I can't understand all the love for this mic. I find it boxy sounding and harsh in the high mids. The only place I find any use for it is the rare occasion when I mic a rack tom from under.

I only have experience with the mkII which I find overpriced and overrated.

I used both these over the course of a couple of weeks. My 421N is the white one (not the script lettering). Wasn't a direct comparison, but they did sound memorably different to me. The black 421 U5 sounded like it had a more extended low end, and with a bit more color (seemed bumped around 300-400Hz, a bit more boxy) in the low mids. The 421N lacked the deep bottom that the U5 had, but seemed a bit more ruler flat otherwise. The one thing I did notice was that on the 421N, with subtle EQ around 60Hz, I was able to get the most realistic and natural sounding upright bass recording I've ever done.

You are in a very tiny minority.

If the Mk.I was manufactured today it would be about double the price that the Mk.II is.

The MD 421 is one of the very few almost universal mics around that will do almost anything and I would say is a "must have" in any microphone locker. The other two with this sort of universality are the AKG D202 and the Beyer M201.

They are on sale at VK!

Speaking as a drummer, I've found (with various old school 421s) that they provide a certain "like a record" tom sound.

Finally got a couple of u5s, now that they're cheap, and I love 'em. They make things sound chubbier.

I have 2 old white 421s, one with the large Tuchel connector, and one with the smaller Tuchel connector. The mic with the larger connector is the older of the 2, and it most definitely sounds fuller in the low mids than the newer mic. The newer white mic sounds fuller than a recent black 421 but doesn't have the same HF extension. The easiest way I find to hear the differences is to use them to mic a dirty guitar sound.

Whether these sonic differences are as a result of aging is purely conjecture, as they were never new at the same time

"Interesting enough, the biggest complaint
on the original was the clip. I've not receive one complaint about the
clip since the redesign. I attribute this to the mic being more balanced.
Now the clip pivots on the mic's fulcrum point."[/QUOTE]

first let me say that i bought a vintage 421 (telefunken) and it was the best 300 i've ever spent on a mic. i compared it to the new ones and thought it was a little warmer.
but all in all, i think the main difference is the clip, and the vintage mics (white versions) have metal clips. the new versions have plastic clips. every new 421 i've ever seen on a gig is gaff taped to the clip.
do the math for yourself and pay the extra 100 at most for the vintage mic, and rest assured it won't fall of the mic clip.

I couldn't agree with you more, Perc-boy. They make Toms sound like Toms.

P.S. I prefer 421s from the 80s to mid 90s.

on it

I've preferred the Vintage 421's from my 30's to my mid 60's.
Chris

Nice one, Cheese-parov

I've been aged.

i've been using all the various (re-)incarnations of the 421 mainly 'cause that's what was available in some places or then based on the artist's familarity with the mic...

...so i guess i'll never understand why some folks rave about it: for my taste, it's too large, too heavy, ugly, has a weird frequency response even on axis, not two of them sound alike and then of course there's this silly clip!

Hmmn. That's exactly the same as what some people say about violins.

there is indeed a connection: both get you through the gig somehow! - but one is at least still suitable as firewood afterwards while i can't think of any sensible use for the other...



p.s. i think i still have five or six md-421's somewhere?!

p.p.s. discussing md-421's in the 'high end' forum?

Sennheiser Retires The MD 421 -- Debuts the 421 II.
Ty Ford Baltimore, MD

The Sennheiser MD 421 is no longer being made. It has been replaced by the
MD 421 II at the same price, $485. There was no funeral. I missed the
announcement of the retirement ceremony. You can, none the less, mark it
on your calendar as a milestone event in professional audio. How do you
replace a mic as ubiquitous as the Sennheiser 421? I would imagine this
thought bounced around Sennheiser quite a bit before they actually made
the move. The short of it is that the 421 II is brighter, has a very slightly
extended low end response and is about half an inch shorter than the
original model.

