| Marshall Microphones Review - Finally. [13] |
|---|
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:23:51 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<This has been posted to BOTH rec.audio.pro AND alt.music.4-track.>
Ok, my pinched sciatic nerve thing died down, and Alex and I finally got around
to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the testing
was done formally, and it's all pretty subjective, but in talking to Brent Casey
at Marshall, he pretty well confirmed what I heard, so I think my comments will
be of some use to people here.
Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll off the
assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms materials, the
porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the line
consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics (about
the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson, Karl
Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that Brent
Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender in the
mic market.
All the mics looked well made, and we had no problems with any of them, or the
supplied shock mounts. Noise levels weren't a problem with any of the mics,
although we didn't do any testing with really quiet instruments.
One of my concerns was consistancy from unit to unit. After we got the first
batch, I had Brent send some extra units (off the shelf) so I could actually
compare two units for possible differences. I'm happy to report that all the
units I received were consistant and would do fine as stereo pairs.
All tests were done thru a Great River MP-2, with the microphone under test
polarity reversed and nulled (to match initial levels), then normalled to do the
actual comparison. We used the level controls on the GR to note differences in
gain.
While I listened to the mics in the studio using headphones, Alex listened in
the control room, using our main speakers (wall-mounted JBL-4311Bs, with a
Cerwin Vega subwoofer). We compared notes and in almost every case, Alex and I
agreed completely on the results (so we didn't hafta trust my "rock-n-roll shot
ears").
The units we listened to included:
1 Marshall MXL "The Fox" hand-held dynamic.
1 Marshall MXL-1000 hand-held condensor
2 Marshall MXL-600 small condensor mics
2 Marshall MXL-603 small condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-2001 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-2003 large condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-V67 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-V77 tube large condensor mics
Comparison mics included:
1 Neumann TLM-103
2 matched Oktava MC012s w/cardioid capsules
1 Lomo M3 large condensor mic on MC012 body
1 Shure SM-7 dynamic
1 Shure SM-58 dynamic
1 Nady SCM-1000 multi-pattern condensor
The results:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mics we didn't like:
Marshall MXL-2001 $130?? Sorry, I can't find the MSRP right now. Harsh top end,
thin bottom, compared to the TLM-103. It was a little warmer than the Nady
SCM-1000, but the Nady had a smoother top end. The 2001 is everything that I
don't like about all the really inexpensive large diaphragm condensor mics that
I've listened to over the years, including the AKG C3000, the Oktava 219, and
some of the early AT low cost units.
Marshall MXL-600 $270 Veiled top end and exaggerated low-mid, compared to the
Oktava MC-012. About 1 dB lower output than the Oktava. It just sounded very
dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.
The mics we did like:
The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had
good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure
SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back
sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people
having a few around for live gigs.
Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
(The lack of proximity effect that I noted in an earlier report about the 2003,
was due to me accidently hitting the bass rolloff switch while I was putting it
in its shock mount. When I noticed normal proximity effect with a second unit,
I discovered my screwup.)
Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are
easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the
singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd
probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also
a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
Marshall MXL 1000 $99 This was the hand-held condensor mic that Marshall was
pushing as a KM-105. It totally sucked as a hand-held vocal mic. Brent Casey
suggested I try it without the end ball, and I discovered it was basically the
603 in a Shure-type body. Without the ball end fucking up the sound, it was
identical in sound to the 603.
Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's
very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect).
It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference
in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.
Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks,
and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a
C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even
more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103,
with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male
vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared
very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you
wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67.
And it just happens to sound great, too.
The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the
Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the
V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
Well, that's the results - it wasn't a fancy test, and YMMV, but overall, I
think it might be helpful to some people, especially if you're a "bottom feeder"
studio as we are. As I mentioned earlier, Brent said that our tests pretty much
agreed with his findings, and that at least confirmed that we were all hearing
pretty much the same things.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:00:36 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Chris G." <<chrisgie@txdirect...>> wrote:
>
>Thanks for the great review! I wish I could find one of the green V-67's.
>I'll probably end up saving for a V-77, but now that you said that the
>MXL-603's sound like MC-012's I might get those instead as my home studio is
>lacking a pair of high quality small diaphragm condenser mics.
The 603 would be a good choice for an inexpensive small pair.
>I'm still
>surprised that you didn't like the MXL-2001's at all though. I A/B'd it
>directly with a AKG C3000 at Mars Music and thought that it sounded nothing
>like the C3000. I also just got through recording two female vocalists
>last night and the recording came out VERY smooth and warm as it has on all
>of the vocals I've recorded with it so far. I'm not even eq'ing the vocals
>either...just a bit of reverb. Very strange how people either hate or love
>that mic. But I bow to your judgement because you have WAAAAY more
>experience then me with high quality mics.
Chris,
As you well know, I've never been a fan of the AKG C3000, but one of the times
it worked well was on a female voice. The Marshall MXL-2001 isn't a bad mic per
se, but it's similar to a lot of the low end large diaphragm mics that I don't
particularly like, due to the spitty top end (and the C3000 falls into that
category).
I'd probably choose a MXL-2001 over a C3000, if I was forced to use one or the
other. On some female vocals, it would probably sound very good, but it
wouldn't be a mic that got a lot of use in our studio. (Vocals always surprise
me, since I never know exactly which mic will be best for a particular voice;
sometimes it's a high dollar mic; sometimes, it's the bottom of my mic barrel.)
I look for mics that are either "Swiss Army Knives", or "One Trick Ponies", but
they must do that trick VERY well. If you don't have any other large condensor
mics, the MXL-2001 might be ok for some things, and probably better than dynamic
mics in many situations.
As a bottom feeder studio, I hafta watch where the bucks go, and even though the
MXL-2001 is relatively inexpensive, I don't think it would get much use here,
especially when you consider the other choices we have available. Even the V67
is what I'd consider a "One Trick Pony", but it will do that trick really well,
when I need it.
And the standard "YMMV" disclaimer is never more true than when it comes to mic
evaluations. Take mine with a large pinch of salt. <g>
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:11:35 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Chris G." <<chrisgie@txdirect...>> wrote:
>You know what is funny is that on certain vocals with the first Marshall
>MXL-2001 I used the mic did indeed sound harsh and bit "spitty" like the AKG
>C-3000. Even on my own voice it sounded harsh, however that was only on
>Mackie 1202VLZ PRO mic preamps. That same mic sounded nice and warm on my
>older Mackie 1202VLZ and on my Presonus Blue Tube mic preamp. So I'm
>still thinking that the mic pres having something to do with the sound of
>that mic. Although I know at least one person on the alt.music.4-track NG
>said their 2001 mic sucked on their 1202 VLZ. Just to check if my ears are
>toast (because I played in loud metal bands for many years)
Chris,
Some mics are sensitive to loading, and some preamps will interact to tame a
little bit of the top end. And as I've said so many times, not every mic is
perfect for everything. I found one guitarist/singer that sounded amazing when
he used the AKG C3000. For almost everything else, it sucked, at least for the
things I needed it for. What pissed me off the most was that I bought it when
it was retailing for around $850.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:25:34 -0600
Organization: Psionic Media
Chris,
Remember you can get a matched pair of MC012s with just cardioid caps for
not much more at all than the Marshalls, and later you could get the other
capsules. Don't save a little up front but limit your options in the near
future.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"Chris G." <<chrisgie@txdirect...>> wrote in message
news:<t5vgd1mkum1mf9@corp...>...
>
> Thanks for the great review! I wish I could find one of the green V-67's.
> I'll probably end up saving for a V-77, but now that you said that the
> MXL-603's sound like MC-012's I might get those instead as my home studio
is
> lacking a pair of high quality small diaphragm condenser mics. I'm
still
> surprised that you didn't like the MXL-2001's at all though. I A/B'd it
> directly with a AKG C3000 at Mars Music and thought that it sounded
nothing
> like the C3000. I also just got through recording two female vocalists
> last night and the recording came out VERY smooth and warm as it has on
all
> of the vocals I've recorded with it so far. I'm not even eq'ing the
vocals
> either...just a bit of reverb. Very strange how people either hate or
love
> that mic. But I bow to your judgement because you have WAAAAY more
> experience then me with high quality mics.
> Chris G.
>
> "Harvey Gerst" <<harvey@ITRstudio...>> wrote in message
> news:<68A6D1DC414FEF36.CE7C9179E2864446.8AB5A22A30309DA1@lp...>...
> > <This has been posted to BOTH rec.audio.pro AND alt.music.4-track.>
> >
> > Ok, my pinched sciatic nerve thing died down, and Alex and I finally got
> around
> > to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the
> testing
> > was done formally, and it's all pretty subjective, but in talking to
Brent
> Casey
> > at Marshall, he pretty well confirmed what I heard, so I think my
comments
> will
> > be of some use to people here.
> >
> > Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll
> off the
> > assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms
materials,
> the
> > porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the
> line
> > consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics
> (about
> > the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson,
> Karl
> > Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that
> Brent
> > Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender
in
> the
> > mic market.
> >
> > All the mics looked well made, and we had no problems with any of them,
or
> the
> > supplied shock mounts. Noise levels weren't a problem with any of the
> mics,
> > although we didn't do any testing with really quiet instruments.
> >
> > One of my concerns was consistancy from unit to unit. After we got the
> first
> > batch, I had Brent send some extra units (off the shelf) so I could
> actually
> > compare two units for possible differences. I'm happy to report that
all
> the
> > units I received were consistant and would do fine as stereo pairs.
> >
> > All tests were done thru a Great River MP-2, with the microphone under
> test
> > polarity reversed and nulled (to match initial levels), then normalled
to
> do the
> > actual comparison. We used the level controls on the GR to note
> differences in
> > gain.
> >
> > While I listened to the mics in the studio using headphones, Alex
listened
> in
> > the control room, using our main speakers (wall-mounted JBL-4311Bs, with
a
> > Cerwin Vega subwoofer). We compared notes and in almost every case,
Alex
> and I
> > agreed completely on the results (so we didn't hafta trust my
"rock-n-roll
> shot
> > ears").
> >
> > The units we listened to included:
> >
> > 1 Marshall MXL "The Fox" hand-held dynamic.
> > 1 Marshall MXL-1000 hand-held condensor
> > 2 Marshall MXL-600 small condensor mics
> > 2 Marshall MXL-603 small condensor mics
> > 1 Marshall MXL-2001 large condensor mic
> > 2 Marshall MXL-2003 large condensor mics
> > 1 Marshall MXL-V67 large condensor mic
> > 2 Marshall MXL-V77 tube large condensor mics
> >
> > Comparison mics included:
> >
> > 1 Neumann TLM-103
> > 2 matched Oktava MC012s w/cardioid capsules
> > 1 Lomo M3 large condensor mic on MC012 body
> > 1 Shure SM-7 dynamic
> > 1 Shure SM-58 dynamic
> > 1 Nady SCM-1000 multi-pattern condensor
> >
> > The results:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The mics we didn't like:
> >
> > Marshall MXL-2001 $130?? Sorry, I can't find the MSRP right now. Harsh
> top end,
> > thin bottom, compared to the TLM-103. It was a little warmer than the
Nady
> > SCM-1000, but the Nady had a smoother top end. The 2001 is everything
that
> I
> > don't like about all the really inexpensive large diaphragm condensor
mics
> that
> > I've listened to over the years, including the AKG C3000, the Oktava
219,
> and
> > some of the early AT low cost units.
> >
> > Marshall MXL-600 $270 Veiled top end and exaggerated low-mid, compared
to
> the
> > Oktava MC-012. About 1 dB lower output than the Oktava. It just sounded
> very
> > dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.
> >
> > The mics we did like:
> >
> > The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to
judge -
> it had
> > good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the
> Shure
> > SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it
fed
> back
> > sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see
> people
> > having a few around for live gigs.
> >
> > Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth
overall.
> Alex
> > thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi
> mids and
> > top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it
was
> > similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me
> anyway.
> >
> > (The lack of proximity effect that I noted in an earlier report about
the
> 2003,
> > was due to me accidently hitting the bass rolloff switch while I was
> putting it
> > in its shock mount. When I noticed normal proximity effect with a
second
> unit,
> > I discovered my screwup.)
> >
> > Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost
identical
> to
> > the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching
omni.
> We
> > used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The
diaphragms
> are
> > easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above
> the
> > singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers,
and
> they'd
> > probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They
> were also
> > a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
> >
> > Marshall MXL 1000 $99 This was the hand-held condensor mic that
Marshall
> was
> > pushing as a KM-105. It totally sucked as a hand-held vocal mic. Brent
> Casey
> > suggested I try it without the end ball, and I discovered it was
basically
> the
> > 603 in a Shure-type body. Without the ball end fucking up the sound, it
> was
> > identical in sound to the 603.
> >
> > Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic,
and
> it's
> > very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity
> effect).
> > It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB
> difference
> > in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was
identical.
> >
> > Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the
> looks,
> > and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797
copy
> of a
> > C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect
> (even
> > more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the
> TLM-103,
> > with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some
> male
> > vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It
> compared
> > very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound.
> If you
> > wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the
> V67.
> > And it just happens to sound great, too.
> >
> > The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s,
> and the
> > Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the
2003s
> or the
> > V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
> >
> > Well, that's the results - it wasn't a fancy test, and YMMV, but
overall,
> I
> > think it might be helpful to some people, especially if you're a "bottom
> feeder"
> > studio as we are. As I mentioned earlier, Brent said that our tests
> pretty much
> > agreed with his findings, and that at least confirmed that we were all
> hearing
> > pretty much the same things.
> >
> > Harvey Gerst
> > Indian Trail Recording Studio
> > http://www.ITRstudio.com/
>
>
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:20:14 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Keith Blackwell <<kwb@mtdkbux...>> wrote:
>Harvey, thank you. Thanks for taking the time and energy to do this not only
>to suit your own needs but to make way for a review you could share with the
>rest of us. Thanks for putting together the review and posting here with no
>publishing delay, no magazine cost to us, and probably no remuneration to you.
>And by the way, thank you.
It keeps me on my toes and I enjoy doing it. Last time I did a review for a
magazine was in the 60s, and Fred Gretch refused to talk to me for years
afterwards. <g>
>HG| The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had
>HG| good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure
>HG| SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back
>HG| sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people
>HG| having a few around for live gigs.
>
>Since you won't be keeping this one, I suppose we won't hear from
>you any results of using this on instruments. Scooped mids might
>be fine for some grungy guitar cab miking, or something. At that
>price, surely someone will be able to offer some further review
>here soon.
It's an "ok" mic, very good for the price.
>HG| Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
>HG| thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
>HG| top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
>HG| similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
>
>A more hyped high-end that the TLM103? And less bottom -- I wonder
>if it is therefore similar to the R0de NT-1. But then, you've never
>used that one, I think. In any case, since I own an NT1 and your
>description makes me think it might be similar, this leads me to think
>the 2003 won't be something I go for on my limited budget.
It might be. Alex didn't "not" like it, and I thought it sounded pretty damn
good.
>HG| Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
>HG| the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
>HG| used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are
>HG| easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the
>HG| singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd
>HG| probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also
>HG| a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
>
>Amazing. The Oktava MC012 has been on my short list for a while
>now, so this will be a contender for that spot. Admittedly, you
>get 3 capsules/patterns with the MC012, which probably makes it a
>fair value trade-off. Not to mention the LOMO option. But the
>603 is dang cheap. Cheaper than a AT Pro 37R. And cheaper than
>the Audix TR-40's you've been using for drum OH's. I know you
>didn't include the Audix in your comparisions, but since you're
>familiar with the Audix measurement mic's performance as OH's,
>can you offer comments comparing them without having to go do an
>A/B test? Which of this bunch would you guess have the best S/N
>ration?
If you can live with the wide cardioid pattern, don't need the other patterns,
or the -10 dB pad, this is a killer mic. Same thing goes for the MXL-1000
hand-held, without the ball end. It looks a little funny without the ball, but
it sounds the same as the standard 603.
>HG| Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's
>HG| very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect).
>HG| It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference
>HG| in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.
>
>And so, for those who simply cannot afford the Neumann....
>
>but then, we have no idea how the V77 or any other MXL mic
>will fare over time, do we? At least they appear well-built.
I think they should hold up pretty well. I'll see how mine do over the next few
months.
>HG| Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks,
>HG| and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a
>HG| C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even
>HG| more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103,
>HG| with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male
>HG| vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared
>HG| very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you
>HG| wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67.
>HG| And it just happens to sound great, too.
>
>I think this one fits well on my short list of upcoming mic additions,
>based on your description.
From a looks standpoint alone, this thing makes a studio look good. The fact
that it also sounds great is a big plus, but I'd buy it just for the case.
>HG| The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the
>HG| Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the
>HG| V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
>
>You can't afford it, and you have a studio that actually makes
>money. Hobbiests like me are all the more budget-constrained, so
>I very much apprecieate your reviews! Oh, and I don't think I've
>said this yet: THANK YOU.
