The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Chandler REDD mic next to a vintage U87 Condenser Microphones
View Poll Results: Should I give in to gearlust?
Get the REDD!
35 Votes - 41.67%
Stick with the 87!
49 Votes - 58.33%
Voters: 84. You may not vote on this poll

Old 7th July 2018
  #121
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger View Post
Uh oh.....moving bass traps didn’t change that yucky Chandler top end for some reason. Nasty!
Your tone reminds me of Ray LaMontagne btw. I dig!
Thanks Roger!!! I dig Ray's work.
Actually, as a random side note, I saw recently that his vocals and guitar on God Willin' & The Creek Don't Rise were done through Avedis MA5 pres, which is what I'm putting the 87 through here. Great pre, and company.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
The new clips sound a little better...until you get to the "your mother screams and pushes you" line. Ouch! Really harsh right there on the Redd. Also the test clip of the lady talking was very sibilant.

If I were to compress and gain that up it would rip my ears off. I don't think the Redd is more detailed either. You just need to process the u87 (a little dip here, little boost there) to get that clarity to jump out at you but honestly I think it would be a disservice to process it to sound like the Redd in those clips because it has its own character which I like for this application.

One thing I will say though, on all the Redd clips your ac. guitar sounds fantastic! Better then on all the u87 clips for what it's worth. I think the bleed into the Redd is doing something really beautiful to the overall sound. Almost makes me wonder if the Redd needs a little distance from the vocalist to really do its thing?
Yeah, it's a shame, but I have to agree - I really want to like this mic, because Chandler seems like a great company; Adam is a great guy who has been very kind and super friendly with all this; and this mic seems to be getting rave reviews left and right. Last thing I want to do is invite any negativity towards them or their product, and I'm trying to be as fair here as possible. But I'm really not sure that I can be enthusiastic about this sound. I feel like it defeats the point if I have to lowpass it and notch out huge chunks of hard midrange just to get a halfway usable sound.

It sucks to think that I might be the one person/voice that it just doesn't work for - it's odd too, because I've found that my voice really isn't especially mic-dependent. Obviously I have my sonic preferences (I like a big, warm, intimate sound. Sort of a 70s thing.), but I still basically just sound like me and have pulled perfectly usable results from most other vocal mics, e.g. 47, 67, SM7b, and SM57. Heck, I used to use an AT2020, which is also a very bright mic, and actually quite liked the results. I am sibilant, but have never found it to be a big issue like this. The U67 was the most sibilant of the mics we used in the Brooklyn studio the other week, and it still wasn't even remotely as unmanageable as this. I do like the detail on the REDD, but especially after hearing it in a different environment in the context of other well-respected mics, it just seems much too harsh.

I'll probably keep it, at least for the moment while I track stuff for my record. It worked pretty nice on tambourines and shakers. And I'll post some guitar samples too, with my Gibson Hummingbird (which is pretty mellow, so I'm sure will benefit from the pinpoint detail).
I tried doing vocals a foot or two back, but found that it was the same sibilance/top end, just with less proximity effect to help boost the lows, which was even less usable.

I agree that it would do the 87 a disservice to try to make it too bright. When I first got my MA5, I used the 28k boost a lot to bring out more air, but I think it really sucked out a lot of the fullness of the tone. I might investigate a nice 500-series EQ at some point. I hear the Kush Audio Electra is pretty dope.

I suppose the other thing I could investigate would be to see if Alto Music have a showroom where I'd be able to shoot my REDD out with another one to see if they sound any different. I still think it's weird that so many other people are describing it as having literally the polar opposite sound kind of sound to this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crille_mannen View Post
Yeah then we use the same word describing different things ha! I think the u87 sounds a bit sterile in the mids probably the lack of tube saturation and harmonic content I guess. I do like the old neumanns don't care to much about the new stuff AI, 184 etc.

You singing is great so don't get to lost in the gear fiesta. Go make some music damnit (y)
Haha, thanks Crille! And totally! I've actually been in the studio all day every day for the last few weeks doing just that, for my next record. I just like to take breaks and geek out on here about microphones in between.

