[b]unbiased[/b] mic reviews

[eeldip]

www.hr-faq.org

being built right now. and aimed at those on a really tight budget.

[wrenhunter]

Why should someone spend the time to write a review on something they don't like?

Gosh, if Oscar Wilde had felt the same way, we'd have missed out on the immortal line, "Your work is both original and good. Unfortunately, the parts that are original are not good, and the parts that are good are not original."

Seriously, I think negative reviews (of mics, movies, junky cars) are just as valuable as positive ones, if not more so. In fact, I get suspicious of sources that only have good reviews. Are they afraid to offend someone?

Isn't the idea of a review to choose something you don't know, check it out, and then report your findings? To my mind, this is a separate question from bias, which I agree is unavoidable.

[Bear]

I agree. Negative reviews are important. If every review you ever read was positive, it would make the very idea of a review moot.

And for $29, I would definitely get some 219's, Steve. They may not change your life, but they're worth having, IMO. I really like the Oktava's on certain stuff.

[cgarges]

Thanks Joel. I try.

Like I said, I'd be happy to write a negative review. Seeing as how I A.) don't get paid for writing for Tape Op, and B.) spend my own money on the review products, I just haven't felt like taking my time to inform everyone about a product that I happen not to like. I promise, the next thing that I buy and hate, I'll be sure to review.

Chris

[angryaudio]

[ahem] I'll be brief. Reviews are a touchy matter, and there is a tremedous amount of behind-the-scenes politics that goes into them (i.e. which products get reviewed, who is reviewing them, the wording, etc.). The magzines that run these reviews are supported by the people that advertise in them. And those people are ... wait for it ... gear manufacturers. Do the math.

AA

[cgarges]

I think what you write makes sense. I can't speak for the other writers, but I CAN truly say that this is NOT the case with all Tape Op reviews. I have nothing to do with the publication or advertising of that magazine (except that I gave my OK for a subscription renewal). Many products reviewed there were made by companies that no longer exist! That's on eof the many reasons why I love Tape Op.

Chris

[ozraves]

mojopie.com got started with the exact premise you're talking about. And they wanted to trash some gear. They got started last fall and have yet to do that. The reality of it is that it's a waste of time, space and energy to trash gear. And, as it turns out, is much more biased than just writing a positive review about some gear that you're stoked about.

Stuff that sucks just falls through the cracks. Believe me, you don't have to waste your time on it.

dan, actually i've got a couple things that are pretty trashy in the pipeline. however, i think it's more useful to put up a review that tells what a piece of gear will and will not do. even the manufacturers tell us that we're kind of alone on that point.

steve
www.mojopie.com

[stevemoss]

Productive night at the grand opening of the Albany Guitar Center... got an Oktava MK219 for $29, and a Bellari tube pre for $49. While neither's really top of the heap, I recorded my last disc a track at a time solely with an SM57 copy (on which I spent almost exactly as much as these 2 pieces), so I figure having this stuff as an available option will be good.

Also got to meet Eddie Kramer, who they had hanging out as a surprise guest. Chatted for a few minutes about some of his great photos - I felt like too much of a chump to talk sound with him, and he seemed pleasantly surprised to discuss his shots.

There was a rather long wait to get inside, but the chance to oggle some of the Hawaiian Tropic girls who were handing out t-shirts while we waited on line was nice.

[Dot]

Well, my position is that I have tons of gear to review and a limited amount of time and a limited amount of reviews I can do. Too be honest, I'm only interested in the cream of the crop - the best products and the best price vs performance ratio. There's a team of several engineers and producers and three studios here who all check this stuff out. We all talk and pow wow and tell each other what we like and what we don't. Sometimes one of us will see something in a product that the others hadn't. Based on my findings and talking with the other engineers, I decide what I'm going to review. I have no pressure from Digital Pro Sound or Digital Media Net to review anything. I can write whatever I want. I'm one of the editors.

Reviewing a film isn't really the same thing as reviewing gear. You pay your $7 or get comped or whatever, you go in and watch. If you don't like it, you can give it a thumbs down. You have no responsibility to maintain or even have a relationship with the company who makes the films. As a reviewer, part of the dance is maintaining relationships with the manufacturers.

I'll tell you one thing: if you trash a product from a manufacturer you may find it difficult in the future to get other products from them. And that to me is cutting yourself off at the nose. Because if I can't continue to get products from everybody, then after a while, I am ineffective at what I do as a reviewer because I don't have a complete picture of what's on the market.

I tell all the manufacturers up front that if I don't like a product I just won't review it. I won't trash it either. I may or may not be one of the better gear reviewers ? that's for the readers to decide ? but there's no one on the entire planet who gets their hands on the amount of review gear I do. And because of that, I can offer what I feel is an educated and experienced POV when it comes to selecting the best gear to review and recommend.

I've seen enough cases of my giving an enthusiastic recommendation to a product that then helps that product to start flying off the shelves. I derive great satisfaction from that. The manufacturer that makes the product makes profits to then generate more great products, and the consumers are getting something they're all jazzed about. I dig that.

[ozraves]

Those scathing commentaries I promised earlier are now up:

www.mojopie.com

[cgarges]

I LOVE the Harvey Gerst photo.

