Audio examples: Five condensors. Be the judge!

[kaipiranha]

Disclaimer:

This is just for fun. No hidden agenda. A pointless comparison. And completely unscientific.

I set up five different condensor mics and recorded some short examples. The order of the mics in the two files is the same. The singer sung with a soft voice in the first file and with a loud voice in the second.

All mics went through a Phoenix Audio DRS-2. I kept the gain settings in spite of the fact that the output levels of the mics varied. I normalized the takes in Samplitude afterwards. Files are converted to mp3/192kbit

Share your impressions! Tell us which mics you like and which you don't and why.

And if you're a couraged person, try to guess the mics or at least the characteristics (U47-like, 251-like, non-tube-like, vanilla-like, etc.)

Enjoy.

Kai

P.S.: I will post the solution in one, two, or three days.

[SkunkWorks]

This is completely pointless.

I'm only kidding... have just always wanted to say that in one of these threads (wink). Now I've got it out of my system. Sorry, Carry on.

[kaipiranha]

You're right. This is completely pointless.

Hm. Maybe I could change the title to "Examples of five EXPENSIVE HIGH END microphones". And I should set up a poll. Not that this would make it less pointless, but at least more colored.

Kai

[SkunkWorks]

naw, I'm just kidding, it's not pointless. I enjoy these.

[underworld]

nice singer by the way...

soft singing:
1 - nice low end, nice air ... very smooth
2 - more "edge" than 1, not as much low ... not quite as smooth
3 - i couldn't come up with any comment here?
4 - weaker than the rest .... no air,
5 - a bit bright

#1 is my favorite

loud singing:
1 - too far away? weak sounding?
2 - edgey - SM7?
3 - not as much life as the others
4 - something weird in the upper mids/low highs?
5 - a bit bright

#2 is my favorite

overall i thought the soft sounded much better than the loud. i would like to have heard the loud recorded a little closer to the mic - they sound a bit far away for my tastes. the only guess i have is that #2 is an SM7 .... #5 is possibly a R0de of some kind? or AT4033 style ...

then again i've been sick for a few days and my ears could be way off.

[kaipiranha]

Originally Posted by SkunkWorks

naw, I'm just kidding, it's not pointless. I enjoy these.

I thought so. I enjoyed your first funny remark, and my reply was intended to be a little tongue-in-cheek.

A serious note: A pattern has emerged here that says: You have to try a piece of gear in your room with your singer on your day with your underpants etc. etc.
Sorry, I don't agree. I think with at least a little bit of experience you can draw abstract conclusions in regard to what an item sounds like from not-so-abstract audio examples - at least if there are a few examples of different mics/preamps/whatever that you can compare.
I bought more than one piece for my studio based on audio files found on the net or on CDs that came with audio magazines. The DRS-2 is one example, and also two of the mics involved here. I've never been disappointed with my purchases - not even once, because the gear always sounded and behaved in real life like I thought it would, judging from the audio examples I had listened to.

Makes sense?

Kai

[SkunkWorks]

Makes total sense. I bought my Great River, Distressor and Oktava mics based on clips I heard on this board. After now having owned them for a while I have decided my money was well spent and these will be lifetime purchases.

[kaipiranha]

Thank you, underworld.

The strange thing is: The order of the mics is the same in both files, and each number from 1 to 5 was originally ONE take that I cut into half after the recording. I agree 100% that the soft passages sound far better than the loud ones, although both were always recorded in one pass.

The singer has enough experience to enlarge the mic distance when he's getting louder. I guess he backed off a little bit too much. (BTW, I'll pass your compliments to him. Thank you.)

There's no SM7 involved, only condensers. I've ordered one the day before yesterday - no kidding; that's the mic I still want to try on him when his voice gets loud.

More details to come when I disclose the participants...

Kai

[backhair]

to my very untrained ear, this is what i heard

SOFT

1 and 3 had the most depth and detail. 3 seemed a bit more sibilant than 1, but that isn't always a bad thing.

2 and 4 seem more "veiled" and not quite as deep or detailed - almost like there was a very thin sock over the mic

5 was somewhere in the middle - more definition than 2 or 4, but not quite as good as 1 or 3.


LOUD

they still seem to have the same tonal qualities, but in this application, i might choose a different one just based on the singing style. the output on 3 seemed lower than the others and i didn't like it as much comparatively (although 4 was my least favorite). 1 is still very detailed, but 2 takes some of that edge off and works well in this application, as does 5.

[kaipiranha]

Good replies so far. (Probably better than you might think.)

I want more.

Don't be afraid - keep them coming!

Kai

[kaipiranha]

No one else?

Why not?

Would this be more interesting if I revealed the mics that I used?

Kai

[Yetti]

Reveal the mics!!!! (lol)

Nice vibrato on the singing...kinda Freddy Mercuryish.

I like both 1 and 2.
I believe 1 may be a 103
I believe 2 may be a Rode K2 , or NTK

If I had to choose, I would pick #2 for the soft and #1 for the loud.
Good job!
Now reveal the mics!