For sure... I'd actually love to try a good straight up U47 clone, like a Flea, sometime. And I have an RCA 77-DX on the way to add to my stable - now those things are warm.
Old 7th July 2018
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Funny Cat's Avatar
Yes agreed. Hopefully the folks at Redd are not taking this personal. For the record, I’m not saying the Redd is not a good mic. It’s just not doing the trick for your vocals and style of music.

I actually don’t believe there is a such thing as a “bad” mic. At least I haven’t encountered one yet but I do try to stay away from the cheap stuff. All mics are application and many times room dependent, Redd included.

Anyway, good luck with the record. Post a link when you’re done. I’m sure it’s gonna do well with a voice like that! Thumbs up!
Old 7th July 2018
  #123
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroc View Post
Thanks Roger!!! I dig Ray's work.
Actually, as a random side note, I saw recently that his vocals and guitar on God Willin' & The Creek Don't Rise were done through Avedis MA5 pres, which is what I'm putting the 87 through here. Great pre, and company.



Yeah, it's a shame, but I have to agree - I really want to like this mic, because Chandler seems like a great company; Adam is a great guy who has been very kind and super friendly with all this; and this mic seems to be getting rave reviews left and right. Last thing I want to do is invite any negativity towards them or their product, and I'm trying to be as fair here as possible. But I'm really not sure that I can be enthusiastic about this sound. I feel like it defeats the point if I have to lowpass it and notch out huge chunks of hard midrange just to get a halfway usable sound.

It sucks to think that I might be the one person/voice that it just doesn't work for - it's odd too, because I've found that my voice really isn't especially mic-dependent. Obviously I have my sonic preferences (I like a big, warm, intimate sound. Sort of a 70s thing.), but I still basically just sound like me and have pulled perfectly usable results from most other vocal mics, e.g. 47, 67, SM7b, and SM57. Heck, I used to use an AT2020, which is also a very bright mic, and actually quite liked the results. I am sibilant, but have never found it to be a big issue like this. The U67 was the most sibilant of the mics we used in the Brooklyn studio the other week, and it still wasn't even remotely as unmanageable as this. I do like the detail on the REDD, but especially after hearing it in a different environment in the context of other well-respected mics, it just seems much too harsh.

I'll probably keep it, at least for the moment while I track stuff for my record. It worked pretty nice on tambourines and shakers. And I'll post some guitar samples too, with my Gibson Hummingbird (which is pretty mellow, so I'm sure will benefit from the pinpoint detail).
I tried doing vocals a foot or two back, but found that it was the same sibilance/top end, just with less proximity effect to help boost the lows, which was even less usable.

I agree that it would do the 87 a disservice to try to make it too bright. When I first got my MA5, I used the 28k boost a lot to bring out more air, but I think it really sucked out a lot of the fullness of the tone. I might investigate a nice 500-series EQ at some point. I hear the Kush Audio Electra is pretty dope.

I suppose the other thing I could investigate would be to see if Alto Music have a showroom where I'd be able to shoot my REDD out with another one to see if they sound any different. I still think it's weird that so many other people are describing it as having literally the polar opposite sound kind of sound to this.



Haha, thanks Crille! And totally! I've actually been in the studio all day every day for the last few weeks doing just that, for my next record. I just like to take breaks and geek out on here about microphones in between.

For sure... I'd actually love to try a good straight up U47 clone, like a Flea, sometime. And I have an RCA 77-DX on the way to add to my stable - now those things are warm.
Why not just stick with your vintage 87 and buy some other gear? It sounds great.
Old 8th July 2018
  #124
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Tube sizzle?

Does a 251 or C12 sound like that? Hell no. And those are two fairly bright mics.

M49? 47?

No, no.

What tube mic has “tube sizzle”?

Maybe a C800G, but that’s more due to “k67 clone sizzle” perhaps the same as this.

It’s like, when you put a k67 based capsule, which has a big top end peak, in a mic without circuitry to offset it... as it is implemented in mics Neumann puts it in, it can just get nasty and peaky. The k67 peak, in Neumann circuits, works almost like pre-emphasis...it’s “backed down” later in the circuit.

