Old retired broadcast engineer here -- mics used in the "pre-surgeon general's report error were disgustingly full of tobacco smell AND nicotine stains. Remedy? Carefully wipe the mic (screen and body) with GRAIN ALCOHOL-- not rubbing alcohol. You may need to get from a liquor store. The result may pleasantly surprise you. For us it was borderline lifesaving. Cheers!
Hello sir, Just caught your channel and love what you're doing here. I actually restore and sell vintage microphones for a living and it's all I do. I have learned a lot about these mics over the past 14 years and I find that every one of these older stick mics form the 60's originally came with foam inner pop filters made of foam. The 515SA was no different and I can tell you for a fact that the original foam in the front screen has degraded and probably isn't even in there at this point. The old foam just didn't hold up well with age. Almost any stick mic that is 25 years or older will suffer from this problem which is probably why a lot of people don't like using them. That as well as many other issues that need to be addressed for a perfect working mic. Long story short, you might enjoy the sound performance better on this mic and encounter far less popping if you properly install new foam pop filters under the front of the screen and the actual capsule. Hope this helps? I sell both on Ebay and Reverb. I won't leave a link however as I don't want to cause any issues. Cheers!
As a professional photographer I'll add this. I have many modern and expensive lenses but I still find myself reaching now and then for a vintage, manual lens because it has a character that you can't easily replicate even with lots of editing. I'm new to audio work but I'm guessing the same holds true for microphones.
The 515 belongs in bingo hall and smoky pubs with crappy P.A.s. I used them for gigging as a teenager and I'm sure that even out of the box, they smelled of beer and cigarettes. Having said that, built like a tank and I never had one fail on me.
When people think of microphones, they always thing of singing on stage. Microphones were BIG business for 2-way radio, announcements, and public speaking. A heavy duty mic is far more important than broadcast quality when it's just for announcing food orders, or train schedules.
I can fill in a few things. the 515 was really popular here in the early 70s because people wanted a mic that could go into input 2 on a typical guitar amp. I bumped into them age 14 at school. The High impedance version, with our British WEM PAs systems were popular if you were buying the 40W version. PA systems back then simply didn't need ultimate quality. The 545 and 565 were the pro versions found in theatres. So in 72, I was at school aged 14. By 16 I'd discovered how nice the 545 was for recording, the 515 was just more 'speech' oriented. The 545 and 565 used a 4 pin Tuschel connector. While the 545 and 565 (the unisphere, rather than anodyne) could be ordered with the cannon connector, XLRs were rare. Then the SM57 and 58 knocked the sales of the 545/565 and they had XPR as the standard connector. Most UK 515's had a switch. There was also a 515L - a shortened body version that came with a lanyard so you could hang them around your neck. Remember back then bass was always lacking in the speakers, so the 515 sounded fine.
The Shure needs a stepup transformer with a wide turns ratio inside because the element may be 50 ohms or less and high impedance is pretty high. Then you got capacitive or noise effects potentially if you got a long cable, and an impedance mismatch of the equipment to the mic could also affect response. It might sound better if it had a different transformer to configure it as a low impedance balanced mic. Maybe.
The Shure 515sa was my first real mic. It was a workhorse. I was a drummer in high school in the late 70s and early 80s and used it with a mic boom. Nothing bad to say about it.
The 515 won for me every time, I compress quite a bit and it's light top end works best for me as the bright subtleties in a voice are lower in amplitude than the low frequencies. The 515 would take compression a lot better than those already hyped modern mics.
The 515 was a good mic for its day and still isn't too shabby. In those days we coupled them with Sony cassette recorders for a lot of great news events. Listeners should be aware that today's tech specs blow away just about everything from back then although there was still some good sounding audio then. I preferred the Shure mics to the EV 635A (still being made) which was omnidirectional and picked up a lot of noise.
There is one benefit of this vintage mic. It sounds like it doesn't need DeEsser. You must remember that until the mid 80s there was no even feed-forward compressors. So we don't even speak about such more complicated devices like multi-band compressors, or single-band compressor like DeEsser is. So I guess this mic is just "ready to go" decision back then. I wonder what will happen with "S" if you'll match EQ reasonably for this mic.
