Pick the Expensive Mic

[chris319]

One of these three condenser mics is a really, really expensive mic. The other two, not so much. Can you tell which is the expensive one?

Mic 1: http://www.miclisteningroom.org/test/Mic1.mp3

Mic 2: http://www.miclisteningroom.org/test/Mic2.mp3

Mic 3: http://www.miclisteningroom.org/test/Mic3.mp3

[feverpa]

Ok, I'm not a one of the people on here who regularly hears the subtleties of different mics, cords, environments, etc.

I listened through once, with my speaker turned up to a moderate level, and sitting at a normal distance - and couldn't for the life of me hear any difference.

Then I cranked it up a bit, and listened very closely.

I believe that the first mic is the expensive mic. the differences are subtle to my ear, and I'm not the best at putting the difference into terminology that makes sense, but #3 just didn't have the bottom end that it needed. #2 was sounded a tad "muddy" in the mid-range.

That's my guess.... now I'll wait for the real experts to make me feel stupid.

[Emorgan_Voiceovers]

Well, I don't know which is the expensive mic, but #1 sounds the best to my ears. 2 sounds decent, 3 to me sounds muddy. Just my 2 cents.

[Chris Abelll]

I personally think that #1 sounds the best, followed by #2 with #3 definitely the lowest quality sound.

Now, whether that line-up corresponds with the price, I would not speculate a guess.

--Chris

[lanceblair]

I think 2 is the most detailed best sounding and most expensive mic, but that you're too close to it for this read: there's more "mouth noise".

Often I find the better the mic, the better off one is backing off of it. On the other hand, I can "eat" cheaper mics.

#3 Could be the expensive mic...if it's a junky old mic.

On #1, I'm thinking Audio Technica. On #2 I'm thinking Brauner.

#3? mxl 69me??? Or other affordable tube mic.

[Mike Sommer]

Firstly your interface or something is crackling, and your mic technique needs improvement --you're to close.
It would also help to list your sound chain so one can decipher what is what.
Also it would be ideal to define what "expensive" is. To some, a $300 mic is expensive to me a mic above $3000 is approaching expensive.

With that --and given what we got here-- it's not so much what is what, rather than what sounds best on you, with what you got. In this case it would be 2, 1 and 3 in that order.

[chris319]

Firstly your interface or something is crackling, and your mic technique needs improvement --you're to close.
It would also help to list your sound chain so one can decipher what is what.
Also it would be ideal to define what "expensive" is. To some, a $300 mic is expensive to me a mic above $3000 is approaching expensive.

With that --and given what we got here-- it's not so much what is what, rather than what sounds best on you, with what you got. In this case it would be 2, 1 and 3 in that order.

I don't hear any electronic crackling. I hear what is more likely some mouth noise from Randy (the voice you hear is not mine) but nothing electronic. On which recording and at what time do you hear crackling?

Sound chain:

Mic -> Preamp -> Interface

The preamp and interface have no processing -- just "straight wire with gain".

I said "very, very" expensive. A significant factor above the prices of the other two mics. To most here it would be a major purchase. If $10,000 is your idea of "very, very" expensive then I'm glad you're that wealthy.

[bransom]

I hear crackling here, too. Might the Flash compression...

[leeplaud]

Well, on technical matters I am woefully ignorant. The mouth sounds are distracting on all three but it sounds to my novice ears like #1 is more full bodied.
I'm certainly interested to follow this more.

To Mike:
I've already invested in an RE 20 and Sennheiser MK-H-416. With all the bashing I see these mics getting on these boards, I was considering making another (what I thought would be) significant investment. Now you come along and make me feel like a pauper. I think I'll just lay my head on the trampoline and let your elephant do his thing.

[Emorgan_Voiceovers]

I heard the crackling too. Lee, I am envious. I want a 416 myself. Still saving.

[Mike Sommer]

I don't hear any electronic crackling. I hear what is more likely some mouth noise from Randy (the voice you hear is not mine) but nothing electronic. On which recording and at what time do you hear crackling?Nope It's crackling, and it's throughout each file posted.


I said "very, very" expensive. A significant factor above the prices of the other two mics. To most here it would be a major purchase. If $10,000 is your idea of "very, very" expensive then I'm glad you're that wealthy.I think that would be expensive for anyone. As I have always stated, one does not need an expensive mic to produce quality sound. Though I keep many different mics in my locker, I've never gone above 3G's for one. Especially for the kind of work we do. Though I would love to have a U47, but to have one for voice over would be like going to the corner market in a Lamborghini to pick up a dozen eggs... total overkill.