According to Sennheiser's Greg Beebe, the new 421 II coils are made of
lower mass aluminum rather than copper. Less mass results in better
transient response and increased high-frequency response. The new
version has wider resonator/diaphragm contact (about 3/4" versus 1/2"
on the original). That additional contact also results in an accentuation of
the high frequencies. The new NeoDymium magnet was chosen for its tight
temperature coefficient, ensuring constant gauss (and operation) across a
wide range of ambient operating temperatures. The original version has a
wide humbucking coil, the new version is more narrow, but has more
strands and is a little taller. A lead slug is attached to the new capsule,
which, According to Beebe, adds mass and cuts down on handling noise. I'll
miss the silver embossed name across the front of the mic, but with the
two so similar in design, it will help you tell which is which quickly.

Although the published specifications of the two mics are virtually
identical, the individual frequency response charts tell a different story.
Whereas my original 421 is up 6dB from 1KHz to 4KHz, the 421 II is up
8dB. My original 421 was down 6dB at 50Hz, while the 421 II was down
only 4dB. My overall reaction in A/Bing the two is that, relative to the 421
II, the original 421 sounds like it has a blanket hung in front of it. The
change in frequency response also has an effect on the way the mic
handles the human voice. The original 421 seems darker and more focused
on sounds from the back of the throat, while the 421 II seems more suited
for sounds from the front of the mouth and from the facial mask. Like its
predecessor, the 421 II has the five-position roll-off EQ collar at the rear
of the mic.

MOUNTING TENSION The new, optional MZS 421 Shockmount clip ($50) may
quiet the perennial objections about the standard, but hard to wrangle,
421 clip. The MZS 421 a lot easier to work with than the standard clip. The
MZS 421 has a slot in its base into which the standard clip slides. After
that, the mic slides right into the suspension mount and is snugged by the
rubber bands of the mount and the metal shoe that slides into the slot in
the bottom of the mic itself.

Seven years ago, when I got my first DAW, I had to stop using my MD 421
because positioning the mic within several feet of the computer monitor
turned the mic into a "noise antenna" that picked up a substantial amount
of hash radiated from the monitor. I'm happy to say I have a new, more
environmentally friendly computer monitor. The original 421 and the 421
II, both could be positioned to pickup some noise from the computer
monitor, but far less than with the previous model.

IN CONCLUSION The only caveat I have about new 421 II is that its
brightness may result in sibilance. Using the open-cell foam pop filter
suggested by Sennheiser will reduce the tendency. Using an Air Corp
500PH mic preamp/processor, I punched in the sibilance control circuitry
and made a quick cut of a few dB at 2.5KHz with a reciprocal boost at
5KHz. That took care of any sibilance and further opened up the top.
Similar approaches with other equalizers should provide the equally
acceptable results.

The cardioid pattern of the 421 II is as tight as its predecessor. As such,
this mic is well-suited for relatively noisey environments, like radio
studios or live sound or multi-mic recording. To get the proximity bump,
you need to be within two and a half inches and pretty much dead center.
That makes it a great jock mic, but a poor choice for talk show guests who
donÕt know how to work a mic.

So hold on to your MD 421s, they will probably only go up in value from
now on. And, if you've shied away from the 421 because it wasn't quite
bright enough, it's time to step up to the MD 421 II for another try.

http://www.tyford.com

Superb overview of what's changed and what hasn't, Ty. Thanks for sharing it.

I'm pretty sure ddy will remain unmoved, but the rest of us stand to benefit from your deep dive on this.

You're most welcome, DSM. As for ddy, enh! My day was made beautiful and brilliant by the fact that trump was indicted in NY on 34 Criminal Counts.

BTW, I recall Greg Beebe's or Karl Winkler's answer to why make this change now. I was told it was because the molds used to make the body had worn so much that they could no longer be used. I'm actually amazed I remembered it.

lol - of course this is excellent info...