Not trolling you I promise! I like the vid. I like your take. I like your channel, so I hope you read this as intended. It is really important to remember that when you are "comparing mics" sometimes you are just doing that, comparing two microphones NOT comparing two models of microphones. With cheaper mics there is more difference in sound, mic to mic, because manufacturing tolerances are not as strict. When you add 60 years, smoke, deterioration of capsule membranes and suspension, etc . . . who knows what it sounded like in its prime. I do agree that when new it was a utility mic at best, and mic technology marches on. But my guess is that if you gave that mic to a harmonica player with a vintage amp it would really cook. Another issue with those older high-Z mics is getting a good impedance match; more important for some models. I'm sure you know all this, but some subscribers may not. (Here is a trick - Ozone is often used in commercial and other settings to purify and remove odors, if you know anyone that uses a CPAP and has a SoClean unit, put the mic in for a time or two and it will usually help immensely - most of my mics are used, many vintage.) peace
Oh I totally agree...which is why I mentioned that at the end of the video. In fact, if this thing was pristine, and had just rolled off the line...I bet it would have given the SM48 and XM8500 its dues. Honestly though...I think this thing will shine somewhere...just have to find the right person that will do just that. I think Dylan will treat it well...and there should be more videos to come.
I bought a vintage Shure 565SD last year to test my vocals on. As a Freddie Mercury and Shure fan, it was an obvious choice to go for. Wasn't too expensive either, though I was adamant that the mic must be vintage and made in USA. Cost around 250 euros, including tax and toll payments. For my strong and loud male voice, it is a great mic. Beats Shure SM58, Beta 58A and AKG D7, even though I used all three for years. They are very good mics, but for my voice 565SD does excellent work and I love singing with it. It also looks very good, easy to use and built to last; as Shure standard. Compared to modern Shures, the vintage sounds more open and more mix-ready. To be more judgemental, vintage 565 sounds like what a modern Shure should sound like. In other words, vintage is better. If your vocals are loud, vintage 565SD is a way to go. No wonder Freddie Mercury favored that mic.
The 515sa would be a great choice if a section of a song needed some "lofi" vocals for effect. Does it stand up to the new mics? No. But every mic has its place, I wouldn't call the 515 bad, just situational.
I love my Sennheiser E835. I’ve recorded woodwinds (Native American style/World flutes/Duduk) onto albums (two of my own albums and a Christmas compilation album) using an E835. I had several much more expensive mics available in the studio but the E835 just sounded beautiful with minimal EQ to deal with right out of the box. It’s a great vocal mic as well - noticeably nicer than my Shure SM58, in my opinion of course.
Yeah...I really did like it before I started doing the comparisons. That said...it is flat...and with some decent eqing...it will still sound great. I didnt like the distortion on the high end though... That said...it really will make a cool talking point
Nice vid. Nicely scripted and presented. The old Shure fails against all comers, and the Sennheiser e835 is the best one tested. You have a wonderful voice, and seem to employ less than most other guys, so you sound better than most guys. I could have done without all the description of how gross it smelled. You CAN clean everything except the diaphragm and remove the smell if you do a little homework - ask some short wave radio guys how they do it - and it will not smell bad any more. Thanks. JR
If the input impedance of your preamp is not optimized for a high impedance microphones, you are be loading microphone, increasing noise and attenuating high frequencies. The spec sheet you show even mentions that the mic is made for “high impedance microphone inputs.” For that reason, it would be next to impossible to do a true A/B comparison. The low impedance 515sb would have been a more meaningful comparison.
