They all have their place, I have both 609 and 906, and use them for different scenarios, and love them . the 409 is deff not worth the prices (old mic premium) asked for them, in my opinion the 609 can be easily disguised as the 409 with minimal eq . and at the end of everything not a single soul listening to the recording will care which was used.
I agree 100%! Part of the point of putting the mics "in the mix" on the drums was to show that in context... the small differences make pretty much no difference. Thanks for watching!
Hello, great comparison. I have several Sennheiser and Grundig microphones that have the previous version of the 402 capsule, the version of the first 409 (yes, the Pink Floyd one) and I think like you, that they are good, but today's prices are not worth it. I would prefer to buy a moving coil mic and a ribbon mic from Beyerdynamic for example with that money (or a little more), new, classic and cover much more ground when it comes to recording. Greetings from Argentina.
@@meistudiony No, I'm from Argentina and there weren't that many new 409 U3s here (I never actually saw one), I would have to import them used. What did enter the country a lot were the Grundig microphones made by Sennheiser at the time and they were available quite cheaply (at least until a few years ago when not many knew what they were). From what I have heard online, the 409 U3 has a little more bass (tighter) and this makes sense because the rear ports (Helmotz resonators) on the rear of the capsules are different, the front resonator (cap resonator) is the same, just different color. What I did compare with some friends was the e906 to a couple of Grundig gdsm. ruclips.net/video/meNedRdFmnI/видео.html
I bought my MD 409 in 1984. It was an expensive $225.00 back then. An SM 57 was about 70.00. I love it. I have used it as my vocal mic ever since. I am a drummer, and the mics tone, shape and tight polar pattern work well for me. My foam rotted out after about 25 yrs. The sticky substance was the deteriorated foam. I cleaned the capsule off with a modelers paint brush, and put it inside a SM58 style wind screen. It won't get sold till I am dead.
Its def a cool mic. The prices are nuts these days. Interesting youre using it for vocals. That was the pink floyd use for the original 409. Thanks for checking it out!
@@meistudiony You often saw the earlier model used on vocals by Pink Floyd and the U3, by Michael McDonald and the Doobie bros. It has a nice mid range that works well for vocals and guitar.
409 obviously sounds great, but what seems most shocking is how much people rag on the 609 as if it’s an abomination. It sounds great too, just with more top end which can be adjusted with mic position, amp settings, or EQ. Isn’t the switch on the 906 supposed to make it sound more like a 409 or 609 when not in the flat position? Could be an interesting topic for another time.
I went into that a little on my previous video. Setting it to high boost brings it closer to the 609 but the hi-cut doesn't really make it sound like the 409 at all. The 906 switch bumps up/down around 4k (same boost as the 609) The 409 has a bump around 12k-ish and a little cut between 4-10k (which is why i think i prefer it on electric guitar). And i agree w you, for $100 id rather use the 609 than a 57, and its easier to get into position (and you can just drape it over a cab if you need to without a stand and it'll work). Thanks for checking it out!
Excellent demo sir, the drum examples were interesting. Not to be that guy..but I the MD409 sounded superior to me on electric guitar examples. I don't own the 409 but have the MD 403 (same capsule type allegedly) which I prefer over the E609. I've never heard a MD409 to MD403 shootout.
Not bein that guy at all. I agree. I like the more mid forward sound of the 409 over the 609 and 906. I just dont feel the mic should be fetching $1000+. Ill have to keep an eye out for the 403. Thanks for watching!
@@meistudionyIndeed the MD 409 is very over valued, specifically for a dynamic microphone. The Sennheiser MD407 is an updated version of the MD403 from what I gathered (more modern housing) and a bit more common as there are Dual, Fisher and other badged versions out there.
@@grandtetone the 403 was that little cheese grater looking thing right? Ive bumped into the 407 which is just the head basket portion of the mic on a stand. Those are still going for 3-400 which is more reasonable if this is the sound youre after.
Even thru these iMac speakers, the 409 is a world apart. the 6er9ers seem inert, homogenized, corporate, where as the 409 wiped them clean (couldn't resist!). I hear this in many of the older mic's, they just seem alive with depth and voice and responsiveness, like they have aged really well or something. also preferred the 609 on about a third of the demos, with the 906 certainly very clear and detailed in comparison.
Thanks for checking it out. It would be nice if companies could make some of the older models available again so the cost to play isnt so ridiculous. I preferred the 409 on almost everything. The 906 has a lot of bottom end for my taste and the 609 is like a betterish sm57 kind of lol.