Originally Posted by kaipiranha

No one else?

Why not?

Would this be more interesting if I revealed the mics that I used?

Kai

[qubi]

thanks for the post.. sorry to nit pick, but i didn;t find this the easiest way to jump between mics, but i guess you were trying to save on file downloads (and i was too lazy to open up the files in logic and chop them up!)

anyway..

Soft: 1, 4
loud: 2, 4.

I think i just went with loudest,, but all things (assumed) constant, i'm just going with what my ear gravitated first.. hey, You said this wasn't scientific!

thanks..

now what are they???????????????????

[BudgetMC]

1) Too breathy for my taste...

2) Rich & creamy... but might lack the highs to cut through a mix.

3) Backhair's got this one... SSSSsssssibliance! Too much for me... or for this vocalist, anyway.

4) This one has some thickness... nice mid-rangey sound without going boxy.

5) Like this one, nothing particularly ugly in it...

Of course, any of these could work given how it was placed in a mix (well.. the Sibilance on #3 would drive me nuts).

[uncle duncan]

Interesting, if you're recording solo voice with no instruments. I don't do that, so I need to hear a mic in a mix to be able to evaluate how it sounds. The mic that sounds the best solo could sound the worst in a mix, and vice versa.

Good choice on the DRS-2. I've got a DRS-1.

[kaipiranha]

Thank you for your replies!

Originally Posted by qubi

thanks for the post.. sorry to nit pick, but i didn;t find this the easiest way to jump between mics, but i guess you were trying to save on file downloads

Eeeeee-xactly.

Originally Posted by uncle duncan

Interesting, if you're recording solo voice with no instruments. I don't do that, so I need to hear a mic in a mix to be able to evaluate how it sounds. The mic that sounds the best solo could sound the worst in a mix, and vice versa.

Actually, the singer sang to a track that I could have mixed in. I just thought the solo tracks might reveal the differences better.

Originally Posted by BudgetMC

Of course, any of these could work given how it was placed in a mix (well.. the Sibilance on #3 would drive me nuts).

Oddly enough, when I recorded the album of the singer's band last year, we chose this mic and didn't have the problem at all. The file doesn't do the mic justice - it's not as loud as the rest, for starters. Well, as I said - a completely unscientific comparison, and done very quickly.

Originally Posted by Yetti

Reveal the mics!!!! (lol)

In alphabetical order:

Audio Technica AT4050, Brauner Valvet, Lawson L251, Neumann U89i, Wagner U47w.

Now guess which is which!

Kai

[jimmyjimjim]

Very quick listen:
1/Brauner
2/Wagner
3/Audio Technica
4/Lawson
5/U89

2 and 5 i'm pretty sure about.

All these guesses is made from the general "type of mic" (47, 251, FET)
As, apart from using the U89 on overheads 10 years ago, the AT on toms, and the Brauner on one vocal I don't know the spesific ones.
And jumping between was very difficult.
I listened with Sennheiser earplugs.

[kaipiranha]

No one else?

I'd really like to see two or three more replies.

Kai

[amfortas2006]

i think nr 3 in soft is brauner, cause i think I hear vovox cables there

Or did you use the same cables?? Could be wrong

[Yetti]

Originally Posted by kaipiranha

No one else?

I'd really like to see two or three more replies.

Kai

They are out there, lurking, waiting....

[kaipiranha]

Originally Posted by amfortas2006

i think nr 3 in soft is brauner, cause i think I hear vovox cables there

Or did you use the same cables?? Could be wrong

Ok, a serious reply:

Same cable only on the two non-tube/3-pin XLR mics. And the cable is from Switzerland! Not Vovox, but Gotham, though.

The tube mics use different cables, and oddly enough, all of them use different connectors. Who would have thought that there are a million variations of 7-pin connectors out there?

The Lawson came with a Gotham cable, too.

The Brauner I have is pre-Vovox...

Originally Posted by Yetti

They are out there, lurking, waiting....

Yes. Obviously.

This is beginning to feel like a flea market/garage sale deal.
Come on, one more reply with guesses as to which mic is which, and I'll reveal their order AND give you a thumbs up icon for free! An amazing deal. (This one -> )

Kai

[pikapikapi]

Originally Posted by kaipiranha

Yes. Obviously.

This is beginning to feel like a flea market/garage sale deal.
Come on, one more reply with guesses as to which mic is which, and I'll reveal their order AND give you a thumbs up icon for free! An amazing deal. (This one -> )

Kai

Its time to post the results

[amfortas2006]

Btw.

Nr.2 in soft is more noisy then the rest on my headphones, that are pretty flat.

I like Nr.1 best and Nr.3 but Nr.3 not as an all-rounder, maybe for some specific stuf.

In the "loud" section the singer seems to far from the mics so the signal is a bit lower, and I dont find it optimal to judge in this situation.

