the t.bone SC 1100

There's a little trick I do from time to time to compare different products. It's good fun and you can learn a lot. What I do is set up blind A/B comparisons and compare two or more products to see which one's better. I don't limit this activity to audio products - I do it with wines, cheeses, coffees and teas... even fabrics. Sometimes the results are really astonishing. If you can't tell the brand name of the thing you're listening to/tasting/feeling... then you have to decide your preference on what your senses are telling you.

Most of the time I do this test on audio products, though. I've done pre-amps, mics, reverbs, keyboards, snare drums...

I've actually done blind A/B testing with some other T.Bone mics - the MB75 and the MB85 - and the reviews are up here on the Thomann website.

Anyway, I've just finished doing my blind A/B test on this mic (the T.Bone SC-1100) and another (how shall I put this?) er... "very well known" large diaphragm condenser mic. I won't mention it by name, but you know which one it is.

Well, the T.Bone mic won. Yes it did. Admittedly, I only tried the A/B test on vocals, but after all that's mostly what I'll be using this mic for. It beat the other, much more famous, mic; not by a huge amount - it was close - but it definitely came out on top. This mic has a warmer, smoother and less "middly" sound than "the other one". It also responds better to plosives (although that's not really an issue for either mic if you use a pop shield). The output of this mic did seem to be slightly lower than the other one, but again that's not an issue when you have a nice clean pre-amp and can turn up the input gain (you wouldn't have to turn it up by much anyway).

And the most astonishing thing - given that this mic WON the blind A/B test - is the price. A quick calculation brigs this mic in at 5.3% of the cost of the other one. A TWENTIETH of the price!

This is why I hate blind A/B testing. You learn a lot. Sometimes you learn too much!

I'll probably still use the other mic for outside clients in the studio. It's by no means a bad mic! And that's the mic that clients expect to see when they come in to record a vocal session, so that's the one I'll use - especially given thatI've spent SO much money on it! But for recording my own vocals, and other instruments, I'm using the T.Bone SC-1100. It's a better sounding mic.

In fact I'm placing an order for another one right now. :-)

Finding myself a little more time for music again I felt the need for one more large diaphragm condenser. In the past (pre mortgages and babies) I had a few great £300-£500 mics from the likes of Rode and Se, but as now a hobbyist on a budget couldn?t really justify buying a £300+ mic this time around.

t.bone mics have been on my radar for a while after seeing and hearing people using them. I?d been surprised by recordings made by even the inexpensive SC 400 model. t.bones seem to be a bit of a secret weapon for home studio fans on a tight budget that still want quality. 10 years ago a ?£50? condenser mic would have been a joke. Things seem to have changed. So I decided to get a t.bone but one closer in spec and features to my old multi-pattern Rode NT2 or NT2000 and so the SC1100 seemed to be in that ballpark but much, much less money.

With the SC1100 you get a lot for the modest outlay. The SC1100 comes in a great case and has a very professional-looking, sturdy shock mount included. The mic itself feels nice and solid in the hand and in terms of feel is much like my SE2200A but lacking the more crafted feel of a good Rode. But don?t get me wrong - it looks and feels well built enough.

The mic was purchased for three main purposes: Vocals, spoken word recording, and instruments - primarily acoustic guitar. I no longer own any fancy mic preamps so tested the t.bone through my Focusrite Octopre MKII, which generally gives a very transparent result, which you can then ?warm up? with plugins should you wish.

On both my own deep, gruff ?anti-vocals? and on quality female vocals the SC1100 is pretty remarkable. This is a very good mic with a rich, pretty involving sound with no flat spots or spikes I could discern. It?s fairly sensitive so benefits from a little thought about where you are recording and, if recording in a typical untreated domestic environment, really benefits from a ?Relexion? style mic shield and the old ?duvet behind the vocalist? trick. Take these extra steps and many home recordists will be pretty amazed at how high end a result they can achieve with this inexpensive mic.

On acoustic guitar again it worked as expected with plenty of detail on fingerpicked and strummed parts. I generally use a pair of smaller condensers on guitar but will experiment with the SC1100 here too. Spoken word too presented no surprises, and again warm and clear, so if you podcast no reason why the SC1100 couldn?t do a job for you.

Although I no longer have my Rode NT2 and NT2000 I?m doing to come out and say it: The t.bone results seem as least as good, perhaps better. In fact, while the Rode NT2000 was wonderful in the right conditions it?s oversensitivity to reflection, plosives and sibilance made it less user friendly than the t.bone which seems to handle these things very well with the addition of pop filter.

The fact a SC1100 is so inexpensive, yet I?m preferring it to something three times the price, tells you that what was good mic buying advice a decade ago doesn?t necessarily hold sway today. Cheaper mics have moved on. They?ve moved on a lot. If I need another mic in the future I expect the t.bone range will be my first port call.