To Tell The Truth

Mar 1, 2000 12:00 PM, Brian Knave

When you need to record acoustic instruments, a pair of small-diaphragm condenser mics is all but indispensable. Large-diaphragm condensers are usually favored for vocals (among other things), but when tonal accuracy is the goal, smaller-diaphragm mics are often the better choice, thanks to the presence boosting and other coloration they typically provide. Not only do smaller-diaphragm designs generally offer a more linear frequency response, they also tend to respond more quickly and accurately to transients-a key element in conveying a sense of realism. For these reasons, small-diaphragm condensers are often designated "instrument" microphones. (They are also popular for 2-track live recording.)

Realism is also the motive behind having a matched pair of mics, which allows you to record in stereo. (For a discussion on matched pairs, see the sidebar "Match, Anyone?") With certain mic-placement techniques (for example, coincident or near-coincident), stereo miking can greatly augment the sense of realism by capturing the spatial cues-width, height, and depth-that our ears normally glean. Stereo miking can also be used simply to bolster the sound by picking up different frequency content from the source-for example, a spaced pair on an acoustic guitar, with one mic positioned near the 12th fret to capture lows from the sound hole and highs from the strings, and the other aimed at the bo dy to pick up more woody warmth and midrange.

Clearly, for recordists looking to expand their microphone palette, a pair of small-diaphragm condenser mics are a smart buy. But the question is, as always, Which ones are the best choices? We found more than 30 models currently available-a formidable array to choose from. But some of those mics were prohibitively expensive, and others, like the venerable Shure SM81, are well-known elements (no pun intended) with which many engineers and recording musicians are already familiar. So we whittled our list down to a manageable number of models-eight-in the hope of shedding some light on these unsung transducer heroes.

"If I Had My choose"

With so many mics to choose from, the selection process was difficult. Fortunately, our overall mission was clear from the start. First, we wanted to focus on affordable mics, but without limiting ourselves to the cheapest available. So we set our maximum price at $600 (U.S. retail), reasoning that anything above that figure would be more than most of our readers are willing or able to spend. Nevertheless, we decided to pass (at the manufacturer’s request, in some cases) on a few mics costing less than $300 each, on the grounds that such units often are fraught with compromises in materials, workmanship, or both–and are probably put together overseas by cheap labor, to boot.

Familiarity was another consideration, in the sense that we chose to focus on newer or lesser-known mics, if only for the sake of fair coverage. That means we intentionally shied away from microphones made by the big and familiar manufacturers, including AKG, Audio-Technica, Beyerdynamic, Electro-Voice, Sennheiser, Shure Brothers, and the rest. We also excluded mics that have already received coverage in EM (such as the Neumann KM 184 and the Crown CM-700), with one notable exception–the Earthworks SR77. We included the SR77 for a couple of reasons: one, because of its atypical design (it employs an exceptionally small diaphragm), and two, because it was our 2000 Editors’ Choice for small-diaphragm condenser mic. Having given it this award, we were curious to see how the SR77, which we knew from experience to be very accurate, would compare to the other mics.

EAst meets west

What began to emerge at this point in the selection process was a kind of East-meets-West theme, which we found intriguing. There were three "Eastern bloc" mics: the Microtech Gefell M300 (eastern Germany), and the Elation KM201 and Oktava MC012 (both from the former Soviet Union). And three mics qualified, more or less, for a "Made in USA" designation: the AM30, from GT Electronics (a division of Alesis Corporation), the Audix SCX-one, and the Earthworks SR77.

We expanded the East-West theme a bit with the addition of two other mics we were curious about–one West German, the MBHO MBNM 440 C-L, and the other British made, the Hebden Sound CM1050C. But the question still loomed in our minds: Would there be quantifiable sonic differences between mics made in the United States (as well as the two other "free-market" nations) and those made in countries that until relatively recently were separated from the rest of the world–and its technology–by the Iron Curtain?

Common Ground

Like "large diaphragm," the descriptor "small diaphragm" gets tossed around a lot but is rarely defined. Then again, maybe that’s the beauty of it. Though typically used to refer to diaphragms a half-inch in diameter or smaller, the term’s inexactness allowed us some latitude–in this case, to include the Microtech Gefell M300 and the GT Electronics AM30, both of which employ a 3Ú4-inch diaphragm. (The other mics have 1Ú2-inch diaphragms except for the Earthworks SR77, at 3Ú8 inch.)

More important than diaphragm size, of course, is the purpose of the microphone. All of those tested here are intended primarily as instrument mics, which is reflected in the fact that each one is front-address (whereas large-diaphragm condensers typically are side-address). Also, most of these mics are relatively small and slender, facilitating easy positioning in tight spaces.