[chris319]

I'll listen to them on cans tonight (I've been listening on a speaker). I will also post the wav files here.

[leeplaud]

Awh, Mike, you made me fell bad again. Now I'll have to walk to the store for my eggs.............geeze!

[lanceblair]

Well, on technical matters I am woefully ignorant. The mouth sounds are distracting on all three but it sounds to my novice ears like #1 is more full bodied.
I'm certainly interested to follow this more.

To Mike:
I've already invested in an RE 20 and Sennheiser MK-H-416. With all the bashing I see these mics getting on these boards, I was considering making another (what I thought would be) significant investment. Now you come along and make me feel like a pauper. I think I'll just lay my head on the trampoline and let your elephant do his thing.

Don't buy another mic, I'm not a "fan" of either, but they work, they're high quality microphones, and they sound good on you. What is your preamp, and what is your soundcard/converter? I'd spend money on those before thinking about other mics. Things I don't like about the 416 can be strengths with the right preamp, and great dynamics like the RE20 are waaaay better once you get them juiced up with a nice preamp: and you don't have to spend "crazy" money: between $500 to 1000. Good preamps introduce more detail, presence, and a sense of depth and space.

With my upgrades in preamps and soundcards (and I didn't spend a lot: $1000 in total) I can now make cheapo mics sound better than my old set up when I owned a 416.

[Mike Sommer]

Sorry Lee. You can borrow my Phantom to run down to the market. Just whip your tootsies before you get in and don't gum up the leather interior.

Pre amps are where a lot of the sound is developed. Another LA VO man and I compared notes on our findings of the TLM103. Both of us did not like the sound of our 103. He picked up an Avalon Pre in a local fire sale, and just finished rebuilding a vintage RCA BA-31A pre. Our mics magically came to life. The common denominator the audio transformers in the pres, where 80% of the sound of such preamps comes from, and what was lacking in 103 and what was in all the vintage Neumann's.
On the Avalon the 103 now sounds like a U87, on the RCA it's much smoother and open.

[chris319]

I'll listen to them on cans tonight (I've been listening on a speaker). I will also post the wav files here.

In the meantime, I would very much appreciate it if anyone reading this would listen to the following FLAC file and tell me if they still hear crackling:

www.miclisteningroom.org/FLAC/neumann_kmr82i.flac (http://www.miclisteningroom.org/FLAC/neumann_kmr82i.flac)

It is not one of the three mics in the test.

[leeplaud]

Hey, Lance.
My preamp is an Echo Audiofire. As to the soundcard/ converter, I'm pretty ignorant on that issue as I am with most of the tech stuff. My issue with the RE 20 was that I need to have the trim on my preamp cranked up almost full bore to get any sound recorded. Maybe that is a false issue. I have much, much to learn.

[leeplaud]

I don't want to provide futher distraction from Chris' post but if anyone is interested to further educate me on the preamp issue or suggest a better option than what I now have, a private message would be welcome. I'd like not to hijack Chris' thread.
Thanks all...............................lee

[chris319]

My issue with the RE 20 was that I need to have the trim on my preamp cranked up almost full bore to get any sound recorded.

Any idea how much gain that is (in dB)?

[leeplaud]

Oh, sorry, one last.....Mike, I just checked... "whipping tootsies is illegal in this State.
Sorry...by....gone

[bransom]

Didn't hear crackling on that one...

[spartacus]

Hey Chris ... I hear the crackling in all three as well. I could not open your link so I can't make a comment on that one.

[JohnWeeks]

I can't open the second file either. I hear crackling on all three of the original files.
My preference is...
Mic 1
Mic 2 (close call)
Mic 3 (didn't care for it)

[spartacus]

I can't open the second file either. I hear crackling on all three of the original files.
My preference is...
Mic 1
Mic 2 (close call)
Mic 3 (didn't care for it)

What he said on the ratings..

[lanceblair]

I'm really amazed at how many of you like #1. That mic is flat and boxy, #2 has way better detail and highs and lows and a rich middle. It just sounds weird because he's too close to the mic.

Again, I'm still going with #1 is an AT mic, or possibly a Shure.

[JohnWeeks]

I'm really amazed at how many of you like #1. That mic is flat and boxy
So are my speakers!
:D

[spartacus]

and with all that crackling ... it is a bit hard to make a real distinction in the details. One and Two .... sound similar. Only 3 really stands out.

