***Mic-Mod Madness!!!***

[Brad McGowan]

Damn that's a scary avatar pic.

Brad

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Brad McGowan

Damn that's a scary avatar pic.

Brad

LOL

Brad - I'd say it's about equally scarey as looking at your avatar is for me.....

[chribble]

I'm surprised that so many people like tube 4
for me the midrange is really weak making it last place by a lot.

[bradley]

I've had a chance to listen to the FET samples (once again on AKG 701's). I find the differences between these 4 to be very subtle. Of them all the only one I've used is a U87 (ai not the original like in this case) so I have no knowledge of these mics.

All I can see if I'd be happy to use any of these! The differences are there but they are subtle. Am looking forward to finding out which ones are which!

[MadGuitrst]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

I responded to a particular mic that brought some of those soulful qualities forward. What I heard come forward a bit more was an intimate, breathy presence combined with a clearly articulated differentiation between "T" and "D" sounds - a slightly forward, enhanced articulation of a soulful presence. These characteristics came together in a gestalt of "real". I heard this in tube mic 4.

On subsequent listening sessions, I began to get an impression the enhanced presence was sounding a bit like an Aphex Aural Exciter. Not necessarily unpleasant, but definitely a harmonically-enriched tweak. Sort of like how the "sharpen" filter in PhotoShop enhances edge contrast to make the line structure of an image "pop" more - perhaps just a little bit too much of the "sharpen filter" is at work in tube mic 4. So while my first and immediate impression of tube mic 4 was as sense of heightened realism, over time I've come to hear this mic as having a bit too much unnaturally-added harmonic content and I started to become more aware of sibilance as well. Perhaps I fell prey to the old "brighter = better" gambit?

I think that's a great description MJ.

I went back to listening to all of the mics, and have changed the order of the tube mics here, with explanations.

#1 TNC1200(Apex460-Avant CV12 - STOCK)
#2 Michael Joly modded Apex460
#3 Neumann M49
#4 M-Audio Sputnik (STOCK)
#5 Neumann U47

Okay, here's my reasoning:

#1 and #2 sound to me to share the same heritage. #1 is a bit sibilant and a bit thin sounding, #2 better behaved and a more balanced/rounded. So, I picked #1 as the stock 1200 and #2 as a modified version of it.

#4 is exactly as Michael described. *EDIT* In all, I am quite sure #4 is the Sputnik.

#3 and #5 have a similar heritage IMO. #3 is a bit bigger in this "shootout" and #5 is more even overall. #3 is the 49 and #5 is the 47.

....It got me re-thinking (and I listened again to) the non-tube mics - I'll get to them later, but first:

More thoughts
Besides the Euphony of magic mics, another thing that sets some mics apart, more so than tonality, is depth and dimension. A good example of this is the MXL M3, which IMO, especially after pulling out the inner mesh, has a nice, not-too-excited-Neumann-ish tonality to it; however, it is lacking a bit of the depth of the better-ist mics.

What does that mean to me?
Again, there are so many variables. With some things, it's the buildup, or lack there-of, which is crucial to the sonic end result.

How many people are recording acapella groups or The League off Crafty Guitarists? IOW, we're mostly not making recordings of all of the same instruments, which respond differently to all of the various variables. For that matter, even recordings of all voice and/or all of the same instruments, unless they are all one and the same (same person singing, same guitarists playing the same guitar in the same exact spot relative to the mic, etc) there are variables (for me, to make things sound more real, when I record guitars I like to use different guitars and amps on the same tracks, just makes it more realistic to me - plus I can use complimentary instrument chains and therefore have to EQ/process less. The same for vocals, I like to use different mics for harmonies, etc. In all, it's more organic and inspiring to me).

Anyway, I'm kind of all over the place here, trying to get my thoughts out......

I guess I'm trying too say besides a euphonic nature, depth and dimension are what sets many mics and preamps apart. It's not always obvious, especially with preamps, until your ear is trained and/or you get to a point in the recording process where the buildup or lack-thereof show it. IMO, in many *shootouts*, these factors are often negated to various degrees - from subtly to completely.

I also agree with Michael that the distance here is laying a significant role, just as it does when we are actually recording.

For that matter, we all know the environment is important and proximity to the mic is too, but I would take it as far as to say that the way a mic is worked (distance, angles, etc.) can often be more important than the mic choice, considering the mics are of relatively similar heritage/quality (quality, not price). That said, an SM57, a C12-ish, and K?7-ish mics are inherently going to have different attributes, not matter how your work them.

