ok ok i've got people on my facebook and in the blog comments wanting to know the answers in the mic shootout. according to google analytics the spike i get when i post a blog lasts about 3 days so i would be doing myself and my blog a disservice if i didn't wait...haha, well, that and i wanted to keep you all in suspense.
Mic A was the expensive mic, the u67 through a neve pre and a blue stripe 1176.
Mic B was the cheaper Rode NT2 through a vintech x81 and a distressor.
first of all, i gotta give props to two people who picked it exactly - my old buddy from college Stephen Hudson from www.TheBusyBoxStudio.com. he owns both mics and knows them well because he was able to tell them apart.
the other guy is @nathantbass who not only picked it, but felt confident enough to actually post his name and not post anonymously. he got it right. the high end gives it away. more about that later...
for those of you who picked incorrectly, don't feel bad. i actually agree with you that Mic B (the cheap one) actually sounds better. i would have picked the same thing. if the majority of people agree that it sounds better, isn't that what counts? i'm just amazed that the cheap mic even stands up to the expensive one. don't get me wrong - if i get rich i'll definitely have some for my mic collection, but unless you're buying old tube mics as an investment strategy, why pay more??
back to the mic differences - as nathan pointed out, the top end gives it away. newer mics seem to have more top end which usually translates to it sounding "clearer". although the u67 has a richer mid range without sounding nasally.
another thing to consider is that you gotta find the right tool for the right job. i have in my possession a borrowed Blue Baby Bottle mic. on most voices it doesn't sound great, but one week i recorded a rock band and did a quick test to see which sounded best. the guy has an interesting and different sound to his voice and the baby bottle actually sounded the best. so for me to say that one mic is absolutely superior to another is just not true. i've got another mic that i would consider too bright for most uses, except on things like acoustic guitar where i tend to add a little on the top end. it really depends on the application and how that mic compliments what you are recording.
but the lesson remains that more expensive doesn't necessarily mean something is better.
6 comments:
wow i was wrong
i am making that my signature.
more expensive doesn't necessarily mean something is better.
more expensive is... different. I don't know the U67 (owner bought it for only $2K) that stays here and would try a number of other alternatives first.
However, numerous people listen to 'my' 67 compared with other mics (mojave ma-200 which is a fairly reputable copy, red type B w/ u47 capsule) and very often choose the 67. Often softer is better, especially on a brighter voice. It can mean less de-essing which means a less processed sound. The mic also seems to compress some (the tube) in a good way for many voices.
also, the 67 sounds different than almost anything I've heard when putting it on really woody sources (room mic, acoustic guitars), the mid range is a very particular tone.
again, really depends on the voice and the music. and i think you have to put a vocal in context of the song to say which sounds better.
great test Nick!
oops... didn't realize that was my blog name... this is Stephen from busy box studio
I just came across this shootout, and though I'm late to the game, I thought I'd add some thoughts.
After listening to the two samples, here's my two cents (if they're worth that):
I actually liked the u67 a lot better. To me, the U67 didn't sound 'crisper', but it did sound 'cleaner'...and much, much warmer. I actually heard a tiny bit of hiss and more high end "noise" in the NT2.
There is also a presence with the U67 that is hard to quantify. For me, it just seems to accent all the right tonal qualities of her voice, making it very pleasant to listen too. If I were to listen to this vocal track over and over, I would tire of the NT2 vocal much quicker than the U67. And the U67/Blue Stripe 1176 combo handles the plosives much, much better than the cheaper setup making for a more polished and composed vocal. (great vocal, by the way!)
All that being said, I'm being somewhat picky and the difference I heard between the two was marginal in the grand scheme of things. I don't know that the difference in performance justifies the difference in cost. Furthermore, the fact that a $200 mic can even compete with an $8,000 mic is incredible all on it's own! I would have never thought the results would have been as close as they were!
After listening to these two samples several times, I find myself thinking two things: One - if ever given the option in a studio setting, go for the Neumann first! Two - I can't wait to get my hands on a Rode NT2, Vintech x81 and Empirical Labs Distressor for my home setup!!!
Nick,
Do u know any other Christian band blogspots?
@ James - totally agree and most attention grabbing sound is not always best... + a few thoughts..
It's more the mics than the compressors / pres I think. I've run a 67 through a distressor and chandler TG2 (granted a darker pre than maybe either of the ones used here), and haven't heard those sibilance/spitty issues before.
I'd love to have the x81 and distressor as well (might grab a distressor soon). In mics, I'd look at a number of options before grabbing the NT2, but maybe just cause I didn't like my NTK. Maybe they've improved since then (?). One I've been fascinated with lately is the Lewitt stuff, though I haven't gotten to use it in person.
Post a Comment