Two of your videos in and I'm wondering why you've just popped into my suggestions. I love your delivery. So, I thought 'might be a fun video', I do love mics and never pass up a good deal on a seemingly well built one at yard sales, thrift shops, etc... Turns out I have a Unidyne B Shure Brothers Incorporated made in U.S.A. patented Model 515SB Dynamic (yes, that's how it's labeled on the body) which is extremely similar to your SA... and now I need to know the differences aside from the obvious visual ones (like the 1/4" TS). Picked it up years ago for $5. and a Shure crystal mic was thrown in (Shure Brothers. Inc. Chicago U.S.A. made in United States of America see patent notice inside CA91C). Can NOT figure out how to open the thing... lol but it's nifty. So many flavors out there :)
That thing sounds great on acoustic, although TBH, I'm partial to dynamics on acoustics for some reason. Good to know that calling the company is a viable way to find out about some of their stuff.....there's a few mics I'd sure like Shure to tell me about that are hard to find info on.
Former studio engineer and current AV pro for a D1 University. I'm listening through Tannoy System 600s acting as TV speakers in my living room. The direct test, Shure 515 vs the Behringer was clearly in favor of the 515. It was far more flattering on the presenters' voice. While the Behringer had more low end, it also had a high mid zzzz that I found super annoying. It could be that individual mic and not endemic bc, Behringer, but there it is. In a lineup in all of them, I'm grabbing the 835 every time. Works fine on everything but overheads, cheap, takes a beating.
This. I'm surprised that almost nobody noticed, the Behringer has nasty distortion on the high mids. The others are better than the 515 though, but not a fair comparison.
The guitar sounded great! I think the Behringer is as good ...😯 Wish I still had my broadcast akg d130 from BBC days,, borrowed a couple of years back not seen since! Interesting comparison. People rarely compare anything other than high end vintage to contemporary, but there could be more mid price vintage mics worth looking at.
I think the 515 could benefit from a little more proximity effect than the others. Maybe replacement foam or an A1SW windscreen. Or the impedance transformer, but I don't know if that really makes a difference on modern interfaces. It might be interesting to compare the 515SB, too.
@@DarkCornerStudios Okay, my 2 cents. The 515 in any version is a fine mic, although it was originally marketed for use in paging systems, intercoms, and 2-way radio communications. (e.g., You'll see some fast food restaurants use them at the front counter to relay your order.) It was later found out that these work quite well on instruments and guitar amps, too. The SA version is a high impedance type and the SB is a low impedance (The "S" stands for built-in on/off switch.). The 515 and other Unidyne series mics were pretty much discontinued due to their chrome bodies. TV studios didn't like using them because the studio lights would reflect off the surface and blow out the cameras. This is why the SM (Studio Microphone) series was introduced on the market. The other reason being improved internal shock (vibration) system, windscreen and impedance matching technologies. The 515 does have a great sound, but you'll want to tweak the EQ settings to your liking. Another note is that it's 10 decibels (dB) quieter than today's mics. You may have to add a pre-amp or such (even a Cloudlifter CL-1) in-line to gain back that 10 dB loss, if you have quiet sounds to pick up. It doesn't surprise me that the windscreen and smell. That's all coming from the foam inside the head basket (mesh windscreen). The foam is a rubberized petroleum that breaks down with old age and does smell bad. The best solution is to scrape/clean out the deteriorating foam and replace with a new thin layer inside. I also recommend adding a foam windscreen on the outside (aka Bozo nose, as we call it) to help block plosives. I hope that helps.
Sennheiser wins!!! The Behringer is way more balanced compared to the old Shure! If your voice is a bit bright or piecering around 2k, you'll need the behringer to naturally smooth it out.. A female jazz vocalist would sound great with the Sennheiser due to it's rich tone and high resolution. The old Sure is a great general speech mic. The new Shures have always sounded nasal to me. I have a few. Who cares what i think anyway :)
I got a pair of these for nothing and they are stuffed in a drawer. The metal case finish is shot but they work. The thing about these is that they probably were built to take alot more abuse than any cheapo import mic could stand up to. Utility mics. Shure and EV got ahead of everyone making their road mics durable. Besides sounding good day in and day out. You can find all kinds of broken import mics for sale cheap. "AS-IS".
