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 ( 8-) and keep the tubes at the pre...

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.

here is the review:

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