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
Stellar cm-6 : best budget tube mic!
Old 14th January 2011
  #271
Gear Head
 
Michael Lee's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fadrian View Post
If her sibilance is that bad, you might want to switch to a ribbon mike. Or mike with both a ribbon and a condenser, fading between the two with more ribbon on the "belted" parts and more condenser on the normally sung parts.
Or, just CAPTURE all that harsh sibilance and CELEBRATE it in the mix. There must be something about her voice that makes you want to do the project. That sound just might be what makes her famous someday.

Unless of course the attraction is actually a super-perky matched pair of attenuators and a smokin' hot input.
Old 14th January 2011
  #272
Lives for gear
 
kidvybes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post
Unless of course the attraction is actually a super-perky matched pair of attenuators and a smokin' hot input.
Old 14th January 2011
  #273
Lives for gear
 
mhs2xs's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post
You'll probably want to skip the CM-6 for that vocalist then.

I'm a vocalist myself, and the reason I'm digging the CM-6 is that it records my voice EXACTLY as it sounds. I don't hear any *bumps* or *warmth* or *high end sheen*...I hear me. And that's exactly what I WANT it to do.

If you've got a harshly sibilant singer, you're gonna have an amazingly accurate track full of harsh sibilance when you're done.

MLS
Funny heh
Old 14th January 2011
  #274
Lives for gear
 
mhs2xs's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidvybes View Post
...agreed!...better yet, get a CM-6 and then, get a new singer...heh
Funny^2 hehheh
Old 14th January 2011
  #275
Lives for gear
 
mhs2xs's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post
Or, just CAPTURE all that harsh sibilance and CELEBRATE it in the mix. There must be something about her voice that makes you want to do the project. That sound just might be what makes her famous someday.

Unless of course the attraction is actually a super-perky matched pair of attenuators and a smokin' hot input.
Funny^3 hehhehheh

I prefer a clean input, or at leasy one that's not too wooley. Matching attenuators are also nice, but should be well rounded. Capassitance should be minded because, while we all like bottom end, tighter is better.

Sorry for the derail kidv....It's MLee's fault
Old 14th January 2011
  #276
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
I posted some clips of the vocalist I'm working with here :-

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/6166264-post1.html
Old 14th January 2011
  #277
Lives for gear
 
satellitedog's Avatar
I listened to Amazing Grace.

She's didn't get nearly as harsh or thin of voice as I expected. Actually, apart from the overabundance of melismas especially early on (at roughly the middle of the recording, some of them a bit hit and miss) I found her voice pleasant and tonally just right for the genre. The distortion at some point is of course not part of the appeal, but that's just nitpicking :-). Don't worry too much about her tone, she sounds great.
Old 14th January 2011
  #278
Gear Head
 
Michael Lee's Avatar
 

Wow. I'm not hearing any problem there. Higher *pitched* notes ARE thinner in tone...that's why they're higher in pitch! I don't think "rich and creamy" and "top end of the female vocal register" are compatible concepts.

I think you have a really good thing going already.

I don't know the science of all this, just the art part.
Old 14th January 2011
  #279
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by satellitedog View Post
I listened to Amazing Grace.

She's didn't get nearly as harsh or thin of voice as I expected. Actually, apart from the overabundance of melismas especially early on (at roughly the middle of the recording, some of them a bit hit and miss) I found her voice pleasant and tonally just right for the genre. The distortion at some point is of course not part of the appeal, but that's just nitpicking :-). Don't worry too much about her tone, she sounds great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post
Wow. I'm not hearing any problem there. Higher *pitched* notes ARE thinner in tone...that's why they're higher in pitch! I don't think "rich and creamy" and "top end of the female vocal register" are compatible concepts.

I think you have a really good thing going already.

I don't know the science of all this, just the art part.
Thanks guys. Amazing Grace was recorded with a Studio Projects B1 and Silent with an SM7b.
To me the top end sounds a little harsh!?
Old 14th January 2011
  #280
Here for the gear
I found the Mullard and it has been burning in for 24 hours. I have a holiday on Monday, so I will be doing some recording. If I have extra time and can figure out how to post the files, I'll try to set up some extra mics and post some acoustic guitar track comparisons. If not, I'll still try to give some more impressions.
Old 15th January 2011
  #281
Lives for gear
 

jumping in on this thread pretty late. What I'm curious about is if the CM-6 is more U47-like or more C12ish, or...?

I already have an AA CM12 so Iw ould be more interested in a U47 like tube mic...