Okay, enough rambling.......
.....onto re-listening to the non-tube mics.....
.........just as soon as I'm done getting my daughter a healthy McDonalds Breakfast - her weekend indulgence.......

[MadGuitrst]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

I responded to a particular mic that brought some of those soulful qualities forward. What I heard come forward a bit more was an intimate, breathy presence combined with a clearly articulated differentiation between "T" and "D" sounds - a slightly forward, enhanced articulation of a soulful presence. These characteristics came together in a gestalt of "real". I heard this in tube mic 4.

On subsequent listening sessions, I began to get an impression the enhanced presence was sounding a bit like an Aphex Aural Exciter. Not necessarily unpleasant, but definitely a harmonically-enriched tweak. Sort of like how the "sharpen" filter in PhotoShop enhances edge contrast to make the line structure of an image "pop" more - perhaps just a little bit too much of the "sharpen filter" is at work in tube mic 4. So while my first and immediate impression of tube mic 4 was as sense of heightened realism, over time I've come to hear this mic as having a bit too much unnaturally-added harmonic content and I started to become more aware of sibilance as well. Perhaps I fell prey to the old "brighter = better" gambit?

I think that's a great description MJ.

I went back to listening to all of the mics, and have changed the order of the tube mics here, with explanations.

#1 TNC1200(Apex460-Avant CV12 - STOCK)
#2 Michael Joly modded Apex460
#3 Neumann M49
#4 M-Audio Sputnik (STOCK)
#5 Neumann U47

Okay, here's my reasoning:

#1 and #2 sound like me to share the same heritage. #1 is a bit sibilant and a bit thin sounding, #2 better behaved and a more balanced/rounded. So, I picked #1 as the stock 1200 and #2 as a modified version of it.

#4 is exactly as Michael described. *EDIT* In all, I'm re-guessing that #4 is the Sputnik.

#3 and #5 have a similar heritage IMO. #3 is a bit bigger in this "shootout" and #5 is more even overall. #3 is the 49 and #5 is the 47.

....It got me re-thinking (and I listened again to) the non-tube mics - I'll get to them later, but first:

More thoughts
Besides the Euphony of magic mics, another thing that sets some mics apart, more so than tonality, is depth and dimension. A good example of this is the MXL M3, which IMO, especially after pulling out the inner mesh, has a nice, not-too-excited-Neumann-ish tonality to it. IOW, it has nice tonality, relatively speaking, but it is lacking the depth of the better mics.

What does that mean to me?
Again, there are so many variables. With some things, it's the buildup, or lack there-of, which is crucial to the sonic end result.

How many people are recording acapella groups or The League off Crafty Guitarists? IOW, we're mostly not making recordings of all of the same instruments, which all respond differently to all of the various variables. For that matter, even recordings of all voice and all of the same instruments, unless they are all one and the same (same person singing, same guitarists playing the same guitar in the same exact spot relative to the mic, etc) there are variables.

FWIW, for me, to make things sound more real, when I record guitars I like to use different guitars and amps on the same tracks, just makes it more realistic to me - plus I can use complimentary instrument chains and therefore have to EQ/process less. The same for vocals, I like to use different mics for harmonies, etc. In all, it's more organic and inspiring to me).

Anyway, I'm kind of all over the place here, trying to get my thoughts out......

I guess what I'm saying is: besides a euphonic nature, depth and dimension are what sets many mics and preamps apart. It's not always obvious, especially with preamps, until your ear is trained and/or you get to a point in the recording process where the buildup or lack-thereof show it. IMO, in many *shootouts*, these factors are often negated to various degrees - from subtly to completely.

Also
For that matter, we all know the environment is important and proximity to the mic is too, but I would take it as far as to say that the way a mic is worked (distance, angles, etc.) can often be more important than the mic choice, considering the mics are of relatively similar heritage/quality (quality, not price). That said, an SM57, a C12-ish, and K?7-ish mics are inherently going to have different attributes, almost no matter how you work them.

Okay, enough rambling.......
.....onto re-listening to the non-tube mics.....
.........just as soon as I'm done getting my daughter a healthy McDonalds Breakfast - her weekend indulgence.......

