UA Sphere LX vs DLX: Putnam Mic Collection
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- Is @UniversalAudio really telling people not to use Putnam or Ocean Way with the LX? Let's compare how the Putnam collection Large Diaphragm mics sound on the LX vs the DLX/L22 for voice over.
Microphone Assassin Nation Discord Server:
/ discord
The TMA Dieselpunk Mic Art Collection is here:
TheCultofVoiceO...
Thank you so much for actually doing this; it's exactly what I wished for in that featured comment a few days ago! However, you haven't really made the choice between the DLX and the LX an easier one, I'm afraid! I was hoping the results would be as clear and one-sided as with your "Brauner/103"-combo. haha
So, are you telling us we should buy the DLX for the emulations of mics with larger headbaskets and the LX for those with a more "focused", less roomy sound and smaller headbaskets..? Damn you and your nuanced, detailed honesty, Microphone Assassin! We are simple people who want simple answers to complex and highly subjective things! Then again, we also look for reasons to justify buying even more gear, so.. thank you.
Thanks Dave! Hmmm. I think that’s exactly what I’m saying, but I need to mull that over, cowboy up and make a definitive opinion on which mic for whom. But I think your assessment is accurate. This will probably be a video topic in the near future.
Can you share which shock mount you have for the xl?
@@NinoAmerica Rycote Invision USM. Rycotes are fantastic.
I can hear the difference on my phone speakers, that says a lot within the difference between these mic’s
That does say a lot. The differences are not so subtle.
So honestly: I would always prefer the DLX for VO work. The LX quickly sounds flat and cheap. Especially good to hear with the C12B. The DLX has much more depth and liveliness. Thanks for the test in any case. I am now buying a DLX for my VO Business. Especially important for audiobooks or similar. I am well trained to filter something out. Adding something is more difficult. From my point of view (tested in the studio on calibrated Neumann monitor Speakers and all other devices including DT 1990 Pro and Iphone/Ipad) the DLX is always my favorite for your voice.
Interesting comparison. One thought I had is the mouth EQ. The two sides of the face of literally everyone of the hundreds of singers I recorded has quite different "EQ". One is brighter the other is darker. You are speaking to each mic with two different sides at every close range. That in itself might cause a big difference.
I carefully reviewed all the comparison videos of the DLX (or rather the original L22, since there are more differences between the original mic and the UAD iteration than just the PAD) vs. the LX. I also think - and I'm glad I'm not alone - that the larger Sphere has a fuller yet cleaner and more detailed sound than the smaller LX. And that goes for any model you throw at them.
I agree they sound very different despite what UA tries to tell you about them being the same.
I’ve used the Neumann U67 and U47 and the 67 worked better on my vocals and I was tossing up between the DLX and the LX. I decided to go with the LX rather than pay double for the DLX. God bless.
Oh wow, I much prefer the DLX in all examples.
Great comparison, thanks for doing this!
My pleasure!
Thanks for the video! I own the LX however listening to the DLX it sounds louder or fuller I suppose. These video help me to zero in on wether I should keep the LX or get DLX. I do like the TLM 103. I am trouble shooting to the best sound on the sony 800 on the LX for my voice.
Headbasket could be an issue. C800 headbasket is just a couple mm smaller than DLX, and about 6mm larger than LX, so it probably affects the ability of the LX to best reproduce a more accurate c800 as opposed to inducing a heavy dose of c800 flavor.
Yo if you still have a lx and are trying to replicate that c800g tone look into the mic mod plugin from Antares (the people that make auto tune) even with a modeled c800 on your lx adding that plugin with a Sony mic sim on it can add a lot of warmth and emulated tube resonance to it if you dial in the settings right. Honestly I recommend it for any vocal chain but especially if you’re going for that sony sound.
"Possible, but not advised" Lol! Differences are huge.
What could be a bigger lure than saying it's "not advised" LOLOL.
@@MarkYoshimotoNemcoff Hahaha!
@@joeyf808 that's what the makers of the Pultec Passive EQ said about boosting and attenuating the same frequency at the same time. Now it's the most famous Pultec trick-move ever.
What’s better for live streaming and music making? I use a sm 7b and I want a 416.
Go with the DLX if you also do music.
Do you have a video with the sphere with a 416?
Yup. th-cam.com/video/ErgxoIE6LCc/w-d-xo.html
actually insane
Literally insane in the membrane.
You know, I never put together the headbasket size and midrange resonance correlation. It makes a lot of sense though.
It’s one of the reasons why 87 clones don’t sound like the real deal. Headbaskets are little acoustic chambers full of the ghosts of echoes past. Well a few fractions of a millisecond past but still ghosts.
@@MarkYoshimotoNemcoff I wonder what horrors are lurking inside the Twin 87?? It sounds pretty good though, 87 or not! I just bought a pair.
@@marmaladecreammedia Nice. I think I read somewhere there was some careful considerations with the headbasket design as opposed to just having a generic one. They couldn’t copy the shape but I think they were able to replicate the mesh patterns, and that also is important. #headbasketscience
Dlx sounds good.
It all comes down to 1. your performer, 2. singing, voiceover or instruments. For singers, If your performer has a thinner voice, DLX will probably work better because there's more bottom end. LX will work great on boomier voices because it will relieve some of the extra rumble. This will probably not be an issue for voiceover because voices tend to be deeper and there's nothing to compete with in the mix. If you're capturing instruments, probably the DLX will be more versatile because it has a wider frequency range, whereas the LX seems to be more mid-focused.
Ultimately I'd say the LX is more suited for voices, but if you want to capture instruments as well, DLX is probably the way to go.
MASSIVE DIFFERENCE in sound on the DLX vs the LX.
Right? And UA is trying to tell everyone they sound the same. Puh-lease!
I’m kinda feeling the DLX cuts through more. At least in this test.
Hey that's a good point. We need to put them up again, but with a music bed playing under the reads. Great idea.
Is that PTBG copy copyrighted? That is the funniest short copy I've ever heard! Not to be used on beautiful music stations.
Sadly, PTBG is locked in a lawsuit with Pinky Toe Away in a court in Denmark, so it may all be tied up for a while. LOLOL I have one for beautiful music stations coming up soon. ;)
DLX is miles away
What about the low end? I hear much low end on the big DLX, does anyone else hear it?
It could feel more present since there's more room in the DLX's sound.
Does this difference only apply to the Bill Putnam models, or also to the ‘officially supported’ mics that comes with the LX?
It’s a physical difference between the mics that causes it.
@@MarkYoshimotoNemcoff Right, just found your demo on the included models, and I can see that its the same thing. Thank you so much for doing these!
I'm suprised how different the two mics sound, seeing that they should be modlling the same things. I totally get how the head-basket will change the sound, but considering how well they are able to manipulate the sound, polar pattern , compensate for acoustic reflection screens etc. it's quite interesting that they haven't been able to better compensate for the effect of the mic size.
Would you say that the difference to an original mic model follows the form-factor. So the LX for example would have a better representation of say an AKG 414 or a dynamic mic, whereas the DLX would be better at emulating larger diagphram mics, such as the U47?
Thanks!