Tor told me it would be okay if i wanted to modificate his MXL990s while i borrowed them. At first i said i wouldn't but, i have had them so long, i figured that if it will improve them, i should at least do something in gratitude for the long term gearloan, before that day comes when he will want them back.

What i decided to do was to, initially anyhow, mod one of them, keeping the other one as a stock baseline. Also this way, if the mods actually make the thing sound worse, i will only need to buy one new microphone for tor.

The first mod has been committed:

MXL990 Mod - Part One.

Just a simple test, overdriven electric guitar, two chords, one mic, then the other, repeats four times for comparative porpoises.

My questions for you are:

1. What, if anything, do you hear?
2. What do you think i changed?
3. Which do you think is which?
4. Anything else you note?

so on this when i have a minute. i'll grab the cans at home.

The 2nd ones sound better. I do not know why nor do I know what you did to them. There's just... more life to them, I guess?

Oh, and i won't say anything else about anything until more folks have had a chance to listen to it if they want.

The biggest difference is in the upper mids and top end. More focused and present. Without knowing, I would have guessed the modded version to be a more expensive mic. It sounds "shinier", I guess; more like a "good" recording of the source vs. someone's random clip from a forum. And it's not an EQ or placement thing either- like going from the Youtube version to the album version.

Approof'd.

Which one do you guys think is the modded, first or second?

The first one has a lot more mids going on, the second one is brighter and seems to have more... harmonics? More texture.

Can't say which I prefer.

Did you remove some internal muffling and stuff? In which case I'd say the second one is the modded, letting more high frequencies in.

Also, i am still learning about the place, if you guys try to download the file, does it come down as a .wav? I think that is how soundcloud works, yes? It works for me, but then, it is my page anyhow, so maybe it only works for me?

welp. i hear very little difference. what i DO hear SEEMS to be a midrange clarity difference-- the midbass is a little more congested, and the upper mids a little clearer in one series- but even still, i wouldn't attest to it in a court of law.

i tried to download the WAV files, but they won't play on my laptop- 'cause it's probably 24 bit.

i possibly could claim deafness through a shitty laptops converters.. but i wasn't hearing mammothian differences.

It is definitely a 24bit .wav. Next time i do this sort of thing, i will aim for 16bit. Didn't even occur to me.

Interestingly, even at the 128kbps that Soundcloud converted to and streams from, i can hear the things that strike me as different. I was actually surprised that they came across at that relatively low bitrate, actually.

Anyhow, now, i suspect than anyone here who might be interested in this thing has heard and commented aboot it. So i will reveal.







If you don't want to know yet, or want to listen to it some more to see what you can hear without knowing, don't read the rest of this.






































































The first mic is the modded one. So, as it plays: mod-stock-mod-stock-mod-stock-mod-stock.

The mod in question, i wound up sort of plunging for an irreversible one first, as from what i had read it seemed most likely to be different and interesting from stock. So i pulled out two layers of metal screen from the basket, leaving just the one outermost layer with the largest holes.

Very interestingly, what this does effectively, is it reduces the reflections that happen INSIDE the basket. In this small space, it is the highest/shortest frequencies most that bounce off the screen and make their way back into the capsule. Therefore, what you are hearing in the stock one, is not high end clarity that is being "revealed by the removal of something that is dampening it and not allowing it in in the first place", but rather, it is the artificially hyped treble frequencies being shoved off the metal grill and back into the capsule, rather than being allowed to pass through just the once and then head towards the next nearest hard surface/wall.

I was actually, going in, fairly skeptical that i would be able to hear anything at all, so it was surprising to me when i put the levels up one at a time, that it:

1. It absolutely made a difference. And that,
2. It was not necessarily a slamdunk 'for the better'. (that was my initial response anyhow)

NOT hearing the hyped high end takes some adjusting. As Snaxo said, one sounds blah, and the other sounds "produced". Basically it is exactly that, as it has a mechanically applied EQ curve on it to actually boost the top end.

Also interesting, how clear the differences sound to me, and how subtle they look on the EQ curve.



The resolution is low, but you can still see some general things. Yellow=ScreenMod, Purple=Stock, and for kicks, Red=Nulled signal of both with one's polarity flipped.

You can see the slight topend edge pretty much straight across from like 3k to 20k. It is sliiight, though. Just enough for more air i guess? Granted, with no wonderful way to compare the tracks, the one you see here is relatively ghetto. It only accounts for the average curve of each file. So, there may in fact be specific moments in between files where the differences are more pronounced. And honestly, that is what i suspect, from how the files sound to me, as well. But for a general looksee, it does seem to support at least generally what i heard.

One difference that i was surprised the image did not show, was that, same as Geoff, i thought i also heard more lower mid content in the modded mic. The graph doesn't seem to show that very clearly at all(hard to see maybe in the jpg, but the purple/yellow track pretty closely to each other throughout, aside from the aforementioned topend), and i wonder if it is indeed, more of a psychoacoustic symptom, of having less highmids in it. I.e., that with less dB space being taken at the region that human ears are most sensitive, that the ear becomes more likely to be able to make out another section of the frequency range?

Now. What is really an interesting dilemma, is which one of these mics is BETTER now. For certain types of things for instance, the 990 does and pretty much all cheaper chinese SDC capsuled things do, have a reputation for being a bit harsh/strident in the sibilant range. I have not found that necessarily to be a problem, but this is largely because i have also not been comparing it to top end microphones. I wonder if the modded mic might wind up sounding clearer on some sources possibly because it is not actually BOOSTING frequencies as much, which in theory would be potentially asking for a loss of clarity or a general smearing of excess sonic information.

Another interesting test however, that i did but kind of halfassed(and so didn't post) was with acoustic guitar. For that test, there was very little question in my mind that i would have preferred the stock mic, finger/pick attack being much more defined through it. The bass response also seemed better, but that may have been more of a hi-fi/hyped highend psychoacoustic deal honestly, because the curves don't really support it.

I may do a few more things with them though. I am curious for sure, about cymbals. And i am curious about possibly louder/more distorted guitars. And i might try to do a better acoustic test, and perhaps a voice one.

In closing, i suppose i now have more questions than answers. After i try them as the are now, on some different sources, the next mod steps will be some circuit changes, probably replacing some caps with nicer caps and/or different values. Maybe that will make a difference, maybe not.

As it stands right now though, i must say, when it comes time to give tor's mics back, i may have to acquire a new one and send him two stock ones. That will at least be clearer once i have done all of my tests, and finished the rest of the things that can be modded.

Oh, ALSO, i forgot to mention. The one thing that the mod definitely has going for it (and in retrospect, probably why so many people on the internet speak so highly of it ) is that it definitely makes the microphone LOOK cooler:





Gives it a bit of that "serious studio microphone" vibe.




Very distinguished and indisputably of a finer quality, that.

Yeah, I was actually thinking when I heard the clip that I kind of don't think either is better, just different.

But the brighter one definitely has something going for it and might indicate that the manufacturer actually knows what they are doing when they put that shit in there...

I'm actually shocked I liked the un-modded one better. (And figured it was the modded one.) I feel kinda guilty about it 'cause Chris took the time and effort to tamper with the mic and I like the sound better how it was.

That being said, if the circuit's being tampered with too after this, all bets are off. The mods for these things always seem to entail removing the inner layer on the headbasket; my RSM-4 had that removed (though that's a ribbon and thus a very different animal), I think Dan's v67gs have the inner mesh removed as well?, etc.

I'm curious what it sounds like on a different source, if it hasn't been thoroughly tampered with by now? Also, I'm wondering how it reacts to EQ. It might well be that the mic not the most immediately ear-catching is the better of the two because the brighter, unmodded one has something you can't effectively get rid of if you want/need to? Drum overheads seem the most obvious application here.

Re: more lower mids, my initial suspicion would be psychoacoustics, but that's just a guess on my part.

This will prove interesting, I think...

Yarr, i havena done anything else to it and won't until after i have done some other recoardings.