Thanks
JN
Old 15th January 2011
  #282
Lives for gear
 
satellitedog's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickiefunk View Post
Thanks guys. Amazing Grace was recorded with a Studio Projects B1 and Silent with an SM7b.
To me the top end sounds a little harsh!?
I might have misunderstood you... First of all, do you mean her voice going harsh in the top register, that you hear in the room, live, or only recorded/percieved harshness of the top-end? Did you take the recording over to different listening environments?

Anyway, I was listening on generic multimedia speakers with a subbox (good enough for me to hear differences between mics and internet compression artefacts that come with online music :-) but it's a generic enough device, so that many would listen to music on such, and I didn't hear anything unpleasant in the vocals aside from the overload distortion at one point (was that the mic, or the preamp?). Really, there is nothing offensive there vocally.

SD
Old 15th January 2011
  #283
Lives for gear
 
satellitedog's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by John N View Post
jumping in on this thread pretty late. What I'm curious about is if the CM-6 is more U47-like or more C12ish, or...?

I already have an AA CM12 so Iw ould be more interested in a U47 like tube mic...

Thanks
JN
I remember at the beginning of this thread (or the other CM-6 thread that got closed) the AA CM47 was brought up in relation to the CM6 as being sonically different due to design differences, but similarly impressive in performance. If you find it, it might answer your questions.

SD
Old 15th January 2011
  #284
Lives for gear
 
kidvybes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John N View Post
jumping in on this thread pretty late. What I'm curious about is if the CM-6 is more U47-like or more C12ish, or...?

I already have an AA CM12 so Iw ould be more interested in a U47 like tube mic...

Thanks
JN
...we spent far too much time arguing "classic mic" references in the previous thread, for me to want to address that loaded subject again...I can tell you that the CM-6 does not sound like the AA CM-12...a different capsule, different tube circuit, different transformer, and different capsule-to-headbasket configuration all add up to an entirely different beast...I expect to have aa AA CM-12 to compare with next week, so I will be able to be more objective then...but as I've described in previous posts, the CM-6 sounds different from the CM-47 as well...I like both mics, but I'm finding the CM-6 to be a bit more versatile as a vocal mic...very natural/neutral with a bit less coloration than the CM-47, but not as bright as the typical C-12 voiced mic..."true to the source" as Michael Lee had suggested earlier...

Quote:
Originally Posted by satellitedog View Post
I remember at the beginning of this thread (or the other CM-6 thread that got closed) the AA CM47 was brought up in relation to the CM6 as being sonically different due to design differences, but similarly impressive in performance. If you find it, it might answer your questions.

SD
Wanna Tube Mic To Go With Your PRE-73?...
Old 15th January 2011
  #285
Lives for gear
 
satellitedog's Avatar
Thanks Kidvybes! I also meant it the other way around, so as the CM-6 being as impressive as the CM47 in the original post...
Old 15th January 2011
  #286
Lives for gear
 
kidvybes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by satellitedog View Post
Thanks Kidvybes! I also meant it the other way around, so as the CM-6 being as impressive as the CM47 in the original post...
...gotcha!...it all goes back to what I like to refer to as "cost-to-performance" ratio...as tube mics go, IMHO, the CM-6 owns that...
Old 15th January 2011
  #287
Gear Head
 
Michael Lee's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidvybes View Post
...gotcha!...it all goes back to what I like to refer to as "cost-to-performance" ratio...as tube mics go, IMHO, the CM-6 owns that...
yeh, and I have this funny feeling about the CM-12...I'm gonna own that!
Old 15th January 2011
  #288
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by satellitedog View Post
I might have misunderstood you... First of all, do you mean her voice going harsh in the top register, that you hear in the room, live, or only recorded/percieved harshness of the top-end? Did you take the recording over to different listening environments?

Anyway, I was listening on generic multimedia speakers with a subbox (good enough for me to hear differences between mics and internet compression artefacts that come with online music :-) but it's a generic enough device, so that many would listen to music on such, and I didn't hear anything unpleasant in the vocals aside from the overload distortion at one point (was that the mic, or the preamp?). Really, there is nothing offensive there vocally.

SD
Her voice seems to only really be this harsh on the recording and not live. It seems like something is overloading?
Old 15th January 2011
  #289
Lives for gear
 
satellitedog's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by dickiefunk View Post
Her voice seems to only really be this harsh on the recording and not live. It seems like something is overloading?
I posted this in your non-harsh microphone thread back when, iirc. but maybe her voice is only triggering room problems when she's belting out the loudest/highest notes. Maybe she's overloading/overfilling the room with her voice only at the top of her voice and that's what you register as harsh?