[boody]

having listened to the tube mics:

they are all performing and I don't really love any of them on these clips. Differences are subtle and it is hard to tell which is which (specially because I don't have hands on experience with any of these mics )

But:
I like mic 3 best, would probably use mic 4 for this singer (did he by chance monitor through this mic?), think mic 5 needs service, don't like mic 2 and think mic one is good enough.

Doing a quicky on the Fets: like 1 best, would use 3 on this singer, find 4 harsh and 2 'honky' (if that's a word)

Could gamble on the models but I really don't know them (except the M49 and U47: could be #3 and #5). Is that the airco on the background?

[hankdrummer]

Originally Posted by Klaus

For the record, and before good, bad, or ugly things are going to be revealed as to the identities of the mics in the sound samples:

The "Klaus Heyne modded" U47 you show in your test set-up was last seen by me between 1992 and 1993

ok we now know Tube n°5 = Klaus Heyne modded U47 around 92

or not !

[outofphase]

I think its fair for the sake of these "Shootouts" to take them with a grain of salt, read what Klaus Heyne posted on his forum regarding this thread:

Originally Posted by Klaus Heyne

Michael,
I have voiced reservations over at Gearslutz of including a mic which has not been serviced for 17+ years in the 'shoot-out' . That in itself does not give me confidence that the test is "well-run".

My opinion: unknown service history of a vintage mic should have been disclosed up front.

Furthermore, a 'well-run third-party shoot out' is of course a big claim, which readers and listeners at gearslutz will probably refer to in the future, as it's being shared over the largest internet forum on pro-audio gear in the world. (At this time, I don't have any knowledge of the merits or demerits of any mics and their tests results- no mic has yet been identified by the tester.)

Because of the test's possible implications I would consider a firewall between tester and manufacturers or procurers of the products tested to be a core element of a test that satisfies your definition of 'well-run' and 'third-party'.

Another core requirement I personally would have in such a test would be to have more than one tester present, and that these testers do not come in with any allegiance to any of the manufacturers or their products (very hard to do!)

In that context: because your product is one of the ones tested in the shoot-out, has the tester (who is not identified in the Gearslutz thread by name) bought a capsule from you or does he have any other business or personal relationship with you?
If so, understandably, no claim of a "Third Party" shootout can be made, because the tester is an interested (second) party to the process.

Another term I would not have used in the context of that test is "blind". Unless I overlooked a vital component of the set up, it is my understanding that the person who set up the test protocol ran the tests himself, shared the wav files of the test, and knew what mic was which?

Please enlighten us as to the testing details and affiliations.

I hope you don't interpret my comments as being negative of your product(s)- I have not used, nor do I have knowledge or opinions about them at this time. I am merely trying to point out that, if you use scientific language in a field fraught with pitfalls (objective evaluation of sensual impressions) utmost care needs to be exercised when using certain terms.

Thanks, KH

P.S.: I am more comfortable partaking in listening tests which have modest, unscientific, claims, and don't promise a comparison test procedure that is pretty damn hard to deliver.
Like this one: PSW Recording Forums: Klaus Heyne's Mic Lab => Listen Here: Vocal microphone samples in high resolution

Its proclamations are unpretentious, leaving any participant with his own, subjective, decidedly non-scientific, conclusions.
Klaus Heyne
German Masterworks
German Masterworks

PSW Recording Forums: Klaus Heyne's Mic Lab => Has anybody tried the Michael Joly K47 style capsules?

[MadGuitrst]

outofphase: I don't think anyone who has posted here is NOT taking this shootout with a grain of salt - DrBill himself went to great lengths to describe the process and it's imperfections.

For that matter, all shootouts and just about all recommendations must be taken with a grain of salt. Unless and until you have used a product in your mumbo-jumbo, mumbo-jumbo, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc.., etc., you don't really know if it will work for you.

Also, depending on many things - such as I simply have a home studio -I can't personally justify spending $5,6,7,8,9,10,000 on any mic for me and my home studio, even if God/Allah/Buddah themselves painstakingly hand crafted it in the heavens. Again, if I was a professional engineer doing it as a profession, I'm sure that would be different (I'm just a musician who plays engineer at home on my own stuff).

As for Mr Klaus Heyne, if I were him, and I surely am not, I'm fairly certain I would have a similar view and would also want too distance myself from a mic that probably, after all these years, even if it is in perfect condition, should no longer be referred to as a "KH modified".

It's interesting, and I never thought off it: at what point, ie: time, usage, should a serviced/modded mic no longer be considered serviced/modded?
I think I'll ask over at ProSoundWeb.