One of the mics tested here, the Earthworks SR77, is an "electret" style condenser (that is, it has a fixed-charge, back-plate permanently polarized capacitor); all the others are "true" condensers. The more we researched this distinction, the more we came to believe that it didn’t matter for the purposes of this article. Of course, being condensers, all of these mics require standard 48V phantom power.

As for polar pattern, five of the mics are fixed-cardioid, while the others are modular in design and come with a cardioid capsule. We tested all of the mics in cardioid, which is the pattern most commonly used for the applications on which we focused.

Road Tests

We requested a pair of each type of mic, which allowed us to stereo mic all sources. We tested the units in four different musical applications: two in the studio and two in a concert venue.

In the studio, we used spaced pairs to record acoustic guitar and XY-coincident pairs as drum overheads. Local up-and-comer Shelley Doty (see Fig. 1), who was one of the two winners in the 1999 San Francisco Lilith Fair Talent Search Contest, brought in her Taylor 612-C for the acoustic-guitar tracks and played–ten or more times in a row, and with remarkable consistency–an original Celtic-style composition titled "Young Dragons in Love." (The mics were positioned as a spaced pair in the manner described in the introduction to this article.)

For the second studio test, I played the drums, laying down a simple beat with prescribed rides, rolls, and crashes. (I made a chart first, and played to a click track.) Fills at the end of each section moved slowly from snare to toms to kick drum, an approach that allowed us to listen critically to each element of the kit. The mics were positioned in an XY-coincident pair about three feet above the kit.

We were fortunate to be able to record both grand piano (a Steinway) and choir at one of the premier jazz-performance spaces in the country, Yoshi’s Jazz House at Jack London Square in Oakland, California. The piano was played by EM author Peter Drescher, a veteran performer who has worked with Joe Louis Walker and the Pickle Family Circus, among others. Drescher played one of his trademark pieces, Duke Ellington’s "Don’t Get Around Much Anymore." After experimenting with both XY and spaced-pair miking, we settled on the spaced pair, with one mic aimed at the bass strings (at the far end of the piano) and the other positioned to capture the treble register and hammers (see Fig. 2).

We also had the good fortune of working with members from the Oakland Interfaith Gospel Choir–one of the finest such groups in the country. Although the full choir of 65 people wasn’t available, Director Terrance Kelly kindly gathered six members of the choir’s smaller (16-person) ensemble for the microphone tests. This group of four women and two men performed "Ding Dong Merrily on High," a piece that Kelly had chosen for its diverse range of voices–he doubled on falsetto soprano and bass–and its wide dynamic range. For these recordings, I had "tech support" from local musician, engineer, and bass player extraordinaire Mike Sugar, who helped greatly with setting up and tearing down, keeping tabs on tracks and levels, and so on. We tried a few different miking arrangements and found that we got the best results from an XY-coincident pair positioned above the choir and aiming downward (see Fig. 3).

Direct Path

All performances were recorded direct to Alesis ADAT XT20s using BLUE (Baltic Latvian Universal Electronics) Kiwi microphone cables, stock converters on the ADATs, and BASF preformatted ADAT Master Tape. I employed a variety of mic preamps, including a Focusrite Green for the acoustic-guitar and gospel-choir tracks; an Earthworks Lab 102 for the drum-overhead tracks; and for the piano tracks, Mackie’s new XDRs, which were stock on the 1202-VLZ Pro that the company kindly lent us for this review. For the recordings done at Yoshi’s, I patched the returns through the 1202 and monitored on NHTPro M-00 powered monitors and Sony MDR-7506 headphones (see Fig. 3).

I recorded the stereo tracks side by side, keeping the same order for each instrument, for a total of 16 tracks. Great pains were taken to ensure near-equivalent levels from one pair of mics to the next (the outputs varied considerably). In addition, I fine-tuned stray levels further before critical playback.

For the listening phase, I simply brought up all 16 tracks (muted) at once, and then unmuted any stereo pair at a time for easy A/B comparisons. All listening tests were conducted on NHTPro A-20 monitors and, in some instances, on Grado Labs SR325 headphones. Naturally, all monitor channels were free of EQ and effects, and the tracks were panned identically for each stereo pair.

The Panel

Six people, including me, listened to and compared the final tracks. Reasoning that the musicians who played the instruments should be in on the listening, I recruited Drescher to review the piano tracks, Doty the guitar tracks, and Stev Schwartz, one of the singers from the Oakland Interfaith Gospel Choir Ensemble, the choir tracks. For help with the drum tracks, I enlisted EM assistant editor Rick Weldon, who is a versatile musician as well as an accomplished engineer and producer.

I also thought it sensible to ask a complete outsider–someone who had not been involved in the recordings and who knew nothing about the various mics–to come in and listen to all of the tracks. That daunting task went to a local musician and producer named Keith Nelson whom I have worked with on and off for the past year and whose ears I have grown to trust. Nelson not only sings and plays bass, guitar, drums, and keyboards, but he’s also a fastidious and demanding producer–all traits that made him ideal for this job.

