Where Are The Mic Differences?

B

bgavin

New member
Last night, I took my collection of mics and rock-star daughter over to Recording Engineer's studio.

We set up (5) mics with a pop screen in front of the talent.

AT4040
AT4047
MXL V67
797 CR998 (tube)
Milab VIP-50

We balanced the mics for approximate equal input, then simultaneously recorded about 45 seconds of Lydia doing acappella of one of her tunes.

We spent the next hour listening to the playback and comparing them.
Other than the AT4040 sounding slightly more high-end sibilent, the differences were very subtle. My untrained ear could barely hear any difference. RE could hear more difference, but it was still subtle.

I figured the AT4047 would be "dark" and "tranny" sounding, where the V67 would be "dark" also.

I'm wondering why I have all these mics, when they all sound 99.9% identical to each other...

Thoughts?
 
What else in the chain? Certain pres can homogenize the differences between mics. A/D/A converters, monitors, inexpensive mixers, you name it...they can all minimize the differences between microphones.

Terry
 
We balanced the mics for approximate equal input, then simultaneously recorded about 45 seconds of Lydia doing acappella of one of her tunes
Click to expand...
If your recorded simultaniously then she really wasn't able to work the mics like they should be. Some of the mics are going to be slightly off axis therefore nullifying this kind of test for tonal quality. Usually the best way to do this type of testing is having your singer a couple or 3 inches and straight on axis, that way you can catch more of the proximity effect of the capsules. Basically she needs to sing in each mic like it's the only mic.
 
The AT4047 and the V67 do not sound similiar and especially not the same. Non of those mics sound exactly the same.

danny
 
in my useless opinion, I find that mic placement is much more important over mic choice for the major majority of what I do....and I will venture that probably it should, or would be the most important for the majority of people reading these posts. Next, I would say the quality of sound going into the mic would rate above mic choice also... Actually, I would put that item first..then placement. THEN, I would worry about mic choice, but then probably on an equal basis as mic pres and the rest of the garbage the signal will go thru before it is finally "hidden" in a mix.

I really tend to think that there is quite a bit of hype on different mic choices shoved at most home recordists, leading them to believe that having a AT4033 over a MXLV67 is going to solve their problems, when in fact, I really don't believe it will. BUT, I will agree that it helps...but NOT the answer people think they will get,,, ESPECIALLY at the home recordist level.

So, yes, I agree the mic differences are subtle, and actually think that many people who spout GREAT differences use the term "great", differently than I do. I want to think my ears are just fine...thank you... but think my earlier points carry more weight.... UNTIL you become a "big boy"...and honestly, I don't see this place packed full of them. ....not to say, I'll know one when I see one :D
 
In most cases, the untrained ear will not hear much of a difference between various mics when listening to a solo, unaccompanied sample like that. In fact, I would have been quite surprized if you had actually heard any striking differences in that particular situation you describe.

What would have been much more revealing is if you had tried EQ'ing each track, and listening to the effects. As an example, I would bet you a hundred bucks if you had added 6-10 db's of high-shelf at or around 10-12 khz, the differences would have been quite striking. And my guess is that the v67 and the 797 Audio would have revealed some harsh unpleasantries in those upper regions, whereas the 4047 would have likely resulted in a smoother lift.

Similarly, if you were to add a little bass in hopes of beefing the vocal up a bit, you might have noticed some other major differences; most notably, the results may have varied from a little added heft, to a little added mud.

Tracks recorded with better mics will behave better and prove infinitely more "manipulatable" with EQ and other types of processing.

Another factor that's of equal if not more importance is how a given track will behave in the context of a mix. If all you're doing is recording an a cappella vocal or solo instrument, then your job as a mixing engineer is going to be a lot less tricky. :D Let's face it, now. Vocal tracks tend to do funny things when you add in other instruments. Particularly ones that occupy a lot of the midrange; guitars (both accoustic and electric), piano, synth, etc. etc.

The true test of a mic's mettle is going to come when it holds it's own in a busy mix . . . and should it need a little help, it has to respond well. If it needs a boost here or a cut there, you can't have it reveal a bunch of crud in the low mids, or a bunch of crispy crunchies in the high end. When you EQ something, it's almost like you're drawing a curtain and revealing something. "What's behind door number 3?" Hopefully something good.
 
That's interesting. At times I have noticed very little difference between my inexpensive (read cheap) condensers. And at other times, depending on the situation, there have been significant differences.

I also recently tested a few of my mics in an acapella voice test. I was searching to find which of the mics I have at my diposal at this point in time might suit my voice best. I have one of those voices that doesn't seem to respond to the traditional mic choices. I use a '57 live instead of a '58, etc. And I've even gotten decent results on vocals with (if you can believe this) an ecm8000.

My test: I put up an MXL V57, an AT 3035, an Oktava MK319 and a Shure SM81.
All were run through a DMP3.

I found there to be a pronounced difference between all 4 of these mics. But when I played the clips for family and friends, they all scratched their heads and shrugged and in most cases couldn't hear a difference.

The results? Although I love my 81 on acoustic guitar, and have distance-miced vocals with 81's before, it was not a contender in this application. The plosives were out of control. The MXL seemed to have hype at both the low and high end, and sibilance was an issue. The AT3035 was warm and fuzzy sounding compared to the other mics. Interestingly enough, the Oktava seemed to have the clarity I was looking for on my voice. But I liked the lows on the AT. So I guess I need a mic with the best combined characteristics of these two. I may try using them both and blending afterwards.

But I definitely noticed a difference between these mics.