[6strings]

Originally Posted by kaipiranha

This is beginning to feel like a flea market/garage sale deal.
Come on, one more reply with guesses as to which mic is which, and I'll reveal their order AND give you a thumbs up icon for free! An amazing deal. (This one -> )

Kai

Here's my impression/feedback of your test: I gave the "loud" version a download and quick listen. There were (what I percieved as) obvious level differences between each take so I gave up because to do an accurate judgement means attempting to listen to all the examples at the same level. (I don't have time to do such "homework") Otherwise, it's human nature to pick the loudest one as the best sounding.

So..... I pick #1 as the best (it's the loudest?).

This is just for fun. No hidden agenda. A pointless comparison. And completely unscientific.

Yes, it is fun to read. Thanks for posting!

------
Edit: re-read you note about normalizing. Some takes still sound "softer" to me. The level may be normalized, but the original lower recording level (or singer's distance on some takes) may still be a factor here, no?

[kaipiranha]

Originally Posted by 6strings

Edit: re-read you note about normalizing. Some takes still sound "softer" to me. The level may be normalized, but the original lower recording level (or singer's distance on some takes) may still be a factor here, no?

It's not the lower recording level, but the difference between the peak and the RMS level in each take. When EVERYTHING in one take is softer than in another, then normalizing will set the average levels to about the same values (highest peak is always set to 0 dBFS). When the loudest part of one take is way louder then the rest of it in comparison to the loudest part of another take in comparison to the rest of that take, then normalizing still sets the peak to 0 dBFS, but the rest of the first take stays lower in comparison to the second take.

Well, and here are the results:

1. Lawson L251
2. Neumann U89i
3. Wagner U47w
4. Audio Technica 4050
5. Brauner Valvet

The Lawson and AT mics are new and were the main reason for me to do this comparison. The oldest of the bunch is the Neumann, and the singer has used this mic for over a decade. To my ears, it's still the best of the bunch when he gets loud. The test file doesn't do the Wagner justice. In real life, it's excellent, and still the best for this singer in softer passages. (But - no surprise - it starts to distort earlier than the U89 with loud voices, and things can get a little nasty then.) On certain (not too loud) voices, the Wagner IS magical.
The Brauner and the Lawson share some similarities in the highs that the others don't have. But the mids and lows are somewhat fuller on the Lawson, and the high frequency peak of the L251 is around 10kHz, whereas the Brauner has it at probably around 12 kHz.
I bought the 4050 mainly for other things than vocals, but I thought I might throw it in, and, while not as refined sounding as the other mics, I can imagine that under certain circumstances it might cut better through a mix than the rest.
The Lawson, of course, is also great (as most of you have confirmed), and I guess that on voices it will be a close call between the U47 and the L251 in over 90% of all cases from now on. There are some settings that can be changed on the Lawson (10 db attenuation, bass extension, multipattern mode), and I'll have to play around with them in the near future.
BTW, this might surprise you, but I did NOT choose the Wagner and the Lawson because they are descendants of the vintage classics, but because I listened to the audio files that were available and found them to be superior in comparison to a lot of other mics. And I decided that I wanted to have a choice between exactly these two sounds in my studio.

Any additional remarks are more than welcome.

Kai

[Ruphus]

Hey Kai,

I´m still grateful for the way you helped me out so kindly once.
You are a good man, sir.


Stuck with a dial-up connection I didn´t listen to the samples myself, but ...

Eventhough the track might not be doing fully justice to the mic, as you say, seeing the comments below makes me feel better about years ago not having spend the silly money that is inquired for the Wagner.

Remarkable how these comments are being different from the usual ones of users who shelled out, seeking for justification of their purchase with praising the microphone as if it was among common mics sticking out soundwise like good ol´Melanie among a bunch of Madonnas.

Obviously though not exactly so.

3) Backhair's got this one... SSSSsssssibliance! Too much for me... or for this vocalist, anyway.

3/Audio Technica

3 seemed a bit more sibilant than 1, but that isn't always a bad thing.

3 - i couldn't come up with any comment here?

3 - not as much life as the others

Thanks for the demo!

Ruphus

[kaipiranha]

Hi Ruphus,

long time no see.

I guess I'm among those who have to justify their purchase...

No, not really. I think I remember you writing that you didn't hear anything special in the famous G. Wagner/E. Stone audio example. Well, my perception of the take was somewhat different.
And, as we all know, there's no "one size fits all" in regard to microphones and voices, and "it's a matter of inches, not miles".
If I had to choose only one of these mics for every voice to record, I'd have a hard time deciding between the Wagner and the Lawson, and would probably have to toss a coin. I'm glad that from now on I can choose between the two.
In my experience/to my ears the Wagner is something special; I would buy it again without hesitation, and I really don't write this because I feel the need to justify my purchase (and I'm not exactly a fan of high end audio myths, either).

On the other hand, if I HAD to work exclusively with the AT4050, it would also be possible to achieve satisfying results.

Maybe it's time for another set of audio samples with a different voice to make the image clearer.

Kai