Thaaat's right..I remember MXL now. Had a V12 that was interesting, but not real strong. However I have gotten the bug, and want to try a little tweaking..so I ordered a couple "higher-end" tube mics made by MXL, and have been reading on other boards about re-tubing these mics with high quality NOS European tubes, and adjusting the impedance to make for a much better mic..Gotta try it..I'll let you know by Monday. I have two of these coming from various sources..a V69ME, and a neat looking MXL960..I have gotten my hands on a stash of ECC81 tubes from Telefunken and Mullard, and will do some experimenting. I have heard that these mics are indeed made at the MXL campus in California. IS that possible?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MXL Mics...
- Thread starter jefflaurence
- Start date
sorry..SOME of the MXL mics are made in the US (specifically V6) but I am getting a couple over the weekend to take apart and play with.
B
bobbybooey
Guest
Jeff-
Have you ever used any of MXL's low-end mics? I have an MXL 2001 in my home studio... love how it sounds with my voice, and was wondering how they compared to their more expensive fare.
Have you ever used any of MXL's low-end mics? I have an MXL 2001 in my home studio... love how it sounds with my voice, and was wondering how they compared to their more expensive fare.
U
uppendowndadial
Guest
I use a V63M. Got to demo it before I bought it, and liked it from the beginning as compared to A-T mics. Nice bottom end.
bobbybooey said:Jeff-
Have you ever used any of MXL's low-end mics? I have an MXL 2001 in my home studio... love how it sounds with my voice, and was wondering how they compared to their more expensive fare.
When MARS (the chain music store) went belly up, I picked up a pair of their "house brand" MXL's called "V-57M." I'm sure you'll never find a V-57M in any store. It's a "house number." It isn't uncommon for chain stores to have a specific model number assigned to them to discourage price comparisons. In the going out of business sale, I got these things for $39.00 each. They have a fairly cheap looking painted finish, so thinking they were probably junk, I just set them aside for a long time, not paying much attention to them.
One day, we needed an extra mic for a guest at the radio station, so I decided to take one out of the box and use it. I chose it mainly because the guest (a sponsor) would be impressed with how it looked. I wasn't expecting much. Boy was I surprised. The guy sounded great through it.
I started playing with one myself, and decided that I liked it a lot better than an AT-4033 which had been the primary announce mic. These things have a very definite "sweet spot" but it isn't hard to find if you are wearing headphones. Most people seem to fall right into it. They did need a foam windscreen, which cost almost as much as the mics. Now the pair of MXL's are doing duty as the two most often used mics at the station. Go figure. They were sure worth the $39.00.
I'm sure the same mic exists under a different model number. It might be worth trying some of their cheaper mics. You might be pleasantly surprised.
The AT mics don't perform too well when they're worked the way most broadcasters like to work them (straight into the diaphragm). They definately need space. The sweet spot is always about 6"-8" from the capsule, and off axis. Once you find it, though, it's nice. Just like a Neumann, they wash out if you go straight into the mic.
E
E
Well not bad..not bad at all. Got an MXL 960 from Musicians Friend, and immediately liked it's build (149 bucks!!)
It's a beefy mic, and initially sounded really pretty good..THEN I put a NOS Telefunken ECC81 (12AT7) into it..and let it sit for a few hours this morning. This is a raw topical news promo track, and nothing on it, but a little expansion. The producer said it really cut through the music track.
www.audiolocker.net/young_knoxville/wate0803a1.mp3
...pretty cool. I like it better than the TLM49's today..and my God! 149 bucks??? Jeesh
It's a beefy mic, and initially sounded really pretty good..THEN I put a NOS Telefunken ECC81 (12AT7) into it..and let it sit for a few hours this morning. This is a raw topical news promo track, and nothing on it, but a little expansion. The producer said it really cut through the music track.
www.audiolocker.net/young_knoxville/wate0803a1.mp3
...pretty cool. I like it better than the TLM49's today..and my God! 149 bucks??? Jeesh
Jeff Laurence said:...pretty cool. I like it better than the TLM49's today..and my God! 149 bucks??? Jeesh
Sounds like I'd better call Musician Friend! Got any of those Telefunken tubes to spare?
