Quote:
Originally Posted by
popmann
β‘οΈ
I had one for years....I think it captures a quality picture... I have so many useful mic colors for different sources...it just didn't get used. I think the Royer 121 was the nail in it's coffin--as it often served as my "digital harshness killer"--which the 121 does better.
So it seems that many are agreeing that the 193 is a
good mic and takes a quality picture, but it's just not "exciting" enough to make people want to use it in many or most cases. This all makes sense to me, but this situation then makes the 193 a very underrated mic. It seems it's a quality tool but gets passed off as junk just because it's not a wild child.
The 193 is perhaps like a mini-van... nobody wants to drive one because they're boring, but they'll do just about anything, do it well and get the job done. However, everyone wants a Corvette because a Vette is intense, sexy and exciting, but in the grand scheme of things, a Corvette is a limited use vehicle which is only good at doing certain things and not able to do other things. If I could only have one, I'd take the mini-van... in the name of
getting the job done.
For me.... the Royer... very cool stuff, amazing on the "right" sources, but I don't use them because for me, they impart
too much color typically... and I'm not always hip with the way that color works on the things I most often record. Though they can indeed be amazing when the stars are aligned. But this is indeed an apples / oranges thing, also related to the genre of music being dealt with, production goals, etc, etc, etc.
I guess if I could have an unlimited amount of mics up on a given source, I'd have one of everything... a TLM170, a Royer, a vintage tube mic, you name it.... then could A-B test later in the mix and pick the one (or combination) that works best in the mix. But, since I usually do not like to take the time, tracks etc to record every instrument with a zillion different mics, it seems best to just capture the source with an "accurate" mic (such as a TLM170), then effect it later in the mix if necessary. Start with a nice clean picture of the source and then paint from there.
Plus I am often not confident enough at the recording stage to choose a heavy color to be forever recorded onto tape... I very much like having color
options later at mix time. Otherwise, once you commit in advance, you're stuck, for better or for worse. I'm sure highly experienced engineers feel confident about commiting in this way, that's cool... perhaps I'll get more confident too as I gain more experience. For now I like to start with a clean slate and then have the
option to color things up this way or that way or not at all, depending on how the mix is shaping up at mix time.
So what it's boiling down to is that the 193 has its own thing, granted, perhaps a "boring" utilitarian kinda thing, but it does it well, and if that's the kind of tool you're looking for, the 193 should do well. That's the kind of tool I was looking for and I found it in the 170. But it seems that most people prefer more radical and exciting tools... which is cool... all depends on what you're going for.
I am interested in the 193 because it's about half the price of a 170... and IF by chance it actually does sound as good or identical to a 170 in cardioid mode (as some suggest), then it's a killer deal and would be a good option for anyone interested in this TYPE of mic.
But I guess if you want "sexy", look elsewhere. heh