Fast forward a couple of decades; we now have music delivered on digital media that can reproduce lower frequencies than vinyl ever could, genres that are dependent upon bowel-loosening low end, and a general ethos that “more is better.” Recording engineers start wiring up NS10 woofers (because there should ALWAYS be spares kicking around in case the assistant blows another one up…) in reverse and using them as microphones instead of speakers and putting them in front of bass drums. When listened to on their own the signal from the speaker may not sound like much of interest, but when blended with another more traditional mic on the drum, magic can happen.

Yamaha has been selling their now-discontinued Subkick since the mid-2000s and this put a pretty face (shell?) on the concept; a 6.5'' speaker mounted in a 10'' drum shell and mounted in front of a kick drum, under a floor tom, or on a bass cabinet using the included tom arm/snare stand base.

Moon Mics‘ Dave Gaynier started experimenting with a similar configuration 10 years ago and through much refining developed what is today’s DK27, currently Moon Mics’ singular product. Utilizing an 8'' diaphragm with a mesh grille cloth or, optionally, a contoured steel grille (the review model was fitted with this) and a sleek, chromed cap, the Moon Mic (“MM” from here) mounts with a choice of three tom brackets (Pearl, Yamaha, or Gibraltar) that accept similarly branded tom mounts that then are held by the bottom tube/legs of a snare stand. There’s an XLR jack for the 250Ω output (passive so no phantom power is necessary) and also a polarity switch which is a nice touch, especially if using the MM live and the console isn’t equipped with them on the input channels.

The MM is considerably lighter than the SubKick and, because of the shallower depth of the housing, can be easier to position in front of a drum that’s surrounded by a forest of stands. The chrome cap, which also has five holes on the surface to help vent pressure from the movement of the diaphragm giving it even more of a “cratered” moon-like appearance, is VERY shiny. The MM could be your lighting directors best friend or worst enemy — perhaps there should be a “Dark Side of the Moon Mic” option for those that want the audio effect but don’t need it to be the most vibrant thing on stage (leave that for the lead singers…).

The stated frequency response of the MM is 20Hz–15kHz; I don’t know if this is a -3dB down measurement, but I can tell you that the MM definitely captures those low frequencies with aplomb! I tried the MM in front of my 22'' Ludwig Classic maple kick drum along with a homemade version that I’ve been using for a couple of years that consists of 6'' Morel driver mounted on a short mic stand; I also borrowed a Yamaha SubKick to test the MM against the original. I also had my usual Shure Beta 52A in the port of the resonant head on the drum allowing me to blend the low-frequency units with a more traditional microphone.

MM claims that their product can be used as the only mic on the drum, but in my tests at different locations on and distances from the front head of the drum, I wasn’t able to ever get a sound that I felt covered all of the sound of the kick. Neither of the other two sub-mics did either, so I don’t really chalk this up as a fault of the mic.

The first thing I noticed when comparing the three mics was that my improvised “craft project” mic had a much higher resonant frequency; when viewed on a spectrogram, the Morel driver shows more energy in the 100–200Hz range and less below 80Hz than either the SubKick or MM. This is very apparent in the included “solo” examples for each mic. The MM and SubKick have a more pronounced and lower fundamental frequency which, when blended with my Beta 52A in the head port, gave the drum much more “weight.” My Morel driver sounded “flabby” in comparison.

	Solo	With Beta 52	Full Kit
DIY Mic
Subkick
DK 27

(Download 24-bit WAVs of these audio files: here.)

Ultimately, the proof of any microphone’s usefulness and value is how it works in a musical setting, and this is where I found the MM to shine. There’s a solidity to the tone it produced that enhanced the sound of the kick drum better than my homemade model and on par with the SubKick. It’s lighter and easier to position than the SubKick, so another tick in the pro column for the MM. I can’t fault it for it’s performance, so the only possible negatives for the MM are visual — if the “bling” is too distracting I could see this being an issue — and potentially the price. The MM ranges from $349–499 depending on the grille choice and hardware options; this could be viewed as excessive for a mic with a specialized use. That said, Moon Mics is a small operation with each mic made by Dave Gaynier in the US, and constructed to a very high standard; this certainly adds value, as does the ability to directly contact the company and even the man who built the product should there ever be an issue.

Color me impressed; I’ve enjoyed using the MM on my drums and definitely found it to enhance the sound of the kick drum. I don’t know that I’d use it on every session (an 18'' jazz kick tuned way up, for example), but when I need a larger-than-life sound to rumble the seats, the Moon Mic is definitely the ticket.

Don Gunn is a recording and mixing engineer based in Seattle, WA. Visit him online at DonGunn.com or on Twitter at @don_k_gunn.

In 1980, I was Production Director and reluctantly, on-air announcer for KATI/KAWY radio. We were given an opportunity to upgrade our microphones, from the Electro-Voice 661 and 630 — which were nicknamed “the nail pounders” because in some old ads for the mics, a guy actually pounds a nail with one, and it kept on going. They were great for field use and disc jockey abuse, but really weren’t up to snuff quality-wise, especially for FM radio.

The word went out, and within a week we had audition offers from almost every known company making broadcast mics at the time. We also tried any professional mic that anyone personally had and would lend to us, including some nice old RCA ribbons. I also had, in my personal mic locker, a used Neumann U87, and a Sennheiser MD 441U, which I bought as a combo from another announcer whose studio had fallen on hard times. I paid $125.00 for the combo.

We needed seven mics total: two for each production room, one for each control room and one for the newsroom. Pricewise, the Neumann mics were out of the question; I think they were going for $1000 each at the time. We had a maximum budget of $300.00 for each mic. That helped narrow down the choices.

We had been loaned two microphones from Shure: the Shure SM5B and SM7. The SM5B went into AM production, while the SM7 went into FM production. Right away, I fell in love with the sound of the SM5.

The SM7 at the time was a newer design, and had some pad and EQ switches, but its sound was a bit overly bright, especially with female voices. The SM5B had something that made everyone sound great: smooth, rich, unaffected by the over-processing you get coming out of a broadcast signal. I liked the SM5B even over my Neumann and Sennheiser. It was perfect.

The SM5B was a huge mic, a blimp mic, with two large, two-tone gray windscreens. I think it was originally designed to be a boom mic for motion picture sets and field recording. In fact, I later saw a few of these on “boom poles” on motion picture sets. You could not hit the capsule with a plosive even if you tried. When the windscreen was removed, there was another windscreen covering what was really a pretty unimpressive-looking capsule, looking like the raw capsule of an SM57/58, suspended by what almost looked like small surgical tubing (that I later learned was silicone). It also had a humbucking coil, which prevented all the mechanical equipment and speakers in the studio from causing the mic to hum. It was quiet. I think that’s why broadcasters picked up these mics. It also was a hotter mic than dynamics are normally, even with the hero-sandwich windscreen. Proximity was never a problem as well, as long as you were in front of the mic; it sounded great, even at 12 inches. Its pickup was more like a shotgun mic.

The only drawback to the mic was the windscreens. If you had a smoker, a liquid lunch indulger or spitter that used the mic before you, well it could be pretty nauseating. The windscreen was not something that an announcer could swap to have his or her own, so as not to spread mono or the flu. Spraying the foam with Lysol was a big no-no.

Surprisingly, the windscreens did not seem to mute the sound of the mic at all. The same was true of the SM7, though it had a smaller foam filter.

Windscreen problems were the reason we didn’t buy the Shure mics. The announcers had a tendency to pick at the foam, and poke it with pens and pencils, making me and Shure very unhappy. After many choices were given, and votes were cast, we went with Sennheiser 421s. They looked and sounded nice, were bullet-proof, and each announcer could use his/her own windscreen. The mics also had an EQ switch in the back, which could give each announcer a more-personalized sound.