@@meistudiony I have been avoiding my 609, thinking it was really dark, even for amps as I originally bought it. You're right and well put with "like a betterish sm57 kind of", and now I'm looking at it with new ears.
Great stuff as always! Thanks. I love my e906. Out of curiosity, would you be willing to share the contact info of your dynamic mic refurbisher? Some of my vintage EV mics are suffering from the crumbling foam.
If its just the foam i wouldnt use him. Hes in rural switzerland and shipping alone would be more than its worth, plus he mainly deals with european brands (akg, sennheiser). If you have a pl10 or RE20 that needs refoaming and clean up if you want to do it yourself i can point you in the direction of a place to get the foam. (and you dont want to do it yourself hit me up through the website i may have some other alternatives).
Thanks for making this video. I have 2 906's which I have used a lot on guitar amps. From listening to your comparison I'm very happy with how they sound. No need to spend more money in this area.
I think a lot of guys that want the quote "vintage sound" are looking for Impedance, not of the mic but of Pres in those old consoles before the 1980s is what everyone equates the "classic sound" too. Most studios used mic preamps that were at best 1200 ohms best and at worst 500-600 ohms Neve, Early MCI, Quad 8 and so on. Today the preamp in 90% of audio interfaces is 2 kilo-ohms or higher. I have tons of vintage mics I inherited when I bought my studio that was equipped with a MCI JH 636 & 1300 to 1500 ohm Mic impedance transformer balanced (depending on gain range) when I moved on to a modern desk with preamps from the 1990s with a higher impedance of 3000 ohms, and electronic balanced Mic preamp the dynamic mics really changed tonally. Once a Mic preamp breaks the 2 kilo-ohm or 2000 ohms mark it becomes more Hi-fi and transient heavy. I find that some older mics don't like those new higher impedance preamps, especially Dynamics from the 70s or earlier. Its just something you have to test. ART makes a cheap Impedance box for like $60 or $70 called DRP Dual RP Mic Preamp that has a dial that lets you chose the impedance it goes from 150 ohms to 10 kilo-ohms (10,000 ohms) I use it all the time for a couple older Ribbon mics and 1 dynamic I have that just don't like modern mic preamps so I roll down the impedance until I falls in range of the original specs. Some of the ones I have don't even have specs like some hand built Ribbons & Dynamics the original owner built in the 1960s, so I just have to see what works best! Cheers great video!
Thanks for checking it out. From my tests (check out the impedance video) the only real effect is sensitivity and the bottom end when it comes to lower impedance on dynamic and ribbons. I suppose if a particular mic had a hyped bottom end, using a lower impedance pre would make the mids feel less scooped and more present. I havent noticed transient differences when it comes to impedance, but thats interesting, perhaps another dive down that rabbit hole is warranted.
@@meistudiony Its a fun little experiment that can give insights what works best for certain mics. Impedances are associated with the slew rate of transient response, so how "squashed or not" something will sound. Audio tests are always fun. I subscribed to your channel keep up the great work!! Cheers!!
Wasn't a big fan of it on toms though the rejection was a little better on the 409 than the 609 or 906. I thought it sounded nice on the bass and electric guitar though. Thanks for checkin out the video! Appreciate it!
@@meistudiony Yeah I really like all three on bass. Surprised me as I really only used the 906 on cabinets in the past. Might try it on Darbuka/Doumbek or Tabla oneday. If I ever get my life back in check 😂😅
Maybe my ears are shot from from forty years of guitar playing but I don't hear enough of a difference to care. I've got both the 609 and 906 and use and enjoy them both.
Nope, its not you lol. Pretty much my thoughts. The differences there are between these can probably be done (or undone) with a little EQ. To pay 4 figures for one of these mics is a little out of sorts. Appreciate you checking it out!
They all have their place, I have both 609 and 906, and use them for different scenarios, and love them . the 409 is deff not worth the prices (old mic premium) asked for them, in my opinion the 609 can be easily disguised as the 409 with minimal eq . and at the end of everything not a single soul listening to the recording will care which was used.
I agree 100%! Part of the point of putting the mics "in the mix" on the drums was to show that in context... the small differences make pretty much no difference. Thanks for watching!
