| |
Microphone Shootout
Page 2 of 2
 | | Studio Projects C1 |
The Studio Projects C1 was the #1 pick more times than any of the other mics for our voices, percussion and even snare drum, which I’ll talk about in a minute. I didn’t like it at all on my piano, though—a bit boxy-sounding. I was surprised that we each preferred it to the more expensive options most of the time. Even more surprising was that from about 2.5 feet away, the #2 choice on my wife’s voice, acoustic guitar, hand percussion AND roomy drum sound was...the Shure SM57. It had a smoothness that was very appealing.
 | | Audio-Technica AT4050/CM5 |
The C1 was detailed but flattering on three out of the four voices—Don’s baritone still sounded good but not as good as with the Neumann M147. The Audio-Technica AT4050 looked like it was going to be the winner on the piano (at the time, we only knew it as Mic #2), but in the end we got the best sound from using two AKG 414s. I’m defining “best” in this case as the sound I’d most like to have going into a mix session for a solo piano piece or an acoustic trio project. The 414 would also work for louder piano material, but the AT4050 would probably cut through a little better without futzing much with the EQ.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The more expensive  | | Neumann M147 |
Neumann M147 came in at #3 or lower on all tests but one—Don’s voice. We warmed the mic up a good long time, but in this room, on the rest of our voices and instruments, it just sounded a bit too dark in spots where other mics revealed more information.
I should add that, after reading our results at vsplanet.com, some dubious colleagues suggested that there was either something wrong with: a) the test; or b) our ears! While I, too, was oddly disappointed that the venerable Neumann didn’t win, I don’t quite understand the logic of doing a blind listening test if you’ve already decided what the results “should” be. Someone also suggested that, had we run the C1 through a more expensive Avalon preamp, the C1’s tone would have seemed too harsh (to which I replied, “Then why on earth would I run it through an Avalon?”).
 | | Audio-Technica 4047 |
On my voice, the Audio-Technica 4047 was my #2 choice—it was a really close call, in fact. I also liked my voice through the SM57, and would definitely reach for it before I reached for some of the other mics in the test.
We didn’t record any screaming, honking loud vocals. Perhaps in that case the Neumann’s tube would have made more of a positive contribution; but honestly, I’m just saying that out of respect for its reputation. I have no idea if it’s true or not.
 | | Shure SM57 |
Don asked me to add the following: Other than the C1 sounding, in general, a bit more present and the M147 sounding darker than the others on these particular sources, the rest of the mics sounded closer to each other than we’d expected. I am convinced that I could make a great-sounding recording with every single one of these mics. The $79 SM57 was the biggest revelation, and anyone who scoffs at them for vocals without giving them a fair shot first is probably making decisions based on the pricetag. The same goes for the C1. It has a musically-useful brightness that was appealing without being overbearing. We did start to worry when we chose the brightest mic over and over. It probably wouldn’t be right for every voice. But being a little too bright has just never been a problem with my music (insert punchline here). And as I said, when we tested the M147 on Don’s voice, it won the shootout, pretty much hands down. But it definitely didn’t sound $1,000 better than the C1 to any of us.
 | | Oktava MC012 pair |
OK, drum time! We added an AKG C1000S and a pair of Oktava MC012s and spent a couple of hours testing all of the mics on my small but rather beefy-sounding jazz drum set. Here are my overhead, tom, and snare results:
 | | AKG C1000S |
While Don picked the AKG 451s for the best overhead mic, I chose the Oktavas—they let a little more tom sound creep into the OH mix, but I thought it would actually be a helpful element in my mixes. I want to add that I also liked the 451s and the C1000s—the differences were not huge to me. The Nuemann K184 sounded good, but at twice the price of a pair of the Oktavas, the only reason I’d use the Neumanns would be to impress a naive artist, and I try to avoid those guys anyway. ;)
 | | AKG 451 |
Next was tom tom time, close-micing. The 451 picked up a lot of stick noise no matter where we placed it. It was still a pleasing sound, but I preferred others. The SM57 was much ruder and picked up great ring (Don heard it as "breaking up"), but there was also way too much snare drum and hi hat bleed for me. Still, I’d use it for rock stuff over anything else I tested. In the end, we each chose one of my 414s set in a figure 8 between the two mounted toms and the other 414 on the floor tom. (Since these are my main piano mics, when I’m recording a live trio I will have to punt.) The 414 was extremely sonorous, and when we rolled off some lows at the VS-2480, it worked even better.
 | | AKG 414 |
As for the snare, we had another shock: nothing we tried sounded as good to us as the C1 with the 10db pad kicked in. I have yet to try it on my floor tom but if it’s even close to the sound I got from the 414, I’ll pick another two up in a hot second. Because of its size, it’s a little awkward to position well on the snare, but it had great detail and let in just the right amount of hi hat for me.
So what did we learn? First of all, there are a lot of great-sounding, useful mics out there, and some of them are pretty affordable. In our tests, there was practically never a runaway winner—in other words, almost everything we tested would have worked pretty well in my music, with a little tweaking.
Which leads me to one final word about our methodology: I honestly think that this kind of A/B testing in general can only reveal a fraction of what we really want to know about gear, which is “How will it sound in the context of MY music?”
 | | Neumann KM184 |
Bending over backwards to set each mic to be as neutral as possible doesn’t really tell me how it will work in my mixes. Perhaps a better test for me would be to take each mic, one at a time, and tweak it to sound as great as I possibly can, using the EQ, preamps and placement techniques I’d normally have at my disposal. We strive to make everything as flat as possible, but what if one particular mic sounds 10 times better than the others after rolling of some lows? What’s the point of testing all mics from six inches away, when one mic might really outshine the others from 10 inches away? These kinds of tests will never reveal that info.
Maybe I’m missing something, but does it really make sense to test mics in anything but their best-sounding position? After all, that’s the position you will use in your own music. I think next time I’ll run two tests per mic: one with the mic as flat and neutral as possible, and one with the mic optimized to kick the other mics’ butts. Only then will I have a well-rounded picture of how great each mic can sound in my studio. If I wore a white lab coat instead of shorts and orange flip-flops, then perhaps I’d prefer the more scientific approach. But all I’m really after are the best tools to capture my music, and this method seems more musically appropriate to me.
Doug Robinson is a producer/composer with several indie jazz releases, including "SitJazzDown" featuring Peter Erskine. While not a full-time engineer, he feels he can get decent results from most any gear you set in front of him, often in spite of the pricetag. His website is www.dougrobinson.com
Prev 1 2
Related sites: • Creative Mac • Digital Post Production • Digital Pro Sound • Digital Producer • Digital Video Editing • Digital Webcast • Hollywood Industry • Presentation Master
Related forums: •
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