Since then, I have used a great number of voice microphones, both dynamics and condensers. But I can’t get the old SM5 sound out of my head. A boom operator on a movie set let me listen to one some years back; it still had “that” sound. So I have my eye out for one, but you never know what you are going to get off of Ebay, even at an $800.00 plus price tag.

Postscript

I just auditioned the new Shure SM7B, an updated version of the old SM7, at the NPR Studios in Culver City, CA. I had a “Beringer Wine” voiceover script on my smartphone [Ed. note: David used this in his Yeti Pro review.] With the SM7b’s “presence” switch engaged, the mic had that meaty, mid “oomph” of the SM5b! Eureka!

I knew the SM7 was popular in broadcast applications, but didn’t know it was so popular in recording studios as well (e.g., Bruce Swedien used an SM7 for most of Michael Jackson’s vocals on “Thriller”). It’s just a great-sounding mic, another Shure classic. Listening to both the SM5 and SM7b gives me the feeling of listening to a microphone with the smoothness of a ribbon, the clarity of a condenser and the punch of a very good dynamic. I’m very happy to have once again found that sound. I hope to be adding an SM7b to my mic locker soon.

OK, so I was exaggerating a little bit. They might not change your life, but they may reduce studio related hair loss.

A27M Stereo Mic mount

Most of the short stereo bars I’ve used have been junk. They usually have two mounts on the same horizontal plane. Sometimes the width is adjustable but the height rarely is. The problem with this is that either the mics are too narrow for ORTF or the cables get in the way. Setting up XY or ORTF on two separate stands can be equally awkward.

After a lot of searching for a better stereo mic bar I found the relatively unknown Shure A27M. I was intrigued by the simplicity of the A27M right from the start. The difference with the A27M is that it is designed to hold the mics on an offset vertical plane while still allowing the capsules to be aligned. Both height and angle are adjustable with the A27M which make it compatible with just about any size mic in coincident or near-coincident stereo techniques such as XY and ORTF.

The Shure A27M is a simple but brilliant bit of recording gear. It’s a vertical stereo bar consisting of four parts. The two flat-black mic mounts sit on a metal rod and are secured with a knurled metal knob. There aren’t any washers or rubber grommets to lose. The mic mounts are free to rotate on the rod, setting your microphone angle. By unscrewing the knob from the rod, the mounts can be flipped around to alter the mount separation from 1.25'', to 2.625''or 4''.

The position of the black sections is held only by the snugness of the knurled knob. I tested the effectiveness of this by positioning two of my large diaphragm condensers in XY above a seated guitarist parallel to the floor. The weight of the mics did not cause the angle to narrow, nor did they crash into each other. If the ends of these pieces were textured slightly I think this would be a further improvement, but it already performs very well in an overhead horizontal position. This would be an ideal mount for over a drum kit.

The A27M comes in a simple white box with the device bubble wrapped, a reusable plastic cable clip, and a one-page instruction sheet. Build quality is excellent, solid and sturdy weighing in at 387g.

When using the A27M upright in front of an instrument, such as acoustic guitar, I did have to take some care with using heavy mics as the torque would cause one to loosen and sag, not an uncommon problem. Basically when you set up a mic you always have the stand on the left and mic on the right, the weight of the mic keeps it tight on the stand. If you go the opposite way, the weight of the mic loosens the grip on the stand and it drops. The locking threaded nut helps a lot but not as much as a reversed thread would (I’m guessing).

For coincident and near coincident miking simplicity, the A27M is the best short mic bar I’ve ever used.

A75M Universal Microphone Mount

Ever needed a second mic on one stand? Sure. Ever needed a mic in a tight space where stands just won’t work? Probably. Ever needed a mic clamped onto a chair or lamp when you’ve run out of stands? Well the A75M can do that too.

The Shure A75M is an adjustable clamp style microphone mount that allows you to put a mic just about anywhere. There are several other clamp mounts out there and I feel the Shure stands out from the rest because of the quality of construction and attention to detail. All-metal construction and finished in flat black, the A75M surprised and impressed me. I say surprised because I didn’t know I needed these until I had them in my hands.

The A75M ships with a ton of bubble wrap in a plain white box and consists of a clamping jaw and set of three interchangeable mic mounts.

Clamp: The universal clamp opens 1.75'' (44mm) and has two rubber coated grooves to grip a mic stand or other surface. Turn the A75M around and you find a smaller jaw more suitable for drum rim mounting. This jaw has a slightly longer maximum opening of 2'' (51mm). The jaw tightening is via round knurled knob on a threaded rod. A silver button on the side will release the threads for quick adjustment. This feature makes clamping to any surface incredibly quick.

Mic Mounts: The A75M comes with three microphone mounts, a 25mm clip for SM57s and other dynamic mics, a 20mm clip for pencil condensers, and a standard threaded mount for any other mic. The interchangeable mounts can be positioned in 3 ways then locked with the second knurled knob. Up/Down (or Forward/Back depending on orientation) adjustment is available within a range of 1.75'' (45mm) as well as Horizontal and Vertical adjustment in 360° are locked in with the single knob. Again, this works excellently. You’ll never need to move a stand for micro adjustments to mic position or compromise on a position at all.

Shure suggests using these around a drum kit, clamped onto a drum rim, or on a cymbal stand for underheads. I was not able to test these on drums but they should also do well for securing an under snare or under floor tom mic. With a pair of these I found them very handy elsewhere in the studio for similar uses as the A27M, or attaching several mics on a single stand for a shootout.

For an acoustic guitar recording I was able to set up a pair of mics in AB stereo at the exact height I wanted by attaching these to the vertical pole of a pair of stands. I found this to be much easier than attaching the mics to the boom arm, extending it and lowering it down, and it took up less space as well (when you do everything in one small room this is important!).

The last thing to mention is that Shure includes an A75M with the Beta 98AMP, a gooseneck electret condenser released in 2010.

After trying out the A27M and pair of A75M for a few weeks, I’m left with a tough decision of which to send back. I would love to have them all but for now I’ll be paying for the A27M and putting the others on my wish list.

matthew mcglynn

For those who don’t know Jon, be sure to check out his blog at AudioGeekZine.com and the Home Recording Show podcast.

If you’re shopping for mic accessories, please support this site by purchasing from the links below.

A27M Stereo Adapter
	Amazon	$67
	B&H	$67
	BSW	$67
A75M Universal Mic Clamp
	Musicians Friend	$79
	B&H	$85

The microphones we get to shootout today are both from Shure: the KSM313 and the KSM353/ED.

These microphones have their own very unique look. They feel extremely solid and well built. And I have officially given the KSM353 shock mount the “sexiest shock mount ever” award. Seriously, how cool is that shock mount? Both microphones are extremely easy to mount and angle with their corresponding hardware. This isn’t always the case with some microphones.

Both microphones feature a fixed bi-directional (figure-8) polar pattern. What’s cool about the KSM313 is that front and back side of the mic sound completely different. The front side is warm and full while the back side is much brighter and open. Both sides of the KSM353 are identical.

We decided to record the samples in a professional recording studio to ensure consistency. Oh, and to avoid my horrendous EMI (electro magnetic interference) problem I’ve recently discovered in my studio — but we’ll save that for another time.

The samples were recorded at the beautiful Colorado Sound Studios with audio engineer J.P. Manza. We recorded in Studio A. J.P. set me up in “the wood room” — it wasn’t too live or too boxy, but just right for voice over. Colorado Sound has a drool-worthy amount of gear in their racks. I attempted to take some photos for the readers to drool on too [mind your keyboards, eh? --Ed.]. My experience with the staff and facility at Colorado Sound was nothing but fun and easy. If you’re looking for a recording studio in the Denver metro area be sure to check them out.