...but i indeed stay unmoved: i never wanted to know about the innards of my gear (well, a bit i had to learn so i could maintain my analog desks) and never became knowledgeable enough that i could draw any meaningful conclusions.

regarding the 421, i did have three old ones (grey version) that measured so far apart that i didn't even want to use them on toms anymore so i bought a bunch of the newer versions - not because i liked them much but because some guest engineers or drummers did (and occasionally also a guitar or maybe a trombone player)...

...but why use a large dynamic mic with a weird behaviour when i can have smaller dynamic mic or condenser mic with a much more favorable behaviour?

anyway, there are three use cases in which my 421's still come into play: bass cab and leslie low (out of habit) and occasionally on trombones in big bands (if i've run out of all other options) - oh, and some dictators/autocrats still use them on press conferences! ;-)

even three "old" U 87 i with different life backgrounds will sound different, so that your 421 "measured" so far apart is quite understandable. Hopefully, the new ones were less problematic.

Why is large good? If large means a larger diaphragm, the larger the diaphragm, the higher the voltage generated from those "weird" inner parts you don't care about. Not so much a problem in "the old days" when analog tape noise was a major part of the noise barrier, but after digital, the lower noise floor allowed us to hear and perturbate about other noisy things in the basement like selfnoise and preamp noise.

i started working professionally in 1978, so back in the days of tape but long after the 421 got introduced. i have no idea what happend to my old 421's before i got them (admittely very cheap) but in their poor state, they were an obstacle, not an asset so i used other mics and eventually gave the 421's away.

the new ones (we're now in mid-80's) measured* more close together and performed better (the drum kits got bigger so i bought five 421's iirc) - they got regular use, mostly on toms for which they were okay but physically annoying!

i admit that things (in terms of my 'love' for the 421's) didn't change much since, neither with the version II (90's i guess?) nor the 521 (or however the cheap reincarnation without 'rumpelfilter' was called?)...

...and your superior technical knowledge won't bring me closer to the 421's either (or the u87 for that matter) - but perhaps you'll be comforted to know that i'm absolutely okay to use the e-904's (we're still talking about toms?) and if we were even talking about the 441(which i used yesterday with bob mintzer), my mood would brighten considerably!



* and yes, i regularly 'measure' and compare my mics, for decades in the same room, in the same position in front of the same speaker and in comparison to the same two b&k's - measurement gear has changed a bit though...

I'll be 76 later this year, otherwise known as "old as ****." My mom bought me my first tape recorder when I was nine years old.

Do you have any e-609? Half a million years ago, when a friend brought one to my studio, we both thought it sounded VERY much like an "original recipe" 421. I'm referring to the black body ones here in the US. As you mention, there were earlier models, but I don't know if they evolved the recipe.

The MD421 have been used on toms for a long time. Don't know if they are today or not. I used them for voiceovers and found them quite good for that until DAWs with CRT monitors came out in the late 1990s. The early CRTs spewed a circle of RF noise and if the mic was sitting in front of the CRT, (because dynamic mics use a coil of wire moving in a magnetic field) the coil would pickup the RF noise projected by the monitor.

I switched to a Gefell M71. It's a condenser mic, so no coil for a pickup. The early M71 had some RF problems, presumably because East Germany didn't have the fierce RF environment we have here. A few well-placed components inside the mic, and the RF was thwarted.

Yes, I am very comforted! The MD441 is a lovely dynamic. I used it on-the-air back in the mid 1970s at an AM radio station. I got pretty familiar with it, talking into it every day. The MD431 is also quite nice and has a very tight pattern.

yep, i still have an e-609 here which i never compared to the md-421 though but which i also mostly use on drums: snare bottom, mounted with an e-904's clamp and an akg sa-40 clip - quite handy.




[as i think of it: how comes that (except for the md-441) i'm using sennheiser's dynamic mics almost exclusively in situations and on instruments which don't really matter?!]

It's a Swiss Mystery!!!!

Too much Sax and Violins today.