Idk if it's the audio quality but I can barely hear much of a different between most of these and I'm listening with Audeze LCD-X and an Apollo interface.
That was my main take away as well. By the time you add EQ, compression, reverb, delay etc and put it in the track they all will work. Of course everyone will have a preference as the comments show. I always say 'season to taste', that's what makes it work.
I think it's psychological to automatically contribute the highest note to the expensive mike, if we heard all the microphones without knowing which mike it is the outcome would have been different.
Hmm, completely unintentional. A mic does not sound different on higher notes than upon lower ones. It's the overall color it brings. Of course a singer certainly does so I can see your point.
There's this Swiss guy who does a shootout with ribbon mics, at first he tells you which brands he uses, you first listen to the different mics which are numbered randomly, it's only after you listen to all the mics he tells you which number belongs to which mic, that way you're not influenced by the brand and price. I wanted to buy a ribbon for recording a trumpet and trombone, I listened to his shootout because I wanted to buy an AEA R84 and he was testing it, I ended up not buying the AEA which was the most expensive of the lot, yet not the best sounding one for me.
C12 servicing? I'm not sure what makes you say that. Vintage mic's all sound slightly different due to age of tube, oxidation on capsule, etc. etc. You could record several C12's (or 47's or whatever vintage mic you want) back to back and they would all sound different.This one may sound different to the C12 you use, but there's nothing wrong with this mic..
Vintage. Lots of people like the 87 which surprises me a little. I've always thought of an 87 like the color of ceiling white. You always need some, but you wouldn't want to paint your whole house in it - just doesn't bring anything to the party. But with so many people liking it, I have to give it some props.
So amazingly close through You Tube/Sennheiser HD25s. The $ to quality curve has gotten really small and this is the typical end user location. In a studio with great monitors, you could no doubt hear more differences but this is where it ends up and thanks so much for your video. My wallet thanks you as well!
I think the biggest takeaway from this kind of video is that while there are definite differences in raw sound, once you add an EQ, de-esser, compressor and other processing, it's really a wash. You can compensate for just about any character of a microphone in post, the question is how much processing do you want to have to do? The more you spend (and the more you know about each mic's raw quality), the less you have to mess with the signal chain.
I completely agree. However, if you're adding tons of EQ/Comp across 80, 90 tracks, that's what can make your mix sound lifeless and boxed in. If you want your mix to sound open and have tons of depth, then you want the mic and a good pre to do that for you at the front of your signal flow. It's the cumulative effect of all that processing that messes things up. Listen to mixes by Al Schmidt, Bob Clearmountain, Frank Fillipetti etc. (all analog not in the box guys) to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
I was caught by surprise at how little the differences in the mics were. Clearly, with a vocalist of this caliber, her phrasing and mic placement might make bigger differences. In many cases, the mic changes were as seamless as different takes on the same mic would be. In my view, the outlier was the Blue mic. On my monitors, I actually didn't prefer the added presence. Overall, I had a slight preference for the M249. However, for the price, I was really taken with the smoothness of the Avantone BV12.
Neumann M249(exceptional in all regions) > Avantone BV12(A bit less clean in the mids compared to the Neumann but it was hard to distinct a difference. For the price/quality the Avantone BV12 is the best overall mic > Blue Kiwi (I like the bright-vocal pressence, It wins when used for acoustic-sessions. Although be careful with the gain.
it could be a bias caused by decades of hearing vocals recorded with neumanns but overall they seem to work really well for her...they get a little spitty at times but the tone is what works best on her voice to my ears...keep in mind, this is maybe a 2% margin in my estimation...they all sound really good
I think at one point the people Taylor was working with recorded her with a CV12. All the pictures I can find of her in the studio she's sitting in front of a U47.