Because this was a shootout, we wanted the cleanest signal path possible. So we went with a Grace M802 preamp.

Readers of my previous ribbon mic article suggested including a condenser microphone for comparison purposes. This was a great idea so, this time, we did just that. We mounted up a stock Neumann U 87 Ai — a voiceover staple.

Signal Chain

Microphone →
 Grace M802 Preamp →
  Digidesign HD192 Converter →
   Pro Tools

The microphones were recorded in pairs. J.P. precisely angled each mic in each pair. Each pair of recordings below are the same recording/take.

Important Note: We played with the distance between my mouth and the microphones to find the sweet spot for the ribbon microphone only. This article was intended to review the ribbons, not the U87Ai. Please keep this in mind when listening to the samples.

Commercial Reads

Pair 1: Shure KSM313 (front) and KSM353, 10 inches

Shure KSM313 (front)

Shure KSM353/ED

These mics sound quite different from each other. The KSM313 was decent in the lows but had too much midrange boost. The KSM353 had a very focused and tight low range with a well balanced amount of mids and highs. Keep in mind the front side of the KSM313 is the “warm” side. The KSM353 would be my choice for this read.

Pair 2: Shure KSM353 and Neumann U 87 Ai, 10 inches

Shure KSM353/ED

Neumann U 87 Ai

Pair 3: Shure KSM313 (rear) and Neumann U 87 Ai, 10 inches

Shure KSM313

Neumann U 87 Ai

As I’m sure you noticed the ribbon microphones sound extremely different from the U87Ai. The ribbons both sound warm and rich while the U87Ai sounds bright and crisp. When listening back in the control room I mentioned that the U87Ai almost sounded too thin. J.P. informed me that the sweet spot distance for the ribbons was certainly not the same as for the U87Ai. He said if we were only using the U87Ai he would have placed it just 1–3 inches away, not 10 as in this test.

I absolutely loved the backside of the KSM313 on this read. It had such a great balance across the frequency spectrum. It tamed those harsh peaks in this more aggressive read without sounding too muddy or flat.

Narration Reads

Pair 1: Shure KSM313 (front) and KSM353, 7 inches

Shure KSM313 (front)

Shure KSM353/ED

It’s interesting how subtle the differences are on this read versus the commercial read. The KSM313 is much more “usable” in this example. The mids aren’t so boomy this time. This is probably because I’m reading at a much lower pitch and volume. Again, the KSM353 has that overall rounded tone that is extremely pleasing to listen to. I love both mics on this read, but the KSM353 takes the cake again, by a margin.

Pair 2: Shure KSM353 and Neumann U 87 Ai, 7 inches

Shure KSM353/ED

Neumann U 87 Ai

Pair 3: Shure KSM313 (rear) and Neumann U 87 Ai, 7 inches

Shure KSM313

Neumann U 87 Ai

Once again the rearside of the KSM313 makes a huge difference when used for voice over. The KSM353 also showcased its balanced and rounded tone.

I feel that ribbon microphones apply their own form of “natural compression.” For voice over, I may actually prefer this kind compression over a conventional compressor. It is very transparent sounding.

Typically, narration reads will be heard for many minutes or hours. A microphone that features a warm and smooth tone is ideal. Both of these ribbon microphones achieve this.

Quick Ribbon Microphone Tips

I have to emphasize how important it is to find the sweet spot of a ribbon microphone. Ribbon microphones can start to sound boomy very quickly without optimal placement. You’re typically going to be speaking about 7+ inches (usually more) from a ribbon microphone.

The sweet spot will also vary on the style of read. Use your microphone technique skills on a script by script basis. For example, I was speaking about 10'' away from the microphone on my louder and aggressive commercial read and 7'' away on my more intimate narrative read.

Final Thoughts

If you’re looking to pick up your first ribbon microphone for voice over I highly recommend the KSM313. Having two distinct sounding sides is like having two microphones in one. It is well-priced for the features and sound quality it produces. This mic has already been added to my ever-growing gear lust list.

The KSM353 is also a stellar microphone. What can I say, I’m having a love affair with the shockmount alone. At a street price above $2500, the microphone doesn’t exactly fall into a typical home studio budget. But if you can afford it, it would only benefit your microphone arsenal.

In my dream world of owning both microphones I’d prefer use the KSM353 for commercial work and the KSM313 (backside) for narration. However, the KSM353 was still very qualified for narration work too.

I’d even call it a “workhouse” studio ribbon microphone. If you record more than just voice over then this microphone becomes even more valuable. The KSM313 sounds beautiful on multiple sources, most notably brass and electric guitar cabs.

The results of this shootout only reinforce the idea that ribbon microphones deserve a role in the world of voice over. They showcase an entirely different sound and perspective to the human voice. Who doesn’t want diversity in sound and color when it comes voice over? So far I’ve heard four different ribbon microphones on my voice — each with its own unique character.

Watch out, because I think ribbons are making a steady come back to the voice over industry.

Huge thanks to Matt McGlynn, Shure, the staff at Colorado Sound Studios, and the awesome readers and commenters here at RecordingHacks.com.

Editor’s note

I’ll echo Jordan’s thanks to the staffs at Colorado Sound and Shure. Thanks also to Jordan for putting this review together.

Standard disclosure: the microphones in question were loaned to us for evaluation purposes. Unfortunately, we don’t get to keep them.

A note for readers: I’d asked Jordan to use the same VO scripts as in his earlier review, enabling you to compare the two Shure ribbons to the Royer R-101 and DIYAC RM-5. Find those audio samples here, but beware of gain levels — the earlier samples are hotter.

Alternatively, you can download the gain-matched 24-bit WAV audio for all five ribbons (RM-5, R-101, KSM313 F, KSM313 R, and KSM353) here.

Strongly held biases (plus over 50 years of broadcast history) require the following disclaimer: if you are shopping for a dedicated voice/podcasting microphone, I encourage you to visit The Ultimate Podcasting Mic Shootout, which features numerous mics that I feel are better suited to podcasting than any of the inexpensive condensers listed below.

However, if you’re shopping for a multi-purpose “studio workhorse” microphone, which would be tasked for everything from podcasting and voiceover to instruments and sung vocals, then by all means please read on for a blind listening test of nine top-selling condenser mics.

The Contenders

We had seven mics in the first test:

• AKG Perception 220
• Audio-Technica AT2035
• Blue Spark
• MXL 2003A
• sE Electronics X1
• Shure PG42
• Studio Projects LSM

To these, we’ve added two from my personal collection:

The CAD Audio M179 is a remarkable bargain at its common street price of under $150. It has a -20dB pad, a high-pass filter, and a continuously-variable pattern selection switch. It ships in an oversized, padded plastic case with both a ring mount and a shockmount. It is the only multipattern mic in this test.

The Audio-Technica AT2020 is the first-generation version of the AT2035; both are electret condensers, although the AT2020 has a smaller capsule. It is a no-frills mic, with a simple ring mount, no pad, no filter; nonetheless, some claim it is the best $99 microphone on the market, and proponents use it daily for vocals and acoustic guitar.

(To find a full description, specifications, and sale prices on any of these nine microphones, click the appropriate thumbnail images in the table below.)

	2003A	AT2020	AT2035	LSM	M179	Percep. 220	PG42	Spark	X1
Street	$169	$70	$149	$120	$129	$179	$199	$150	$169
Capsule	~34mm	16mm	26mm	34mm	~34mm	~32mm	35mm	25mm	n/a
Sensitivity	7.1	14.1	22	25	16	18	17.8	28	25.1
Self-Noise	11	20	12	16	11	16	18	10	16
Pad	no	no	-10dB	no	-20dB	-20dB	-15dB	no	-10dB
HPF	yes	no	yes	no	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Shockmount	yes	no	yes	no	yes	yes	yes	yes	no
Case	no	no	no	no	yes	yes	yes	wood	no

Audio Test

I recorded these tracks individually. Each mic was set up within my RealTraps PVB to minimize room reflections. Any pads or filters on the mics were disengaged. The M179 was set to Cardioid.