Only I knew which mics were which during the listening tests; the other folks did their listening "blind," referring to the mics only by number (one, two, three, and so forth). I revealed the identities of the mics only after all comments were in.

People have biases, naturally, and in a subjective listening test such as this one, it’s helpful to know those biases up front. Interestingly, each of the listeners expressed a preference for warm tones and lots of bass–a predilection that definitely affected judgment, and must be taken into account. Drescher, who was less than thrilled from the start with the brightness of the Steinway we recorded, said, "I prefer warmer-sounding pianos, and generally I like big, round tones and lots of bass." Nelson expressed a similar bias: "I like big bass sounds, and I tend to prefer pretty sounds over accurate ones." (Nelson’s other comments also indicated an affinity for bright, crystalline highs.) Said Doty, "For this particular guitar, which tends to be somewhat midrangy due to its small body and maple back and sides, I prefer a mic that flatters the sound by adding some extra warmth and bass." Regarding the drum tracks, Weldon said, "I could always add highs and make the drums sound brighter if I wanted, so I usually wouldn’t choose a mic that already does that."

The Bigger Picture

From the get-go, everybody agreed that the differences between the same-instrument tracks were, with the occasional exception, subtle. In fact, at first they sounded so similar that several of the listeners expressed dismay, wondering if they would really be up to the task of distinguishing between the minute variations in tone–not to mention the other difficult part: putting those distinctions into meaningful language! But after 10 to 20 minutes of acclimation time (the recorded performances were 2 to 4 minutes long), the listeners got their bearings and settled into critical listening mode. Beyond that, it took another 30 to 60 minutes of careful listening–per instrument–for the listeners to render considered judgments.

Everyone agreed, too, that all of the mics sounded good. As Nelson put it, "I’m sure if I went into a session and got handed any one of these mics, I’d be happy." Which is not to say that there weren’t qualitative differences between the tracks, or that we had no difficulty deciding which mics we liked most or least for a given application (although there was the occasional toss-up). Rather, the opinions expressed by the listeners were remarkably consistent. For the most part, though, the sonic differences between the "best" and "worst" tracks were slight. I believe that if you were to put up any one of these mics by itself without also hearing the others, you would almost certainly be favorably impressed by its sound.

I urge you to keep this point–as well as the particular biases of our listening group–in mind while reading the comments. Taken out of context, many of the descriptions that follow would seem unduly harsh. Largely, that’s because the distinctions are made in comparison: that is, once one sound is perceived as "warm," those less warm suddenly seem "cold." So the harshness comes in part from the dualistic nature of our language. English doesn’t have the words to describe all the gradations of sound, so for this test we were pretty much stuck with a handful of antonyms (bright and dark, warm and cold, clear and muddy) and a smattering of modifiers (slightly, ever so slightly, a tad, a bit).

On top of all that, there’s the whole problem of trying to describe sound with words. As someone once put it, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." With these thoughts in mind, you may now proceed.

Audix SCX-one

Typical of small-diaphragm condensers both in shape and size, the SCX-one ($598) is distinguished by Audix’s clear attention to precise construction. From the gold-plated capsule screen and XLR pins to the precision brass machining, flawless black-matte finish, and fine silk-screening, every detail bespeaks quality craftsmanship.

The SCX-one employs a transformerless design and is a modular system with interchangeable capsules that screw into place atop a spring-loaded, gold-plated contact. The SCX-c cardioid cap is stock, and three other caps are available: the SCX-hc hypercardioid ($299); the SCX-o omnidirectional ($299); and the SCX-op "omni presence" ($299), which provides a presence boost for maintaining high-frequency response when distant-miking. Another available option is an insertable 10 dB pad ($89).

The microphone comes in a sturdy, foam-fitted, hard-plastic case complete with a clip and spaces for two extra caps. The clip is simple in design, slides readily onto the SCX-one, and holds the microphone fast in any position. Matched pairs of SCX-ones can be special-ordered.

Testify. The SCX-one is overall a warm-sounding mic with "cautious" highs and a lean low-end response. Its tendency to emphasize midrange frequencies and downplay lows can, depending on the source, result in an alternately rich and thick or boxy and muddled sound. Also, it sometimes sounds slightly flat or "removed" from the source. In our tests, the SCX-one did best on acoustic guitar, for which it produced a warm, woody tone. "Definitely woody," confirmed Doty. "Not bad at all," said Nelson.

On grand piano, the SCX-one sounded warm but slightly muddy, with mild bass and a slightly dull dynamic response. Drescher described the sound as "flat, with not much presence or depth." Nelson called it "midrangy with not much top or bass, and slightly fuzzy or unclear."