Thank you for an excellent video comparison. The expensive mics were fantastic, my personal fave was the Neumann 249, but you did show that for a home studio, you don't need to spend a fortune to buy a pretty impressive sounding microphone. I had never heard of Avantone before so will check them out. Incidentally, I currently own a Blue Yeti Pro which sounds nice but the component quality is very poor and I would never recommend it. Cheers, Steve
From this shoot out, I like the Blue Kiwi. Rode K2 is my favorite tube mic. Change the tube with a vintage Siemens Jan and put three hi-fi tips under the transformer, it will sound like a $2,000 mic (better than my Neumann TLM 107 anyway).
So, regarding that Kiwi, you were supposed to take those 3 screws off before making this recording....thats not the true representation of the Blue Kiwi.
Seems like you didn't take the cap lock pins out of the kiwi. I have a Blue bottle with the B6, B7 and B0 caps and they have the three brass screw down pins for when the mic travels that you are supposed to remove before use. I see them in place in this video though I am not sure how much this might effect the sound, as the kiwi sounded just fine to me.
the m249 is in an entirely different category. one of the best sounding mics out there. u87 sounds the least desirable out of all of them. flat and boring. one thing i know for sure is that the avantone is an outstanding value for the money. in places the avantone sounded better than the original c12.
A fantastic comparison and very well done! I thought the KM 84 with its sheen and warmth would be my first choice, but in fact I preferred the KSM141. I understand it's replicated after the Schoeps CMC65. While evidently not identical, the KSM141 is still spectacular and a real steal. Thanks for taking the time to compare!
With a singer like her and the texture of her voice it was really hard to hear the difference in mics bcuz she can sing and no matter what mic you put in front of her she's gonna sound good. I will say her voice was least likable in my opinion running through the Avantone BV12 bcuz of the "dark" coloration. But again the texture of her voice was hard to differentiate the mics bcuz she has a good texture quality
For sure Sara is a great singer with a unique tone - no Autotune needed here. She has great studio chops with the ability to "perform" or get emotion in her voice just for the microphone. No audience need, she knows how to channel that inside. That talent takes time and a lot of studio work to develop.
nice i liked the sound of the Blue Kiwi too. AKG C12 was very nice but very expensive in order of the Blue Kiwi. I was wondering how these mic's will do with a BAE 1272 or through a 500 module preamp.
Greeeat shootout !!! Fantastic singer as well. I got stuck on the bv12 for this particular singers voice. Sounded most "ready from the get-go" to me. Kept the singers voice neutral, even and in the track most out of these mics I think. Also had a modern twang to it. All mics fantastic in their own right (except maybe the kiwi one, which I'd prefer for whispers and air). Thanks for blessing us with this educational piece!
Great video and perfect tips! If you have a minute, check out this lower price mics shootout with a good Preamp. (From $850 down) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FZauaScKQWM.html
I just bought an Avantone C12 and an AKG C2000 for recording my vocals. I'm a male singer in a Classic Rock Band. I have a decent range but the highs in my voice can sound really sharp and brittle through the wrong microphone. I've gotten a really decent sound "live" with a Sure Beta 58 and a Lexicon Rack Mountable reverb, but the studio vocals are a work in progress. I was using an MXL 990 and before that a Yeti. Initially these things sound great until you start trying to fit the vocals into the track, then the cheese really starts to show. :) I guess I'm just writing this because I'm amazed that more people don't talk about how bad these cheaper condenser mics actually are. I'm sure they all sound warm if your Nora Jones, but for the average singer the cheaper mics can often be a disaster. My SM 58 makes a MUCH better recording for my vocal than the MXL 990 or Yeti. However,the Yeti will record an entire drum kit like nothing you've ever heard. :) Thanks for posting the video. I can't wait to try out my new mics to see what they sound like.
wow great comparison! Thank you!!! All these mics are great in their own way. The u87 seemed a tiny bit more musical to me. Maybe I am just used to the U87 sound and prefer it but they all would get the job done.
Great shoot out. Thanks for your efforts!! Blue Kiwi has "transport screws" in place despite mic being put into use. Thought they were only used to stabilize capsule for shipping etc. Any thoughts on that? I'm a new owner of this mic model is how I know!! Cheers
