I've been doing quite a few a/b testing, and from what I've observed, I'd describe the sound as slightly subdued, non-hyped, mellow, smooth, rounded.

Like you could track a chain saw with it, and it would sound like a smooth and well-balanced chain saw; for lack of a better way to put it. Not really getting the "condenserish" thing, as some have described it (at least not in an airy sense).

But on the flip-side, it also sounds a little honky/nasal (telephonic?) on a bad day.

Before I go to the trouble of plunking down a grand, are my observations relatively in the ball park?

Thank you in advance. And no, I don't need acoustic treatment, new converters, monitors, etc. <-- I'm good there.

attributions of sound to gear are pointless - borrow the mic you're interested in and use it on every source available; this will tell you how useful it could be for your applications in your environment...

I have a few 441s and do not find them honky. Their treble range is not as "in your face" overly detailed but as the membrane is quick enough to follow the important information they are good for many jobs. If these mics are the right thing for your and your work i can't tell from here. As Didier said, borrow one and try it.

he's right though - just get one and try it. Return if not to your liking. FWIW I've been using these for years and wouldn't never do a full band tracking session without a couple.

-pete

that's what i'm thinking about folks who attribute sound to gear...

...but don't worry, you're in good company/i'm in the minority here on gs regarding this topic,

i think i'm in good company regarding the md-441: i have (at least) six, two of which need repair though which isn't much of a surprise after decades of use on all sorts of sources (and lots of touring) - these days, they don't get much use anymore though, mostly on saxes (when live mixing big bands).

I have two, and they're smooth and detailed, almost condenser like and the rejection is super useful for toms, etc.

I would say the 441s and the AKG 224E are the most condenser-like dynamics I own.

It's literally a transducer.

i find attribution of sound to gear nonsensic: sound is what's happening in front of the mics and what comes out of the speakers - the gear in between used to shape the sound is about functions, features, specs...

...but maybe when my md-441's get fixed, my tech finds some sound inside? - i'll keep you posted!

I find it equally nonsensic to lecture about the obvious. It's like we can't talk about gear any more because we have a troop of self-appointed "semantic players" who create Monte Python skits out of things people never actually said nor implied unless you take every word literally.

But I get it; I have similar hangups when people say phrases like "begs the question" completely wrong (It doesn't actually mean what most think it means). But I know what their intention is, so I just nod and go along.

Bottom line is ... mics have a sound. If you have to warp space and time to make sense out of that, then do it. It's not a huge stretch.

what makes it so hard for you to accept that other folks have a vastly different view on things?

i find characterization of gear by its supposedly inherent sound complete garbage: IF it were the case that devices had a unique, typical sound, you would be able to hear which devices were used in every recording - but that is completely impossible: nobody in the world can hear whether i used a schoeps, neumann or dpa mic, nor whether i used an urei, teletronix or fairchild comp; the same applies to eqs, efx, desks etc.

of course all gear has its peculiarities, which you may or may not like for some reason (and we can argue about that), but to claim that device x has this or that sound is useless, because we all hear, evaluate and assess things differently and use an individual language.

how does a md-441 sound?

my point is that it doesn't sound at all; it shapes the sound happening in front of it in specific ways which can get characterized (to some extent) by its design, pattern and its frequency response (and maybe a few more features/specs) but that's about it!

I never found the MD441 honky in any way. Did you have the presence switch on or off when you listened?

The MD441 is the first mike I grab for when I am close-miking anything. I love it because it is so versatile. On the other hand, ddy thinks it's obsolete. Don't listen to any of us, make up your own mind.
--scott

ha!

not obsolete, just too large and too expensive for a dynamic mic - and i have other options.

(my go-to dynamic mic is the beyer m-201 btw)

First, the "condenser-like" qualities attributed to the 441 originated in their ad copy. And it's been unquestioningly repeated since...
I never understood where they got the Idea, or what exactly they mean by that.