We have to watch how we spend our money as well. It's important to us that each
dollar we spend on gear must be accounted for. That's why things like the RNC,
the Speck ASC, the Great River, the Oktavas, the TLM-103, and some other great
items are of vital importance to us, if we want to continue to make money and
offer good value as one of our services.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Tonebarge <Tonebarge@iscweb...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:17:07 -0800
Organization: Psycho Acoustic Ward
Here's another retailer:
http://www.abemusic.com/marshall.htm
TB
<snappy8834@my-deja...> wrote:
> Where to buy Marshall mics? Mars Music has a couple. Where do you go
> for the whole line? And thanks for the review, Harvey!
> -Kent Powell
> Fuzzy Bunny Productions
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
"Measure twice, cut once."
From: <reggaebop@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:12:20 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
In article <93o1c0$8fo$<1@nnrp1...>>,
snappy8834@my-deja.com wrote:> Where to buy Marshall mics? Mars Music has a couple. Where do you go
> for the whole line? And thanks for the review, Harvey!
> -Kent Powell
> Fuzzy Bunny Productions
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Try Tracy over at www.Filamentaudio.com. I've had great service and
fast delivery too. By far the best prices I've encountered...better
than Mars. Marshall is close to his shop and he usually just picks the
mics up from Brent.
-Reggaebop
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:13:43 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<mrivers@d-and-d...> (Mike Rivers) wrote:
> <harvey@ITRstudio...> writes:
>
>> Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
>> the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
>> used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job.
>Did you by chance try them as an X-Y pair? I know it's getting pretty
>far from your demo, but since the MXL-603 sounding somewhat like the
>MC012, which sounds somewhat like a KM-184, which sounds somewhat like
>a KM-84, which is my first string X-Y setup for classical and jazz,
>I was wondering. Perhaps I could give a pair of those, as a belated
>birthday present, to my friend who's always borrowing my KM-84's to
>record small contemporary classical music groups.
It should work fine, especially as a gift (it's a good looking mike). I will
get a chance to try them as an x/y pair, although as I noted, the pattern
approaches omni as the frequencies go down.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: David Satz <DSatz@msn...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 09:38:32 -0500
> Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> [re: the 603]
> the pattern approaches omni as the frequencies go down.
and jp wrote:
> Interesting. Is that typical of wide cardioid?
It's typical of cardioids, and even more strongly the case with
wide cardioids.
A cardioid is a 50:50 mixture between pressure response (omni) and
pure pressure gradient reponse (figure-8). You can imagine a cardioid
to be two microphones, one of each type, at the same point in space
with their signals combined "in phase".
All pure pressure gradient transducers have a 6 dB/octave rolloff at
low frequencies; pure pressure transducers do not. Thus as you go
lower in frequency, at some point the contribution from the pressure
gradient response begins to lessen; past that point, more and more of
what you hear will be the contribution of the pressure response, which
is omnidirectional.
A "wide cardioid" is simply a microphone in which the balance of
pressure to pressure gradient is weighted more heavily toward the
pressure component. As a result its output is influenced somewhat
less by the pressure gradient component, which is the directional part.
> Is there an obviously perceived frequency point at which they
> are directional and one where they are not?
No, in conventional microphones it's a smooth crossover.
> I imagine the proximity effect is pretty close to omni,
> which is to say minimal if present?
Hmm. Proximity effect can be enormous, so even in a wide
cardioid you can have quite a noticeable amount of it.
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:33:55 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Gunnar Kristiansen <<gunnar.kristiansen@image...>> wrote:
>Hi! Harvey!
>
>Thanks for the review. I did not even know of MXL mikes existence, but heard
>about them because I was considering a BPM CR95 mike for my home studio.
>
>I need a good vocal mike. Then I found out, that BPM had their mikes made in
>China by Beijing 797Audio. The same company who makes the MXL line.
>
>Do you have any experiences comparing MXL, BPM and the TLM-103.
>
>Would the TLM103 do the best job if money wasn't an issue?
Gunnar,
Yes, for most things, the TLM-103 would be my first pick. It, the Shure SM-7,
and an RCA 77DX are my "Swiss Army Knife" mics.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:36:09 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<tford@jagunet...> (Ty Ford) wrote:
>Gunnar Kristiansen <<gunnar.kristiansen@image...>> wrote:
>>Would the TLM103 do the best job if money wasn't an issue?
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Gunnar Kristiansen
>This spurs me to comment on something someone else mentioned; the thing
>about less expensive mic from "new" companies putting pressure on the "old"
>companies. The TLM 103 is the proof that an "old" company like Neumann can
>bring a mic to market at less than $1000 that not only resets the bar for
>"older" companies, but kicks the "new" companies in the butt as well.
Absolutely. I'm not sure that the new companies put pressure on Neumann, as
much as Neumann US probably putting pressure on Neumann Germany, when they (US)
saw an emerging market opportunity for a lower priced Neumann mic.
It's always easier for high quality manufacturers to "trade down" (make a less
expensive produduct) than it is for lower quality manufactures to "trade up".
Would you rather have a $35,000 "scaled down" Rolls Royce, or a $35,000 luxury
Kia?
>I think maybe it was Harvey, a few years back when the TLM 103 had just come
>out, who quipped to someone who was whining about the price of the TLM 103
>that they should stop whining and start thinking about the TLM 103 as a
>$2000 (or more) mic that was really quite a bargain at less than a grand.
And the TLM-103 would still be a bargain at $2,000, IMHO.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:52:11 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"arkk" <<arkkDIE-SPAM@concentric...>> wrote:
>Harvey,
>
>First, i want to add my thanks for the long-awaited review. I hope your
>injury heals soon.
>
>Unfortunately, V57 didn't make it into the review and it's an interesting
>one indeed (it's a replacement for the 2001 or so it seems).
>
>Have your impressions about Nady SCM1000 changed in any way after this
>extensive testing? Would you recommend it over a corresponding MXL?
>
>thanks,
arkk,
Not really. I thought the SCM-1000 was just ok as a cardioid, great as an omni
(but with a slight on axis high frequency rise), and it had a problem as a
figure 8 (the backside of the mic was muffled). At $149, it wasn't bad, but I
don't know how consistent they are from unit to unit, which is a major concern
of mine about buying inexpensive mics.
The Oktavas from Guitar Center are "not" consistent, the units from the Sound
Room are. The Marshall mics are consistent as near as I can tell (although I
didn't check the 2001, which I suspect may be less consistent than the rest of
the Marshall line). Some of the Rode mics are "said" to be inconsistent, but
I've never heard them, so I can't confirm that.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:26:40 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Paul Gitlitz <<paulg@pointbob...>> wrote:
>Well based partly on your review I have put my order in with Avant and
>Assoc. for a pair if 603's. Ken Avant told me that the capsule
>and electronics in the V67 were identical to the 2001.
Paul,
I just got off the phone with Brent Casey and I asked him about that
specifically. He said that the prototype V67 was identical to the 2001
internally, but the production V67s use a new transformer, a different
transistor, and there are some capacitor values that are changed as well. The
capsule is the same.
The new transformer in the V67 makes all the difference in the world in taming
the spitty high end of the 2001, and the transformer in the 2001 may in fact, be
causing the high end problems I heard. He's using this new transformer in the
high end Marshall mics as well. The self noise on the V67 is now down around 14
dB.
He also gave me the go-ahead to send the mics to Ty Ford for further evaluation.
Hopefully, that will happen in the next few days, if I can get all this stuff
together to ship out.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
| Microphone care? [5] |
|---|
From: John Sorell <jsorell@bouldernews...>
Subject: Microphone care?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:53:04 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Would welcome advice on keeping mics in good condition? Is it not good
practice to leave mics out ready to use, like keeping a guitar out on a
stand so it's handy for playing?
Thoughts....comments?
John
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpamOnRMMGA...>
Subject: Re: Microphone care?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:58:58 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <<3A5F3613.A2CA53F2@bouldernews...>>,
<jsorell@bouldernews...> wrote:
> Would welcome advice on keeping mics in good condition? Is it not good
> practice to leave mics out ready to use, like keeping a guitar out on a
> stand so it's handy for playing?
>
> Thoughts....comments?
>
> John
Put a zip-lock bag over the mic to keep dust from accumulating on it.
Larry Pattis
"My mind is a dangerous place, I never go there alone"
Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Microphone care?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:49:25 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:07:31 GMT, Bob Dorgan <<d77737@epix...>> wrote:
>One word--- dust.
>Gotta guard against it.
>I usually keep the mics in their cases when not in use.
>Bob Dorgan
Be aware that the foam liner of a mic case will break down over time
and eventually eat away at a mic capsule. A friend of mine lost a
Neumann KM86 from this.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Microphone care?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:57:33 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:00:19 GMT, John Sorell
<<jsorell@bouldernews...>> wrote:
>Rick Ruskin wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:07:31 GMT, Bob Dorgan <<d77737@epix...>> wrote:
>>
>> >One word--- dust.
>> >Gotta guard against it.
>> >I usually keep the mics in their cases when not in use.
>> >Bob Dorgan
>>
>> Be aware that the foam liner of a mic case will break down over time
>> and eventually eat away at a mic capsule. A friend of mine lost a
>> Neumann KM86 from this.
>>
>> Rick Ruskin
>> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
>> http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
>> http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
>>
>
>Rick,
>
>What kind (brand?) of case would you recommend?
>
>John
The boxes the mics came with but either remove the foam or make a mic
condom out of a plastic bag and secure it with a rubber band to keep
moisture and other contaminants out.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Microphone care?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:06:18 GMT
Organization: Peak to Peak Internet (peakpeak.com)
morrison wrote:
> I keep my workhorse Neuman 103 on it's stand,
> in a shock mount but with a
> Crown Royal bag over it...
I'm only guessing but I think that a Crown Royal
bag is a better choice than a plastic bag, at least
for vocal mics. Singing probably puts lots of vocal
lugie into the works and you probably want evaporation
to do it's thing.
Half blind lyric spittin' lumpy
| Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first? [7] |
|---|
From: Jazzman <Jazzman@oceanbridge...>
Subject: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:39:56 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I'm not looking to rehash all the great threads here covering all aspects of
recording acoustic guitar - the recent one on placement and 'bouts' was
terrific, and I'm astonished at what a great education anyone can get here
thanks to all who share their experience.
Today I'm just asking two very specific questions:
1) When you record finger-picked steel-string guitar as accompaniment to
vocals, what combination of mics and pres do you personally tend to have the
most luck with?
2) Do you always use a compressor, or do you try to do without one at first
to keep the signal path as short and clean as possible? (Let me guess, to
tape or with a tube mic pre, you might be able to do without, but to digital
with a solid-state pre you always use a compressor?)
From: Jazzman <Jazzman@oceanbridge...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:38:49 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
JnyVee. <<moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>> wrote
> What guitar?
> what player?
> what style?
> what mix?
Classic "pop-folk." Say, Martin D-28, Simon & Garfunkel/Jewel/Eva Cassidy,
initially sparse mix where it's just fingerpicked guitar and vocals (e.g.
Kathy's Song, Old Friends, or Eva Cassidy doing Fields of Gold), or possibly
with bass (e.g. practically anything fingerpicked by Peter, Paul, and Mary),
and possibly joined later by other instruments (e.g. Homeword Bound or The
Boxer).
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:23:13 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Jazzman" <<Jazzman@oceanbridge...>> wrote:
>I'm not looking to rehash all the great threads here covering all aspects of
>recording acoustic guitar - the recent one on placement and 'bouts' was
>terrific, and I'm astonished at what a great education anyone can get here
>thanks to all who share their experience.
>
>Today I'm just asking two very specific questions:
>
>1) When you record finger-picked steel-string guitar as accompaniment to
>vocals, what combination of mics and pres do you personally tend to have the
>most luck with?
If I'm recording it in one pass as a mono channel, I've had great luck with an
RCA 77BX, set about forehead high, 2 to 3 feet away, pointed towards the body of
the guitar. That goes into the Great River MP-2 mic preamp. I also use the
Audix TR-40 Omni mic over the guitarist's shoulder to record dreadnaught-sized
guitars, which seems to minimize the boom and reduce squeeks. That goes into
the GR preamp, too.
I like Massenburg's Lyle Lovett trick of using a figure 8 mic for guitar, but
with the mic turned sideways, so that one side of the mic is picking up the
treble strings, and the other side picks up the bass strings.
I would also suggest we wait for Rick Ruskin (liondog) to weigh in on this
subject, since he's one of the best fingerpickers on Earth. Rick has never
achieved the popularity of someone like Leo Kottke because Rick doesn't play
enough notes. His NPM (notes per minute) count is lower than other, more flashy
fingerpickers. When I pay to go to hear a guitar player, I expect a lot of
notes per minute for my money. If Rick ever gets his NPM count up, he will be a
force to be reckoned with.
>2) Do you always use a compressor, or do you try to do without one at first
>to keep the signal path as short and clean as possible? (Let me guess, to
>tape or with a tube mic pre, you might be able to do without, but to digital
>with a solid-state pre you always use a compressor?)
Depends on the player. If it's not sitting right, I'll hit it with a touch of
RNC compression, but only with the RNC - most other compressors I have available
muddy the sound.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:33:04 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
In article
<<0856E76A521E05E8.50E507B9DD8EDC70.3E4518645DC9ECA6@lp...>>,
Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:> "Jazzman" <<Jazzman@oceanbridge...>> wrote:
>
> >I'm not looking to rehash all the great threads here covering all
aspects of
> >recording acoustic guitar - the recent one on placement and 'bouts'
was
> >terrific, and I'm astonished at what a great education anyone can get
here
> >thanks to all who share their experience.
> >
> >Today I'm just asking two very specific questions:
> >
> >1) When you record finger-picked steel-string guitar as accompaniment
to
> >vocals, what combination of mics and pres do you personally tend to
have the
> >most luck with?
>
> If I'm recording it in one pass as a mono channel, I've had great luck
with an
> RCA 77BX, set about forehead high, 2 to 3 feet away, pointed towards
the body of
> the guitar. That goes into the Great River MP-2 mic preamp. I also
use the
> Audix TR-40 Omni mic over the guitarist's shoulder to record
dreadnaught-sized
> guitars, which seems to minimize the boom and reduce squeeks. That
goes into
> the GR preamp, too.
>
> I like Massenburg's Lyle Lovett trick of using a figure 8 mic for
guitar, but
> with the mic turned sideways, so that one side of the mic is picking
up the
> treble strings, and the other side picks up the bass strings.
>
> I would also suggest we wait for Rick Ruskin (liondog) to weigh in on
this
> subject, since he's one of the best fingerpickers on Earth. Rick has
never
> achieved the popularity of someone like Leo Kottke because Rick
doesn't play
> enough notes. His NPM (notes per minute) count is lower than other,
more flashy
> fingerpickers. When I pay to go to hear a guitar player, I expect a
lot of
> notes per minute for my money. If Rick ever gets his NPM count up, he
will be a
> force to be reckoned with.
>
> >2) Do you always use a compressor, or do you try to do without one at
first
> >to keep the signal path as short and clean as possible? (Let me
guess, to
> >tape or with a tube mic pre, you might be able to do without, but to
digital
> >with a solid-state pre you always use a compressor?)
>
> Depends on the player. If it's not sitting right, I'll hit it with a
touch of
> RNC compression, but only with the RNC - most other compressors I have
available
> muddy the sound.
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/
>
--
Rick Ruskin
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
For someone singing and playing live:
Take one large cap mic cardoid for the voc and one small cap cardoid for
the instrument.
Then take a pair of small cap cardoids and use as an ortf pair about
eyebrow level (more or less)
Individual mics go up the center. ORTF pair goes full left and right.
EQ and Blend to taste.
For tracking guitar alone: 1 (for mono) or 2 (for stereo) small cap
condensers. EQ to taste.
In either case, use the cleanest mic pre you have. (My choice is
_always_ a Great River MP-2.)
I never compress guitar while preferring wait to see if any is needed in
the final mix.
RE: NPM - Harvey is wrong. It's "Notes Per Measure" not "Minute"
In any event, after I do gigs with other high "NPM" players, it's my
tunes I hear being hummed/whistled as people leave the venues. I never
hear anyone doing that to a fancy 1/64th note run so I figure I'm doing
something right.
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:31:31 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:05:19 GMT, <simplicity108@yahoo...> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Rick Ruskin
>> http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
>>
>> For someone singing and playing live:
>>
>> Take one large cap mic cardoid for the voc and one small cap cardoid
>for
>> the instrument.
>>
>> Then take a pair of small cap cardoids and use as an ortf pair about
>> eyebrow level (more or less)
>>
>> Individual mics go up the center. ORTF pair goes full left and right.
>> EQ and Blend to taste.
>>
>> For tracking guitar alone: 1 (for mono) or 2 (for stereo) small cap
>> condensers. EQ to taste.
>>
>> In either case, use the cleanest mic pre you have. (My choice is
>> _always_ a Great River MP-2.)
>>
>> I never compress guitar while preferring wait to see if any is needed
>in
>> the final mix.
>>
>>Your choice is the GR MP-2. What are you choosing it over (that is
>sitting in your rack - not at the store rental dept...) What pres have
>you tried previously on acoustic guitar?
>>
>
>--
Currently in rack: Spectrasonics 101's, Trident TSM, Front end of my
tascam 2600-32 console.
