FYI: Mic comparison CD now available

[Anderton]

Some of you may recall the preamp listening contest and resulting CD that Lynn Fuston (3D Audio in Nashville) released a while back. There was a lot of interest in it in this forum, so I thought you'd like to know he's now released a CD comparing a zillion different mics. If you want more info, here's the place to go:

 

http://www.3daudioinc.com

email:go3daudio@aol.com

[Ethan Winer]

Craig,

 

> he's now released a CD comparing a zillion different mics.

 

Do you happen to know if the mikes were all active at one time and recorded simultaneously on separate tracks?

 

I had a big problem with the mike preamp shootout because different performances were used for each test. The only way I can see a mike preamp comparison working is if the same mike feeds all the preamps at once. Only then are you comparing the preamps. I don't care how consistent the singer or guitar player are. If the performances are not the same then all bets are off! I appreciate that trying to split one mike into 30+ preamps adds new issues, but that's their problem, not mine! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

--Ethan

[jnorman]

i have a copy of the 3D mic CD, and it is very interesting indeed. the mics were tested one at a time, so it is different performances for each mic, though i found that the female was especially consistent in her efforts. each mic was individually calibrated for distance from the singer, output level, same preamp, no EQ, no compression, and no effects.

 

i was fairly shocked by many of the things i heard on the CD, and have gone through it probably 30 times so far. many of my preconceptions were blown out of the water by this CD, and i think it is a very valuable resource for us all. i will try to answer some specific questions, if you guys have any, but let me just ask a couple of quick questions for you to ponder:

 

do you think you can tell the difference between a large condenser and a small condenser?

 

do you think you can tell the difference between a dynamic mic and a condenser mic?

 

do you think you can tell the difference between a tube mic and an FET mic?

[rumpelstiltskin.]

Originally posted by Ethan Winer:

I appreciate that trying to split one mike into 30+ preamps adds new issues, but that's their problem, not mine! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

yeah, uh, except for the fact that doing so requires an active circuit (which will color the sound). so it really is your problem if you're trying to be 100% pure audiophile.

 

of course, you could just be satisfied with the same mic and the same source, with slight variations (since we live in a variable, dynamic world), and use the disc as a generally indicative guide, not a canonical list of nuance.

[nhcomp45aol.com]

Hi jnorman, thanks for your generous offer to answer a few questions. I will be recording an album for Blues/Jazz band next week. The vocalist is an average sized man about 45 who has a beautiful voice. I normally use an AT-4033 on vocals in my one inch 16 track studio. One of the other members is insisting that we rent a U-47 and outboard preamp. I said lets see how the 4033 sounds before we condem it. What are some of the noticable differences between these two mics? Not 6000 dollars worth Im sure. Thanks, Paul.

[Hippie]

Yea jnorman....

Which mic did you favor of the bunch??

 

-Hippie

[Anderton]

>>do you think you can tell the difference between a tube mic and an FET mic?<<

 

I was doing some seminars on guitar processing a while ago, and one part involved a "tube pop quiz" where I played examples of tube, digitally emulated, IC, etc. distortion units. The ONLY person who ever got the answer to each one right was a guy named Bob Seal, who played guitar with the 60s band "Clear Light." Guess he knew his preamps.

 

I always loved it when the guy who would be totally militant about how "tubes rule" would pick the digitally-emulated version as the real thing.

[hiraga]

Kewl soundz RULE.. couldn't care less where they came from. That being said, it's universally accepted that tubes looks sexier than transistors, and I dig sexy stuff.. hence the hundred tubes in my studio.

 

Science sucks - love rulz..

 

Peace

[jnorman]

i pretty clearly liked the U87ai the best. of course, the ela-m251 was wonderful, as was the C-12, the u67, and the u47. surprisingly, however, nearly every mic on there sounded fantastic - not one mic sounded harsh or dull. the ribbon mics were obviously distinguishable from everything else, and none really come across as strong vocal mics for contemporary work due to the more rounded off top end.

 

on the other hand, the shure sm57 sounded like dynamite (i think we all forget what a high-quality signal path can do even for a $100 dynamic!), and the other dynamic mics (re20, 421) were actually competitive with the most expensive large condensers - they were just subtly different, but just as lively. the small condensers, which i thought i would pick out instantly, were also sterling performers, with perhaps only a bit less mid-range character than the large capsule mics - i was only able to tell the difference between large and small by using the mic key. the tlm103, a mic i quite like, was one of my least favorites, whereas the AT4033 and 4050, which i alwasy found rather sharp in the upper mids, both sounded very warm and full. i could go on and on, but i really recommend that you guys listen to it. again, i'll try to answer any specific questions - like how does the sm57 compare to the U47 :-)

[murph]

Here's the other caveat --- would you have picked the Neumann if you didn't know that's what it was? Blind listening test yield much different results than tests where the listener knew what was being used. If I gave you a performance through three mics, you would choose the one that sounded best. If I told you, "Here's a U87, here's an AT4055..." you would have predisposed ears towards what you're listeneing to. The SM57 might've sounded better than what you thought, but still not amazing, just as an example.

