6 tube microphones in blind test! - Page 3

RKrizman · 6th June 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Orjatsalo

The NU-47 microphone project

I think Martin can probably service 67 himself too...

What's your point?

-R

ethan_c · 6th June 2007

Samples 3 and 7 are the same mic.... and 3 has the better preamp

Sample 1 is the Mojave

Sample 6 is just flat out weak...

Sample 3 is my fav.

Thanks for sharing!!!

chandlersonic · 6th June 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Orjatsalo

The NU-47 microphone project

I think Martin can probably service 67 himself too...

That is a beautiful mic!! WOW
I'm stunned. Care to share some info Martin?
Pleeeeeease!

E Orjatsalo · 6th June 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by RKrizman

What's your point?

-R

Well, if he builds microphones and has done intensive research on the topic, I think he knows how a 67 should sound and if that one he owns had some issues, he probably would have fixed them.

Then again, I don't know, since I've never used U67, only U47... and I don't know if Martin has done anything to this 67 in this shoot-out.

Sensenel · 6th June 2007

mojave is an sub company of Royer as far as i know ... i was always curious bout these mojave mic's ... now i put it on my test-list

great thread ! thx !

mastermixx · 6th June 2007

I like this direct sound of mic number1.

peeder · 6th June 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Orjatsalo

The NU-47 microphone project

I think Martin can probably service 67 himself too...

So maybe now we'll see a wooden version of the Mojave instead?

E Orjatsalo · 6th June 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by peeder

So maybe now we'll see a wooden version of the Mojave instead?

Hopefully in the Mojave price range

hurricaneE · 6th June 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by peeder

I suspect you are listening through a very bright monitoring system, or have an aversion to high frequencies. What are you listening through? I used Ultrasone ProLine 750's (broken in >48 hrs!).

I have an aversion to (super) bright acoustic guitars, it's true (I hate the sound of new strings, for example). I'm just listening on the computer, but at this point I know how to listen on it; to my ears, the first few were unusually shrill. -E

RKrizman · 6th June 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Orjatsalo

Well, if he builds microphones and has done intensive research on the topic, I think he knows how a 67 should sound and if that one he owns had some issues, he probably would have fixed them.

Then again, I don't know, since I've never used U67, only U47... and I don't know if Martin has done anything to this 67 in this shoot-out.

I'm not a mic builder, but I've owned a couple and they didn't sound like that on guitar. In fact I used them on ac gtr quite often and enjoyed the sound.

fwiw.

-R

artnoiser · 6th June 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by pegleg

It's interesting that many found the U47 and 67 to be 'dull'.

That really surprised me too. Maybe my ears suck, but I didn't really dig the hyped highs and lows in most of the clips...the U47 sounded most like a guitar playing in front of me, without any sort of eq'd sound to it.

I liked the MA-200 second.

I know mics shouldn't be judged by these sort of tests, but I can't help feel a bit disappointed to how the 22 47 was reproducing the sound of that guitar...i'm about to upgrade to "more real" gear very soon, and based on other's comments (I know, a big no no!) thought I'd like it more,

again...knowing that one can't judge a mic by one take of "acoustic guitar X" but still...

is there really that much difference between that one and a U47? They sounded completely unlike to my ears...

artnoiser

GuitarRuss · 26th June 2007

Essentially a lot of mics are "Pre-EQ'ed". A boosted low end is the perfect solution to someone who has neither good hardware or software EQs. Of course many people prefer the one with more top or bottom. Now take the mic without that boost and throw it through Angeltone, Epure, URS EQs or a good hardware eq and then compare. Having those boosts lessens your options. This is essentially the problem with listening to "untreated" tracks.

Now take those untreated tracks and give them to a few top quality mixers (without them knowing which is which) and see which ones sound the best in the end - that would be interesting and I would venture to guess would favor different microphones. Of course it isn't as "scientific" but it might be a better "musical" test in the long run to hear both.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Hand Crafted Lab Tube micamp and compressor, Blind test against 1176,v72,ADL and more	lowswing	High end	107	14th March 2011 08:23 PM
A great blind compressor listening test!	RecTeach	High end	76	28th May 2007 03:32 PM
blind mic test uploaded	quincyg	High end	20	26th April 2006 03:41 AM
Modeling/Real AMP Blind Test!	Rush909	So much gear, so little time!	1	16th March 2006 07:34 PM
Double blind test software....	DanV	So much gear, so little time!	0	8th March 2004 09:19 AM

6th June 2007	#62
ethan_c Gear maniac Joined: Mar 2006 Posts: 236	Samples 3 and 7 are the same mic.... and 3 has the better preamp Sample 1 is the Mojave Sample 6 is just flat out weak... Sample 3 is my fav. Thanks for sharing!!!

6th June 2007	#65
Sensenel Gear nut Joined: Nov 2005 Location: Munich/Germany Posts: 124	mojave is an sub company of Royer as far as i know ... i was always curious bout these mojave mic's ... now i put it on my test-list great thread ! thx !

6th June 2007	#66
mastermixx Gear interested Joined: Sep 2006 Location: London Posts: 5	I like this direct sound of mic number1.

26th June 2007	#72
GuitarRuss Lives for gear Joined: May 2006 Location: Taiwan (Canadian Citizen) Posts: 706	Essentially a lot of mics are "Pre-EQ'ed". A boosted low end is the perfect solution to someone who has neither good hardware or software EQs. Of course many people prefer the one with more top or bottom. Now take the mic without that boost and throw it through Angeltone, Epure, URS EQs or a good hardware eq and then compare. Having those boosts lessens your options. This is essentially the problem with listening to "untreated" tracks. Now take those untreated tracks and give them to a few top quality mixers (without them knowing which is which) and see which ones sound the best in the end - that would be interesting and I would venture to guess would favor different microphones. Of course it isn't as "scientific" but it might be a better "musical" test in the long run to hear both.