Sennheiser E 965 Bundle

In the search for a warm, powerful, nuanced and open-dissolving, dazzling (but not penetrating or artificial) micro I am with the e965 mega-gefündig ... if it would only couple less (more about that later .. .). For "beautiful singing" (not necessarily Haurück rock of the rabiaten kind), this piece not only blows dynamic microphones out of the water, but also many condensation collectors. I tested with good active boxes (Mackie SRM-450) and a less good but still acceptable desk (LD Systems LAX 8D), which is similar to the quality level of what many live clubs offer. I've been singing and testing rock, pop and folk in an unplugged duo and have used or tested the following microphones: Shure SM58, Beta 58, Beta 87 (condenser), AKG C5900 (condenser), Audix OM-6, Sennheiser MD 441, MD 421, MD 42. Comparisons between the e965 and this I draw immediately after.

The e965 is very dynamic! Each nuance is transmitted "big" - pure drama! It is really fun to breathe softly and listen to EVERYTHING, then gradually raise the volume screw or more and more "edge" into the voice and hear how the thing everything effortlessly images. Singing should always be so relaxed! I've never experienced such a thing with a live micro. This makes the voice extremely controllable and you get more pleasure with playing the color and volume.
The basses (close-up) come bold and powerful, still not muddy, and nothing pops, either down or up.
The mids and heights are wonderfully impenetrable, with a slight, constantly perceptible durability over all, presumably relatively high up in the spectrum (in any case, it is not superficial, and does not bounce at you like the Shure Beta 87th that much Bite has - too much for my taste, since the basic heat is missing). This durability is not quite perfect for my voice, but it does not interfere, and is much more musical than what all the other microphones I have tested are so high-frequency.

If we are already comparing, here are some differences to the above microphones:
. SM 85: In terms of language intelligibility, gloss, pressure and impulsiveness, any comparison would be nonsense. However, the popular bass heat of an SM 85 is not so bad in comparison. That is, the e965 offers SM 85 trailers bass freuden that many other mics do not bring.
- Beta 58: OK, the thing shill more up around than the old 58, but I do not like it compared with the e965. Upstairs some of it is raised too artificially, and somehow the thing is sterile.
- Beta 87: As I said, it lacks the bass warmth, and the highs can be a bit annoying. A micro with a lot of assertiveness, but the e965 has everything from ALL, and the more natural and full and nobler. So here too: no comparison - quite different league!
- AKG C5900: Much too special from the sound. Too many (unsuitable) stresses of the upper mids. Very own sound. A shine that annoys me personally. Poppt pretty doll at close-up meeting. No comparison with the balanced yet iridescent e965.
- Audix OM-6: Nice part! I was recommended by Thomann (good choice!), And I would have kept it as a cheaper alternative to the e965 almost, but it takes a lot of gain (which my desk does not offer), and the bass heat was there, but unfortunately not quite like At the SM 58. For this the part is quite feedback-proof compared to the e965! Read more. In any case, this dynamic micro is quite interesting if you do not want to spend so much.
- MD 42: An old classic, which in comparison to the e965 also brings a lot of bass heat, but can not keep up with the detail richness upwards.
- The other two Sennheisers I leave outside, since quite rarely as a live vocal microphone today in the employment.

Now on the subject of feedback: With normal (decent) Probelautstärke of the acoustic duo and only two open channels (thus completely without guitars, and only with a SM 58 on channel 2), there was already feedback! And that, although only a single Mackie SRM-450 was in operation about 5 meters away. The test was dry, without reverb. The box stood diagonally in front of the micro stand in about 4.5 m distance (right corner of the room, which has high ceilings and a carpet floor, rear wall hung). The box pointed towards singers. Even then, the drumming was not bearable, and when I took half a step closer with the micro, it was so strong that we had to push the master down quickly, so that the rumbling did not tear the room - and the box. The gain control in the microchannel was normal at about 12 o'clock set - just so that no oversteer could happen, if one cries times. All tone controls were at 12 o'clock. So it was necessary to turn on the bass cut at 100 Hz, but also there was a tendency to feedback in the bass range - probably a logical consequence of the GRAMMEMBRANE, because it all begins (it should be synonymous). In the high-frequency range the fiepen was also heard from time to time, but then at higher volume and with pushed plate hall.

I regretfully sent the microphone back, because we do not have an FOH or monitor man or feedback killer and have to mix our sound ourselves, often without monitors (we sometimes face something in front of the speakers). For our purposes, this great micro is unfortunately not controllable. A pity, a pity, because for the money I would have liked to keep it so enormously good was the feeling of singing.