 

Just me going off on tests!

[Ethan Winer]

jn,

 

> the mics were tested one at a time, so it is different performances for each mic, though i found that the female was especially consistent in her efforts. each mic was individually calibrated for distance from the singer, output level, same preamp, no EQ, no compression, and no effects. <

 

I appreciate that the CD is probably useful. But I've recorded a lot of singers and musicians over the years, and I know that no two performances are ever identical. Just moving your head half an inch can capture more or less breath sound. So one mike might sound brighter or clearer or whatever when in fact it was the performance or mike distance or angle that changed. It would be interesting to hear multiple performances into each mike to see how much each varied with the same mike.

 

--Ethan

[Ethan Winer]

synaes,

 

> so it really is your problem if you're trying to be 100% pure audiophile. <

 

Well, I was being a little facetious. I realize there's no way to split a mike signal without adding another variable into the equation. To me the whole notion of comparing mikes or preamps this way is impossible. Again, I won't say such a test is useless. Just that it can never be absolute.

 

I think the best way to audition mikes is to rent or borrow several, and try them on a few sessions. When I was in the market for a large diaphragm condenser mike a few years ago, my dealer was kind enough to let me take several with the understanding that I'd keep only one and return the rest. (Which I did.)

 

--Ethan

[3D Audio]

Originally posted by Ethan Winer:

synaes,

 

> so it really is your problem if you're trying to be 100% pure audiophile. <

 

Well, I was being a little facetious. I realize there's no way to split a mike signal without adding another variable into the equation. To me the whole notion of comparing mikes or preamps this way is impossible. Again, I won't say such a test is useless. Just that it can never be absolute.

 

I think the best way to audition mikes is to rent or borrow several, and try them on a few sessions. When I was in the market for a large diaphragm condenser mike a few years ago, my dealer was kind enough to let me take several with the understanding that I'd keep only one and return the rest. (Which I did.)

 

--Ethan

 

Ethan,

 

Your cynicism and skepticism are well justified. I feel the same way. I've auditioned enough mics to know that one day's "pearl" is another day's "trash."

 

There is only one thing that the Mic CD will tell you absolutely. What you will hear when you listen to the CD is exactly what I heard as I sat in the control room that day. No more, no less. Interpret it as you will.

 

Is it the defacto standard for which mics sound good or bad? No way.

(Some of my personal favorites didn't do so well.)

 

Should you buy a mic based solely on what you hear on the CD? No way.

(It says so in the CD liner notes.)

 

Is there any way that 49 mics can occupy the same physical space and pick up the same performance at the same time? I wish.

 

This CD is like buying a ticket to sit in the room and listen to some of the greatest vocal mics ever made.

 

It was not intended to supercede any personal auditioning. It was designed to allow people who would otherwise have no access to these mics to hear them in isolation under critically-supervised conditions recorded on world-class gear to eliminate as many sonic barriers as possible.

 

I'm glad you can get a bunch of mics together to listen to, but that doesn't help the person in Canada who lives 5 hours from the nearest music store. There are lots of people in the world that would never have the chance to hear a soloed 251 or 47 or 67 or C12 in their lifetimes. Until now on this CD.

 

The Mic CD is for them.

 

Lynn Fuston

3D Audio Inc

Music Mixing and Mastering

On a scenic hilltop outside of historic

Franklin, Tennessee

http://www.3daudioinc.com

email:go3daudio@aol.com

[Hippie]

Being concerned about having "predisposed ears", I did a blind listening test with every large diaphragm condenser mic that Guitar Center sells. The mic that I bought is an AT4047/SV. I thought it was going to be a Neuman, for sure. Now, this wasn't the most scientific test, like the test CD is, but when do you record in the most perfect conditions, with all the levels perfect, the humidity at 70%, etc? -This is a great mic for about 489.00 street price. If your shopping for a mic, check it out.

 

-Hippie

 

- I had a feeling those 58's were underrated!

[Ethan Winer]

Lynn,

 

> Your cynicism and skepticism are well justified. I feel the same way. I've auditioned enough mics to know that one day's "pearl" is another day's "trash." <

 

I agree, and that's why I was careful to say I don't dispute the usefulness of your CD.