In most non-Neumann circuits it works kinda like an aural exciter / big top end peak.
Old 8th July 2018
  #125
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

By the way - I really enjoy the performing in the samples, which is one of the main reasons I am commenting in the thread. Very nice.

I think that a k47/k49 based m49 would probably be really interesting on you. Alternately, maybe a 251, or an old C12 with decent low end (not one that’s shabby in the lows).

Last edited by toledo3; 8th July 2018 at 04:43 AM..
Old 8th July 2018
  #126
Lives for gear
 

Not the ideal place to compare U67 vs REDD (NAMM), but I could tell the REDD sounded better on my voice. Chris
Old 8th July 2018
  #127
Lives for gear
 
DougS's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroc View Post
Update on the REDD:
Dan, You should try singing into the REDD at an angle - with the mic twisted off-axis. With my REDD, I've found this tends to attenuate the high-end. The more off-axis the less top end sizzle. Try a lot (like 45 degrees), try a little (like 5 or 10 degrees) and see what you get.

Last edited by DougS; 8th July 2018 at 04:29 AM..
Old 8th July 2018
  #128
Lives for gear
 
carloff's Avatar
Wouldn't be better than trying singing from angles and so on, simply use mic that works on your voice?If it would be cheaper mic nobody would think about it more than 10sec...
I would try as toledo3 said, M49 , I believe also Siemens SM204 or C12 with bigger transformer would fit you. Redd for your voice should be for sale ASAP if I would be you.
Old 8th July 2018
  #129
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
Yes agreed. Hopefully the folks at Redd are not taking this personal. For the record, I’m not saying the Redd is not a good mic. It’s just not doing the trick for your vocals and style of music.

I actually don’t believe there is a such thing as a “bad” mic. At least I haven’t encountered one yet but I do try to stay away from the cheap stuff. All mics are application and many times room dependent, Redd included.

Anyway, good luck with the record. Post a link when you’re done. I’m sure it’s gonna do well with a voice like that! Thumbs up!
Definitely! I appreciate all the feedback, and you're spot on. I could have very easily thought, "Well, I guess it is more detailed... maybe I'm just not used to it yet, but I'll do my record vocals through it anyway" even if it doesn't quite suit, so this thread has been very helpful. I'll probably use the 87 and an RCA 77-DX for most of the other tracks. And I actually did a track with my SM7B the other day with some top and bottom boost from my Warm EQP-WA that turned out nice.
Cheers, RE: my record! For sure I will post links! It should be out later this year.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zanderwestcoast View Post
Why not just stick with your vintage 87 and buy some other gear? It sounds great.
Thanks Zander. I probably will! I love that mic to bits. I've used it for a few years now, so I think I hit a point where I was curious if there was anything that might sound even better. But no need to fix what isn't broken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toledo3 View Post
Tube sizzle?

Does a 251 or C12 sound like that? Hell no. And those are two fairly bright mics.

M49? 47?

No, no.

What tube mic has “tube sizzle”?

Maybe a C800G, but that’s more due to “k67 clone sizzle” perhaps the same as this.

It’s like, when you put a k67 based capsule, which has a big top end peak, in a mic without circuitry to offset it... as it is implemented in mics Neumann puts it in, it can just get nasty and peaky. The k67 peak, in Neumann circuits, works almost like pre-emphasis...it’s “backed down” later in the circuit.

In most non-Neumann circuits it works kinda like an aural exciter / big top end peak.
Actually, that remark was in reference to my perception of the U87's "warmth" versus the "warmth" you get from a tube mic, in response to Crille's remarks. Perhaps 'sizzle' isn't quite the right terminology - I was referring to that bit of pleasant saturation you can attain with tube mics, but not with solid state. I suppose it's more of a 'sheen'? Whatever you'd like to call it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toledo3 View Post
By the way - I really enjoy the performing in the samples, which is one of the main reasons I am commenting in the thread. Very nice.

