Oktava MK-319

Oktava MK-319 captures a neutral, natural sound

Of all the inexpensive condenser microphones available to day, Oktava is the only manufacturer that doesn’t have ties to the Orient. Established as a Russian radio factory in 1927, Oktava soon began to focus on the production of acoustical-electrical transducers consisting of both loudspeakers and dynamic microphones. In the 1950s, Oktava began manufacturing successful copies of RCA ribbon mics for the Soviet television and movie production industries. Today, Oktava is a major producer of affordable ribbon and condenser microphones.

The Oktava MK-319 is a large (28 mm) diaphragm cardioid pattern condenser microphone that is essentially a repackaged version of the MK-219. The MK-219 body rightfully gets a lot of criticism due to its boxy shape negatively impacting the mic's sonics. So, Oktava put the insides of the MK-219 into a new mic body and the MK-319 was born.

The MK-319 utilizes a -10 dB switch and a low-cut switch that reduces the mic's sensitivity by 10 dB below 50 Hz. The mic usually sells in a soft vinyl pouch with a stand adapter. The literature that comes with the MK-319 still reads “MK-219” and lists the sensitivity as 10 mV/Pa and the max SPL @ 1 kHz as > 140 dB. I recently picked up a couple and have spent a considerable amount of time both listening to them and examining their design.

Before purchasing the MK-319, my friends at my local Oktava dealer helped me set up a temporary listening station in their pro audio room consisting of a pair of Audio-Technica headphones, a Focusrite VoiceMaster Pro, and a pile of MK-319 microphones (seven to be exact). This allowed me to compare them to determine any sonic variations that might exist due to the inadequate quality control that low budget offshore microphones are so famous for. To my surprise, there was little variation between them and selecting two from the heap was just a tossup. Bear in mind that the ones I tested were probably all from the same run, so variations between manufacturing runs are still a possibility.

At home on the bench, I took each mic apart to examine its internal parts. The capsule appears to be a copy of a Neumann design, similar to the one found in most of the Chinese mics. One difference I did notice, even before taking it apart, was that the capsule had a strange plastic disc attached to both its front and back sides. Each disc has nine holes symmetrically placed around it. I'm not sure what the purpose of this disc is. Some say it improves the higher frequencies, but it may just simply be there to help protect the diaphragm.

As I examined the electronics, I immediately discovered that the low-cut and -10 dB switches were reed switches rather than the mechanical slide switches normally used on mics in this price range. The significance is that reed switches operate magnetically and have no sliding contacts to wear out. Reed switches also are hermetically sealed in a gas filled tube, and thus totally isolated from the outside environment. These two things provide a long switch life. If you've ever flipped one of those cheap slide switches only to find it had become faulty or intermittent, you'll understand why this is such a big deal to me.

I traced out the circuit and found that it functions similar to the one used in the MK-012. One exception, however, is that the MK-319 uses an output transformer and provides a true differential output. (Incidentally, the MK-012 does not have a true balanced output.)

In most of the transformer-coupled Chinese mics, the low quality output transformer has always been a major weakness of their design. According to Scott Dorsey, who is quite knowledgeable about Oktava mics, this is not true of the MK-319. Over at the rec.audio.pro group at usenet, Scott said, "I was kind of surprised that the transformer in those (Oktava MK-219 and MK-319) mics actually sounds pretty good, and measures well on the bench." As to the Chinese mics, Scott said, "The transformer rings. The core is poorly made; the windings are poorly wrapped. You put a square wave in, what comes out isn't square."

Like the newer vintage MK-012 microphones, the printed circuit board and its components are lacquer coated to resist moisture and prevent noise. The electronic components appear to be consistent between the two mics I have, and even though the quality of some components could be improved, none of the parts are what I would call shoddy.

For my listening test at home, I used my Aardvark Q10 with its built-in preamplifiers, and a Blue Cranberry microphone cable. I listened to the results through some decent headphones and a pair of KRK Rokit monitors.

