Mediocrity? accepting the road most travelled is mediocre.

Testing something out and publishing results would be
exceptional.

Until RODE produced the NT1 there were few competitors in the lower cost bracket to high end LDC's, times have changed quite a bit and now there are
very good mics at very low prices and not all made in China either.

Hey it's an article idea, people are allowed to have ideas aren't they?

If SOS are not listening to customers then there would be something wrong.

MoS, I have actually attended a mic pre 'shoot out' and it isn't half as much fun as you might think. You have to have lots of source material and wading through it is frankly a chore. Then you have to try and compensate for the differences between mics (even ones from the same batches may sound subtly different). Lastly, you have to work out what the results would sound like in context. Like I said, it was a hard day and my ears weren't nearly as good as the other attendees so I missed a lot of the subtleties that they spotted. In the end, I found that it pretty much came down to listening to the opinion of people whose ears / judgement I trust. Which is what happens now with the mag.

Shoot outs are frequently requested. If you want to make a big pitch for it, then there is a magazine feedback forum where you can post that kind of request. This isn't the right place for it.

As to the original post, I can buy a whole fleet of Fiat Pandas / Puntos for the price of a Bentley. But if I had the money, I'd prefer to have one Bentley than a dozen Ford Fiestas. Sure I'd have to do a few more trips when transporting the family, but everyone would get the same luxury treatment.

--------------------
Veni, Vidi, Aesculi
(I came, I saw, I conkered)

I think there are quite a few mental barriers up here, people tend to think they
are right and others of different opinion are wrong. (even myself) Again debating such a subjective issue is probably fruitless, thus the reason for
comparative testing.

As has been repeated, it comes down to "right mic, right source in the opinion of the engineer" unless otherwise proved by a test which is in itself open to biological interpretation/preference.

This in itself makes me feel there is no definative answer to such a question,
just divided opinion based on conditioning.

I am going to remain open and listen without a condescending
preconceived view that expensive mics are necessarily always better
given X source to record.

I am open to the fact that an 87 will in some instances be better than
a £200.00 mic and vice versa.

Posting in the requests section right now.

Anyone interest please add your support.

Quote Man of Style:

---

This is not generally the target audience of the magazine, so rather than make it up and say a Chinese mic is not as good U87, it would be great if sound on sound can do a shoot out to let us make up our own minds, otherwise it's simply a case of right mic for right source and not that a U87 is "better".

---

This is just daft. I said earlier if you'd actually used an 87 you would not have started this preposterous thread (at least not in the terms you did).

Anyone who has used an 87 knows exactly what the result of such a "shoot-out" would be. It's just not a contest. It's like saying "which is faster - a Reliant Robin or Lewis Hamilton's McLaren? I don't care what you say, I won't believe you until we've had a race to prove it". In other words, it's playground language.

Forget about 12 pages of SOS, it would not merit 12 lines. And I for one think the journal would be irredeemably cheapened if it sought to indulge you in such a tawdry crowd-pleasing (allegedly...) exercise.

How do you think the (inevitable) losers - Rode, Violet, SE, whoever - are going to feel? They are just going to say - with 100% justification, that is was a tacky piece of irresponsible journalism, where they had no chance from the outset, designed solely to portray their products in the worst possible light. (Products which have their place and, in those market sectors at those prices are often very good value indeed).

Moderators are no longer supposed to call forum members idiots, so I'll leave it at that.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (22/06/07 01:12 PM)

Right, i'm no mic snob but i can tell you that i doubt i'd bother with any of the mics you mentioned in your original post!

For a start, i much prefer the Oktava Mk012s compared to the Rode Mk5s...i have very little positive to say about the Rode NT1A, (the original NT1's much better IMHO), the SE mics are ok but it's a case of you get what you pay for.

Yes, there's snobbery and people are unwilling to try new things but you can be fairly sure that the people who advocate the Neumann U87 have also experienced most of the mics you mentioned and know the advantages of the U87. Personally i prefer the U47, and i really didn't like the TLM103 at all...these things are all subjective though!