I think that a k47/k49 based m49 would probably be really interesting on you. Alternately, maybe a 251, or an old C12 with decent low end (not one that’s shabby in the lows).
Hey thanks Toledo!!! It's cool to hear that! Glad you've been enjoying the clips. I'll post a link here to the record once it's done.
I appreciate the feedback and suggestions. I think one thing that I'm learning here is that I really dig that mid bump. I'm not at all unhappy with my 87 - I think I was just curious to see if I could find a tube mic with the same full bodied tone, but with a touch more detail and revealing clarity in the upper mids and highs. I think I just need to try more mics next time and find a sound that I'm really floored by before I decide on a mic. I'll have to see if I can book an hour or two at a studio with the mics you mentioned and a few others to try them out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DougS View Post
Dan, You should try singing into the REDD at an angle - with the mic twisted off-axis. With my REDD, I've found this tends to attenuate the high-end. The more off-axis the less top end sizzle. Try a lot (like 45 degrees), try a little (like 5 or 10 degrees) and see what you get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carloff View Post
Wouldn't be better than trying singing from angles and so on, simply use mic that works on your voice?If it would be cheaper mic nobody would think about it more than 10sec...
I would try as toledo3 said, M49 , I believe also Siemens SM204 or C12 with bigger transformer would fit you. Redd for your voice should be for sale ASAP if I would be you.
Doug - I'll experiment some more with that kind of thing, but I'm definitely a little skeptical of using any gear where I need to do X, Y and Z to just get a halfway workable sound. Or EQ the crap out of it. As Carloff says, probably better just using something that works. For example, (forgive my silliness, but I can't resist... lol) if something only sounds okay with my voice 45 degrees off axis, pointed down, through a special cable, when you have scented candles burning in the room and have whispered sweet nothings to the power supply unit for ten minutes first, on the second night of a full moon while I'm swinging upside-down from the ceiling in a studio within a hundred feet of a crossroads... there might be other choices where I don't have to work so hard all the time. Especially if I get caught up in the heat of an especially passionate vocal take, and my head slips a few inches to the right, and it ruins everything. That seems a little too much like dating a girl who only likes you when you buy her expensive gifts. Life's too short.
Better off finding one that loves you all the time, and thinks you're still the coolest person/voice ever, even when you're hungover and smell bad. Actually, that's what I love about my 87. It may not be bass for days, or air into the stratosphere, but it pretty much always captures a workable, honest, neutral print of my vocal sound. I enjoyed the 77-DX I used for a similar reason - though that's more of a fuzzy, retro, romantic, rose-coloured glasses thing.

The REDD is a great mic, and I'm not dissing it at all. Lots of people love it. And I'd still encourage others to try it, because I'm sure that when it does work, it kicks major ass. But unfortunately I'm really getting the impression that it just doesn't match my vibe.
Old 9th July 2018
  #130
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

There is such a thing as 'rightness' in gear. Kind of 'how big is the sweet spot' type of thing. Some things have an enormous sweet spot and hence make work easy, some you have to aim specifically to get goodness. But then some small sweet spot gear does a super trick nothing else does. And with some, it doesn't matter where you aim, not much goodness will come forth.

A vintage 87 is pretty much all sweet spot. Sure, it can sound inappropriate depending on context, and sure, you CAN put it in the wrong place. But wherever you put it, it will give you a useful musical signal. Like a km84 maybe even more so. No place you can put it to make it sound 'bad'. Plus you can bend around on it with eq after til the cows come home if need be, and it doesn't fall apart.

Personally, at this point I am quite lazy and bored with tools that make me work hard to get goodness. Hell it's not actually laziness, it is just noticing when a tool makes you work extra and resenting it as wasted energy.

So, it seems the REDD isn't entirely 'all sweetspot' regardless of ones conclusion in total. So Kroc, you just have to work out whether a) WHEN in its sweet spot for your use, in your opinion, does it give you full magic stuff(?) and b) whether how hard that sweet spot is to hit, and c) whether that equates to a balance of energy (which includes money spent) vs yield that appeals to you. That's it. Shouldn't be too hard to work out for yourself. And's it's a personal equation, you're the only one that can say how that lands.
Old 9th July 2018
  #131
Somewhat on the subject.. I never heard a really good microphone sound bad on any source. So I really don't get it when people are saying like "that mic doesn't suit particular voice" And with a good mic i mean characteristics that present the source in a good manner, just balanced nothing bad in the spectrum.