With all of that said, it still doesn't diminish this shootout IMO, no more or less than any other.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Michael_Joly

When listening, I was really surprised that I could not identify the U 47. I really expected the signature low frequency sound of this mic to stand out. Perhaps the working distance of 12" was just beyond the proximity effect sweet spot.

Originally Posted by MadGuitrst

I also agree with Michael that the distance here is laying a significant role, just as it does when we are actually recording.

Obviously I agree with both of you BUT, if you will read my initial description, Mark - our singer - pulled IN on the tube mics to probably 8" or maybe even closer at times. I believe this is due to the "moth to the flame" effect of the U47.

[mrgrooves666]

So how much longer do we have to wait Dr Bill? Getting anxious here.

[hankdrummer]

yeah, give us the results or i'll post a giant picture of an electric chair in your thread tonight !

[drBill]

For those that didn't take the time to read my opening, please do.

I hate quoting myself, but before this turns into a typical GS mudslinging contest, here goes :

Originally Posted by drBill

Mostly I was looking at mics that have a K47-ish type delivery for a client that fights "sssshhhhhyyyness"" with cheaper mics.

Beginning of story. End of story. This was all about finding a mic for my client. Period. Into the process, I realized it would be a cool shootout, and I accomplished the test with that in mind.

For those who doubt my objectivity, notice it has similar slant to my other shootouts. I do NOT do these for manufacturers. I do not do them for MJ. I don't even do them for myself - way too much hassle. I do them ULTIMATELY to benefit a friend/client, and they usually take place during a (controlled) WORK situation.

Ribbon Mic Madness (#1) - in search of a mic to complement a solo pianist (friend-Jeff) that I have done several albums with, but not been completely satisfied with the results. (MJ/Apex205 vs Coles 4038 vs AEA 92)

Drum Mic Madness (#2) - helping a buddy (friend-Craig) who was setting up a studio to record his drums. He wanted to hear all the mic choices available. (Every mic manufacturer still in biz I think.... )

Mic Mod Madness (#3) - This little gem. Aptly named AFTER the shootout when the singer (friend-Mark) decided that he liked TWO MODDED mics enough to make them his own. Could he have afforded a $12,000 mic if he had fallen in love? Yes. He's a self made businessman whose business has fared much better than the music business. He spends way more on vintage guitars and amps.

ONE DISCLAIMER - I will say though - the fact that MJ is located in the US, listens to requests and makes mics that I can still afford DOES factor in. I tend to look in his direction for a product when I have a need, and if there's something that he is doing that fills that niche, I'm going to hear it.

I do NOT make any money modding mics. I do NOT make any money selling mics. I do NOT make any money testing mics. My wife would happily tell you that these tests always end up costing me thousands when I find I can't live without 3 more 441's or more KM84's or ??? I make money writing music, and engineering and mixing.

Feel free to click on my credits below.


----

Originally Posted by drBill

This is not the first time I've undertaken mic shootouts, and without exception, they always provide some frustration, controversy, hard work, and a lot of fun. This shootout was no exception, and I'll comment on some of the frustration, and illuminate some areas of controversy below.

Originally Posted by drBill

Mic shootouts are hard. Picking the mics is hard. Defining the test parameters is hard. Finding the time is hard. You know, an all around joyous PITA.

Frustration - it's IMPOSSIBLE to accurately shoot out a group of mics on a vocalist. (See initial post in blue)

Controversy - If anyone has a problem with this, you should come to ME, not MJ or anyone else. I'm a big boy. I didn't expect everyone to agree with my methodology, technique or choices.

Hard Work - defending a defenseless test is not my idea of a fun Saturday morning. I've got motorcycles and forest singletrack calling my name that need to be RIDDEN damn it!!!!!



Lots of Fun - the thing that makes these shootouts worthwhile to me, that makes it worth the hours of testing, making clips and doing the write-ups is all your comments, observations, and camaraderie.



----

Originally Posted by drBill

Anyway, as I said, this test would be no different,

Evidently not. I'm glad most of you are digging it. If anyone has a problem, if they can be up front and describe it in detail, I'll try to address it.


----

Originally Posted by drBill

The very concept being sacrilegious to many, but intriguing to me.

I knew there would be people who would be freaked by this. How many guys selling mics are on this thread??? Um, none. How many vintage mic guru types? Um, none that I know of unless they are closet guru's. (Tried to get some of those guys in, they have, um, politely declined the pleasure for some reason, although they are happily able to render opinion when no sound clips are attached.)

