C
chessrock
Banned
knownuttin said:
I third this notion.
I third this notion.
H
hk_runner
New member
To musicman316,
Please let me know the result of your search/comparison. My requirement and budget are similar to yours -- I want a mic with no upper mid boost, for a solo tenor voice. I don't want to make EQ adjustments to reduce the brightness.
I would love to try out the mics myself if I could. Unfortunately I do not have access to any of the mics I'm interested in for a try.
I did the futile thing of emailing the EMI and Decca Studios to ask them what mics they used. No reply.
To Track Rat and Littledog,
Thanks for the suggestion of a ribbon mic. I found the frequency response graphs of the ribbon microphones at the Beyer web site. They seem to have a boost around 4000 - 6000 Hz.
http://www.beyerdynamic.com/pdf/m160.pdf
http://www.beyerdynamic.com/pdf/m260.pdf
I don't know whether this boost will cause any brightness. If I remember correctly, the High C is about 1056 Hz and its second overtone may fall within that boosted region. Should I avoid reading too much into these graphs?
To all,
I gather that some of you say a tube mic is less bright, while some say made-in-China mics may be too bright. What about a (wholly or partly) made-in-China tube mic -- Marshall MXL V77S? Anyone finds it too bright or just right for vocals?
(Please don't take offence if I made a mistake about the place of manufacture of Marshall.)
Thanks. I'm glad I found this thread.
A novice in recording.
Please let me know the result of your search/comparison. My requirement and budget are similar to yours -- I want a mic with no upper mid boost, for a solo tenor voice. I don't want to make EQ adjustments to reduce the brightness.
I would love to try out the mics myself if I could. Unfortunately I do not have access to any of the mics I'm interested in for a try.
I did the futile thing of emailing the EMI and Decca Studios to ask them what mics they used. No reply.
To Track Rat and Littledog,
Thanks for the suggestion of a ribbon mic. I found the frequency response graphs of the ribbon microphones at the Beyer web site. They seem to have a boost around 4000 - 6000 Hz.
http://www.beyerdynamic.com/pdf/m160.pdf
http://www.beyerdynamic.com/pdf/m260.pdf
I don't know whether this boost will cause any brightness. If I remember correctly, the High C is about 1056 Hz and its second overtone may fall within that boosted region. Should I avoid reading too much into these graphs?
To all,
I gather that some of you say a tube mic is less bright, while some say made-in-China mics may be too bright. What about a (wholly or partly) made-in-China tube mic -- Marshall MXL V77S? Anyone finds it too bright or just right for vocals?
(Please don't take offence if I made a mistake about the place of manufacture of Marshall.)
Thanks. I'm glad I found this thread.
A novice in recording.
Last edited:
O
ozraves
New member
J
Jetphase
New member
CyanJaguar said:
actually, the "solidtube" is a great choice for this....normally, i very much *dislike* this mic, but it is very nice for "attenuating" the high end off of someones voice...pretty good for kick drum and bass too....(if you remove the internal foam "pop filter", it becomes a much better "all-around" mic....but this'll void your warranty, so think about it first...) you should be able to get a solidtube in the $600 range....
other good mics for this...and still under $600
beyer m160, m260, m500
oktava mk219, mk319
shure sm7
ev re20
sennheiser 421
rca 74b jr velocity
rca 6203, 6204
blue baby bottle
over $600
coles/stc 4038
royer r121
rca 77dx
rca 44bx
neumann u47 (still has lots of hi's...just huge, fat lows)
anyway, good luck in your search...
JET
J
Jetphase
New member
ozraves said:
hi oz...how are ya?
JET
C
chessparov
New member
musik, another possibility would be the Oktava MC-012 (or MK-012)
from www.oktava.com (The Sound Room).
Either the cardiod or the omni capsule (omni's frequency response is
slightly flatter). The cardiod capsule I have sounds similar in tone to
a Neumann U89 IMHO.
Chris
P.S. Adding the Lomo head is supposed to make it sound similar to
the old Neumann's per...Harvey!
from www.oktava.com (The Sound Room).
Either the cardiod or the omni capsule (omni's frequency response is
slightly flatter). The cardiod capsule I have sounds similar in tone to
a Neumann U89 IMHO.
Chris
P.S. Adding the Lomo head is supposed to make it sound similar to
the old Neumann's per...Harvey!