Of course if you shootout different quality mic's against each other you might prefer one or the other but i'm having a hard feeling that a u67 would sound bad on anyone if the mic is in a good shape.

So that's why i feel I personally can discard a mic when i hear them side by side like the test OP did. The Redd just sounds bad and I would have returned it immediately after a/b it. Sometimes you just want a certain piece to sound good (mainly classics hehe) and it's hard to discard it once you tried it if it doesn't meet up to your qualifications and you keep on making excuses like if i just use it in another way i'll get it . I felt the same about a few classic pieces after trying them like an la3a or a dbx160vu. Anyways these days with allot more experience i can discard pieces right away despite it's reputation or hype.
Old 9th July 2018
  #132
Quote:
Originally Posted by crille_mannen View Post
So I really don't get it when people are saying like "that mic doesn't suit particular voice"
That is what happens when people have an opinion of the sound of a microphone on a particular source. It either fits what they want to hear, from that particular source, or it doesn't. This is a moving target with producers and engineers, and certainly musicians and artists. Everyone has an opinion of what should work best in a production.
Old 9th July 2018
  #133
m03
Gear Maniac
 
m03's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by crille_mannen View Post
Somewhat on the subject.. I never heard a really good microphone sound bad on any source ...

So that's why i feel I personally can discard a mic when i hear them side by side like the test OP did.
Err...so if someone posts a shootout between a U47 and U67, and the U67 leads to a smoother and less sibilant example in the comparison, you're going to discount U47s as bad and overhyped? That doesn't seem like a great way to go about things.
Old 9th July 2018
  #134
Quote:
Originally Posted by m03 View Post
Err...so if someone posts a shootout between a U47 and U67, and the U67 leads to a smoother and less sibilant example in the comparison, you're going to discount U47s as bad and overhyped? That doesn't seem like a great way to go about things.
No, I said that a good mic is always a good mic. Then ofc if you compare say 3 of the classics(67,47,251) you might pick one superior for that particular track but they all would sound good on their own.

A classic mic would never sound as bad as the redd if it isn't broken.
Old 9th July 2018
  #135
Lives for gear
 

Not as experienced as others posting on this thread, but I still consider the REDD
as "right up there" with the other "classics".

I remember reading somewhere, they did a microphone shootout for Smokey Robinson. The lead AE stated the C12 was SO wrong for Smokey's voice.

My voice is "less present" than Kroc's, so when I tried it out (right in front of Wade!), it got on my "wow list". FWIW other faves include C12/U47 FET & Bock iFET/251/Sony C37a (it was the new Tonelux J37 tube version) /44 ribbon. Only the Flea C12 & Telefunken (repro) C12/251 tried so far-no "original recipe".

Oddly enough the U67 (un/EQ'd) wasn't "up there" on me, compared to any of the others I mentioned above. In fact, the TLM 67 sounds better-gasp! I think it's generally underated on GS, geez it has "TLM" in the name

Chris
Old 9th July 2018
  #136
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Chris, was your judgement mainly from listening to yourself sing, and how you felt from having headphones on at the same time? Curious.
Old 9th July 2018
  #137
Lives for gear
 

Exactly. I became "used to headphones" over time, since I typically "practice sing" with headphones at least 8+ hours per week. I also was involved with acapella (Barbershop Harmony Society) singing for the equivalent of about a dozen years. Also I watch virtually no TV, and listen to tons of music!

Also I make a point of listening to my own vocal microphones, both "wet" vs "dry", to better extrapolate how other vocal microphones sound with effects processing.

FWIW my (2nd tenor) voice is very similar to Buddy Holly, the full baritone reminiscent of... Issac Hayes (Shaft!).I plan on mustering up some courage and posting some vocals on GS sometime.

Chris
Old 9th July 2018
  #138
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
There is such a thing as 'rightness' in gear. Kind of 'how big is the sweet spot' type of thing. Some things have an enormous sweet spot and hence make work easy, some you have to aim specifically to get goodness. But then some small sweet spot gear does a super trick nothing else does. And with some, it doesn't matter where you aim, not much goodness will come forth.

