Warmth, clarity, openess

[Phil O]

Another one of my rants, but I'll keep it short. I'm tired of gear (particularly microphone) comparisons where folks chime in about how this one sounds warmer, that one is clearly the winner, etc. I'll share with you my favorite mic shoot out where there are ample replies on which mic is which. You can skip ahead to the reveal in video 3 if you like, as there's a quick replay of the original clips there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNEwFEG8Aj4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dhiiZBbO8E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQRCz0s4_5g

enjoy
Phil

[stubbsonic]

I have often wondered why EQ is so often ignored in conversations about mic comparisons.

If you have several mics with fairly subtle differences in tone, can't those differences be mitigated by judicious use of EQ (which would be used anyway)?

There are differences that might have to do with response to transients and why some mics can handle things like toms, hats, horns, etc. And those do require more specific mics. And if you have a vocal mic that works well with not much fuss, then that has a value in and of itself.

Take my comment with a grain of salt. My mic "inventory" (and that's a grandiose word to refer to my milk crate with a dozen or so mics) is mostly sub $200 mics. My best mic is a 4033.

[mikehalloran]

Then there's never a mention of proper input impedance and its effect on frequency and transient response. This is more of a dynamic mic issue.

I wish that study involving the SM57 was still online. All links to it are now dead. Too bad...

where folks chime in about how this one sounds warmer

How many of those armchair idio... experts even know that warm is on the opposite end of the tonal spectrum from bright?

[stubbsonic]

I remember doing that mod you recommended (I think it was you, MH), to my 57s and they sounded better. IIRC, that was largely a change in impedance.

[bayswater]

I remember doing that mod you recommended (I think it was you, MH), to my 57s and they sounded better. IIRC, that was largely a change in impedance.

Glad you brought this up. I was going to do that, and got the resistors, but wondered if it would make any difference. How do you mean, better? Phat? Open? Warm? Close? Defined? Airy? Insolent?

Seriously though, do you use it more for anything where you would have used something else?

[mikehalloran]

I remember doing that mod you recommended (I think it was you, MH), to my 57s and they sounded better. IIRC, that was largely a change in impedance.

Changing the output impedance was all it did—and that was enough. Too bad that link is dead as the article was quite detailed on the what/how/why it worked.

The Shure SM7/57/58 have a rated output impedance of 150Ω, ideal for the old Bell Telephone 600Ω input spec. How many of us remember the Shure VocalMaster (Input Impedance ......... .320 ohms lnput Attenuator "Out" 500 ohms lnput Attenuator "In")

Modern solid state mic preamps as found on mixers are 1800–2400 with 2200Ω being typical. Wiring a resister in parallel drops the input impedance as a dynamic mic sees it to properly load the voice coil.

I later figured out that a 1KΩ variable resister in a box lets you tune the response and you can hear for yourself. As you get closer to the ideal load, bass response gets tighter and high freq. ring is severely reduced. Cymbals sound natural and proximity effect is reduced. Toms and amps are not as likely to sound distorted so maybe you don't want to do that.

An SM7 and SM57 use the same capsule. The SM57 uses an output transformer to boost the output while the SM7 does not—just a couple of filter circuits.
https://pubs.shure.com/guide/SM7B/en-US

The CloudLifter Z is nothing more than a variable resister in a really clean, 2-stage boost box. I use it on my SM7 plus my Shure 315 and sE VR1 passive ribbon mics. You can hear a big difference as you twist the knob.
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... -impedance

I don't know the resistor spec but will guess that it's probably 2.5KΩ or higher. The instructions suggest that you tune by ear since the output, variable & input are in parallel with each other.

Most AKG dynamic mics, by comparison, have a 600Ω rated output making the ideal input load 2400Ω.

[bayswater]

I thought I'd saved the article, but all I saved was the link. Doh!. But I did keep this note:

698 ohm resistor; the cable connected the male to the female plug in the usual fashion, while the resistor was soldered between pins 2 and 3 of the male.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

This thread doesn’t warm my heart as much as the New Mac Pro one, but there is more clarity and somewhat more openness. What we need is a topic shootout. Motunation members must face.

[stubbsonic]

I honestly can't tell you exactly what I thought was better. Roughly, it sound like a low-mid hump (proximity?) was reduced, and the highs sounded more accurate -- i.e., as opposed to a "presence bump" in the high mid, it seemed flattened out and more natural. But I may be as susceptible to the placebo effect as the next schmo (if I'm honest, I don't think I am. I'm pretty comfortable saying "I don't hear a difference, when I don't.)

[Phil O]

Then there's never a mention of proper input impedance and its effect on frequency and transient response.

Indeed!

[Phil O]

I have often wondered why EQ is so often ignored in conversations about mic comparisons.

If you have several mics with fairly subtle differences in tone, can't those differences be mitigated by judicious use of EQ (which would be used anyway)?

There are differences that might have to do with response to transients and why some mics can handle things like toms, hats, horns, etc. And those do require more specific mics. And if you have a vocal mic that works well with not much fuss, then that has a value in and of itself.

Take my comment with a grain of salt. My mic "inventory" (and that's a grandiose word to refer to my milk crate with a dozen or so mics) is mostly sub $200 mics. My best mic is a 4033.

Certainly EQ can reduce differences in the way different mics sound, and I believe if mics are gain matched and EQ'd to produce similar freq. response plots then the differences we hear will all be about transient response, settling time, off axis coloration, etc., etc. In other words the differences will be subtle. And that has been my experience. Even after I audition several mics for a vocalist and pick the one we think is best, in the end (after EQ, compression, or whatever crap I decide to put on the track) the differences are subtle.

Some may argue that subtlety (did I spell that right?) makes all the difference in the world, but in my experience I've found if the song is good and the arrangement is good and the performance is good, no one notices what mic you used on the guitar cab.

Your friendly neighborhood Phil

[labman]

This thread doesn’t warm my heart as much as the New Mac Pro one, but there is more clarity and somewhat more openness. What we need is a topic shootout. Motunation members must face.

[stubbsonic]

Some may argue that subtlety (did I spell that right?) makes all the difference in the world, but in my experience I've found if the song is good and the arrangement is good and the performance is good, no one notices what mic you used on the guitar cab.

Your friendly neighborhood Phil

Yup.

[HCMarkus]

Some may argue that subtlety (did I spell that right?) makes all the difference in the world, but in my experience I've found if the song is good and the arrangement is good and the performance is good, no one notices what mic you used on the guitar cab.

Your friendly neighborhood Phil

Yup.

Yup yup.

[stubbsonic]

Some may argue that subtlety (did I spell that right?) makes all the difference in the world, but in my experience I've found if the song is good and the arrangement is good and the performance is good, no one notices what mic you used on the guitar cab.

Your friendly neighborhood Phil

Yup.

Yup yup.

Let's insert, "if the mix is good."