H
hk_runner
New member
Jetphase,
Your list includes the RCA 44BX. Is it still manufactured at present? I thought it had been discontinued?
I've seen a review of an AEA mic that claims to be a replica of RCA 44BX. Sounds like the RCA 44BX is no longer around but enjoys a position in a Hall of Fame.
I've searched for an RCA web site, to no avail. Does the company still exist?
Thanks.
Your list includes the RCA 44BX. Is it still manufactured at present? I thought it had been discontinued?
I've seen a review of an AEA mic that claims to be a replica of RCA 44BX. Sounds like the RCA 44BX is no longer around but enjoys a position in a Hall of Fame.
I've searched for an RCA web site, to no avail. Does the company still exist?
Thanks.
O
ozraves
New member
Jetphase said:
Fine...
So, you're over here now hanging out with Harvey and the boys? Come back to HC sometime. I know T. Alan misses you...
If you ever come through OKC, then let me buy you lunch. Do you like Vietnamese sanwiches? http://www.piemusic.com/sl/baguette3.jpg
Steve
http://www.piemusic.com
R
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
I agree with ML19 Octava ribbon, MK319 (cheap and dark). I just bought one (MK-319) at guit-arrgh center for $99. Yes, Solid Tube would be an excellent choice. Now available brand new on ebay for $525. One thing about this mic, though. I'm just guessing, but they built this mic to handle high SPL's, and it seems like it needs a pretty strong source to engage its tube warmth. On my voice, I have found it pretty useless for piano to pianissimo (the loudness, not the instrument), but excellent for forte to fortissimo. This mike wants you to project, or yell at it. For gritty rock and roll, it's great. If you are classically trained, you should be able to project well enough to engage the thing. This is just my experience with that particular mic. It is much maligned, unfairly, I think, and I think the above is one of the main reasons people haven't gotten the sound they were looking for out of this mic. Removing the internal wind screen is one approach to lowering the mics response threshhold, but I would say let the thing be what it is, and sing at it instead of to it.-Richie
E
EleKtriKaz
Home (w)Rec'r
I stumbled across this thread and am having the opposite problem. I have a dark voice that could use some warmth and lightening up. I was looking into the Rode NTK. I found one for $420, but I have no idea if this is a good choice for me. My budget is around $500, not very far over. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
R
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
Try something like C1, C3, or MC012. These are transparent mics, and I've had my best luck with tube mikes for dark and FET mics to brighten them up. I like NTK a whole lot, but I wouldn't use it to brighten a voice, just the opposite.-Richie
J
JuSumPilgrim
New member
H
hk_runner
New member
engaging level
Richard,
You made a very interesting point about a certain level of loudness required to "engage" a tube mic to start to produce its tube warmth. Have you noticed a similar situation in other models of tube mics in addition to the Solid Tube?
I also notice a similar phenomenon in quite some solid state mics --- they also have a required level of loudness at which they start to "engage" or come to life. When the source loudness is below that "engaging level", the mic output is almost zero and the frequency response is not satisfactory. When the source loudeness reaches the engaging level, the mic output takes a big jump and the frequency response becomes "normal".
Personally I would like a mic with a low engaging level.
This engaging level is present not only in studio microphones; it's even more important in the microphones of many pilot's headsets including the famous David Clark headsets (of which I have one).
This engaging level varies from one model to another. It would be great if we could tell, on paper, whether a model's engaging level is high or low (without having to test the mic), say by simply reading the specifications such as the max sound pressure level.
Unfortunately I don't think we can deduce the engaging level (which is the MINIMUM sound pressure level for the mic to perform properly) from the MAXIMUM sound pressure level that can be tolerated by the mic. The two are not directly related.
And I don't think we can deduce the engaging level from the senstivity figure.
At the end of the day, I guess we have to test the mic ourselves.
P.S. "engaging level" is only a term I borrowed from you to convey what I wanted to say ----- I'm sure there's a proper technical term for it in the audio industry.
Richard,
You made a very interesting point about a certain level of loudness required to "engage" a tube mic to start to produce its tube warmth. Have you noticed a similar situation in other models of tube mics in addition to the Solid Tube?
I also notice a similar phenomenon in quite some solid state mics --- they also have a required level of loudness at which they start to "engage" or come to life. When the source loudness is below that "engaging level", the mic output is almost zero and the frequency response is not satisfactory. When the source loudeness reaches the engaging level, the mic output takes a big jump and the frequency response becomes "normal".