A vintage 87 is pretty much all sweet spot. Sure, it can sound inappropriate depending on context, and sure, you CAN put it in the wrong place. But wherever you put it, it will give you a useful musical signal. Like a km84 maybe even more so. No place you can put it to make it sound 'bad'. Plus you can bend around on it with eq after til the cows come home if need be, and it doesn't fall apart.

Personally, at this point I am quite lazy and bored with tools that make me work hard to get goodness. Hell it's not actually laziness, it is just noticing when a tool makes you work extra and resenting it as wasted energy.

So, it seems the REDD isn't entirely 'all sweetspot' regardless of ones conclusion in total. So Kroc, you just have to work out whether a) WHEN in its sweet spot for your use, in your opinion, does it give you full magic stuff(?) and b) whether how hard that sweet spot is to hit, and c) whether that equates to a balance of energy (which includes money spent) vs yield that appeals to you. That's it. Shouldn't be too hard to work out for yourself. And's it's a personal equation, you're the only one that can say how that lands.
This is excellent advice.
And for sure - it isn't lazy to not want to work hard for a good sound. It's good to be sure that if you throw up a mic in a hurry and wind up doing the best take of a song so far, that you won't wind up thinking, "Aww man... If I'd just spent a little more time with getting the positioning just right". It's almost more like 'rock and roll insurance', if you will.
Particularly important too if you're self-producing stuff like I am and have to think about engineering and performing at the same time. The less stuff you have to distract you from giving your best take, the better.

Sort of off-topic, but on that point: I just picked up a vintage RCA 77-DX (unfortunately the grill was damaged in transit, but it still works) - these mics sound kind of weird - fuzzy, retro, a little lo-fi and without much top end, but I love it. Heaps of 'rightness', imho. I definitely feel like there's some 'oldschool record' magic there. I never would have even considered one of these until I actually tried one the other week. Not as neutral a sound as the 87, of course, but I can still see myself using it a lot.
See attached clip, for reference (no processing at all, just a bit of plate verb).

Quote:
Originally Posted by crille_mannen View Post
Somewhat on the subject.. I never heard a really good microphone sound bad on any source. So I really don't get it when people are saying like "that mic doesn't suit particular voice" And with a good mic i mean characteristics that present the source in a good manner, just balanced nothing bad in the spectrum.
It's all about finding the right microphone to highlight whatever is subjectively 'special' about the source material - figuring out makes you fall in love with a voice and pushing it to the front. Or in some cases, to compliment the tone by adding weight or detail depending on their sound. It's different with every voice.

If you look at the frequency response of any microphone, none of them are perfectly flat. They each have their signature sound. 47s have a thick midrange, C12s have a bright, airy top end, etc.
Yes, in theory, a good C12 should sound good with many different vocalists. But what if you put a super detailed, bright, airy mic with a good singer who happens to have a bright/airy voice with a lot of high frequency information already? It'll sound kind of thin, without much weight; or even harsh. But if you choose a darker mic, it'll provide extra comforting low information.
Similarly, what if you put a great (but super dark), mic on a dark, bassy voice? It'll sound muddy and dull. But a super bright, detailed mic might balance their voice in a really flattering way. To make matters worse, then you get into preamp pairing!

Recording is inherently unnatural, in that we're trying to capture a distortion of an acoustic event as pleasantly as possible, and make it sound the way it feels. So 'flat', 'nice' and 'high-end' isn't always best. Otherwise, to put it another way, it's a bit like wearing a jacket that happens to be three sizes too big in a colour that doesn't suit you because it has an Armani tag on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 View Post
Not as experienced as others posting on this thread, but I still consider the REDD
as "right up there" with the other "classics".

I remember reading somewhere, they did a microphone shootout for Smokey Robinson. The lead AE stated the C12 was SO wrong for Smokey's voice.

My voice is "less present" than Kroc's, so when I tried it out (right in front of Wade!), it got on my "wow list". FWIW other faves include C12/U47 FET & Bock iFET/251/Sony C37a (it was the new Tonelux J37 tube version) /44 ribbon. Only the Flea C12 & Telefunken (repro) C12/251 tried so far-no "original recipe".