Hello, great comparison. I have several Sennheiser and Grundig microphones that have the previous version of the 402 capsule, the version of the first 409 (yes, the Pink Floyd one) and I think like you, that they are good, but today's prices are not worth it. I would prefer to buy a moving coil mic and a ribbon mic from Beyerdynamic for example with that money (or a little more), new, classic and cover much more ground when it comes to recording. Greetings from Argentina.
Beyerdynamic makes some really nice stuff. Bunch on my wish list. Have you ever compared the original 409 to a U3 or any of the newer ones?
@@meistudiony
No, I'm from Argentina and there weren't that many new 409 U3s here (I never actually saw one), I would have to import them used. What did enter the country a lot were the Grundig microphones made by Sennheiser at the time and they were available quite cheaply (at least until a few years ago when not many knew what they were). From what I have heard online, the 409 U3 has a little more bass (tighter) and this makes sense because the rear ports (Helmotz resonators) on the rear of the capsules are different, the front resonator (cap resonator) is the same, just different color. What I did compare with some friends was the e906 to a couple of Grundig gdsm. ruclips.net/video/meNedRdFmnI/видео.html
I bought my MD 409 in 1984. It was an expensive $225.00 back then. An SM 57 was about 70.00. I love it. I have used it as my vocal mic ever since. I am a drummer, and the mics tone, shape and tight polar pattern work well for me. My foam rotted out after about 25 yrs. The sticky substance was the deteriorated foam. I cleaned the capsule off with a modelers paint brush, and put it inside a SM58 style wind screen.
It won't get sold till I am dead.
Its def a cool mic. The prices are nuts these days. Interesting youre using it for vocals. That was the pink floyd use for the original 409. Thanks for checking it out!
@@meistudiony You often saw the earlier model used on vocals by Pink Floyd and the U3, by Michael McDonald and the Doobie bros. It has a nice mid range that works well for vocals and guitar.
@@meistudiony Also James Murphy from LCD Soundsytem's vocal mic.
409 obviously sounds great, but what seems most shocking is how much people rag on the 609 as if it’s an abomination. It sounds great too, just with more top end which can be adjusted with mic position, amp settings, or EQ.
Isn’t the switch on the 906 supposed to make it sound more like a 409 or 609 when not in the flat position? Could be an interesting topic for another time.
I went into that a little on my previous video. Setting it to high boost brings it closer to the 609 but the hi-cut doesn't really make it sound like the 409 at all. The 906 switch bumps up/down around 4k (same boost as the 609) The 409 has a bump around 12k-ish and a little cut between 4-10k (which is why i think i prefer it on electric guitar). And i agree w you, for $100 id rather use the 609 than a 57, and its easier to get into position (and you can just drape it over a cab if you need to without a stand and it'll work). Thanks for checking it out!
Great video as usual
Appreciate ya!
Excellent demo sir, the drum examples were interesting. Not to be that guy..but I the MD409 sounded superior to me on electric guitar examples. I don't own the 409 but have the MD 403 (same capsule type allegedly) which I prefer over the E609. I've never heard a MD409 to MD403 shootout.
Not bein that guy at all. I agree. I like the more mid forward sound of the 409 over the 609 and 906. I just dont feel the mic should be fetching $1000+. Ill have to keep an eye out for the 403. Thanks for watching!
@@meistudionyIndeed the MD 409 is very over valued, specifically for a dynamic microphone. The Sennheiser MD407 is an updated version of the MD403 from what I gathered (more modern housing) and a bit more common as there are Dual, Fisher and other badged versions out there.
@@grandtetone the 403 was that little cheese grater looking thing right? Ive bumped into the 407 which is just the head basket portion of the mic on a stand. Those are still going for 3-400 which is more reasonable if this is the sound youre after.
@@meistudiony Yeah a cross between a cheese grater and electric shaver!
@@grandtetone that is an awesome description!
Even thru these iMac speakers, the 409 is a world apart. the 6er9ers seem inert, homogenized, corporate,
where as the 409 wiped them clean (couldn't resist!). I hear this in many of the older mic's, they just seem
alive with depth and voice and responsiveness, like they have aged really well or something. also preferred the
609 on about a third of the demos, with the 906 certainly very clear and detailed in comparison.
Thanks for checking it out. It would be nice if companies could make some of the older models available again so the cost to play isnt so ridiculous. I preferred the 409 on almost everything. The 906 has a lot of bottom end for my taste and the 609 is like a betterish sm57 kind of lol.