And also, Chessrock's point about EQ is well taken. The MXL mic can behave very strangely when EQ'd. But I can radically EQ the 81 and it will behave itself.
The other 2 are somewhere in between.
 
Testing a mic with your own voice isn't a good test.

Everybody knows one needs a kind of special mic for kickdrums.

Every microphone can suck on a particular application while it can shine on another.

In order to find out the quality of a mic, you'll have to use it on a number of applications. Try your mics on a trumpet with a damper in the bell and you'll find out how many even expensive mics totally suck here.

Try you best mic on an upright bass and you'll find out a lot more about that mic and you don't need a very trained ear to hear that.

Rattle with your doorkeys close to a condenser and you'll hear very nasty distortion. Do it close to a ribbon and you'll hear no distortion at all.

Imagine the same condenser and ribbon close to a loud hi hat or loud percussion.

Like Harvey says: you can use every mic on every application, some will sound better, some will sound worse (or something like that).

Have a nice day!
 
After all the reading and study time spent here and elsewhere, I was expecting a far greater difference on a voice.

I've seen in print time and again how one mic has that great "transformer" sound. Or "tube" sound. And so forth.

I've downloaded MP3 samples of mic comparisons, and my ears hear very little difference. In fact, the largest difference I hear is loudness. Fletcher will be the first to invalidate a test like this, if the loudness levels are not critically matched. And I agree.

As pointed out above, perhaps the mics respond differently when the highs are boosted a lot, etc. I don't debate that. I'm just amazed at how very SIMILAR they all sound in an ad-hoc comparison using voice. This doesn't seem to substantiate all the endless chatter about having so many mics for different voices.
 
bgavin said:
I've seen in print time and again how one mic has that great "transformer" sound. Or "tube" sound. And so forth.
Click to expand...


A lot of that stuff is marketing hype . . . some of it is wishful thinking. And some of it is real but very subtle; some of it not-so-subtle.


I'm just amazed at how very SIMILAR they all sound in an ad-hoc comparison using voice. This doesn't seem to substantiate all the endless chatter about having so many mics for different voices.
Click to expand...

The problem with that logic is that you're basing it on an a cappela vocal (of your kid). Some us here have more challenging tracking / mixing scenarios to deal with. :D You know, like the kind that involve actual music and stuff. Electric and accoustic instruments, etc.

Mixing would be such an easy task if it was simply a matter of getting each track to sound decent by itself in solo mode. You're ignoring a very large and important component in all of this.

Not to mention that some of us are presented with unique scenarios from time-to-time. Maybe someone walks in with a screechy voice, someone else walks in with a serious twang, or someone else just likes to scream and belt shit out, while the other guy barely whispers.
 
bgavin said:
After all the reading and study time spent here and elsewhere, I was expecting a far greater difference on a voice.

I've seen in print time and again how one mic has that great "transformer" sound. Or "tube" sound. And so forth.

I've downloaded MP3 samples of mic comparisons, and my ears hear very little difference. In fact, the largest difference I hear is loudness. Fletcher will be the first to invalidate a test like this, if the loudness levels are not critically matched. And I agree.

As pointed out above, perhaps the mics respond differently when the highs are boosted a lot, etc. I don't debate that. I'm just amazed at how very SIMILAR they all sound in an ad-hoc comparison using voice. This doesn't seem to substantiate all the endless chatter about having so many mics for different voices.
Click to expand...

Well, again, the other components in the recording chain can homogenize the differences in your mics. Rent an hour in a pro recording studio, take your mics and your daughter and test each one of them using the engineers knowledge and experience. If you still don't hear a difference in your mics and you like what you hear...congratulations...you're done buying gear!

Terry
 
chessrock said:
The problem with that logic is that you're basing it on an a cappela vocal (of your kid). Some us here have more challenging tracking / mixing scenarios to deal with. :D You know, like the kind that involve actual music and stuff.
Click to expand...
How utterly condescending.

I've asked a legitmate question and I get this kind of shit? I don't think it is the slightest bit amusing...

:mad:

My "kid" is currently on MTV... and doing a damn site more music than what you are doing... haunting a bulletin board all the time. From what I read here, the most challenging thing you have to do is bash people on this board.

So please, spare me the holier-than-thou attitude. If you can't provide something other than sarcasm, then don't provide anything at all.
 
bgavin said:
I've downloaded MP3 samples of mic comparisons, and my ears hear very little difference.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it... honestly, MP3 audio files are worthless for mic comparisons... by deign, MP3 files compress and cut freq's.
 
bgavin said:
How utterly condescending.

I've asked a legitmate question and I get this kind of shit? I don't think it is the slightest bit amusing...
Click to expand...


I can't believe you actually took offense to that. It's not a personal attack. I'm merely pointing out a flaw in your methodology. Trying to help better your understanding of how to tell the real differences between mics.

You can go ahead and interperate that how you want, I guess.
 
chessrock said:
As an example, I would bet you a hundred bucks if you had added 6-10 db's of high-shelf at or around 10-12 khz, the differences would have been quite striking. And my guess is that the...797 Audio would have revealed some harsh unpleasantries in those upper regions, whereas the 4047 would have likely resulted in a smoother lift...
Click to expand...


The 797 Audio CR998 (that I own) has a nice shimmery smooth top end IMO--except through a Behringer pre. :D I don't have your experience, but on vox and acoustic guit, at least IMO, this mic never needs an added 6-10 db's at or around 10-12 khz. It can use a 6db cut at 250 hz and below somethimes, though.
 
Bgavin,
Is there any way you could put up mp3 samples of the session and post a link to them? I think this would solve many issues. Plus, I would love to hear them! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top