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!
Wow, I am kind of shocked. I think Avantone is definitely the winner. Not sure if it's just my device, but the Neumans seem to have this strange ugly dry reflection haunting the mid-to-uppers. :o just my 2cents!
Would be interesting to record another video and CHANGE the names of the microphones so your brain doens't really know wich one is expensive or cheap. I'm pretty sure, if you don't say ANYTHING, a lot of people would still love the "expensive ones" just because they're expensive. We did a lot of experiments in the studio back in days with Braunner VM1, U47, Cad Equiteq E-300, U87 with experimented engineers and you would be surprised how many times they were wrong thinking "oh this is the U47" but it was the U87 and the same with others... At the end of the day, it's all about taste and needs!
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.
Would be great to have a similar vocal mic shoot out with mics in the $300 - $600 range, including the CV-12, Blue BlueBird, and any others that are more suited for a recreational market. Though its nice to hear these higher end microphones at work, a presentation of more affordable mics is probably a more realistic review for anyone looking to purchase one. Great editing structure by the way!
I purchased the CV-12...love it! Of course, the Neuman really has that special something in the mid-highs, a dream mic...but I don't have 10K to spend on a mike. I thought the AKG sounded a little but "brittle", until it was in the mix, where it surprised me. The Kiwi was really nice, too...but considering all factors, I would, and did, pick the CV-12 over all the others...
I wish you had given us more time to listen to each microphone's take so we could hear a bit more of the nuances. For me the M49, Kiwi, and CV12 were the standouts. The M49 was amazing on this singer. In my personal experience, the CV12 can sound a little thin, on a bigger or warmer vocal. I've used the Kiwi and it does it's own thing which always seems to leave the track feeling polished. The U87 is beautifully neutral. I wish I could have heard a longer take on the C12. I couldn't get the full picture of how it sounded on her voice from the small clips. Thanks for the shoot out. Very cool.
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
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!
Super impressed by the cv12. I've been working with the Bock 151 and the flea 47 as well as the flea c12 clones at the studio I work at and i'd really like to get my hands on that cv12.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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
The Avantones sound very respectable here, but the more expensive mics do show why they are that way. I especially loved the smooth, velvety top end on the U87. And the Kiwi has a wonderful clarity and brightness without a trace of brittleness. They're in another class, but the gap isn't huge. The cheap stuff keeps getting better.
Nice shootout. M249 is my favorite, though the Avantones held up well at a fraction of the cost. The Kiwi wasn't bad either if you need a ton of brightness and beyond natural air.
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.
Amazingly how similar these different mics sound in final result. That makes me think that we often exaggerate mic differences. When shootouts done right mics are not that different, more often than not the differences are resulted from differences of performance, placement, etc. Secondly post processing adds more color. So the question: why do we (including myself) pay that much attention, money to mics?
Good questions Andrew! But I think when you get used to hearing the nuances you will definitely hear clear difference! Every mic has a characteristic that either worlds or not for a specific song or whatever. This is why engineers have so many. The Kiwi for example had too much ring for my tastes on her voice around 12K now that may change with a different Pre in the chain, or may be awesome for a different vocalist that needs that boost! So this is very subjective of course, but if you don't hear the difference in them, that may spell trouble as you try to mix the problems away with processing. I hope that helps!
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 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.
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.
My order would be M249, Kiwi, U87, C12 in the top 4. The Avantones didn't seem to have as much depth. Be interesting to see if a simple NOS tube swap could make the difference in those. Also, I interned at the studio used for vocal overdubs on Taylor Swift's Fearless record, and remember an M49 was set up. Not sure if it was for her or her producer doing background vocals but I also read the CV12 she does use has a different tube than stock.
from which mic you started to do the processing? :P also switching between those mics doesn't include every vocal range for each mic. is it possible to download wave files somewhere?
+Michal Sýkora If I understand your question correctly, do you mean which mic did I try to make all the others sound like? I never considered that. I took each mic and found a way to make it sit in the track, kind of "season to taste" per mic. I'm not sure you can EQ one mic to make it sound like another, just the inherent qualities of the mic's are different. If you pause during the section where I show the processing you'll notice the signal chain is pretty much common but the amounts and frequencies are different. It's a common vocal signal flow for me. A soft squishy LA-2A into a Pultec, into a fast Ren. Comp, (in the case of the BV12 into a Ren. EQ to scoop out some mud), and then everyone into an EMT plate and duel delay. Sorry, all the tracks are proprietary to the artist and myself. There's still a lot you can learn here. Cheers!
Great comparison. I really enjoyed the Kiwi and the Avantone CV12….in all honesty though over my Focals I was not impressed by the M249 and C12 at all. They sounded dead and slightly dimmer not even of a darker ribbon quality. I would keep the 10,000-20,000 over wasting money on the hype. Thanks again and the artist has a fantastic voice!
Would have loved to see a C800G or my baby, the Telefunken 251. That's not to say the C12 wasn't a good one. I find the C800G sounds a lot like a C12 anyway. I liked the 249 the best. It had an amazing presence.
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.
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.
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.
Im an engineer and producer I work with mostly urban rappers and r&b singers and I know as an engineer u should have more then one mic but I would like a very good decent mic that's well worth it and I'm having a very hard time choosing from the CV12 and BV12, reason is cause with the BV12 I hear it has very rich low end that's lovely but then I hear CV12 is winner cause of its highs and excellent low end and you cant go wrong, since u know these mics in person which would u prefer????