Total 30+ years experience: Too many to list.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: Gallimhabu <gallimhabu@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:48:04 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:39:56 GMT, "Jazzman" <<Jazzman@oceanbridge...>>
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Today I'm just asking two very specific questions:
>
>1) When you record finger-picked steel-string guitar as accompaniment to
>vocals, what combination of mics and pres do you personally tend to have the
>most luck with?
>
>2) Do you always use a compressor, or do you try to do without one at first
>to keep the signal path as short and clean as possible? (Let me guess, to
>tape or with a tube mic pre, you might be able to do without, but to digital
>with a solid-state pre you always use a compressor?)
My absolute favorite guitar sound is:
A pair of MV692's into good tube pre's. I do not compress or eq prior
to mixdown. If necessary I use high pass filters, the 75hz filters
on the 692's are a little too obvious, I normally opt for 32-40hz. I
limit, as a safety precaution, especially to digital media.
Mics set close...(within 1 foot) one aimed just below the bridge, one
about 1/2 way between the junction of the body and neck, and the sound
hole.......depending on the instrument and the player. Panned hard
L/R.
For years I used a a pair of Neuman KM84's with excellent result, same
set up. Still do on occasion. OBTW.....Shock mounts are important.
If mic'ing in Mono....I aim for the point just below the bridge.
Gallimhabu
>
>
From: Greg Thompson <grogthom@ix...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:40:03 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Somebody turned me on to SM-81s a while back. Neve 1066 mic pre.
Distressor set about 4:1 quick attack and release doing about 4-8 dB of
compression on peaks that are outside the normal amount of
strumming/fingerpicking output level. I'll compress more in the mix if I
feel the need.
In the situation where I don't have a Neve and a Distressor, whatever the
cleanest pre and the most transparent/quickest compressor is available
(Sytek/RNC)
On the Neve, I'll do a small amount of boost at the 220Hz freq.
Usually I'll have the mic pointed at the spot where the neck meets the
body, but generally I'll stick my head in front of the guitar and move it
around until I hear the sound I like and put the mic where my ear was.
Greg
| Any opinions on the Rode NT1? [4] |
|---|
From: Paul C. <Paul_member@newsguy...>
Subject: Any opinions on the Rode NT1?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 18:16:10 -0800
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com]
I'm considering buying a Rode NT1 mic and was looking to see if anyone out there
is using it.
Paul C.
From: McCollum <mccollum@netshel...>
Subject: Re: Any opinions on the Rode NT1?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:33:07 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Paul,
I just sold mine to a friend. I had it just about 3 years (?). I bought it
when they first came out. I test drove it in the store using one of my
guitars and was pretty impressed. When I got home I wasn't as impressed
after dinking around with it for a few days. It had a tendency to sound
nasally in the mid range. I tried different setups running through the
preamps and my Mackie, then running through and Art Tube Pre Amp, which
helped a little bit. But I was never really happy with it. Then I set out
on a quest for the ultimate matched pair of mics and a decent mic pre amp.
I ended up getting a Millennia HV3 pre amp and hooked up the Rode to give it
a test drive. I was blown away at how much better it sounded. It was now a
very usable mic, except I had already ordered a pair of Microtech Gefells
M300s and they were on their way. These are outstanding mics, especially
for the price (about $450 each).
But back to your question. I think that microphones are only as good as pre
amps. If I was to suggest to anybody about where to spend their money, I
would recommend they get a high quality mic pre-amp. And then search for a
mic that you can afford.
Hope this helps,
Lance
McCollum Guitars
http://www.mccollumguitars.com
"Paul C." <<Paul_member@newsguy...>> wrote in message
news:<940ata02b9@drn...>...
> I'm considering buying a Rode NT1 mic and was looking to see if anyone out
there
> is using it.
>
> Paul C.
>
From: RPM <rpmhlm@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Any opinions on the Rode NT1?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:12:25 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Hi Paul; I used a Rode NT-1 into my Mackie mixer for almost all of my
home recording (guitars and vocals) at my www.mp3.com/RPM33 site, so
you can hear the kind of results you can get (listen to hi-fi plays or
downloads only...lo-fi wouldn't tell you a thing). Overall, I am happy
with this mic. Hope this helps. Rick
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Any opinions on the Rode NT1?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:53:57 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Paul-
You might consider doing a search at Deja in rec.audio.pro; a lot of folks
there have used and commented on the various Rode mics.
If you drop over there now, there are two threads going with good info
about acoustic guitar recording. One mentions acoustic recording in
the thread title. The other is the Marshall microphones review thread
started by Harvey Gerst (I reposted his 1st post here a few days ago;
you might want to check in rec.audio.pro for the voluminous subsequent
discussion).
Also, I've archived some past discussion of acoustic guitar mic'ing
from RMMGA and RAP at the AG site:
http://www.museweb.com/ag/Look in "Technology:Recording." I'll be updating this soon.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Mics for acoustic guitars [8] |
|---|
From: JSalam112 <jsalam112@aol...>
Subject: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: 20 Jan 2001 16:32:58 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Would like some opinions on mics specifically suited for acoustic guitars.
Thanks
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: 20 Jan 2001 11:40:47 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
JSalam112 <<jsalam112@aol...>> wrote:
>Would like some opinions on mics specifically suited for acoustic guitars.
Well, I tend to prefer small diaphragm condensers, but on the whole it
depends a lot on the room and the guitar. I've even wound up using
EV 635As on Macaferris because it gave the sound that fit in the mix.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Fill <mothra666@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: 20 Jan 2001 16:47:49 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
C-60
KM84
MCO12
451
414
U-47
221B
the list goes on....
P h i l i p
________________________________
"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
- Dorothy Parker"If it ain't broke, don't break it"
- Charles Oakley
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:27:59 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<jsalam112@aol...> (JSalam112) wrote:
>Would like some opinions on mics specifically suited for acoustic guitars.
I like mainly small diaphragm condensors; omnis work really well for me, but
cardioids can be pretty nice at times. Some choices in various price ranges
would be:
Neumann KM183 (omni) or KM184 (cardioid)
Oktava MC012 (cardioid and omni capsules)
Audio Technica 4041 and 4051 (cardioid)
Marshall MXL 603S (cardioid)
Audix TR40 or MBHO 551 (omni)
Earthworks (omni)
Shure SM-81
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Dean <jd1192@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:59:52 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Obviously it really depends on alot of factors, the type of guitar,the strings, finger picked or plastic..strummed?, alternate tunings
like DADGAD for example, (may bring the need for a different mic than
if was tuned in a standard tuning), intonation, but the most important
is the player, even the cheap guitar in the hands of real talent can
make an engineers job much easier and enjoyable.
As for microphones and how to caputure that performance, the micsalready mentioned are all good, Neumann, Akg, and Schoeps small
condensers would be the most flexible. Just using your ears, and trying
different mics positions, over the shoulder, or at 14th fret 12" back,
try them all if theres time. Tonight I used a Wright Omni about 2 ft
away and it was just the sound needed. Sometimes a Neumann KM54 or 84
does the trick, its nice to have several, but for all around uses
and price, a ggod cond. KM84 would be first choice.
Regards,
Dean
> Would like some opinions on mics specifically suited for acoustic
guitars.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Twist Turner <Bluzman@webtv...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:54:15 -0600 (CST)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Don't forget to try the Soundelux U195 on acoustic if you get one to
audition, I have had that work really nicely where nothing else would do
it.
Twist Turner
http://members.tripod.com/~Twist_Turner/index.html
From: Garthrr <garthrr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: 21 Jan 2001 20:30:25 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <<1463-3A6B2247-35@storefull-242...>>,
<Bluzman@webtv...> (Twist Turner) writes:
>Don't forget to try the Soundelux U195 on acoustic if you get one to
>audition, I have had that work really nicely where nothing else would do
>it.
Also the U99 when you want bright. Gorgeous highs!
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
From: Gulf Joe <gulfjoe@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:14:44 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Garthrr wrote:
>
> In article <<1463-3A6B2247-35@storefull-242...>>,
> <Bluzman@webtv...> (Twist Turner) writes:
>
> >Don't forget to try the Soundelux U195 on acoustic if you get one to
> >audition, I have had that work really nicely where nothing else would do
> >it.
>
> Also the U99 when you want bright. Gorgeous highs!
> Garth
>
> "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
> Ed Cherney
I just used (3pm Sunday) a 77D for a guitar with chamber orchestra. Loved it!
Remind me tomorrow and I'll throw up an MP3 file for you to listen.
Because of visual constraints in the live concert, I had it looking over the music
stand, so it was about three feet away and shoulder high. I'd have preferred it
lower and a little closer, but that would have blocked the view of the audience.
The 77D is NOT an inconspicuous device!
| Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps? [7] |
|---|
From: Analogeezer <analogeezer@my-deja...>
Subject: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:25:58 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Ok, so I "did the right thing" and ordered a pair of Oktava MC-012's
from the Sound Room, the set that comes with cardiod, omni, and
hypercardiod capsules (well those caps and the pads too).
Now my meager mic "locker" has one multi-pattern large format condensor,
which I've occaisionally used the Figure 8 and Omni patterns on, but
I've never really used small condensors that were other than cardiod.
I'd be real curious to hear what sorts of applications that people here
have found for the omni and hypercardiod capsules from the MC-012,
whatever cool and strange things people are doing with them.
I guess I can imagine the hypercardiod capsule being used for spot
cymbal miking but have people found some "out of the box apps" that I
should know about?
I'd hate to just leave the other caps in the box, lookin pretty...
Thanks,
Analogeezer
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Paul Gitlitz <paulg@pointbob...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 07:21:33 -0800
Organization: Glitchless Productions
>
>I'd be real curious to hear what sorts of applications that people here
>have found for the omni and hypercardiod capsules from the MC-012,
>whatever cool and strange things people are doing with them.
I like the omni much better for acoustic guitar than the cardioid.
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:15:36 -0600
Organization: Psionic Media
The hyp cap can sound really great on female vocalists, when you don't want
much (almost any) room sound, and you want to capture every little breath
and, well, lip smacking, etc.
It's also nice when you want an unnaturally wide stereo acoustic guitar
sound.
It's also very nice on toms.
The omni is great really close on acoustic guitars, where you want to hear
every detail with little room sound, as you can get it right up on it
without the boom factor.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"Analogeezer" <<analogeezer@my-deja...>> wrote in message
news:94p9gv$a21$<1@nnrp1...>...
> Ok, so I "did the right thing" and ordered a pair of Oktava MC-012's
> from the Sound Room, the set that comes with cardiod, omni, and
> hypercardiod capsules (well those caps and the pads too).
>
> Now my meager mic "locker" has one multi-pattern large format condensor,
> which I've occaisionally used the Figure 8 and Omni patterns on, but
> I've never really used small condensors that were other than cardiod.
>
> I'd be real curious to hear what sorts of applications that people here
> have found for the omni and hypercardiod capsules from the MC-012,
> whatever cool and strange things people are doing with them.
>
> I guess I can imagine the hypercardiod capsule being used for spot
> cymbal miking but have people found some "out of the box apps" that I
> should know about?
>
> I'd hate to just leave the other caps in the box, lookin pretty...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Analogeezer
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
From: Jay Kahrs <brownsnd14@aol...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: 26 Jan 2001 17:19:28 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I guess I'll chime in here and say I've used the Omni on acoustic quite a bit,
and really liked the results. I use it
>in the 'over-the-shoulder' method. Harvey Gerst had a picture on his website
similar >to the way I use mine.
>
I've tried the 'over-the-shoulder' omni method a few times and I can never get
a sound I'm happy with. It's usually too roomy or too dull and boomy. Are you
guys using any EQ on the way to tape? I must be doing something wrong. Or does
it only work well for sparse arangements and suck wind in a rock DMB type of
band?
---
-Jay Kahrs
Mad Moose Recording Inc.
(formerly BrownSound Studios)
Livingston, NJ
http://members.tripod.com/~BrownSoundStudios
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:48:29 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<brownsnd14@aol...> (Jay Kahrs) wrote:
>>I guess I'll chime in here and say I've used the Omni on acoustic quite a bit,
>>and really liked the results. I use it in the 'over-the-shoulder' method.
>>Harvey Gerst had a picture on his website similar to the way I use mine.
>I've tried the 'over-the-shoulder' omni method a few times and I can never get
>a sound I'm happy with. It's usually too roomy or too dull and boomy. Are you
>guys using any EQ on the way to tape? I must be doing something wrong. Or does
>it only work well for sparse arangements and suck wind in a rock DMB type of
>band?
Jay,
Are you using a good omni? I haven't had any problems using this technique in a
rock mix. The reason I like it so much is that I don't need any eq at all. The
"dull and boomy" comment doesn't make sense to me since you're out of the path
of the sound hole and the direct radiation off the guitar top. It usually
sounds very natural and quite clean, without a lot of finger squeeks. Is the
mic at about ear height and about 6" in front of the head, pointing down at the
guitar?
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:45:37 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<brownsnd14@aol...> (Jay Kahrs) wrote:
>>Is the mic at about ear height and about 6" in front of the head, pointing down at
>>the guitar?
>Um. No. I had it at ear height and over the players shoulder aimed at the
>floor. So I guess it should be right between the players eyes about 6" out?
Nope, you had it right. You hafta play with it a little bit on the front to back
distance to get the right high end balance, but it shoulda been in the ballpark.
>I tried it with a both a 414B/ULS which wasn't that great and a MC012 which was
>better but still didn't knock me out. FWIW I usually end up with a 451EB/CK1
>about a foot away and aimed somewhere between the 15th and 8th fret.
It may be the guitar, the player, or the mics - hard to tell. Well, it doesn't
always work for everybody - when it does, it's really cool.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Nate Tschetter <nate@gluethemoose...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:11:02 GMT
Organization: Glue The Moose
Howdy
Whenever I use Harvey's Over The Shoulder method ("HOTS"?), I find that
the omni is much brighter and more natural sounding than the cardioid. I
typically don't EQ it either and just move the mic around 'til I like
it.
Sometimes it sounds dull and boomy when the guitarist stands up and
wacks their head on the mic, although it depends on the player.
Heh...Our mileage varied...
Cheers
Nate Tschetter
Sonic Taxidermist
www.gluethemoose.com
Jay Kahrs wrote:
>
> >I guess I'll chime in here and say I've used the Omni on acoustic quite a bit,
> and really liked the results. I use it
> >in the 'over-the-shoulder' method. Harvey Gerst had a picture on his website
> similar >to the way I use mine.
> >
>
> I've tried the 'over-the-shoulder' omni method a few times and I can never get
> a sound I'm happy with. It's usually too roomy or too dull and boomy. Are you
> guys using any EQ on the way to tape? I must be doing something wrong. Or does
> it only work well for sparse arangements and suck wind in a rock DMB type of
> band?
> ---
> -Jay Kahrs
> Mad Moose Recording Inc.
> (formerly BrownSound Studios)
> Livingston, NJ
> http://members.tripod.com/~BrownSoundStudios
| Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger" [8] |
|---|
From: Analogeezer <analogeezer@my-deja...>
Subject: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:00:18 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Well I'm not really a guitar player, but I've always wanted a good one
to try and write with, plus guitar players keep bringing in the
skankiest acoustics to my studio; so I bought a Taylor a few weeks back.
The particuliar model is called a 312CE, which for those who don't know
Taylor's nomenclature, is a "Grand Concert" body style, with a cutaway.
It's about an inch thinner than the regular Taylor models, and the
length and width of the body is a bit smaller as well.
Needless to say it has a much more delicate sound than a jumbo or
Dreadnaught, not nearly as much bass.
I actually bought this guitar for a few reasons:
1. I got an incredible deal on it, from I guy that I buy stuff from
(bass stuff really, he doesn't have much pro audio gear) who is a small dealer - real great guy, the kind you want to support.2. Most of my use for an acoustic is for "ear candy", where the track is
kind of in the background, not featured. For this app, having a huge "jumbo" kind of sound is often a drawback3. I have short arms and found the thinner/smaller body much easier to
play than the big TaylorsAnyway, it's a great sounding guitar, but kind of small sounding, and
I've realized that there may be some instances when it's the best
sounding acoustic available (only one of my guitar player friends really
has good acoustics - both 800 series Taylors)but I would need to make it
sound "bigger" than it actually is.
I realize mic placement would likely have a lot to do with this, but are
there some other "tricks" that are used to "fatten up" thinner
sounding acoustics?
Would a large format condensor help more than a small condensor?
I'm figuring that just adding low end EQ isn't going to work all that
well, I need to capture more of it coming off the guitar.
Forgive my ignorance, I've been off in electronics and midi land for the
last 8 years or so, and the only acoustic tracks I've done have been of
the quick and dirty variety, with skanky guitars that sounded like crap
no matter where you put the mic.
Thanks,
Analogeezer
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Garthrr <garthrr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: 25 Jan 2001 17:14:35 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <94piib$iq6$<1@nnrp1...>>, Analogeezer <<analogeezer@my-deja...>>
writes:
>
>Anyway, it's a great sounding guitar, but kind of small sounding, and
>I've realized that there may be some instances when it's the best
>sounding acoustic available (only one of my guitar player friends really
>has good acoustics - both 800 series Taylors)but I would need to make it
>sound "bigger" than it actually is.