How many guys looking for real world solutions for problems like Mark and myself? Um, evidently...

LOTS!

Almost 2000 views in 3 days or so.


----

Originally Posted by drBill

The Tube mics included a modded Neumann U47,

NOTE : I did not order a MODIFIED U47. Actually, I was surprised when I turned the mic over and saw the sticker. Brian and Peter at Platinum Audio Rentals decided that it was the mic that they wanted to send. The one they thought we'd like best. I'm guessing based on their experience and their clients experience. (They send these mics out all the time for album vocal shootouts.) I asked for a U47/U48 and got the MODIFIED U47. In retrospect, I wish I had asked for both, but couldn't really afford it, so there you go. In defense of this mic, many are choosing it as their favorite. Not a majority, but many. It does not sound "broken" or in dis-repair to me. It does sound stylized from what I would expect a stock 47 to sound like. I would not have even included the descriptor "MODIFIED" in front of the U47 if I had felt that it was not necessary.



----

Originally Posted by drBill

Usually mic shootouts are kind of like herding cattle. You point them in the direction you want to go, but they have a mind of their own, and you end up playing catch-up and chasing down strays. This roundup wasn't too bad, but it definitely caught me off-guard a few times, and left me wishing that there was some way that was better than the way I chose.

I said it before, and I'll say it again, there is NO GOOD WAY to do a shootout like this. You are compromised in SOME respect no matter what methodology you choose. For anyone to suggest otherwise is only to show their ignorance.


----

Originally Posted by drBill

Let me say before anyone comments on the "methodology" I prescribed to, that the only way to REALLY "shoot out" mics is to LIVE with them over the period of a project. Then, you have a fighting chance to choose the best candidate for your locker. Unfortunately, I didn't have weeks, so you're going to have to live with what I came up with.

Originally Posted by drBill

And for me, that's where the art of "analyzing" the performance(s) and discerning the differences in mics takes place. That's where the art of engineering comes into play. That's where experience pays off dividends.

Like it or not, this is what we have. If it seems bogus to you, then don't listen and don't comment. If it seems like a fun hang or worth a listen, come on in and give it a listen. As I said before, for those who want to dig in deep and do some serious listening, there are some very interesting things to be found.


----

Originally Posted by drBill

This was about finding a mic for my client - not conducting some non-real-world experiment with AAA gear in a controlled laboratory.

I think this bears repeating, yet again......


----

Originally Posted by drBill

c.) All mics recorded simultaneously via separate pre-amps. In this case, the very transparent non-transformer pre's in my D&R OrionX.

Some have said they feel like the D&R pre's may be hurting the sound of the mics. That's a legit comment. IF you've used the D&R pre's before. My opinion (in my own studio I have API's, Shadow Hills, Biz, and Neve clones in addition to the D&R's, and have used most everything else at other studios) the D&R's are fine. They will not help or hurt a mic. They are just transparent. If the mic needs help, then best choose a Neve style or API to push it over the top. That was not my intent here. I KNOW they can sound better with a more "complete" front end.

----

Originally Posted by drBill

e.) Due to the complexity of having so many mics (9) in the "sweet" spot, it was determined that we would make TWO passes - ONE on the FET mics, and ONE on the Tube mics. (This became somewhat of a problem, but a conundrum we could not avoid. The vocalist is not a "session" singer that can turn out zerox after zerox like performances all day long -

Originally Posted by drBill

although back a few inches, the FET's rock!!.

Wanted to just repeat this one. I don't see much love for the FET's, but honestly, that's where I end up going most of the time. Just much more muscular IMO.


----

Originally Posted by drBill

The singer, Mark, did not know which mic he was singing into. I tried to get him to do something he wouldn't normally do in a performance - equalize his off axis, proximity, and delivery to a central sweet spot in the middle of a gaggle of mics, without working the mic in question. That leaves 3 or 4 mics that are not being "monitored" at a disadvantage. IMO a serious disadvantage,

Originally Posted by drBill

Unfortunately, although performances in each group of mics are the same, the vocalist really only "worked" one mic. Bear with me here, because it will impact every "mic shootout" you hear from here on out........

OK. To avert more controversy, I'm going to REVEAL which mics were monitored during the vocal sessions.

On the FET's - it was the U87 (my beloved 87)

On the Tubes - it was the MODIFIED U47

If ANYTHING, these are the mics with the unfare advantage. All other mics (as you will see if you read my methodology in the opening statements) are at some degree of disadvantage.


