Cad M9 vs. PPA 2ube ($300 tube mics)

Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 1:49 pm

I am looking at getting another affordable tube mic, I have the MXL v77... it's been making a lot of noise as of late. Anyhow, i figure there is something else out there i would like better, something with a little more color would be nice.

In Seattle we have a company called Pacific Pro Audio that sells a PPA 2ube, everyone in town seems to have them, and loves them... but I don't know if its had any hype outside of Seattle. Anyone hear of them?

Then for the same price i could order a Cad M9 online, people seem to give them a lot of praise online, but there are no models in any stores in Seattle to test them. Seems like it could be perfect for vocal/acoustic guitar demo recording at home. I am nearly sold on them from the reviews, I just wish i had some pop vocals or acoustic guitar MP3 samples to listen to before i buy.

Any thoughts? Anyone have either mic? happy with them?

Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:45 am

I don't know if Kurt Fosters' RO review of the M9 is accessible these days, but the gist of it was that the M9 was OK FOR THE MONEY. That is in no way a fine endorsement of the product. In the course of using it, the adhesive used to hold the capsule in place failed on the first test model. This, along with NOISE ISSUES is a typical complaint about the cheaper tube mics out there. At least it kept ME from getting one. A longtime friend who has spent 30 years in audio-for-video recording warned me that the cheap tube mics on the market have a problem holding up over the years. Exactly what you experienced with the noisey MXL. IMHO, save your $$$ and buy a better quality tube mic like a Rode. Better yet, buy an A-T 4040 or 4047 ( Thumbs Up

and keep the tubes at the pre...

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 10:51 am

I'm a moderate fan of some CAD mic's. For example, I like my M39 when it's powered at 48V (not the recommended 24V) and used on acoustic guitars.

But there's something a little brittle about the high end on their tube mic and a lot of the cheaper tube mics as well. High freq boost discs on low end diaphrams have a lot to do with it as well as the cheap metallergy happening with the mic's body. There's a totally inappropriate upper mid to lower high freq ring that occurs in the cheap large bodied mics that adds to the bumps in freq response that a high freq boost disc creates. And it's a bump in frq response that's not only undesireable but is compounded by the onboard pentode in the mic's pre section.

Moonbaby's right when he recommends you spend the extra money on your mic pre and a decent non-tube condenser with a more even and predictable response.

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:30 am

here is the review:

http://www.recording.org/reviews-21.html

This topic sponsored by: