Why does anyone need to make another new mic? It’s a familiar question in a market crowded with possibilities. Nonetheless, there are always legions of new mics. And not just mics from the usual suspects, either. New or unusual mics, or both, constantly creep into the picture.
So it’s not that odd that Universal Audio has now joined the fray. The company established and still owns a hefty chunk of the processor market with classic compressors and limiters such as the 1176 and LA2A. It went on to grab and maintain a healthy slice of plug-in equivalents under the UAD banner and to revolutionize the mid-price market for audio interfaces with the Apollo line.
And UA isn’t doing badly with its Luna DAW and its guitar FX range—though the jury seems to be out on Luna, which has a following but isn’t making much of a dent in the market still dominated by ProTools, Logic, and Ableton Live. It’s also a bit early to tell on the FX.
Microphones get plugged into most of the classic UA products, so why not a mic line of its own? People collect mics like stamps or Lladro flying herons. Mic pres and compressors? Not so much. I was fortunate to have UPS toss a couple of UA’s debut mics onto my doorstep recently and, packaged prettily and securely, they were none the worse for the delivery method.
SP-1 Standard Pencil Microphone
The "Standard" SP-1 is a pencil microphone about the same shape and size as a Neumann KM 184, and they’re sold in a package as a stereo pair. That’s normally how you’d buy the Neumanns—and you’d pay at least $1,200 on Reverb for those. List price on the SP-1 pair is a fighting $399. If the KM 184s sound pricey, thank your lucky stars you’re not after a pair of KM 84s, after which both the SP-1 and the KM 184 are fashioned. A quick check here on Reverb tells us 84s would set you back three of four grand. Each.
You’re not getting the 184s’ fancy wooden case with the SP-1s, but the build quality seems very robust, and they come with wind shields and a natty stereo bar, which threads onto a single mic stand. They do feel great. The light gray coating is smooth and silky, which makes handling them a joy. So, before you’ve even plugged them in, you’re already feeling good about this $400 purchase.
These are obviously small-diaphragm condensers. This type of mic reacts very quickly to sound changes—in other words, they’re good at handling transients or "attacky" sounds, which is why you often see them used on sources containing a lot of detailed high-end, such as cymbals and overheads, and acoustic guitar. The SP-1s operate in a (rear-rejecting) cardioid polar pattern. That’s not necessarily ideal for drum overheads, as you might want or like reflections coming back off the ceiling. But no matter—KM 184s are often used for that application as well.
By luck—or, one must suspect, judgment—the specifications of the SP-1 and the KM 184 are eerily similar: 20Hz–20kHz frequency response, max SPL 142dB (KM 184 is 138dB). Sensitivity is -38.0 (0dB = 1V/Pa@1kHz) which, while not identical to a KM 184, is still within the standard sensitivity range. So you might need to goose SP-1 levels some, but this is not going to be a problem on a DAW. Anyway, without having a pair of KM 184s to do a really scientific A/B, I figured the only thing to do was to put up the SP-1s and see how they perform on their own.
First up, some acoustic guitar, using the stereo bar. The combination of angling them out, or using a sliding tray to give you room to set them up as a crossed pair, means you can set up pretty much as wide a stereo recording as you want. Now, a lot of people don’t really record acoustic guitar in stereo anyway, and that’s fair enough. But it does give the sound space and depth, if that’s what you’re looking for on the part. Using just a single mic is OK, but by comparison it may sound a little one-dimensional.
Recorded flat, the sound seemed a little bright; not harsh, but veering toward that. In comparison to other mics, it sounded "modern," by which I mean a bit edgy but still with some body—not thin. Obviously one might anticipate having to apply EQ, and it’s fair to say you can tame some of the highs, if you felt that was too much, and further beef up the low end if you needed. If you record a lot of acoustic guitar and might want to do so in stereo, you’re going to be a happy camper with these, I think.
Assuming you have an acoustic kit you want to record, the SP-1s performed more than decently with cymbals, small percussion, as drum overheads. Let’s not go overboard and claim you can get Bonham "When The Levee Breaks" type of material out of these, but they were more than respectable in terms of picking up some kick, toms, and snare, placed about two feet above the toms in a "wide as you can" spread.
