Members MrJoshua Posted September 22, 2008 Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 It's been a while since I posted any sort of gear review, so I thought I'd post my impressions on the MT71 S. I've only had it a few days and have only used it a half-dozen times, so this won't be a comprehensive review. Mainly just my first impressions. To start, a quick rehash - the MT71 S is a large-diaphragm condensor mic. It's a fixed cardioid polar pattern, and has switches onboard for -10dB pad and high-pass filtering. Physically, the finish and construction seem top-notch. The only thing I've noticed is that the XLR connector is a very tight fit, to the point that it can be hard to get the cable to snap fully into place. But so far so good - nothing has broken yet. The mic shipped with a stand adapter, but no shock mount. So far one hasn't been necessary. If you're used to the hyped-top-end condensors that are so common, this mic will be a surprise when you first hook it up. It's flat; what you put in is what you get out. It has what I'd describe as a full, rich sound, but it doesn't have that top-end sizzle that frankly I've gotten used to with most of the mics I use. I was a little leery of that at first, to be quiet honest, just because I am so used to my condensors adding that top-end boost. But after using the mic in a session and doing a rough mix, I've quickly become very used to it, and I have a suspicion that it will be one of my favorites before very long. First, I used it on my voice. I have sort of a weird baritone voice - lower than the standard rock singer for sure. I usually do everything I can to accentuate the top end to help my voice cut through and retain its clarity, as I tend to get muddled very easily. So I wasn't too thrilled with what I first heard coming through the headphones. I plugged the MT71S into a Great River MP-500NV preamp, using an Apogee Rosetta 200 converter into ProTools LE. My first impression was that it was a little muffled, but after listening to the playback I decided that this was incorrect - it just doesn't have that high-end sizzle of so many condensor mics. What it does have is a very full-bodied sound, and after a slight boost to the highs on my voice I decided that I like it. The track sits in the mix well, without getting lost, but it has a lot more body than the sound I usually get my with Rode NTK. I also used the mic on a scratch acoustic part. Since it was a scratch track I didn't spend a lot of time adjusting anything, and that is reflected in how it turned out, I think. It's a usable sound, but it didn't blow me away. But I think with a little more work on the positioning (and an acoustic that doesn't have dead strings), this would be a solid choice for micing an acoustic. The scratch track was recorded through a Focusrite ISA-428 preamp with the converter card option. Finally, I set the mic up as a room mic for the drum tracks. I really liked the results here. I normally use an AKG 414 B/XLS, and I thought the sound from the MT71S was much more pleasing. The cymbals weren't as overbearing in the high end (although that might just be because I'm slowly learning to be a better drummer), and the sound seemed to have a little more body overall. For this application I ran the mic through an FMR RNP and into the converter card line input on the Focurite. All things considered, I'm very pleased with the mic thus far. It seems to be a solid jack-of-all-trades mic, and I'm looking forward to trying it out on vocals with some singers that are coming in this week for a project. I'll be choosing between it, the Rode NTK, a Shure SM-7b, and a BLUE Baby Bottle for the sessions, and I'm confident that between those four mics I should be able to capture a good sound. So, a favorable first impression. Now we just have to see how much I like it after using it for a few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 22, 2008 Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 Thanks for that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted September 22, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 Thanks for that! You're welcome. Keep in mind that these are just my personal opinions - other people may totally disagree with my conclusions. This is a totally different flavor of mic from anything else I have, though, and that's just the plain truth. At first it seems almost dull, because I'm so used to the hyped top end. The more I listen to how the tracks sound in the mix, though, the more I like it. Everything is there, but it has much smoother highs so at first I wonder where they've gone because I'm so used to them sticking out. Of course, it also cost more than any other mic I own. So, there's always that downside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 22, 2008 Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 I've found with really smooth nice mics like that, there's definitely a top end that, if you really need to, responds very well to EQ. Does that make sense? It's all there, but it's not hyped, and so if you really need that top end, you can bring it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted September 22, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 I've found with really smooth nice mics like that, there's definitely a top end that, if you really need to, responds very well to EQ. Does that make sense? It's all there, but it's not hyped, and so if you really need that top end, you can bring it out. It makes perfect sense. And I suspect you're right on the money with this one. I haven't had a ton of time to spend with it yet, but a little treble