Oddly enough the U67 (un/EQ'd) wasn't "up there" on me, compared to any of the others I mentioned above. In fact, the TLM 67 sounds better-gasp! I think it's generally underated on GS, geez it has "TLM" in the name

Chris
This is a good example of what I wrote above in reply to Crille...
The vintage 67 in the studio I did some sessions in last month totally worked for me (I'm using it on a couple of the album tracks). Chris, if you have a darker/lower voice.... If I had to guess, I'd suspect that the REDD brings out awesome detail for you, but the 67 sounded kind of muddy or unfocused?
Cool about the TLM!! You never know what might sound magical!

I'll have to get some of my musician pals out at my studio to try the REDD on. It may still be a great studio investment for other people, even if it doesn't work as well on me.
Attached Files

Test - Samurai Cop - 77DX.mp3 (3.03 MB, 828 views)

Old 9th July 2018
  #139
Lives for gear
 
Funny Cat's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by crille_mannen View Post

So that's why i feel I personally can discard a mic when i hear them side by side like the test OP did. The Redd just sounds bad and I would have returned it immediately after a/b it.

I wouldn't move so fast. In all the clips I've heard of the Redd on vocals it does seem to have a characteristic "zing" in the upper freqs. However, go through the Redd threads and listen to some of the clips of the Redd on instruments, especially drums. It sounds stunning as overs and rooms to my ears. I bet it would kill on brass maybe a foot or two back.
Old 9th July 2018
  #140
Lives for gear
 
Funny Cat's Avatar
@Kroc


Man that 77 sounds fabulous on your voice. I think I liked it just a smidgen better then the u87. Has a real earnestness to it, especially for this type of stripped down performance.
Old 10th July 2018
  #141
Lives for gear
 

Thanks Kroc. Actually the tonality of my voice is very bright/very mellow. Sort of like "the lost" Bee Gee! What's unusual is having an adjustable chest voice component (tenorish to strong low baritone).

Helps make it more versatile, but flipside is that no one microphone is best, on all my vocal registers/keys.

I'll listen soon to your new clip.

Chris
Old 10th July 2018
  #142
Gear Maniac
 
Kroc's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
@Kroc


Man that 77 sounds fabulous on your voice. I think I liked it just a smidgen better then the u87. Has a real earnestness to it, especially for this type of stripped down performance.
Thanks!
Definitely feels great to sing through... it has a lot of warmth and charm.
I dig how the midrange is quite forward/detailed (it isn't nearly as dark as a 44), but smooth at the same time. And I'm not needing to use a de-esser at all, even after compressing it quite heavily and boosting the top end.
It's going into the MA5 via a cloudlifter. The MA5 seems to really bring out a lot of clarity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessparov2.0 View Post
Thanks Kroc. Actually the tonality of my voice is very bright/very mellow. Sort of like "the lost" Bee Gee! What's unusual is having an adjustable chest voice component (tenorish to strong low baritone).

Helps make it more versatile, but flipside is that no one microphone is best, on all my vocal registers/keys.

I'll listen soon to your new clip.

Chris
Ha, sounds cool! Hmm, interesting. How do you fair with an SM7b? Have you tried one? That's a good go-to for a lot of dynamic singing, and can sound pretty dope in front of the right preamp. There's the RE20 too. Or you could double-mic yourself if you make sure you keep the phase coherency on point, or track sections separately if it's really a big issue.
Old 10th July 2018
  #143
Gear Head
 
Wizards Machine's Avatar
 

Great, now I have to start obsessing and looking for a RCA 77DX. Sounds fab.
Old 10th July 2018
  #144
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

I used to have a 77DX, but after a while it just felt like it turned anything I pointed it at into a smokey jazz club, so I sold it. Amazing amounts of connotation value in that mic, like proper magic adding. But wasn't the right type of spice for me in the end that many times. On your voice it sounds fantastic though! Maybe I would have needed an MA5 to go with it.....clearly a superb combo.

Think about your record in a sense of 'what's the lead vocal sound' overall though I would. Like, make a choice for lead vocal mic and go with it. Not a necessity and sometimes a tune bucks that attempt, but I like it when a record has a continuity to the vocal sound. And that 77dx sure sounds like a record I'd listen to with you singing into it.
Old 10th July 2018
  #145
Lives for gear
 

Yes, the SM7 is one of the best vocal microphones for me, IF paired with a quality pre. My favorite vocal chain with that (so far) was SM7, into a Little Labs LMNOPre. Astounding detail out of a dynamic microphone with that one.