My working distance was 10 inches for all mics. I used a dual-layer nylon pop filter in all cases.

The preamp for all tracks was channel 1 of my BLA-modded Digi 002 Rack, with the high-pass filter engaged. Gain was set to produce consistent RMS levels in Pro Tools during tracking; levels were later fine-tuned prior to output.

The original 24-bit, 44.1 kHz WAV files were converted to 320kbps mono MP3 via lame.

The audio sample is an excerpt from Mixerman’s awesome book, Zen and the Art of Mixing. (I strongly recommend this book; you’ll be hard-pressed to open to any page and not learn something.) I used the same excerpt in The Ultimate Podcasting Mic Shootout, facilitating comparisons to the best dynamic mics in the world.

Before you click the button to see which mic was which, ask yourself if you heard the RE20 that I snuck in there for comparison purposes.

Listening Notes

Every one of the condensers in this test picked up more clicky mouth noises than the dynamic mic. This is one of the reasons I tend to prefer dynamics for this application.

Although a few tracks contain audible noise, none are noisy enough to cause problems. But this is potentially another problem with using condensers for podcasting — they’ll “hear” your computer fan, the HVAC, and your neighbor’s television. If you don’t have a relatively quiet space, your voice recordings will be better served by a dynamic mic.

When monitoring these files over nearfields (mine are Mackie HR824s), the differences between the condenser tracks seem fairly subtle. Through headphones (Sennheiser HD650s), the differences are more apparent: the noise floor, the amount of room sound, the detail of the high frequencies, and the shape of the mids all come through.

But let’s be clear about something: every voice is different, and every room is different. No matter which of these mics you prefer based on these audio samples, it is very unlikely you will ever be asked to record MY voice in MY room. This is a roundabout way of saying that however tempting it might be to listen to these clips and pick a “winner,” the utility of said mic in your room, on your voice, will remain to be seen. Therefore I encourage you to use these samples to come to some understanding of what each mic is doing, and then use that understanding to determine which mic might best fit your needs.

Then, too, you could certainly EQ any of these mics — and some of them, you’d definitely want to! For the purposes of this test, we are taking a purist approach, with unprocessed tracks. But it is a completely valid methodology to correct for source/mic mismatches via equalization.

For the visual learners

I imported all the audio clips into FuzzMeasure to produce an averaged frequency response chart for each. This helped me compare pairs of mics, and informed the specific frequency ranges given in the descriptions below.

Boosted Upper Mids

I found that the mics with the biggest push at 4kHz–8kHz worked least well on my voice. This is a personal preference — perhaps my ears are sensitive at these frequencies, for example. But I found that these mics tended to emphasize a lot of sounds I generally don’t want to hear, such as mouth sounds and sibilance. Also, I tended not to like the tone of my voice through these mics; my notes showed descriptions such as “hard upper mids” and “buzzy” and “essy.”

To other ears, say for example ears with attenuated sensitivity at 4–8kHz, these mics might be just the thing to deliver articulation and clarity. The same can be said of a voice — or any source — that is particularly dark and/or indistinct.

The mics with the most happening in this frequency range were the Blue Spark (with or without Focus), Shure PG42, Audio-Technica AT2020, Studio Projects LSM.

Better balance

A handful of the microphones sounded pretty similar, and relatively neutral in tone. There are subtle variations in tonality, intimacy, and balance, but these mics generally all sound like me.

These four microphones would be my first picks for a podcast/voiceover mic: sE X1, MXL 2003A, AKG Perception 220, Audio-Technica AT2035. Here are additional narration samples, and a proximity test of each:

Multiple colors to choose from

Some of these mics sound colored. The CAD M179 is a good example; it has an almost exaggerated presence, with an interesting texture or graininess in the upper midrange. Maybe it’s just this presence that I’m hearing, but I feel like the response is scooped in the lower mids. It is not an unflattering sound at all, and I quite like the dryness of it, even if it sounds a bit thin.

I have a hard time categorizing the Studio Projects LSM. It has no audible noise floor and a very dry, intimate sound. The high mids are nicely integrated; nothing pokes out at me. But it doesn’t sound like me, nor like any other mic in this test, for that matter. This mic has less output from 900Hz–1500Hz than the rest of the condensers, except for the MXL 2003A… but 2–5kHz more from 200–700Hz than that mic. My blind-listening notes called this “colored but flattering.”

Proximity

“Proximity effect” is the term used to describe the increase in low-frequency response that is characteristic of directional microphones as the mic is moved closer to the source. In short, standing closer to a Cardioid mic will make the voice sound bassier. If you think all the above tracks sounded thin, then you could certainly work the mics closer.

I recorded a second set of tracks at a 5-inch distance. Every one of them produced a weightier, more intimate sound than at the 10-inch distance. And a lot of the mics sounded good this way.

But every one of them popped, even though I was using a 2-layer nylon pop filter. Also, most every one of them recorded too much mouth noise. You’ll hear this in the samples below.

Tonally, I liked several of the mics at this distance — in fact, I heard fewer tonal variations at this distance than at 10 inches (which serves to illustrate that subtle usage differences can result in significantly changed results, but of course you knew that already).

In a blind test, I picked these as my favorites:
Studio Projects LSM

CAD Audio M179

SE Electronics X1

EQ is not a crime!

Three other mics would work great with a bit of HF rolloff. The Perception 220 and Shure PG42, in fact, were both among my initial favorites. After repeated listens I decided I would like them even better with less top end:

AKG Acoustics Perception 220

Shure PG42

Blue Microphones Spark (Focus engaged)

But again, were I were to use any of these mics at 5 inches, I would need to position them off-axis to avoid plosives.

WAV Audio Archive

We’ve provided the 24-bit, 44.1 kHz WAV files for your dissection and analysis. These files have been gain-matched in Pro Tools. The files have been renamed to preserve their anonymity; a secret key that identifies each track is included.

• 10-inch distance: ZIP archive (21 MB)
• 5-inch distance: ZIP archive (23 MB)

Conclusions & Recommendations

How you use the mic will determine your success! At 10 inches, the Blue Spark and Shure PG42 did not work for me at all. But at half that distance, both mics were much much nicer. In fact, as I worked all these mics closer, many of the tonal differences disappeared.

Regardless of the reputation or cost of any mic, you’re still responsible for positioning it for best results. In my case, speaking directly into the mics at 5 inches was a bad idea, even with a two-layer pop filter. I would get better results by positioning the mics off-axis. (And by learning not to pop, too.)

The AT2035 is a great value as compared to its sibling, the AT2020: for about $80 more in cost, the AT2035 gives you higher sensitivity, lower self-noise, a shockmount, pad and filter, and a much nicer sound — at least for my voice.

Aaron and I disagree about the MXL 2003A. I thought the mic worked well on my voice, and I had no problems with self-noise.

A few mics thus far have shined in multiple contexts:

• The AKG Perception 220 was Aaron’s pick in Pt. I, and worked well on my voice at both 5 and 10 inches.
• The Studio Projects LSM was Aaron’s second pick, and a solid choice on my voice at 5 inches.
• The sE Electronics X1 was the strongest performer in my voice tests; I picked it as one of the best at both distances tested.

Come back in a week for Part III, the drum overhead test!

If you’re shopping, please remember that we maintain a list of the best online sale prices for every microphone; just see the profile pages in the mic database.