Personally I would like a mic with a low engaging level.
This engaging level is present not only in studio microphones; it's even more important in the microphones of many pilot's headsets including the famous David Clark headsets (of which I have one).
This engaging level varies from one model to another. It would be great if we could tell, on paper, whether a model's engaging level is high or low (without having to test the mic), say by simply reading the specifications such as the max sound pressure level.
Unfortunately I don't think we can deduce the engaging level (which is the MINIMUM sound pressure level for the mic to perform properly) from the MAXIMUM sound pressure level that can be tolerated by the mic. The two are not directly related.
And I don't think we can deduce the engaging level from the senstivity figure.
At the end of the day, I guess we have to test the mic ourselves.
P.S. "engaging level" is only a term I borrowed from you to convey what I wanted to say ----- I'm sure there's a proper technical term for it in the audio industry.
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
RCA got out of the mic business in the late 50s or early 60s. The three main supporters of the old RCA mics are Clarence Kane (who worked at RCA at the time), Stephen Sank (whose father designed many of the RCA mics), and Wes Dooley (who loves the RCA mics). All three can do a tremendous job of restoring an old RCA ribbon mic and all three have the original ribbon material used in those mics and a good supply of the original parts.hk_runner said:
Wes has gone so far as to actually have new parts built and he offers an EXACT replica of the original RCA 44BX as well as an improved version (with 6dB more output).
The RCA 44BX and the multi-pattern 77DX are stunning examples of how good a ribbon mic can be for certain voices and instruments.
Michael Jones
New member
Harvey, just a little info:
Big D MC also does RCA repairs. I've never used him, and I don't know much about the guy, but some of his work looks very impressive!
I believe he manufactures replacement parts as well.
Big D MC also does RCA repairs. I've never used him, and I don't know much about the guy, but some of his work looks very impressive!
I believe he manufactures replacement parts as well.
H
hk_runner
New member
Thank you, Harvey, for the info on RCA mics.
Are the RCA 44BX and 77DX (or your Beyer tapered shaft M260DX Stephan Sank mod) the kind of mic that don't hype up the upper mid frequencies?
I am looking for a non-flatterig mic for singing practice. A faithful recording that reveals accurately the original voice, warts and all, without exaggeration, will help a lot in correcting errors in singing.
Thanks.
Are the RCA 44BX and 77DX (or your Beyer tapered shaft M260DX Stephan Sank mod) the kind of mic that don't hype up the upper mid frequencies?
I am looking for a non-flatterig mic for singing practice. A faithful recording that reveals accurately the original voice, warts and all, without exaggeration, will help a lot in correcting errors in singing.
Thanks.
Last edited:
L
littledog
New member
hk_runner said:
For the ultimate in unflattering, try a small diaphragm omni. They don't call them "measurement mics" for nothing!
R
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
HK- Personally, my only experience with tube mics is Solid Tube and NTK, both of which I have used quite a bit. The NTK's "response threshold" (best term I can come up with to call it) seems to be much lower on NTK, and I can use it for soft vocals (a possible choice for Musikman). For my voice, Solid Tube is superior for loud vocals on the placements we've tried (a bunch). Note that Solid Tube's included shockmount does not support the mic upside-down, I use a pair of Sabrasom universal shock mounts for that, or screw it right to the boom and *don't* tap your feet. I agree with Littledog- for accurate, try MC012 with an omni capsule and no pad.-Brutal...Richie
C
chessparov
New member
I use a small diaphram omni condenser to practice my vocals with and it
really helps. Great suggestion!
Chris
really helps. Great suggestion!
Chris
H
hk_runner
New member
Thanks, guys.
I prefer to place the mic at least five feet from the singer, to resemble the minimum distance between the singer and the trainer/instructor. I'd like to hear on playback what the trainer/instructor heard.
The "response threshold" (thanks, Richard, for coming up with this term) of some mics I've tried are not low enough for recording at such a distance.
I hope a distance of five feet is not to large for the small diaphragm omni condensers suggested.
I prefer to place the mic at least five feet from the singer, to resemble the minimum distance between the singer and the trainer/instructor. I'd like to hear on playback what the trainer/instructor heard.
The "response threshold" (thanks, Richard, for coming up with this term) of some mics I've tried are not low enough for recording at such a distance.
I hope a distance of five feet is not to large for the small diaphragm omni condensers suggested.