 

> There are lots of people in the world that would never have the chance to hear a soloed 251 or 47 or 67 or C12 in their lifetimes. Until now on this CD. The Mic CD is for them. <

 

Indeed!

 

Heck, a good engineer can probably capture a performance well with any decent modern microphone. But too often people believe their "problems" will go away if only they could afford to buy a Neumann tube mike, or some esoteric outboard A/D/A convertors, or the Manley Massive Passive EQ, and so on. When what they really need is just a little more experience and technique.

 

--Ethan

[alphajerk]

Originally posted by nhcomp45@aol.com:

Hi jnorman, thanks for your generous offer to answer a few questions. I will be recording an album for Blues/Jazz band next week. The vocalist is an average sized man about 45 who has a beautiful voice. I normally use an AT-4033 on vocals in my one inch 16 track studio. One of the other members is insisting that we rent a U-47 and outboard preamp. I said lets see how the 4033 sounds before we condem it. What are some of the noticable differences between these two mics? Not 6000 dollars worth Im sure. Thanks, Paul.

 

i can tell you what the difference is between a 4033 and a Soudelux U99. the first time you hear the two in passing directly side by side... not a whole lot except the U99 is WAY smoother in the high end. turns out to be a HUGE difference. then you notice the middle breakup is much smoother... listen to the vocal chords, the 4033 makes a mess of them, the U99 you can SEE them. after that, the whole picture is better represented. WORTH every $1500 extra than the 4033. and the preamp makes a world of difference as well. it will make the 4033 sound a shitload better too teamed up with the right one, preferrably one with a smoother top end.

 

ive used a U47fet and it didnt sound like either of them but i didnt have it to directly compare at the time.

 

i too am bothered by the performance since i was tearing apart that more than the pre... i will say the first time i heard the Crane Song Flamingo was on that CD and it stood SO far out above the rest towards what i wanted [maybe the guitarist liked it to enhancing the performance... so what] and i got one and have been EXTREMELY happy with it. it sounds BETTER than the preCD version. ive used several pres that do better in my use than was represented on the cd though. manley came in dead last on the preCD and marked it with a * as to how shitty i thought it sounded. i doubt it sounds THAT bad and i really doubt the mackie that ranked higher sounded that good. just not the right mic at the right time.

[Quin]

Lynn,

 

How did you reconcile the fact that not all models of the same mic sound the same ? - especially the vintage models - where there can be very noticeable variations in performance due to the condition/previous use/history of the mic.

 

Thanks,

 

Q.

 

 

 

This message has been edited by Quin on 04-26-2001 at 06:27 PM

[3D Audio]

Originally posted by Ethan Winer:

Heck, a good engineer can probably capture a performance well with any decent modern microphone. But too often people believe their "problems" will go away if only they could afford to buy a Neumann tube mike, or some esoteric outboard A/D/A convertors, or the Manley Massive Passive EQ, and so on. When what they really need is just a little more experience and technique.

 

--Ethan

 

The problem there? You can't buy experience and technique. You have to earn them. And no one is advertising technique, but millions are poored into advertising new mics, pres, consoles, EQs, compressors, etc. Why do think they call it the music BUSINESS?

 

And those advertisers are doing something right (no Alesis jokes here, please!). You won't find me taking out $4000 a page ads in the trades trying to hawk CDs.

 

Lynn Fuston

3D Audio Inc

Music Mixing and Mastering

On a scenic hilltop outside of historic

Franklin, Tennessee

http://www.3daudioinc.com

email:go3daudio@aol.com

[3D Audio]

Originally posted by Quin:

Lynn,

 

How did you reconcile the fact that not all models of the same mic sound the same ? - especially the vintage models - where there can be very noticeable variations in performance due to the condition/previous use/history of the mic.

 

The only thing I could do. I have the serial numbers written down for every mic we listened to on those days.

 

This CD won't tell you what every C-12 will sound like. Only this one C-12 on this one singer on this song on this day in this studio at this distance at this relative humidity and barometric pressure during this season of this year. Seriously!

 

Change any of those parameters and your judgment will change entirely. Even changing your monitoring speakers or relationship (position) to them will change your perspective and your preferences. I've heard from several people who preferred different mics in their cars than in their studios, and different ones still on their home systems or in their girlfriend's car. What does that tell me?

 

It's music. It's subjective.

 

It tells me not to trust someone else's ears to make personal sonic decisions. I have to listen. There's no way around it. No matter how many magazines I subscribe to or read. Sure there are people like Massenburg and Anderton whose opinions I respect, but THEY don't have MY ears. Nor do I have yours. So listen for yourself.