I tried the MK-319 on a few acoustic instruments, and it always performed well without the harshness usually associated with low cost large diaphragm Chinese microphones. Although it sounded neutral, I could still detect a little "color" that isn’t there when using small diaphragm condensers. Another thing I noticed was that it isn't nearly as picky about placement in front of an acoustic instrument as its MK-012 sibling. This would suggest that the MK-319 has a wider polar pattern.

Next, I tested the MK-319 on both male and female vocals, comparing it to identical clips made using some different Chinese made large diaphragm condenser microphones. In comparison, the MK-319 didn't seem to add anything of its own flavor to the vocals.

Now, before you get the idea that the MK-319 is dull and boring, rest assured that it's not. There is a clarity in the lower mids. This low-mid clarity and smooth, unhyped upper end is where the MK-319 shines.

The Bottom Line: The Oktava MK319 is a versatile mic with somewhat neutral sonics. Contrary to popular myth, the MK319 is not a dark sounding mic. Street prices vary. Try it out before you buy.

--Tim Harbin

Oktava

Oktava MK-219

Oktava MK219 is a dirty mic'ing shame

I've been wanting to write a short review of the Oktava MK-219 ever since I bought one many years ago. It sort of blows as a piece of gear.

Let me explain what I mean by blows. It's got some sort of wire mesh screen around the capsule that reminds me of the screen on my windows at home. The body resonates at times depending on the frequencies in the room.

The sound generally seems a bit boxy. Some people say this mic sucks. I can see their point of view. First, you got to find a good one. And, apparently, more than a few people have bought bad ones given the number of posts throughout the internet on how bad these mics seem to be.

However, a good one can be a role player in a studio. First, don't ever pay more than $100 for one -- even a good one. The bad ones aren't worth anything.

I've got a good one. I've been using it a couple years. At its best the Oktava MK-219 is a boxy mic with a dirty sound. In essence, it gives you an eccentric bit of image to play with at mix down.

On a lot of sources the Oktava MK-219 never seems to put across a sound you'd want to use. You feel like you're chasing a sound with it and you're liking where things seem to be heading but the mic never quite gets there. However, I've found its dirtiness and its boxiness seem to bring out some interesting sonics in handclaps and with hand percussion. So, it's become my handclap and hand percussion first choice mic. Otherwise, I'd give it away.

Oh yeah, for those of you wanting the technical info, then let's just say it's a large diaphragm condenser mic that requires 48 volts of phantom power to operate. If you want to know more, then you're taking the Oktava MK-219 way too seriously.

The Bottom Line: The Oktava MK-219 is a dirty, boxy mic of limited use. Street prices vary. Try it out before you buy.

--Steven Langer

Oktava MK-012

You'll be Russian to buy the Oktava MK-012 small condensers

Have you heard about the Oktava MK-012? It's the Russian small condenser microphone that gets a lot of word-of-mouth publicity for being a good value in instrument condensers. The official Oktava website refers to the mic as the MK-012. These mics, when matched properly, are a good addition to any project studio.

The MK-012 is rated at 130dB max SPL in the 250-8000Hz range @ less than 0.5% THD. Standard 48v phantom power is required. The mic weighs in at 70 grams, is roughly 0.75 inch in diameter and 4.25 inches in length without the -10db pad (the pad is about 0.75 inches long and screws on between the mic body and the capsule). The included clips are a sprung metal retaining clip that does an adequate job of holding the mic in place. It looks crude but cool, and gives the mic a different vibe in my opinion. In essence, it looks Russian to me.

In use, the Oktava MK-012 is extremely handy for everything you need in a small diameter condensor mic in the studio.

On acoustic guitar, the MK-012 captures a very nice overall sound. Fingerpicked playing comes across with good attack and ring. The woody sound of the guitar comes across very well too. The mic didn't mind me slapping the guitar around a bit. Transients make it through the mic quite nicely on acoustic guitar. The low-end response can crap out when close mic'ing so careful positioning is necessary. Once I found the sweet spot it was downright beautiful. All the smack and pluck is very nicely reproduced. You've got to hear these mics on acoustic guitar.

