Heh, of course we were way off.

Fucking mics.

It is especially interesting to me how one or the other of the 990s sounds more like the 2001, than each other, in different clips. I mean, they are all condensers, but they are totally different shapes and circuits, and the 990s are small diameter, and the 2001 is an LDC. And it is an LDC with a fucking output transformer to boot. The 990s are transformerless.

In general, before i compared them in this, i would say that the 2001 was my "best" microphone at the moment. I use it on everything, and if i need to use one mic for something, it is the one i am going to use.

The stock 990 is way way more "shishhy" than the 2001. The 2001 has a bit more "shrawww" to its topend and more low end. It is interesting to me that in the loud guitars clips, the screenmodded 990, to my ears anyhow, starts to behave a little bit more like the 2001 for the topend. It doesn't show the low end that the 2001 has though, which is why i was hoping for better results from the cap mods. And even though it is somewhat closer to the topend of the 2001 than the stock 990, the screenmod one is still a little "squeeee" in the way the resonance of things like the fuzz sound. To me, the 2001 has something gnarlier going on.

The stock 990 on guitar is crazy aggressive on the heavier distorted and palmutey ones though. All presence and teeth. It almost sounds more like what i would expect a dynamic to do there. I like it, it also makes the pinch harmonic kind of blast out. In the end, across the board i generally like the way the third mic sounds. Random things i prefer one or the other, but even then, i could work with what the third mic does.

I am still interested to see what else the 990 mod can do though. Two things that occurred to me since my last bouncy rants:

1. I should try the modded mic with the unmodded one's screen screwed on it(and vice versa). And,
2. I should measure the bias voltage on both microphones' FETs, and see if perhaps they are not very close to being the same...

I simply feel like i should be hearing/seeing bigger changes on the modded mic than i am. I wonder if something else is affecting what the circuit is capable of. Capsule seems good/undamaged/adjusted the same way as the stock one. The bias thing might explain some stuff though. I almost would prefer that i find it to be way off, just so i can inject a little life/hope/enthusiasm back into the mod process WRT the 990.

I actually did do a couple other things to it a little while ago, but if the bias needs adjusting, i will need to do them all over again anyhow, so i will just put off getting into detail about them until i get a chance to measure/check that biz.

hrm.. one of the other things that joly cat talks about too is having the appropriate capsule for the circuit-- like that a tilted up FR circuit like the schoeps and a 67 capsule is a bad mix 'cause it gets so bright and shiny. less course, that's what you need for the application.

i wonder.. that part that seems hardest to wrap my head around is the fact that a piece of gold sputtered mylar can sound SO different from another one, and that edge termination and center termination can sound so different! or if you could measure them 'in free air', so to speak, would they basically sound identical minus the circuit?? i wonder if there's some treatise on good microphone design-- 'cause if changing up parts inside the circuit doesn't really alter the essences of things all that much- it really seems like the matching of circuit/body/capsule is the holy trinity. that's a whole world away from just tweaking a part or two, and is definitely a call for MAKING microphones ala carte

it's too bad that capsules are kinda pricy-- 'cause i'd be supremely curious to see what would happen if you started frankensteining capsules to circuits and canisters. i mean, hell.. i think that's kinda what mxl does-- isn't the 990 the 603 capsule turned sideways in a LDC body? what'd happen if you took something like an 87 capsule and stuck it on a schoeps circuit-- or a c12 capsule and stuck it on an 451 circuit? not necessarily that any of those things would be desirable per se-- but i just wonder what would happen- and it seems like it could almost be a viable business plan to MAKE kits for crazy mic tweakers to try those sorta things!

gargh... wheels spinning inside brain. knew i smelt smoke.

Lots of different aspects to the capsules themselves:

1. How thin the mylar is.
2. How thin the gold is.
3. How well distributed it is.
4. What tension the mylar is tuned to.
5. How precisely the parts are machined. (Even if something is supposed to be a copy, it may not be accurately enough cut, to sound the same)
6. The specific distribution and arrangement of the damping plate.
7. The specific arrangement and distribution of the backing plate.
8. How many backing plates/pressure chambers there are.
9. etc etc etc etc etc.

The more expensive capsules are generally, i think, just more carefully put together. Cleaner machining, more precise material and plating specifications, and more careful tensioning/tuning processes and general QC.