Great video, my Mother used to own one of those, it will be in a box somewhere, the comparison didnt surprise me, I tried using it out of curiosity, nah, I'll stick with my Sennheiser.
The vocal sound is awful in this video on my Mac. I'm wondering why. A lot of Shures used in podcasts and YT videos sound rotten when listening on my Mac. I don't remember that on my cheap Gateway. Lol
Nice video, mate. You should create a video of the best sounding, affordable vintage dynamic mics. Would be intriguing. All the best from South Australia.
@@DarkCornerStudios can you ask for people around the world to send you mics to review? If people are willing to contribute by paying return postage on mics they send you (or simply donate them) that would be awesome. Anyway, I appreciate your content a great deal. Have a Merry Christmas. Steve.
Omg, I remember these mics, from schools, lots of rock bands and low-end venues had them. Early ‘60’s. Boy, handling noise from that mic is pretty horrid.
Hello they gave me a microphone (Philips SBC 3070), if I'm not mistaken from the 90's. My curiosity is to know if it has the capacity to record, comparing it to a condenser input microphone. Greetings from Argentina.
Maybe interesting to a historian, but not of much use today, I think. And I do hope I won’t have to consider smell when buying microphones! By the way, I don’t mind at all that you’re not a virtuoso on the guitar - it’s a good thing that we get to hear the microphone on an instrument. But I do mind that it’s out of tune.
Let me guess - you're using your Zoom P4 out to your camera to record - and it's not keeping time so that you can't even resync it using a visual cue. Oh that sucks. Cause you just sold me a P4. Is the P8 doing the same thing? Cause I'll have to re-think what I'm buying - that is simply not an acceptable product. The AVMatrix does precise adjustments and can maintain sync but can't do podcasts as well. I prefer the podact alternative but HAVE to sync to video well.
? Nope. Also...my video is synced. I use an audiofuse studio to record audio separately from my camera. When you record in 44.1 and convert to video it upsamples. That said...IF you are doing long form videos...you may want to consider an interface that does 48. And no...the P8 does not do 48.
Old retired broadcast engineer here -- mics used in the "pre-surgeon general's report error were disgustingly full of tobacco smell AND nicotine stains. Remedy? Carefully wipe the mic (screen and body) with GRAIN ALCOHOL-- not rubbing alcohol. You may need to get from a liquor store. The result may pleasantly surprise you. For us it was borderline lifesaving. Cheers!
Hello sir,
Just caught your channel and love what you're doing here. I actually restore and sell vintage microphones for a living and it's all I do. I have learned a lot about these mics over the past 14 years and I find that every one of these older stick mics form the 60's originally came with foam inner pop filters made of foam. The 515SA was no different and I can tell you for a fact that the original foam in the front screen has degraded and probably isn't even in there at this point. The old foam just didn't hold up well with age. Almost any stick mic that is 25 years or older will suffer from this problem which is probably why a lot of people don't like using them. That as well as many other issues that need to be addressed for a perfect working mic.
Long story short, you might enjoy the sound performance better on this mic and encounter far less popping if you properly install new foam pop filters under the front of the screen and the actual capsule. Hope this helps?
I sell both on Ebay and Reverb. I won't leave a link however as I don't want to cause any issues. Cheers!
As a professional photographer I'll add this. I have many modern and expensive lenses but I still find myself reaching now and then for a vintage, manual lens because it has a character that you can't easily replicate even with lots of editing. I'm new to audio work but I'm guessing the same holds true for microphones.
It very much can!
And it is so true with photography.
Had me a 20 year old nifty 50...and that thing was amazing
@@DarkCornerStudios I have clients now who specifically ask me to use my Helios and Super-Takumar lenses.
I will concur with you on this idea.
The 515 belongs in bingo hall and smoky pubs with crappy P.A.s. I used them for gigging as a teenager and I'm sure that even out of the box, they smelled of beer and cigarettes.
Having said that, built like a tank and I never had one fail on me.
When people think of microphones, they always thing of singing on stage. Microphones were BIG business for 2-way radio, announcements, and public speaking. A heavy duty mic is far more important than broadcast quality when it's just for announcing food orders, or train schedules.
