Royer r-121 mic OR Axe-Fx?

[Bob Savage]

if you like, I can do a head to head comparison between the 57, i5, e609S and ATM650... before you fork out the cash.

The only cash I'm forking out in the near future is for a couple beers and some tasty, spicy shrimp. I wouldn't mind hearing the comparison though.

 

[chunktone]

get both kind-of...

Fat Head or Trion 7000... 90%+ of a 121 at 20% of the cost

Funds left over for a FX

With the Fat Head weighing in at $159, it's worth a shot.

 

[sled]

Okay, here's six mics with two sets of clips. Clips are numbered and the clip with lc in the name have a bit of bottom compression.

mics are

57
57 w/o xformer
atm650
e609S
i5
atm25

I pointed each mic directly at the center of the same Greenback speaker, reamped the same clip and used a ruler laid across the speaker for the distance (See pic). No claim that this is a nat's ass measurement and I realize the diaphragms are not all the same distance due to the mic housing. it was very repeatable.

pic:

after a bit I'll post what's what.

 

[Greazygeo]

and Audix I5 is more like a high end 57.

I've used the i5 quite a bit and don't find it to be anything like a "high end 57." It works fine for recording loud, high gain guitar tones, but I find it to be yet another tool rather than a "better" version of the 57 because I don't think they sound the same.

With my current cheap mic pre the I5 is fairly scooped in the lower midrange. I usually have to mix it with another mic for it to work.

For live I always use the I5 on my cab though...sounds great FOH.

 

[jdcoleman]

As has been said before the most impressive thing about the Royer is it sounds the most like what something sounds like in the room of any mic I've used. If you can get a sound you like where ever you record, stick the Royer in that spot and if the rest of your gear is transparent you should hear the same sound in play back. If you are used to the upper mid bump that most dynamics (SM 57 in particular) have, you may find the Royer too smooth to cut through a mix. To a large extent it all depends on what else is in the mix. If you doing guitar solo recordings, there's no problem with the guitar taking up too much room in the spectrum- Royer should work great. But if you are doing regular songs with vocals, spikey mics can give more power without stepping on other important parts and muddying up the mix. I voted for the Royer...Really useful tool.

 

[amiller]

As has been said before the most impressive thing about the Royer is it sounds the most like what something sounds like in the room of any mic I've used. If you can get a sound you like where ever you record, stick the Royer in that spot and if the rest of your gear is transparent you should hear the same sound in play back. If you are used to the upper mid bump that most dynamics (SM 57 in particular) have, you may find the Royer too smooth to cut through a mix. To a large extent it all depends on what else is in the mix. If you doing guitar solo recordings, there's no problem with the guitar taking up too much room in the spectrum- Royer should work great. But if you are doing regular songs with vocals, spikey mics can give more power without stepping on other important parts and muddying up the mix. I voted for the Royer...Really useful tool.

That's my understanding of these two mics and that's why I'm interested in the Royer...a useful tool for lead work.

 

[nbarts]

Okay, here's six mics with two sets of clips. Clips are numbered and the clip with lc in the name have a bit of bottom compression.

mics are

57
57 w/o xformer
atm650
e609S
i5
atm25

I pointed each mic directly at the center of the same Greenback speaker, reamped the same clip and used a ruler laid across the speaker for the distance (See pic). No claim that this is a nat's ass measurement and I realize the diaphragms are not all the same distance due to the mic housing. it was very repeatable.

pic:

after a bit I'll post what's what.

That a lot of work man! One couldn't ask for a better comparison.
I didn't find any of them to have something special over the other, each one could get the job done equally well IMO. I a little bit preferred 336 over rest.
I'm very curious which is which just to compare 57 to 57 w/o xformer.

 

[sled]

That a lot of work man! One couldn't ask for a better comparison.
I didn't find any of them to have something special over the other, each one could get the job done equally well IMO. I a little bit preferred 336 over rest.
I'm very curious which is which just to compare 57 to 57 w/o xformer.

thanks for checking. care to guess mics?

My recommendation to get a really good feel for the tonal differences, is to load the set of six into your DAW and loop a small selected section over and over, then switch to another clip of the same section. the differences jump out.

 

[nbarts]

That a lot of work man! One couldn't ask for a better comparison.
I didn't find any of them to have something special over the other, each one could get the job done equally well IMO. I a little bit preferred 336 over rest.
I'm very curious which is which just to compare 57 to 57 w/o xformer.

thanks for checking. care to guess mics?

My recommendation to get a really good feel for the tonal differences, is to load the set of six into your DAW and loop a small selected section over and over, then switch to another clip of the same section. the differences jump out.

I couldn't possibly guess since I haven't worked with many of the mics in your comparison & I CAN hear the differences fine, in most cases just not enough to worry about IMO.

 

[David_kessler]

How about the SE R1? Killer ribbon several people prefer to the 121. And priced several hundred less. Anybody else like an RE-20 on rock and heavy guitars?

 

[amiller]

How about the SE R1? Killer ribbon several people prefer to the 121. And priced several hundred less. Anybody else like an RE-20 on rock and heavy guitars?

Check out the ribbon mic comp thread I posted. The SE R1 ranks pretty low.

 

[mentoneman]

you've obviously heard these:
http://www.royerlabs.com/democd.html

my friend has a pair of 121s and uses them primarily for drum overheads and some acoustic guitar tracks.

i love how they sound on the piano. i'm not sold on them as heavy guitar mics. i like the 57 blended with the 609 and if you want more resolution run the 609 into a nice pre.

on a live sound tangent, i have struggled like mad for literally YEARS to come up with a consistent and feedback resistant method of micing our steinway concert grand piano.

my current system---

1-akg 451 condenser, wrapped in a towel with element hovering 2 inches out of towel, and placed in the treble side of the piano, diaphram over the 3rd sound hole, aimed towards the high register hammers.
this position provides good gain before feedback for the high frequencies and a natural overall sound if eq'ed properly.

1-57 on a boom stand reaching into the far end of the piano, furthest from the keys, set at a 120 degree angle aiming through the bass strings towards the soundboard and angled towards the player.
this position allows the bass frequencies to be more prominent, particularly with the aid of some slight proximity effect, and takes advantage of the better noise rejection properties of the 57.

granted you need to eq heavily on the channel to normalize and provide monitors with strong level, but it works.

the best turnkey solution i've seen and heard is the earthworks dual piano mic system, but that badboy is 3 large, and dedicated exclusively to piano duty.