OK, it's smooth, balanced and unhyped, possibly like some "classic" condenser mics; but has nowhere near a condenser's high end extention, nor its detail.
Still is a great sounding mic, though.
( @ ddy , please read that as "still does transmit the source's sound in a pleasing way." You deserve a break. )

As to the occasional honkiness described in the OP, that could well be the rotating HPF switch acting up.
On some older specimens, that mechanical part tends to become less reliable over time, sometimes getting stuck too close to the "speech" setting.

You know that's what was meant by the question.

Admit it.

So just mentally insert the correct way of phrasing the question in your head. It's not that hard if you have very basic social skills. If someone said that a microphone sounded "like crap," you'd know what that meant, right? Or would you literally be that guy saying "fecal matter makes no sound?"

IMO I get accurate sound reproduction from tenor saxophone and prefer using mine when recording.

I find it valuable to hear others' experience when it comes from people who I agree with on basically everything. I don't think I've ever disagreed with any of your accounts, btw, Unless you're that guy who loves the tlm-103.

So you don't think gear has an inherent tone, color, handling of transients and/or EQ curve?

This is purely a semantics argument. Everyone here (hopefully) knows a microphone doesn’t make sound on its own. Some just really like to hammer that point home.

I just bought my first 441. Possibly I am still in the honeymoon phase, but I like it a lot. I certainly wouldn't call it honky. It can be, for want of a better word, thick sounding. On my own voice it needs a cut around 300Hz and some upper midrange boost. But on the singer in my band it sounds perfect right out of the gate. I compared it with a U87 and a ribbon mic and the 441 was miles better on him.

Edited to add: I also compared it with one of my D224s. The D224 really is somewhat 'condenser like' and has a fair bit more high end than the 441. They're both fantastic mics though.

imo you're mixing up features/functional aspects (handling of transients) and characteristics (the rest of what you mentioned)...

...but to answer your question: i spent most my audio life hunting for gear that does NOT have 'inherent tone'! to me, 'inherent tone' is a major bug, not a feature - ymmv.


in my world, audio equipment can be crap (for various reasons), can turn a signal into crap (for various reasons) but it cannot sound like crap...

...so again: does the md-441 have a sound? - imo it doesn't but i fear we're not getting anywhere until you have tried it on various sources/under varying conditions.

Okay, so assuming we're taking everything we say literally, this sentence is completely inaccurate and filled with falsehoods. For starters, I don't think you "fear" that we're not getting anywhere. Fear is reserved for things that are inherently threatening, so that was a lie.

More falsehoods. For starters, this isn't "your world." The world belongs to no one. Microphones cannot turn a signal in to "crap." It doesn't turn anything in to anything from a purely physics standpoint. Everything you have said is invalidated.

bro's superpower is extremely literal language.

The pattern isn't as tight as the MD441, I don't think, but it's just as clean off-axis. I sure wouldn't turn one down if someone offered me one on a gig.

The original poster should listen to the M-201 too, it is also a great mike.
--scott

Can languages be literal?

And isn't "extremely literal" kind of like a "little pregnant?"

The MD441 is repairable, though. I have a bunch of D224s with the top capsule bad and nobody can do anything about them. Take care of yours and whatever you do, don't drop them!
--scott

tenor sax and chain saw have many similar qualities

I'm actually looking for something a little newer and more rugged to replace the D224, as I can tell it's starting to decline and it's days are probably numbered. From some listening tests, I thought the 441 had kind of a similar vibe.

I consider the 224 (when working) to be a near-perfect mic on more than half of what I track.

441 has never let me down, in any situation. If I had to make an entire record with just one mic, 441 is the one.

I love the 224 as well. I have four, though only two of them still work.

It doesn't really sound much like the 441, at least close up, but they do have the same ability to take the edge off shrill and fierce sources. One of these days I'll have to do a proper comparison of high-end dynamic mics.