I can fill in a few things. the 515 was really popular here in the early 70s because people wanted a mic that could go into input 2 on a typical guitar amp. I bumped into them age 14 at school. The High impedance version, with our British WEM PAs systems were popular if you were buying the 40W version. PA systems back then simply didn't need ultimate quality. The 545 and 565 were the pro versions found in theatres. So in 72, I was at school aged 14. By 16 I'd discovered how nice the 545 was for recording, the 515 was just more 'speech' oriented. The 545 and 565 used a 4 pin Tuschel connector. While the 545 and 565 (the unisphere, rather than anodyne) could be ordered with the cannon connector, XLRs were rare. Then the SM57 and 58 knocked the sales of the 545/565 and they had XPR as the standard connector. Most UK 515's had a switch. There was also a 515L - a shortened body version that came with a lanyard so you could hang them around your neck. Remember back then bass was always lacking in the speakers, so the 515 sounded fine.
The Shure needs a stepup transformer with a wide turns ratio inside because the element may be 50 ohms or less and high impedance is pretty high. Then you got capacitive or noise effects potentially if you got a long cable, and an impedance mismatch of the equipment to the mic could also affect response. It might sound better if it had a different transformer to configure it as a low impedance balanced mic. Maybe.
The Shure 515sa was my first real mic. It was a workhorse. I was a drummer in high school in the late 70s and early 80s and used it with a mic boom. Nothing bad to say about it.
The 515 won for me every time, I compress quite a bit and it's light top end works best for me as the bright subtleties in a voice are lower in amplitude than the low frequencies. The 515 would take compression a lot better than those already hyped modern mics.
Hmm I hadn’t thought of that.. I’ll try with my EV mic’s.. I bet the re10 and the pl6 would be good. 😊
Get your ears cleaned
The 515 was a good mic for its day and still isn't too shabby. In those days we coupled them with Sony cassette recorders for a lot of great news events. Listeners should be aware that today's tech specs blow away just about everything from back then although there was still some good sounding audio then. I preferred the Shure mics to the EV 635A (still being made) which was omnidirectional and picked up a lot of noise.
There is one benefit of this vintage mic. It sounds like it doesn't need DeEsser. You must remember that until the mid 80s there was no even feed-forward compressors. So we don't even speak about such more complicated devices like multi-band compressors, or single-band compressor like DeEsser is. So I guess this mic is just "ready to go" decision back then. I wonder what will happen with "S" if you'll match EQ reasonably for this mic.
Not trolling you I promise! I like the vid. I like your take. I like your channel, so I hope you read this as intended. It is really important to remember that when you are "comparing mics" sometimes you are just doing that, comparing two microphones NOT comparing two models of microphones. With cheaper mics there is more difference in sound, mic to mic, because manufacturing tolerances are not as strict. When you add 60 years, smoke, deterioration of capsule membranes and suspension, etc . . . who knows what it sounded like in its prime. I do agree that when new it was a utility mic at best, and mic technology marches on. But my guess is that if you gave that mic to a harmonica player with a vintage amp it would really cook. Another issue with those older high-Z mics is getting a good impedance match; more important for some models. I'm sure you know all this, but some subscribers may not. (Here is a trick - Ozone is often used in commercial and other settings to purify and remove odors, if you know anyone that uses a CPAP and has a SoClean unit, put the mic in for a time or two and it will usually help immensely - most of my mics are used, many vintage.) peace
Oh I totally agree...which is why I mentioned that at the end of the video.
In fact, if this thing was pristine, and had just rolled off the line...I bet it would have given the SM48 and XM8500 its dues.
Honestly though...I think this thing will shine somewhere...just have to find the right person that will do just that.
I think Dylan will treat it well...and there should be more videos to come.
@@DarkCornerStudios Thanks for the great vids - you are inspiring me to get out the camera
@@redcabinacoustic-official DO IT!
The climb is slow...but very satisfying!!