[Paul Plack]

Chris, did you post the first three using a sample rate other than 44.1? Some Flash-based players gag on other rates.

Mac, PC and Linux-based software can usually open each others files, but a converter is needed for .flac, so I'm not sure what it's point is.

[chris319]

Chris, did you post the first three using a sample rate other than 44.1? Some Flash-based players gag on other rates.

Good thinking. Yes, I used 48 kHz in the mp3 encoding process. It could be an mp3 artifact.


Mac, PC and Linux-based software can usually open each others files, but a converter is needed for .flac, so I'm not sure what it's point is.

The FLAC file is on my web site and FLAC is lossless compression. It would give me a clue before I get home and listen to the mp3s on cans.

The latest version of Winamp handles FLAC natively.

[chris319]

I listened to the three mp3 tracks again off the server, not my local disk, through headphones and did not hear any electronic crackling. There was some mouth noise from Randy and that was it.

Below are links to the wav files:

http://www.miclisteningroom.org/test/Mic 1.wav (http://www.miclisteningroom.org/test/Mic%201.wav)

http://www.miclisteningroom.org/test/Mic 2.wav (http://www.miclisteningroom.org/test/Mic%202.wav)

http://www.miclisteningroom.org/test/Mic 3.wav (http://www.miclisteningroom.org/test/Mic%203.wav)

[Mike Cooper]

Good thinking. Yes, I used 48 kHz in the mp3 encoding process. It could be an mp3 artifact.

48K sometimes ends up odd when made into MP3 and played back on some versions of Flash player, depending on the platform. That's why some folks can't hear it and some can. You can also end up sounding like a chipmunk for the same reason on some players. You never know what the guy listening to it is going to have.

Good practice therefore, to avoid such nonsense: when you're recording at 48, resample to 44.1 before you export to WAV, which avoids the problem.

On the mics: 1 sounds best to me. 2 has a sharp top end (is it an AT?) and 3 is muddy, as someone else said. You're going to tell us 3's a U87 or something now, aren't you? :shocked:

[chris319]

48K sometimes ends up odd when made into MP3 and played back on some versions of Flash player, depending on the platform. That's why some folks can't hear it and some can. You can also end up sounding like a chipmunk for the same reason on some players. You never know what the guy listening to it is going to have.

Good practice therefore, to avoid such nonsense: when you're recording at 48, resample to 44.1 before you export to WAV, which avoids the problem.

WAV is the native format. I think you meant export to mp3.

Some day they'll get this digital audio stuff figured out. I have since standardized on 44.1/24 on the advice of no less than Bob Orban. I don't use mp3 on my web site but use Ogg Vorbis instead and am now favoring FLAC.

I'm going to give Jacob a chance to play before revealing the answers. Oh Jacob ...

[Mike Sommer]

The crackle is still there --not as audible, but still there non the less. And yes folks I have very sensitive ears. Also the dynamics changed a little in your Mp3 file compared to your original posting, a reduction in the upper frequencies which detracts from the openness that I liked in #2.

It's a toss up between 1 & 2 in terms of preference- but that's all this really is - so I'll stick with #2.

[chris319]

I think you may be mistaking mouth noise for electronicl crackle. I've listened to the wav files very carefully specifically for crackling and I don't hear it, even in the few pauses there are.

[Mike Sommer]

Sorry, I hear the mouth noises too. But the crackle is in the exact same places as the other files I heard. TRUST ME. It sounds like static electricity between two pieces of nylon being pulled apart.

[lanceblair]

For some reason my files have mouth noise but no crackle.

[Emorgan_Voiceovers]

Lance, I actually hear crackle too. It is definitely crackle. I do hear the mouth noise too, but unless this person can imitate static crackle with his mouth,:D it ain't just mouth noise.

[chris319]

This has gone from a thread about cheap vs. expensive microphones to The Great Crackle Mystery -- LOL!

Could it be that there is some downsampling funny business going on with my 48 kHz masters?

I believe the people who say they hear static electricity crackle, but when I play them back they are clean. WTF?

Did anyone listen to the FLAC file I linked to? www.miclisteningroom.org/FLAC/neumann_kmr82i.flac (http://www.miclisteningroom.org/FLAC/neumann_kmr82i.flac)

[Emorgan_Voiceovers]

I just listened to it. Clean. No static or anything. Actually the mic sounds pretty darn good.

[chris319]

I just listened to it. Clean. No static or anything. Actually the mic sounds pretty darn good.

