Another Mic Comparison

[James Perrett]

After Sam's popular thread from a few days ago I thought I'd create another mic comparison thread. As some of you will know, I've been helping to catalogue the collection of mics that SimonZ left behind after his untimely death last year.

With the help of a very talented young singer/guitarist called Alfie

https://www.alfies-music.co.uk/

I was able to check out a few of Simon's mics together with some of mine to get an idea of how they sound. I thought I'd challenge the SOS forum to see if anyone could work out which mic was which. The only clue that I will give at this stage is that there are some classics in there as well as some not so well known mics. I have included excerpts from 3 takes, the first is acoustic guitar played with fingers, the second is acoustic guitar played with a plectrum and the third is a vocal track.

To narrow it down, they are all solid state condenser mics and, where they have switched settings, they were all set to cardioid pattern, no high pass filter and no attenuation. No other processing has been applied. There are going to be differences due to mic placement but I think the general characteristics of the mics show through. All files have been normalised to the same LUFS value.

The mics are numbered from 1-7. Some mics were only used on one or two takes - usually because we felt that their sound might not be appropriate for that take or, in the case of mic 3, the mixer channel was very noisy on the first take so we only have the second guitar take and the vocal take.

You can find the files at

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

All are mono .wav files and each file starts at the same point for each take so you can line them up in your DAW and either listen to them individually or choose your favourite combination. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts...

[Arpangel]

I had to do a similar cataloguing for a friend, he had a large selection of wildly varying mic's/types/prices, it was a very interesting experience, the differences between mic's with extreme characteristics and sounds based on reputation wasn’t as large as I expected it to be, in fact, sometimes I wasn’t aware of what I was listening to and got it completely wrong.
This always makes me laugh, especially when some get very obsessive about having the right mic.

[Drew Stephenson]

I shall have to avoid this thread until I'm back in the studio next week.

[James Perrett]

I shall have to avoid this thread until I'm back in the studio next week.

I'll give you a chance to have a listen before I reveal anything...

[James Perrett]

in fact, sometimes I wasn’t aware of what I was listening to and got it completely wrong.
This always makes me laugh, especially when some get very obsessive about having the right mic.

There were a couple of surprises in there for me but I'd better not say too much at this point.

[Arpangel]

but I'd better not say too much at this point.

That's exactly what the tour guide on my New York bus tour said today as we were going through Little Italy, about the Mafia.

[Drew Stephenson]

Just had a bit of play through these.
I haven't got a clue what any of them might be, but I do have some preferences.

On the vocal part Mic's 5 & 6 were my preference. Mics 1 & 2 both seemed to have quite a bit of (different) colouration that wasn't in the others.

On the shorter guitar part Mic 5 was my preferred option with mic 7 definitely my least preferred - very middy to the point of muddy.

On the longer guitar part mic 3 was my preferred option.

[James Perrett]

Thanks for taking a listen Drew.

On the vocal part Mic's 5 & 6 were my preference. Mics 1 & 2 both seemed to have quite a bit of (different) colouration that wasn't in the others.

On the shorter guitar part Mic 5 was my preferred option with mic 7 definitely my least preferred - very middy to the point of muddy.

On the longer guitar part mic 3 was my preferred option.

I would have to say that Mic 5 was a bit of a surprise to me. I dug it out at random for some acoustic overdubs and was pleased at how well they went so I included it in this test.

I was also a bit surprised by how muddy mic 7 sounded - of course it is possible that it has been modified to sound like that...

I'll maybe give it another day or so before revealing anything - just in case anyone else wants to stick their head above the parapet.

[rggillespie]

Not very many benefits to being laid low with some nasty virus and isolating at home, but I have managed to listen to these recordings, so all is not lost. I find the ones I like the best seem to stand out fairly clearly but I have no idea what the mic brand or type they might be. The vocal I like 2, for take 1 guitar I Like 05 and for take 2 guitar I like 2 and 4. I look forward to the reveal, it's quite hard to play snippets and choose one. Many thanks for posting James Perrett, I'm kinda hoping one I liked is a ribbon mic....as I'd like to get one!

[James Perrett]

I'm kinda hoping one I liked is a ribbon mic....as I'd like to get one!

I don't think I'm giving too much away by saying that they are all condenser mics - some fairly expensive while some are not so expensive.

Hmm - If I get the chance I could try comparing some of more favoured ones with a couple of ribbons that I have here.

[Sam Inglis]

I've only got headphones here and I usually find speakers are more revealing of this sort of difference, but I'll have a go!

Mic 01 had a sort of hard quality to it on the guitar and didn't suit his voice at all.
Mic 02 was horrible, super noisy and weirdly peaky.
Mic 03 was a bit noisy on the guitar but quite good on the voice.
Mic 04 I thought was the best match for his voice and not bad on guitar.
Mic 05 sounded slightly hollow or scooped. That worked OK on the voice, less well on the guitar.
Mic 06 was usable, prefer 04 though.
Mic 07 was woolly.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Mic 01 was a U87 and Mic 04 some cheap and cheerful Chinese model...