It surprised me how much I preferred that over SM7>UA610, though I still like that chain. (maybe SM7>UA110 might have been better?)
Haven't tried the classic SM7>1073 style pre yet.

IMHO at a commercial studio, if the AE wanted to simplify recording me,
either an SM7 or 47/47-ish FET style LDC are probably the easiest "all rounders".
I just have a "strong streak of microphone geek"!

Only a very brief time trying a RE20, but I had a primo EV 666 (similar) for many years. I preferred the more "present" SM7 or the old "Made in USA" Unidyne III's. I had the models 57/546/548 of these-yes they have better fidelity typically, than the ones made in Juarez, Mexico today.

I might hunt down a nice (vintage) Sennie MD421 eventually, those are cool too.
The newer neodymium version of the 421 is much brighter IMHO.

Totally agree that the 77 ribbon is another winner on your voice Kroc, along with that 87. Another terrific clip too.

Hmm... "smokey jazz club". I ate one of those last time at Disneyland, over at their French Quarter restaurant!
Old 10th July 2018
  #146
Lives for gear
 
cheu78's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kroc View Post
Thanks!
Definitely feels great to sing through... it has a lot of warmth and charm.
I dig how the midrange is quite forward/detailed (it isn't nearly as dark as a 44), but smooth at the same time. And I'm not needing to use a de-esser at all, even after compressing it quite heavily and boosting the top end.
It's going into the MA5 via a cloudlifter. The MA5 seems to really bring out a lot of clarity.
Nice.. the 77dx sounds great on your vocals (although most mics sounds great with your vocals..some are more fitting than other of course, but you have a great voice!).

I'd suggest not using the cloudlifter, simply because it's not needed with the MA5 which has plenty of gain for any ribbon out there.



Cheu
Old 10th July 2018
  #147
I'm not disagreeing with all you guys arguing about the right mic for the right source, though..

My experience with vintage classics mainly, u67, 269 and km84 which I own is that even if they are bright (269c) the classics still remain smooth in a way that never goes harsh. And looking at frequency response charts says nothing about how good those exaggerated highs sound since practically all mics have a bump somewhere.

And ofc I'm sure the Redd would sound awesome on some sources but for that price I would have expect more. And I would have Def a/b a few mics if I where to buy a 4-6k $ newly produced mic. There are plenty of options in the highend spectrum

Thanks though for everyone contributing samples, always fun to hear them
Old 10th July 2018
  #148
Gear Guru
One test on one voice with whatever positioning, does not really tell much of a story. I only have one REDD example from a singer that sounded amazing through it, and she could have had crazy resonances with, it given her voice. She didn't, and the depth and presence of the mic was stunning. I do think how you work a mic is really important. Distance angle all that.... That being said, wonderful voice, and a really good sample! Every mic has a sweet spot....
Old 10th July 2018
  #149
Lives for gear
 

My experience with non-vintage/non-classic (mostly lower end) vocal LDC's,
is that they tend not to take EQ as well. So if your're lucky, they can match the source well, but there's the real risk you'll just get painted into a corner.

BTW I feel my sense of trying out the Neumann U67 ought to be weighed much more like "an impression" vs. let alone anything close to a pro review.
I'm well aware there are those, already one this thread, that could would make a very fine vocal capture on it-then EQ it into submission.

If I'm flying solo though, something "out of the box", that gives me the sound I'm shooting for makes it much easier for me too.

Took me a looong time to really understand the value of a high end Neumann or AKG LDC.

If budget permits, I'd be tempted to at least keep the REDD for your instrumental backgrounds, and if/when you're recording other singers.

I love the 77 ribbon too (along with 44), hey it was the vocal microphone used
for the Righteous Brothers' "You've Lost That Loving Feeling"!!
Nuff said.

Chris
Old 10th July 2018
  #150
Gear Guru
Doesn't the REDD have a preamp in it and tonal options? It's not a "one and done" mic. be interesting to hear samples of the mic in different modes.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump