Softball sized Blue Ball mic rocks on guitar amps
By Jeremy Jensen, added February 24, 2004
I'm sure most of you have heard the skinny on the Ball, the latest offering from Blue. It's spherical, it’s softball sized, and it’s a phantom-powered dynamic microphone. In my review, I will describe my impression of its sound, both on sources where I normally use dynamic mics (e.g., drums, guitar cabinets) and on sources where would I normally use condensers (e.g., vocals, acoustic guitar, tambourine, and egg shaker). I decided to take this approach to test Blue's seemingly too-good-to-be-true claim that this mic 'delivers a frequency response and acoustic balance associated with the finest large-diaphragm condensers, yet performs with the setup ease and low cost of a dynamic.'
 I first tried the Ball out on male vocals, using myself as a test subject. I pointed the front of the mic (which is covered by a large, plastic Blue logo) about an inch below my lips and about five inches away. I was fairly impressed with the results. My voice sounded nice and warm on the low end, with a smooth, but not dark, high end. Plosives were not a problem at all, even though I sang without a pop stopper.
The impression I got from this test is that the Ball would be perfect for vocal tracks, such as backing and doubled vocals, that don’t need the high-end sheen associated with large-diaphragm condenser mics. I also think it would work well on singers that have sibilance problems, since there was absolutely no distracting sibilance in the tracks I cut with this mic.
It is worth noting that this mic is particularly sensitive to placement when used on vocals. When I moved the mic up an inch, directly in front of my mouth, I began to hear problems with sibilance and plosives.
Next I tested the Ball on snare, kick, floor tom, tambourine, and egg shaker. For each of these tests, I compared the Ball to the mic I normally use in that application.
On snare, I compared the Ball to my old standby, the Shure SM57, and aimed them both at the center of the drum. While I wasn't out-and-out disappointed in the Ball, I felt that the 57 beat it hands down in this application. The SM57 did a much better job of capturing both the attack of the snare and the sound of the snare wires, which resulted in a present, punchy snare sound. In comparison, the Ball sounded thuddy and dark. It added a lower-mid thump to the sound, which, in my opinion, detracts from a good snare track.
On kick, I compared the Ball to an Audio-Technica Pro 25 kick drum mic. Unfortunately, the Ball was seriously outclassed in this application. The Pro 25 captured both the deep bass of the kick and the attack of the beater, while the Ball seemed to not capture any frequencies below 80 Hz. In my opinion, this immediately disqualifies it for any serious kick work.
On floor tom, I compared the Ball, once again, to the SM57. In this application, the Ball was the clear winner. Its low-mid boost, attenuated low-bass response, and smooth top end captures both the attack and low-mid thump of the floor tom, without emphasizing its lowest frequencies, which I usually EQ out anyway. In my opinion, the Ball performed very well in this application.
One disappointment for me was the Ball's performance on egg shaker and tambourine. Simply put, the Ball sucks in this application. It simply does not have the high-end response needed to adequately capture the character of these instruments.
Given Blue's claim of a condenser-like frequency response, I decided I would test The Ball on acoustic guitar, my favorite instrument to record. I pointed the mic at the12th fret at a distance of about 10 inches, and played a strummy rhythm part. Given my sense of the mic so far, I wasn’t expecting anything great, but, fortunately, I was pleasantly surprised. The Ball's meaty mid-range lent a certain weight to the track, even if its high-frequency response wasn't ideal. Next time I need to record a strummed acoustic part for use in a busy mix, I just might give the Ball a chance, especially if I were going for a lo-fi sound. Having just said that, however, I suspect that nine times out of 10 I’ll end up using a nice large-diaphragm condenser for tracks like these.
Next I tried the Ball on electric guitar, and discovered the Ball was created for guitar amps. I tested the Ball head-to-head with, yes, you guessed it, my SM57, and the Ball was consistently fatter, meatier, and just all around nicer on the ears than the 57. In a session later that week, I used the Ball in conjunction with the 57. In doing so, I combined the meaty, meaty mids of the Ball with the presence boost of the 57 to create some of the finest electric guitar tracks I’ve ever recorded.