The new mics have a greater ability to capture the high frequencies - not as warm of a sound but a bit more clarity on the upper end.
Your moms womb was warm. Who needs clarity. Modern music blows unless its a rare gem.
I bought a vintage Shure 565SD last year to test my vocals on. As a Freddie Mercury and Shure fan, it was an obvious choice to go for. Wasn't too expensive either, though I was adamant that the mic must be vintage and made in USA. Cost around 250 euros, including tax and toll payments.
For my strong and loud male voice, it is a great mic. Beats Shure SM58, Beta 58A and AKG D7, even though I used all three for years. They are very good mics, but for my voice 565SD does excellent work and I love singing with it. It also looks very good, easy to use and built to last; as Shure standard. Compared to modern Shures, the vintage sounds more open and more mix-ready. To be more judgemental, vintage 565 sounds like what a modern Shure should sound like. In other words, vintage is better. If your vocals are loud, vintage 565SD is a way to go. No wonder Freddie Mercury favored that mic.
The SM58 is merely based on the Unidyne III design. Try the 545SD for what is closest to the real deal.
The 515sa would be a great choice if a section of a song needed some "lofi" vocals for effect.
Does it stand up to the new mics? No. But every mic has its place, I wouldn't call the 515 bad, just situational.
Yeah...there is character there...perhaps just not the type of character that you want on a voice over...
We will find its place...no worries there
A good mic for lo fi vocals is a Green Bullet......
I love my Sennheiser E835. I’ve recorded woodwinds (Native American style/World flutes/Duduk) onto albums (two of my own albums and a Christmas compilation album) using an E835. I had several much more expensive mics available in the studio but the E835 just sounded beautiful with minimal EQ to deal with right out of the box. It’s a great vocal mic as well - noticeably nicer than my Shure SM58, in my opinion of course.
👋🏾👋🏾👋🏾
7:19
Not once did I choose the Shure 515sa. And I liked the Sennheiser e835 the best.
Yeah...I really did like it before I started doing the comparisons.
That said...it is flat...and with some decent eqing...it will still sound great.
I didnt like the distortion on the high end though...
That said...it really will make a cool talking point
Is it just me or did the Behringer sound like it had a bit crusher effect on it? Like digital artiifacts, or low-bitrate mp3
Nice vid. Nicely scripted and presented. The old Shure fails against all comers, and the Sennheiser e835 is the best one tested. You have a wonderful voice, and seem to employ less than most other guys, so you sound better than most guys. I could have done without all the description of how gross it smelled. You CAN clean everything except the diaphragm and remove the smell if you do a little homework - ask some short wave radio guys how they do it - and it will not smell bad any more. Thanks. JR
If the input impedance of your preamp is not optimized for a high impedance microphones, you are be loading microphone, increasing noise and attenuating high frequencies. The spec sheet you show even mentions that the mic is made for “high impedance microphone inputs.” For that reason, it would be next to impossible to do a true A/B comparison. The low impedance 515sb would have been a more meaningful comparison.
Two of your videos in and I'm wondering why you've just popped into my suggestions. I love your delivery.
So, I thought 'might be a fun video', I do love mics and never pass up a good deal on a seemingly well built one at yard sales, thrift shops, etc... Turns out I have a Unidyne B Shure Brothers Incorporated made in U.S.A. patented Model 515SB Dynamic (yes, that's how it's labeled on the body) which is extremely similar to your SA... and now I need to know the differences aside from the obvious visual ones (like the 1/4" TS). Picked it up years ago for $5. and a Shure crystal mic was thrown in (Shure Brothers. Inc. Chicago U.S.A. made in United States of America see patent notice inside CA91C). Can NOT figure out how to open the thing... lol but it's nifty. So many flavors out there :)
Ohhh those sound fun!!
That thing sounds great on acoustic, although TBH, I'm partial to dynamics on acoustics for some reason.
Good to know that calling the company is a viable way to find out about some of their stuff.....there's a few mics I'd sure like Shure to tell me about that are hard to find info on.