Why would I want a variable air gap? I will answer that in two parts: why have any air gap, and why make it variable.

Why would we want an air gap at all? Why not mount the panels flush with the wall? The reason is that low-frequency absorption is improved when the panel is away from the wall.

RealTraps

When mounted on a wall with a spacer, sound gets behind [an acoustic panel] so its rear surface can also absorb. This air gap increases absorption as much as fifty percent, and also extends absorption to lower frequencies when compared with flat wall mounting. When placed straddling a corner the absorption is even greater, especially at low frequencies.

Ethan Winer of RealTraps gave me another data point: spacing a MicroTrap 3'' off the wall extends low-frequency absorption by one octave.

My next problem is that the wall in question is opposite a 9-foot sliding glass door — a perfect environment for standing waves.

“Standing waves” happen when a soundwave bounces back and forth between two parallel surfaces. The waveforms of the direct and reflected signals combine, causing peaks and dips that can vary by tens of decibels. In practice, the presence of standing waves means that moving a microphone a few inches creates an effective EQ boost or cut greater than can be corrected in the recorded track. This problem marred the results of the sax mic session of the $60,000 ribbon mic test, in which we later found up to 7dB difference at 400Hz, between two mics recorded simultaneously.

Therefore I was interested in mounting these panels at an angle to the opposite wall, in hopes of reducing the area of parallel surfaces in the room.

The importance of acoustic treatment

Before we go farther, I want to step back to cover the idea of acoustic treatment from a more basic perspective. If you’re new to home recording, and you’re recording acoustic insruments in a home office or bedroom, you should strongly consider investing in acoustic treatment. Untreated small rooms usually sound awful. Room reflections can kill a track.

Further, it is a myth that room reflections can be corrected by equalization. Check out Randy Coppinger’s notes from an AES session on low-frequency damping:

Randy Coppinger

Standing waves linger past the end of the original sound, a la reverb. My take away: Trying to control acoustical room response w/ EQ ignores the time delay (“after ring”) of the resonance. Treat acoustics not signal!

In other words, even if you know you have a dip or boost at a particular frequency, chances are the reflections causing that dip or boost are hurting your recorded tracks in other ways.

In short, small rooms are a problem. The smaller the room, the bigger the problem. As a gag, I once recorded some vocals in a toilet stall. No pun intended, but the results really did sound like crap.

Therefore my bias when recording in a small room is to treat it. The room need not be lined wall-to-wall in acoustic foam, although if it were, it would probably produce better sounds than an untreated drywalled bedroom with a hard floor. I think the ideal is somewhere in the middle, with lots of corner bass trapping and enough wall trapping to nuke flutter echo.

The Variable Air Gap mounting solution

My idea for mounting rigid acoustic panels with a variable air gap is pretty low-tech: it’s a fat wooden shim. It acts as a spacing block that both holds the panel away from the wall, and creates a variable air gap. This particular design is perhaps unique to the panels I was using (RealTraps Microtraps), but the general principles should apply to any rigid acoustic panel.

First I made a cardboard form. It measured 18'' wide, with one long side cut at an angle so that the short sides measured 3'' and 5''.

Using the form as a guide, I cut three matching boards from scrap wood (9/16'' redwood), then notched the angled edge (with a Dremel tool) to accommodate the wire-hanging hardware on the back of the MicroTrap. I painted the blocks to match the wall, and mounted some self-adhesive silicone feet on the straight edge of each board to prevent scratches on the wall.

The panels hang from heavy-duty picture hangers, rated at 10lbs capacity. (RealTraps’ MicroTraps weigh 8lbs.) This approach does no more damage to the wall than hanging a framed photo, thus being vastly superior to hanging foam panels with glue.

The standoff boards simply sit behind each MicroTrap. No special mounting is necessary; the boards are held in place by the weight of the acoustic panel. It would be easy to use Velcro to attach the spacer boards to the metal rail across the back of the MicroTraps, but there does not seem to be any value in doing so. In fact, the passive nature of this installation means it is trivial to remove these spacer blocks altogether. They can be inserted within seconds prior to a tracking session.

Audio tests

I hung the panels primarily for use during tracking, so the best test is a quick before-and-after recording. Before we get to the audio, I should mention that this room is already well-treated, so the “before” track is really not bad. You’ll hear a difference when the three new MicroTraps go up, but it’s more subtle than it would be if I was starting from bare walls.

First up is a loop: 4 bars without the new panels, 4 bars with the new panels, and a repeat. Listen to the space around the kick and snare; you can hear how it gets smaller when the panels are in place.

(Update: These audio tracks are mono overheads — one condenser hanging above the middle of the drum kit.)

To be clear, I do not at all intend to suggest that having room sound in a drum track is a bad thing. But I’d prefer to have the room sound in a room mic, not in my overheads. Otherwise, it’s like printing reverb to every track.

The second test is even more revealing. There are two clips below, one with the panels and one without. I won’t label them, but if you can’t tell the difference, then — good news — you don’t need to spend any money on acoustic treatment! But I think you’ll hear how much tighter and cleaner the “with panels” clip is.

And again, remember that even the “before” clip has RealTraps MiniTraps at all the wall/ceiling junctions, most of the wall/wall junctions, and two of the upper tricorners, plus a 16-square-foot cloud of 4'' Auralex Studiofoam above the drum kit.

People that do voiceovers, like myself, found it easy to use the Yeti in a pinch: plug it into a USB port, and get a decent quality recording at 16 bit, 48 kHz with no muss or fuss.

Earlier in 2011, Blue introduced an upgraded version of the microphone, the Yeti Pro. The specs were identical to the Standard Yeti. I really wasn’t that intrigued by it, except the fact that that it had the ability to record sound at four times the rate of the Standard, and had an XLR (analog) output in addition to the USB output.

I searched for sound samples, but found none comparing the Standard Yeti to the Yeti Pro. So, I have made some for this review.

Set Up

If you are a Standard Yeti user, be forewarned: there are things you have to do to get the Pro to work. Being mostly a PC user, with Windows 7, I just opened the Pro package and tried to do a simple plug and play, just like the Standard. It didn’t work. When all else fails, read the instructions! You have to download a driver for Windows users, from XP to 7. Mac users, you must have OS 10.6.4 or it will not work. The rest of the setup is a matter of software adjustment and the Yeti Pro manual does a great job of helping you set the mic up on both a Mac and PC.

From there, before making any judgments, get to know the Yeti Pro, because going from digital to analog will require a learning curve as well. More about that later.

Physical Differences

Comparing the two mics shows the distinct differences between the two. The Pro has a pleasing, retro black studio finish, much like older 60’s tube type processing equipment, with a slight brassy patina.

The Standard is equally impressive looking, but the buttons and knobs on my standard seem to be of a lesser quality and even looser. The headphone volume control on the Pro is digital, spins infinitely and the OS remembers your last headphone level, a nice touch. Other than that the controls are identical. The Standard Yeti’s knob fonts are easier to read, a big difference when in a low light studio or if you are over 45 and need bi-focals to see which pattern you are in. The very handy and easy to see Mute button is the same on both microphones, staying solid red when recording, and blinking brightly when engaged (in USB only on the Pro).

Performance on Equal Ground

How do the mics perform? When it comes to output gain, the Standard Yeti is the champ. To get the same recording level in USB mode, the gain on the Pro has to be turned up all the way, while the Standard gets the same output at less than half of full volume. Blue’s technical support staff confirmed my suspicion, that the Pro has lower output gain to enable the mic to perform better at high SPL.

What I would rather see is higher gain with a 20db pad switch. Reading other reviews, this seems to be the number one issue with the Pro. I hope Blue is listening.