So, does this mic live up to Blue's claim of a condenserlike frequency response trapped inside the rugged body of a dynamic mic? The answer is an unequivocal no. It is, however, an excellent dynamic mic that shines on several sources. On top of taking up permanent residence in front of my guitar amp, it will be used time and time again in my studio on toms and backing vocals. At a street price as low as $149, it is an excellent value and is well worth adding to your mic cabinet, especially if you don't have any high-end dynamics.
The Bottom Line: Condenserlike? No. Great? Hell yeah!
Link relating to this review: Blue
Blue Ball microphone is more than a clever name
By Steve Langer, added September 29, 2003
OK, so what's cool about the Blue Ball? First, it's got a cool name. It's a nice double entendre. Second, it's shape. Quite simply: It's a blue ball roughly the size of softball or grapefruit. It's got a nice Blue logo on the front as well as a RED led indicator light signifying phantom power status. There is a standard male XLR plug on the back of the Ball.
So, what's not so cool? The Ball contains a standard 5/8 inch mic stand socket. Yes, that's right. Nevermind a shockmount as there is no mount option in the standard sense. You thread the Ball directly to your mic stand. I do think users need to be aware of its susceptibility to picking up vibration through the mic stand. The socket does contain some give for tilting the mic into position but I found myself being reliant upon the mic stand almost completely for getting the mic into position. In a tight space, this makes some mic placings difficult.
Why phantom power on a dynamic mic? The Ball contains a propietary phantom-powered active balancing circuit in its output stage. OK, what does this mean? According to Blue, the output impedance of dynamic mics vary according to frequency. The balancing circuit, which requires phantom power, maintains a constant 50 ohm output impedance across the mics audible frequency range. In practice, the Ball should be consistent in sound than other dynamic mics which are at the mercy of the mic pre input impedance.
I found the Ball to be suitable wherever I'd normally consider using conventional dynamic mic. I first gave it a dialog test. The mic tends to give a nice proximity effect to put across the intimacy of the spoken word. I did think it tended to be a little muddy on the low end when the source came in too close. I believe that any mic shell adds its on flavor to the mic. The ABS plastic shell of the Ball does possess its own sound. Its flavor seemed to put a light lo-fi sheen on the sound. I liked the low end of the mic with the male voice. I liked the roll off on the top end frequencies inherent to the mic. The Ball did a good job with vocal nuances in spoken word tracking.
On the male singing voice, the Blue Ball possessed a hint of darkness. It's kind of like the mic overloads the frequencies in the lows and the mids. If you roll off the low end, then you got these double meated mids. The vocal tracks took additive EQ better than most mics I've evaluated. With the Great River MP-2NV mic pre, the Ball required about 45 dB of gain. With the FMR RNP mic pre, the Ball required 54 dB of gain.
On the acoustic guitar, I found the sound to be overloaded as well. This mic puts down such a bandwidth that it gives you lots to work with on EQ. Interesting.
On my old 1964 Ampeg Rocket 2, the Blue Ball put across the vibe of the alnico speaker. For fun, I turned off the phantom power. I didn't like the sound at all despite the Ball being plugged into an FMR RNP.
I found the Blue Ball did keep its sonic profile but changed shades when plugged into different mic preamps. The more I used the Blue Ball the more I came to think of it as a tool for experimentation and fun in the studio. I enjoyed working with it in most situations.
I can only think of one mic that struck me with so much newness, which was my first and only PZM mic. I remember discovering uses for my PZM. I made a lot of mistakes but then I started seeing where it fit in my mic cabinet. I feel the same way about the Blue Ball. Its uses need to be discovered out in the trenches. I'd probably reach for a Blue Ball in those instances where I want to capture a voice or instrument to possibly take a lot of EQ.
The Bottom Line: I think the Blue Ball is a dynamic mic that looks very cool. I like it's sonic footprint. It's wide. It's got a good low end. It trails off about 10 kHz. It's got some mid presence to make things interesting. And, it takes additive EQ.
Link relating to this review: Blue
Front End Audio
copyright 2003-2004 langer. all rights reserved. |