On drum overheads, the mic proved to be equally useful. Cymbals are full sounding but not overly bright, and the attack of the drums comes across very well. I love the way the ring comes across from my Arbiter snare with the MK012s. Toms have a well-rounded sound as well, with useable low end. Hi-hat came across very nicely as well, with good cut. I will be using these mics more as drum overheads, the sound is quite pleasing. X/Y pattern gave good imaging and an accurate sense of space.

On vocals, the MK-012 can surprise you. In a blind listening test or two, this mic has surprised some of the golden ear crowd on how well it can translate the human voice. However, forget about it for vocals unless you've got a quality popfilter such as a Stedman PS101. The MK-012, when unprotected, cannot handle a "P" for anything and will totally crap out on you. So, don't even consider using it for studio vocal mic'ing unless you put Stedman PS101 or other quality popfilter in front of the mic.

The mic requires a fair amount of gain compared to some other small condensers I've had around the studio. I like a mic that requires more gain for overhead application. Quite often, I find that a loud drummer (aka me) can overload mics at minimal gain settings. The MK-012 never required cranking the preamps. It just needed more gain.

The -10db pad proved to add nothing noticeable to the sound to my ears. The pad seemed to be very clean. But, between loud drums, close mic'd acoustic guitar and vocal tests the pad was was never necessary.

The Bottom Line: This little Russian mics is a strong performer and should be seriously considered by any studio. You must be careful when positioning on acoustic guitar, but once you're there it's smooth sailing. Many folks look to small diaphragm condensors for overhead and acoustic guitar recording. For them, the Oktava MK-012 is their ticket to ride. Recommended.

--Warren Dent

Oktava

Nady RSM-2

The mic that created the budget ribbon market

Prior to the appearance of the Nady RSM-2, ribbon mic choices tended to be American or European with street prices starting at $600 and up.

How good is the RSM-2? The answer, in my opinion, is good. I have used this mic on a variety of sources, and the results were almost always usable and in many cases excellent. In addition, it compared very favorably to a popular and more expensive ribbon, the Royer R-121.

When I first received the mic, I put it to work immediately in an overdub session with Kris Doty, a female singer-songwriter. Upon pulling it out of the box, I was struck with its stunning good looks. It's huge, and it sort of looks expensive.

I first tried it on my cheapish glockenspiel, where I suspected it could tame the metallic high end. It did. Furthermore, I would say that the Nady is the best mic I've ever used on glockenspiel. I usually need to apply some fairly radical EQ and compression to "glock" tracks, but these tracks required no processing and sounded great.

Next, I used the Nady to mic my Fender Princeton amplifier, which I was using for a distorted, bowed string bass part. It did a superb job. The track sounded a touch dark, but that's what we were going for.

Some sources it did not work so well on in this session were vocals, where it was a little too flabby in the low end and dull in the high end.

After that session I was fairly pleased with the sound of the Nady. However, because I was fairly inexperienced with ribbon mics, I had no framework within which to judge its relative quality. So, I contacted Todd Harper, a local project studio owner, who agreed to help me with an A/B comparison between the Nady and the Royer 121. We both went into this comparison with the idea that any comparison between a $200 mic and a $1,000 mic would be inherently unfair, but that we would try to take that into account when evaluating the Nady. Little did we know that, not only was this comparison fair, there were some tracks where one or both of us ended up preferring the Nady over the Royer.

We did the comparison at Todd's studio, West Wing Audio, which has a Radar system (great AD/DA) and several quality preamps, including the Great River MP-2NV we used for these tests. We tried to match placement and preamp settings as closely as possible between the two mics. We also tried, whenever possible, to use both mics simultaneously to record the same performance to eliminate that as a factor when evaluating the tracks. We have to admit that this testing is a little incomplete, since we were unable to record any brass, woodwind, or strings in time for this review to be written. However, if we end up doing further tests, I will update this review.