 

Plus vintage mics are a mixed bag, part blessing/part curse. That's not going to change. If you're dropping $10K for a 40 year old mic, I bet you know that by now.

 

Lynn Fuston

3D Audio Inc

Music Mixing and Mastering

On a scenic hilltop outside of historic

Franklin, Tennessee

http://www.3daudioinc.com

email:go3daudio@aol.com

[Anderton]

>>This CD won't tell you what every C-12 will sound like. Only this one C-12 on this one singer on this song on this day in this studio at this distance at this relative humidity and barometric pressure during this season of this year. Seriously! Change any of those parameters and your judgment will change entirely.<<

 

Which kind of reinforces the concept that whatever performance was recorded on a mic will be far more important than the mic itself. We're dealing with subtle differences here that won't cripple a great performance, nor elevate a weak one.

[Ethan Winer]

Lynn,

 

> You can't buy experience and technique. You have to earn them. And no one is advertising technique, but ... <

 

It's coming soon. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Seriously, I am in the planning stage of putting together a series of affordable one-day seminars aimed at home and project studio owners. I agree with you that experience and technique must be earned, but the time required can hopefully be shortened!

[Sir Bob]

Larry Williams has loaned me his copies of both the mic and preamp CD's. I am looking forward to listening to them.

 

 

Larry's Clift Notes: Less variation among mics than preamps.

 

Originally posted by jnorman:

the tlm103, a mic i quite like, was one of my least favorites, whereas the AT4033 and 4050, which i alwasy found rather sharp in the upper mids, both sounded very warm and full.

 

Reading this, a thought crossed my mind. And that is that the test did not use EQ but sometimes, as in the case with the TLM103, you need to use EQ. As with anything done in moderation, using EQ isn't a bad thing. But the TLM103 clearly has the Neumann presence and for less than $1,000 it is a good mic.

 

I am not defending the TLM103 because I have one. I don't. It sounds like "radio voice" to me. But I suspect there are producers you have figured out the secret tweeking required to make any particular mic, preamp, etc., work well.

 

So if the TLM103 works for you despite the way it sounded on the 3d CD, maybe your preamp, board settings or corner of the room COMPLEMENT that mic.

 

The moment I started moving mics around and starting hearing a "sweet spot," I had an epiphany about what this stuff is all about. And, I started to understand a little of what Fletcher is trying to say.

[musicman1ovation.net]

Just wanted to say thanks, Craig, for turning me on to the mic comparison CD. I just ordered the whole package... 3 CDs, two of them having to do with snares, female & male vocals through specific mic and a number of preamps. Sure, I had thought "wouldn't it be great if all the mics got the same performance", but the only way I could think of would be two use both a reference standard mic AND a reference standard monitor and have all the mics picking up the same digitally recorded vocal performance of the female and male vocalists. The I thought it was a little too weird! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

The thing is, even if it were the same performance, it still wouldn't be the same VOICE that I would record. Nope. This is a great way of hearing lots of mics and preamps and getting a general sense of how they deal with good old relative sameness. It'll work for me. Besides, I'm thinking this... I'll get my U-47 FET worked on, pick up maybe one more large format mic (something fairly different) and then think about that Antares Microphone Modeler! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif As far as the CD goes, I don't think I've ever even heard a ribbon mic in any context that I knew about. I'm looking forward to it. And, hey, despite what the liner says, I have a feeling I WILL use the CD to help me decide. Why? You never really get to try before buying unless it is a return. And I might do a return but not enough for the decision. The CD will get me in the ballpark. In the stores I have seen, trying before buying is putting on headphones, walking up to a counter where the mics on are short podium stands (super glued http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif), and talking/singing yourself!! I don't think so.

[3D Audio]

Originally posted by Sir Bob:

Larry Williams has loaned me his copies of both the mic and preamp CD's. I am looking forward to listening to them.

 

Larry's Clift Notes: Less variation among mics than preamps.

 

That is the opposite of what 90% of the listeners think. Many can't even detect differences between preamps.

 

Lynn Fuston

3D Audio Inc

Music Mixing and Mastering

On a scenic hilltop outside of historic

Franklin, Tennessee

http://www.3daudioinc.com

email:go3daudio@aol.com

[Anderton]

>>That is the opposite of what 90% of the listeners think. Many can't even detect differences between preamps.<<

 

Lynn, my CDs arrived yesterday, I look forward to grabbing enough time to check them out!

[3D Audio]

Originally posted by Anderton:

Lynn, my CDs arrived yesterday, I look forward to grabbing enough time to check them out!