[Ed. note -- we have been notified that Blue will be modifying the gain staging on the Yeti Pro for future production runs, to make its output level closer to the standard Yeti.]

The next difference is the quality of the headphone monitor circuits. Here, the Pro excels. The Standard Yeti has a tinny, breezy, noisy, low-gain headphone amp, requiring nearly maximum gain to get decent output levels. I was amping the Standard Yeti’s amp! In contrast, the Pro amp is dynamic, rich, and does not require full gain (unless you have substantial hearing loss and want feedback).

The 16-bit 48k Shootout

The published frequency-response graphs of these two microphones are identical. But the mics don’t sound the same. My first test had both mics side by side, capsules at the same height and position, both mounted on Blue Radius shock mounts, with digital (USB) output at 16 bit, 48 kHz, to two computers. I used calibration tones to ensure equal signal levels into Audacity. My first test was a non-scripted, let’s say fireside chat, testing both mics simultaneously.

Voiceover Samples

[The two samples below are 16-bit, 320kbps MP3s created from 16-bit, 48kHz WAVs, recorded simultaneously. The Standard Yeti file is first, followed by the Pro.]

After the recording, I lined up the two recordings in Audacity for comparison. My initial impression was that the Yeti Pro has a much smoother, flatter response, whereas the standard Yeti had an audible mid high-end bump in Cardioid, picking up sibilant sounds more readily. Both mics at this bit rate and level seem to have the same self-noise level. My voice on both sounded similar, but the Pro was smoother.

In a test of the patterns, both mics performed equally as well in all patterns. On both mics, my least favorite pattern was the Figure 8. The rear lobe sounded hollow and not as dynamic as the front. I would not use this pattern for duets, as I felt the sound imbalance was too dramatic compared to the Omni and Stereo patterns. This did not change at higher bit rates.

Acoustic Guitar

Acoustic guitar tests were done at 16 bit, 48 kilohertz on the Standard Yeti, and on the Pro at 16/48, 24/96 and 24/192. The Standard sounded colored, with a high frequency bump that at times seemed harsh and unpleasant. The Pro sounded warmer, smoother and more like the guitar at all bit rates.

[The two samples below are 16-bit, 320kbps MP3s created from 16-bit, 48kHz WAVs, recorded simultaneously. The Standard Yeti file is first, followed by the Pro.]

Tambourine, Chimes

[The two samples below are 16-bit, 320kbps MP3s created from 16-bit, 48kHz WAVs, recorded simultaneously. The Standard Yeti file is first, followed by the Pro.]

Tests with the Pro at Higher Bit Rates

In this next test, I set the Yeti Pro to 24bit, 96-kHz rate. (The Standard Yeti remained at its highest-quality rate, 16/48.) Here is where the sonic differences became more pronounced. This is not surprising, because the Pro’s manual boasts the use of a higher-quality ADC, which “provides incredibly low distortion, high fidelity, and balanced frequency.” This statement is much truer than the provided frequency graphs. Even though the levels were carefully set, I noticed slight differences with each Yeti on the playback waveform. I attribute this to how each mic responds to different frequencies: the Standard Yeti attenuates the mid high-to-high frequencies, thus being louder here and offering more distortion and coloring.

Both mics have about the same amount of self-noise, which is very low. Voice tests with the Pro provided a richer, smoother sound in Cardioid, much like a larger-diaphragm condenser in my opinion. The Standard started to show its armor chinks here. The audible high frequency ring on the guitar test was still there, and individual plucks of the strings sounded colored and slightly distorted. The Pro sounded like the actual guitar, which has flaws, but it sounded real, exactly like the guitar with no coloring, especially at the highs.

[Download comparison WAV files: here.]

I noticed the most distinctive differences between the two mics on voice tests. The Standard was not as warm sounding; sibilance was much more pronounced. The Pro sounded warmer, more like a professional condenser microphone. I also noticed more self-noise with the Standard Yeti here.

Yeti Pro – Analog Tests

The Yeti Pro’s ability to output both analog (via XLR) and digital (USB) makes it even more appealing. It sounds great, going through a console to an external ADC. The ability to record in stereo is an added plus. My voiceover and instrument tests proved to me that it is a worthy opponent to more-expensive large-diaphragm mics.

The mic’s noise level in analog is also very low, and the apparent gain of the mic goes up substantially. Whereas in USB, I was using maximum gain, the analog output requires only a moderate amount of preamp gain.

Another benefit of using the analog output is the ability to use the EQ, pads, and filters on your console or channel strip, as you would with any analog microphone.

The Pro’s Mute button and headphone amp do not work when using the analog output.

As with all condenser mics, the Pro requires Phantom power.

Final Conclusions

I prefer the Yeti Pro to the Yeti. In fact, I liked the mic so much, I decided to buy it.

There is really not much you can’t do with this microphone. I have nicknamed mine the “Proteus,” after the Greek god of the sea, who could change his appearance at will. That describes the Pro in a nutshell.

If you are doing podcasts, or any less-demanding recording, or you don’t have a console and don’t want to invest in one, stick with the Standard Yeti, as you are not going to benefit as much from the Pro. However, if you want to shell out an extra $100.00, you will be getting a much better mic all around.

matthew mcglynn

Without question, the quality of inexpensive microphones has skyrocketed in the past 10 years. Most every mic company has a handful of entry-level choices now, and most of them sound pretty damn good. At least some of the time.

But which ones sound the best for the sources you most need to record? We decided to find out.

Aaron Lyon, a multi-instrumentalist, engineer, and producer based in Chico, CA, tested seven sub-$200 condensers on guitar and voice. If you’re shopping for your first condenser mic, or an inexpensive workhorse that won’t be embarrassed out of your mic locker, read on for Aaron’s review.

The Condenders

We strictly enforced a $200 (street price) cutoff. We initially included only large-diaphragm mics, but relaxed this rule to allow the Blue Spark and Audio-Technica AT2035, whose capsules use diaphragms just smaller than the 25mm minimum for the “large-diaphragm” designation.

It is worth noting that all these microphones were made in China.

The MXL 2003A is a second-generation version of MXL’s classic inexpensive LDC. Revised extensively in 2009, the current (“A”) version features a flatter frequency response and lower self-noise, thanks to new capsule tuning and updated electronics.

The AKG Acoustics Perception 220 is a fixed-Cardioid LDC with a -20dB pad and a high-pass filter.

The Shure PG42 brings Shure’s famous standards for reliability to an inexpensive, imported LDC. It has a pad and filter.

The Studio Projects LSM was designed by Brent Casey for Studio Projects. It is unique among this lineup for providing both XLR and USB outputs; the onboard ADC is capable of 16-bit, 48-kHz resolution. This is the smallest mic in the lineup.

The Blue Microphones Spark, uniquely among these microphones, has dual voices. The onboard “Focus” switch incorporates a high-pass filter as well as other tonal changes (which you can hear in the samples below).

The Audio-Technica AT2035, unlike other microphones here, uses an electret capsule with a very thin diaphragm (2 microns). It provides a pad and high-pass filter.

The SE Electronics X1 comes in a bare-bones presentation (no shockmount, no case), implying that all the value of the mic is inside the microphone — where, frankly, it should be. Like many mics here, it has a pad and HPF.

Summary of Specifications

(Click the thumbnail photos to see full specifications.)