OK now, which files did you hear/not hear crackle in? You heard crackle in the mp3s and the wavs but not the FLAC file? Is that correct?

[leeplaud]

And, microphones 1,2, and 3 are.............................?

I'm guessing #3 is a dixie cup with a thread.

[chris319]

Mic 1 = AKG Perception 100 $100 US

Mic 2 = Audio Technica 2020 $100 US

Mic 3 = Neumann U87A $2799 US

Hear the complete recordings: Mic Table (http://www.miclisteningroom.org/mic_table.html)

[Jacoby]

I'm going to give Jacob a chance to play before revealing the answers. Oh Jacob ...

Sorry Chris, didn't bite.

[Mike Sommer]

Heck I thought you were going to say one was a NU47 (http://www.nu47.com/menu1.html):smiley:

Since Sennheiser has taken over production of the Neumann brand the U87A has never really sounded the same as the pre 1986 (U87I) version, when modifications were made to the electronic components of the microphone; the capsule remained unchanged. To my ears the U87A can sound a little dull and less hyped even Fuzzy- which was my first reaction when I heard #3 --my guess was a TLM 103. This is why I seek out pre 1986 versions of the U87.

The new circuitry in the U87A increases the operational headroom by supplying the capsule biasing voltages through reduced resistance. Resulting in a 10 dB greater sensitivity for identical sound pressure levels and 3 dB better S/N ratio.

LOTS OF FUN!

[chris319]

Regardless, there are two $100 mics which people say sound better than the $2800 mic. So much for "it costs more so it must be better".

The Neumann should sound 28 times better than the other two.

[JohnWeeks]

Save the extra $2700 and get a really good preamp or two!

[Mike Sommer]

I completely agree Chris 100%. That's why more often then not I'm using a Studio Projects C1 for my vocal work.

[chris319]

The Studio Projects C1 is on the list to be added to the Mic Listening Room.

[Mike Cooper]

I knew something like that was going to happen. :rofl:

Pleased I spotted the Audio Technica though. Do I get a cookie?

[Paul Plack]

On the mics: 1 sounds best to me. 2 has a sharp top end (is it an AT?) and 3 is muddy, as someone else said. You're going to tell us 3's a U87 or something now, aren't you? :shocked:

No more calls...we have a winner!

[lanceblair]

Okay, now do the test again with the mic 8" away, I think the Neumann will do a bit better. At close range, my cheapos beat my TLM 103 because the 103's proximity effect and sensitivity; but past 6" there's no contest, the 103 wins.

Proof though that the 2020 and the Perception are good on spoken word, and I've liked the Perception when I've heard it before.

[chris319]

I knew something like that was going to happen. :rofl:

Pleased I spotted the Audio Technica though. Do I get a cookie?

You not only did that, you spotted the U87.

The next time you're in the Los Angeles area I'll buy you cookies.

[Mike Cooper]

You not only did that, you spotted the U87.

The next time you're in the Los Angeles area I'll buy you cookies.

I might hold you to that, though it's unlikely to be any time soon, so don't worry about the budget just yet!

I've been caught like this before, hence my suspicion. If you've never heard the Transom Tools Mic Shootout (it's here (http://transom.org/tools/recording_interviewing/200508.mic_shootout.html) if not) then give it a go. Some of the mics may surprise you.

Actually, those tests there were what convinced me to save some money and buy a 103 instead of a U87 (stands back, dons flameproof donkey jacket…)

[lanceblair]

Yeah, the 103 is perfectly fine as long as you're not right on top of it. I don't see the point in having a U87 for a personal VO setup...just get a TLM 193 if you want to sound a bit less harsh than the 103. There's also this thing called EQ: just take off about 2db above 4kHz. Easy.

[Mike Cooper]

LOL Lance, you've no idea how much sleep I lost over the 103 vs 193 question.

The History Channel, here in London, have a 193 and (if I may be permitted to say so), "I ROCK ON IT!"

Then again, they have a very nice Neve 8801 preamp which costs more than a U87 (£2200) so it's all about the context, eh?

[Mike Sommer]

The 193 is a cleaner and more open sounding mic compared to the 103.
The Neve 8801 has a really clean transfomerless sound, but I bet 193 would sound a little more yummy on a Neve 1073, or an Avalon.

But as you can see with all of this, it's about mixing and matching and finding the perfect combo of mic, pre, and processing for your voice and your room. This takes time, a little cash and some horse trading. But once you settle in, you'll almost never need to change.