@@meistudiony I have been avoiding my 609, thinking it was really dark, even for amps as I originally bought it. You're right and well put with "like a betterish sm57 kind of", and now I'm looking at it with new ears.
Great stuff as always! Thanks. I love my e906. Out of curiosity, would you be willing to share the contact info of your dynamic mic refurbisher? Some of my vintage EV mics are suffering from the crumbling foam.
If its just the foam i wouldnt use him. Hes in rural switzerland and shipping alone would be more than its worth, plus he mainly deals with european brands (akg, sennheiser). If you have a pl10 or RE20 that needs refoaming and clean up if you want to do it yourself i can point you in the direction of a place to get the foam. (and you dont want to do it yourself hit me up through the website i may have some other alternatives).
Thanks for making this video. I have 2 906's which I have used a lot on guitar amps. From listening to your comparison I'm very happy with how they sound. No need to spend more money in this area.
Def not. The 906 is solid. Thanks for checking it out!!
Ayyyooooo
Ooooooayyyy!
I think a lot of guys that want the quote "vintage sound" are looking for Impedance, not of the mic but of Pres in those old consoles before the 1980s is what everyone equates the "classic sound" too. Most studios used mic preamps that were at best 1200 ohms best and at worst 500-600 ohms Neve, Early MCI, Quad 8 and so on. Today the preamp in 90% of audio interfaces is 2 kilo-ohms or higher.
I have tons of vintage mics I inherited when I bought my studio that was equipped with a MCI JH 636 & 1300 to 1500 ohm Mic impedance transformer balanced (depending on gain range) when I moved on to a modern desk with preamps from the 1990s with a higher impedance of 3000 ohms, and electronic balanced Mic preamp the dynamic mics really changed tonally. Once a Mic preamp breaks the 2 kilo-ohm or 2000 ohms mark it becomes more Hi-fi and transient heavy. I find that some older mics don't like those new higher impedance preamps, especially Dynamics from the 70s or earlier. Its just something you have to test.
ART makes a cheap Impedance box for like $60 or $70 called DRP Dual RP Mic Preamp that has a dial that lets you chose the impedance it goes from 150 ohms to 10 kilo-ohms (10,000 ohms) I use it all the time for a couple older Ribbon mics and 1 dynamic I have that just don't like modern mic preamps so I roll down the impedance until I falls in range of the original specs. Some of the ones I have don't even have specs like some hand built Ribbons & Dynamics the original owner built in the 1960s, so I just have to see what works best! Cheers great video!
Thanks for checking it out. From my tests (check out the impedance video) the only real effect is sensitivity and the bottom end when it comes to lower impedance on dynamic and ribbons. I suppose if a particular mic had a hyped bottom end, using a lower impedance pre would make the mids feel less scooped and more present. I havent noticed transient differences when it comes to impedance, but thats interesting, perhaps another dive down that rabbit hole is warranted.
@@meistudiony Its a fun little experiment that can give insights what works best for certain mics. Impedances are associated with the slew rate of transient response, so how "squashed or not" something will sound. Audio tests are always fun. I subscribed to your channel keep up the great work!! Cheers!!
@@joesalyers appreciate it. Thank you!
The 409 sounds a tiny bit muffled to my ears on the toms. Maybe that midrange is always that great for everything.
Wasn't a big fan of it on toms though the rejection was a little better on the 409 than the 609 or 906. I thought it sounded nice on the bass and electric guitar though. Thanks for checkin out the video! Appreciate it!
@@meistudiony Yeah I really like all three on bass. Surprised me as I really only used the 906 on cabinets in the past. Might try it on Darbuka/Doumbek or Tabla oneday. If I ever get my life back in check 😂😅
They're not bad on percussion. And, you can do it! One day at a time!
Maybe my ears are shot from from forty years of guitar playing but I don't hear enough of a difference to care. I've got both the 609 and 906 and use and enjoy them both.
Nope, its not you lol. Pretty much my thoughts. The differences there are between these can probably be done (or undone) with a little EQ. To pay 4 figures for one of these mics is a little out of sorts. Appreciate you checking it out!
@@meistudiony Thanks for taking the time to make these videos. Seems like a lot of work!
@@trickfall8752 thanks for taking the time to watch it. Makes it worth it on my end.
The main difference between the 609 and 906 is that the 906 has the switchable presence filter built in (and the 609 doesn't).
@@DaveMcCall the 906 has more bottom end than the 609 also. A lot more.