	2003A	AT2035	LSM	Percep. 220	PG42	Spark	X1
Street	$169	$149	$120	$179	$199	$150	$169
Capsule	~34mm	26mm	34mm	~32mm	35mm	25mm	n/a
Sensitivity	7.1	22	25	18	17.8	28	25.1
Self-Noise	11	12	16	16	18	10	16
Pad	no	-10dB	no	-20dB	-15dB	no	-10dB
HPF	yes	yes	no	yes	yes	yes	yes
Shockmount	yes	yes	no	yes	yes	yes	no
Case	no	no	no	yes	yes	wood	no
Gain Settings (in +dB)
Cab	44	19	27	21	26	22	24
Acoustic	53	33	45	33	37	~41	44
Vocals	43	22	30	24	26	25	27

Audio Files

Acoustic Guitar

[Download the 24-bit WAV files from the acoustic session here.]

Electric Guitar (Reamped)

Vocals

The Review

The mischievously named sEX1 is indeed sexy in it’s “none more black,” rubberized enclosure. It feels good to the touch, like a suede shoe. The mic stand mount presents a bit of a puzzle, because there is obviously only one way to attach it to the base of the microphone, but it’s such tight fit, it requires a significant and muscular effort to snap on. However, once installed, the friction fit is an excellent design that allows precise rotation, with a satisfying mechanical feel.

The Blue Spark’s orange body is bold and attractive, but our review unit was loose and rattled when manipulated. And its mounting hardware would not thread onto the mic stand, while all the others had no trouble.

The SP Little Square Mic, with its compact rectangular package, is a visual standout, and begs to be dropped in a back pocket. It is the only model with an integrated USB output.

For this shootout, all tracks were recorded via built-in microphone preamps of an MOTU 828 mk3 interface into Digital Performer at 24bit/44.1KHz. Levels were adjusted roughly to peak around -6dB (see spreadsheet for mic-by-mic details). No processing. Exported as uncompressed WAV. [... which we then converted to 320kbps MP3 after gain-matching. --Ed.]

A note for listeners: While the parallel walls in my home studio have been acoustically treated, the ceiling and floor have not, and this causes a boost at 137Hz. I often cut this frequency by 6dB when mixing.

To keep the samples as consistent as possible, I recorded electric guitar once, then played it back for each set of microphones. I played an Agile AL-3000 with stock pickups and Elixir strings, plugged directly into a MOTU mic preamp. This performance was then routed out of the MOTU into a 1983 Marshall JCM 800 2203 head, and into a 2×12 Avatar cabinet with Eminence Man O War and Texas Heat speakers. No effects or reverb were used. Mics were placed three feet away, three feet above floor, and the curtains were left open for added reflections.

Next I played a Lariveé J-05 jumbo acoustic guitar with Elixir strings, finger style (no pick), with mics 12 inches away, pointed at 12th fret.

Finally, for voice, I sang the first verse of Thirst for Romance by Cherry Ghost, 18'' from the microphones.

The most obvious difference in microphones is not a good one. The MXL requires far more gain, and exhibits a much higher noise floor than the other mics. It also sounds congested in the higher frequencies, most noticeable on voice, making this my least-favorite mic.

On voice, the SP seems a little bright, and lacks “chest.” The Shure, AT, and SE seem well balanced and otherwise unremarkable. However, on acoustic, the SP does a great job of featuring the top end string shimmer, while preserving the lower end as well. I would choose the SP to feature the acoustic as a “forward” instrument. Alternatively, the AKG was warm and well balanced, and I would choose this mic to push the acoustic back into a supporting role.

On acoustic, the Blue Spark sounds best in my studio with its Focus control engaged. This option scoops the lower mids a bit, helping clear up the bottom end.

For electric guitar, each mic has a different take on the mid frequencies, making the mics easy to distinguish in this area. The AT focuses mids very deliberately, making it the most colored mic, and bringing the guitar much more forward. AKG, again, provides a nice balanced tone. The Blue Spark, with Focus disengaged, sounds the most like what the room actually sounds like to my ears. The Shure captures more of the room ambiance, which might be nice in a mix, but fails to handle the mids well, sounding a bit boxy.

The Best Entry-Level Condensers

With the exception of the MXL 2003A, all of the tested mics deliver acceptable performance given the price point, and qualify as useful studio tools.

Overall, I’d choose the AKG Perception 220 as the best all-around mic. It was consistently mellow and well-balanced, with an honest top end, making it a reliable and flexible tool.

My favorite colored mic is the Studio Projects LSM, which has a brighter, slightly hyped top end, perfect for pushing instruments to the front of a mix, while exhibiting a solid lower end as well.

matthew mcglynn

Six of these microphones were provided by their respective manufacturers for the purposes of this evaluation. We don’t get to keep them.

The 7th mic was purchased at full retail price because AKG is annoyingly unresponsive to requests for evaluation loans.

We have no affiliation with AKG, Audio-Technica, Blue, MXL, sE Electronics, Shure, Studio Projects, or MOTU; we received no compensation for this review.

In Part II, we go in-depth to hear these same mics (plus two more) on voiceover/podcasting. Part III (due sometime in early January) will cover drum overhead(s).

We’ve provided the 24-bit WAV files from the acoustic guitar session so you can do some closer listening. I’d love to know what you hear, because a lot of these mics sound pretty similar to me!

The AnaMod concept is a unique one, and not something that people necessarily understand immediately. This film tells the story of the meeting of minds, when Gualtieri understood Amels’ idea and gave it legs. I was personally blown away when I tested the ATS-1 tape simulator for Resolution Magazine, and similarly the AM670 Fairchild, so much so that I recently bought one. So accurate is the modelling that we learn in the film that reversing the phase of the reference unit to the AnaMod cancels the audio to 65dB. But I’m getting ahead of myself…

This 104 minute long film by Alain le Kim is part of the Soundstrips series which I was previously unaware of. The series is subtitled “tales and secrets of the audio world,” and there are currently eight titles. This one, like the rest of the series, is a mere $29 plus $7 shipping through PayPal, and the others certainly tackle some similarly interesting subjects.

The start of the film is immediately intriguing, with the camera panning around a cluttered ramshackle studio session in what looks like a garage studio, with drummer and vintage Baldwin organist readying themselves for a take. Wonderfully, it turns out to be Amels at the organ, doing the music for the film end titles! You can see a little of this on a YouTube taster [scroll down to see the clip --Ed.]. At the outset, I got the feeling this film was going to have something of a homemade quality to it. But this is no home movie, with generally very high production values and exceptionally good editing. The shooting is good, and the sound excellent. There is a proper Chapter menu for locating different sections, and even optional French subtitles.

The film spends more time with Amels than Gualtieri. We get all the background of Amels’ upbringing and musical and electronic grounding (no pun intended). But thankfully not all in one go. The story is cleverly interweaved and alternated with other aspects of the AnaMod story, which keeps the film interesting. We hear amusing anecdotes, for example that Amels used to count in binary to send himself to sleep! By the early 80s he was recording his band The Stepford Husbands (great name!) on a Teac tape machine, and not long after that he graduated to working in professional studios.

After about 20 minutes the focus moves to Gualtieri, and we get to see his basement and find out a little more of how the design process works, and what makes him tick. Like Amels, he has a background as a musician. He too developed an electronics expertise, and we hear about the Pendulum Audio philosophies and we see his studio with his own prototypes, and his self-built console originally constructed in the 1970s.

We get invited to Dave’s house party, meet his pets and learn about his production and musical tastes. We see his Electronics magazine collection where we learn about his inspiration for the AnaMod idea having come from early ideas for analogue computing. I’d never heard of Chebyshev polynomials before, I must confess.

The film could have turned out very self-conscious and/or rather tedious, but through the skill of the film-maker, and the especially likeable and chilled-out main characters, one is drawn into related areas of their lives. Amels chats to the interviewer (whose voice we never hear) whilst driving across to see his brother-in-law who co-founded Voce, and you feel like you are in the car with him. Le Kim is clearly good at putting his subjects at ease. He also cleverly pulls together relevant interview segments recorded at different times to make sense of the story. There are a few ‘in-car’ sequences which help give a sense of place.

