Honk!
- Thread starter Biasrocks
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Biasrocks
Well-known member
lassoharp said:
Yes, they're very short and one after another in one file.
Mark
Something sounds 'inexpensive' about the first clip - I hear a bit of nasalness about it. somewhat lacking in the high freq detail relative to others.
# 2 seems to have a little bit of the mid thing going on but better highs
# 3 sounds like the most 'expensive' one of the group
# 4 - obvious bigger bottom end. SM-7 is fairly immune to proximity unless you eat it
hmm . . . guesses
1 - SM-7
2 - 414
3 - U87
4 - U87 - mod
# 2 seems to have a little bit of the mid thing going on but better highs
# 3 sounds like the most 'expensive' one of the group
# 4 - obvious bigger bottom end. SM-7 is fairly immune to proximity unless you eat it
hmm . . . guesses
1 - SM-7
2 - 414
3 - U87
4 - U87 - mod
strangeandbouncy
Well-known member
Hi,
great stuff Mark! I am away from the studio, and cannot possibly tell anything on my lappy. I am sure that there will be only a cigarette paper difference between them. If I record myself singing(which I do all the time for BVs), I can use just about anything. My voice is just built that way. I wish I had remembered all the times Id tried an 87 with a new singer to keep a snatch of recording to prove my point. HOwever, I can only relate my experience. There is a world of difference between a flat, unprocessed vocal, and how it finally ends up on a current, staggeringly hot mix. all that processing can really bring up the nastiness. I always have to work far far far harder on the vocal on other peoples recordings than my own ,and I have a considerable history of working with singers that have already been recorded by someone else before. It is always a struggle to get the vocals recorded by someone else to shine next to those recorded by my own fair hand. I dont want to sound arrogant, but I can only call it as I find it. The fact is, that some singers really suck on an 87, and most will sound better on any one of a handful of other contenders. That is my hard-earned opinion, and Ill stick to it. I have no vested reason NOT to use an 87. Any prejudice is born out experience. The intelligability of a vocal is everything, and the less de-essing and other frequency mangling the better. Period. I am sure that you cannot disagree with this!
ANdy-Honk!Honk!-P
great stuff Mark! I am away from the studio, and cannot possibly tell anything on my lappy. I am sure that there will be only a cigarette paper difference between them. If I record myself singing(which I do all the time for BVs), I can use just about anything. My voice is just built that way. I wish I had remembered all the times Id tried an 87 with a new singer to keep a snatch of recording to prove my point. HOwever, I can only relate my experience. There is a world of difference between a flat, unprocessed vocal, and how it finally ends up on a current, staggeringly hot mix. all that processing can really bring up the nastiness. I always have to work far far far harder on the vocal on other peoples recordings than my own ,and I have a considerable history of working with singers that have already been recorded by someone else before. It is always a struggle to get the vocals recorded by someone else to shine next to those recorded by my own fair hand. I dont want to sound arrogant, but I can only call it as I find it. The fact is, that some singers really suck on an 87, and most will sound better on any one of a handful of other contenders. That is my hard-earned opinion, and Ill stick to it. I have no vested reason NOT to use an 87. Any prejudice is born out experience. The intelligability of a vocal is everything, and the less de-essing and other frequency mangling the better. Period. I am sure that you cannot disagree with this!
ANdy-Honk!Honk!-P
#2 and #4 sound the most different on my PC speakers.
IMO a speaking male voice is not a good test for microphones. I don't know what the voice sounds like face to face.
Not knowing the voice and using PC speakers I would guess 2 is a the SP changed 87 it seems to pick up more detail.
IMO a speaking male voice is not a good test for microphones. I don't know what the voice sounds like face to face.
Not knowing the voice and using PC speakers I would guess 2 is a the SP changed 87 it seems to pick up more detail.
Biasrocks
Well-known member
strangeandbouncy said:
Some sage wisdom Andy. 8)
Is there someplace I can hear some of your handy work?
Mark
okgb
Well-known member
O.k . i'm back in town , how long do we have to wait
to let us off the hook ?
to let us off the hook ?