The 515 has a hollow sound to it. The proximity effect made it sound worse. The 8500 has a muddy low end.
515sa sounds fuller to me. The new Shure sounds hyped to me.
Former studio engineer and current AV pro for a D1 University. I'm listening through Tannoy System 600s acting as TV speakers in my living room. The direct test, Shure 515 vs the Behringer was clearly in favor of the 515. It was far more flattering on the presenters' voice. While the Behringer had more low end, it also had a high mid zzzz that I found super annoying. It could be that individual mic and not endemic bc, Behringer, but there it is. In a lineup in all of them, I'm grabbing the 835 every time. Works fine on everything but overheads, cheap, takes a beating.
This.
I'm surprised that almost nobody noticed, the Behringer has nasty distortion on the high mids. The others are better than the 515 though, but not a fair comparison.
The guitar sounded great! I think the Behringer is as good ...😯 Wish I still had my broadcast akg d130 from BBC days,, borrowed a couple of years back not seen since! Interesting comparison. People rarely compare anything other than high end vintage to contemporary, but there could be more mid price vintage mics worth looking at.
I am going to try to get my hands on more...
Oh the problems I have now just inflicted on myself with this video...lol
@@DarkCornerStudios 😂
Those Shure 515 mics were everywhere when I was a kid. Schools, Garage bands and churches.
Behringer sounds more crisp but the Shure 515 sounds more full.
All the other mics sound fuller. I think it's because of the Hi-Z output, made worse if plugged into a Lo-Z input. Does it even have a transformer?
I think the 515 could benefit from a little more proximity effect than the others. Maybe replacement foam or an A1SW windscreen. Or the impedance transformer, but I don't know if that really makes a difference on modern interfaces. It might be interesting to compare the 515SB, too.
I am working on finding the SB version...
Hoping it smells better...lol
@@DarkCornerStudios Okay, my 2 cents. The 515 in any version is a fine mic, although it was originally marketed for use in paging systems, intercoms, and 2-way radio communications. (e.g., You'll see some fast food restaurants use them at the front counter to relay your order.) It was later found out that these work quite well on instruments and guitar amps, too. The SA version is a high impedance type and the SB is a low impedance (The "S" stands for built-in on/off switch.).
The 515 and other Unidyne series mics were pretty much discontinued due to their chrome bodies. TV studios didn't like using them because the studio lights would reflect off the surface and blow out the cameras. This is why the SM (Studio Microphone) series was introduced on the market. The other reason being improved internal shock (vibration) system, windscreen and impedance matching technologies.
The 515 does have a great sound, but you'll want to tweak the EQ settings to your liking. Another note is that it's 10 decibels (dB) quieter than today's mics. You may have to add a pre-amp or such (even a Cloudlifter CL-1) in-line to gain back that 10 dB loss, if you have quiet sounds to pick up.
It doesn't surprise me that the windscreen and smell. That's all coming from the foam inside the head basket (mesh windscreen). The foam is a rubberized petroleum that breaks down with old age and does smell bad. The best solution is to scrape/clean out the deteriorating foam and replace with a new thin layer inside. I also recommend adding a foam windscreen on the outside (aka Bozo nose, as we call it) to help block plosives. I hope that helps.
The 515 beat the AKG and the Behringer for me. The Sennheiser was the best.
Sennheiser wins!!! The Behringer is way more balanced compared to the old Shure! If your voice is a bit bright or piecering around 2k, you'll need the behringer to naturally smooth it out.. A female jazz vocalist would sound great with the Sennheiser due to it's rich tone and high resolution. The old Sure is a great general speech mic. The new Shures have always sounded nasal to me. I have a few. Who cares what i think anyway :)
I got a pair of these for nothing and they are stuffed in a drawer. The metal case finish is shot but they work. The thing about these is that they probably were built to take alot more abuse than any cheapo import mic could stand up to. Utility mics. Shure and EV got ahead of everyone making their road mics durable. Besides sounding good day in and day out. You can find all kinds of broken import mics for sale cheap. "AS-IS".