As drum overheads, the pair of SCX-ones produced a slightly covered sound, with decent imaging and sufficient attack but not much tone from the toms and kick drum. Nelson described the result as "kind of lifeless." Weldon remarked that there was "plenty of attack but not much tone."

On the choir, the SCX-ones didn’t capture a sense of the performance space as well as some of the other mics, and gave less low end overall. The highs were "more forgiving than with some of the brighter mics," noted Schwartz, "which helped hide our mistakes." Nelson called the sound "boxy, with a dull top end and slightly muddy, overbearing mids."

Earthworks SR77

Over nine inches long and resembling an alien surgical probe more than a conventional mic, the Earthworks SR77 ($599) is definitely the odd man out in the looks department. But it’s a handsome unit nonetheless. Machined from a solid piece of aluminum and finished in matte black, the mic’s distinctive shape cuts an impressive figure in the studio or on stage.

The SR77 ships in a unique clear acrylic tube that offers excellent protection, thanks both to the ruggedness of the tube itself and to the screw-on base that provides a plastic lock-down nut for the mic. The SR77 comes with a windscreen; a high-quality nylon clip (a knockoff of the Beyerdynamic MKV 9) is included in a separate acrylic tube. A matched pair of SR77s ($1,300) in a gorgeous solid-cherry box lined with red velveteen is also available.

Testify. For the most part, the SR77 maintained its reputation for capturing realistic, uncolored sound with exceptional dynamic response. However, compared to some of the other mics’ tracks, the realism was not always flattering to the source. Also, because this mic is designed to be flat at six inches, with the bass rolling off at distances greater than that–the frequency-response chart shows 100 Hz down by about 5.5 dB at a miking distance of three feet–the SR77 generally fared better on the close-miking applications (guitar and piano) than on the more distant-miked sources (drums and choir).

On acoustic guitar, the SR77 pair produced accurate-sounding tracks with sparkling highs and mild lows and low mids. Listeners disagreed about the character of the highs, with Nelson describing the top end as "really sweet" and Doty calling it "a bit boxy." As compared to the other mics, the SR77’s cardioid pattern seemed fairly open, in general capturing more ambient sound. The SR77 was also the noisiest mic of the bunch, to an extent that could be problematic if the tracks were heavily compressed.

For the piano, Drescher described the sound as having "good presence–you can really hear the surrounding area," but he thought the tracks were "kind of light on the bass." Nelson was impressed by the "nice, clean highs" but also felt that "there weren’t quite enough lows." Overall, he judged the tracks "clear and accurate but uninspiring."

As drum overheads, the SR77s captured a clear, bright sound with good imaging but not much low end. Weldon noted the lack of lows and described the highs as "a bit too sizzly for my tastes."

The openness of the SR77s was readily apparent with the choir, for which the mics captured lots of room sound and a realistic sense of the performance space with superior imaging. The overall sound was smooth but, again, weak in the lows. Schwartz thought that the spacious quality made the choir "seem distant," but he remarked favorably on the imaging. Tonally, he liked how the SR77s "took some of the edge off the sopranos and made the tenors sound warm." But he felt shortchanged by the weak bass response, which "didn’t capture the resonance of our voices." Nelson declared the sound "a bit midrangy and uninspired–you can hear everybody, but there’s no richness or excitement."

Elation KM201

Made in Moscow by a private company that spun off from the venerated Nikfi research laboratory, the Elation KM201 ($399) is a standard-size small-diaphragm mic with a somewhat rough, unlacquered, matte-bronze finish and a capsule assembly that flares smoothly from the mic body. A hand-built unit with a modular design, the stock KM201 has a cardioid capsule, although hypercardioid ($175) and omnidirectional ($175) heads are also available.

The KM201 is imported by Russian Transducer Technologies (RTT) at The Sound Room–"specialists in Russian microphones"–which repackages the mics in lovely cedar boxes (the kind you find in gift shops in the Ozarks). In the boxes I received, the foam was sloppily cut, requiring removal of the head from the body before the two pieces would fit into the box. According to RTT, however, the boxes will be fitted with new laser-cut foam by the time this article is in print.

A hardmount clip is included with each KM201. The clip looks kind of chintzy and has plastic rather than metal threads. Yet it works well, snapping easily onto the mic and holding it extremely secure: even the most vigorous shaking failed to dislodge the mic–thanks in part, it would seem, to the KM201’s rough finish. Once you do remove it, though, a blackish residue from the clip remains on the mic. (According to RTT, this is easily removed with a pencil eraser.)

Testify. The KM201 has a full, rich, balanced sound that was flattering in all our applications. On acoustic guitar, the mic pair captured a tight, natural sound with good dynamic response. Although Doty detected a slight midrange emphasis, she found it complementary to the tracks. The KM201 proved to be my favorite on the acoustic guitar, was Doty’s second-favorite, and was Nelson’s third–an impressive showing.

