md 421???

[S.F.Sorrow]

I can't understand all the love for this mic. I find it boxy sounding and harsh in the high mids. The only place I find any use for it is the rare occasion when I mic a rack tom from under.

I only have experience with the mkII which I find overpriced and overrated.

[dave gross]

I used both these over the course of a couple of weeks. My 421N is the white one (not the script lettering). Wasn't a direct comparison, but they did sound memorably different to me. The black 421 U5 sounded like it had a more extended low end, and with a bit more color (seemed bumped around 300-400Hz, a bit more boxy) in the low mids. The 421N lacked the deep bottom that the U5 had, but seemed a bit more ruler flat otherwise. The one thing I did notice was that on the 421N, with subtle EQ around 60Hz, I was able to get the most realistic and natural sounding upright bass recording I've ever done.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by S.F.Sorrow

I only have experience with the mkII which I find overpriced and overrated.

You are in a very tiny minority.

If the Mk.I was manufactured today it would be about double the price that the Mk.II is.

The MD 421 is one of the very few almost universal mics around that will do almost anything and I would say is a "must have" in any microphone locker. The other two with this sort of universality are the AKG D202 and the Beyer M201.

[jpupo74]

They are on sale at VK!

[percussion boy]

Originally Posted by S.F.Sorrow

I can't understand all the love for this mic. I find it boxy sounding and harsh in the high mids. The only place I find any use for it is the rare occasion when I mic a rack tom from under.

I only have experience with the mkII which I find overpriced and overrated.

Speaking as a drummer, I've found (with various old school 421s) that they provide a certain "like a record" tom sound.

Finally got a couple of u5s, now that they're cheap, and I love 'em. They make things sound chubbier.

[audioboffin]

I have 2 old white 421s, one with the large Tuchel connector, and one with the smaller Tuchel connector. The mic with the larger connector is the older of the 2, and it most definitely sounds fuller in the low mids than the newer mic. The newer white mic sounds fuller than a recent black 421 but doesn't have the same HF extension. The easiest way I find to hear the differences is to use them to mic a dirty guitar sound.

Whether these sonic differences are as a result of aging is purely conjecture, as they were never new at the same time

[solidgoldstudio]

"Interesting enough, the biggest complaint
on the original was the clip. I've not receive one complaint about the
clip since the redesign. I attribute this to the mic being more balanced.
Now the clip pivots on the mic's fulcrum point."[/QUOTE]

first let me say that i bought a vintage 421 (telefunken) and it was the best 300 i've ever spent on a mic. i compared it to the new ones and thought it was a little warmer.
but all in all, i think the main difference is the clip, and the vintage mics (white versions) have metal clips. the new versions have plastic clips. every new 421 i've ever seen on a gig is gaff taped to the clip.
do the math for yourself and pay the extra 100 at most for the vintage mic, and rest assured it won't fall of the mic clip.

[Ward Pike]

Originally Posted by percussion boy

Speaking as a drummer, I've found (with various old school 421s) that they provide a certain "like a record" tom sound.

Finally got a couple of u5s, now that they're cheap, and I love 'em. They make things sound chubbier.

I couldn't agree with you more, Perc-boy. They make Toms sound like Toms.

[Ward Pike]

P.S. I prefer 421s from the 80s to mid 90s.