Chris

[endofanera]

Reviewing a film isn't really the same thing as reviewing gear. You pay your $7 or get comped or whatever, you go in and watch. If you don't like it, you can give it a thumbs down. You have no responsibility to maintain or even have a relationship with the company who makes the films. As a reviewer, part of the dance is maintaining relationships with the manufacturers.

I dunno about this. Most reviewers work for some kinda media outlet. These media outlets rely in part on lucrative advertising from film companies, and also have incestuous relationships (see "synergy") with those same companies. And taken from the perspective of the individual reviewer, access to advance screenings of the movies is important to making deadlines. Ive never written film reviews, but I have written lots of CD reviews and I know that getting those advance copies is central to having a timely review. While the cost of the CD or movie is minimal compared to the gear you're reviewing, that's not as important to those kind of reviews as *when* you get the media in question. I imagine if you made a habit as a film critic of consistently slamming major releases by a studio, your name would drop lower on the advance screening invite list, and your worth to your employer would also drop.

Kinda beside the central point of this thread, but I think the dance for most reviewers is pretty much the same.

[kayagum]

ozraves-

Thanks for posting your remarks on mojopie.com.... now I understand why everybody rags on the NT1 even though I love mine (I'm pretty sure I got one of the first ones).

A pox on every audio company that sends reviewers a souped up piece of gear, and surreptitiously swapping out for cheap parts for the masses (Presonus! I'm talking to you! Swapping out the Jensen transformers costed you several preamp purchase orders from me!)

[NewAndImprov]

ozraves-

Thanks for posting your remarks on mojopie.com.... now I understand why everybody rags on the NT1 even though I love mine (I'm pretty sure I got one of the first ones).

I think the studio I used to work at that had one also has an early one, because I was always pleasently surprised at how good it sounded. Now I feel bad about recommending it to so many people. Damn!

ozraves- loved the site, should have checked it out sooner. Keep it up!

[Harvey Gerst]

Here's a review I did of the Marshall line of microphones on January 12th, 2001. It was written for rec.audio.pro, but got picked up and quoted in a lot of newsgoups, magazines, and BBS groups. I think I pointed out some bad products and why I thought they were bad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex and I finally got around to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the testing was done formally, and it's all pretty subjective, but in talking to Brent Casey at Marshall, he pretty well confirmed what I heard, so I think my comments will be of some use to people here.

Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll off the assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms materials, the porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the line consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics (about the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson, Karl Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that Brent Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender in the mic market.

All the mics looked well made, and we had no problems with any of them, or the supplied shock mounts. Noise levels weren't a problem with any of the mics, although we didn't do any testing with really quiet instruments.

One of my concerns was consistancy from unit to unit. After we got the first batch, I had Brent send some extra units (off the shelf) so I could actually compare two units for possible differences. I'm happy to report that all the units I received were consistant and would do fine as stereo pairs.

All tests were done thru a Great River MP-2, with the microphone under test polarity reversed and nulled (to match initial levels), then normalled to do the actual comparison. We used the level controls on the GR to note differences in gain.

While I listened to the mics in the studio using headphones, Alex listened in the control room, using our main speakers (wall-mounted JBL-4311Bs, with a Cerwin Vega subwoofer). We compared notes and in almost every case, Alex and I agreed completely on the results (so we didn't hafta trust my "rock-n-roll shot ears").

The units we listened to included:

1 Marshall MXL "The Fox" hand-held dynamic.
1 Marshall MXL-1000 hand-held condensor
2 Marshall MXL-600 small condensor mics
2 Marshall MXL-603 small condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-2001 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-2003 large condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-V67 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-V77 tube large condensor mics

Comparison mics included:

1 Neumann TLM-103
2 matched Oktava MC012s w/cardioid capsules
1 Lomo M3 large condensor mic on MC012 body
1 Shure SM-7 dynamic
1 Shure SM-58 dynamic
1 Nady SCM-1000 multi-pattern condensor

The results:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mics we didn't like:

Marshall MXL-2001 $130?? Sorry, I can't find the MSRP right now. Harsh top end, thin bottom, compared to the TLM-103. It was a little warmer than the Nady SCM-1000, but the Nady had a smoother top end. The 2001 is everything that I don't like about all the really inexpensive large diaphragm condensor mics that I've listened to over the years, including the AKG C3000, the Oktava 219, and some of the early AT low cost units.

Marshall MXL-600 $270 Veiled top end and exaggerated low-mid, compared to the Oktava MC-012. About 1 dB lower output than the Oktava. It just sounded very dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.

The mics we did like:

The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people having a few around for live gigs.

Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.

(The lack of proximity effect that I noted in an earlier report about the 2003, was due to me accidently hitting the bass rolloff switch while I was putting it in its shock mount. When I noticed normal proximity effect with a second unit, I discovered my screwup.)

Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.

Marshall MXL 1000 $99 This was the hand-held condensor mic that Marshall was pushing as a KM-105. It totally sucked as a hand-held vocal mic. Brent Casey suggested I try it without the end ball, and I discovered it was basically the 603 in a Shure-type body. Without the ball end fucking up the sound, it was identical in sound to the 603.

Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect). It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.

Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks, and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103, with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67. And it just happens to sound great, too.

The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).

Well, that's the results - it wasn't a fancy test, and YMMV, but overall, I think it might be helpful to some people, especially if you're a "bottom feeder" studio as we are. As I mentioned earlier, Brent said that our tests pretty much agreed with his findings, and that at least confirmed that we were all hearing pretty much the same things.