Biasrocks
Well-known member
okgb said:
Okay, okay.
#1 - U87 Classique
#2 - 414EB
#3 - SM7 !!!
#4 - U87 Stephen Paul
It's surprising how well the SM7 held up against some strong competition.
I suspect the increased proximity effect on the SP microphone is a direct
result of the 3 micron capsule.
Mark
okgb
Well-known member
Wow , well some people picked out the u87 , bravo ,
If you backed off the Paul would it sound more
alike the other ones ?
But thanks for saving me the dreaming time of wanting
a high end modded mic ,
Maybe you'll create a run on SM-7's , i'd better buy a bunch
to sell now , ha ! and thanks for the fun
Lasso mentions the sm7 has being immune to the proxiemty
thanks [ i don't know them well ]
If you backed off the Paul would it sound more
alike the other ones ?
But thanks for saving me the dreaming time of wanting
a high end modded mic ,
Maybe you'll create a run on SM-7's , i'd better buy a bunch
to sell now , ha ! and thanks for the fun
Lasso mentions the sm7 has being immune to the proxiemty
thanks [ i don't know them well ]
leswatts
Well-known member
Thanks for the fun test.
I'm surprised about the sm7, but not surprised that I got only one right.
Yesterday I took the wav file into the studio and had a look on the spectrum analyzer.
I had some second thoughts about my choices when I saw #4 had the best HF extension, even though it had
several db of bass boost below about 200. The HF was too extended for a typical 57 type capsule.
I do have some old 545s that have unusually good HF response and virtually no presence peak, but they came from the designer's lab (Ernie Seeler)
and had been tweaked. They are almost dead flat from 150 to 16K. Usually 57 types poop out at about 12.
Les
I'm surprised about the sm7, but not surprised that I got only one right.
Yesterday I took the wav file into the studio and had a look on the spectrum analyzer.
I had some second thoughts about my choices when I saw #4 had the best HF extension, even though it had
several db of bass boost below about 200. The HF was too extended for a typical 57 type capsule.
I do have some old 545s that have unusually good HF response and virtually no presence peak, but they came from the designer's lab (Ernie Seeler)
and had been tweaked. They are almost dead flat from 150 to 16K. Usually 57 types poop out at about 12.
Les
Biasrocks said:okgb said:
Okay, okay.
#1 - U87 Classique
#2 - 414EB
#3 - SM7 !!!
#4 - U87 Stephen Paul
It's surprising how well the SM7 held up against some strong competition.
I suspect the increased proximity effect on the SP microphone is a direct
result of the 3 micron capsule.
Mark
That was kind of surprising - the SM-7 / U87. I own an SM-7 and have A/B'ed it with an 87ai in the studio. The 87 was what you might expect in a condenser vs dynamic comparison - a bit more hi freq clarity and less rolled-off sounding. I've always thought the SM-7 was tonally well balanced. Have certainly heard a number of people comment on an 87's tendency toward 'honkiness'.
I imagine the Paul 87's a real slammer for drum overheads with the extended lo end sensitivity.
What version SM-7 was yours?
Biasrocks
Well-known member
You are correct Gus, there are some changes in the electronics in the SP.
I know for sure the coupling capacitor was changed, but I'm sure there are other tweaks as well.
I'll pop it open and see what I can find.
Mark
I know for sure the coupling capacitor was changed, but I'm sure there are other tweaks as well.
I'll pop it open and see what I can find.
Mark
IIRC at one of SPA forums, I think it was the yellow background one, I believe I read SPA had a switchable bottom end adjustment to the circuit for voice over work. Does anyone remember the URL for the older SPA forum it might be fun to read it with the wayback machine.
I have not seen a SPA modded microphone. What micron .9,3 etc is the capsule?
I have not seen a SPA modded microphone. What micron .9,3 etc is the capsule?
Biasrocks
Well-known member
It's a 3 micron capsule Gus.
Mark
Mark
okgb
Well-known member
Hey Mark , it would be interesting to see what you
regularly use the mics for ?
regularly use the mics for ?