When I first bought the AT 4047 I tried it on an acoustic very much like you
describe. In fact this guitar was practically a toy and had a very small,
midrangy sound in the room. I was recording the player where I couldnt see him.
When I first heard the sound through the mic I thought he must have changed to
a different guitar. I ran right upstairs and was quite surprised to see the
same lame-ass guitar on his lap. In this particular case the 4047 had performed
majic. Worth a try.
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
From: EdGerhard <edgerhard@aol...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: 25 Jan 2001 17:21:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Analogeezer wrote:
<< I realize mic placement would likely have a lot to do with this, but are
there some other "tricks" that are used to "fatten up" thinner
sounding acoustics? >>
One or two things I've found when recording guitars;
Pulling mics back a bit helps a lot. Super close mic'ing can be nice, but if
you can get a little of the room in the recording the guitar's gonna get a bit
bigger. Stereo mic'ing works fine, 3 mics is better. Maintain a good center
image- hearing all the string noise coming from the right and all the bass from
the left is cheesy. Large or small diaphragm doesn't really make that much
difference to me, but my KM 84s sound a bit larger and heftier than my KM 140s-
maybe it's the transformers. Sometimes a little bit of pickup mixed in is nice,
too. Lastly, play it so it sounds fat- all that other advice is useless if you
can't make a reasonable sound come out of the instrument!
Good luck.
Cheers,
Ed
From: Kevin F Rose <kevinfrose@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:37:27 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
If grand concert is a nod to orchestra model (which your description
implies sans cutaway) then your closer than you think. Fullsize D28's
drive me nuts with their boomy/sizzle thing but an OM (thinner) works
wonders in front of a mic.
I've had great luck lately by using a 184 through a Vmp2 combinedwith a Royer 121 iced in with proximity effect to taste. This technique
places the 184 around the 12th fret 8-24 inches out. I then bring the
121 over the guitar sometimes over the guitar player and move it in and
out to gain the ribbons famous proximity effect as needed. It's kind of
like a built in EQ. I'm assuming that 121's aren't in your locker
currently (and don't work on acoustic alone)but up until recently this
upper mic has been many different characters.
Listen while the guitarist is playing in those upper areas for whereyour mic wants to be and I'm positive you will hear it.
Good luck! and fresh strings...
--
Kevin F. Rose
"No the metronome is not slowing down"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: reap <dbrady@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:07:44 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I've had good luck lately using an oktava mc012 at around the 12th
fret (6-8" away) going into a neve 1089 w/hpf at 80 and high shelf
boost @ 8 0'clock. Then a tlm 103 into a vmp-2 just over the
guitarist's right shoulder, both going directly to a otari mx-50, no
compresssion. I then dump it into my daw @ 24/96.
Exquisite! Beats the Hell out of piezzio's <vbg>.
Dan
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:00:18 GMT, Analogeezer
<<analogeezer@my-deja...>> wrote:
>Well I'm not really a guitar player, but I've always wanted a good one
>to try and write with, plus guitar players keep bringing in the
>skankiest acoustics to my studio; so I bought a Taylor a few weeks back.
>
>The particuliar model is called a 312CE, which for those who don't know
>Taylor's nomenclature, is a "Grand Concert" body style, with a cutaway.
>
>It's about an inch thinner than the regular Taylor models, and the
>length and width of the body is a bit smaller as well.
>
>Needless to say it has a much more delicate sound than a jumbo or
>Dreadnaught, not nearly as much bass.
>
>I actually bought this guitar for a few reasons:
>
>1. I got an incredible deal on it, from I guy that I buy stuff from
> (bass stuff really, he doesn't have much pro audio gear) who is a
> small dealer - real great guy, the kind you want to support.
>
>2. Most of my use for an acoustic is for "ear candy", where the track is
> kind of in the background, not featured. For this app, having a huge
> "jumbo" kind of sound is often a drawback
>
>3. I have short arms and found the thinner/smaller body much easier to
> play than the big Taylors
>
>Anyway, it's a great sounding guitar, but kind of small sounding, and
>I've realized that there may be some instances when it's the best
>sounding acoustic available (only one of my guitar player friends really
>has good acoustics - both 800 series Taylors)but I would need to make it
>sound "bigger" than it actually is.
>
>I realize mic placement would likely have a lot to do with this, but are
>there some other "tricks" that are used to "fatten up" thinner
>sounding acoustics?
>
>Would a large format condensor help more than a small condensor?
>
>I'm figuring that just adding low end EQ isn't going to work all that
>well, I need to capture more of it coming off the guitar.
>
>Forgive my ignorance, I've been off in electronics and midi land for the
>last 8 years or so, and the only acoustic tracks I've done have been of
>the quick and dirty variety, with skanky guitars that sounded like crap
>no matter where you put the mic.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Analogeezer
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 01 15:39:35 GMT
Organization: Jagunet Access Services (using Airnews.net!)
In Article <94piib$iq6$<1@nnrp1...>>, Analogeezer
<<analogeezer@my-deja...>> wrote:
>Well I'm not really a guitar player, but I've always wanted a good one
>to try and write with, plus guitar players keep bringing in the
>skankiest acoustics to my studio; so I bought a Taylor a few weeks back.
>
>The particuliar model is called a 312CE, which for those who don't know
>Taylor's nomenclature, is a "Grand Concert" body style, with a cutaway.
>
>It's about an inch thinner than the regular Taylor models, and the
>length and width of the body is a bit smaller as well.
>
>Needless to say it has a much more delicate sound than a jumbo or
>Dreadnaught, not nearly as much bass.
Big gets translated differently in at least several ways.
Try a Neumann M149 in Omni (or a click from omni to figure of eight) and put
the mic directly in front of the soundhole. Yes. Directly in front. If you
can't get your hands on a M149, try another omni. I've done this and had
good results with a AT 4050.
Try A Neumann RSM 191 stereo mic and mess with the spread adjustment in L/R
until you get it the way you want.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's audio equipment reviews and V/O sound files can be accessed at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: <jpstemwedel@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:50:01 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
You're probably gonna be better off than you think. D-sized guitars
more often than not have unusable bass for recording and the standard
micing tricks for acoustic are tailored to working around them. If you
need low end, take advantage of the proximity effect of your
directional mics or the fact that the soundhole is a great place to
grab bass frequencies. I play and record with a Seagull Grand, an
inexpensive little parlor style guitar, and with careful mic placement
I've never wanted for low end on it, and it's all controlled and
useable. I'm kind of a freak, though, and like large diaphragm
dynamics, sometimes combined with small diaphragm condensors for a bit
more detail and sparkle, since I tend to shoot for a warm, midrangey
and full sound and avoid hypey treble. With two mics, always sum to
mono so you can catch any comb filtering problems.
If you want that larger than life sound like Kotke, Hedges, et al., you
probably ought to get a good magnetic sound hole pickup. Available
bass is typically huge from these things, and combining it with other
micing and pickup techiques can create a big, encompassing sound.
Typical caveats to make sure that you are adding with each method and
not cancelling frequencies.
jp
In article <94piib$iq6$<1@nnrp1...>>,
Analogeezer <analogeezer@my-deja.com> wrote:> Well I'm not really a guitar player, but I've always wanted a good one
> to try and write with, plus guitar players keep bringing in the
> skankiest acoustics to my studio; so I bought a Taylor a few weeks
back.
>
> The particuliar model is called a 312CE, which for those who don't
know
> Taylor's nomenclature, is a "Grand Concert" body style, with a
cutaway.
>
> It's about an inch thinner than the regular Taylor models, and the
> length and width of the body is a bit smaller as well.
>
> Needless to say it has a much more delicate sound than a jumbo or
> Dreadnaught, not nearly as much bass.
>
> I actually bought this guitar for a few reasons:
>
> 1. I got an incredible deal on it, from I guy that I buy stuff from
> (bass stuff really, he doesn't have much pro audio gear) who is a
> small dealer - real great guy, the kind you want to support.
>
> 2. Most of my use for an acoustic is for "ear candy", where the track
is
> kind of in the background, not featured. For this app, having a
huge
> "jumbo" kind of sound is often a drawback
>
> 3. I have short arms and found the thinner/smaller body much easier to
> play than the big Taylors
>
> Anyway, it's a great sounding guitar, but kind of small sounding, and
> I've realized that there may be some instances when it's the best
> sounding acoustic available (only one of my guitar player friends
really
> has good acoustics - both 800 series Taylors)but I would need to make
it
> sound "bigger" than it actually is.
>
> I realize mic placement would likely have a lot to do with this, but
are
> there some other "tricks" that are used to "fatten up" thinner
> sounding acoustics?
>
> Would a large format condensor help more than a small condensor?
>
> I'm figuring that just adding low end EQ isn't going to work all that
> well, I need to capture more of it coming off the guitar.
>
> Forgive my ignorance, I've been off in electronics and midi land for
the
> last 8 years or so, and the only acoustic tracks I've done have been
of
> the quick and dirty variety, with skanky guitars that sounded like
crap
> no matter where you put the mic.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Analogeezer
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Captain Analogue <captain_analogue@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:20:30 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
In article <94s9rl$vir$<1@nnrp1...>>,
jpstemwedel@my-deja.com wrote:>
> If you want that larger than life sound like Kotke, Hedges, et al.,
you probably ought to get a good magnetic sound hole pickup. Available
> bass is typically huge from these things, and combining it with other
> micing and pickup techiques can create a big, encompassing sound.
Yeah, I was really disappointed when Kottke showed up for sound check.
I had already set up some nice mics, and he wanted to go direct.
However, he went back in the house, plugged in, and tweeked his own
sound. Easiest night I've had (no monitors), and it sounded great.
Back to the original post, I've had good results with Taylors with the
mic low on the body, aimed toward the bridge, at about 8-10". This was
live with spruce-topped models. Another position, which I've seen Neil
Young use, is on the other side of the sound hole with the mic facing
across the hole. Sound-hole positions can get boomy really fast, just
vary the mic's angle until it fills out enough for you.
--
MUSIC happens in the analogue domain.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
| The Sound Room [3] |
|---|
From: Analogeezer <analogeezer@my-deja...>
Subject: The Sound Room
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:14:13 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
I ordered a pair of mics, along with some shock mounts and a stereo
mic bar from the Sound Room.
Got it pretty quick, but the thing that really impressed me was how well
all the stuff was packed.
Hey I realize they were mics (some extra care is appropriate) but I've
never bought a piece of gear, new or used that was packed as well as
this stuff was.
Every piece (even the shock mounts and T-bars, which came in hard
plastic packaging) was individually bubble wrapped, and a couple of
cardboard tubes were put in the box to take up extra space.
I've often felt that you can tell a lot about a company based on how
they pack a box (that job usually goes to the low guy on the totem
pole) and like I said, this was the best packed box of gear I've ever
seen.
Jay Storey
p.s. FWIW, the order I got from Mercenary Audio (two RNC's a while back)
was a close second...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: JP Gerard <jpgerard@advalvas...>
Subject: Re: The Sound Room
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:32:00 +0100
Organization: Planet Internet NV
Yep, I got some Russian NP too.
I just ordered a spare valve and the packaging was THICK!
Taylor's definitely taking care of the merchandise he sends.
Gotta love it!
JPG
<<jslator@millerthomson...>> a écrit dans le message news:
9546rq$15m$<1@nnrp1...>...
> I also enjoyed the Russian newspapers wrapped around the cedar box with
> my Oktava's in it. Nice touch.
>
> - J. Slator
>
> In article <<3A7592DE.44BF1E31@stack...>>,
> Erwin Timmerman <<erwint@stack...>> wrote:
> > Analogeezer wrote:
> >
> > > I ordered a pair of mics, along with some shock mounts and a stereo
> > > mic bar from the Sound Room.
> > >
> > > Got it pretty quick, but the thing that really impressed me was how
> well
> > > all the stuff was packed.
> >
> > I second this. I remember that when the package came, that I was even
> a bit
> > annoyed that I had to put so much effort into unwrapping them. My
> first
> > LDC's, I wanted to look at them as soon as possible, but all the &^%&%
> > bubble wrappers were between me and the mics :-)
> >
> > Of course I was glad the were packed thoroughly, I was just impatient.
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Erwin Timmerman
> >
> > --
> > "Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted in the
> first
> > place" - Fletcher's dad
> >
> > Links to a lot of recording FAQs: http://go.to/recordingfaq
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
From: Taylor Johnson <htjohnson@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: The Sound Room
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:36:39 -0500
Organization: The Sound Room
Guys:
I'm glad you enjoy my packing. Since I like to burn in most
of the stuff right before it goes out - I have the packing
area next to the test bench - so I do most of it anyways.
Isn't this what CUSTOMER SERVICE is supposed to be about?
You should see how my Russian partners pack the incoming
shipments ---- three years of practice and it's down to a
science!
I like the Russian Newspapers,too , but the LUCKY ones get
the English Version of the MOSCOW TIMES!!!!
Thank's so much for the support - I'll pat the staff on the
back and go get another pint of coffee ice cream.....
Taylor
Chief cook, bottle washer
tester, engineer, shipper,
designer, ....... driver
--
The Sound Room
http://www.sound-room.com
Specialists in:
Russian Microphones (RTT,ELATION,OKTAVA,BYETONE,NEVATON,) SABRASOM accessories, ON-STAGE stands/racks EBTECH signal products, RAMTECH cable & FUNK LOGIC accessoriesCheck out Taylor's NEW line of microphones
http://www.theaudio.com
| Condenser mic for home recording [3] |
|---|
From: Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d...>
Subject: Re: Condenser mic for home recording
Date: 31 Jan 2001 11:19:54 -0500
Organization: D & D Data, Vienna, VA
In article <<3A775FDC.7762F4DE@earthlink...>> <cedricl@earthlink...> writes:
> Try to find the original AKG C3000 if you can, not the new 3000B. The
> old one
> has cardiod and hypercardiod paterns. Two mics in one.
Even AKG recognized that the mic needed to sound better. That's why
they redesigned it. For a beginner, a cardioid and a hypercardiod are
not "two mics in one". I wouldn't recommend it for a poor student.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (<mrivers@d-and-d...>)
From: Keith Blackwell <kwb@mtdkbux...>
Subject: Re: Condenser mic for home recording
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:24:12 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Northern Colorado
Cedric Lathan <<cedricl@earthlink...>> wrote:
CL| Try to find the original AKG C3000 if you can, not the new 3000B. The
CL| old one
CL| has cardiod and hypercardiod paterns. Two mics in one. There must be a Guitar
CL| center around that has a pair. The C1000 are nice also. They have an
CL| adapter to
CL| go from cardiod to hyper also.
Omigosh. Well, ok, let's all say that the C1000s can actually be useful
in certain applications to achieve a certain sound. Andy Hong was recently
interviewed in Tape Op, and he praised these mics as having the purest,
sweetest mid-range of any small cardioid condenser. The general consensus,
however, is that they are not a good value for general-purpose condensers
when compared to others in a similar price range (which others have identified
as the Octavas, Crown CM700, Marshall MXL-603s, and if you want omni, the
Audix TR-40), primarily because of their harsh and spitty high-end.
NEVERTHELESS, I have 2 C1000s that I am ready to get rid of, but I want some
money for them so I can afford to buy something better. If you really want
some C1000s, then I'll sell you mine for $155 each. They're in like-new
condition, never abused, etc. Indeed, they do have a pattern converter to
switch from cardioid to hypercardioid, and each pattern has a different off-
axis response, making them a bit more versatile than you might otherwise
think at first. Besides that, they can run off 9V batteries instead of
phantom power, which could be an additional advantage for some folks. So
sure, someone might actually want these mics. Just not me. If you want
them, please buy mine. But the advice being given here is that you
probably *don't* want them.
I'm serious about selling them, by the way. Aren't I a great salesman?
--
Keith W. Blackwell
** If sending email, please edit the return address (remove "NO.UCE.PLEASE.").
** Or use (without the spaces): < keith _ blackwell @ agilent . com > .
** My employer has nothing to do with this posting.
From: George Perfect <xgeorgep@byline...>
Subject: Re: Condenser mic for home recording
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:30:20 -0000
Organization: Byline Group
The Oktava MC012 - I have a pair of them and they knock spots off the pair
of AKG C1000S that were an early purchase (though I occasionally prefer the
AKGs on female choirs).
Digital Village has the MC012 at £179 (haggle, though - I paid less for
mine) for the package with three capsules and a pad or about £100 with the
cardioid capsule alone. Their web site is www.digitalvillage.co.uk
Usual disclaimers - no connection etc. You'll also find these mics at
similar prices at several of the retailers that advertise in SOS so shop
around if you must or, better still, find one locally that lets you listen
before you buy and, even better still, lets you return or exchange after a
couple of weeks if it really doesn't suit you when you get it home.
-- George
My real name is George Perfect
(remove leading 'x' from email address for anti-spam - thanks)
"Tim" <<tim.moss@btinternet...>> wrote in message
news:9577ch$416$<1@plutonium...>...
> I'm looking to get a condenser mic for home recording, I've been
recommended
> a few. Most notably the AKG C1000 and C3000, and there was an Audio
Technica
> one as well.
>
> Anyone have any suggestions/recommendations? It's not for anything
specific.
> I'll probably be recording vocals, acoustic guitars and double bass at
> least, but I'm not restricted to that.