For someone of limited means, the U87 isn't worth buying and that's a fair point...but when you have an important job to do it's definitely worth hiring one because you can be confident that it'll handle whatever you throw at it and will slide into the mix beautifully!

There are great mics out there that cost less, so the point you make about buying a few mics instead of one does hold true if you have limited finance. However, your problem is that the mics you mentioned seriously damaged the credibility of your argument!

With the cash to buy a U87, (or at least the same funds for buying mics), i'd go with:

1X Brauner Phantom, 1X Audio Technica AT4033a, 2X Modded Oktava MK012s and 2X Modded Apex Ribbon mics.

IMHO, that'd offer a more balanced and usable collection than either 1X U87 or the mics you suggested.

I've got a Gibson solid body here from the mid seventies. It's a bit battered here and there, but still structuraly sound - an L6S all maple, all original. It has a six position selector for various pickup and phase selection options.

It's a strange instrument, i have others that are more modern, perhaps play better, sound more accurate and are quieter, but theres just something about the sound of that guitar, something very hard to put into words. The only thing i can say to explain is that it loves music. Does that sound strange? Well it does, it is an instrument that loves music and other musical instruments, it is musical

It fits really easy with other sounds, it makes me play with a maturity that the other istruments don't seem to quite manage, it's an instrument made with love and it has a soul. Thats the only way i can describe it. Its not just me, other people have played that guitar and always just smile.

I think mics are the same. You can have lots of great specs and you can put them against each other in isolation and you can say all manner of things about them, but some mics just make music, and others just make sound. I think you think i talk a lot of BS, but its true. It's about music and being musical, its about the instruments having a soul and dragging the music out of you. You cant describe it and you cant price it, but its there.... imho.

Ok, now we see the true colours.

I'm an idiot now.

Thanks for the mature, considered moderate response from the intelligencia of the recording world.

I don't stoop to that level.

Mods: Please lock this thread.

--------------------
James
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" ~Napoleon Bonaparte~

Quote Man of Style:

---

This month he fairly and wisely suggests looking at some significantly cheaper options before committing to a £1,000.00 purchase.
!

---

I totally agree with you. But your initial statement is that you cant see how a u87 or even better mics are worth the money. Thats not the same as saying you can a job done using budget stuff. If you are strapped for cash and want a mic that will do the best for you money, then there are options. If you are a high end professional (ahem - mince mince) then you aim for the best your business can get! If you are broke but you want the best? You cant have it....!!

Good mics are worth the dosh. When you work within a part of the industry that expects high quality from you then you need quality equipment. If you are an amateur recording married bloke earning 30 grand a year with no other income and have two kids - it would probably not be the best decision to go and buy a 6 VM1s.

--------------------
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

MoS- can you just accept that your point was badly made, and once it became clear what it was, it's not a very good point? You don't seem to be serious about what you're saying at all, so stop pretending and trying to bait the mods.

Thanks for a fun thread, I got breakfast and lunch out of it!

--------------------
madtheory creations
Synths and pianos for Kontakt

Let's get all this into perspective.

Unless you really know what you are doing, a shoot-out may not be the best way.

Very often the "winner" will be the most "impressive", which, very often, is actually the worst.

This often comes out in loudspeaker shoot-outs where the best monitor is actually the most bland / neutral. It doesn't stand out because it does everything correctly. But live with it and then listen to the others and you then see how bad they can be. Try to live with an "impressive" speaker and it will drive you mad in a short time.

The same holds true for microphones.

Because microphones are a mature technology they don't have to be replaced like your PC and software (for example). I have lots of microphones over 20 years old, all can still be bought new today and the second-hand value is a lot more now than when they were when they were new.

So - to answer the original question - yes - it's always best to go for a high quality mic. from a top manufacturer (eg: Sennheiser, Neumann, DPA, Schoeps, etc.......) it's actually cheaper in the long run.