+Robert “Lil Rob” Anderson: CV12, all the way because its brighter. Brightness at the mic always sounds more natural than with EQ to me. The Sony C800 is a very popular rap mic. It's "bright and tight", in other words you can get right up on it without "folding it up" (the front capsule folding up into the back one) You can't work the CV12 anywhere near as close as the C800 but it has a similar brightness. Another suggestion that you can work tight is the Shure SM7. Of course the SM7 is a dynamic mic, totally different sound. You can't go wrong with having both a CV12 and an SM7 for rap.
if you pause the video when the sound waves from her vocals show on the screen to me the bv-12 had better shape then the c12 did impressive to me it even sounded better in the bottom end just goes to show with proper equipment the under dogs can rain supreme
Hmm, I'm not sure if you are referring to the end of the video where I show the processing on her voice or something on your browser's display, or something else, but if the later I would say what I do to my interns. Mix with your ears first and your eyes second. In other words, be more concerned about what it SOUNDS like over what it LOOKS like. Your ears are much more sensitive than the meters.
+DTG DRAKE Original Vintage AKG C12 is still unbeatable in many ways, it is very neat, overal balance, + warmt+ low-end just amazing. And it has so powerfull mojo, that unable to replicate until now! In a word - the BEST vocal mic ever (along with lovely U47).
Kuban Cossack the c12is beautiful no doubt but to me i listened with headphones and i just dont hear a 10,000 dollar difference but im sure to those with the ear to hear its difference would disagree but idk there all good and special in there own way to me there all professional enough to be in the industry
+DTG DRAKE Many well-known expensive microphones are good because they give you a guarantee of a good result in a very different situations. E.g. you can use C12 for opera singer, pop and rap. It always will be awesome, both for inexperienced audience, and for skilled pros too. I can't bet the same on the avantone. Offcourse, you can find realy amazing mic for your personal task 20 times cheaper. Headphones listening experience is very different from speaker listening, because it ruins stereo image, you can't see you recording as a layered picture, only as a set of frequencies. Hence, all the timbres presented very different way, 2d instead of 3d. So the important difference between mics is erased too, no matter what the headphones used. But, considering that half of Globe are listening in phones, this greatly simplifies the task for producers. Mics now is like color-box, sfx, you know. So, you absolutelly right, many mics costs around 500$ and higher might be used to make world-class recordings. Its quality level allows that, the difference is little and not obvious for inexperienced listener. Depends of what do you use your mic.
Kuban Cossack well to no the avatone will be good for singing and rap i do hiphop that sells me to make this my tube mic of choice and considering after the shootout what he said about the avatone sure its not to the m249 or akg c12 but for it to be compared and have good things said even when being compared says alot headphones arnt the best and i would listen if i had speakers to listen thru but sadly i dont but its impressive and i think the mic is important but possibly your signal chain means way more then the mic these days it seems like id spend my money in my interface and my preamp more then my mic but still have myself a decent mic to fullfill the quality of my signal chains
neumann m249 is the best, is far more harmonics, voice body, have a very nice harmonic distortion, and sound hotter than every mic, but unfortunately can not be used as the industry standard for having a vintage voice that does not match all the vocal and musical styles voices (these days), the neumann u-87 still in industry standard and is used by mostly current recorded , and I guarantee be even better and cheaper than the akg c-12(he current c-12 not the vintage), the neumann m249 was created in 1961, It is no longer produced by almost 50 years, and any current mic can´t sound better, belive me
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.
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.
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.
Important...your mic is important but you don't have to spend all those thousands of dollars for a high end vocal mic...you can put together a killer mic cabinet for all purposes and never spend over a thousand dollars for a mic...but also very important...upgrade ur converters
you're right i guess, but i have several mics that cost over $1500 a piece (from Shure brands to DPA), and i have the blue kiwi featured in the video. so i say this out of experience. the biggest improvement to your recording will be your converters, trust me on this bro. i use prism sound converters but before then i used all the entry level stuff by focusrite, then graduated to RME (which i'm very fond of) but when i switched over to Prism it was a major game changer, it affected how i mixed, the way a mix sounds, the plugins, the mics, monitors, mic pres...etc. so all i'm saying is go big on the converters you won't be sorry.
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.
The Avantone CV12 has the highest level of harmonic distortion...which is why it has a bit of sizzle...and why it cuts through the mix. It's not technically superior to the others...in fact it quite obviously technically inferior to the U87 in this test which has audibly lower distortion on this demonstration, but lower levels of distortion aren't always subjectively preferred by listeners...as the comments below indicate. I'd say the the Kiwi was the most disappointing on this demo. I personally thought the U87 was the best.
+Huxxy for all standard kind of music, yes it is, all beats and voices should sounds well, but the m249 in special for hot and body voice, is better, more harmonics and musical distortion
+Huxxy I agree. The Kiwi sounded harsh to me. The budget mics (the Avantones) held up well, but I preferred the U87 on her vocals (for a different singer all bets are off).
I have many high-end mics: U87, U67, U47fet, M149, and a few others. I find that the U87, when paired with a great preamp, works better than most mics 8 out of 10 times.
Musicgeek Matt I think so too! I prefer the newer ai after doing two comparisons. More high mid's and overall body. For a vocal application. U87ai ---> Neve 1073 ---> tube tech cl1b ---> world class converter. That's my favorite vocal chain. I think it would fit this singer perfectly (she is a good singer).
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..