The KM201 also won Drescher’s approval on the grand piano (he chose it as his third-favorite). In describing the sound, he cited its "warmth and fullness," "good bass," and "smooth highs that were never harsh or tinny." Nelson, too, chose the KM201 as his third-favorite on the piano. He described the tracks as "accurate sounding" but not particularly "lively or exciting–they could have richer bass for my tastes."

As drum overheads, the KM201 pair captured a full, round sound with plenty of lows and an overall realistic and complementary tone. Imaging and dynamic response were also exceptional. Weldon picked this mic as his favorite on the drums, describing the sound as the "most all-around balanced and natural, especially on the cymbals...you can hear the body of the rack toms, and the attack is not overemphasized." Nelson also described the tracks as "realistic, with nicely balanced mids and lows," but again he thought the overall effect "a bit uninspiring," noting that "the top end is somewhat dull–the cymbals aren’t as clear and ringing as I like."

For the choral group, Schwartz chose the KM201 as his second-favorite of the lot. "This one really sounds good!" he said, describing the sound as "really balanced–you can hear everyone equally well, yet the overall sound is smooth and doesn’t come at you too sharp or brittle." He did note, however, what seemed to him a "slight bit of compression–but it works." Both Nelson and I chose the KM201 as our third-favorite mic in this application. We were equally impressed by its balanced tone, smooth highs, good imaging, and realistic sense of space.

GT ELECTRONICS AM30

The largest and heftiest of the mics we tested–it’s over seven inches long, more than an inch in diameter, and weighs three-quarters of a pound–the GT Electronics AM30 ($499) is a handsome unit with a black-matte body topped by a stainless-steel screen assembly that screws off to reveal the stock C1 cardioid capsule mounted above a spring-loaded, gold-plated contact. The capsule in turn screws off to accommodate the interchangeable C2 (supercardioid) and C3 (omnidirectional) capsules, optionally available for $129 each.

The AM30 employs Class A FET (Field Effect Transistor) preamp circuitry and provides both a 15 dB pad and an 80 Hz roll-off filter. The steel switches for the pad and filter, located beneath the screen assembly, are easily accessed and have a sturdy, reliable feel.

The AM30 comes in a rugged, lockable, foam-fitted hard-shell case complete with a satin drawstring bag (for the mic) and a key for the lock. A hardmount clip is included, and an optional shock-mount (which I also tested) is available for $49.95. Both the clip and shock-mount are perfectly fitted to the mic, and each provides a handy wing-nut release for easy swivel positioning. I especially liked the shock-mount, a hardy steel-tube design with beefy elastics for suspending the mic. It is as quick and easy to use as the clip, and both accessories hold the mic securely at any angle.

Testify. The AM30 has a bright, sparkly, very detailed sound that is quick to impress. However, the mic’s surfeit of highs and lean midrange response sometimes result in a thin, edgy sound. The acoustic guitar tracks sounded bright and "in your face," with cutting highs, slightly scooped mids, and mild bass. Doty described the result as "bright and thin." Nelson called it "nice and clear on top, but a bit thin overall" and suggested that the mic would be more appropriate for "fingerpicking and Spanish-style guitar" rather than "solo chordal stuff."

On the grand piano, the AM30 was again bright, with excellent clarity and good dynamic response. Drescher described the sound as "stingy on bass, with a tinny, kind of crackly high end." Nelson thought the tracks had "mostly highs and upper mids, with not much fullness or bottom."

As drum overheads, the AM30s captured excellent attack from the drums and cymbals, making for a lively sound. But overall the drum tracks were a bit brittle and lacking in warmth for my tastes–and that was with wood-tipped sticks on dark, hand-hammered cymbals. Weldon described the sound as "okay, with lots of highs," but noted that he "couldn’t hear into the drums" as well as he could with some of the other mics.

On the choir, the AM30s produced a big, bright sound with amazing clarity: we could hear every detail, including lip smacks and the rustle of robes. Schwartz commented that this mic "stuck out more than the others" and that "there was no mistaking what each singer was doing, as if each one had a separate mic...you can really zero in on each vocal part." This, he thought, would make the AM30 well suited "for a bunch of individual stars," adding, however, that "for a group like the Statler Brothers, where you want more of a blend, the AM30s would not be my first choice." Nelson described the tracks as sounding "very clear and precise but lacking a bit in warmth and low end."

Hebden Sound CM1050C

Hebden Sound is a new microphone company that picked up where the original company, Calrec, left off. (The resurrected Calrec does not manufacture microphones.) Undertaking maintenance and repair of the original Calrec microphone range, as well as continuing to manufacture the mics, Hebden Sound offers seven microphone models–all essentially variations on the same model–including both modular and fixed-pattern designs.