added to my vocal track helped it cut nicely without sounding harsh. I'm thinking for my next vocal take I might try running whatever preamp I use (probably either the Great River or the API) through the EQ on my Toft AFC-2 unit and see how a little hardware EQ treble boost sounds with the mic. I'm expecting good things. I usually EQ with software plugins as opposed to tracking with EQ (or every once in a while I'll route a track out to a hardware EQ then back in, if I feel it's worth the hit from the extra conversions), but it's something I want to experiment with on some of my demo stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimbroni Posted September 22, 2008 Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 Hey can I borrow it? I've been recording Xylophones, I need the sensitivity of an LDC but also take the edge off the super high pitched transients. j/k The way you describe it, it sounds like what I'm looking for. Nice review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IsildursBane Posted September 22, 2008 Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 Hey can I borrow it? I've been recording Xylophones, I need the sensitivity of an LDC but also take the edge off the super high pitched transients. j/k The way you describe it, it sounds like what I'm looking for. Nice review. Try a good ribbon. -Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 22, 2008 Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 Xylophones, if they are the larger concert kind, are interesting to record, and if someone really goes at it for a while, a lot of the harmonics and ringing can really build a a huge level. I've used LDCs, but as Dan suggests, ribbons might be good...I wouldn't know, I still don't have any... Maybe the Heil mics might sound good in that application, though, and I do have those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members albiedamned Posted September 22, 2008 Members Share Posted September 22, 2008 I'd try a Blue Ball on a xylophone. Seriously. I've never recorded xylophone though, so what do I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimbroni Posted September 23, 2008 Members Share Posted September 23, 2008 Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread. But since you all had some thought on xylophones, I don't have a ribbon mic. I've been using a CAD e200 LDC on it. So given the couple of ribbon mic comments, I flipped it over to figure 8. It didn't really take the edge off the high but it did fatten up the body of the notes. I think this makes for a more managable signal than I had. So then I tried the Groovetubes brick preamp on it, and that softened it up just a touch. Thats what I'm going with right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 23, 2008 Members Share Posted September 23, 2008 The smoother sounding mic that I have is an AT4060. Now, I have no idea how it compares to the Microtech Gefell mic that you just bought, but regardless, the AT4060 is a relatively smooth, neutral sounding mic, with not any real "sizzle" (hyped high end) or whatever. But if I EQ the top end, it comes out really nicely. As an aside, I abuse the AT4060 regularly by using it as a kick mic (perhaps not the ideal mic for putting just outside the kick, but go with me here) and it's always held up really nicely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted September 23, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 23, 2008 I don't think I've used the 4060, but I've used a friend's ... I think 4040? It's hard for me to keep their model numbers straight when they're all so similar. Anyway, I thought it was a good mic, especially considering the price. I don't own any AT mics myself. The Microtech reminds me of a ribbon in some ways, especially in the top end, and so far all of the (very limited number of) ribbon mics I've used have responded very well to EQ. If I need some more highs, I just dial them in. So far the Microtech seems to be the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members albiedamned Posted September 23, 2008 Members Share Posted September 23, 2008 The 4060 is the tube one, right? It's quite a bit more expensive than the other 40-series mics if memory serves. MrJoshua, how would you compare your new Microtech to your Baby Bottle? I know that compared to my Bluebird, my Baby Bottle has much less high end hype. It's very warm and dark sounding. It's my best mic for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IsildursBane Posted September 23, 2008 Members Share Posted September 23, 2008 I've been using a CAD e200 LDC on it. So given the couple of ribbon mic comments, I flipped it over to figure 8. The figure 8 pattern is just one useful feature of ribbon mics, but not the reason I made the suggestion. Ribbons don't have the extended HF response that many condensers do and can be used to focus the sound on the mid-range where the notes actually are. -Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted September 23, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 23, 2008 The 4060 is the tube one, right? It's quite a bit more expensive than the other 40-series mics if memory serves. MrJoshua, how would you compare your new Microtech to your Baby Bottle? I know that compared to my Bluebird, my Baby Bottle has much less high end hype. It's very warm and dark sounding. It's my best mic for now. The Baby Bottle is a good mic, and I think they're a steal at the price. But I'd say the Microtech is a bit meatier. It seems to have a bit broader of a bottom end, by which I mean it sounds like it captures the low end a little better. Tracks