process the mic will affect your opinion. Just hearing a Chinese LDC dry and raw in the store may turn you off of that mic (So that's why everyone writes Chines mics have a hyper top end!). But in a mix, and processed, it may sound great. Hey, everyone thinks a Telecaster is bright and twangy (especially the bridge pickup). But they sure love using them anyway.
 
ranjam said:
It may not be 'enough' of a test. Borrow or rent one of those mics, and try it in your recording environment. Your room will sound different, and how you process the mic will affect your opinion. Just hearing a Chinese LDC dry and raw in the store may turn you off of that mic (So that's why everyone writes Chines mics have a hyper top end!). But in a mix, and processed, it may sound great. Hey, everyone thinks a Telecaster is bright and twangy (especially the bridge pickup). But they sure love using them anyway.
Click to expand...

True, but only if used for a single track. Use it on all of the tracks, and it's going to sound harsh and painful in the mix, too. :)

Color can be a good thing if used correctly, as can brightness. You don't want either if you can only afford to buy one mic, as many folks on these boards seem to do.
 
Ive had real good luck on vocals and guitar with the perception 200 done many a recording and everyone has liked the out come
 
I haven't used or analyzed a Perception 200 so I can't speak about that mic. But I familiar with the B1 and 3000.

The B1 as a built-in "smiley curve" EQ circuit that boosts the bottom and top ends of the spectrum. Add that top boost EQ on top of the built-in HF boost in its K67-type capsule and you get one very very bright mic that is too EQ'd to be a "go to" workhorse.I posted a full report on Gearslutz.

The CAD GXL 3000 uses a K67-type capsule driving a flat response circuit (as found in most low cost mics) so it is brighter than what Neumann intended K67 equipped mics to be by about 4-7 dB at 8kHz. In addition, the 3000 has a 2nd stage bipolar transistor that clips asysmetrically before either the FET or transformer so it generates harsh sounding distortion when pushed hard rather than creating softer sounding "even order" distortion products. It is a three pattern mic, so there's some versatility there.

I'm also not fond of the 179 because, like the TLM-103, it is loaded with rather rough-sounding surface mount components.

So of the three mics you ask about, and the two I'm familar with, I'd say the 3000 is the better value, especially when considering it can be upgraded with good results.
 
I haven't used or analyzed a Perception 200 so I can't speak about that mic. But I am familiar with the B1 and 3000.

The B1 has a built-in "smiley curve" EQ circuit that boosts the bottom and top ends of the spectrum. Add that top boost EQ on top of the built-in HF boost in its K67-type capsule and you get one very very bright mic that is too EQ'd to be a "go to" workhorse. I posted a full report on Gearslutz.

The CAD GXL 3000 uses a K67-type capsule driving a flat response circuit (as found in most low cost mics) so it is brighter than what Neumann intended K67 equipped mics to be by about 4-7 dB at 8kHz. In addition, the 3000 has a 2nd stage bipolar transistor that clips asysmetrically before either the FET or transformer so it generates harsh sounding distortion when pushed hard rather than creating softer sounding "even order" distortion products. It is a three pattern mic, so there's some versatility there.

I'm also not fond of the 179 because, like the TLM-103, it is loaded with rather rough-sounding surface mount components.

So of the three mics you ask about, and the two I'm familar with, I'd say the 3000 is the better value, especially when considering it can be upgraded with good results.
 
Michael, I'd be interested to know if the original B1 has the same EQ characteristics. I mention this because many reviews (Paul White at SOS, EQ mag, etc.) discussed the original B1's relatively flat, non-smiley response (just a subtle presence boost at 10k) as one of its primary strengths. Your analysis of the newer B1 seems to contradict that. Maybe the design has changed? You can find Paul White's thoughts about the original B1 here: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun05/articles/studioprojectsb1.htm
 
Last edited:
It seems unlikely to me that Studio Projects would make a significant change in the sound of this mic from inception to the present. All I know is what I objectively measured from a mic purchased a month prior to this post.

Now Paul White does say these are his "subjective impressions": "If there is a presence peak, it is suitably subtle".

When I listen to this mic I hear anything but a subtle presence peak. What I measured and reported at Gearlslutz was: "Relative to 1khz, the SP B1 has a 5 dB boost at 10 kHz and 10 dB boost at 50 Hz. This mic has a built-in, smiley or loudness curve permanently on. Ok, there is a HP filter that can be used to roll of the bass boost. But the top end is permanently boosted - not all all how a K67-type capsule with built in preemphasis should be treated (Neumann designed the U 67 and U 87 with electronic deemphasis in the mics to restore proper timbre balance). So between the K67 type capsule (+8 dB @ 8 kHz) and the top boost circuit (+5 dB @ 10 kHz) this mic is about 12 dB brighter than anything I would ever want to hear".

But as I've said many times, I hear the Oktava MK-219 and 319 mics as being flat (which they measure as, out to 10kHz) - not as being dark, which is how many people describe them.

So perhaps Paul White and I have different subjective impressions of what constitutes a "subtle" or "major" presence peak.
 
Last edited:
I have a pair of the old B1s and use them all the time. They're bright, but I just use them where I need that kind of mic. They can handle some serious spl, and I like them on snare.
 
Thanks, Michael. I've been a session musician for many years, but I always leave mic choices up to others. I do have a couple of B1s that I use mainly for acoustic guits in my little home studio--they do a fine job with that, with little EQ needed. I guess the presence lift works well in my case but may not for others. I almost picked up a C1 as well but heard that it's brighter than the B1, so I decided against it.

Anyone AB'd the B1 and C1?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top