The CM1050C ($369) is the fixed-cardioid model and is the least expensive of the Hebden Sound line. Slightly bigger than most of the mics in this review, it has a plain, brass-tube body with a matte-black finish and a stainless-steel screen protecting the capsule. The CM1050C employs a transformer-based preamp (a transformerless version is available for the same price) and is one of the two mics in our test sample to use an aluminum-coated diaphragm rather than the usual gold-sputtered Mylar.

The mic comes in a nice foam-lined, soft-shell vinyl case that zips shut. A high-quality nylon clip (the same knockoff of the Beyerdynamic MKV 9 that comes with the Earthworks SR77) is included; however, there’s no room for the clip in the mic case.

Testify. With its tight cardioid pattern, deep lows, scooped mids, and bright yet smooth highs, the CM1050C proved the most distinctive-sounding mic of the bunch. Opinions were divided, but everyone was quickly able to pick this microphone out from the others during the blind listening tests. The CM1050C’s performance was distinctive, too: while it worked exceptionally well on some sources, it was barely passable on others. This unit was also the least hot of the eight mics, requiring up to 18 dB more gain to match most of the others’ outputs.

The CM1050C performed most impressively on the grand piano, and was both Drescher’s and Nelson’s favorite in this application. "This mic picked up more bass detail than any of the other mics," said Drescher. "I could really feel the soundboard, making it clear that it was a grand piano. And the highs were very articulate without being harsh. Overall, a very smooth sound." In Nelson’s words, "Although this mic doesn’t represent the midrange as well as some of the other mics, you don’t miss it because the overall sound is so big, lifelike, and pleasing. I feel like I’m sitting right next to the piano! This mic can really handle the low notes and the big chords."

Nelson was also impressed by how "live" the CM1050C sounded on the guitar tracks, and maintained that "this is the kind of mic I’d always want around." However, in this application he felt that "the mids were missing and the top end was a bit scratchy." Nor was Doty enthusiastic about how the CM1050C portrayed her guitar. "It sounds notched," she said, "with high highs and low lows but not much in between. It almost sounds more like a banjo than a guitar."

The CM1050C pair also sounded unbalanced as drum overheads, boosting the highs and lows so much that they began to irritate after continued listening–the highs because they were so piercing and the lows due to a strange resonance that sounded like a phase problem. "Where did the mids go?" asked Weldon when the CM1050C tracks came up. "Every sound on the kit is represented by high and low content only." Nelson, who described the sound as "way too resonant, with sloppy, boomy lows," added that "unless you really rolled off the bass, it would be hard to use these mics as drum overheads because the low frequencies are so out of control."

The CM1050Cs made a better show with the choir, where the rich bass they delivered proved agreeable both to Nelson ("Way cool") and to Schwartz, who liked how the mics punched up the two male voices in the mix. I found the bass a bit over the top, and somewhat processed sounding. But the bigger problem was the lack of midrange content and overly soft, mellow tone. Tonal imbalances aside, though, Nelson felt strongly that the voices "sounded real rather than recorded, like they’re here in the room with us."

MBHO MBNM 440 C-L

Like most things German, the MBHO MBNM 440 C-L ($341) boasts first-rate workmanship and attention to detail. One of the smallest mics we tested, it has a short brass body with a matte-black finish; a fine-mesh, stainless-steel screen protecting the capsule; and gold-plated XLR pins. One distinctive feature is that the mic provides automatic current switching between 48 and 22 volts, allowing for optional battery-powered operation.

The 440 C-L can be ordered in matched pairs, and the two I received came together (with consecutive serial numbers) in a black-vinyl-covered, foam-fitted hardboard box complete with two mic clips–a quite handsome and compact little package that any concert "taper" would appreciate. The clips are small and simple, but they work great. They provide a wing-nut release for easy swivel positioning, hold the mics securely in any position, and snap on and off with ease.

Testify. The MBNM 440 C-L is a very bright, present-sounding mic with lean lows and a tendency to minimize the sense of ambient space. Interestingly, it made all the sources in our tests seem closer than they did with the other mics. Also, like the Hebden Sound CM1050C, the 440 C-L required considerably more gain than the other six mics (although not quite as much as with the CM1050C).

The 440 C-L’s tonal persuasion was most flattering to acoustic guitar, where it captured a sparkly, jangly sound with decent dynamics. "I like it a lot," said Doty. "Not bad," said Nelson. In my estimation, acoustic-guitar tracks captured by the 440 C-L would work best in a busy mix, of which too much low and low-mid content would only get in the way. For solo acoustic, though, the sound was a bit thin.

Not surprisingly, the 440 C-L captured bright, clear highs but not enough bass from the grand piano. Drescher liked "the high-end presence, despite a bit of edginess"; however, he felt that the highs "broke up a bit on the hard hits." He also bemoaned the 440 C-L’s providing "no sense of size–it makes the piano sound more like an upright than a grand." Nelson also appreciated the clarity of the highs but felt that the sound wasn’t "warm or round enough" and that the "bottom end just isn’t happening."