I listened again to the tunes and the distortion I heard was likely due to my tweeters, sorry.

I've just listened to Silent Night (sorry I don't like the tune itself, it's too schmaltzy) and it's surprising what a different sound she has/you gave her there. Her voice does get quite "brassy" with the belted parts, more so than in Grace, but it still isn't distracting or harsh, just different, and human.

From a listener's viewpoint, considering these two given songs, I would try to switch up the performance approaches/processing of them, so that 'Grace gets this edgier brassy, full throttle voice and 'Night gets the softer melismatic singing, but there's nothing there to turn me off from listening again to any of them, technically at least.

Will you try a ribbon mike?
Old 15th January 2011
  #290
Lives for gear
 
dickiefunk's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by satellitedog View Post
I posted this in your non-harsh microphone thread back when, iirc. but maybe her voice is only triggering room problems when she's belting out the loudest/highest notes. Maybe she's overloading/overfilling the room with her voice only at the top of her voice and that's what you register as harsh?

I listened again to the tunes and the distortion I heard was likely due to my tweeters, sorry.

I've just listened to Silent Night (sorry I don't like the tune itself, it's too schmaltzy) and it's surprising what a different sound she has/you gave her there. Her voice does get quite "brassy" with the belted parts, more so than in Grace, but it still isn't distracting or harsh, just different, and human.

From a listener's viewpoint, considering these two given songs, I would try to switch up the performance approaches/processing of them, so that 'Grace gets this edgier brassy, full throttle voice and 'Night gets the softer melismatic singing, but there's nothing there to turn me off from listening again to any of them, technically at least.

Will you try a ribbon mike?
Thanks for the reply. I've got hold of a Golden Age R1mkIII active ribbon mic which I'll try on her voice to see how it sounds.
The vocals for both these songs were recorded in different studios and the rooms were very different so I'm guessing it's not the room!
When you mention her voice gets "brassy" in the belted bits, these are the bits I don't like. It sounds as though either the mic, preamp or converters are distorting!?
Old 15th January 2011
  #291
Lives for gear
 
mhs2xs's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post
yeh, and I have this funny feeling about the CM-12...I'm gonna own that!
That sounds like a CHALLENGE!
I'm mic poor right now, but if you guys start raving about them, I may have to get one, or two.
Old 15th January 2011
  #292
Here for the gear
 

Just got mine in today. I know it gets burned in prior to shipping but I'm going to let it burn in a little longer before I give it a go. I'll try to post some clips once I record something with it.
Old 16th January 2011
  #293
Lives for gear
 
mhs2xs's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonygunz View Post
Just got mine in today. I know it gets burned in prior to shipping but I'm going to let it burn in a little longer before I give it a go. I'll try to post some clips once I record something with it.
Please do, and welcome to the club.

Cheers!
Mitchell
Old 16th January 2011
  #294
Lives for gear
 
kidvybes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post
yeh, and I have this funny feeling about the CM-12...I'm gonna own that!
...when I referenced the "CM-12" I was saying that I will have an Advanced Audio CM-12 in the studio to compare with Peter Bloch's C12 protypes...Dave Thomas of Advanced Audio has taken his model designations directly from the classic mics that inspired them (thus the CM-47, CM-67, CM-12, etc)...Stellar's C12-type mic (edge-fed capsule with C12 style body) will have a different model designation (I believe it will be the CM-5), since the AA mic has already been given the "CM-12" name...Peter is not voicing his mics after any of the specific "classics", so the Stellar model number designations don't directly correspond to previous "classic" products...
Old 17th January 2011
  #295
Old 18th January 2011
  #296
Lives for gear
 
Michael_Joly's Avatar
 

I'm must have missed the specs on this mic somewhere along the line -

This mic uses a K67-type capsule to drive a flat response plate-load circuit (no HF de-emphasis in other words), correct?

I ask because the late Stephen Paul noted the following about the U 67 and its K67 capsule: "...the 67 ...had a high-frequency roll-off built into the amplifier and a boost built into the capsule. This was a sort of acoustic pre-emphasis and electronic de-emphasis curve. The idea was that by using lots of feedback and feedforward, they could control the dynamic range and signal-to-noise of the mic, enabling it to handle high levels at close range.

The secondary effect of the K67 capsule pre-emphasis -> circuit de-emphasis topology was to provide the darker timbre the U 67 is noted as having (relative to the U 47). Neumann intended the K67 capsule to be heard with HF attenuation applied in other words. It is this HF attenuated timbre-balance recordists and audiences respond to favorably and is part of the reason the U 67 is so well loved. The same K67 capsule HF boost -> circuit HF de-emphasis topology was carried over into the U 87 FET mic as well.