----

Originally Posted by drBill

Like my other shootouts, I will divulge which mic is which after everybody gets a chance to comment without bias or prejudice.

Happy listening and have a great weekend guys!

bp

[drBill]

Originally Posted by outofphase

I think its fair for the sake of these "Shootouts" to take them with a grain of salt, read what Klaus Heyne posted on his forum regarding this thread:

Originally Posted by MadGuitrst

outofphase: I don't think anyone who has posted here is NOT taking this shootout with a grain of salt - DrBill himself went to great lengths to describe the process and it's imperfections.

For that matter, all shootouts and just about all recommendations must be taken with a grain of salt. Unless and until you have used a product in your mumbo-jumbo, mumbo-jumbo, blah, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc.., etc., you don't really know if it will work for you.

Also, depending on many things - such as I simply have a home studio -I can't personally justify spending $5,6,7,8,9,10,000 on any mic for me and my home studio, even if God/Allah/Buddah themselves painstakingly hand crafted it in the heavens. Again, if I was a professional engineer doing it as a profession, I'm sure that would be different (I'm just a musician who plays engineer at home on my own stuff).

As for Mr Klaus Heyne, if I were him, and I surely am not, I'm fairly certain I would have a similar view and would also want too distance myself from a mic that probably, after all these years, even if it is in perfect condition, should no longer be referred to as a "KH modified".

It's interesting, and I never thought off it: at what point, ie: time, usage, should a serviced/modded mic no longer be considered serviced/modded?
I think I'll ask over at ProSoundWeb.

With all of that said, it still doesn't diminish this shootout IMO, no more or less than any other.

Thanks MG. I think you pretty much covered it for me. I now have not alternative but to believe that there's a degree of CYA going on here. If Mr. Heyne wanted to KNOW who I was or know what I've done, all he had to do was scroll to the bottom of ANY of my posts and "click" - instead of trying to discredit me because my GS handle isn't my full name. If he wants to comment on the mic itself, and why it isn't passing muster after 17 years, all he has to do is log in, download the files and fire away with specifics. If he (or any of the other guys on the "other" forum) want to address my imperfect methodology, by all means FIRE AWAY with DIRECT observations - not aspersions. After close to 25 years, I am still learning every single day!!! And today could have been another one of those days had someone (anyone) from over there posted some positive ways I could have accomplished this better within the context of my session.

I'd like to state again, I have no vested interests here and to suggest otherwise on another forum is somewhat...... Never mind.

For the record, there were 3 testers present. Myself, Mark who is a budding engineer (second after being a musician/singer) and his wife Julia who is a musician/singer herself and had some very insightful comments as well.

Originally Posted by hankdrummer

yeah, give us the results or i'll post a giant picture of an electric chair in your thread tonight !

Bring it on!!!!! (Thanks for the BEST comment of the day Hank!!!)

Cheers,

bp

[hankdrummer]

you've asked for it !

[MadGuitrst]

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha.......love the whoopie cushion on the electric chair.....classic!

Hey Dr. Bill, thanks from all of us!

[mprewett]

Ooo! I wanna comment!

I listened to the acapella tracks only. The thing that is amazing to me here is that, to me, all the tubes sound better than the FETs, which means: there's a $500 mic that I prefer to mics considerably more expensive.

I just think all the FETs have a dip in the lower vocal tones compared to the tube mics (which could of course mean the the tubes have a rise in the lower vocal tones...but this is about the comparison not the charts) which makes them sound less natural and less exciting to me.

Overall, I like Tube #4 best. In this recording it sounds a little midrangey and clearer and a touch louder than the other tubes, bring out the room a little more.

I really want to give a list of the mics and my thoughts, but honestly, they don't sound different enough to me to warrant the scrutiny. And they *all* sound too sibilant to me. Every last one. I understand the song was designed to punish them in that aspect, but again, I didn't hear a clear winner in that regard.



Mic shootouts are like meeting people on eHarmony. It's fun and slightly informative, but until you meet them in person and spend some time together, you don't really know anything about them.

I'm still *really* excited about this because it means that there's a $500 dollar mic that with or without modifications is keeping pace with some gear I couldn't ever afford anyway. Happiness is an affordable, quality mic. Woot!!

[drBill]

Originally Posted by MadGuitrst

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha.......