The drum tracks followed suit: very bright, present, and close sounding, but lacking in lows and low mids and with not much sense of the ambient space. Weldon judged the highs "slightly harsh" and described the toms as "clicky" and "papery" sounding. Nelson liked how the mic presented the snare drum, but he found the overall sound "too toppy and brittle." Some slight distortion, he thought, was evident on loud cymbal crashes.

On the choir tracks, the 440 C-L pair once again produced a bright, present sound with weak bass representation and not much sense of the performance space. Schwartz considered the mics "more friendly to the sopranos–but they made us guys sound like we were coming through a little radio." However, he did comment favorably on the clarity of the sound and on the good imaging. Nelson, too, praised the clarity ("I can hear everything!"), although he thought the overall sound was "lacking in warmth."

Microtech Gefell M300

The Microtech Gefell M300 ($495) looks very plain at first glance, yet a close inspection reveals the superior craftsmanship and aesthetic sensibility that went into its making. The brass body is consummately machined and finished in a lustrous dark bronze, and the silk-screening is impeccable. The M300 has a fixed-cardioid polar pattern, employs a transformerless circuit design, and comes with gold-plated XLR pins.

The mic ships in a very attractive foam-fitted hardwood box but doesn’t come with a clip. (The manufacturer recommends the Beyerdynamic MKV 9.) I tested the M300 using the optional EA 20 shock-mount ($130). Although pricey, the shock-mount is a fine piece of engineering that worked beautifully.

Testify. The M300 garnered consistently high praise in all our applications. The mic has a full, well-balanced sound with slightly boosted highs, mildly attenuated lows and low mids, and excellent dynamic response. These characteristics proved especially favorable on the acoustic guitar, where the mic presented a clean, balanced, and commanding sound that was distinctive for its depth and resonance: I could hear what seemed to be the "hollowness" from the sound hole, which increased realism. Doty, who picked the M300 as her favorite on her guitar, described the sound as "very even and well defined" and "mildly compressed–but in a good way." Nelson found the sound slightly "less warm" than he would have liked, but he still chose the mic as his second-favorite in this application.

The M300 was my favorite mic on the grand piano, from which it captured a full, realistic, and balanced sound with rich harmonic content. "All notes present and accounted for," I wrote in my notes. Drescher and Nelson liked the M300 on the piano, too, both selecting it as their second-favorite. Interestingly, Nelson described the sound as "a bit compressed," echoing Doty’s remark. Drescher wished only for a bit more bass, so at his request I boosted 80 Hz shelving by 3 dB on the recorded tracks. "Now the sound is all there!" he exulted.

The M300s captured plenty of tone from the drums, and overall the sound was balanced and very agreeable. However, the slightly boosted highs struck both Weldon and me as vaguely unrealistic sounding. Nelson, on the other hand, liked the highs, and also remarked on how "tight and controlled" the bottom end was, wishing only (again) for a tad more "warmth" in the lows and low mids.

The M300 was my favorite on the choir, too. Although it made the sopranos seem slightly too forward, the overall sound was tight and well defined, and the vocal blend was excellent. Also, the mics captured a very realistic sense of the acoustic space. Schwartz, who chose the M300 as his third-favorite in this application, said, "Wow! That sounded like the real thing. The four women were a bit out front [in terms of relative volume], and we were in the back a bit, which is probably how it was at Yoshi’s." Nelson cited "great tonal definition–it sounds like a group singing together and blending well, yet you can still hear each singer clearly." Nelson chose the M300 as his second-favorite on the choir and again remarked favorably on its high-end clarity. However, in this application he thought the mic sounded "a bit boxy."

Oktava MC012

Designed at the Nikfi research laboratory in 1963, the Oktava MC012 ($599.99 "manufacturer list price" at Guitar Center, but regularly priced at $249) is easily recognized by its distinctive "flat-top" capsule assembly. It is a modular system that comes with three capsules (cardioid, hypercardioid, and omnidirectional), as well as an insertable 10 dB pad; the preamplifier circuitry is transformerless.

The MC012 and its accessories all have a matte-bronze finish similar to the Elation KM201’s, only lacquered. The package, available at Guitar Center, comes in a foam-fitted hard-plastic box complete with an unusual pressure-clamp mic clip. The clip is sturdy and very user-friendly–you just squeeze the clamp arms, insert the mic, and let go. It holds the MC012 snugly at any angle, and the mic is as easy to extract as it is to insert. Optional accessories for the MC012 include a custom shock-mount (available from Oktava) and the M1 large-diaphragm capsule ($349 from Russian Transducer Technologies/The Sound Room).