At this point, i essentially feel something similar to what Unstrung said about the manufacturers knowing what they are doing. As this is a point that a lot of DIYers often seem to miss. The old: "A Neumann doesn't have all that shit in the grille. I'll bet that is why the Neumann sounds better. These Chinese mic manufacturers are so DUMB."

It is an attractive theory. You know, twenty minutes with a $50 mic and a pair of pliers, or $3000 for a better mic? Easy choice for most.

But beyond the fact that MXL surely does know what they are doing, even more so, they know what they are working with. Especially with regards to the real reason that the Neumann sounds like it does, while a 990 sounds like it does: the capsules! MXL knows very well what the shortcomings of its capsule design are(actually the shortcomings are of the capsules' construction(and QC), the capsule itself is straight up Neumann KM84, in design).

So for sure, they know what it needs and where, to patch holes in its frequency range, or to accentuate desirable ranges more. That said, ALL microphone manufacturers use mechanical means to adjust the EQ response of their microphones. From the rings around the capsules, to the backplates on them, to the screens, there are all kinds of interesting manipulations going on, weird little channels cut into things, seemingly oddly spaced or positioned holes drilled through things, seemingly extra screens well inside the outward basket that don't seem to have any purpose. Well, they all do stuff. Usually on purpose too. Most of the tricks come straight from the Neumann/Schoeps/Telefunken designs that they are ripping off.

I will definitely continue along with the tests and will make some more changes. But i will be completely honest in that i went for the basket screens first, knowing that it was likely to be the biggest audible difference in any mod. I straight up do not expect much at all from the cap mods. Basically, doing this "biggest change" mod first, i have brought myself more or less full circle to where i was before, i.e., that i feel that the MXL990 does not need any mods. It is a completely solid decent relatively flat EQ SDC exactly as it comes from the factory. If you want it to do something else, you are looking at spending (minimum) three times as much basically(and i don't think that is necessarily worth it either because of what the stock mic does). But you would either be buying a different $150+ mic, or you would be buying a $100+ capsule for your $50 mic. Those are the things that would make the 990 "better".

So, more than likely i will need to acquire a stock 990 for tor. I just really don't expect the cap mods to make a world of difference. If anything, i actually expect that they might further reduce the high end response from what it is here. It is worth noting that just as when someone refers to "clear low end" they probably mean "low end attenuation", i suspect that "clear high end" in chinese mic mod terms may very well mean "less obvious sibilant peak". Which i further suspect might very well simply be a characteristic of this chinese capsule(which by the way, is in most mics that use an SDC capsule, even some slightly pricier ones). And so, to reduce the sibilant peak, perhaps really means, to attenuate some treble frequencies. Which, in my current listening view, is not necessarily a good thing for this mic.

ALL OF THAT SAID. I actually don't dislike the modded mic here. On this guitar sound i actually prefer it, because the guitar sound is my typically overbright crate amp/crate speaker 'practice' setup. To me the stock mic sounds harsher and less full. To my view and experience, those things generally, will result in a flat/dull effect in a full mix. It is similar to what i hear vs. what i want to hear in snare mics. e.g. To me, the snare crack should come from the tuning and the mic placement, the mic itself, you actually want to be bringing in a solid lower mids in addition. If it is all high end, it will be too flat. My prediction/theory, is that for me, and my terrible guitar sound, the modded one might be preferable here.

It really was no contest on the acoustic though, in the opposite direction. I will try to do a better one of that to poast.

yep.. my 67's have the grille taken out. the only things i really tested the 67s on were vocals previous to tearing out the inner grille- but i CAN with certainty say that the 67 sounded MUCH less tizzy and spitty with the grille out. at first, i put mine up against an nt1 (the original) and the top end was sort of similar. nt1's are pretty bitey-- and the 67 was a little darker-- but not so much that it was fully night and day. when i took the inner grille out-- it really changed pretty markedly. the tizz was absent, and it was a thicker sound altogether. i know that michael joly does the SAME thing to nt1's (i.e. rips out the inner spit mesh).

