The more I use it...

[MadAudio]

... the more I like the V67. I'd been using it primarily for vocals, but lately I've used it on guitar cabs with very nice results. I also used it in conjuction with a CAD E300 for M-S micing an acoustic guitar - VERY nice sound. And just the other day I recorded tamborine with it. It's quite a workhorse for $80.

Anyone else?

 

[mshilarious]

If I ever hit the skids, I'm starting over with the V67G and the Green Bullet, a Focusrite Green and whatever software program is green

And a green smiley

 

[MadAudio]

Acid Pro is green.

 

[xstatic]

I made all my tracks in Cubase SX green tonight just for you mshilarious

 

[Wiz]

I have found the V67G very handy for micing guitar cabs....in conjunction with a SM57 and the time aligning the tracks (phase) ....


cheers

Wiz

 

[mrface2112]

I have found the V67G very handy for micing guitar cabs

yes, that's one place where the midrange graininess doesn't show through as much. i prefer the B1 on amps, personally.......and given the choice, the V77 is a MUCH nicer match than either......but that's apples and kumquats.


cheers,
wade

 

[chessrock]

I think it sounds decent enough on the occasional female vocal.

But for the most part, I just kinda' think it sounds like ass. That's just a personal opinion about it. Nothing against cheap mics or mxl or the Chinese.

 

[ch2os7]

oh really?

Nothing against cheap mics or mxl or the Chinese.

Glad you clarified that!

Actually, I've only used mine once since I bought it. Used it on one song for vocals and acoustic guitar but it sounded good on my voice and decent on the guitar. I'm looking forward to trying it on some other projects.

 

[timboZ]

Acid Pro is green.

Stay away from the green acid.

Thats one thing I learned from woodstock.

Or was it brown acid.

 

[chessrock]

Just to clarify, I think the mic is kind of a dullard in the upper midrange. Not a lot of bite there, which can work, in my opinion, on some female vocalists. Particularly ones who sing aggressive, as they don't tend to need as much help in the upper mids. If you're in to moding stuff, then I think the v67 is a good candidate for ripping apart and performing surgery. To me, it just seems like a well-intended mic that simply had to cut too many corners in order to kick out at the current street price. It has a little bit of a "cheapish transformer" sound to it, and it's disapointing to hear, because the mic is almost there, otherwise. I suppose, though, that a decent enough transformer might cost more than the mic itself.

I'm not trying to be negative, deliberately. It's just that a lot of guys tend to jump on me for criticizing that particular mic. And I get a lot of flack that I never actually explain or go in to detail about it, so people think I'm just poo-poo'ing anything Chinese or mxl. When that's not the case at all. I just tend to think that if you're trying to make a colorful mic that sounds good at the same time ... that it's going to present some challenges that I don't think are realistic yet at that price point.

 

[notCardio]

Chess..

So do you think a V67 would be worth the $ and trouble to mod, or would you just end up in a best case scenario with a mic that sounds like a (insert appropriate mic here) which you could have just bought in the first place for comparable, if not less, money than the mic + mod cost?

I personally don't like my V67, but I don't have a lot to compare it to, and I haven't found a mic I like yet, so until I get more experience, I'm going to assume it's operator error.

 

[chessrock]

Cardioid, the v67 is a great candidate for moding, no question. Put a nice transformer in that mic, and it could be scary good, I'd imagine. No matter what you do, though, it's still going to have that scoop in the mid / upper midrange that isn't going to work on every singer (and might also be a liability on overheads) ; for me, this is generally lower male vocals and rap -- again, just from my experience. Not bad, though, for some female vocals or for a male with a squeeky voice. Might just be the ticket, there, actually.

For someone who already has a fuller, chestier voice to begin with ... it's probably going to sound somewhat muddy and indestinct. And the cheaper electronics of the mic certainly won't help with that problem either.

If you can score a used CAD M-37 off ebay, then you basically have the same capsule, only with much faster and cleaner electronics, so that's a lot like having a hot-roded mxl mic. Only downside is that it's transformerless, so it's not going to have the v67's texture, but it's still a good, clean workhorse mic nonetheless (but still very different from a v67).

 

[mrface2112]

(and might also be a liability on overheads)

honestly, i think that OH is one of the places the V67 shines the best. especially on those drummers with cheap cymbals, or in crappy rooms with nasty early reflections. the midrange hashiness brings out the things you want to hear in the drums, and that lack of spitty high end really mitigates the harshness of the cymbals and room.

on OH's, i find it to be the yin to the 603's yang.

Not bad, though, for some female vocals or for a male with a squeeky voice. Might just be the ticket, there, actually.

and IMO, for vocals, on males with a "squeaky voice" is where this mic excels. between the "darkness" and the proximity effect (and the fact that it doesn't seem to be overly prone to sibilance like a lot of cheap mics), you can take an otherwise nasally, whiny male voice and give it a LOT of body and character that it doesn't otherwise have.

i haven't seen that in a lot of other $90 mics.....worth ever penny in that regard. but you're dead on about vocalists whose voices are "better" to begin with.


but i have to admit that i don't use my V67 on applications outside of those two.....b/c it just doesn't sound good--or rather, i have other mics that just plain sound better.


cheers,
wade

 

[notCardio]

well, if the V67 is considered a non-siblant mic, then I'm ssssscrewed. I guess it's time to shop for a good de-esser.

 

[chessrock]

honestly, i think that OH is one of the places the V67 shines the best. especially on those drummers with cheap cymbals, or in crappy rooms with nasty early reflections. the midrange hashiness brings out the things you want to hear in the drums, and that lack of spitty high end really mitigates the harshness of the cymbals and room.

I could see them, potentially, being okay on cymbals. The high end boost on the v67's capsule is much more in the higher air ranges ... I'm guessing closer to 13-14 khz rather than the usual 12, which can help polsh the cymbals a little.

I still don't see that cheap transformer doing much in terms of helping transient response or overall detail. And if you're not using tom mics, then it's not going to help you get any extra slap or smack out of the drum heads at all. You'd either have to rely on the snare and tom mics for that, or eq that in later. But I could see the cymbal thing.

you can take an otherwise nasally, whiny male voice and give it a LOT of body and character that it doesn't otherwise have.

I suppose this is kind of where the mic could come in use. Unfortunately, from my experience I've just found those kind of voices to be pretty much a lost cause anyway. While expecting a mic to help in that situation is mostly wishful thinking ... at least you can select something that won't exacerbate the situation. On voiceover ... yea, totally. I can totally see it helping a thin voice to sound a little more presentable. And on certain female vocals, it can be really useful, as I mentioned.

I just wish they had spent a little more on the electronics and maybe marketed a $200 or even $300 version. Then you might actually have a real mic. It's just not what it could be, and it's a little disapointing. I mean ... just a little bit more, and it could be bordering on great, rather than just "good for the money."

 

[mrface2112]

then it's not going to help you get any extra slap or smack out of the drum heads at all. You'd either have to rely on the snare and tom mics for that, or eq that in later. But I could see the cymbal thing.

well.....i can only tell you what i've heard with my ears on my drums in my room. on OH's, i've used a pair of 603's, a mono 603, a mono SP B1, a mono BLUE Dragonfly and a mono V67....and by far the V67 gave me the fattest and meatiest drum sound out of the bunch. i certainly didn't expect that. maybe it just likes the tonal range of my pearl export kit better than the others.

and again, admittedly my drum room sucks at the moment. so it's largely a matter of dealing with what i've got (and working with and against it).....but if the V67 gives me a superior sound to anything else in my collection, i'm not going to discount it simply b/c it's the V67 and "shouldn't" be good on it. ya know what i mean? i'll roll with it and be happy that i'm not TOTALLY annoyed at my drum sounds.....only somewhat annoyed.

just like i've heard some perfectly acceptable clips of other folks using it on acoustic guitar......i certainly haven't been able to get anything but crap out of it on any acoustic i've used it on (taylors, guilds, martins, yamahas).....but that doesn't preclude me from saying "it could work" as an acoustic mic. it just hasn't worked for me.

Unfortunately, from my experience I've just found those kind of voices to be pretty much a lost cause anyway.

i TOTALLY agree.

still.....when someone with a voice like that waves cash at me and says "i've got some songs i'd like for you to record", i tend to not be in the habit of telling them they're a lost cause. i tend to try to make them sound as good as possible. and sometimes sacrificing clarity (or introducing a little mud) on the vocal in order to get a tone that makes them sound a lot better is a sacrifice i'll make. i've never had anyone be displeased--usually they want to know what mic it was that "makde them sound so good". maybe they're under-educated about "what sounds good"......but again, i can't argue with the results when the client is happy.

And on certain female vocals, it can be really useful, as I mentioned.

while my v67 sounds pretty good on female vocals, i've yet to record a female on which my V77 didn't just sound loads better. and i mean LOADS. the more i use the V77 the more i'm in love with it.

I just wish they had spent a little more on the electronics and maybe marketed a $200 or even $300 version.

from what i've heard and demo'd, that mic would be the V69. sure it's a totally different animal electronically.....but timbrally speaking it's pretty similar sounding to the V67.....it's just "more". haven't had my hands on one for any significant length of time at the house, but i plan to soon enough.

I mean ... just a little bit more, and it could be bordering on great, rather than just "good for the money."

again, totally agreed.

but then again, if you double or triple the price, you can get a MUCH nicer mic of the CAD or AT variety and i'd have a hard time justifying the MXL--even if it were "made better".

but in the sub-$99 category, IMO it's real hard to beat the SP B1 and the V67. two vastly different mics that can cover a lot of ground.


cheers,
wade

 

[MadAudio]

FWIW, the vocals here were recorded with a V67G. I think they sound pretty good.

 

[Big Kenny]

Guitar sounds great! Vocals a little buried but nice texture and who stole the drummers cymbals

 

[MadAudio]

Guitar sounds great! Vocals a little buried but nice texture and who stole the drummers cymbals

Thanks Big K. Yeah, the OH placement on that recording was less than desirable. The hats are there, but I may have to set some volume automation on some of the crashes. I'll bring up the vox a touch. Darrel's Fender DeVille was close-mic'ed with an e609s.

 

[chessrock]

Mad,

I hate to say this to you, but ...

That v67 mic isn't doing you any justice at all.

Do you wanna' know why Big Kenny thought your vocal was as little buried? Because it is. And it's because of that damn mic you're praising so much in this thread. Your file is the perfect illustration of the problems that mic presents. It isn't so much that your vocal is too soft, volume-wise (which it might actually be, but just a tad).

It's more about that mic masking the mid to upper midrange of your voice. That's where the character and articulation of someone's voice lies; in that range from 1 khz to 4khz, just before sibilance. You probably like that mic because you don't like hearing your own voice. But honestly, if you were to post this in the mp3 clinic and ask me my opinion ... I would honestly say it sounds okay, and has it's strengths. And I like your song selection. It's Floyd. But I would honestly tell you that you need a different mic to help the midrange of your voice poke through the mix just a bit. If I was your engineer, I would have taken that mic away from you and set up something like a ksm-44. Maye even a good dynamic. I'm thinking something solid in the mids, like an Electrovoice. You'd hate me for it, but you'd eventually forgive me because you'd be freakin' Gilmour.

.