Groove Tubes MD3
Justine Wandel
I have a Groove Tubes MD3 tube mic and absolutely LOVE it! I run it
through a Drawmer 1960 mic pre/comp. straight to ADAT and get
incredible vocals.
My question is: has anyone with this mic had the upgrade that Groove
Tubes is offering? Did it make a vast improvement? What was upgraded?
I'm kinda iffy about sending it through the mail. I guess I can insure
the fuck out of it and just be stuck with my Neumann U87. Boo-hoo.
Terry
Zorp Sonic Storage Systems
David L. Rick
In article <3436f49f...@news.mindspring.com>, zs...@mindspring.com says...
>
>I have a Groove Tubes MD3 tube mic and absolutely LOVE it! I run it
>through a Drawmer 1960 mic pre/comp. straight to ADAT and get
>incredible vocals.
I just got to try one of these a couple of days ago because the studio
I was booked into had one in the locker. I wouldn't have paid much
attention to it (they had a lot of mics), but I'd just learned that it
has a Josphson capsule in it, so I was intrigued. We ended up using it
on three of the six male vocalists we recorded that day. It has a
big, larger-than-life sound. I don't know if the mic was a model 3 or
3A. I've heard that the upgrade is worthwhile.
The other great mic of the day was the new Rode Classic Tube. It
managed to sound creamy and detailed at the same time, and was used
on the other three male singers. The mic was a demo, and the house
engineer decided to buy one for inventory. I'm tempted to get one
too, but I'm still a bit spooked about capsule consistency. I wish
someone from Rode would chime in about their sourcing and testing
policies.
BTW the Neumann M-149 was a big loser. It sounded thin and
unappealing on all the men. We did use it on one woman, though.
Incidently, the studio had a Drawmer 1960 which we used part of the
time. The house engineer told me that the secret is to bypass the
preamp stage, so we used a Millennia HV-3 in front of it.
David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
dr...@hach.com
Larry Bentley
In article <61e20p$f5v$1...@news1.rmi.net>, dr...@hach.com (David L. Rick) wrote:
{stuff omitted}
>BTW the Neumann M-149 was a big loser. It sounded thin and
>unappealing on all the men. We did use it on one woman, though.
Wow, I've had exactly the opposite experience. It has sounded big and
wonderful on male vocals, but hasn't knocked me out on female vocals.
However, I've only tried it on two female singers so far so I'm not
writing off for that application just yet.
___________________________________________________
Larry Bentley
Cellar Dweller Productions
Soundtrack Production - Recording - Music Services
Web site: www.cellardweller.com
Fletcher
Larry Bentley wrote:
>
> In article <61e20p$f5v$1...@news1.rmi.net>, dr...@hach.com (David L. Rick) wrote:
>
> {stuff omitted}
> >BTW the Neumann M-149 was a big loser. It sounded thin and
> >unappealing on all the men. We did use it on one woman, though.
>
> Wow, I've had exactly the opposite experience. It has sounded big and
> wonderful on male vocals, but hasn't knocked me out on female vocals.
> However, I've only tried it on two female singers so far so I'm not
> writing off for that application just yet.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> Larry Bentley
>
and females with an M-149...used cardioid on males, hyper cardioid or
omni on the lady folk...stellar tone...I've had it beat tube 47's,
Nuvistor 47s, C-12s, ELA M 251s...I've had fabulous results with it...
I haven't tried it on any white women yet...but I don't see why it
wouldn't work for them as well. I am curious about what other equipment
David was using with it when it sounded thin on male vocals? I've
actually had the exact opposite problem with it sounding to fat on
males...ended up backing them off half a foot and it all worked out
fine.
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
Mmermag
I just used a pair of 149's through a millennia media pre-amp to apogee 1000 AD
on the American Brass Quintet. This is my third CD with them and they loved
the sound of these over the previous recordings I had made using Schoeps and
B&K microphones. I can't compare this to original old Neumanns but, for
classical..I can use these mics with confidence due to their low noise floor.
The tone acheived on the recording was very full and very smooth.
Mike
Alex Forth
Fletcher wrote:
> Larry Bentley wrote:
> >
> > In article <61e20p$f5v$1...@news1.rmi.net>, dr...@hach.com (David
> L. Rick) wrote:
> >
> > {stuff omitted}
> > >BTW the Neumann M-149 was a big loser. It sounded thin and
> > >unappealing on all the men. We did use it on one woman,
> though.
> >
> > Wow, I've had exactly the opposite experience. It has sounded
> big and
> > wonderful on male vocals, but hasn't knocked me out on female
> vocals.
> [...]
> Golly, I must be totally whacked...I've had great luck with both
> males
> and females with an M-149. [...]
I was seriously considering buying this mic. Is it the best vocal
mic out there (still in production)?
- I know mics are a subjective area, but if there are any other
M-149 opinions, I'd be interested to hear them.
Alex
David L. Rick
In article <19971009184...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, mme...@aol.com
says...
Yes, I hear some extra fullness in the M-149 vs. the B&K's. I also hear a
bit of a burr in the higher frequencies that bothered me on vocals, but
could perhaps be very flattering in brass. But I don't know if that makes
them worth $3500 apiece (more if you want a real power supply). Might be
worth renting, though.
Any large diaphragm is gonna sound much different that a B&K or Schoeps in
a reverberant environment, due to polar pattern narrowing. Sometimes that's
good, sometimes that's bad.
HoosierSnd
<<- I know mics are a subjective area...
Nothing I've experienced in a while has been quite so convincing of that as
this particular discussion!
Thanks,
steveV
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
Mmermag
>>Any large diaphragm is gonna sound much different that a B&K or Schoeps in
a reverberant environment, due to polar pattern narrowing. Sometimes that's
good, sometimes that's bad.
David L. Rick
Seventh String Recording
dr...@hach.com<<
It ain't just polar patterns , but each mic (obviously) has a different
character. In the American Brass Quintet recording... they just overall
preferred the flattering way it made them sound. Perhaps fuller than other
mics. Certainly not 'brassy or bright' like in some studio settings. I never
used the mic as close as most people do in studios. The M149 loses a great
deal of brilliance some ambient venues that I have worked in. Again.. a
blessing or a curse? Depends. Worth the money? I guess it was.. my artists
preffered the sound over the top mics in the classical biz.
Mike
Palermo141
I've heard a lot of conflicting reports about the M-149 some love it others
hate it. I think it may also have something to do with the micpre it's mated
too.
Personally I thought M-149 sounded like an AKG 414TL on steroids, with a very
noticable presence peak in the upper mids. It seemed to skew the whole
freuquency spectrum of the mic upward.
I had this female singer with a lovely voice, though slightly strident during
peaks and it was like, who turned on the fluorescent lights. I immediately
gave her a borrowed Tele U47 and that that lush warm glow returned. I am
particularly hard on what I consider "brite" sounding gear.
Let me put it to you this way, A friend of mind sent me a dat of his
voice-overs using a variety of mics thru a Neve sidecar and then his Meek tube
channel. The first two mics thru the sidecar were a U-87 and a M149. I
thought the M149 sounded magnificent and huge and the 87 sounded like a cheap
dynamic in comparison.
Then he ran those same mics + a Sony C800, TLM 193, C12VR and a Lawson L47 thru
his tube channel. This time the M149 exhibited those same harsh and brite
charecteristics I had disliked so much. However, that first M149 thru the
Neve sidecar really sounded amazing (maybe the sidecar had no top end) it was
the hugeness and dimension of the mic that struck me. Though, overall I liked
the L-47 best followed by the C800.
So I'd recommend trying before you buy cause as they say:
"your mileage may vary"
BTW, My friend eventually settled on a Manley Tube mic though personally I
would never buy a Manley, becuase David Manley was a prick from his VTL
(Vacum Tube Logic)days and from what I understand, is no less the prick now.
SOFAKING
alex wrote:
>I know mics are a subjective area, but if there are any other
>M-149 opinions, I'd be interested to hear them.
i have yet to be as impressed with a mic as i was with the Empyrian tube mic.
you might not have heard of it, but you will. its like a 251 meets a 47.
although theyre not currently available, theyve been mentioned in a few mix
interviews.
mic fixer-upper tracy korby is hand making these babies on a limited basis.
getting them in the hands of a few studios for feedback.
after hearing it we ordered 2 tubes and 2 FETS.
good luck
.
sofaking
Geno Porfido
I've been reviewing the 149 for a piece in Recording and I've had pretty
good results with the 149. Mics are very subjective and they depend as
much on the pre and the artist as anything, yes?
First impression was the amount of gain....a good 10dB hotter than most
mics, and the manual reinforced this finding. I put up a C-12VR, 414, the
149 and a MicroTech Gefell ( the Neumann uses the same M7 capsule
according to the manual...) The MTG and the 149 were surprisingly close in
the top end. I found the 149 to have a big presence peak. I actually
thought the 414 was warmer at first ( imagine that?)
Continued testing through various pre's ( console is a Ghost; API 312's;
AMEK9098; Red6) found the 149 sounded great on the API's and the 9098.
While tracking a male vocal..a Robert Plant type singer; about halfway
through the track I stopped the tape and said " ya know...this thing
sounds great" to which he replied" I have a huge smile on my face!!" Thats
what it's all about.
The best sound from the 149, I thought, were close, intimate
vocals....imaging was great. Overall...it's a great mic. Worth $4750 ( or
whatever..)....I dunno. It's excellent but awful expensive. ( Same with
the C12 VR!). I'd say more like 2g's...:-)
If it's got a tube in it....tack on an extra grand. Another for the
'Neumann' name.
My 414 and MTG sound good too......as does a damn 57 on the right person. :-)
Geno Porfido
Boulevard Recording Co.
In article <343C2B...@ix.netcom.com>, http://www.mercenary.com wrote:
> Larry Bentley wrote:
> >
> > In article <61e20p$f5v$1...@news1.rmi.net>, dr...@hach.com (David L.
Rick) wrote:
> >
> > {stuff omitted}
> > >BTW the Neumann M-149 was a big loser. It sounded thin and
> > >unappealing on all the men. We did use it on one woman, though.
> >
> > Wow, I've had exactly the opposite experience. It has sounded big and
> > wonderful on male vocals, but hasn't knocked me out on female vocals.
> > However, I've only tried it on two female singers so far so I'm not
> > writing off for that application just yet.
> >
> > ___________________________________________________
> > Larry Bentley
> >
> Golly, I must be totally whacked...I've had great luck with both males
Ty Ford
In Article <19971010042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mme...@aol.com
Just goes to show you that the same model mic works differently in different
siutations. After using the M149 in several studios, my impression was that
it was a LOT brighter than the U87, and a U67 we compared it to. In fact,
brilliant would be a good word to use.
I also found that in one studio with API mic pres, the result was downright
edgey. Somewhere around here I have the review...ahhh here it is.
Neumann M149 Tube Condenser Mic
High Price - High Output -High Detail
PROS: A significant advance in microphony
CONS: Mortgage the house
Ty Ford
Baltimore, MD
It felt weird plugging a $4,750 microphone into a $3,700 digital console.
The mic was the Neumann M149. The console the Yamaha 03D. The job was to
evaluate the new Neumann. If the M149's price is not imposing, its size
(large enough to make a U87 look like a U89 by comparison) surely is. And if
those two attributes don't jerk your head around, consider that its
transformerless solid state output is 14-15dB hotter than a U89. That's a
peak voltage of 4900 millivolts, almost 5 volts! According to Neumann's Karl
Winkler, the tube used is an Amperex 8254 triode that is hard-wired to a
daughter board that pops off the main circuit board. Need to run long mic
lines? Neumann says the M149 can push 300 meters of cable. So what we have
here is a large, loud tube mic with a capsule based on the M7 capsule
design as used in the U47 and M49.
The dual diaphragm capsule is a pressure gradient transducer capable of nine
patterns between omni and figure of eight. A seven-position roll off filter
goes from 20Hz to 160Hz. There's no "off" for the filter, so if you're after
anything below 20Hz you may be disappointed. I hope your console can take
the almost 5 Volt output, because the M149 has no pad. There's also a much
more transparent head grille and attention to detail in building a curved
slope beneath the capsule instead of a flat horizontal surface. The slope
reduces the possibility of reflected sound within the grille from reaching
the elastically mounted capsule. A cloth dust cover is supplied and Neumann
suggests keeping the mic covered when not in use to keep dust from settling
on the capsule.
Other less obvious engineering considerations include stabilization of both
tube anode current and filament voltage by a control loop in the power
supply. Per the manual, "Cable losses of up to 4VDC - which corresponds to a
cable length of 100 meters between the microphone and the power supply unit
- are detected and compensated for by a sensor line. A breakdown on this
line due to a short circuit or an open circuit is not dangerous as the
heater (filament) voltage would automatically be reduced and all other
voltages switched off. The tube is very gently heated by current limiting
with foldback characteristics."
The AF output of the external, wall-wart powered power supply has been
designed to reject external phantom power because power for the mic is
generated by its own power supply. The power supply is connected to the mic
by the KT 8 cable; a 10 meter, 8-conductor cable that carries -70V, +5V,
audio +, +70V, sensor line, ground, +32V and audio -. Winkler says a new,
more elegantly designed power supply should be available for the M149 by
this Fall at a price of about $350. The M149 also comes with the EA170
elastic suspension mount.
TUBE NOISE
The first consideration in checking out a tube mic is noise. To get a
handle on noise I went to one of the quietest rooms in Baltimore, Flite 3.
Engineer Mark Patey and I compared the M149 with a U87 (not U87ai) connected
to API mic preamps. With the preamps adjusted for equal mic loudness, the
meters showed that the self noise + room tone of both mics was the same.
However, the spectra of the noises were very different. The U87 produced a
high pitched hiss, what most would call solid state noise. The M149 produced
a lower frequency, wider spectrum noise that sounded a lot like room tone.
Bear in mind that to hear this noise at all we had to crank the monitors up
quite a bit. Enabling a 50Hz rolloff filter on the console dropped the M149
noise level another 6-8dB, but didn't do much for the U87's level. The
conclusion here was that, the M149 is one of the quietest tube mics I've
heard. As for frequency response, the U87 has an output transformer that
acts like a built in low frequency filter. Because the M149 is
transformerless, it passes frequencies no U87 or U89 can; sounds below
70-80Hz get rolled off a bit.
TRANSPARENCY
I heard early appraisals of the M149 mention that it didn't sound much like
a Neumann. After listening through several mic preamps, I think I know the
basis for those comments. The M149 head grille is less restrictive than
those of the U47, U87, U89, TLM170. It's so transparent that you can see the
capsule rather easily through the grille, resulting in a noticeable lift in
the 7KHz-10KHz range, and a bit beyond. According to Winkler, "The old-style
head grille has three layers that affected the sound more than we wanted.
They provide a certain amount of acoustic compression and softened or
widened the pattern a bit. In the M149 the patterns are textbook spot on."
Without as much grille work, the M149 has a lift that's lower in frequency
than the "air" of a 414, but higher than the midrange plateau normally
associated with the U87. This lift gives the M149 a very different voice
than that of other Neumanns. It also demands that mic preamp choices be
reexamined.
We found that, with a variety of male voices, an API mic pre sounded either
ultra-defined or slightly grainey. A popper stopper was almost enough to
soften the grain. Raising a single sheet of facial tissue between the voice
and the mic was slightly too much. The experience left us wondering whether
the extremely high output of the M149 was too much for the API input
transformer.
Back at Technique, I placed a Braun "Swiss Gold" metal mesh coffee filter
basket over the head grille. It tempered the top end to a point between the
tissue and the popper stopper and reduced the M149's sensitivity to popping.
Even without our makeshift filters, less colorful mic preamps like the GML
were not grainey. The preamp in a vintage 6-channel Revox mixer gave the
M149 a darker, more traditional sound. A Mackie 1604 made the M149 sound
hard and bright with a slurred bottom. There was also a discontinuity in the
smoothness of the top end response that sounded almost like a glitch. It
should be noted that even one trip through the Urei 1176 limiter at moderate
settings ironed out the graineyness we heard with the API and also destroyed
most of the transients.
Regardless of which preamp was used, the hot spot of the M149 is relatively
small, both vertically and horizontally. With a set of AKG240 cans, I could
hear the high end fade once I got off axis by more than 20 degrees in any
pattern, omni included. It should be noted that the shift from hot spot is
very subtle. In one experiment I could hear the roll off in the AKG240s
while recording a voice track to a Panasonic SV-3900 DAT, but I could not
hear the rolloff upon playback. Without hard data to explain the phenomenon,
I can only guess the 16-bit, 48KHz recording compromised the top end enough
to make the shift less apparent. I hate to say it, but maybe it's time to
consider 24-bit, 96KHz audio.
Proximity starts to take effect at distance of about three inches. The
exception, the figure of eight pattern, starts increased low end response at
about a foot. Perhaps due to its transparent grille, the M149 is more prone
to popping than a U87. It is also more susceptible to moisture-laden close
exhales. I've exhaled directly into U87s and U89s without any effect. Doing
so to the M149 caused it to rumble and pop a bit for about 10 seconds.
HOW DOES IT SOUND
The M149 is capable of capturing a high degree of detail. It doesn't have
the "tube sound" that most older tube mics have. The M149 is so sensitive
that even close micing might not hide acoustic problems in your studio. As
to its persistence, I cut some fairly aggressive TV V/O tracks using 6-8dB
of full compression with a Compellor and found that adding a narrow 2dB at
60Hz and 1dB of 10KHz shelving resulted in a very smooth and open sound.
At Tony Eichler's studio near Baltimore, wife Sandy played the flute in a
bright/hard room while we compared the M149, U67 and U87, through GML mic
pres, a Mackie 24x8 board and Tannoy monitors. The M149 sounded much more
"naked" than the U67, the tube predecessor to the U87. The M149 was less
thick than a U87. I can't imagine a situation in which you'll have to
increase the top end EQ on the M149 to get a natural sound. The U67 gave us
the sound we most expected the flute to make. The M149 offered a much
greater amount of detail.
IN CONCLUSION
Whether your facility can justify the $4,750 price tag is something you'll
have to decide. The M149 is more than a significant microphone, it's a
positioning statement. For an industry that feeds as heavily on image as
this one does, hanging an M149 in the studio is a statement of
accomplishment. It says you've "arrived", or at least have the money to buy
your arrival. For broadcast facilities, most of whom have a "thing" for
physically imposing microphones, the M149 is impossible to ignore. The M149
is so big it makes a U87 look like a U89. It's also just a tool to be used,
just like any other piece of gear. And, in the hands of the wrong person,
it's heritage and potential will languish. I could almost hear the
collective groan from studio owners whose top shelf mic has been the U87.
For them, and many others, the bar has been raised again.
Ty Ford's busy schedule still has some holes for V/O work. Contact him at
tf...@jagunet.com.
Ty's Article and Audio Archives are available from
www.jaguNET.com/~tford/homepage.html
Jeff Olsen
>>
>> I was seriously considering buying this mic. Is it the best vocal
>> mic out there (still in production)?
>>
>> - I know mics are a subjective area, but if there are any other
>> M-149 opinions, I'd be interested to hear them.
>>
>> Alex
>I think so...although I've been playing with the Soundelux...it doesn't
>suck...
>Fletcher
And, you can get TWO Soundeluxi for the price of one M-149...
I've heard neither... i've heard enough good things about the SD from
people with big mic lockers that I'm going to get one on a conditional
trial... we'll see. I have a pair of Groove Tube mics here to try out
now; one is the MD1a and the other is a ****6 (?) multi-pattern thing. I
don't care for the whatever-6, kind of grainy and harsh, but I may snag
the MD1a because it is smooth and dark and cheap (at wholesale)- bet it
would sound great on guitar cabs, although I don't get to try that until
tomorrow. Then I could keep my 77DX's out of the line of fire a little <g>!
The Soundeluxe is supposed to be on the airy side- sort of C12-ish. The
149 is beefier, right?
-jeff
Fletcher
> And, you can get TWO Soundeluxi for the price of one M-149...
>
> I've heard neither... i've heard enough good things about the SD from
> people with big mic lockers that I'm going to get one on a conditional
> trial... we'll see. I have a pair of Groove Tube mics here to try out
> now; one is the MD1a and the other is a ****6 (?) multi-pattern thing. I
> don't care for the whatever-6, kind of grainy and harsh, but I may snag
> the MD1a because it is smooth and dark and cheap (at wholesale)- bet it
> would sound great on guitar cabs, although I don't get to try that until
> tomorrow. Then I could keep my 77DX's out of the line of fire a little <g>!
>
> The Soundeluxe is supposed to be on the airy side- sort of C12-ish. The
> 149 is beefier, right?
>
> -jeff
Depends on the pattern selected...but Cardioid to Cardioid...yep...but
not by a whole lot...kinda different characters to each...
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
Fletcher
Palermo141 wrote:
>
> I thought the 149 souded "airier" a larger while the C-12 sounded chunkier and
> closed in.
It varies greatly from mic to mic with the older C-12s...it depends on
25 years+ of care and feeding, or lack thereof...
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
David L. Rick
In a post I didn't see, Fletcher apparently wrote:
>> Golly, I must be totally whacked...I've had great luck with both males
>> and females with an M-149...used cardioid on males, hyper cardioid or
>> omni on the lady folk...stellar tone...I've had it beat tube 47's,
>> Nuvistor 47s, C-12s, ELA M 251s...I've had fabulous results with it...
>>
>> I haven't tried it on any white women yet...but I don't see why it
>> wouldn't work for them as well. I am curious about what other equipment
>> David was using with it when it sounded thin on male vocals? I've
>> actually had the exact opposite problem with it sounding to fat on
>> males...ended up backing them off half a foot and it all worked out
>> fine.
I was using six channels of Millennia HV-3 -- the studio didn't have
much else that was good, though the chief engineer was thinking seriously
about a couple of channels of Avalon 737. [Actually, four of those
channels were mine -- I booked the studio because it had a big
Russ Berger-designed live room, not because the equipment list would
make anyone drool. I'd book it again, but I'd rent a Summit compressor
or two -- we could have used them.] Well, maybe a tube preamp would
have helped, but hell it was already a tube mic, how many tubes do
you need, anyway? Maybe it's the working distance. We didn't have
anyone as close as 6" -- thespians seem to clam up if you get them
that close, plus most were singing off the vocal score, and they
couldn't see it with a giant mic in the way.
I really shouldn't pick on Neumann -- they've never made a mic that
wasn't really good for _something_, it's just a matter of figuring
out what. And it did sound pretty good on the woman, who had obviously
had some vocal training. (She was white, since you asked.) If I were
to rewrite my post, I'd say that the *real* loser was an AKG C12VR,
which we didn't like on anyone the whole day. Bright and rather veiled
at the same time. Since we didn't use it, I'd kind of forgotten about it.
It'll be interesting to get back to that project and see if my impressions
hold up. Right now I'm busy doing measure-by-measure editing of piano
music with lots of sustain pedal. Talk about death by a thousand cuts!
I'm seventy hours into it, and I'm only half way done.