6 tube microphones in blind test!

[Martin Kantola]

Since I had these recorded anyway, thought I'd share.

http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/1.wav
http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/2.wav
http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/3.wav
http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/4.wav
http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/5.wav
http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/6.wav
http://www.nordicaudiolabs.com/samples/7.wav

Ask yourself, which one do you like?

The microphones are (alphabetically):

Mojave MA-200
Neumann U-47
Neumann U-67
Peluso 22 47 LE
Peluso 22 251
Peluso P12

To make it more interesting; the 7th sample (but not necessarily nr. 7!) is one of the six mikes but with a different pre-amp.

Martin
PS. It's not a great guitar...

[coreybox]

I like 7 the best. Out of the first six, i prefer 1.

[Agli]

I think I like nr. 2 the best.
Where is the mic you build?? Dont you have a sample of that one also?

[gm5k]

i liked the dark creamy thing going on w/ 6. after that i like 4.

[drBill]

I like #1 best. (I'm guessing it's the 67) #7 second best.

#5 was very uncomplementary to the guitar, showing all it's flaws. #2 was thin and brittle for me. ( 22 251?) #6 is nice but it has a weird mid to low-mid ring or resonance in it that bothers me. (47?) I could use any of the others and be happy - and maybe even #6 with different placement. #5 and 2? Fuggedaboutit.

It will be interesting to see what's what. I'm guessing that I like the 67 best. We'll see.... that's the fun of these things. Being surprised. So when will you reveal??? I'll check back in.

bp

[SpiderM69]

Through computer speakers I like #1 best.

[Glenn Bucci]

The early ones are a little too dark for me. #4 and #5 I like the best

[Nu-tra]

I like number 1 the best
Number 7 is good to but not as good.

Are 1 and 7 the same mic but with different pres?

[Saxophonick]

Hi everybody,

this is one of my first posts, nice place to be

I like n°1 best: equal sound with rich highs and good lows
N°7 second: because it has a little boost in midrange I like less,
but the bass is more deep & warm than the first
N°6 third: very nice dark-side indeed(reminds me of a dark rich ribbon
in the lows like an AEA84 but with more highs)
N°2 is very weird and metallic
N°3 has some strange sitar-like resonances
N°4 is way too thin for my fat ears
N°5 is like the opposite of what I like for an ac/guitar recording...aowwtch
very aggressive and empty(lacks depth and body IMHO)

Curious to know the results....great post!

Best,

Saxophonick

[AllAboutTone]

ONE reminds me of a Pacifica Preamp, great top end, lower parts are lame.

[blaugruen7]

i like 5 because it has no highs.

[jackinthebox]

4 and 6 for me

[FULL-DUPLEX]

I like sample No. 1 best!

[E Orjatsalo]

Number 1 would be my choice, if I'd be doing an acoustic album, or track that has solo parts on acoustic guitar.

Number 7 would be my choice on any other application (based on this sample...).

Others are fine, but I really didn't like number 2 and number 6, those mics really don't suit to acoustic guitar in my opinion...

[drumzealot]

1 – nice HFs, muddy LFs
2 – some ugly things going on in the mids
3 – a little thin sounding
4 – very nice, more pronounced HFs
5 – sounds like a nice flat signal
6 – unpleasant mids.
7 – very nice, mid scoop?

I guessing that 2 and 6 are the same mic.

[mltamisin]

I prefer 1 and 7 on my computer speakers.

[ryangeller]

won for me- although it of course would depend on context and arrangement

[funka]

1, 7 then 4.

[Melodioso]

From the first six:

#1: the most natural and effortless sound, good balance.

#6: less presence than #1, but has a nice vibe... Would be great with a female singer

didn't like #2.

As Nu-tra said, #1 and #7 seems to be the same mic. Preferred #1, but they are close!

[gm5k]

Originally Posted by gm5k

i liked the dark creamy thing going on w/ 6. after that i like 4.

Originally Posted by owl

4 and 6 for me

you have pretty good taste owl

[Slaytex]

Originally Posted by drBill

I like #1 best. (I'm guessing it's the 67) #7 second best.

#5 was very uncomplementary to the guitar, showing all it's flaws. #2 was thin and brittle for me. ( 22 251?) #6 is nice but it has a weird mid to low-mid ring or resonance in it that bothers me. (47?) I could use any of the others and be happy - and maybe even #6 with different placement. #5 and 2? Fuggedaboutit.

It will be interesting to see what's what. I'm guessing that I like the 67 best. We'll see.... that's the fun of these things. Being surprised. So when will you reveal??? I'll check back in.

bp

I'd have to completely agree to this as well. Going from #1 to #2 or #5 is like hitting a brick wall to me.

[dlmorley]

I much preferred 1
I really hope it's something that costs $299.....

[lillis]

4 and 6thumbsup , 6 stands out a bit at first, but my ears imagine these would give me what I´m looking for in a mix. Thanks for the test!

[Yudishtira]

Great you're doing this but nicely comparing is recording the same phrase on different mics and that one diff pre-amp.

[Autocrat]

#7 and #1 are good but in different ways. It'd be cool to hear a vocal up next to the guitar track to see how it would fit in a song.

[Mario-C.]

I liked no. 1

[shortyprs]

1, 7 and 4 here also.

[Martin Kantola]

And the results:

1. Mojave MA-200
2. Neumann U-67
3. Peluso P12
4. Peluso 22 47 LE
5. Neumann U-47
6. Neumann U-67 (through RME FireFace 800 preamp)
7. Peluso 22 251

(preamp on all other tracks Rupert Neve Designs 5012)

Thank you for participating, and for lots of superb input and thoughts!

Martin

[gsilbers]

too badd you didnt add a low-end wild card chinese tube mic like a SE gemini or the aphex 460. thatll be interesting to see and hear.

[bforest4]

1,2,5 for me before looking at results listening through AKG headphones (which are darker sounding). 3,4 are my least favorite. After results, I listened louder and 1 works best for me. 2 has a weird phasiness in the mids. I am definitely a fan of small condensor mics on acoustic guitar, especially tube ones like the C-28 or KM54, it would be nice to have one of those in the shootout.