Also, yeah, the 990 and 603 do have the same capsule. The different body thing is massive, for polar pattern and for frequency response. And the 990 has an additional brass shroud mounted to the front of the capsule:



Which actually comes from a similar Schoeps arrangement:



And though i cannot remember at the moment where i read it, the shroud is IIRC a mechanical means of providing a bit of high end rise to the response. My unscientific test of yesterday removing the thing was not particularly conclusive and will have to be revisited after i take a look at a couple other things.

The capsule itself and the 603 in general is in theory a copy of the Neumann KM84/184, but the front of the 603 is too long compared, meaning that it is almost as if the capsule is mounted half an inch deep into a tube, rather than the Neumann which is mounted almost flush with the front of the mic. That almost half inch of tube makes all kinds of weird things happen to sound waves, especially highs and mids. Hence one of the big Joly mod things is to chop it right down to try to get it to act a bit more level like the Neumann.

The other big difference is the vents at the rear. In the 990, the rear is almost wide open, like 1.5 inches of space all around before the grille. The 603 is almost closed at the rear, and the tiny vents in the side provide some more high end bump, and affect the polar pattern. Opening up the side vents like Joly does, shifts the frequency of the high end boost down a bunch. I suspect that it might also make the microphone act a little more cardioid as well.

So like, though they are the same capsule, almost everything else about the mics is different. And they do sound very different. But yeah, for sure, i would definitely like to spend more time with a pile of stock 990s, 603s, and some metal working tools...

Re: the results- this tells me I like the 2001 a fair bit overall, the unmodded 990 on guitars, and I'm not a big fan of the modded one- the stock 2001 sounds similar to-but-better than the screen modded 990. Go figure.

This shit is just beginning to defy logic.

1. The bias on both mics seems about the same.

2. On diss-assembly of the stock mic for bias taking, i took a look at the capsule, and it actually looks like behind the little screen that it has attached to it, that the mylar element might have some shit on it. Like. This is the better sounding microphone. And there is no way that that shit could have gotten in there except when the thing was manufactured. It may actually be a little bit of the gold flaked off or something, but whatever the case, it is not as nice-looking as the worse-sounding one. I am not going to fuck with it, because it sounds good as is, and that would require completely pulling apart the capsule to get to the mylar, which i would like to avoid, especially in a mic that sounds good already. But that is just bizarre.

3. The other thing i noticed is that the two 990s are clearly different revisions from different production runs. The circuits are the same, but certain components like the 1G resistors are different, and actually the whole PCB is mounted upside down from one mic to the other. The one i left stock has the components facing down towards the XLR, and the one i modded has them facing up towards the capsule. Weird. I wouldn't expect that the change would have anything to do with the sound aside from possibly affecting the noisefloor/shielding, but it is interesting anyhow.

Next up, i will try the stock mic with the modded screen compared to the modded mic with the stock screen, and see what i can see/hear.

Please do tell me what you hear here:

Screen Mod Switcheroo Sanity Test.

Without revealing what order they are in, this is partsswapped about so that the modded circuit is coupled with the stock screen, and the stock circuit is paired with the modded screen.

This is just a very quick general test for my own sanity. Quick acoustistrumz, and Cratefuzz.

Something in general pops out to me from all of the tests i just did, but i don't know if it comes across on this clip clearly enough, and i won't get a chance to do a better test until tomorrow, at least.

What in general pops out to you in this craptest though?

First off, the mic that seems brighter (B) with the acoustic seems darker with the 'lectric. It's also smoother up top with the dirtguitars. The difference is much more pronounced with the electric. It's a more mid-focused sounding mic. A has more obvious bottom extension on the acoustic and more obvious top on the electric. B seems to hang out in the mids throughout.

Solo-ed, I would choose B. I might regret this in a mix. But for guitars, at least, B seems more easily manageable and I like its midsiness.

another vote for b universally. to my ear, it's the most balanced. a is too bright in both cases, c and d have different variations of honk-- one more 1-2k ish, one more 3-5k ish

Innnnnteresting.

why come? what you thinking?

I hesitate to say, because i know which is which and all, but...

To me, in these tests, i feel like Microphone B has something weird going on with the mids, something badweird.

Similarly, i feel like Microphone A sounds best in both clips. It has a more clearly defined low end on the acoustic while retaining a decent top end. And on the electric, i feel like it sounds more balanced, not chopping off either end of the spectrum. In comparison, i feel like Mic B seems maybe a bit muffled on the electrifuzz, and a bit thin and dull on the acoustistrums.