I found a bunch of these tubes..also a few NOS Mullard gold-pin (also very very good) Chuck. Let me know if you want one. I just bought four of those mics...what a find.
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/MXL-MXL-960-Tube-Condenser-Microphone?sku=273101
I can shoot you a tube..but I need to listen to each tube first to be sure they are clean.
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/MXL-MXL-960-Tube-Condenser-Microphone?sku=273101
I can shoot you a tube..but I need to listen to each tube first to be sure they are clean.
Sorry to hog this thread..but I re-tubed a second MXK960 and got the same results. The build quality of the inside of these things is downright amazing. Sound is nearly identical to the first one:
www.audiolocker.net/sl_frog/kplr0804_randy.mp3
Just a couple of news BBDS..but it holding up nicely.
www.audiolocker.net/sl_frog/kplr0804_randy.mp3
Just a couple of news BBDS..but it holding up nicely.
M
menotti1
Guest
what about a AB comparison with the 960 and the tlm 49..Please.But i agree 149.00 is a steal.compared to 1200 for the 49...
Jeff Laurence said:I found a bunch of these tubes..also a few NOS Mullard gold-pin (also very very good) Chuck. Let me know if you want one. I just bought four of those mics...what a find.
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/MXL-MXL-960-Tube-Condenser-Microphone?sku=273101
I can shoot you a tube..but I need to listen to each tube first to be sure they are clean.
I'm a real sucker for mics. It is a heck of a deal so I just bought one. I would be interested in a tube, although I may have some in my collection. As you say, they can vary from one to the other. It may even be OK with whatever comes with it. We'll see...
Thanks for the tip.
I found a couple clunkers in my latest batch of ECC81's that I bought..then found that sometimes a noisy tube can have some oxyidation on the pins..I took a piece of jewelers sandpaper to them and wiped the pins with alcohol..worked like a champ.
Chuck said:bobbybooey said:Jeff-
Have you ever used any of MXL's low-end mics? I have an MXL 2001 in my home studio... love how it sounds with my voice, and was wondering how they compared to their more expensive fare.
When MARS (the chain music store) went belly up, I picked up a pair of their "house brand" MXL's called "V-57M." I'm sure you'll never find a V-57M in any store. It's a "house number." It isn't uncommon for chain stores to have a specific model number assigned to them to discourage price comparisons. In the going out of business sale, I got these things for $39.00 each. They have a fairly cheap looking painted finish, so thinking they were probably junk, I just set them aside for a long time, not paying much attention to them.
One day, we needed an extra mic for a guest at the radio station, so I decided to take one out of the box and use it. I chose it mainly because the guest (a sponsor) would be impressed with how it looked. I wasn't expecting much. Boy was I surprised. The guy sounded great through it.
I started playing with one myself, and decided that I liked it a lot better than an AT-4033 which had been the primary announce mic. These things have a very definite "sweet spot" but it isn't hard to find if you are wearing headphones. Most people seem to fall right into it. They did need a foam windscreen, which cost almost as much as the mics. Now the pair of MXL's are doing duty as the two most often used mics at the station. Go figure. They were sure worth the $39.00.
I'm sure the same mic exists under a different model number. It might be worth trying some of their cheaper mics. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Chuck,
If you're interested in picking up a spare, American Musical Supply carries the V57M. $59 there, though.
Emmett
L
Lee_Sackett
Guest
Jeff Laurence said:Sorry to hog this thread..but I re-tubed a second MXK960 and got the same results. The build quality of the inside of these things is downright amazing. Sound is nearly identical to the first one:
www.audiolocker.net/sl_frog/kplr0804_randy.mp3
Just a couple of news BBDS..but it holding up nicely.
Jeff,
Very nice! Hog away!
What pre is that, and are you EQing at all?
Also, have you tried the Mullards with the V69 yet?
LeeS.