Once you have lived with a top quality mic. you will realise why and you will then hear very clearly the deficiencies in the cheapos and won't want to touch them again.

It's like drinking a good malt - once you have done this you can never again be happy with a blended whisky.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

you're not an idiot but, with the greatest of respect, you are ignorant to the profound quality of the U87!!!

People don't buy it for snob value, (well not most people anyway), they pay so much for its inherent qualities which become most apparent when you come to mix whatever you've recorded with it!

In professional circumstances, time is money and time saved mixing equates to money saved and that trade off is why people spend extra for the U87 compared to other mics of equal sound quality, (although i hasten to add that i still dispute that any of the mics you suggested are of equal sound quality)!!!

For a poor man's U87, check out THIS

It's not got switchable patterns but it sounds and mixes nearly as well...you can listen for yourself HERE

All i can really suggest is that you hire a U87, use it and then decide whether the comments others have made are valid or not...i think afterwards that whilst you'll feel you got a harsh reception, you'll also realise that people have a point!

Quote:

---

Once you have lived with a top quality mic. you will realise why and you will then hear very clearly the deficiencies in the cheapos and won't want to touch them again.

---

So true...sometimes ignorance really is bliss!!!

Quote Rob C.:

---

Quote Man of Style:

---

I can tell you what I would do and the Neumann U87 would not be in my mic collection afterwards.

---

I don't really know why you're quibbling at these prices. You can get a Zoom H4 with stereo U87 mic emulation... the best of both worlds for your applications.

---

LOL, you beat me to it!

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

As has been mentioned I have used a U87 before and I did not find it
as impresssive as I was lead to believe.

As far as mics suggested, insert more reasonably priced mics of your choice
Oktava, whatever.

My point clearly and concisely is :

I don't think a U87 is worth it's value compared to other microphones that are available at considerably lower cost unless you need this mic cause it's expected to lure clients.

Times have changed and many are defensive about the multiple thousand
pound mics they have spent money on for obvious reason.

Everyone has stated their opinion, when I suggest a shoot out of which I personally would be grateful and interested. I am all but told I am an idiot by a moderator, that suggests that moderators are not open minded enough to accept opinion unless it agrees with their own ideas.

I find that attitude pretty unprofessional personally and would prefer to
keep on topic rather than dwell on others lack of insight / interest in the subject.

I maintain this would be a valuable article and urge SOS to engage this one
and do an article, this thread in itself demonstrates the interest held.

Rob and I might have been joking, but I just found this quote from EQ Magazine review of the Zoom H4. (Emphasis mine).

"In the studio, the mics sounded really good. It was interesting to listen to the mic modeling change as I switched to the warmer U87 or the full, yet brighter C414 (SM57 and MD421 models are also included). They sounded very respectable and could fit into a final mix without apologies. It was also fun to see the H4 power a U87 and then a pair of MXL V67i mics . . . all recording to an SD card off of battery! Sonically, I’ve heard better preamps, but I’ve also heard far worse; the sound had a slight digital edge to it, but is fine given the H4’s price and multi-functionality. In fact, the internal mic modeling compared favorably with the H4’s recordings using my external, large-diaphragm condensers . . . "

Full review here: http://www.eqmag.com/story.asp?storyCode=17209

I notice they too have used the Swiss Army Knife tagline... remember kids, you saw it here first!

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

I said I was not supposed to call you an idiot so I didn't.

Someone less... stubborn ... shall we say, might have observed that in 55 posts in this thread to date, nobody has agreed with you. A lot of those people know what they are talking about. On all the available evidence, you do not.

There is a difference between an opinion, robustly held and adequately defended, and total twaddle.

It is also insulting to pretty well all serious players in the industry including studios such as Abbey Road to conclude, as you do, that anybody who has ever spent more than about £200 on a mic has been conned and is being defensive about it now because otherwise they would have to admit their own naivety and stupidity.