>
> I'm a poor student so preferably not far above the £200 limit.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim.
>
>
| Microphone Question [2] |
|---|
From: Dale Palmer <dalebaby@home...>
Subject: Microphone Question
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:28:41 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I've got a question about microphones. I need to buy a mic and I would like
to spend about $50 for it. Here is my situation. I play banjo and guitar.
I like bluegrass and I also strum a guitar and sing many styles of song.
I have recently started jamming with a country music band most of whom play
electric guitars with amps. I like to play an acoustic guitar and sing as
does the band leader. So far, when it is my turn to sing, someone passes me
their mic.
The band leader asked me to buy a microphone to plug into his mixer (6 or 8
mics) which feeds his amp. The plugs are 1/4 inch plugs. His mic and the
fiddler's mic go to this mixer now.
My plan is to use a mic stand that I own and put a flexible neck on it to
hold a mic which will go to the band leader's amp. I've been trying to
figure out what mic to buy for about $50. I've been reading and am almost
totally confused about low impedance, high impedance, dynamic, and
condenser, cord lengths, plug types (3 prong, 1/4 inch, and 1/8 inch). What
I want to do is have one mic with a 1/4 inch plug and sing and play into it
such that it picks up my voice and the guitar.
What type, make, etc mic would you recommend? Omnidirectional, etc? plug
type? condenser/dynamic? cord length? impedance?
I've already got a cheap mic (good sound though) which has a 1/8 inch plug.
Will an adapter to 1/4 inch work ok? That way I can use the one I already
have. It says 600 ohms which I guess is high impedance and it is a dynamic
mic.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Microphone Question
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:22:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Dale Palmer <<dalebaby@home...>> wrote in message
news:t%Ce6.221485$<iy3.51627758@news1...>...
> I've got a question about microphones. I need to buy a mic and I would
like
> to spend about $50 for it. Here is my situation. I play banjo and
guitar.
> I like bluegrass and I also strum a guitar and sing many styles of song.
>
> I have recently started jamming with a country music band most of whom
play
> electric guitars with amps. I like to play an acoustic guitar and sing as
> does the band leader. So far, when it is my turn to sing, someone passes
me
> their mic.
>
> The band leader asked me to buy a microphone to plug into his mixer (6 or
8
> mics) which feeds his amp. The plugs are 1/4 inch plugs. His mic and
the
> fiddler's mic go to this mixer now.
>
> My plan is to use a mic stand that I own and put a flexible neck on it to
> hold a mic which will go to the band leader's amp. I've been trying to
> figure out what mic to buy for about $50. I've been reading and am almost
> totally confused about low impedance, high impedance, dynamic, and
> condenser, cord lengths, plug types (3 prong, 1/4 inch, and 1/8 inch).
What
> I want to do is have one mic with a 1/4 inch plug and sing and play into
it
> such that it picks up my voice and the guitar.
>
> What type, make, etc mic would you recommend? Omnidirectional, etc? plug
> type? condenser/dynamic? cord length? impedance?
>
> I've already got a cheap mic (good sound though) which has a 1/8 inch
plug.
> Will an adapter to 1/4 inch work ok? That way I can use the one I already
> have. It says 600 ohms which I guess is high impedance and it is a
dynamic
> mic.
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide.
>
The AKG D880 will fill your bill I think it is under 60$ at
www.musiciansfriend.com, DO NOT GET any low cost shure or audio technica
mics they are for crap
George Gleason
| acoustic recording [5] |
|---|
From: Jim Figurski <uglijim@mediaone...>
Subject: acoustic recording
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 03:39:16 GMT
I'm doing some mic recording of an acoustic on my comp. I'm using a
shure-sm 57. I realize this is not the ideal choice for micing acoustics,
however at the same time, i'm trying to be economical. If you could, please
tell me what would be the best mic for recording acoustic guitars in the
$100 range, $200, $300 and $400.
thanks
jim figurski
--
The Unofficial Homepage of Akira Ifukube
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/uglijim
From: Greg Thomas <gjthomas@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: acoustic recording
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:53:24 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Jim Figurski <<uglijim@mediaone...>> wrote in message
news:EDJg6.385$<Q5.274475@typhoon...>...
> I'm doing some mic recording of an acoustic on my comp. I'm using a
> shure-sm 57. I realize this is not the ideal choice for micing acoustics,
> however at the same time, i'm trying to be economical. If you could,
please
> tell me what would be the best mic for recording acoustic guitars in the
> $100 range, $200, $300 and $400.
>
> thanks
> jim figurski
I've had reasonably good luck with Rode NT-1 (about $180) and better with
Rode NT-2 (about $300). Now if you want a really nice sound, try anything
by Neuman (from about $500 on up to as much as you want to spend)
Greg
From: Raymond Varona <gte491n@prism...>
Subject: Re: acoustic recording
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:34:28 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA, USA
"Jim Figurski" <<uglijim@mediaone...>> wrote in message
news:EDJg6.385$<Q5.274475@typhoon...>...
> I'm doing some mic recording of an acoustic on my comp. I'm using a
> shure-sm 57. I realize this is not the ideal choice for micing acoustics,
> however at the same time, i'm trying to be economical. If you could,
please
> tell me what would be the best mic for recording acoustic guitars in the
> $100 range, $200, $300 and $400.
>
> thanks
> jim figurski
>
>
>
> --
> The Unofficial Homepage of Akira Ifukube
> http://people.mw.mediaone.net/uglijim
>
>
I'm not sure if all the old threads are still around and I remember this
being brought up before, but I'll chip in my two cents. If you don't
already have a preamp or mixer, I'd strongly suggest you get one of those
first. I'd suggest somthing like the Spirit powerpad or Behringer Eurorack
series. Both can be had for under $200, and they usually have 4 XLR ins
with phantom power and mic pre's. There's also those ART preamps for about
$100. If you've been going straight from the SM57 to the soundcard via a
mess 'o adapters, I'm sure you'll find the preamp/mixer to be a vast
improvement.
Microphones are a tricky matter, since the only advice I could possibly give
would begin with the phrase, "Well it depends on..." It all really does
depend on your room, style of play, mic distance, tone, etc, etc, etc. In
general though, some of the previously suggested mics are good. In my
humble opinion, I find the Rodes to be a little too harsh (especially the
NT-1) for acoustic guitar. The NT-2 seems fairly good, but when I first
tried the NT-1 it made me cringe. The Marshall is a pretty good value,
considering it's ridiculously cheap, but then again, I prefer the sound of
the SM57. Go figure. Give it a listen though, maybe you'll find that you
like it. I personally use Oktava's now, given my miniscule budget. They're
dirt cheap (at GC, $150 for the MK012 small-diaphragm, and $200 for the
MK319 large-diaphragm), but be warned that they're REALLY inconsistent. I
asked the salesman to bring out three of each and they all sounded
different. One sounded like Niagra falls was next door and another had that
lovely BBBBZZZZ!!! that we all know and love. Generally though, the MK012
(or at least the ones I have) is fairly neutral, if not a little biased
towards the higher registers. The MK319 sounds a little more natural to me,
and mixes in quite nicely with the MK012. The Shure SM-81 is also a decent
choice. I haven't tried the new CAD M177 and M179 multipatterns, but for a
multipattern condenser at around $300, it should be worth a look. Not a big
fan of the Equitek series though. In general, just like a guitar, make sure
and listen to the microphone before you buy. Mics are like instruments and
have their own character, so you'll have to use your own ear to figure out
which one will work for you. Good luck, and feel free to post or email with
any questions or discussions about other mics, techniques, etc.
-Ray
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: acoustic recording
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 15:02:45 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Jim-
As noted by others, this does indeed get asked a lot. You can find
the most recent posts just by using Deja.com; search not only hear
but also in rec.audio.pro. I've also archived some old posts at:
Look in "Technology:Recording". In the $200 - $300 range, I've had
good luck with the Oktava MC012. There is a lot of discussion of
this mic this week on rec.audio.pro (the build quality is not very
consistent; the discussion is on how to find a good one). Also,
I recently copied here reviews of inexpensive Marshall mics by
Harvey Gerst; look for it via Deja. Also check Ty Ford's review
archive: http://users.jagunet.com/~tford/
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Steven Dillon <fingerstyle1@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: acoustic recording
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:18:58 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Jim Figurski wrote:
> I'm doing some mic recording of an acoustic on my comp. I'm using a
> shure-sm 57. I realize this is not the ideal choice for micing acoustics,
> however at the same time, i'm trying to be economical. If you could, please
> tell me what would be the best mic for recording acoustic guitars in the
> $100 range, $200, $300 and $400.
>
> thanks
> jim figurski
Hello Jim,
For my debut CD I used 2 SM-81's in X-Y. They're good
enough - and real good in that price group... If you
want to hear them (mixed with effects out and a 58 on
the amp), check out my MP3s at:
http://mp3.com/stevendillon
Good luck + Keep Picking,
Steven Dillon
--
http://www.stevendillon.com
http://mp3.com/stevendillon
| akoustic & a mic [3] |
|---|
From: Unsung96 <unsung96@aol...>
Subject: akoustic & a mic
Date: 09 Feb 2001 23:21:54 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Well I have to say, I have to apologize to Gleason somewhat(I'll hate myself in
the morning). I've recently played a few gigs with acoustic and a mic and it's
very hard to plug that piezo in again after playing with a mic. It still
wouldn't work for me in a full blown C&W production - wise event but for the
intimate sensitive type thing - it rocks.
From: Unsung96 <unsung96@aol...>
Subject: Re: akoustic & a mic
Date: 10 Feb 2001 02:10:22 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<
Unsung96 <<unsung96@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20010209182154.00806.00000165@ng-fg1...>...
> Well I have to say, I have to apologize to Gleason somewhat(I'll hate
myself in
> the morning). I've recently played a few gigs with acoustic and a mic and
it's
> very hard to plug that piezo in again after playing with a mic. It still
> wouldn't work for me in a full blown C&W production - wise event but for
the
> intimate sensitive type thing - it rocks.
Which mic did you get to use? And don't worry about getting apologies to
me ,I still got plenty of my own to give out. LOL :-)
George
>>Just a 4033 with the little evil ART mic pre. These are tiny clubs with hardly
any production. Just some stuff I've had access to, to carry with me. Worked
pretty good tho. without going back in time thru dejasearch. what do you
suggest for reasonable dollars and sound?
From: Evan Gordon <evan_gordon@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: akoustic & a mic
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:21:33 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
I have a TOA K2 small diaphragm condenser which I've used for live gigs.
I do singer/songwriter stuff solo, just my voice and the guitar. I think
it sounds good and I've gotten some compliments regarding the sound of
my guitars through the PA (usually whatever they have in house, or my
own Yamaha EMX2000). I don't think anyone's ever complimented my
voice, though :-) In my modest project studio at home, I have an AT4033
and a Neumann KM184 through my Great River, (saving for either a
Soundelux U97 or an TLM103) but that stuff is never leaving my
apartment! When I play at open mics in the area, they usually stick a
SM57 (or gasp an SM58) directly in front of my soundhole :-(. I find I
actually prefer my old Dean Markley soundhole pickup to this setup.
Oops, this is RMMGA, not RAP :-)
Mandatory Guitar content - Wish I was home playing a guitar than writing
software!
-Evan
--
Evan Gordon
Singer/Songwriter/Software Engineer
WWW - http://home.earthlink.net/~egordon99
In article <Pu3h6.6561$<Nj5.310736@bgtnsc07-news...>>,
"George Gleason" <g.p.gleason@worldnet.att.net> wrote:> the 4033 is a excellent mic- were you using it "bluegrass" style for
vox
> and guitar or just on guitar with a seperate vox mic?
>
> I don't see anything wrong with the 4033 in either situation
>
> I hear the ART is a ok pre but I am not up on outboard preamps used
this
> way as I am happy with the preamps in my Soundcrafts and Allen&Heaths
> George
>
>
--
Evan Gordon
Singer/Songwriter/Software Engineer
WWW - http://home.earthlink.net/~egordon99
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
| My take on reviews about Oktava, Marshall, ASC, RNC, GR, etc. |
|---|
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: My take on reviews about Oktava, Marshall, ASC, RNC, GR, etc.
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:48:42 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
As the Miff indicated in a rap compilation cartoon, I do ocassionaly feel like
the poster boy for Oktava, and now Marshall (and in the past, the ASC, the RNC,
and Great River). I sure as hell never meant to get into the reviewing
business. But I feel I should clarify exactly how and why I started posting
these reviews.
For those of you that don't know me, I run a very small, bottom-feeder 24-track
recording studio, just north of Dallas, Texas. I've been in the professional
music business (in one form or another) for about 48 years now. Up to a few
years ago, I was very happy just doing my recording thing, and chatting on this
newsgroup, sharing what little I've learned over the last five decades in this
business.
Then Fletcher turned the newsgroup on to the RNC, and (since I'm a
"bottom-feeder") I called Mark and ordered one. At the same time, I made
friends with the Neutrik rep (in another unrelated newsgroup) and he offered to
loan me the Neutrik A2 audio test station for a few months. When the RNC came
in, I decided to play with the test station and test the RNC. It exceeded every
one of its specs by a wide margin, and I posted my findings to the group, which
seemed to help Mark's sales. My intent was to simply validate Fletcher's
findings and say "Yeah, Fletcher's right; this thing rocks".
Same thing with the Neumann TLM-103. When it came out, Fletcher said it was
killer, so I bought (one out of his first batch), and tried to answer a lot of
questions that were being asked here about what it could do, by recording the
first track on the first rap set, using only the TLM-103 for main vocal, fiddle,
mandolin, 3 different acoustic guitars, and background vocals.
A while later, there was a big discussion about the Oktavas on the group and the
prices were in the right ballpark for me. I called Taylor Johnson, and asked if
I could try some of the mics. He apparently had read my test of the RNC and
wanted me to look at the whole line of mics. I agreed, as long as I could let
the "chips fall where they may" - in other words, I'd post my findings about the
stuff to the newsgroup, good, or bad. I got the mics and posted the results
here. Some were good, some bad, and I found some real winners in the batch, at
least for me. It apparently also helped boost Oktava and Lomo sales for Taylor.
I bought the ones I liked and returned the rest to Taylor.
Last year, the same questions arose over the Marshall mic line. I'd been
hearing that MXL was importing the Chinese 797 line, but that they were paying
particular attention to the quality control problems that have plagued every
cheap Chinese mic I've ever heard. At the Sept. AES, I talked to Brent Casey
and made the same deal I made with Taylor. Send the line, I'll test it and
report to the group, good or bad. Brent agreed.
The test was done and I posted the results here, some good, some bad, and, like
the Oktavas, some real surprises. Two good, and very cheap, mics surfaced. I
wound up buying those two models, and forwarded the rest to Ty Ford, since he
wanted to hear them too.
But problems can arise (like the bad batch of MXL-603Ss floating around right
now), and it's a major concern for me, since I'm the one who recommended that
you buy these things in the first place. I'm glad to see that companies like
the Sound Room and Marshall are taking the time to make things right when
problems arise, but I still feel responsible to the people that bought it, based
on my recommendations.
I've commited myself to report on Taylor's new T.H.E. mic line from Germany (and
I'm happy to report that everyone of them turned out great), and Mark's new RNMP
(which I'm sure will be another winner for him).
But I'm not in the review business, and I don't wanna be - I'm just a
bottom-feeder studio, looking for good deals, just like some of the rest of you.
Please take what I say with a grain of salt, and remember that what works for me
may not work for you. Also keep in mind that small companies like the Sound
Room and Marshall have growing pains. But how they respond when there is a
problem is the mark of a good company (if they try to make things right
quickly).
Just remember that when you read my opinion on something, it's just that - MY
opinion - and that's all. I don't work for any of these people, and I don't
want to. I'm happy just being a recording engineer, just sitting here doing my
thing, and trying to be helpful when I can, with what little bits of info I
know. I know many of you understand that, but I thought I should at least make
sure I put something in the record about my position on all this stuff.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
| Neumann KM184 and Schoeps CMC5/MK4 comparison [3] |
|---|
From: Eric Somers <somers@sandbook...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM184 and Schoeps CMC5/MK4 comparison
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 15:13:45 GMT
Organization: Crossroads Systems (netstep.net)
"Mark Carleton" <<mark_carleton@hotmai...>> wrote in message
news:<MPG.152ba9d9c3a5d478989681@news...>...
> Has anyone out there compared a Neumann KM184 microphone with a Schoeps
> CMC5/MK4 microphone?
The Schoeps will sound MUCH better. Well worth the cost.
Eric Somers
Acousmatic Designer
The Sandbook Studio
From: John Rice <imjohn@imjohn...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM184 and Schoeps CMC5/MK4 comparison
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 07:47:31 -0800
Do a Google search on MBHO. They are a German mic manufacturer and
their stuff is compared favorably to Neumann and Schoeps, at a low cost.
Fletcher said that Mercenary may be carrying them in the near future.
