WA44 sounds deeper, fuller, the RCA thinner, but both with EQ would so similar that in a mix of any modern genre it would be nigh on impossible to pick them out
@@manuelmateocobian9274 thanks for the input, I agree with you fully. All I can say is, for the price point the WA is a fantastic buy if you're looking for a good quality ribbon mic. A little EQ and you're off to the races! I have a sequential pair I love as overheads, I can't afford 2 BXs for that purpose. LOL
Doesn't have the "glue" of the RCA that seems to happen in the mids, but clearer and more full-spectrum-sounding. A pair wouldn't be so bad to own, great for vox as well 👍🏻. The WA would pair well with analog tape recording of any kind
The drums were a very noticeable difference, with more high end in the RCA. The acoustic guitar was virtually identical. Did you all use a high impedance pre-amp or Cloudlifter Hi-Z for both mics?
Hi David, no inline booster/lifter was used. Both mics were straight into a set of Ward Beck 660's. The WA 44 was quite a bit more output, I turned it down to match the RCA but left it up a bit to show there was a difference. What I noticed on the acoustic was the WA 44 was very muddy sounding. but superior on the drums and vocals. I used Sennheiser DT 990 Pro headphones to put the video together, the differences are much more apparent on the phones. In my own studio, I always use an inline booster and sometimes with an impedance loading device.
Just my opinion but I think it would have been helpful to record 3 different takes with his vocals. One like you did then 2 others with him closer. Even if you couldn't use the same performance with him closer it would be interesting to hear the voice as I believe the mic was originally designed to have the person talking or singing closer to the mic. Also it would be important to use the same pop filter on each mic as well since pop filters do effect the sound coming in to the mic.
You say the other side is a little thinner. Have you ever recorded both sides and had the same experience when listening back? Because every time I do that they sound identical. And I heard it’s because hearing it with inverted phase live sounds different because of the room you’re in and even head shape and headphones play a part. but the actual sound is the same when listening back. I always flip phase on singers I record and ask what setting they hear themselves better in. Can be wildly different with headphones but always the same when recorded.
@@mikaellanden7218 Hi, you're absolutely correct if the mic has equal build design front and back. In my case with the 44-A it was just because of hearing my voice in headphones out of phase. Royer designs their mics to be thinner from behind by off setting the ribbon. Thanks for your comment, great info.
Great video, bravo!
Wow! The warm audio mic really packs some bottom end. I wasn't expecting that.
Fantastic video, very informative!
Glad you liked it!
Great video dude thanks for sharing!
fantastic video! Would love to hear opinions on the other warm audio throwback mic models
Great sounding mics
WA44 sounds deeper, fuller, the RCA thinner, but both with EQ would so similar that in a mix of any modern genre it would be nigh on impossible to pick them out
Great test!
Thank you!
What a great video man! You guys are very educated and knowledgable you are the elite’s! You’re from Oshawa too, that is so cool!
Hi Doug, thanks for your generous comments! I'm actually in Ajax.
I’m surprised at how much more I like the sound of the vintage 44, but the WA just needs more eq’ing to get a more even tone out of it is all.
although the WA has a higher output and more bottom end, RCA captures more details with outsanding clarity than the WA.
@@manuelmateocobian9274 thanks for the input, I agree with you fully. All I can say is, for the price point the WA is a fantastic buy if you're looking for a good quality ribbon mic. A little EQ and you're off to the races! I have a sequential pair I love as overheads, I can't afford 2 BXs for that purpose. LOL
@@micsbyshane Just had the same thought...a warm to complement an AEA R44 for drums. Yee haw!
Thanks for the review! I don’t hear that, I hear a fuller sound from the WA44, the RCA sounds thinner.
Doesn't have the "glue" of the RCA that seems to happen in the mids, but clearer and more full-spectrum-sounding. A pair wouldn't be so bad to own, great for vox as well 👍🏻. The WA would pair well with analog tape recording of any kind
@@ericvannielsen Thanks for the comment Eric! A pair of WA-44s arrived at the studio today! Time to have some fun!
The drums were a very noticeable difference, with more high end in the RCA. The acoustic guitar was virtually identical. Did you all use a high impedance pre-amp or Cloudlifter Hi-Z for both mics?
Hi David, no inline booster/lifter was used. Both mics were straight into a set of Ward Beck 660's. The WA 44 was quite a bit more output, I turned it down to match the RCA but left it up a bit to show there was a difference. What I noticed on the acoustic was the WA 44 was very muddy sounding. but superior on the drums and vocals.
I used Sennheiser DT 990 Pro headphones to put the video together, the differences are much more apparent on the phones. In my own studio, I always use an inline booster and sometimes with an impedance loading device.
i think the difference on the drums is mostly down to mic position. which is why the acoustic guitar sounds a lot more alike!
Just my opinion but I think it would have been helpful to record 3 different takes with his vocals. One like you did then 2 others with him closer. Even if you couldn't use the same performance with him closer it would be interesting to hear the voice as I believe the mic was originally designed to have the person talking or singing closer to the mic. Also it would be important to use the same pop filter on each mic as well since pop filters do effect the sound coming in to the mic.
@@csilt thanks for the comment, there's a lot of different things I would've liked to do but unfortunately had a very limited amount of time.
THE ELEPHANT😂
You say the other side is a little thinner. Have you ever recorded both sides and had the same experience when listening back? Because every time I do that they sound identical. And I heard it’s because hearing it with inverted phase live sounds different because of the room you’re in and even head shape and headphones play a part. but the actual sound is the same when listening back. I always flip phase on singers I record and ask what setting they hear themselves better in. Can be wildly different with headphones but always the same when recorded.
@@mikaellanden7218 Hi, you're absolutely correct if the mic has equal build design front and back. In my case with the 44-A it was just because of hearing my voice in headphones out of phase. Royer designs their mics to be thinner from behind by off setting the ribbon.
Thanks for your comment, great info.
The Warm lacks upper mids and is noticibly noiser.