Manager


Manager - NA4M
Manager Notes

Reviews For: Marshall MXL-990 Vintage Style Studio Condenser Microphone

Category: Microphones for ham radio

eMail Subscription

Registered users are allowed to subscribe to specific review topics and receive eMail notifications when new reviews are posted.
Review Summary For : Marshall MXL-990 Vintage Style Studio Condenser Microphone
Reviews: 24MSRP: 70
Description:
The MXL 990 has changed the way project studio recordings and live amateur radio audios are being created. Until now, condenser microphone prices have been out of the reach of most working musicians and amateur radio operators. Production breakthroughs have brought the MXL 990 into the price range of the home recording enthusiast and amateur radio operator. The 990 is a true, phantom powered, condenser microphone with a 6 micron, 20 mm. gold-sputtered diaphragm. The MXL 990 has a high quality FET preamp and its output is balanced. The sound and the appearance of the MXL 990 is reminiscent of the classic vintage vocal microphones of yesterday. 20 mm. Gold-sputtered, 6-micron, low distortion diaphragm, FET preamp with balanced output. Supplied with shock mount and mic stand adapter. Legendary MXL sonic characteristics, Comes in rugged carrying case.
Product is in production
More Info: http://www.mxlmics.com/mxl990.html
# last 180 days Avg. Rating last 180 days Total reviews Avg. overall rating
00244.7
KW4CQ Rating: 2004-03-23
Marshall MXL-990 vs. Nady SMC-1000 Time Owned: 6 to 12 months.
I have to agree with Scott's (KC8YXH) comments on the MXL-990 but while I don't feel it is really in the "Great!" category it is definately a 4++. For $70.00 (now at $59.95 including shipping from www.musiciansfriend.com) it is really a good buy but don't forget to get a pop filter for this mic because you are going to need it. I have been using a Nady SCM-1000 condenser mic (about same price as the Marshall) in on-the-air, side by side tests with the Marshall and find the Marshall has a bit more "naturalness" in the mid to high spectra than the Nady mic. The Marshall is a bit more proximity sensitive than the Nady and that is why I suggest a pop screen for this mic. EQ this mic propoerly and knock 'em dead with easy listening audio.
KC8YXH Rating: 2004-03-23
Top Shelf Clarity & Quality at a Bottom Shelf Price! Time Owned: 0 to 3 months.
I was impressed enough with the MXL 990 to take the time to write this review. While I haven’t owned this mic long, I can’t imagine my opinion changing. But if it does, I will post it here. If you are interested in sounding as good as you can on the air, read on.

Being an audiophile, sound system professional, mechanical engineer and ham of 42 years of age (aka: perfectionist), I set out to buy a new large capsule condenser diaphragm microphone for my ham shack of the “upright broadcast” style. I had decided that the “normal” offerings of the ham world were seriously lacking. (Surprisingly, even Heil doesn’t make large diaphram condenser mic. They only make what are known as dynamic microphones.) Anyone with experience in sound recording or broadcasting will tell you there is simply no substitute for a large capsule condenser microphone, when it comes to vocal presence and pure clarity of the human voice without coloration (assuming a good condenser mic is used). Having experience with many types of mics, I set out to do a side by side test of all I could put my hands on. I was prepared to plop down $300+ for a good mic for my shack.

I tested everything I could that was up to $1,000 per microphone. The test was simple enough. I recorded my voice saying the same phrase on a number of different microphones with no type of processing. It was recorded directly on a digital recorder through a small mixing board. The phrase included many hard “T”, “S”, “K” and “P” sounds. It was spoken with a normal strong voice that one would use while transmitting. After recording my voice with all the mics, I played the recording back through a high quality studio monitor system and compared.

Of the microphones I tested, the ones that are of note were a $1,000 Neumann, a $600 and a $300 Shure, plus many others. I also tested the MXL 2001, which is reviewed elsewhere on eham. I ran the gamut. All the mics I tested are cardiod pick-up patterns, as they should be for use with ham radio. (I tested no tube amplified mics.) The last mic I tested was the $60 MXL 990 as an afterthought. I saw it in the showcase among the cheap stuff, so I inquired. The salesman said “it is just a cheap mic”. But I figured, why not? Even if it isn’t that great, I might still be good enough, especially for the price.