We began our tests with close mic'd guitar amp, an application that the Royer is quickly becoming ubiquitous in. In my opinion, the Royer clearly beat the Nady in this application. Todd felt that either track was equally acceptable and that choosing between them was simply a matter of taste. In either case, the Royer had a mid-range "bite" that the Nady just did not have, while the Nady had a bigger bottom that that Royer did not.

On male vocals, the Nady had more body and air than the Royer, which sounded boxy, nasaly, and a little lo-fi. On tambourine, the Nady sounded open and present, while the Royer again sounded boxy and a little lo-fi. We did another recording of glockenspiel, and the Royer and Nady were both excellent, though, in my opinion, the Nady edged out the Royer by just a little bit. On acoustic guitar, the Nady and the Royer each had their strengths and weaknesses, with the Royer's mid-range "bite" being particularly flattering on picked notes and the Nady's airier top end sounding quite nice on strummed parts.

At the end of these tests, Todd and I were quite surprised to see how well the Nady compared to a mic that was five times its price. There was no clear winner in this comparison, and we fully expected there to be. Because of this, I can only come to the conclusion that the Nady RSM-2 is a microphone that deserves a place of solid respect in the ribbon world. At this price, this mic should be in everyone's mic locker, from the lowliest home studio to the million dollar room with the SSL.

Bottom line: A budget choice that exceeds expectations. Recommended.

--Jeremy Jensen

Nady Systems

MXL V67G

The MXL V67G: Low cost mic in green and gold

With its green shell and gold-plated grill, the Marshall V67G is one classy looking microphone. Very reminiscent of the AKG C-12, many of my clients think it's the most expensive mic in my collection. It's not, but I'll never tell! The consistency from mic to mic seems to be better than some of the other budget mics. I've heard a few V67G mics and they all sound pretty close.

The V67G is a Chinese-made large diaphragm condenser microphone. It has a one-inch gold sputtered diaphragm and a fixed cardioid pickup pattern. The body shell is made of brass and seems sturdy and well fitting for a mic in this price range. The 200 Ohm output impedance is transformer balanced and frequency response is stated as 30Hz-20KHz. Included is a somewhat flimsy plastic stand mount (mine broke) and a carrying pouch.

I’ve had this mic for about 18 months and have used it primarily for vocals. It's become one of my first choices for warming up a harsher female voice. The V67G excels at taking the edge off of any singer that may be a little strident in the upper midrange area. In side-by-side testing, it has beat out a Rode Classic, an AT 4033 and a Gefell UM-70S on several different singers. On others it hasn't, but every home recordist should be aware that no single mic will work well on every source. And, they should also understand you get what you pay for and the V67 is no exception.

The V67G has quite a wide pickup pattern, which works nicely with vocalists who tend to move around when they sing. You won't hear any drastic tonal or level changes if they go a few inches one way or another. It's also quite free from overloading, unless you've got a real shouter. I tend to keep the singers about six inches off the mic by using a pop filter.

The overall sonic characteristic of the mic is one of warmth and body. It will give you a fairly big vocal sound that works well in a pop or country ballad setting. I wouldn't recommend it for tracking a vocal that needs to cut through a dense rock mix. It doesn't have the high frequency detail and definition that you would find in $1,000 and higher mics -- the upper mids are a little cloudy but hey, what do you expect in a budget mic?

I've only had a few occasions to try the V67G on other sources. Once on a pesky floor tom, where it didn't really do the trick -- an AKG D112 sounded nicer. The MXL didn't really have the attack or body I was looking for. On drum overheads it fared much better, sounding full and realistic. Makes me wish I had a pair. In general, I'll just grab the V67G for vocal work, as that's what it is really designed for. I'm fortunate enough to have a fairly decent selection of mics that are more appropriate for other sources.

The Bottom Line: A budget vocal condenser mic with warmth and body for the home studio.

--Mark Gifford

MXL