The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Gefell UM92.1S, Soundelux U99 or M149/M150?
Old 26th May 2006
  #31
Lives for gear
 

Whoops, I forgot those were 24 bit files. Media Player won't play them. Do you have something else to use (Winamp, itunes, etc?).

No offense about obsessing, I do it too. But even with lots of research it usually always boils down to trying it for myself to finally know. I went through about a dozen other high quality mics before I kept this M149. And just because one person says that mic is sibilant doesn't make it so for many other applications.

Steve
Old 26th May 2006
  #32
Quote:
Originally Posted by studioman22
Hmm, interesting, thanks so much. Is it just me, or I am I hearing a slight fuzzy distortion when the vocalist comes in on his first few notes? That coming from the mic or pre or what? Or possibly the de-esser? Compression? Hmm, not sure. Exactly what I am hearing there rwhit? Is that basic tracks, or to what extent has that been treated, please? Thanks!
I didn't hear anything, but there's always a lot of extraneous detail with that mic and vocals, like saliva and tongue and whatnot. It was also a Fearn tube pre, so that adds its sound, too. This is a piano/vocal demo, but yes it was treated considerably with compression and de-essing, not too much eq, a 960 reverb, oh and probably a Sony Inflator PT plug-in. Come to think of it, you're probably hearing the distortion from the piano sample. Technically, it's a buildup of damper pedal in the sample, and is why I need to switch piano samples.
Old 26th May 2006
  #33
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeegybug
Whoops, I forgot those were 24 bit files. Media Player won't play them. Do you have something else to use (Winamp, itunes, etc?).

No offense about obsessing, I do it too. But even with lots of research it usually always boils down to trying it for myself to finally know. I went through about a dozen other high quality mics before I kept this M149. And just because one person says that mic is sibilant doesn't make it so for many other applications.

Steve
Ah ok, 24-bit! Sure man, I got lotsa goodies to play those, no sweat...

And... after listening to both those, on these speakers (couple of small polk audios I keep at the internet puter, run through a sansui receiver from the 80's with everything set to flat), I think I could make a better judgement on the rig, which is currently not up. Yet. Workin on it. I'll check those out in more detail very soon on the rig when its up. Although just from what I heard, I think that flavor of air and low end might work on his voice, although hard to say through an API 3124>5043 without hearing it for sure. But I hope I can be as of much help to you someday in the midst of trying to make an obsessive decision.
Old 26th May 2006
  #34
Lives for gear
 
T.RayBullard's Avatar
 

Win Media Player 9 and up DOES play 24 bit files.
Old 26th May 2006
  #35
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.RayBullard
Win Media Player 9 and up DOES play 24 bit files.
Well then I wonder why mine wouldn't, and it's MP9, last ver before 10. But TRay, it's cool, Wavelab worked no prob. And TRay, you hear squeegybug's two files? Whatcha think? Think a Gefell UM92 in the same scene would have added or subtracted anything?
Old 26th May 2006
  #36
Gear Maniac
 
ethan_c's Avatar
 

I am going through the same thing with similar mics for orchestral recording. I am trying to decide between (3) M150's, (1) Brauner VMS1 and (2) DPA 4041(s). I don't think I can loose either way but I'd still like to know I'm getting the best setup for my needs.
Old 26th May 2006
  #37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethan_c
I am going through the same thing with similar mics for orchestral recording. I am trying to decide between (3) M150's, (1) Brauner VMS1 and (2) DPA 4041(s). I don't think I can loose either way but I'd still like to know I'm getting the best setup for my needs.
hi ethan, you find any opinions on that m150 yet? They seem to be tough to come by round here, although I understand they were mostly intended for exactly what you are doing.
Old 26th May 2006
  #38
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studioman22
Well then I wonder why mine wouldn't, and it's MP9, last ver before 10.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...ecs/audio.aspx
Media Player Professional plays 24 bit 96 kHz.

Steve
Old 26th May 2006
  #39
Lives for gear
 
T.RayBullard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studioman22
Well then I wonder why mine wouldn't, and it's MP9, last ver before 10. But TRay, it's cool, Wavelab worked no prob. And TRay, you hear squeegybug's two files? Whatcha think? Think a Gefell UM92 in the same scene would have added or subtracted anything?