it's funny that you mention such a little thing causing beneficial results. y'know lately i've been working on a two bass project-- and just to satisfy my inner curiosity, i've been using a waves stereo eq to test the bass roll off on a mix. y'know.. changing just the q on a global eq can TOTALLY change the tonal balance on a mix. i'd go .3, .4, .5, .7... all sounded different. who'd think? i'm ABSOLUTELY certain changing mechanical resonances probably does the exact same thing-- and i'm sure SOMEBODY listens to it.

i wouldn't for a second think that a cap wouldn't change things radically as well-- i would absolutely change 'em out. i've been wanting to put paper in oils in my v67s for a while-- i just haven't found the schematic to figure which ONES would make a difference-- and apparently, the bias circuit on the FET makes the BIGGEST difference on a lot of these critters.

totally fascinating stuff though.. keep us posted!

Here is Round Two. Just some simple drum loops.

Because you now know the basic difference between mod and stock, i have thrown in a third mystery microphone just so you still don't know what you are hearing really. So now you get: Mic A, then Mic B, then Mic C. They repeat in this same order for all of these clips.

The first drumtest goes like this:

MXL 990 Mod Drum Tests Volume One.

Dan, the .wav should be a 16 bit for this one, so it should work on your laptop i think.

I had to do multiple beats because the differences are more and then less obvious, depending on what is being hit and how.

All three mics were positioned so their capsules were just about as close as could be without the microphones touching each other, and all set up as sort of short room mics, maybe eight feet out in front of the drum kit. For a single microphone, set in front like that, an almost surprisingly decent kick sound emerges, and reasonably properly balanced with the rest of the kit at it. I suspect that i would need (or rather: want) more snare for a rock and roll mix though.

OH, ALSO. These are totally raw microphone tracks. No EQ, no compression, nothing. I didn't even normalize the files. After i rendered it down i just normalized the thing, as a whole, to -0.3dB. But that doesn't change anything.

I have another drumtest that has a little more done to it that i will poast momentarily, ± whenever.

My guess: New mic, modded mic, original mic

Actually, I have no fucking idea.

And this is the same sequence of microphones in the same order, but two other different beats.

The other difference is that these ones have extra mics on the kick and snare mixed in. The snare and kick closemics are slightly EQ-ed and minimally compressed. The three test room mics are identically treated to each other, no EQ, but about 5dB of limiter on them.

The idea is more or less, to see how, if at all, the tonal differences in microphones come across, when it is not just the soloed single mics in question.

MXL 990 Mod Drum Tests Volume Two.

The thing goes: Mic A, Mic B, Mic C, then repeats four times, without any pauses in between repeats. Then the other beat does the same thing.

An additional test might be to put bass and guitar over this and see if the room mic changes remain as obvious/audible, but i don't know if i feel like doing that at the moment, or that it is really necessary in this particular example.

Unmodded 990, mystery mic, modded 990. What I assume is the mystery mic is the middle one; it's the most drastically different of the three. The first and last sound similar, with the last being darker in a way that registered as fuller to me on first listen.

EDIT: after listening to the second set of clips (with kick & snare mics) my opinion still stands. Mic B is noticeably brighter and sticks out the most, while A and C seem close, with C being a bit beefier. In order of preference for this application I'd go C, A, B. B is a bit brash, I think.

hey! thanks for doing 'em 16 bit!

on pooptastic laptop-- the second of each series has what sounds to me a more clear midrange. it's more tactile, and probably bright.. i'm suspecting that's the unmod'd mic. :/

all this the way it is-- i wonder how it'd respond WITH lots of cymbals. THAT would be the magic if it responded well. out of context, i still say, is kinda meaningless, and y'know-- the differences could be made up for with a bump o' eq. but god knows-- if a mic just hates the brass... it's gonna sound like th'ass. my rodes HATED cymbals.. i swear. that mic COULD very well keep it all in perspective. for snare.. psh.. who uses an LDC for snare anyhow?

i've gotta get myself a usb headphone amp/dac so i can actually have a reference for taking off computer.. daggone. these 3/4" speakers blow for REAL comparisons..