Honk!

Okay guys,

I'm throwing down the gauntlet!

This is related of course to the "I don't want to know" thread.

I've recorded a short clip of my voice on four different, classic microphones; including a much maligned studio standard, plus a certain hot-rodded version of a classic.

This was quick and dirty guys, but I stood in the same position for each mic. Signal chain was a Great River NV -> LA2A, pulling 2-3db max. Into an Apogee AD-16X @ 96kHz, I tried to level match as best I could. There's some background noise, including some low end rumble; that's my furnace keeping me warm for the winter.

Let your ears do the walking and feel free to post your thoughts, guesses and musings.

http://soundcloud.com/sharktank-productions/mic-comparison

Full bandwidth version (24/96kHz)

http://sharktankpro.com/GDIY/Mic-Comparison.wav

Honk!

Mark

70 views, and no one wants to venture a guess?

Perhaps they're all too close to sounding the same?

Mark

Only the last one sounded substantively different to me, and that sounded like greater proximity.

Certainly couldn't pick out an 87 from that test.

Thanks for the recording.

I heard significant mid range resonance on the first two...higher frequency on the first.
Nothing stood out on the third....but the last one had the most difference of all. It did sound like
proximity/low end.

This was just on little computer speakers though.

I'm currently trying to voice a condenser instrument mic design...and I have one built up with
a little mechanical ring that changes back port inertance. So I can give it about a +4 presense peak  at around
7kHz. A lot like a 57. Checking to see if folks like it. Personally I don't.

Les
L M Watts Technology

the noise (lack of noise on the third) is throwing me off. I did just wake up but they sound similar. maybe record something with some better harmonic content for comparison. they all sound really good though.

my music computer is not my internet computer
so i didn't want to try  [ crappy speakers & soundcard ]

you can hear something even with crappy internet speakers, but for all I know it could Mark's voice.
Heck, it could all be the same microphone. Wouldn't that be funny!

I'll try to listen to the higher quality version this weekend on the studio monitors. Too much work to do it right now.

Les
L M Watts Technology

leswatts said:

but for all I know it could Mark's voice.

Click to expand...

You may be on to something Les.

I guarantee that it's 4 different microphones, including one surprise visitor.

There are differences, but they are subtle; even more subtle than I expected.

Mark

amorris said:

the noise (lack of noise on the third) is throwing me off. I did just wake up but they sound similar. maybe record something with some better harmonic content for comparison. they all sound really good though.

Click to expand...

me too, i can't tell if the first mic is a little 'constrained' or if it's due to my ear getting tricked by the noise and adjusting by the second track.  also can't tell if i prefer the bass response on track 4, or if you (mark) were just trying to get a little sultry 

The bass response on the forth sample is a direct result of the mic itself.

I didn't turn up the Barry White control on my voice.  8)

I was the same distance away from that one as the others.

That disappearing noise on the third sample was my furnace finally kicking off.

Mark

Biasrocks said:

I didn't turn up the Barry White control on my voice.  8)

Click to expand...

you've got one?!?  schematic!!! 

The control is marked Barry White fully clockwise and Michael Jackson fully counterclockwise.

Honestly I can't really identify mics from sound files but am starting to wonder if #4 is a RIBBON...
sounds like more proximity (as a figure eight would assuming the others are cardioid). Also I notice
the hesitation in your voice on that one...as if you were concerned about blasts/pops. Hmmm?

Les
L M Watts Technology

well, I've spent half my life between a marshall stack and a drumkit, so I dont trust my ears too much. and all I have is a pair of 70-ties bookshelf speakers...but..number one and three appears to have a slighly uncomfortable edge to the sound and number four is a little overbearing in the low mid....with my crappy speakers and questionable ears I do prefere number two...so I guess thats the bee-ringer then, hu?.. ;D
..and, oh..I didnt give it a fair try..I just listened to the mp3...
J

Intial perception off of computer soundcard
1 , just a touch roomy a little small
2 , similar a touch of upper mid ' chh ' ?
3, most even of the 3 ?
4, a little woofier than the others
sounds like dull from proxiemty ?

the first 3 sound fairly similar
the first two sound a little smaller than the 2nd two

interesting theroy of the hesitation Les ,
but with the power of suggestion , i agree

it would be curious to be able to change the order and see how that influences
perception , after now listening to the higher rez ver
2 stands out as a little different from 1 & 3
4 is still way different

All mics were set to cardiod pattern and no ribbons were used/abused in the making of this epic tale.

The microphones used;

AKG 414EB w/brass capsule
U87i original type
U87i Stephen Paul 3 micron capsule + electronics mod
SM7

These are not listed in the order they appear.

Can you identify which is which?



Mark

my guess
pauls
414
u87
sm7

mhh is it that the the two 87's sound alike or the pauls & the 414 ?

the rez's changed the pair which i thought were similar
which was 1&2 on lo and 1 & 3 on hi

i didn't want to be totally out of the park
don't let me be totally out

Winner gets the Paul modified 87 right?

I'll say
stock 87
paul 87
414
sm7

Hope i'm at least right about the last one. Three condensers and one dynamic...and the last sample is the only one with a really different sound to me.
Sounds "radio announcer" like

Les

One think i noticed the pronouncing is not the same on all clips.
Thats bad..
I did like the third best...
Dont know why.

My guess is:
Stock 87
414
Paul 87
SM7


/Dave