I didn’t use them in conjunction with kick, snare, and close-mic’d hats as pure overheads, but it was clear that the detail would be more than sufficient. And if that’s of some importance, you wouldn’t need to add lots of top as you would using a pair of ribbon mics, which, while deemed the ideal type of mic for this application, are notoriously dull, "flat," and almost always in need of a high-end boost.
UA tell me the SP-1 is made in China and is designed as a "workhorse" product, in other words for everyday use at home or in the studio, and that UA Apollo users get Channel Strip Presets using Analog Classics UAD-2 plug-ins for album-ready sounds. "Album-ready" is UA’s phrase, not mine. I’m not disagreeing, it’s just that it seems rather a silly claim, because it implies you won’t have the knowledge to adjust mic settings to suit the recording in hand. In which case, why are you buying a $400 pair of mics? I did enquire about frequency response curves and/or polar pattern plots, too, but UA does not publish these.
In conclusion, I’d be pretty happy if I’d trickled out (as opposed to splashed) $400 for this pair of SP-1 mics. For me, the pair thing would make the difference. Stereo just gives things room to breathe, even if the item being recorded doesn’t really require stereo as such.
SD-1 Standard Dynamic Microphone
And so to the "Standard" SD-1. Looks familiar? Indeed it does. The Shure SM7 came out in 1973 and the SM7B in 2001. The SM7B is a sort of SM57 on steroids. And… it delivers. It delivered on Thriller, on both Michael Jackson and Vincent Price’s vocals. So, basically, stop right there. A dynamic mic offering a single polar pattern, the SM7B is a modern classic—brilliant at intimate but punchy vocals, be they of the Michael Jackson variety or a more current "radio voice" podcast persuasion.
SM7Bs run at around $350 on Reverb, and the SD-1 lists at $299. So why would UA want to release what is essentially an SM7B clone for just a little less money? I put the SD-1 through some paces to see if it at least delivers the same sort of quality and range as its Shure inspiration.
In addition to recording some intimate, close-mic’d spoken-word/podcast-style material—at which it undoubtedly delivers just fine—I visited the high energy rock singer James Durbin and had him lay down some seriously high-volume vocals over some Scorpions and Foreigner backing tracks.
On the back of the SD-1 are two really, really small switches to filter out some low frequencies (a low cut, at 200Hz) and provide a presence lift (around 3–5kHz). Both of these are simple on/off switches. Many may still prefer to make this type of low-cut adjustment inside their DAW, but the switch is a no-brainer if you’re concerned about rumble or extraneous low-frequency interference.
How about the high-frequency boost? James (and I) came away feeling that for low-volume singers, maybe the boost would be worth employing. But for people like James who really can sing at high volume, the boost was unnecessary. The boost is pretty broad and, again, you could make this type of adjustment using an EQ plug-in—and to a more precise degree, depending on the source.
The SM7B and the UA SD-1 have a detachable wind screen, revealing a protective metal grille that looks a bit like something you’d find on a small patio heater. Maybe it’s a fashion thing, or just a badge of authenticity, but neither of us could hear much difference on or off, to be honest.
The quoted frequency response of the SD-1 is 50Hz–15kHz. In these days of low-cost Chinese made large-diaphragm condensers—much less virtual mics—one might wonder why you’d want to be, to some degree, limited in terms of frequency range. Well, sometimes restrictions are good. If you’re Mariah Carey or Dimash or the bloke from Slipknot, maybe you need a mic that can handle your ridiculous range. But for mere mortals—and actually James’s range has got to be close on four octave—pushing the limits of a mic’s frequency response may give a performance more energy, rather like a limiter or compressor.
So what’s going on here? Both the SP-1 and SD-1 are good mics, no question. They will deliver. And if you’re a UA user—and, more specifically, an Apollo interface user, where you’ll be able to make use of some downloadable Channel Strip Presets—then it may well be attractive to have that little UA logo on your latest mic purchase.
But mics like the Neumann KM 184 and the Shure SM7B have earned their stripes the hard way. Is it worth going the UA route for the clone-style SD-1 when the real deal is only a few bucks more? The SP-1s at least offer a deep discount from their inspiration.
About the author: Julian Colbeck played keyboards with Charlie, the Yes supergroup ABWH, and Steve Hackett. Currently he runs ASSR (Art & Science Of Sound Recording) with Alan Parsons. He has written many books on music tech, including the Keyfax buyers guides (1984–98) and ASSR: The Book (2014).