Lee..we use the Universal Audio M610 preamp..and there is a 1db boost at 8k on that box but the mic is bright to begin with..I like that..other than that nothing..I am more surprised at how good that crazy mic sounds..I'll post an A-B with the TLM49 this week..Sorry to take up so much space, but this thing is really amazing..and sounds (gulp) better on some tracks than our 8600.00 U47 specifically louder deliveries (car spots, stereo stores etc) Gonna re-tube a V69 with a Mullard this week.
..Damn I could buy the factory for that coin...
..Damn I could buy the factory for that coin...
L
Lee_Sackett
Guest
Jeff Laurence said:we use the Universal Audio M610 preamp
Have you retubed the 610 yet? I hear that swapping out the 12AX7s with NOS Telefunken or Siemens makes a big difference. They also say to leave the 6072s in.
Jeff Laurence said:Sorry to take up so much space
So what !
As it happens I have 2 NOS Tele AX7's..might try that..but I'm pretty happy with it's warmth as it sits..
Jeff,
Have you tinkered with the input impedence on your preamp with both mics? The 610 has the ideal impedence for both the MXL 960 and the TLM49, but with the switch in different positions.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with matching preamp impedence with mic impedence, the preamp input impedence should be roughly 10 times that of the mic impedence.
In this case, the UA Solo 610 runs at 500 ohms (in Lo-Z position) and 2k ohms (in Hi-Z position).
As it happens, the MXL 960 runs at 200 ohms (exactly one tenth of the Hi-Z position).
And the TLM 49 rolls at 50 ohms (exactly one tenth of the Low-Z position).
So Jeff, you have an ideal testing ground for these two mics.
Something else that should be noted, is just how good a cheap mic can sound through a nice preamp. The pre makes just as much difference as the mic. In most cases, the mic determines the "character" and the preamp determines the amount of clarity, fullness and distortion.
Of course, the preamp can add a certain character, as well (i.e. Neve), but it is usually much more subtle than the mic.
Emmett
Have you tinkered with the input impedence on your preamp with both mics? The 610 has the ideal impedence for both the MXL 960 and the TLM49, but with the switch in different positions.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with matching preamp impedence with mic impedence, the preamp input impedence should be roughly 10 times that of the mic impedence.
In this case, the UA Solo 610 runs at 500 ohms (in Lo-Z position) and 2k ohms (in Hi-Z position).
As it happens, the MXL 960 runs at 200 ohms (exactly one tenth of the Hi-Z position).
And the TLM 49 rolls at 50 ohms (exactly one tenth of the Low-Z position).
So Jeff, you have an ideal testing ground for these two mics.
Something else that should be noted, is just how good a cheap mic can sound through a nice preamp. The pre makes just as much difference as the mic. In most cases, the mic determines the "character" and the preamp determines the amount of clarity, fullness and distortion.
Of course, the preamp can add a certain character, as well (i.e. Neve), but it is usually much more subtle than the mic.
Emmett
Emmett..We're not using the SOLO610 but the discontinued (it figures) M610
http://www.uaudio.com/_works/images/products/analog/m610-medium-front.jpg
As it happens we run the 960 mic at the 2.0 Lo-Z position and the high boost switch IS up..unlike the above picture, the Lo-Cut switch is OFF.
Yeah as usual you're correct about the preamp making a HUGE difference in the way ANY mic sounds..but as usual the mic needs to do it's part as well..In this case I don't know how the company can make such a good sounding unit at that price point (even with my 60.00 NOS tube) My remaainning question is reliability, and ability to CONSISTANTLY perform this well..
http://www.uaudio.com/_works/images/products/analog/m610-medium-front.jpg
As it happens we run the 960 mic at the 2.0 Lo-Z position and the high boost switch IS up..unlike the above picture, the Lo-Cut switch is OFF.
Yeah as usual you're correct about the preamp making a HUGE difference in the way ANY mic sounds..but as usual the mic needs to do it's part as well..In this case I don't know how the company can make such a good sounding unit at that price point (even with my 60.00 NOS tube) My remaainning question is reliability, and ability to CONSISTANTLY perform this well..
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.