seem to come out a little thicker, with more midrange presence. But that's my impression from using the mics on different things in different sessions - while I do use my Baby Bottle on vocals, I haven't used it side-by-side for a comparison with the Microtech yet. I have some singers coming in to do some parts today, and what I'm planning on doing is using the Microtech for the lead parts and the Baby Bottle for the harmonies, so within the next couple of days I should have a bit better of an answer for you. But I'm definitely not planning on retiring my Baby Bottle anytime soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members albiedamned Posted September 23, 2008 Members Share Posted September 23, 2008 Thanks for the response. I'm not sure if I'd use the Baby Bottle for harmonies. I think for that I would want something with a more airy, hyped high end. I guess it depends on the song and the type of singer though. Definitely let us know how that works out for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 23, 2008 Members Share Posted September 23, 2008 The 4060 is the tube one, right? It's quite a bit more expensive than the other 40-series mics if memory serves. Yes, it's a tube fixed-position cardioid, and over $1000. Sounds really good on bass cabinets, vox, and guitar cabinets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted September 23, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 23, 2008 Thanks for the response. I'm not sure if I'd use the Baby Bottle for harmonies. I think for that I would want something with a more airy, hyped high end. I guess it depends on the song and the type of singer though. Definitely let us know how that works out for you. I've never had a problem getting a good backing vocals sound out of the Baby Bottle, but what I'll probably do is set up the Microtech, the Baby Bottle, the NTK, and a Shure SM-7b and try them all out to see which sounds best for the various parts. I'm expecting that we'll wind up going with the Microtech on the lead, though, and either the Baby Bottle or the NTK for the harmonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted September 27, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 27, 2008 OK, after doing some side-by-side work with the Baby Bottle and the Microtech, I've become convinced of two things. One, that the Microtech has a bit more of a full sound, with a little more body. And two, that the Baby Bottle is an absolute steal of a microphone at its price. Is there a difference between the two mics? You bet. Is it worth the more-than-two-times pricetag of the Microtech? Well, that depends on what you're doing. For a home project studio recording your stuff for friends and family, honestly, probably not. The Microtech has a silkier top end - it sounds smooth, but there, while the BLUE in comparison sounds more like the top end is a little muffled as opposed to smooth, but they're both good mics. The Microtech is a great mic, and I'm happy to have it. I think it's worth the price. But the BLUE is still an outstanding value option that to my ears gives me about 80-90% of the performance of the Microtech. But then, that last 10% is always where the price starts to jump, isn't it? If anyone has some suggestions for hosting them, I could put up two versions of a song where I sang into both mics, then did one mix with the BLUE and one mix with the Microtech. I could put them up and post a poll to see who can tell which mic I used on which take. Of course, it wouldn't be very scientific - they'd be MP3 format, which isn't exactly a hi-fi file. But it would be interesting anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sdelsolray Posted September 30, 2008 Members Share Posted September 30, 2008 Microtech Gefell mics are made by the Elves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted September 30, 2008 Author Members Share Posted September 30, 2008 Microtech Gefell mics are made by the Elves.Which elves?* The Santa's workshop variety, the Keebler elves, the elves from Harry Potter books, or Tolkein elves?* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted September 30, 2008 Moderators Share Posted September 30, 2008 As I understand it... they are made by the Elf Alliance. That would consist of all the various Elf factions. Keebler, Potter, Santa, Satan. And yes, that includes Ronnie James Dio, ass kicking king of all Elf lifeforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jimbroni Posted September 30, 2008 Members Share Posted September 30, 2008 I've always been fond of the Keebler elves, as the Tolkien elves seem kinda stuck up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted October 1, 2008 Author Members Share Posted October 1, 2008 Well, it's hardly the best recording I've ever made, and I'm not a very good singer, but if you want, you can hear the Microtech used on my voice and as a room mic for the drums here. It's just a demo I recorded to get the song idea across to the rest of the band, so the mix is pretty rough. And since none of y'all have ever heard my voice you won't really know much about how the mic sounds based on this, but, I figured I'd post it anyway. It may load a little slow - it isn't the fastest connection in the world. But it should load, assuming I typed the link out correctly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Picker Posted October 3, 2008 Members Share Posted October 3, 2008 When I first read that I could have sworn that it said they were made by Elvis. I was wondering what he'd been doing since he faked his death.:poke: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.