I explained why a shoot out of the kind you suggest would be irresponsible and worthless journalism. You persist in not understanding those reasons.

People can draw their own conclusions about your apparent inability to modify your own position in the face of both irrefutable evidence and zero support, all of which was clear about 45 posts back.

Incidentally, my own collection includes a well-liked matched stereo pair of omnis which cost me $50 new, within the last 18 months.

@Doublehelix - I won't lock this thread as it would look self-serving, given my own involvement in it. If any other mod wants to do so, I shan't complain.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (22/06/07 02:28 PM)

Quote:

---

As far as mics suggested, insert more reasonably priced mics of your choice Oktava, whatever.

---

Just to clarify, these are not standard Oktavas in anyway...they have been severely modified and most of the components have been replaced, (with top quality materials comparable to those used in the standard "boutique" mics). Modifications are also made to the capsule in order to dramatically improve its performance too.

Most budget, (Chinese made), mics are essentially rip offs of well designed mics and employ cheaper, less desirable components which affect the performance. They are also mass produced in the equivalent of sweat-shops, (maybe a mild exaggeration), which means that the manufacturing quality is severely compromised.

The fact that the designs have been ripped off means that they are coming from a good starting point but they haven't been built to the same strict manufacturing standards, (or with anything like the same quality components), and comparing them to the manufacturing standards of the "classic" mic manufacturers is utterly ridiculous.

The mics which i referred to are from a Russian manufacturer, they are good mics to start with and they are then dramatically improved, (by replacing the FET, wiring, improving the capsule etc). They are handcrafted one offs, which to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing similar in that price bracket.

Quote:

---

Incidentally, my own collection includes a well-liked matched stereo pair of omnis which cost me $50 new, within the last 18 months.

---

Would you be referring to the Naiant mics there?

I would indeed.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Man of Style:

---

As has been mentioned I have used a U87 before and I did not find it
as impressive as I was lead to believe.

---

Yes, that's the point - an excellent mic. is *not* necessarily "impressive" - it just does the job very well.

A mic. that's "impressive" is probably doing things wrong that initially sound great, but on proper listening you realise that they are accentuating something, etc., etc..

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Dear Man of Style,

I had better explain before you explode!

Yes, I would agree that the mods here can be rather sniffy at times and are given to making snide comments now and again, and that can lead to a rather manky atmosphere and all sorts of toys get thrown out of prams and there is a fair amount of shouting and bawling, but try to forgive them Grasshopper.

They may be old, but they are not wise.

Anyway, what I wanted to say was that you are going through a process that we all have gone through in the past. I went through this in the 70’s and early 80’s with budget mics and other bells and whistles. I had some budget mics from Pearl (now called Audio Technica because there was a Pearl microphone manufacturer in Sweden) and I thought that my Pearl mics were just ace. They were every bit as crystal clear as any Neumann and Schoeps, or so I thought.

But one day I got to work in a big studio with a big SSL and use Neumanns and the like. Until then, the most expensive mic I had used in anger was a Sennheiser 441. The big shock was, yes the Neumanns sounded better, but not so much better that I thought that they were worth the extra. It was only when I took one of my Japanese el Cheapos into the studio and tried them out and used them in a mix and tried to eq them up and down, that I realised that they were absolute rubbish. I had wasted several hundred Pounds on microphones that I later gave away (to one of our sons, who is no doubt, going through the self-same process!)

I then realised why I was not getting the results that I wanted. These things distort.

That top-end clarity that I had assumed was there, was in reality top-end distortion. But I had to educate my ears first to be able to realise that. Now that I have older ears, they may not function quite as well as they did back then (though they are pretty good, still go up to around 16kHz when they have been allowed to relax for a while and I happen to be sober) but those ears are educated. They now can hear the difference between distortion and genuine clarity.

That is the process I was talking about.