I am going to aim to do something like what i did last time tomorrow, with my real amp. I felt that those tests("Loud Guitars") of the previous batch made the best sources for comparison. I feel like with the acoustic, it is a bit difficult to hear, and what you do hear, you could probably EQ to match the two. And i feel like the Cratefuzz, is a little odd because it is kind of a shitty sound to begin with, and it is a bit more difficult to extrapolate how shitty it started out as in the first place to say really as a blind listener, as you test subjects are, how the clips really relate to what was feeding them.

For whatever reason, i felt that the loud guitars test with the real amp made it a lot easier to discern the differences in clip form, that i am hearing sort of overall from all of the tests that i haven't posted. Meaning, i am more familiar with what the mics are doing to the source, so i am maybe a bit too attuned to what i consider the differences to be.

Regardless, i will runs at least one more quicktest tomorrow and see if it comes out useful/postable.

hrm. not sure-- i think that A sounds okay-- but the only fault i can find is that its a little 'hyperreal'... b sounds the clearest of the other 3-- but without the mid/upper mid peaks. in a lot of ways, i LIKE A, but i guess my ear's listening more for..err.. organicity? A's decent-- but just a scoch hypey.

hrm.. lets see what y' come up with tomorrow!

My ears are not picky enough to really make a decision on the acoustic guitar section, but I don't really dig the sound of Mic B on the guitars. Sounds kinda.. "unnnatural"?? I don't know how to describe it. It sounds like Mic A is giving a more accurate portrayal of the guitar sound, though that may be because that is what I would like to think that's what the amp sounds more like. B sounds narrow and congested in comparison, I guess is what I want to say.

I think I like B for precisely the things you guys don't like about it. If I had whatever a Mic B is, I'd probably use it for the same reasons I'd use a 57. All of what it's not doing is stuff I'll dump anyhow. Assuming A is closer to the source, I'd probably dump lows on the acoustic and highs on the electric... To make it sound like B in the context of a mix. That's just me though.

Another loud geetars test:

ANOTHER Loud Guitars Test.

(also, this one should be 16bit .wav; i just noticed that i think that the one i poasted the other day was accidentally a 32bit again. )

1. Is Three Microphones.
2. Each phraseymabob plays twice, but like before, no pause in between the three mic sets so that the first and third mics can be compared directly to each other.
3. Probably has too many bits to it, but at some point in the middle of recording i ceased to give a fuck, and could not re-find said fuck when it came time to edit the thing together.

That said, it is weird to me how much crazier the differences are at high volume with an okay amp. Actually, i hear a lot of stuff, but i won't say anything about it until laterz.

So once moar, tell me what YOU hear folks!

B does not sound right. Here I'm liking A, and I assume from the voicing it's the unmodded 990. There's something not going on here that I disliked in the previous clips. I'm still not totally down with the top end on dirty guitars, but it's better than it was. Could be the amp, could be placement, could be volume. Maybe all three. It's still brash and bright, but I'm not finding it as grating in this context.

B sounds... Off. Hollow? Like an awkward multi-mic combination with phase problems. Is C the 2001? C has a similar darker tone, but sounds like it's supposed to be that way, not like there's something missing in there somewhere. The more I listen, the top end in B is all jacked up.

I almost forgot aboot this thread. I clearly have done too many of these clips and i might be as sick of them as everyone else is.

Anyhoo, for the previous one i will reveal the microphonz.

















































































Microphone A = Modified screen with the stock/unchanged circuit
Microphone B = Stock screen with the modified circuit
Microphone C = MXL2001

What i take away from this test is this:

The microphone that i arbitrarily chose to modify, simply sounds worse, and has always sounded worse. It seems less likely to be a circuit issue. I think perhaps the capsule itself is just shittier sounding.

But basically, all of the other tests where i was comparing the screen and circuit mods get all fucked up, because, the microphone i modded, is just pretty much always going to sound a little fucked up. So, while i can say what i EXPECT the screen and circuit mods to do, i can't prove anything unless i could first start with two identical or closer-to-it, sounding microphones.

The upside of this, is that in this test, the modded screen sounds fine.The mic is still brightish, and not at all duller sounding than the 2001 or stock screen, as it first appeared. Jury is out on whether the screen mod was worth doing, obviously. But it is, at least, not as obviously detrimental as i first thought with the earlier flawed tests.

The moral of the story is: A/B testing is completely fucking useless unless you first establish the fact of similarity between control groups.

At some point i will try to figure out if there is an easy fix to the duller 990, but i have really begun to suspect that it is as stated previously, the capsule itself that sounds less swell.

Hopefully, when i can get my hands on a replacement for Joey, i will also get a chance to make some comparisons between two good/similar-sounding microphones.