A real treat for me was seeing Amels show us all kinds of wonderful vintage and rare keyboard instruments like his Optigan, RMI Calliope and Ondes Martenot, even though the latter and many others don’t actually get powered on in the film. We also see that Amels has a dismantled work-in-progress Captain Scarlet style wraparound Helios console in the back of his garage, in the process of being rebuilt for Lenny Kravitz.

I thoroughly enjoyed the film, it’s something to watch with geeky friends, and having seen it, I know I’ll enjoy using my AM670 all the more, knowing the love of music and sense of professionalism which drove the design and manufacture.

matthew mcglynn

George Shilling is a musician, engineer, and producer, whose 25-year career includes work with Slade and Steve Winwood. He teaches master classes in music technology, and writes for Resolution Magazine. Visit George online at www.georgeshilling.com.

Disclosure: George’s copy of the AnaMod documentary DVD was a gift.

You can buy one for yourself direct from the filmmaker for $29, via Soundstrips.com.

See the full series of Soundstrips documentary DVD reviews:

• The Bock Audio Menu (David Bock)
• Manley: Tubes Rule (EveAnna Manley)
• Crane Song: Superior Sound (Dave Hill)
• Little Labs Life (Jonathan Little) – coming soon!

Michael was feeling under the weather on the day of the session, but he came out nonetheless and played like a champion for the two hours it took us to cycle through 18 ribbon microphones. You can hear them all blind, below, including the rear side of the R84, R121, and KSM313.

Setup and Signal Path

Michael sat in the center of a large room with a 12' cathedral ceiling. We positioned the microphones 12–14 inches away, side-by-side (as close together as possible), pointed at the 12th fret. Mic positions were marked with a string jig to ensure consistent placement.

We recorded two microphones per pass, to save time and reduce artist fatigue. All passive ribbons were amplified by a pair of True Systems P-Solo Ribbon preamps (graciously loaned by Tim Spencer and Sennheiser USA). Active ribbons needed much less gain and were therefore not likely to be colored by my built-in DAW preamps (the aforementioned BLA-mod Digi 002-Rack). We tracked this session at 24-bit, 48 kHz.

Michael played a short melody on two guitars (erm, one at a time), through each pair of microphones. The first guitar was a Taylor, and the second was a vintage Mossman.

Michael Capella

The guitar on the right is a 1975 “S.L Mossman” Tennessee Flat Top. It has a dreadnought body style, mahogany back and sides, sitka spruce top, and ebony fingerboard. I purchased it new in May of 1976 in Aptos, CA, for $400 and have played it ever since.

The other guitar is a 2000 Taylor 614CE. It has a Grand Auditorium body with cut-away, maple back and sides, sitka spruce top and ebony fingerboard. The Grand Auditorium body is smaller and thinner than a dreadnought. I purchased it new in January, 2001. It has been my main gigging guitar the past 10 years.

I use light gauge (.012 to .054) Elixir polyweb strings on both guitars.

The audio tracks embedded below are from the Taylor. These tracks have been high-pass filtered (-12dB/octave @ 120 Hz) to reduce proximity effect and rumble. I gain-matched the filtered tracks in Pro Tools, output 24/48 WAV files, and converted to 320 kbps MP3s via lame.

Download the full-resolution, unfiltered WAV files for both guitars: 22 mics x 2 guitars = 44 tracks total, here.

Audio Files

Listening Notes

Yes, the chair squeaked. Don’t they all?

Michael’s playing is remarkably consistent in tempo and volume across all these tracks. Yet there are subtle performance differences. Rather than risk attributing these to the relative abilities of the microphones, I first listened to the playback by pairs. In many cases found the pairs of mics to sound much more similar than I expected.

Take the MF65 (#5) vs. KSM353. I had a hard time distinguishing these two. Both sound beautiful, with a balanced tone, very smooth highs, and just enough growl to make the chords authoritative. On the Taylor tracks, I think you could punch one in for the other and not notice the change.

The 4038 and R-121 also sound very similar. I can distinguish these when I solo back and forth, but it’s a subtle change. Both of them are brighter than the first pair, and both come across as a little more unrestrained for this reason.

The third pair I tried, the KSM313 (rear) and Cascade Vin-Jet, presents more contrast. The KSM313 sounds mid-forward, and has more definition on top. But the Vin-Jet reaches an octave lower. Which works best depends on all the usual factors: the guitar, the song, the needs of the production.

There is an audible contrast between the R-121 (rear) and Sigma, as well. The latter is a bit veiled, as if the top had been rolled off. The transients are still there, but they’re muted. This is the Sigma’s characteristic “vintage” sound. The back side of the R-121 is brighter, giving more definition to each string, and a more open sense to the strummed parts.

Comparing the Karma K6 to the Audio-Technica AT4080 isn’t really fair, because of the price differential. I have a strong preference for the AT4080. The K6 has a constricted, two-dimensional quality, whereas the AT4080 sounds more natural, more lively, and more real. In fact the AT4080 somehow emphasizes transients, resulting in a surprisingly dynamic track. (I heard this effect in the second drum session too.) Unfortunately, the AT4080 picked up the sound of someone’s iPhone at the end of the clip — you’ll hear the characteristic distortion. (The Mossman track, in the WAV archive, does not suffer from this problem.)

Listening across pairs, there are some interesting comparisons, like the Vin Jet vs. the Shinybox 46U. These microphones share a basic ribbon geometry, but use different transformers and grilles. The Vin Jet reaches much lower, probably due to the Lundahl transformer, and needs that high-pass filter in a way that the 46U does not. The 46U has a nice chimey top end that complements these guitars, but due to its leaner low end lacks impact on the strummed section.

The Royer R-101 and Cascade Fathead provide another interesting comparison. Both are mid-forward. The R-101, like the 46U, is lean on the low end, producing less proximity effect. And it has an interesting sound that I have a hard time describing: it sounds present, without much ambiance, with a sort of compressed quality that keeps the transients from poking out.

Your Turn

I’d like to know what you hear. Just one request: please don’t preface your comment with “I listened to these over my laptop’s built-in speakers,” because I think everyone will stop reading at that point.

Pair Listing

• Cascade Fat Head, Roer R-101
• Cloud JRS-34, Samar MF65 #6
• Shure KSM353, Samar MF65 #5
• Shure KSM313 (rear), Cascade Vin-Jet
• Coles 4038, Royer R-121 (front)
• AEA R84 (front), Coles 4050
• AEA R84 (rear), beyer M-130
• Karma K6, Audio-Technica AT4080
• Sontronics Delta, Shinybox 46U
• Sontronics Sigma, Royer R-121 (rear)

Disclosures and Thanks

We have no affiliation with AEA, Audio-Technica, beyerdynamic, Cascade, Cloud, Coles, Karma, Royer, Samar, Sennheiser USA, Shinybox, Shure, Sontronics, TnC, True Systems, nor their distributors. Most of the microphones in this test, and the P-Solo Ribbon preamps, were loaned to us for evaluation purposes. Unfortunately, we don’t get to keep them.

I owe Michael Capella a great deal of gratitude and maybe dinner, too, for donating his time for this session. Thank you, Michael!

Wrapping It Up

Find the previous sessions of the big ribbon shootout:

• $60,000 Ribbon Mic Shootout (intro)
• List of Ribbon Microphones Tested
• Guitar Cab Session 1: Fender
• Guitar Cab Session 2: Marshall
• Drum Overhead Sessions
• Saxophone Session
• Voiceover Session
• 24-bit audio file archive

There is one last piece of this marathon yet to come, a final wrap-up in which we’ll recount some lessons learned and name a few standout microphones. Stay tuned.