I think the um 92.1 has a really smooth, easy sound, and definitely would be fantastic...I have a low bass voice, and my voice loves the 92.1, as does my wifes, who is a mezzo. I am almost positive that you will be pleased with it....

Teddy
Old 27th May 2006
  #40
Quote:
Originally Posted by T.RayBullard
I think the um 92.1 has a really smooth, easy sound, and definitely would be fantastic...I have a low bass voice, and my voice loves the 92.1, as does my wifes, who is a mezzo. I am almost positive that you will be pleased with it....

Teddy
kk, thanks. I think it's looking like the UM92.1S for us, considering we can't wait for the up to six weeks (Dave is backlogged on orders) on the TM-1's. It's a bit cheaper than the M149 anyway, but that M149 I sure like a lot.
Old 27th May 2006
  #41
Lives for gear
 
davemc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwhitney
Sibilance is never a good thing. De-essers work okay, but there's always a trade-off. I should mention that apparently not all M149 users encounter this problem. I've recently switched to the Coles 4040 for a lot of voice recording, but still use the M149 when it works. It's great when it does.
I never thought my M149 was overly bad with sibilance, although comparing it to a ribbon which is a differnt style mic and darker. Well the tone is different.
Well if you want a lot of sibilance try a T3 or other chinese mics.. I liked the tone from the T3 when I was trying stuff out although had really bad sibilance problems.
I still say get stuff in and try yourself.
Old 27th May 2006
  #42
Lives for gear
 
T.RayBullard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by studioman22
kk, thanks. I think it's looking like the UM92.1S for us, considering we can't wait for the up to six weeks (Dave is backlogged on orders) on the TM-1's. It's a bit cheaper than the M149 anyway, but that M149 I sure like a lot.
I will have you that info Monday, StudioMan..
Old 27th May 2006
  #43
Lives for gear
 
Alexi's Avatar
 

i'd go gefell all the way......best mic company on this planetthumbsup
Old 27th May 2006
  #44
Lives for gear
 
T.RayBullard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexi
i'd go gefell all the way......best mic company on this planetthumbsup
Old 27th May 2006
  #45
NL5
Lives for gear
 
NL5's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexi
i'd go gefell all the way......best mic company on this planetthumbsup

Old 27th May 2006
  #46
Lives for gear
 

I'd like toadd that the Gefells are fantastic microphones but do audition and consider the Brauner VM1 or better still the VMA. I love this mic - also check out the Elux (soundelux) E251C - gorgeous sound.

Paul
Old 27th May 2006
  #47
Gear Addict
 

How do you guys like the UMT70S compared to the UM92.1S? It's got the same capsule but is FET rather than tube and is transformerless.
Old 27th May 2006
  #48
hey all, thanks again so much for your kind comments. At this point, all things considered, I think we have settled on the UM92.1S. We want the tube, and the positive reviews on the gefell are just too overwhelming not to try it. I think we are also going to get the wunder PAFOUR instead of the API 3124 to go with it. I heard some samples, and honestly I wasn't all that thrilled with the API in a context where there is just a solo guitar or solo guitar and one vocal as the ONLY things in mix. The little extra fatness the PAFOUR affords should excel in that context. And on the tunes where things get more busy with lots of other instrumentation, I should be so lucky as to have to filter sounds because they are just TOO big to layer in a mix!

So the chain for vocals and lotsa other things will be UM92>PAFOUR>Neve 5043. That's it. I'm done, and gotta go with SOMETHING. May all the naysayers and flamers rest in peace, but I think I'm going to be happy, and hopefully, so will the artist.
Old 27th May 2006
  #49
mds
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcballs
How do you guys like the UMT70S compared to the UM92.1S? It's got the same capsule but is FET rather than tube and is transformerless.
I'd like to hear about this too since I JUST bought a MT71s, which is the cardiod only version of the UMT70s.

Mike
Old 27th May 2006
  #50
Lives for gear
 
T.RayBullard's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcballs
How do you guys like the UMT70S compared to the UM92.1S? It's got the same capsule but is FET rather than tube and is transformerless.
I thought I answered this in this thread already, but basically...the 92.1 is rounder, has more of a low end extension and more mid range driven than the 70S. The 70S is very clean and precise, but not without that typical gefell pleasing quality.
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