Testify. Like its fellow Russian-made mic, the Elation KM201, the MC012 performed consistently well in all applications–in some instances sounding nearly identical to the KM201. Overall, the sound was smooth, warm, solid, and nicely balanced. The only noticeable hype was in the low mids, which accounts for its consistently warm but sometimes muddled sound.

The MC012 was Nelson’s first, my second, and Doty’s third pick on acoustic guitar (although for me it was pretty much a toss-up between the Oktava, Microtech, and Elation units). Doty deemed the sound "pretty accurate" with a "woody" quality. I described it as "very even and solid, with sweetly boosted low mids." Nelson raved, saying the mic "leaned toward the bottom end a bit, for that warm sound I like, yet there are still plenty of all the highs and high mids–overall, a very unified sound."

The MC012 fared slightly less well on the grand piano. As Drescher put it, "There’s nothing seriously wrong, but it doesn’t make me jump out of my seat. Sort of a flat sound with not much depth." To my ears, the dynamics were somehow off, resulting in kind of a soft sound. Also, the surfeit of low mids caused some muddiness. Nelson appreciated the smoothness of the highs but found the bass a bit "cold" and the overall sound "somewhat small, considering it’s a grand piano."

The pair of MC012s worked very well as drum overheads, where they provided excellent imaging and a very full and balanced representation of the multifarious tones. Highs were smooth, accurate, and nongrating, and the mics picked up enough lows and low mids to make individual tom miking all but mic in the blind-listening tests because it was the least neutral sounding. The GT Electronics AM30 also had a fairly recognizable sound, thanks to its bright, incisive highs and overall "in-your-face" quality. (I expect that the company’s new AM40, which uses the same capsules as the AM30 but has a tube rather than solid-state design, sounds warmer than the AM30.) And the Earthworks SR77 was distinctive in its own way, if only for sounding relatively uncolored and open.

Verdict, Schmerdict

Now, before you rush out with money in hand to purchase one of the "winning" mics, it would behoove you to put some things into perspective. First, it bears repeating that the qualitative distinctions expressed by our panel of listeners were made in comparison only–an approach that, while useful, has its pitfalls, some of which I discussed in the earlier section "The Bigger Picture." However, there are other drawbacks–for example, the fact that adding a different mic to the proceedings would likely throw a different light on the results.

Another important point involves mic positioning. For the sake of consistency, once positionings were established for each of our test applications, we used the same positionings for each mic pair. However, the best position for one mic is not always the best for another.

Yet another limitation is that we listened to the test tracks in isolation rather than in the real-world context of mixes. This is a crucial point to keep in mind. For example, guitar tracks that sound great on their own–full, rich, and warm, with lots of low-mid and bass content–may sound very different once you add, say, a drum set, bass, keyboards, strings, and vocals to the mix. Indeed, at that point you may find yourself cutting bass and low mids like mad and counting your blessings for those bright highs that, on their own, sounded "a bit harsh."

The same is true for drum overheads: if all you can afford (in terms of tracks) is two overhead mics and perhaps a third mic on the kick, you’ll be grateful if those overheads capture enough lows and low mids to make the toms sound full and resonant. On the other hand, if you’re close-miking the snare drum and each tom, the low and low-mid content from the overheads could screw you up more than it helps–in which case you may be better off with mics that mildly attenuate the lows and low mids. After all, on multimiked drums, the main function of the overhead mics is typically to capture the cymbals while adding some "air" and realism to the sound, not to represent the tonality and depth of the individual drums.

For these reasons (and still others), the notion of designating a "winning mic" seems specious at best. Rather than declare a winner, then, our goal here has been to describe, as much as possible, the "sonic predisposition" of each of these eight microphones, based how it compares to similar mics and how it sounds in a few isolated, but for the most part real-world, applications. From this, hopefully, you can deduce which applications each mic is best suited for. (Of course, it is up to you to determine which, if any, is appropriate for your own applications–and budget.)

truth or consequences

I began this review with the supposition that, in general, tonal accuracy is one of the defining characteristics–if not the main goal–of small-diaphragm "instrument" mics. But one thing I have learned in conducting these tests is that accuracy is not always what the doctor ordered. Yes, there are times when "telling the truth" is desirable; but coloration, too, has its place in the domain of instrument mics. Therefore, rather than discounting a given mic, or rating one as better than another, the wiser approach is to appreciate each mic as a unique tool and a different color in the palette of sound possibilities.

Brian Knave is an associate editor at EM. Special thanks to Alex Butkus, Chris Buttner, Mark Cane, George Daly, Shelley Doty, Peter Drescher, Marshall Lamm, George Petersen, Dan Pettit, Natalie Stocker, Mike Sugar, EMTEC (BASF), Leo’s Audio, Mackie Designs, NHTPro, and Yoshi’s Jazz House.