Their web site is here :
http://www.mbho.de/
Also I did some quick scans of their price list and their measurement
mics from their brochure last night. You can view them at :
http://www.imjohn.com/images/MBHO-Prices.jpg
http://www.imjohn.com/images/MBHO-550.jpg
http://www.imjohn.com/images/MBHO-540.jpg
John L Rice
<Drummer@ImJohn...>
"Mark Carleton" <<mark_carleton@hotmai...>> wrote in message
news:<MPG.152ba9d9c3a5d478989681@news...>...
>
>
>
> Has anyone out there compared a Neumann KM184 microphone with a
Schoeps
> CMC5/MK4 microphone? I own a pair of KM184 mics and am considering
> getting a pair of the Schoeps mics. I haven't found any individuals
or
> stores in my area that carry the Schoeps.
>
> How do these mics differ sonically? The frequency response graphs for
> the mics look very similar. Is one more sensitive than the other?
>
> I have a small studio with 3 condensers (2 Neumann KM184s and a TLM
103).
> I record instrumental guitar music. I am interested in getting more
mics
> to help me get different sounds.
From: D. Butler <dbsales@icnt...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM184 and Schoeps CMC5/MK4 comparison
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:38:42 -0500
Organization: Acoustics by db
Not really, they just sound different. One will sound "better" in some conditions,
not others.
db
> "Mark Carleton" <<mark_carleton@hotmai...>> wrote in message
> news:<MPG.152ba9d9c3a5d478989681@news...>...
>
> > Has anyone out there compared a Neumann KM184 microphone with a Schoeps
> > CMC5/MK4 microphone?
>
> The Schoeps will sound MUCH better. Well worth the cost.
>
> Eric Somers
> Acousmatic Designer
> The Sandbook Studio
>
>
--
David 'db' Butler, Consultant Acoustics by db "...all the rest are just brokers"now on the web at http://www.db-engineering.com
Boston, MassPhone 617 969-0585 Fax 617 964-1590
| Rode NT1 [4] |
|---|
From: Shirley Worrall <shirl@babe...>
Subject: Rode NT1
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:30:56 +0100
Hello folks,
I bought one of these yesterday. I've not yet tried it out. Has anyone
used one?
Best wishes,
--
Shirl
From: RPM <rmhm@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Rode NT1
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:23:39 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Hi Shirley; Good choice! I bought one of these last year and used it for
all of my home recordings, including RMMGA CD2 and all of my mp3.com songs.
I like it a lot. Enjoy! Rick
"Shirley Worrall" <<shirl@babe...>> wrote in message
news:<06r9ctshjt3b72r22s7u8afe3g16i47rf3@4ax...>...
> Hello folks,
>
> I bought one of these yesterday. I've not yet tried it out. Has anyone
> used one?
>
>
> Best wishes,
> --
> Shirl
>
From: RPM <rmhm@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Rode NT1
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 03:11:15 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Hi Shirley; I'm no expert regarding mics and such, but to my ears it does
everything I want it to for vocals and guitar. However, I do like combining
another source with the NT-1 for my guitar parts. My most recent recordings
used the NT-1 in conjunction with an undersaddle B-Band. Before that, I
used a small condensor AT831 mic along with the NT-1. Using dual sources on
the guitar allows for a spacious stereo effect. Hope this helps! Rick
www.mp3.com/RPM33
"Shirley Worrall" <<shirl@babe...>> wrote in message
news:<sj7actgpu8fk6e8hm4hav5hru0l6fe8q7u@4ax...>...
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:23:39 GMT, "RPM" <<rmhm@earthlink...>> wrote:
>
> Hello Rick,
>
> That's good to hear! I'm looking forward to trying it out tomorrow :)
>
> Do you think of it as particularly good for either guitar or vocals?
> In a couple of shops they said vocals, and in the others they said it
> was good for both.
>
> I'm going over to MP3.com now to check out the sound. Thanks again :)
>
>
> Best wishes,
> --
> Shirl
>
> >Hi Shirley; Good choice! I bought one of these last year and used it
for
> >all of my home recordings, including RMMGA CD2 and all of my mp3.com
songs.
> >I like it a lot. Enjoy! Rick
> >
> >"Shirley Worrall" <<shirl@babe...>> wrote in message
> >news:<06r9ctshjt3b72r22s7u8afe3g16i47rf3@4ax...>...
> >> Hello folks,
> >>
> >> I bought one of these yesterday. I've not yet tried it out. Has anyone
> >> used one?
> >>
> >>
> >> Best wishes,
> >> --
> >> Shirl
> >>
> >
>
>
From: Don and Nan Mitchell <jazzywoman@dsl-only...>
Subject: Re: Rode NT1
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:44:06 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
At my web site you can download an MP3 that was recorded with a Rode NT1. I
think it's great for vocal recording, considering its very reasonable price.
--
Don Mitchell
visit my web site at http://members.dsl-only.net/~jazzman
"Shirley Worrall" <<shirl@babe...>> wrote in message
news:<06r9ctshjt3b72r22s7u8afe3g16i47rf3@4ax...>...
> Hello folks,
>
> I bought one of these yesterday. I've not yet tried it out. Has anyone
> used one?
>
>
> Best wishes,
> --
> Shirl
| mic & mic preamp [14] |
|---|
From: Pat Heyerdahl <pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>
Subject: mic & mic preamp
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 15:36:23 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
I just gave in to an offer to good to pass up and ended up with a Roland
VS-880EX and was wondering if anyone has had good luck with any mic/preamp
combos with this unit.
I play solo fingerstyle on a steel string and only really need a 2 channel
pre. The local stores have mackie and behringer mixers but no dedicated mic
pre's.
The Behringer was a 2 channel mixer with 3 band EQ and would meet my needs
but I wonder about the quality for $100.
OR do I just need to spend more time with the mic sims on the VS? Quality
mic purchase is also on the agenda and opinions are welcome.
Thanks for any help
Pat Heyerdahl
From: Dirk Offringa <dirk.offringa@free...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:30:02 GMT
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
Pat Heyerdahl <<pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>> a écrit dans le message :
9bku0f$5f8$<1@slb0...>...
> The Behringer was a 2 channel mixer with 3 band EQ and would meet my needs
> but I wonder about the quality for $100.
>
> Quality
> mic purchase is also on the agenda and opinions are welcome.
Hi
Stay away from the Behringer, especially if you're planning to purchase a
quality mic. You should do a deja news search for "best preamp
under....(name your price)". This subject is redundant on rec.audio.pro, I
think your question has been exhaustively covered there.
Behringer stuff, in my experience, is "too good to be true" quality/price
ratio. You get what you pay for, not what is advertised.
I have a couple of items from Behringer here. I never use them. They just
make sound worse than what it was before.
My 0.02$
Bye
Dirk
From: George Reiswig <Reiswig@europa...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:14:39 -0700
Organization: Intel Corporation
I would recommend looking into getting an Oktava MC-012 from the Sound Room
(Not Guitar Center), and see if you can get a used Symetrix SX-202 mic
preamp (2 channels, around $200). I think that would give you a
surprisingly good package for not much money.
GR
"Dirk Offringa" <<dirk.offringa@free...>> wrote in message
news:uJuD6.1772$<Lm4.3852391@nnrp1...>...
> Pat Heyerdahl <<pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>> a écrit dans le message :
> 9bku0f$5f8$<1@slb0...>...
>
> > The Behringer was a 2 channel mixer with 3 band EQ and would meet my
needs
> > but I wonder about the quality for $100.
> >
> > Quality
> > mic purchase is also on the agenda and opinions are welcome.
>
> Hi
>
> Stay away from the Behringer, especially if you're planning to purchase a
> quality mic. You should do a deja news search for "best preamp
> under....(name your price)". This subject is redundant on rec.audio.pro, I
> think your question has been exhaustively covered there.
>
> Behringer stuff, in my experience, is "too good to be true" quality/price
> ratio. You get what you pay for, not what is advertised.
>
> I have a couple of items from Behringer here. I never use them. They just
> make sound worse than what it was before.
>
> My 0.02$
>
> Bye
> Dirk
>
>
From: Dirk Offringa <dirk.offringa@free...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:34:05 GMT
Organization: Guest of ProXad - France
Hi
That would sure be a good choice: low budget, more-than-satisfactory
results.
The MC-012 is a good choice for acoustics.
Bye
Dirk
George Reiswig <<Reiswig@europa...>> a écrit dans le message :
9bn2ql$<t61@news...>...
> I would recommend looking into getting an Oktava MC-012 from the Sound
Room
> (Not Guitar Center), and see if you can get a used Symetrix SX-202 mic
> preamp (2 channels, around $200). I think that would give you a
> surprisingly good package for not much money.
>
> GR
> "Dirk Offringa" <<dirk.offringa@free...>> wrote in message
> news:uJuD6.1772$<Lm4.3852391@nnrp1...>...
> > Pat Heyerdahl <<pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>> a écrit dans le message :
> > 9bku0f$5f8$<1@slb0...>...
> >
> > > The Behringer was a 2 channel mixer with 3 band EQ and would meet my
> needs
> > > but I wonder about the quality for $100.
> > >
> > > Quality
> > > mic purchase is also on the agenda and opinions are welcome.
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Stay away from the Behringer, especially if you're planning to purchase
a
> > quality mic. You should do a deja news search for "best preamp
> > under....(name your price)". This subject is redundant on rec.audio.pro,
I
> > think your question has been exhaustively covered there.
> >
> > Behringer stuff, in my experience, is "too good to be true"
quality/price
> > ratio. You get what you pay for, not what is advertised.
> >
> > I have a couple of items from Behringer here. I never use them. They
just
> > make sound worse than what it was before.
> >
> > My 0.02$
> >
> > Bye
> > Dirk
> >
> >
>
>
From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 06:34:04 -0500
Organization: SBC Internet Services
In article <9bku0f$5f8$<1@slb0...>>, Pat Heyerdahl
<<pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>> wrote:
> I just gave in to an offer to good to pass up and ended up with a Roland
> VS-880EX and was wondering if anyone has had good luck with any mic/preamp
> combos with this unit.
> I play solo fingerstyle on a steel string and only really need a 2 channel
> pre. The local stores have mackie and behringer mixers but no dedicated mic
> pre's.
>
> The Behringer was a 2 channel mixer with 3 band EQ and would meet my needs
> but I wonder about the quality for $100.
>
> OR do I just need to spend more time with the mic sims on the VS? Quality
> mic purchase is also on the agenda and opinions are welcome.
Congratulations! The VS series are great machines. I have a VS880-EX,
too, and am very happy with it (obnoxious spam: I recorded my CD, "Some
Folks", with it -- you can get it through <http://www.alevans.com>).
I use a Peavey VMP-2 mic preamp with Neumann KM-184 and TLM-103 mics.
But there are probably less expensive solutions that work substantially
as well.
The Mackie mixers, even the least expensive ones, are generally
acknowledged to have mic preamps of much higher quality than the VS's
built-in ones (which suck, to put it bluntly).
I haven't used the mic sims, but I'm quite sure they're no replacement
for good mics.
On the other hand, I find the built-in compression works pretty well
for my purposes (guitar and voice), as does the reverb. And you should
make sure to get the latest software, with the "Mastering Toolkit"
patches, if you haven't already got it on the machine. It's not a
substitute for "pro" mastering, but it's very useful (good EQ,
multiband compression, soft limiting) when it's time to burn a CD.
--Al Evans--
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:25:21 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
George Reiswig wrote:
>
> I would recommend looking into getting an Oktava MC-012 from the Sound Room
> (Not Guitar Center), and see if you can get a used Symetrix SX-202 mic
> preamp (2 channels, around $200). I think that would give you a
> surprisingly good package for not much money.
I use exactly this combination (though I got my Oktavas before the Sound
Room started carrying them), and I second George's recommendation---I'm
happy with it!
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:51:36 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Dirk Offringa <<dirk.offringa@free...>> wrote:
> Stay away from the Behringer, especially if you're planning to purchase a
> quality mic. You should do a deja news search for "best preamp
> under....(name your price)". This subject is redundant on rec.audio.pro, I
> think your question has been exhaustively covered there.
> Behringer stuff, in my experience, is "too good to be true" quality/price
> ratio. You get what you pay for, not what is advertised.
> I have a couple of items from Behringer here. I never use them. They just
> make sound worse than what it was before.
Well put, Dirk. I avoided meeting that head-on lest I be labeled one o'
them rec.audio.pro snobs. But you've whacked the nail a good headache
and I am reminded that a few years back my drummer neighbor bought a
Behri quad gate for his drum kit, and that gate now collects dust in a
store room next to his woodshop.
And good of you to point him to the Google archives for a looksee at the
rec.audio.pro material. Here's the link to Google's handy advanced
Usenet search function:
<http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search>
Only caveat is that with twenty zillion pres and mics out there and
eighteen rap posts for every one of 'em, getting a handle could
represent a life's work. <g>
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:51:38 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Al Evans <<al@tbtm...>> wrote:
> I use a Peavey VMP-2 mic preamp with Neumann KM-184 and TLM-103 mics.
> But there are probably less expensive solutions that work substantially
> as well.
The Peavey VMP2 is surprisingly good and can sometimes be found used for
as little as $375. The bass and treble EQ is a bonus, and the box
doubles as a pretty good DI for electric bass and guitar, not so good
for piezos due to the 200K ohm impedance of the instrument input.
> The Mackie mixers, even the least expensive ones, are generally
> acknowledged to have mic preamps of much higher quality than the VS's
> built-in ones (which suck, to put it bluntly).
Well said. The little Mackie 1202 VLZ Pro has very clean pres. An
important thing with them is that they work well with some mics and less
well with others. Results with the Shure SM57 are disappointing, for
instance, while they work nicely with many inexpensive condensors and
also with the Audix OM line of dynamic mics, excluding the high end OM7.
> I haven't used the mic sims, but I'm quite sure they're no replacement
> for good mics.
Right, one cannot add that which was never captured in the orginal act
of recording.
> On the other hand, I find the built-in compression works pretty well
> for my purposes (guitar and voice), as does the reverb.
One thing to keep in mind about built-in digital compression is that it
is an after-the-fact activity, as opposed to analog compression ahead of
the conversion from analog to digital, with which one can shape the
sound to be converted prior to that act and often get better results
from the built-in convertors. The FMR Audio RNC (Really Nice Compressor)
is a little jewel for this kind of work and costs under $200.
Info at <http://www.fmraudio.com>
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:12:36 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
CSM <<xxxcsmcnair@sympatico...>> wrote:
> What would you recommend as a goo mic for acoustic guitar and voice - to go
> along with the Mackie 1202? Are you familiar with Oktava MC-012 -
> inexpensive condensor? It seems to be getting good comments for this use and
> I'm wondering if it would be a good combo.
Good for the money, though if you close mic the voice you will probably
need a pop screen of some sort, which you can make from an embroidery
hoop and stocking nylon.
And Oktavas from The Sound Room are worth the small additional cost for
reliability, consistency and performance compared to the Guitar Center
offerings. In addition, you can rely on support from Taylor Johnson and
crew at The Sound Room.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:51:33 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Pat Heyerdahl <<pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>> wrote:
> The Behringer was a 2 channel mixer with 3 band EQ and would meet my needs
> but I wonder about the quality for $100.
Good. May that sense of wonder by thy salvation.
So how much would you like not to have to spend to get a good mic and
preamp combo?
> OR do I just need to spend more time with the mic sims on the VS? Quality
> mic purchase is also on the agenda and opinions are welcome.
I personally prefer good mics and preamps to any attempt to emulate from
a poor mic and poor preamp the results one might achieve from the better
grade of kit. Think of it like putting the logo from a really good
luthier onto a Framus. Does the Framus now wage battle with the big
guns? I think not. (Shut up, Norman.)
Seriously, good mics and good mic preamps deliver more of the detail
presented by the source. One cannot add that after the fact no matter
what. One can phase shift, and EQ and muck araound 'till the cows stop
going mad, but still, the sound is not what it might have been. So spec
a budget and I'm sure the rmmga system will spend it for you, no matter
how small or how large.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Pat Heyerdahl <pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:44:42 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Thanks to all for the advice. I've learned my lesson from buying cheap stuff
in the past. I usually end up unsatisfied and getting what I really wanted
anyway. So after searching the archives and websites I'm going to suck it up
and head for the Great River MP-2 or MP-2MH. Once I get past the idea of the
preamp costing twice as much as I paid for the Roland unit, I'll probably
pull the trigger. I called around and everyone was in agreement that this is
the best choice I could make.
Amazing how the steal I got on this 880 has lead me down a dangerous path.
Then again my brother just bought a $20,000 Harley he can only ride 6 months
a year. I guess that means I have $10,000 left for my mic budget.:)
Thanks again,
Pat Heyerdahl
"hank alrich" <<walkinay@thegrid...>> wrote in message
news:<1es4r1q.5fsaklfiq4epN@209-162-27-12...>...
> Pat Heyerdahl <<pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>> wrote:
>
> > The Behringer was a 2 channel mixer with 3 band EQ and would meet my
needs
> > but I wonder about the quality for $100.
>
> Good. May that sense of wonder by thy salvation.
>
> So how much would you like not to have to spend to get a good mic and
> preamp combo?
>
> > OR do I just need to spend more time with the mic sims on the VS?
Quality
> > mic purchase is also on the agenda and opinions are welcome.