 

Great! I can't wait to hear what you, Musicman1 and Sir Bob think. Please post your impressions. I always find it interesting comparing notes. So far, after hearing from dozens of listeners, no two people have ever agreed on even two-the best and the worst. It will be interesting to hear your thoughts.

 

Also, know that on the Pre CD-1, some of the preamps had to be eliminated from the lineup after we recorded them, so the slate numbers are not sequential (16 is missing I believe). The reason is that the slates were recorded as we went, not after the fact, and each slate is spoken on the preamp that follows it. I found the spoken slates to be as enlightening sonically as the singing voice or playing. Listen to the amount of ambience and room each preamp picks up. The differences are amazing. Same mic, same gain, different preamp. Anyway, the numbers are correct, but sometimes confusing. I wised up and put an explanation in the notes for Pre CD-2.

 

As you listen to the snare drum samples, listen to the differences in what each preamp emphasizes. Some give it girth, some make the snares themselves more pronounced, some pick up more impact, some more bite, and some just go thud. A fascinating exercise for sure.

 

Lynn Fuston

3D Audio Inc

Music Mixing and Mastering

On a scenic hilltop outside of historic

Franklin, Tennessee

http://www.3daudioinc.com

email:go3daudio@aol.com

[3D Audio]

Originally posted by 3D Audio:

Great! I can't wait to hear what you, Musicman1 and Sir Bob think. Please post your impressions. I always find it interesting comparing notes.

 

Any thoughts yet?

 

Lynn Fuston

3D Audio Inc

Music Mixing and Mastering

On a scenic hilltop outside of historic

Franklin, Tennessee

http://www.3daudioinc.com

email:go3daudio@aol.com

[musicman1ovation.net]

Originally posted by 3D Audio:

Any thoughts yet?

 

Lynn,

 

I just got mine (all three!) yesterday. All I have had time to do is just listen to a little a each to get the gist of what is going on. I'm going to print up a little score sheet for each set of tests, and it is likely that I might run through the procedure, at least on the mics (which is what I am most in the market for and interested in for now), at least twice.

 

You did an excellent job of getting studio performers who could play or sing similarly enough, in my opinion, to tell quite a bit. One category on my score pad will be a rating of 1 (closed) to 10 (open), as I had never really had such an opportunity to hear such a parameter. Some mics seemed to make a voice come from a smaller place (closed) and some more open. As a surprise to me, the need for that parameter wasn't the same as another category I'll use which is a more common term transparency (1 -10). Some high ends were a tad metallic, some neutral and airy (perhaps that is transparency, don't know yet). http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Some low ends were more mushy or muddy (yet warm), while others were more solid. As to which types are good on which voices (in this case 1 female voice, 1 male voice), that will also tell a story.

 

Naturally, all scientific discrepancies that have been brought up have their merit (it being physically impossible to place all those mics in front of one singer for one performances and keeping all that humongous hardware of mics and stands from doing some kind of weird voodoo reflections), but all of that was a given. You've done something here I have wanted access to for years! We all have to take what we learn from experience and apply it to each unique circumstance. That is the nature of things, and I imagine that one thing that makes a really good engineer is an intuitive sense that makes all those experiences memorable to his/her mind's ear, and making "guesses". The thing is, though, you've created the MEGA-EXPERIENCE! And depending on one's ear and intuition, one might say to themselves, "The singer I have now is a bit similar to the young lady on the mic CD, but she's more ______ and less _____ . Therefore, I think I'll go for X, Y, or Z among my collection, which should yield the best results with what is at hand." That is the kind of thing I believe your project is going to give me and many others a leg up on. I know you had a roomful of capable, experienced ears, and there was often disagreement on what's what. Engineering is a true 50/50% art/science thing, so those difference are not only OK; they make the world go 'round. Meanwhile, though, the experience itself can boosts one's confidence in their own perceptions, and that alone will make for better recordings.

 

So thanks! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif I'll comment more later with my own impressions, but it will take me a while.

[ozbassyahoo.com]

I'm ordering today - it may not be all things to all people, but it's the only thing going......

 

P.S You guys should make up a poster of all those mic's - there would be a lot of people out there who would happily hang it somewhere in the studio.....

[Sergent Pepper]

Originally posted by 3D Audio:

Any thoughts yet?

 

Lynn Fuston

3D Audio Inc

Music Mixing and Mastering

On a scenic hilltop outside of historic

Franklin, Tennessee

http://www.3daudioinc.com

email:go3daudio@aol.com

 

 

Hi Lynn

 

Nowhere on the Mic CD, I can see what was the distance between the singer and the mics; although it seems to me to be very important...

TIA

JHC