I think it does make a cool "display piece" but, I'm biased as a Shure fan boy
Great video, my Mother used to own one of those, it will be in a box somewhere, the comparison didnt surprise me, I tried using it out of curiosity, nah, I'll stick with my Sennheiser.
The vocal sound is awful in this video on my Mac. I'm wondering why. A lot of Shures used in podcasts and YT videos sound rotten when listening on my Mac. I don't remember that on my cheap Gateway. Lol
Microphones are mechanical devices. Mechanical devices degrade merely from the passing of time, moreso when its actually used.
A positively wholesome channel. A surprise most definitely welcome.
That is high praise!
Cheers and thanks for watching!
I collect all sorts of microphones to give me character variations in my recordings.
Great video man! It was really interesting to hear that old mic compared to what we have today.
Awesome...glad you enjoyed it!
You played beautiful guitar brother . The sound was nice with that mic
Clarity and detail of the e835 blows all of those out of the water an be/wad was muddiest of all .
Thanks for a thoughtful and thorough vid. Whaddaya think about putting it up against a shure 545(dual impedance)?
Nice video, mate. You should create a video of the best sounding, affordable vintage dynamic mics. Would be intriguing. All the best from South Australia.
Cheers!
I really want to...see how the finances go this year
@@DarkCornerStudios can you ask for people around the world to send you mics to review? If people are willing to contribute by paying return postage on mics they send you (or simply donate them) that would be awesome. Anyway, I appreciate your content a great deal. Have a Merry Christmas. Steve.
@@thebusinessfirm9862 cheers Steve!!
I saw comparison and there was shire 545 sh from 1970 and it was crystal clear more than more expensive modern mics
Omg, I remember these mics, from schools, lots of rock bands and low-end venues had them. Early ‘60’s. Boy, handling noise from that mic is pretty horrid.
Excellent guitar work. Interesting review for the "back in the day" mic.
lol...thanks for that!
And yeah...most of my audience was not born before 1995......
Food for thought...lol
Hello they gave me a microphone (Philips SBC 3070), if I'm not mistaken from the 90's. My curiosity is to know if it has the capacity to record, comparing it to a condenser input microphone. Greetings from Argentina.
Comentarios
Vintage is warmer to my ears.
Of course, when all else fails, just buy the SM58 and don't look back! :)
you forgot the XM1800s
The 58 is king. The Behringer just sounds nasty.
Hey, I'm sorry I hadn't subscribed yet! I have enjoyed your videos many times. Not sure what my problem is, but I'm correcting it right now 👍
Cheers!
Put on your maker hat and convert it into a lightsaber hilt. Then put it behind glass, so you don't have to smell it.
I may wrap it in a damp rag...and bury it...
Honestly I can still smell it...so bad
Excellent review.
Thanks Ray!
Look at you go! Awesome
Maybe interesting to a historian, but not of much use today, I think. And I do hope I won’t have to consider smell when buying microphones! By the way, I don’t mind at all that you’re not a virtuoso on the guitar - it’s a good thing that we get to hear the microphone on an instrument. But I do mind that it’s out of tune.
Yeah...gonna retire the old girl.
The guitar collection is expanding...so she won't be in anymore videos.
Poor girl
Fascinating. Thank you.
Thanks for watching!!
can you review the blue spark digital mic
I will put it on my list!
515sa is far more interesting to listen to
Let me guess - you're using your Zoom P4 out to your camera to record - and it's not keeping time so that you can't even resync it using a visual cue. Oh that sucks. Cause you just sold me a P4. Is the P8 doing the same thing? Cause I'll have to re-think what I'm buying - that is simply not an acceptable product. The AVMatrix does precise adjustments and can maintain sync but can't do podcasts as well. I prefer the podact alternative but HAVE to sync to video well.
?
Nope.
Also...my video is synced.
I use an audiofuse studio to record audio separately from my camera.
When you record in 44.1 and convert to video it upsamples.
That said...IF you are doing long form videos...you may want to consider an interface that does 48.
And no...the P8 does not do 48.