Kel Audio HM 2D Mic

Lance Blair · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008, 15:58 (GMT) Post subject: Kel Audio HM 2D Mic

Here's a sample of a $150 Kel Audio HM 2D Mic against the good ol' Neumann U87ai - both processed with a bed and raw. I prefered the Neumann, but it's pretty interesting.

On their site kelaudio.com it's refreshing that they don't say "we're as good or as or better than x,y,z". They market themselves as just another tool for the mic cabinet. Although they do offer themselves as the darker alternative to today's sizzle-heavy affordable microphones.

I didn't post the sample they did of the AT4033...but it is sizzly. I sold my AT4040 because it picked up the mouth smacking of sherpas in Nepal.

BTW, they offer links to other affordable mic manufacturers on their website! As you probably guessed...these guys are Canadian. Smile

Haneen Arafat · **Voice Talent** Joined: 31 Aug 2006 Posts: 122

Lance,

I'm looking to replace my AT4047 because, just as you say, you can hardly hear what I'm saying for the smacking.

Thanks for posting this. I just ordered the KEL HM-2D after seeing your posting. $149, including shipping & 21-day return policy--how can I go wrong. (By the way, if we're talking good cheap mics, the MXL2006 is pretty amazing for a mere for $99--and KEL links to it, of course. Very Happy

Haneen Arafat
www.haneenvo.com

Lance Blair · Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008, 16:12 (GMT) Post subject:

Enjoy the KEL, I think that is going to suit your voice very well. Let us know how it worked!

Haneen Arafat · **Voice Talent** Joined: 31 Aug 2006 Posts: 122

So, finally the Kel arrived on Saturday. Here's a comparison between it and the AT 4047. This is dry; no processing. I'll reserve my first impressions until I hear what a few people with more discerning ears than mine have to say. Thanks for your thoughts!

--Haneen

Lance Blair · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008, 15:13 (GMT) Post subject:

The AT pics up way more room and mouth noise (that's why I don't like AT mics) and the high end sizzle isn't flattering. The KEL might be duller, but it's tighter and more focused on your voice. All it needs is a little EQ bump at 12kHz in post, otherwise the KEL is a better vo mic for you.

Hope you enjoy it. Smile

Haneen Arafat · **Voice Talent** Joined: 31 Aug 2006 Posts: 122

Thanks, Lance. So here's an edited version w/ the EQ you recommend.

Lance Blair · Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008, 17:23 (GMT) Post subject:

That's the stuff, Haneen!

The Kel is much smoother than the AT, the AT was doing some weird things with your consonants.

I once read a post that someone thought they loved their AT4047 on vowels, but not on consonants. Well, that's the problem with voiceovers...quite a few consonants you have to hit. I had the same issues with my AT4040: you could sing into it and record instruments like a champ.

VO isn't singing. Amy Winehouse uses an sE2200a and it sounds amazing...but I think it's one of the nastier microphones for vo out there: it's a sibilance machine with jagged edges.

It's a lot easier to dial in some air above 10kHz than make up for a weird midrange and all kinds of unwanted noise.

That's why I'm a fan of cheap & cheerful effective mics like the KEL or the CAD M177/179 over other mid range mics like the AT (which are great for singing and instruments) until you get into the high end for mics that are great for voice.

Haneen Arafat · **Voice Talent** Joined: 31 Aug 2006 Posts: 122

Lance,

I agree the sound is a bit duller, but I'll take it for losing the mouth noise. I am hearing some clicks with some consonants such as k's and hard c's, but maybe that can also be tempered in post (adjusting the attack?). So far, the $150 mic is outdoing the $600 mic pretty easily.

Thanks!

Haneen

Jacob Ekstroem · **Voice Talent** Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Posts: 721

I'm really amazed what you are able to pinpoint with such a short sample, Lance... you have good ears!

Without the level of detail Lance provided earlier, I can only agree that the KEL seems to be much better for your lovely voice, Haneen. Good choice daumen rauf

Haneen Arafat · **Voice Talent** Joined: 31 Aug 2006 Posts: 122

Howdy, Jacob!

Well, you both have better ears than me, so thank you.

I can often hear how a particular mic is less than optimal (roomy, tinny, etc.), but I have trouble with figuring out the EQing to finesse the thing.
Anyway, I'll work with this one for a while and see how it goes...

David Love · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008, 01:58 (GMT) Post subject:

Got my HEL Audio HM2d yesterday. I love it. The mids are thick and chewy. No high end sizzle.
I was in a high-end Toronto VO studio yesterday on a vintage U87 - I think I like the KEL better!

Haneen Arafat · **Voice Talent** Joined: 31 Aug 2006 Posts: 122

Sounds great, David. Like most people, I like how I sound on a U87, but I can certainly get away with much more on the KEL than I could on the AT I was using. Good luck with it!

Lance Blair · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008, 16:03 (GMT) Post subject:

Is it me or did I prefer brighter mics back in the day of tape and much prefer darker mics in this era of loudness wars and digital sizzle? There are so many cool new mics like sE that sound wonderful for singing, but I wouldn't ever consider for spoken word.

I just bought a cheap dark sounding mic today: the MXL v67g. I love the Kel, but I had to get the 67 since it looks so pimped out. I might attach it to the back of a flaming El Camino.

Haneen Arafat · **Voice Talent** Joined: 31 Aug 2006 Posts: 122

You mean like this? (Yes, it's a slow day.)

Lance Blair · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008, 17:34 (GMT) Post subject:

Gosh, that's the perfect camino, since the mic looks like this:

C'mon, you gotta love a AKG C12 (in looks, not sound) wannabe for $99! Wink

It's not just a mic...it's a hood ornament!