Three Mic Shootout- Neumann, Sennheiser and AKG

  • Thread starter Thread starter highriser
  • Start date Start date
H

highriser

New member
Hey guys,
I'm choosing between these three vocal mics I recorded some scratch vocals for the song 'All of Me' by John Legend.

Let me know which one you guys like best for my voice, the mics are the AKG D3800, The Neumann KMS 105 and the Sennheiser MD421. I understand the limitations of judging from acapella clips so please don't suggest putting it with music, I want them to be judged by voice alone.

https://app.box.com/s/vgga7bsdn5kpgg56304t

https://app.box.com/s/20jrebukwtbmq6wgyxu8

https://app.box.com/s/rkwy4dj7etdtgplogpqs

Thanks
 
@ibleedburgundy: so in your opinion are they all useable or all awful? And what are they missing? Like what would you look for in a different mic?
 
Last edited:
I like mic 2, but these are just acapella samples. In the context of a mix, I might prefer mic 1, cuz it's brighter. I might even prefer that darker #3 (but I doubt it - it's kinda cloudy compared to 1 and 2). It would depend, in other words.
 
I agree that there's no clear winner but, if pressed, I'd give it to Number 2 by a whisker.

It's interesting that Dobro refers to Mic 1 as "brighter" but on my monitoring I actually find it the least bright. For me, Mics 2 and 3 have a bit more clarity but Mic 2 manages it but still has a touch more warmth than Mic 3.

I get an error message when I try to go to Mic 4 BTW.
 
Mic 1 = Not bad (a little fizzy in the upper mids) and a little boxy

Mic 2 = Sounds like a cheap condenser (the classic 5khz peak that tricks your ear at first that its better because it's brighter when in fact it just sounds thinner and bright in a place you can add later if you want it but sounds too dull if you try to remove it later so it's hard to place in a mix to sound full and warm)

Mic 3 = A little less detail, but flatter response overall (not hearing as much annoying tinny fizzy stuff or overly nasal or boxy stuff). Most usable imo. It's all there. If you want a little air, just add it in later. Flattest is king (for me anyways)

Mind you, they are ALL usable of course. I just think mic 3 is a little more up front (were you singing closer to this one?) and flatter and maybe it's just more suited for your voice/style. Could be different mic for a 14 girl singing pop tunes, ya dig?
 
@recordingmaster: nice assessment, I am wondering what you would say about mic 4?
 
highriser said:
@recordingmaster: nice assessment, I am wondering what you would say about mic 4?
Click to expand...

Oh I didn't see there was a forth. i didn't look at any of the other replies on here. Just listened. It's alright but sounds a little scooped. My fav is 3, but 3 is softe sounding in comparison to 4. That may be what you want or not.

Order of best to worst for me on your voice...
3
4
1
2
 
Thanks. You have pretty good ears. Your descriptions were pretty spot on with the frequency responses of each mic. It is interesting that the mic you liked least was most people's favorite. Lol. I am waiting on one more mic in the mail. I will post that one when it comes.
 
highriser said:
Thanks. You have pretty good ears. Your descriptions were pretty spot on with the frequency responses of each mic. It is interesting that the mic you liked least was most people's favorite. Lol. I am waiting on one more mic in the mail. I will post that one when it comes.
Click to expand...

haha thanks. I was actually listening on earbuds at work! But regardless, I listen to enough stuff on them here to be able to tell difference between certain obvious things.

I didn't read the other posts about what people liked and didn't read your unveiling (until just now) so I wasn't influenced. I think a lot of people probably chose mic 2 because that "extra top end boost" fools a lot of people. Brighter always sounds better to people (most). Just like loudness tricks people into thinking something is better too (like how certain plugin companies make their plugins add a db of volume to the signal even with no settings engaged so when you bypass, the dry signal is quieter and hence why the effected signal sounds "better"). Same deal imo
 
Last edited:
It goes to show how subjective this all is though. Frequency response curves are useful to spot major flaws in the mic but those same flaws are what differentiate one mic from another (and make some mics sound subjectively better with some voices).

Something that can be very enlightening is to use a more or less flat response measurement mic (I have an Earthworks M30 I use with SMAART for checking acoustics in theatres) on a real world voice or other sound source. At least to my ear you'll never get a more boring, lifeless sound even though it's "accurate".

This survey sort of confirms my own subjective prejudices though. I actually own a TLM105 (bought for a specific project where it was specified) but am never totally happy with the sound. I have other, less expensive mics I tend to bring out of the cupboard in preference. However, that's just me and a fully acknowledge I like a brighter sound than many other people want.

Finally, I also suspect that the monitoring used also played a big factor in this. Even in a nicely treated room with good speakers, there ARE differences!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top