>
> I personally prefer good mics and preamps to any attempt to emulate from
> a poor mic and poor preamp the results one might achieve from the better
> grade of kit. Think of it like putting the logo from a really good
> luthier onto a Framus. Does the Framus now wage battle with the big
> guns? I think not. (Shut up, Norman.)
>
> Seriously, good mics and good mic preamps deliver more of the detail
> presented by the source. One cannot add that after the fact no matter
> what. One can phase shift, and EQ and muck araound 'till the cows stop
> going mad, but still, the sound is not what it might have been. So spec
> a budget and I'm sure the rmmga system will spend it for you, no matter
> how small or how large.
>
> --
> hank alrich * secret__mountain
> audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
> "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Carlos Alden <calden@iea...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:37:09 GMT
Organization: Verio
In article <9bpekr$2oa$<1@slb2...>>, "Pat Heyerdahl"
<<pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>> wrote:
>Thanks to all for the advice. I've learned my lesson from buying cheap stuff
>in the past. I usually end up unsatisfied and getting what I really wanted
>anyway. So after searching the archives and websites I'm going to suck it up
>and head for the Great River MP-2 or MP-2MH. Once I get past the idea of the
>preamp costing twice as much as I paid for the Roland unit, I'll probably
>pull the trigger. I called around and everyone was in agreement that this is
>the best choice I could make.
Pat:
I am in the process of looking at mic pres. I have ordered a CD which
features a number of mic pres using the same mic and source material and
gain levels. The purpose of this is to demonstrate the sound qualities
and differences for potential buyers.
GO to
http://www.mercenary.com/bospreparmic.html
I haven't yet heard it - it shoudl be arriving any day. I think it was
about $10.
I have been trying to convince my band that we need a better mic pre
before digital reverb, studio chairs, new headphones, things like that.
They are quite satisfied with the mackie pres going into our Digi 001
system. It has been hard for me to make a case because I havent' yet
heard the higher quality mic pres myself, but from lurking around
rec.audio.pro and getting the fine opinions of people like Mr. Alrich I
have learned a lot.
Carlos
--
-Alternative and Trad Celtic Music with THE CELTIC NOTS
go to: www.celticnots.com
-THE NACHO CELTIC HOUR: Celtic, Folk, and Kids' Music on the Radio!
go to: www.kpbx.org/programs/nacho.htm
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:12:39 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Carlos Alden <<calden@iea...>> wrote:
> I am in the process of looking at mic pres. I have ordered a CD which
> features a number of mic pres using the same mic and source material and
> gain levels. The purpose of this is to demonstrate the sound qualities
> and differences for potential buyers.
> GO to
> http://www.mercenary.com/bospreparmic.html
And there is a new and more comprehensive offering from
Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc
Music Mixing and Mastering
On a scenic hilltop outside of historic
Franklin, Tennessee
http://www.3daudioinc.com
You can get details or order from Lynn's website. He has also just
released a CD of mic comparisons, done the same way, and it is getting
raves as a tool to help folks learn at least something about the
characteristics of various mics, both pricey and inexpensive, without
having to travel or shell out a lot of cash to try mics.
Mercenary Audio's Boston Pre Party, which Carlos references above, was a
good start at this sort of thing, and is fun and helpful to audition.
But they used the stock analog to digital convertors of the Panasonice
SV3700 DAT machine to which they recorded, and those are not a good
choice if one is trying to discern fine detail in a recording.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: mic & mic preamp
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 09:12:38 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Pat Heyerdahl <<pmheyerdahl@mindspring...>> wrote:
> Thanks to all for the advice. I've learned my lesson from buying cheap stuff
> in the past. I usually end up unsatisfied and getting what I really wanted
> anyway. So after searching the archives and websites I'm going to suck it up
> and head for the Great River MP-2 or MP-2MH. Once I get past the idea of the
> preamp costing twice as much as I paid for the Roland unit, I'll probably
> pull the trigger. I called around and everyone was in agreement that this is
> the best choice I could make.
A lot of folks have contacted me over the past few years, having bought
a Great River for work similar to that which you pursue, and every
single one of them has been thrilled, not just pleased with the results.
They range from home recordists to a guy working with a cusomized Neve
board that's worth about $350K. The most recent is a fine classical
guitarist from the Nevada City CA area, who went from Shure SM81s and an
ART preamp to a pair of Neumann TLM 103s and a Great River MP2. He'd
done several CDs with the old rig, and he is having to deal with
goosebumps over the difference in sound with the new rig. Next we'll
point him at a good ADC and regoosebumpify him all over again.
Unless you have serious RF or EMI interference issues in your recording
environment you do not need the "MH" option, which adds considerably to
the cost. The standard version will drive balanced or unbalanced inputs
with no difficulty, even over very long cable runs.
I orginally spec'd the first "MH" Great River MP2 because I wanted both
type of outputs and in some cases, both simultaneously. But it does cost
a lot more (those Jensen transformers are keen but pricey) and if you
don't need it, the difference could buy another useful tool for your
recording.
> Amazing how the steal I got on this 880 has lead me down a dangerous path.
> Then again my brother just bought a $20,000 Harley he can only ride 6 months
> a year. I guess that means I have $10,000 left for my mic budget.:)
LOL!
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
| Acoustic Microphone of Choice [10] |
|---|
From: Glenn <hersh@aol...>
Subject: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: 06 May 2001 17:54:45 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hi all. Can any of you offer suggestions for a "mic of choice" to use with an
acoustic guitar? I will eventually be putting some sort of pickup system into
my Martin D-42K, but until I decide on which type and model to go with, I am
looking for microphone suggestions. Are some brands/models more suited for
this use? Thanks for any suggestions that you may have. Take care....Glenn
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:40:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Glenn <<hersh@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20010506135445.07339.00002405@ng-ce1...>...
> Hi all. Can any of you offer suggestions for a "mic of choice" to use
with an
> acoustic guitar? I will eventually be putting some sort of pickup system
into
> my Martin D-42K, but until I decide on which type and model to go with, I
am
> looking for microphone suggestions. Are some brands/models more suited
for
> this use? Thanks for any suggestions that you may have. Take
care....Glenn
I would go to the AKG 535 and when you get a pick-up you like you will own
a top grade vocal mic
George
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@home...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 00:38:28 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
in article fUgJ6.7759$<4f7.576264@bgtnsc06-news...>, George
Gleason at <g.p.gleason@worldnet...> wrote on 5/6/01 11:40 AM:
> Glenn <<hersh@aol...>> wrote in message
> news:<20010506135445.07339.00002405@ng-ce1...>...
>> Hi all. Can any of you offer suggestions for a "mic of choice" to use
> with an
>> acoustic guitar? I will eventually be putting some sort of pickup system
> into
>> my Martin D-42K, but until I decide on which type and model to go with, I
> am
>> looking for microphone suggestions. Are some brands/models more suited
> for
>> this use? Thanks for any suggestions that you may have. Take
> care....Glenn
>
> I would go to the AKG 535 and when you get a pick-up you like you will own
> a top grade vocal mic
> George
I researched numerous mikes for recording acoustic guitar (fingerstyle).I chose the Neumann TLM 103 over others in the $1,000 or less price range.
The Neumann is, well its a Neumann. The Neumann KM 184 is another top
choice (small condenser, very high quality). Another good choice is the AKG
414 (there are two variations with this mike).
--
Stephen T. Boyke
From: John Williams <jwms@halcyon...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:05:11 -0700
What price range and what's the mic going to plug into?
If it's a "pro" setup with a mixer/recorder that supplies phantom power you
have several choices in every range:
Rode NT-1, Joe Meek Meekrophone, PMIAudio C1 are all ok in the $250 range.
There are others too.
Rode and PMIAudio have products in the $300 to $700 (and up) range also.
If you want to spend more on a mic, the pre-amp is going to start to matter
a whole lot too. Frankly, if you have that much to spend, you'll be lots
better off spending only a fraction at first so you can get a feel for what
you like. I guarantee it's nearly impossible to get a mic that's going to
suit your long-term tastes the first time out.
The standard advice is to try some of mics and let your ears tell you but
some folks can't swing it either because of their location or they don't
know what to listen for. If you are starting out, you're just going to have
to dive in and plan on making mistakes.
www.mp3.com/handpicked
Glenn <<hersh@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20010506135445.07339.00002405@ng-ce1...>...
> Hi all. Can any of you offer suggestions for a "mic of choice" to use
with an
> acoustic guitar? I will eventually be putting some sort of pickup system
into
> my Martin D-42K, but until I decide on which type and model to go with, I
am
> looking for microphone suggestions. Are some brands/models more suited
for
> this use? Thanks for any suggestions that you may have. Take
care....Glenn
>
From: John Zyla <zyla@joymail...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 03:11:22 GMT
Perhaps you could give an indication of your budget? ALso of
inportance is the application - recording or live? THis distinction is
quite important. There are many *great* mics out there, and a lot
more *ok* mics out there for less money. One thing to consider is
putting some money in your eq setup. A lot can be done to customize
the response for guitar, with many different mics in the "ok"
category.
You don't have to sprong the bucks for a Neumann to have adequate
sound. Really. Neumanns are nice though ......
good luck
On 06 May 2001 17:54:45 GMT, <hersh@aol...> (Glenn) wrote:
>Hi all. Can any of you offer suggestions for a "mic of choice" to use with an
>acoustic guitar? I will eventually be putting some sort of pickup system into
>my Martin D-42K, but until I decide on which type and model to go with, I am
>looking for microphone suggestions. Are some brands/models more suited for
>this use? Thanks for any suggestions that you may have. Take care....Glenn
From: Rich McCarthy <richmccarthy@home...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 13:33:27 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
On Mon, 07 May 2001 12:45:11 GMT, "MAIB"
<<messerabout@worldnet...>> wrote:
>I always find these mic discussions interesting, because I don't have a clue
>how to decide what's a good mic (which probably means I don't need one <g>).
>
>But maybe someone could tell me: what's wrong with the old standby, the
>Shure SM57 for instruments. Or the SM58 for voice. ??
>
>All I do is amateur home recording just to listen to myself practicing, so I
>can try to hear mistakes and improve. But I'd be curious to know why these
>mics wouln't be good for other applications.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Mark
>
57's and 58's have been widely used for a generation. Not bad mics,
but middling in quality.
I had the opportunity last year in a seminar about sound
reinforcement, to try out 8 different vocal mics in a comparison test,
set up on stage, in an auditorium with a professional sound system.
The event was part of a week long celtic music learning event. The
testers were us-the people taking the sound course-and also groups of
people brought in from the other music classes.
The 58 sounded ok---until you heard and compared it immediately to
others. Some people did like the sound of the 58, with their own
voices. Each of the other mics also was chosen favorite by some of the
testers.
My personal favorite was a condensor mic, the AKG 535.
It was also the vocal mic used for all the performances that week.
I've since bought two of them for vocals, for my wife and me.
The instrument mic for performances were Shure sm81's-also a condensor
mic.
From: David Kilpatrick <david@maxwellplace...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 15:38:48 +0100
Organization: Icon Publications Ltd
MAIB wrote:
>
> I always find these mic discussions interesting, because I don't have a clue
> how to decide what's a good mic (which probably means I don't need one <g>).
>
> But maybe someone could tell me: what's wrong with the old standby, the
> Shure SM57 for instruments. Or the SM58 for voice. ??
>
They are very mushy and low gain compared to condensor mikes. Just not
very crisp, need to be extremely close. On the other hand, they don't
pick up much of the room except for narrow feedback prone bands. With a
condensor mike you can hear every rustle of the player's clothing and
you can hear them breathe while they are playing (even if they don't
sing). That's the difference. Also, if you try to sing into a condensor
mike by 'eating it' the way you should an SM58, you can seriously
overdrive the sensitive diaphragm.
I use both types since they both have uses. Main difference: dynamic
mikes any day for PA gig use, condensor preferred for studio recordings
where you can fiddle with the colour of the sound later using EQ.
Condensor mikes can be too revealing, but as with any form of 'capture',
it helps to start with more information not less. You can always cut it
down later. On stage, it helps if the mike does some of the work for you
and SM58/57 close miking is a good solution.
But if you need to know the difference, just try a modest condensor
mike, the sort which costs maybe 2X as much as an SM58, sometime. It's
like the difference between old AM radio and modern FM stereo - both can
be great, but if you were stuck with just one sound, you know which it
would have to be.
David
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 00:05:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
David condensors are very much up to general PA use. I only reach for my
dynamics if it is raining.
From the shure beta 98 on drums to the neumann 105 on vox beta 91 on kick
neumann 184 on acoustic guitars though I do use beta 57a's for marshall
stacks and leslie.
I think you will find good condensors are choosen over good dynamics
but good dynamtics should be choosen over bad condensors like the
Audio-technica 37 or CAD products
It all comes down to knowing how mics work,what they sound like , and what
your goal is.
George
From: BrianMcCar <brianmccar@aol...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: 09 May 2001 01:04:34 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Everyone is suggesting fairly high-end mikes. For practical use, an AKG
>C1000S will do best and should be well under $200.
The new AKG C2000B is a much better-sounding mic than the C1000S (I have both)
and it is on sale at GC this month for $199. I plan on picking up a second
one.
The C2000B is a small-diaphragm mic that looks like a large-diaphragm. It is
cardioid only (unlike the C1000S which has both cardioid and hypercardioid) and
does not have the C1000S's battery capability for use without phantom power.
Brian McCarthy
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@home...>
Subject: Re: Acoustic Microphone of Choice
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 02:30:31 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
in article <20010508210434.04929.00001681@ng-ce1...>, BrianMcCar at
<brianmccar@aol...> wrote on 5/8/01 6:04 PM:
>> Everyone is suggesting fairly high-end mikes. For practical use, an AKG
>> C1000S will do best and should be well under $200.
I'm one who suggested a higher end mike for recording acoustic guitar,which is notoriously difficult to record. The "front end" of recording
(i.e., analog mike and preamp before going digital) is the most important
part of the chain. Skimping on the mike is not a good idea. Better to save
up the $$ and get a better mike (of course you need two mikes). I have a
C1000S and it is vastly inferior the the Neumann TLM 103. There is a light
year of difference, through headphones, through reference monitors and after
converting the digital file to 16 bit 44.1mHz (CD quality). A C1000S can be
found for about $150 new. A Neumann TLM 103 can be had for about $675 (on
the net, authorized dealer). The extra $525 is well worth it. With two
mikes, the difference is double, but still a smart move.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
| Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??! [12] |
|---|
From: George Reiswig <Reiswig@europa...>
Subject: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 08:41:14 -0700
Organization: Intel Corporation
Hi, all.
For our CD, we've been using Oktava MC-012 mics in combination with oneof a few other mics (Neumann KMS-105, AKG 414, etc.) to record our acoustic
guitars. Usually the Oktava is pointed at the 12th fret, the other mic is
somewhere down toward the heel to catch the wood and a bit of space. During
mixdown, I've had to boost bass a fair amount to get the full sound I'm
after.
Just for grins one session, I popped an omni capsule onto the Oktava,and toyed with the position. To my surprise, I could stick the thing almost
right in front of the soundhole, and get a great sound. Lately, we've been
using an Oktava and an Earthworks, both omnis, to record acoustic guitar.
As I've understood it, the rule of thumb was to use a cardioid mic inthis application. Anyone else use omnis?
GR
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:43:32 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"George Reiswig" <<Reiswig@europa...>> wrote:
>Hi, all.
> For our CD, we've been using Oktava MC-012 mics in combination with one
>of a few other mics (Neumann KMS-105, AKG 414, etc.) to record our acoustic
>guitars. Usually the Oktava is pointed at the 12th fret, the other mic is
>somewhere down toward the heel to catch the wood and a bit of space. During
>mixdown, I've had to boost bass a fair amount to get the full sound I'm
>after.
> Just for grins one session, I popped an omni capsule onto the Oktava,
>and toyed with the position. To my surprise, I could stick the thing almost
>right in front of the soundhole, and get a great sound. Lately, we've been
>using an Oktava and an Earthworks, both omnis, to record acoustic guitar.
> As I've understood it, the rule of thumb was to use a cardioid mic in
>this application. Anyone else use omnis?
George,
That's pretty much all we use these days on acoustic guitars.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Lary Nefzger <lary.nefzger@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 18:11:41 GMT
Omnis are wonderful for numerous applications where isolation is not the
prime concern (and if the source is loud even that concern is lessened).
Omnis lack the proximity effect (and consequent "mud" build up) and add the
"air" of the room to the instrument being tracked. Acoustic guitars benefit
greatly from these characteristics.
--
Lary "Larz" Nefzger
Audio Engineer
Systems Integration Specialist
tel: 425-241-6096 (cel)
email: <lary.nefzger@verizon...>
> From: Harvey Gerst <<harvey@ITRstudio...>>
> Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
> Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 11:43:32 -0500
> Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
>
> "George Reiswig" <<Reiswig@europa...>> wrote:
>
>> Hi, all.
>> For our CD, we've been using Oktava MC-012 mics in combination with one
>> of a few other mics (Neumann KMS-105, AKG 414, etc.) to record our acoustic
>> guitars. Usually the Oktava is pointed at the 12th fret, the other mic is
>> somewhere down toward the heel to catch the wood and a bit of space. During
>> mixdown, I've had to boost bass a fair amount to get the full sound I'm
>> after.