Quote Man of Style:

---

As every mic the magazine reviews is pretty much given a decent review irrelavant of price

---

Er, I don't think so! Here are two less than glowing reviews, picked at random from the many I have done.
Korby Kat
Beyer MCD100

The obvious, but easily overlooked point is that there is absolutely no point in reviewing bad microphones when there are so many good ones around. Why waste the paper telling people what not to buy, when it is more constructive telling what is worth buying?

But every mic is different and will suit some applications better than others, and some are over priced are while others are very cost-effective. These important points are reflected in the reviews.

As to the shoot out idea, it isn't something that SOS does generally (there are a few exceptions, but only a few), although we continually reprise the idea and see if we can find a way to make it work. So far I think the current consensus is that we can't, especially when it comes to microphones, and even more so when it comes to miking up vocalists. There are just too many variables:

Presence peaks, sensitivity variation across the frontal axis, off axis coloration, proximity effect, SPL handling, self noise, and so on...

There will almost certainly never be an obvious winner -- different people will prefer the sound of different mics, and that's as it should be. Change the vocalists and those preferences will change completely.

The 'vintage' U87 isn't a perfect mic, but does deliver reliable, workable results that just sound right in most situations, and always provides a good starting point. Yes it is expensive, but if you can afford it and want the consistency it provides, then what's the problem.

If you can't afford it or don't like it for some reason, then there are plenty of cheaper alternatives that you may be happy with.

If you want to hear shootouts of mics and preamps and all the rest then I suggest you buy the 3D Audio shoot out CDs.

Quote:

---

This would be an extremely interesting article and I bet everyone on this board would love it, high enders and low enders alike.

---

I'm sure they would, and that's why we keep revisiting the idea, buy the amount of work required to make it happen is hard to justify, let alone organise, and I think we are all still rather dubious of the worthiness of such a thing....at the moment

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote:

---

I would indeed.

---

Damn, i was hoping for another revelationary recommendation

I got a pair after hearing them discussed here, i thought it was worth the gamble, and they truly are amazing for the price!

They've made it into my 7 wonders of the budget recording world, along with Reaper, my modded MK-319 and, (maybe), the Zoom H4.

I'm still looking for the rest, and they are out there somewhere, but just because there are some amazing bargains available it doesn't mean that the greats aren't worth the money...you get what you pay for, but sometimes, (like with the Naiants), you get so much more as well!!!

Quote JosephR:

---

Quote:

---

Incidentally, my own collection includes a well-liked matched stereo pair of omnis which cost me $50 new, within the last 18 months.

---

Would you be referring to the Naiant mics there?

---

I suspect that he is...

Which leads me to thinking - MoS's original list of alternatives wasn't very impressive either. I managed quite happily without a large diaphragm mic in the studio for a few years until one regular customer pressured me into buying a Chinese Neumann lookalike. Thinking about it, the old mics probably suited his voice better but he felt that he wasn't getting his money's worth if he wasn't singing into something that looked the part. The lookalike had a superficially impressive sound (and I still use it on certain voices) but, when I listen to recordings I made before I bought it, I'm always impressed with how good they sound considering the way they were recorded.

So if you are in the market for a good vocal mic - you may well be better off looking at less obvious alternatives that don't copy the copies. There are plenty of well engineered mics in the under 200 pound range that are made by people who really know what they are doing rather than people just blindly copying capsules and putting them into some fancy housing.

Cheers

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Hmmm.... three more wonders to go then. But that's probably another thread. With you on the H4 though!

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

I fully expected to be ripped to shreds over that H4 review quote... but it seems that the H4 has a couple of fans on here, even among the pros, like Steve (or are you being ironic?).

I must say I like mine very much, but even I was suprised to see that EQ magazine review talking positively of using it with U87s and so on. Especially since SOS reviewer (Haresh Patel) was at pains to say he would only ever use it for 'quick and dirty' recordings.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Lot's of opinions with nothing to listen to from our beloved mag.

Doesnt that H4 review just prove that without a really decent preamp, it doesnt matter how amazing your mic is?