Hmmmmm...... maybe I could make that my new avatar?

Originally Posted by MadGuitrst

Hey Dr. Bill, thanks from all of us!

No problem! My pleasure.

Originally Posted by mprewett

I just think all the FETs have a dip in the lower vocal tones compared to the tube mics (which could of course mean the the tubes have a rise in the lower vocal tones...

Don't give up on those FET's yet. (I'm still fighting for them. My favorite for whatever reason...) As I explained earlier, the vocalist was probably 4" in on the tube mics, giving them more proximity, so.......take that into account when comparing FET to Tubes in THIS shootout.

Originally Posted by mprewett

Overall, I like Tube #4 best.

You and several others. It's definately a contender.

Originally Posted by mprewett

I understand the song was designed to punish them in that aspect, but again, I didn't hear a clear winner in that regard.

Yes it was. I think I was successful in pulling some SSSsss's out of Mark. Still, none of the tubes, well, maybe #1, but most of them don't horribly make me cringe as far as SSss's are concerned. S's are a part of the language, and as long as they are not overly emphasized when compressed (the reason I dropped the vocal into the song and compressed it) I don't normally have a problem.

Originally Posted by mprewett

Mic shootouts are like meeting people on eHarmony. It's fun and slightly informative, but until you meet them in person and spend some time together, you don't really know anything about them.

A good analogy.

Originally Posted by mprewett

I'm still *really* excited about this because it means that there's a $500 dollar mic that with or without modifications is keeping pace with some gear I couldn't ever afford anyway. Happiness is an affordable, quality mic. Woot!!

Hang in there, maybe I'll reveal before I take off on vacation.....

[MadGuitrst]

Originally Posted by mprewett

Overall, I like Tube #4 best.

I think there is a chance it's because it is the loudest.....although it does sound good.

[Michael_Joly]

For folks who like the anonymity and ease of a poll here's one for you: What is your favorite tube mic in the Mic Mod Madness thread? Just click on the preceding link to vote (only accepts one vote per user) and to see a tally.

[anguswoodhead]

OK - I'm game.
(Disclaimer - just had a quick listen - didn't worry about listening to the song versions - just the acapella's)

Probably got it all wrong but here's my go.

Fet 1 Gefell
Fet 2 Oktave 319
Fet 3 U87
Fet 4 CAD 3000

Tube 1 TNC1200
Tube 2 M49
Tube 3 Sputnik
Tube 4 Apex 460
Tube 5 (Butchered) U47

I do like an airy top end but not sibilance.
Some of the mics sounded thin - I did like Tube 2's mids - probably my fav of the Tubes.

[bradley]

I've been listening to these samples a couple of times per day since it came out to see how my opinion develops. The conclusion I've come to is that I really like the sound of samples 2-4 in the context of the mix. Sample 5 sounds really nice on its own and sample 1, which is is ok, is my least favorite.

So, I'm fairly sure sample 1 is the un-modded apex 460/hst 11a.

I'm actually really impressed that the m-audio sputnik is somewhere in there. I've heard a lot of good about this mic and very nearly bought one (have gone instead for the apex 460 Joly mod).

I personally prefer the sound of the tube mics (except 1) compared to the FET mics. Although all the FET do sound very good!

[hankdrummer]

we all prefer the tubes, but i guess the FETs come handy in a busy mix

[MadGuitrst]

Dr. Bill has said that the singer got up closer on the tube mics, which is surely part of the reason we all like them better here.

#4 sounds like the mic the singer worked.
I have heard 47 sounds like that and I have heard a sample (here in the shoot-out section) where that clips sounds exactly like the Sputnik.

I agree with #1 sounding the thinnest and it being the 1200 - after all, aside for the center terminated 67-ish capsule, it is more 12-ish in it's circuitry. I think #2 sounds like #2 on steroids, hence why I think it is the Joly modded version of that mic.

3 and 5 sound similar; it could be due to similar heritage (both Neumanns) or it could be that neither was the mic focused on.

As for the SS mics: #1 and #2 could be reversed if, say, the U87 is an older one.

And so, back to the methodology we go. Placement is just so critical - move just centimeters and you move out of the focal area; sing straight into the diaphragm and maybe it's an esh-fest. Conversely, have variables in performance and there goes that. So, with it all said and done, you can just take it all in and have fun with it, learn a little bit, and realize, with the exception of semi-extremes: it's in the ears, not the gear(s).