Because the K67 type capsule has an intentional 8dB peak at 8kHz, a band-reject filter must be used to de-emphasize the capsule's intentional HF peak and obtain the sort of timbre-balance Neumann intended to be heard. A simple low-pass filter at the output would only roll off the entire top end. It would not attenuate the 8kHz peak specifically and would rob the mic of its top end air at 12k-16kHz.
Old 18th January 2011
  #297
Lives for gear
 
kidvybes's Avatar
 

...what happened to "results, not resistors"?...the sound of this mic speaks for itself...it is neutral/natural sounding, not hyped...very true to the source, regardless of topology...
Old 18th January 2011
  #298
Registered User
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael_Joly View Post
I'm must have missed the specs on this mic somewhere along the line -

This mic uses a K67-type capsule to drive a flat response plate-load circuit (no HF de-emphasis in other words), correct?
Here's your answer, courtesy of Haz-mat-strat:

Quote:
There is no filter network in this mic.

The most important part: The sound.

The mic has a clear smooth sound and does not have a harsh top end like some of the other tube mics in its class. This is due to two factors. The 34mm capsule is tuned differently and not as bright as the 32mm capsule found in the other tube mics. The other factor is the transformer seems to be rolling off the top end slightly.

The new issue Tung Sol tube is quiet and this is where some of you have been making changes for the better. I prefer the NOS EF86.

I like the EF86 platform for microphones. The tube gives a transparent quality to the sound with out a lot of color. Very Hi-Fi in nature. Very true and realistic to the sound source.

Overall this mic sounds good and is a good recording tool.
Old 18th January 2011
  #299
Lives for gear
 
Michael_Joly's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidvybes View Post
...what happened to "results, not resistors"?...
Exactly! This is mic geek speak about the CM6 (on topic btw) between inquiring minds.

How can we have a discussion about the topic of the CM6 without talking about what it contains?

I worry about details like proper capsule / circuit matching so my clients don't have to - so they just enjoy the results of my research. I'm trying to understand the topology of the mic under discussion - because for experienced engineers, topology is an indicator of sound. We have confirmation the CM6 mic uses a flat response circuit - and I'm assuming a K67 type capsule, but I'm waiting for confirmation on that point. If so, this indicates another example of capsule / circuit mismatch - as defined by Neumann in the U 67 and U 87 mics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slaphappy View Post
Here's your answer, courtesy of Haz-mat-strat:
Well, here again me may have to agree to disagree. All K67-type capsules, by nature of their design, have an intentional narrow band HF peak in the sibilance frequency range. However, John Peluso has achieved a higher frequency peak (apx 12kHz) in his customized K67-variants. But stock Chinese capsules conform the basic Neumann design. Also, as I note above, HF roll-off through the transformer (which I doubt occurs anyway - I've never measured a Chinese tube mic with HF roll-off below 20kHz due to the transformer) would not specifically attenuate the narrow band peak found in a K67-type capsule.

The bottom line for me is timbre-balance - in my opinion, a microphone should not have a peak in the sibilance range - period. The AKG C12 with its "air peak" up at 12khz is another story. While this is not my preferred timbre balance (and the reason why I don't do C12 type mics) a 12kHz "air peak" can sometimes be an appropriate compliment to the natural roll-off of HF content exhibited by many sources. But a non-deemphazed 8kHz peak, right in the sibilance range, has no business being in a mic. This is why Neumann used HF de-emphasis in their K67 equipped mics - to obtain a pleasing and "correct" timbre-balance.
Old 18th January 2011
  #300
Gear Nut
 
Zencatt's Avatar
 

Exclamation Unbelievable

The OP has recently posted that he's staying away from comparisons to classic high-end mics.

This is the beginning of a new bunch of unneccesary clutter that has been responsible for shutting down THREE recent threads about new high-quality inexpensive mics which some mic mod shops seem happy to talk about and others seem to be threatened by.

It's starting to look like it's not an accident that these threads have been cluttered and then closed; I beg the moderators to please monitor this thread closely, and please consider which people seek to derail the conversation and initiate conflict and controversy over concepts that have been hashed out repeatedly on recent closed threads and serve NO INTEREST in delivering information regarding the original intent of the thread.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
busker / So much gear, so little time
37
kidvybes / Product Alerts older than 2 months
82
nervirasme / Low End Theory
28
John N / Low End Theory
54

Forum Jump
Forum Jump