Living Room Laboratory: The Sennheiser MD421-U-5

It's a beautiful day (windows wide open with 70 degree weather), Mrs. Audio Guy is outta town, and Biggs is being chill.

Let's play a little!

About two months before we moved, a reader of the blog sold me an old (OLD) used Sennheiser MD421-U-5. He was cleaning out his mic cabinet, and came across this old Senny, which he had purchased in the 90's, then just never really used. He was well stocked on SM7's and RE20's, so off this mic went. To me. For little more than the cost of shipping. Woot!

I don't know exactly how old it is, but it is a fairly early serial number for the U-5 (#2097, and I've seen serials as high 55,000 on ebay), so I'm thinking it was made in the early 80's or late 70's.

A little history, the MD421 is probably the microphone most responsible for Sennheiser having a presence in the US microphone market today. Thomas Schillinger sold 600 MD421's to NBC in the late 60's, getting the microphone into the hands of recording and broadcast engineers across the country, and to date, the MD421 (and it's updates) remains one of the highest selling microphones of all time.

I've NEVER used one before.

These days, the dynamic microphones of choice seem to be the Electrovoice RE20, or the Shure SM7B. Most VO pros I know go for those, a large diaphragm condenser, or Sennheiser's now ubiquitous shotgun, the MKH416.

I don't run a booth out of my home anymore, so I thought it would be fun to throw some kit out on the living room floor. I recorded a little Poe (you know me and Poe), and to compare I also recorded on another dynamic microphone, the Shure SM57 (my personal fave "do anything" mic). The recording chain was Microphone to ART Tube PAC to NRV10 to laptop.
So how did it sound?

Here's the MD421:

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

And here's the SM57:

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

First up, this mic is QUIET. I plugged it into my preamp, and dialed up about 20dB of gain, and saw nothing. I had to hit the MD421 with 45dB of input for it to register my voice at a comfortable speaking level. By comparison the SM57 needed only 30dB of gain to match the output of the MD421. I've never had to do that before. I'm pretty confident I could scream myself mute into this thing and be NOWHERE near damaging the cartridge.
The tone is pretty smooth, and I think it fattens up the bassier end of my thin little voice. From memory, I feel it exhibits more proximity effect than RE20's I've used. Good to know if you're going for an intense "trailer" sound.
The SM57 did a much better job with off-axis rejection (picking up little surrounding noise except for what's directly in front of it), but the MD421 was certainly no slouch (remember I was recording 4 feet from an open window overlooking a fairly busy street in Studio City). Also, the MD421 was MUCH more tolerant of plosive b's and p's (a problem of mine), and something the SM57 can be a little fragile about. I feel I could comfortably use the 421 without a pop shield or sock.

I'm really excited about this mic. It probably wont see tons of action as I prefer condensers for most of my VO, but the times I need to record really loud sessions, this baby's going right up front to the top of my list. I'm this mic's third owner, and I'm really stoked to be giving it a good home!

Are you looking for a NEW MD421?

Can you hear the difference between MP3 bitrates...

...because I CAN!

MP3 or not - Don't you hear it?

If you were to play the same clip of audio at 320Kbps (the highest quality MP3 you can rip) and 128Kbps (about average, maybe a little below) would you be able to tell the difference? The 320Kbps file is 2.5 times bigger than the 128. Do you really get two and a half times the "quality"?

Ok, so all audio snobbery aside, I actually could tell the difference between the two samples on this site. It wasn't a huge difference, but there was a subtle feel to how the voice interacted with the instruments, and I was certain I had the right clip.

I have to say that comparing the two clips was pretty interesting. When I rip music now I only rip to 320Kbps or to FLAC. Mostly I'm just paranoid about not losing too much information (archiving CD's or if I ever need to re-rip), but it is kinda satisfying knowing that 128Kbps MP3's aren't quite as bad as us audio snobs make them out to be.

MP3 or not - Don't you hear it?
someaudioguy some audio guy mp3 music recording technology demo vocals voice

Dedicated Preamp or Directly into Your Soundcard?

I've gotten this question a couple times, so I figured it was time to throw some equipment at the problem.

Should you plug your mic directly into your soundcard (or mixer), or should you invest in a dedicated preamp?

The answer is "yes".

Either.

Correct.

Let's take a listen!
For today's experiment, we're going to use my M-Audio Solaris because it's a decent budget condenser microphone, and it's become one of my favorite work horse microphones.

The two preamps we're going to compare it with are the Behringer T1953, which I've had for a while now...

...and, an ART Tube PAC, which I've only just recently acquired.

To keep everything as neutral as possible, I'm recording into my Firewire 410.


All recordings were done 6 inches from the mic's diaphragm, and have not been edited (unless noted) accept for compression to 320Kbps MP3 for streaming (initial recording were done @ 24/96).
The PAC was used low threshold with 3:1 compression.

Solaris direct to FW410 (very quiet):

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Solaris direct to FW410 Normalized (loud):

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Solaris with Behringer T1953 (loud):

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Solaris with Art Tube PAC (loud):

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

OK, so what can we glean?
Well, none of these sound "bad" to me. I prefer the sound of the PAC, it's a little fuller than the direct to soundcard, but I still feel like that sounds like me, natural.
The T1953 sounds "hotter" or "louder" (odd as it doesn't have a compressor like the PAC), but it adds a slightly unnatural timbre or edge to my voice. It's a subtle texture that's not unpleasant, but I don't feel that's what I really sound like. Also the T1953 adds a bit more noise to the chain than the PAC.
The direct to soundcard is the cleanest of the group, but is also the plainest to me. It's not bad, just vanilla, and we all know that vanilla is the best "base" ice cream. I think this recording would probably be the easiest to EQ and mix in front of music on a commercial.

As with so much of what we do, if you're already working a mic you like with a good soundcard, then adding a preamp (especially ones like my budget preamps) isn't going to bring an earth shaking difference to your recordings. It can make editing easier however as it instantly brings up the level of your recordings, giving you a nice hot signal to work with, but it can also make editing harder if your preamp is noisy.

For us VO people, I can only recommend buying a dedicated Pre if you've compared a few, and you've picked one out that compliments your mic and soundcard in accentuating the qualities of your voice you MOST want people to hear.

And of course, everything in this article can be purchased through SOME AUDIO STORE, LOL!
someaudioguy some audio guy voice over recording auditions VO voice acting equipment kit gear microphone preamp soundcard digital audio interface

Call for Help! - Mixers: NRV10 vs Zed-14?

All right!
I NEED HELP!

I'm kinda stuck, and some opinions from my faithful readers would be very helpful.

I need a new mixer.

More specifically I'd like to replace both my mixer and my sound card in one fell swoop, so I'm looking at Firewire and USB mixers. I've gone through Alesis, and Mackies, and Phonics, and I think I've got it narrowed down to 2 units in my price range. I'm completely torn, so on to the comparison.

The two I'm stuck on are the M-Audio NRV10 and the Allen & Heath Zed-14. I need four or more phantom powered XLR ports, and individual channels sent to computer. Both units do that, so what's bothering me?

The Allen & Heath (typically about $450) is, well, an Allen & Heath. That already makes it desirable. Six mono inputs, 4 buses, USB interface, and 100mm faders round out an impressive feature set. I've always enjoyed the build quality of A&H, and those extra buses are awesomely flexible.


Next up, the NRV10 (Usually around $700) comes from a company I'm VERY familiar with, having used M-A soundcards for YEARS now. I think I like Firewire better than USB (especially when I have to use my dog tired laptop). The NRV10 has fewer inputs, no alt buses (so less routing flexibility), but each channel has individual send selectors, giving it some good (but not great) channel flexibility. Lastly, while the mixer itself isn't quite as flexible as the A&H, it comes with one powerful advantage for me. It will play with the copy of Pro Tools M-Powered I picked up for my FW410.

So there's the question. Do I go with the more expensive less flexible mixer because it uses PT, or do I go with the more flexible less expensive mixer and use another program (I like Sound Forge and Audition, but I do need PT from time to time)? PLEASE leave me some comments with your thoughts!

I need some help guys!

so...

HELP!

LOL

***EDIT 03/24/08***

I GOT THE NRV10!
You can check out some unboxing pics, and my first impressions here!