[Brad McGowan]

I think it was made pretty obvious to us all that this was not a shootout with rigorous scientific basis. It was done in a controlled way to choose a mic for a client, and for fun. At least that's how I think everyone posting is interpretting it. As another person pointed out you may be introduced to a mic that you had never thought about using before. For some of us that will be a cheap Chinese mic. For others it will be a vintage classic. Given the varied impressions this far I think every manufacturer whose work is represented will get some business out of this in some way. This thread is a perfect example of what I think Gearslutz should be about more often. More show and less tell.

Brad

[hankdrummer]

enough talk !

give
us
the
results !

[Michael_Joly]

Bill was threatening to go on vacation and leave us hanging! But that will leave some time for folks to get their votes in:

Vote for your favorite tube mic in the Mic Mod Madness thread. Just click on the preceding link to vote (only accepts one vote per user) and to see a tally.

[KingUgly]

Okay, to my ears, in headphones, of the TUBE mics:

1) Sounds small. Doesn't have the weight of the others.
2) My favorite. Soloed doesn't sound the nicest, but holds up the best in the context of the song and sounded the most musical to me.
3) Sounds the most "modern". Not particularly engaging, more flat, but nice and clean and it sounds good.
4) Sounds the best soloed, but doesn't hold up in the mix, or isn't as musical, to my ears. 2nd favorite. Also seemed to have more sibilance than the others, but I wasn't really as concerned with sibilance.
5) Obviously sounds the most clouded. I have no doubt that if this is the KH mod that it's time for a checkup.

[Klaus]

Originally Posted by drBill

This was all about finding a mic for my client. Not a vendetta against KH, or a rave up for MJ. Period.

I am sorry that you interpreted my critical remarks as personal vendetta. I apologize if hostility, rather than critique, came across.

Controversy - Klaus, if you have a problem with this, you should come to ME, not MJ or anyone else.

I did, and did it first here: on August 21 in this thread.

After that, I had no more intentions in stirring controversy beyond what I said, until Michael Jolie posted on my forum about your test in terms that I thought were not always appropriate and justifiable (obviously not your problem.)

I then wrote in my forum the piece that one of the readers at PSW copied over to your thread in Gearslutz. Again, I felt, I was appropriate in whom I addressed about what, and where: The terms I responded to, which MJ used in MY forum: "well-run third-party, blind, etc... to describe the test conditions.

Michael Jolie has since retracted and apologized in the kindest way possible for using these terms:
(PSW Recording Forums: Klaus Heyne's Mic Lab => Has anybody tried the Michael Joly K47 style capsules?) message: 441145.

Klaus, instead of just distancing yourself from the mic, how about commenting on the mics at hand (...) If there's a handful of people on this planet that could give incredible insight, you would certainly be at the top of the list.
I have to say here, that if I had a vintage M50, U47, M49, C12 or other mic that needed service, Klaus Heyne would be the first I'd contact.

I thank you for the compliment.

The reason why I did not comment on (neither did I download, nor listen to) the samples is because of my longstanding aversion to sound files (I have frequently written on my forum about my discomfort): I have an old-fashioned idea that microphones should be heard and evaluated in a more direct, controlled, environment that is more closely related to the real-world application of the mic and the listener. I know, I am losing this argument eventually, because wav files have become so commonplace now- f. ex. clients routinely send them to me, to help me better dial in the sound they want.

Where I probably will not concede by Luddite ways is in wanting to limit variables in comparison tests to an absolute minimum. I referred earlier to a recent 'test' of mic capsules shared on my forum. The tester limited the variables to two: the capsule itself, using the same mic, power supply, cables, etc. for all capsule tests, and the singer.
I overcame my reluctance, listened, and commented. In this set-up, I felt comfortable enough going in blind and risking making a fool of myself.

So, Dr. Bill, please don't interpret my discomfort with your testing methods as interpreted by Michael Jolie as fighting words. They were not meant that way, and I therefore did not address my criticism to you personally.

I hope to learn from this experience probably just as much as you will: many people seem to already know quite certainly what they are hearing, and I cannot wait to find out what mic is what, once you reveal the candidates!

Best regards,
Klaus Heyne

P.S. (8-28-09): After inquiring with the rental company which provided the "U47" for this test, and after retrieving my original invoice from 1992 for the mic, it now turns out that its original tube and electronics had been removed by later owners. The rental company has promised to remove my sticker from the mic.
More details here: ***Mic-Mod Madness!!!***