Quote guy999:

---

Doesnt that H4 review just prove that without a really decent preamp, it doesnt matter how amazing your mic is?

---

That would be one logical conclusion (and a genuinely helpful answer to the question that started this thread!)

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

imo if someone thinks like aphex twin, it doesn't matter what mic is used
as he will later distort & shred the recording to bits ...
it depends on the end result one is after

It would be fair to say that you do need a box to amplify the signal about 1,000-fold, and if you've bought a decent mic, you're only going to detract from its performance if you put it through a less-than-adequate box.

But the engineering is pretty well sorted in this area and whilst you CAN get silly with boutique pre-amps (very silly, if you want to) you can also do justice to U87s and similar mics with preamps costing around £250 per channel - Focusrite ISA428, DAV BG1 etc. And such pre-amps will get the best out of £200 mics as well.

I have to say I've not yet found anything to write home about below that price point though. But there might be another "seven wonders" candidate out there somewhere.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (22/06/07 03:58 PM)

By the way I don't do exploding, cool as a cucumber over here, some could learn from that.

Sennheiser MD441 = one of the best vocal mics I have heard ever, in fact chose it over a £3K valve Neumann mic in a shootout once : )

Ok youv'e made it clear you don't want it, I'm out of here, hope you find you way through the minefield without any tangible help from SOS.

Quote Man of Style:

---

I am open for any decent reasoning.

---

You may be, but you will never, ever convince a bunch of sound engineers (operating at any ANY budget level) that sonic choices can be based on "reasoning".

If you could reduce a choice between Mic A and Mic B to "reasoning" we all may as well follow this gentleman's lead in superfluous body part removal...



--------------------
I used to be a rocker, but now I've gone off it and just sit in one. (JL)

I know it's slightly off cue, but I get fairly decent results from running my TLM193 into a TLAudio2 Ivory 5050 mono valve preamp and compressor. It's not that expensive a piece of kit, but extremely versatile.

I'm sure the U87 would sound better, but for what I do, my set up is superb.

I would say, also, that I got very good results from running my Rhode NT1 through the same preamp. I upgraded to the 193. Yes, it's a better mike, but there's not a great deal in it.

I've found that when you go searching for better and better sound (preamp+mike) the cost is exponential rather than linear, with price outstipping the greater performance in sound. For me to upgrade on what I have, I'm looking at spending about three times what it's cost me to get what I've got, but I doubt that I will get three times the performance.

Delusions of grandeur I believe Mr Lehmann, speaking out for all.

I think you will find many engineers choices are fueled by reasoning
that you give credit. Especially those with plenty of readies.

Beautiful painting.

Quote Man of Style:

---

I'm out of here...

---

We can always dream I guess.

I missed the bit where James said he was speaking for everybody... delusions of what?

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Hmmm.... three more wonders to go then. But that's probably another thread. With you on the H4 though!

---

Me too. Brought it along to a recording session several weeks ago as a back up to a well worn PDM670. The H4 was duck taped into various racing cars and it performed flawelessly. The onboard mics handled some serious abuse, and it ran the DPAs without any trouble at all. Amazing for the money.

Quote The Red Bladder:

---

Quote Man of Style:

---

Seems like a good way to waste a lot of money IMO.

For the same price you can buy :

2 x RODE NT1A (lower noise floor than U87!)£240.00
2 x SE Electronics SE2200A £270.00
2 x KEL HM-1 £250.00
2 x SP B1 £120.00
2 x Rode NT5 £220.00
2 x Violet Designs Black Knight(lower self noise than U87!) £460.00

I can tell you what I would do and the Neumann U87 would not be in my mic collection afterwards.

---

The problem with your list is that only one of the above is a bona fide mic manufacturer. The others merely box and badge other people's capsules and add their own housings and electronics. Some are actually the same microphone.

---

Sorry have to pull you up on this one - of that list I know of at least two - Violet and Rode - who do their own