[Sam Inglis]

I've just downloaded them at the studio and listened on speakers. As suspected, the differences seem more apparent for some reason.

On Guitar Take 1, Mic 04 is by far the best. Mic 01 is hard-sounding, Mic 05 is OK at the top end but woolly at the bottom, and Mic 07 is the same only more so.

On Guitar Take 2, Mic 01 is again rather hard-sounding and midrangey. Mic 02 is not bad in a jangly sort of way and the noise is less obtrusive on speakers. Mic 03 is on the bright side but pretty good. I'm a bit less keen on Mic 04 on this take but it's still possibly my favourite. Mic 05 just sounds weird.

On the vocal take, Mic 01 would probably work with some EQ but I don't like it. Mic 02 is nasty, woolly and honky. I liked Mic 03 marginally better than 04 or 06 but all three are good. Mic 05 works well too but a touch on the bright side.

[James Perrett]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Mic 01 was a U87 and Mic 04 some cheap and cheerful Chinese model...

You'll be pleased to know that your professional reputation is still intact Sam.

• Mic 01 is a Neumann U47fet
• Mic 02 is a SE Electronics X1*
• Mic 03 is Line Audio CM3
• Mic 04 is an AKG C414EB*
• Mic 05 is a Beyerdynamic MC834*
• Mic 06 is a Neumann U87 (original version)
• Mic 07 is an Audio Technica 4050*

The starred mics come from Simon's collection so there is a possibility that they have been modified.

Here are some pics that show the positioning - some of the differences could well be down to less than optimal positions.

[Aled Hughes]

Interesting! I haven’t listened, but I will.

I think perhaps it’s important to note that the Beyer 834 is an exception here- it’s a small diaphragm condenser in disguise, while the rest are LDCs*. The increased proximity effect could perhaps be responsible for the ‘wooliness’ that Sam mentions?

EDIT
Just spotted the Line Audio SDC as well, sorry!

[Sam Inglis]

Phew!

Looking at the photos I think it's likely that the positioning made a difference on the guitar takes, depending on how far away the mics are.

The 414 in this case is the nylon ring version, presumably?

It's funny, I've only ever used a U47 FET a few times and I have never liked it. I guess it's just not the mic for me.

[James Perrett]

The 414 in this case is the nylon ring version, presumably?

It's funny, I've only ever used a U47 FET a few times and I have never liked it. I guess it's just not the mic for me.

I'm fairly sure that it has a nylon ring but I don't know if it had any mods done to it.

I had the chance to compare my U47 with a valve one a few years ago and the sound was very similar, but the valve one had a slightly brighter sound. A couple of dB of HF boost on mine brought it very close to sounding like the valve version.

I still use the U87 more than the U47 but I like the sound of that C414.

[ManFromGlass]

I don’t have many mics but the CM3’s always surprise me. Serious bang for the buck. Recently I picked up the new inexpensive Earthworks. Can’t recall the model number, it’s not on the mic. Looking forward to comparing that to my others.

[Drew Stephenson]

Recently I picked up the new inexpensive Earthworks. Can’t recall the model number, it’s not on the mic. Looking forward to comparing that to my others.

SR 117? https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/earthworks-sr117

[ManFromGlass]

Yes!
Funny - there is no logo on the mic or the bag it came in.

[James Perrett]

I don’t have many mics but the CM3’s always surprise me. Serious bang for the buck. Recently I picked up the new inexpensive Earthworks. Can’t recall the model number, it’s not on the mic. Looking forward to comparing that to my others.

I felt the CM3 shared many of the qualities of the U87 and C414 in this test, producing a sound that was at least acceptable on both voice and guitar. There are also some Earthworks C30 mics in Simon's collection so maybe I will try comparing those to the CM3 in the next few weeks.

[ManFromGlass]

The thing that drew me to the Earthworks was their philosophy of a very flat frequency response. My first mic was an Earthworks and Earthworks pre and they taught me a lot about mic technique and using my ears.
Your choice of mic pre for your Earthworks tests may have impact.

[James Perrett]

Your choice of mic pre for your Earthworks tests may have impact.

I don't subscribe to that point of view. The A&H and Audient preamps that I use are decent - if a mic doesn't work with them then it is badly designed and shouldn't be considered a professional mic.

However, in previous tests, I noticed that these Earthworks mics are thirsty for power and the SSL interface that I was using didn't like this.

[Sam Inglis]

Yes, historically all Earthworks models used the full 10mA current permitted by the phantom power spec. I think they've moved away from that recently though.

[James Perrett]

Yes, historically all Earthworks models used the full 10mA current permitted by the phantom power spec. I think they've moved away from that recently though.

Presumably someone has told them that if they want to extract the maximum power from a phantom supply then they need a different approach. More current does not imply more power to the mic - they're just making the series resistors waste more power as heat.

[Hugh Robjohns]

If Neumann and Schoeps can sound so good on 2-3mA why would anyone need 10mA... other than incompetence?