Now this test is only intended for the close mic’d situation that one finds themselves in while transmitting. I can say little about any of these mic’s performance at a distance or off-axis.

Impressions: The Neumann and Shure microphone performed very well with little coloration. The $300 Shure mic did lack a little a little presence for my taste, but was still a fine mic. The $140 MXL (MXL 2001) was awful, as its body resonated badly making it sound “boxy” and quite unnatural. Then I listened to the MXL 990 recording. Both myself and the salesman’s heads snapped toward each other in amazement. We couldn’t believe our ears. It was crisp, clear, plenty smooth without perceptible coloration and had high output. The MXL 990 outperformed all tested microphones, with the exception of 2 of them. The $600 Shure was equal in sound quality. The Nuemann was better, but just by a very small amount. Certainly not enough to matter in a close-mic’d broadcast environment. It took me about 2 seconds to tell the salesman to “wrap it up. I’ll take it”.

NOTE: On the MXL 2001’s reviews here on eham. I have to point out that the reviews I have read on it thus far are not comparative, they were just opinions on reports of how they sounded over the air. I have been listening to different mics and sound systems for years. However, it doesn’t take a trained ear to know that the 2001 sounds awful compared to most other large capsule condenser microphone. I know the 2001 microphone is regarded highly in its reviews here on eham. I have no doubt it may indeed give good reports on sound quality to those listening. It does give good clarity and is highly intelligible, but it is anything but natural. You can do A LOT better in sound quality with the 990 for a lot less money! If you are like me, you want to start with the best signal you can for the least investment and the 2001 won’t give it to you. But don’t take my word for it. Listen to them side by side at a local music store. (Do make sure you use the same method of recording and playing back. You can’t possibly tell anything by just speaking and listening simultaneously.)

I brought it home and hooked it up. I was not disappointed! Everyone I have spoken with tells me it sound like I am next door or on the phone.

Now unless you are familiar with using condenser microphones, don’t just run out and get one without reading on. There is a reason Heil doesn’t make a condenser microphone (to my knowledge). Condenser microphones require a power source, known as “phantom” power. A 48 VDC is applied to the microphone in order to charge the condenser (capacitor) for it to work. So, an additional piece of equipment is needed between the microphone and the transmitter to make it all work. Phantom power supplies are available or can easily be built. I personally take it one step further and use a processor that has a phantom power supply built in, as many microphone processor amplifiers do. The processor provides many extra functions, like compression so I don’t overmodulate or clip an amplifier section. It also has tube amplification sound emulation, gating, expansion, sibilance filtering and equalization, if I desire to use them. (I use a Behringer Ultra-Voice VX2000, $140. It doesn’t have the most headroom in the world or finest control, but with ham radio, it is more than adequate.) I found that with this mic, I use just a slight amount of tube emulation for those warm overtones and the compression section to keep from overdriving the transmitter if I get loud with my voice. I do use the equalizer a bit also, but not because the mic needs it, rather because my voice does. Mine isn’t the greatest broadcast voice in the world, so I give it a bit of a hand.

On the air, this mic will make you clear and with great presence as anything you can possibly buy, with the exception of a $2,000 microphone with a $1000 processor. You will truly be hard pressed to beat this mic.

Is it worth all this trouble? Depends upon how good you want to sound and how much trouble you are willing to go to to get it. You can’t go wrong with the Marshall MXL 990 mic in your shack. It is an absolute sonic marvel for $70!
MYKDEEN Rating: 2004-01-16
great for guitars Time Owned: 0 to 3 months.
Got this mic about 2 weeks ago, and after playing with it for only a few hours, I found its true calling...guitar cabs. Put this mic slap up to a Marshall cab w/ 4 celestians and OMG that thing sounds better than great. between the quality and the price, anybody recording music should definatley buy 2 of these. Great mic and great deal!
JORGES Rating: 2004-01-12
great mic for an even greater price Time Owned: 0 to 3 months.
I got this mic as a "gift" from MusiciansFriend when I purchased a sound card and I'm very pleasantly surprised with it's quality. I have great mics like the AKG 414 and the affordable MXL 990 sounds great in comparison and is hundreds of dollars cheaper. I recommend this product to anyone, even pros. You can never have too many mics and this is a good one...period