>> Just for grins one session, I popped an omni capsule onto the Oktava,
>> and toyed with the position. To my surprise, I could stick the thing almost
>> right in front of the soundhole, and get a great sound. Lately, we've been
>> using an Oktava and an Earthworks, both omnis, to record acoustic guitar.
>> As I've understood it, the rule of thumb was to use a cardioid mic in
>> this application. Anyone else use omnis?
>
> George,
>
> That's pretty much all we use these days on acoustic guitars.
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Jay Kahrs <brownsnd14@aol...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: 08 May 2001 17:17:58 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> As I've understood it, the rule of thumb was to use a cardioid mic in
>this application. Anyone else use omnis?
It depends on the player and the guitar but I'd say I end up with an omni about
75% of the time.
---
-Jay Kahrs
Owner - Engineer - Producer
Mad Moose Recording Inc.
Morris Plains, NJ
http://www.madmooserecording.com
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: 8 May 2001 14:05:49 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
George Reiswig <<Reiswig@europa...>> wrote:
> Just for grins one session, I popped an omni capsule onto the Oktava,
>and toyed with the position. To my surprise, I could stick the thing almost
>right in front of the soundhole, and get a great sound. Lately, we've been
>using an Oktava and an Earthworks, both omnis, to record acoustic guitar.
> As I've understood it, the rule of thumb was to use a cardioid mic in
>this application. Anyone else use omnis?
>
Sure! I use B&K omnis for all kinds of things and they are often the
first choice here for that sort of work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 18:01:02 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi folks-
Since George brought up the topic... Given that the tone of the
omni is nice, is there a standard way to record stereo with omnis
that will preserve what one likes about the mono tone?
Thanks,
Tom Loredo
From: Goober <g.price11@ntlworld...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 22:53:30 +0100
Organization: ttt
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote in message
news:<3AF86C9E.F4B0399A@spacenet...>...
>
> Hi folks-
>
> Since George brought up the topic... Given that the tone of the
> omni is nice, is there a standard way to record stereo with omnis
> that will preserve what one likes about the mono tone?
Simple.
Just keep them fairly close. You'll just get enough difference in the HF to
give it some stereo, but the mid and bass will keep together. You could even
use an XY setup, I've had great results using omnis like this for room
micing drums, though it's a pretty unusual way of using them.
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: 8 May 2001 18:02:44 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Tom Loredo <<loredo@spacenet...>> wrote:
>
>Since George brought up the topic... Given that the tone of the
>omni is nice, is there a standard way to record stereo with omnis
>that will preserve what one likes about the mono tone?
Baffled omni systems like the Jecklin Disc and the Schoeps Sphere
do just this.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Benjamin Maas <benmaas@fifthcircle...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:48:13 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
I like to record classical guitar one of two ways... A stereo microphone in
mid-side (usually an AKG 426 or a Neumann SM69 tube) or a pair of B&K 4006
omnis in sort of an ORTF configuration on a stereo bar. I usually position
on a small stand about 18" or so off the gound. Usually I'll put a mat on
the ground to minimize floor reflections. Works great...
--Ben
--
Benjamin Maas:’9«fth Circle Audio
Los Angeles, CA
http://www.fifthcircle.com
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: Wed, 9 May 01 14:46:38 GMT
Organization: Jagunet Access Services (using Airnews.net!)
In Article <9d9406$<jb5@news...>>, "George Reiswig"
<<Reiswig@europa...>> wrote:
>Hi, all.
> For our CD, we've been using Oktava MC-012 mics in combination with one
>of a few other mics (Neumann KMS-105, AKG 414, etc.) to record our acoustic
>guitars. Usually the Oktava is pointed at the 12th fret, the other mic is
>somewhere down toward the heel to catch the wood and a bit of space. During
>mixdown, I've had to boost bass a fair amount to get the full sound I'm
>after.
> Just for grins one session, I popped an omni capsule onto the Oktava,
>and toyed with the position. To my surprise, I could stick the thing almost
>right in front of the soundhole, and get a great sound. Lately, we've been
>using an Oktava and an Earthworks, both omnis, to record acoustic guitar.
> As I've understood it, the rule of thumb was to use a cardioid mic in
>this application. Anyone else use omnis?
>
>GR
George,
I don't remember there being a cardioid rule of thumb for acoustic guitars.
In general, their proximity effect requires all sorts of contortions
Ty Ford is a member of the Maryland Production Alliance
http://www.MDproductionalliance.org
His audio demos and equipment reviews are available at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: Wed, 9 May 01 15:00:54 GMT
Organization: Jagunet Access Services (using Airnews.net!)
In Article <9d9406$<jb5@news...>>, "George Reiswig"
<<Reiswig@europa...>> wrote:
>Hi, all.
> For our CD, we've been using Oktava MC-012 mics in combination with one
>of a few other mics (Neumann KMS-105, AKG 414, etc.) to record our acoustic
>guitars. Usually the Oktava is pointed at the 12th fret, the other mic is
>somewhere down toward the heel to catch the wood and a bit of space. During
>mixdown, I've had to boost bass a fair amount to get the full sound I'm
>after.
> Just for grins one session, I popped an omni capsule onto the Oktava,
>and toyed with the position. To my surprise, I could stick the thing almost
>right in front of the soundhole, and get a great sound. Lately, we've been
>using an Oktava and an Earthworks, both omnis, to record acoustic guitar.
> As I've understood it, the rule of thumb was to use a cardioid mic in
>this application. Anyone else use omnis?
>
>GR
George,
Oops, sorry I sneezed and hit the send key.
Cardioids are just more plentiful. I think that's why they get grabbed
first. However they are not always the best mics for the job, especially if
they are large diaphragm. (Having said that, I've made some very nice
recordings that way.)
A few years ago, while reviewing the Rode Classic, I stumbled back onto
something I had forgotten earlier when I was using small beyer dynamic omnis
on acoustic guitar. You can get them right up to the sound hole. Doing so
makes the guitar sound big and reduces the sound of nearby instruments.
Some will say that the true sound of an acoustic guitar comes off of the
face. Well they are right, but the face is rather large and different sounds
come from different places. If you follow that thread, you end up with the
"Lets see how many mics we can use on this one guitar" approach. Too many
mics results in a phase cancellation nightmare, especially when you
mono-down the mics.
I think a lot of this came from the fact that you really can't get a
cardioid as close to the guitar as people think it should be. So they try to
compensate for that by using more mics.
Typically, I'll have the player play the instrument and walk around
listening for where the lobes of sound are coming from. I'll start by
putting the mics there and then moving them about a bit to taste.
Depending on the guitar and the omni, a single omni can make an acoustic
guitar sound huge and you won't have any phase cancellation problems. Want
some space? Try coincident small diaphragm omnis relatively close to the
soundhole.
Read other posts to find out how the multi-mic contingent solves the
problem, experiment with it all and get back to us with your results.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford is a member of the Maryland Production Alliance
http://www.MDproductionalliance.org
His audio demos and equipment reviews are available at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: JnyVee <moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>
Subject: Re: Omni pattern mics on acoustic guitar??!
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 10:59:59 -0400
Organization: Victorian Digital Wire Recorders LLC
and to add confusion to the fire, I fought hard to find the 'sound' of
a Martin D-12-20... it always came up sounding thin or like a cigar box
(which is a problem with many good acoustic string instruments... old
piano-forte, harpsichord, oud ...) until in desperation I 'broke the
rule' of experience and found the sound with a good condensor cardioid
positioned dead over the bridge-side-LIP of the (GASP!) sound hole (!)
only SLIGHTLY angled at the neck... and it was HUGELY position-critical
if I was to avoid the 'hollow-box-syndrome'.
MORAL?
You Never Know Till You've Tried EVERYTHING.Holmesian Version:
Once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever is LEFT, however
improbable it seems, is where your answer lies.
Cute Comment Version:
You always find something in the last place you look...
--
<Help Keep The Net Emoticon-free!>
| Omni's on Acoustic Guitar [5] |
|---|
From: Rich Kelley <rkelley@vcd...>
Subject: Omni's on Acoustic Guitar
Date: 9 May 2001 02:26:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Vancouver Site
To follow up on a previous post about using omni's on an
acoustic guitar, which omni's are you using? A few folks
mentioned particular mics, but many did not. Any favorites?
Rich Kelley
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Omni's on Acoustic Guitar
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:46:41 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<rkelley@vcd...> (Rich Kelley) wrote:
>To follow up on a previous post about using omni's on an
>acoustic guitar, which omni's are you using? A few folks
>mentioned particular mics, but many did not. Any favorites?
>
>Rich Kelley
My two favorites are the Audix TR-40 and the new T.H.E. KP-6M.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Myles Boisen <mylesaudio@aol...>
Subject: Re: Omni's on Acoustic Guitar
Date: 09 May 2001 04:35:09 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Oktava MC 012 w/ omni capsule/ Lawson L47 MP. Get them in close - right up to
the sound hole is okay.
Myles
Please note new email address "<mylesaudio@aol...>"
Boisen Audio website:
http://hometown.aol.com/mylesaudio/myhomepage/index.html
From: Bill Thompson <bill@audioenterprise...>
Subject: Re: Omni's on Acoustic Guitar
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 09:36:45 -0400
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 90,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
I've had tremendous success (on some guitars!!!) with a pair of Earthworks
omnis or a pair of older Sennheiser MKH-405s. In both cases I have to get
pretty close to overcome the microphones self noise, but it can be quite
worthwhile.
Again, it does depend on the guitar itself, and to a lesser degree, the
player. (If the player makes a lot of noise with their hands, or breathes
loudly this may not work.)
"Rich Kelley" <<rkelley@vcd...>> wrote in message
news:9da9su$tfa$<1@news...>...
> To follow up on a previous post about using omni's on an
> acoustic guitar, which omni's are you using? A few folks
> mentioned particular mics, but many did not. Any favorites?
>
> Rich Kelley
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Omni's on Acoustic Guitar
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:29:37 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Wed, 9 May 2001 09:36:45 -0400, "Bill Thompson"
<<bill@audioenterprise...>> wrote:
>I've had tremendous success (on some guitars!!!) with a pair of Earthworks
>omnis or a pair of older Sennheiser MKH-405s. In both cases I have to get
>pretty close to overcome the microphones self noise, but it can be quite
>worthwhile.
>
>Again, it does depend on the guitar itself, and to a lesser degree, the
>player. (If the player makes a lot of noise with their hands, or breathes
>loudly this may not work.)
>
>"Rich Kelley" <<rkelley@vcd...>> wrote in message
>news:9da9su$tfa$<1@news...>...
>> To follow up on a previous post about using omni's on an
>> acoustic guitar, which omni's are you using? A few folks
>> mentioned particular mics, but many did not. Any favorites?
>>
>
mkh 405's are not omnidirectional.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
| Question Regarding Marshall MXL-603s Mics [2] |
|---|
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Marshall MXL-603s Mics
Date: Fri, 11 May 01 13:15:39 GMT
Organization: Jagunet Access Services (using Airnews.net!)
In Article <KMDK6.59348$<2_.21210803@news3...>>, "Jabbaz"
<<dave-grant61@home...>> wrote:
>I have a pair of Marshall 603's which I'm trying to use to mic a grand
>piano. I've attempted to put the pair in their typical positions (as close
>as possible to the sound board) but regardless of how low or high I set the
>gain on my mixer (makie 1202) I get clipping and a strange phasing
>sound.Moving the mics away from the strings yields a considerably less clear
>sound and means I can't half close the top.
>
>I tried singing nearly as loud as I could into the mic from a close distance
>and I found that the mics would do the same thing if they were closer than
>about a foot from my mouth. The dB level indicator on my mixer shows the
>signal is far from clipping and I am monitoring the sound through the phones
>output. All my other mics work as I expect them to.
>
>The 603s work wonderfully as drum overheads, choir mics, room mics. I didn't
>buy them for use with my piano, the only reason I'm trying to use them as
>piano mics is because the leaflet that came with them said that piano micing
>is one of the common applications. I can't see how these mics are good for
>anything other than distance micing.
>
>If anyone can suggest what I'm doing wrong it'd be appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
> David Grant
The one 603 I heard varied GREATLY in sound quality depending on which
preamp it was plugged into. Bad on the GML, OK on the Aphex 1100 and
HORRIBLE on the VLZ/XDR.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford is a member of the Maryland Production Alliance
http://www.MDproductionalliance.org
His audio demos and equipment reviews are available at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Question Regarding Marshall MXL-603s Mics
Date: 11 May 2001 10:35:16 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Ty Ford <<tford@jagunet...>> wrote:
>
>
>The one 603 I heard varied GREATLY in sound quality depending on which
>preamp it was plugged into. Bad on the GML, OK on the Aphex 1100 and
>HORRIBLE on the VLZ/XDR.
I haven't taken the 603 apart, but the other Marshall mikes I have used
definitely have some output transformer issues. This results in a mike
that is very sensitive to loading because otherwise the transformer rings.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
| Low cost condenser mic recommendation? |
|---|
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Low cost condenser mic recommendation?
Date: 16 May 2001 12:33:13 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
In article <9du9l7$274p$<1@nntp1...>>,
Steve Hopkins <<shopkins@best...>> wrote:
>I've seen many [I assume Chinese made] "large diaphragm condenser" mics
>advertised recently, such as Rode NT1, Marshall MXL2001, Octava MC319, and
>so on. Is there one that is notably better than the others (say, under
>$300)? I would prefer a real condenser that needs phantom power, not an
>electret. It's for general purpose instrument recording (recorder, clarinet,
>guitar etc.) at home.
>
>
Why would you want one of these for general purpose instrument recording?
There are basically two factories making these things, and each of them
makes a single and dual-pattern version of the U87 capsule.
The Oktava mikes are not from either of the Chinese factories. They
have substantially better manufacturing precision but still have some
consistency problems so it's worth getting selected ones from the Sound
Room.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
| Which Shure mic is best for live vocals in small venues? [2] |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Which Shure mic is best for live vocals in small venues?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 11:51:48 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
Steve <<sefstrat@aol...>> wrote:
> >I sing solo through a Crate CA-60 amp. Can you all recommend a good quality
> >Shure mic for just vocals? Is the SM or Beta series better? Thanks for the
> >help.
> I own both.
> The SM58 ought to do ya fine.
> The Beta58 (now Beta58A) is a little hotter, a touch brighter, and the pattern
> is a little tighter; it rejects feedback and cuts through better. This is a
> quality I find VERY usefuil in my (electric) band situation, but unecessary on
> an acoustic gig. IMO, you need not spend the extra for the beta.
I wonder why the search for a better affordable vocal mic is limited to
products from Shure? The SM57 and 58 were conceived in the '60s and
while they have served well and are still viable, companies such as
Audix with their OM line offer _muc_ better stage vocal mics in the same
price range. Why not also compare an Audix OM2 or OM3 against those
Shures? And for alittle more money and a _lot_ more performance, give a
trial run to an Audix OM5. Much smoother response, much better feedback
rejection, much lower distortion.
--
"You got to get it while you can!"To order the four-CD set of "RAP 3 Times" see
http://www.hoohahrecords.com/rapA Public Service Announcement from secret mountain
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Which Shure mic is best for live vocals in small venues?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:57:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
>
>
> I don't necessarily disagree. But the Shures are tough as nails and are
> incredibly dependable. Dependable service over many, many years and a lot
of
> gigs has something to say for it.
The Audix is every bit equal to shure in ruggedness and the grill screens
don't dent as easy
Not that this is beating up Shure but I had a punk(really a punk band not a
asshole) knock the element out of a 57 the other day!!! I was amazed--did
you ever TRY to take a 57 apart it is not easy.
George
| mics |
|---|
From: Evan Gordon <egordon99@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: mics
Date: 30 May 2001 05:11:24 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hello,
Can't speak about the Rode, but I've been using my KM184 for abouta year (with a Great River MP2 pre) with great results. Keep in mind that the
KM184 and the NT2 are different beasts. The Rode is LDC with Omni and Cardiod
patterns and the KM184 is a cardiod only SDC. My recommendation is to contact
Mercenary Audio (http://www.mercenary.com/) and talk with them, they can discuss
your needs and sell you a KM184 to try out. If it doesn't work out, you send it
back and you're only out the shipping costs. What pre are you using?
I recently aquired a Soundelux U97 (discontinued, but you might be able to find them). It's
got 4 patterns (Cardiod, Omni, figure-8,and hyper-cardiod), allows me to
get a whole pallete of sounds utilizing different patterns and positions.
My recent fave has been the U97 in Omni. Since Omni has little to no
proximity effect, I can get in real close for some great bass, or pull far
away for the sound of the guitar in the room
(as well as my PC and air-conditioner!) My guitars - Martin D16H, 00-18,
Taylor 710, 512, Baby.
Disclaimer - I'm just a hobbyist with little exposure to many different mics,
but am happy with my results. Take any mic advice with a grain of salt, and
use your own ears to evaluate any mic decisions!
Good luck!
-Evan
"tpp" <<powerst@ix...>> wrote
> Hello,
>
> I recently had some experience in the studio recording an acoustic steel
> string guitar with 3 mics; an AKG C1000S on the neck, a Rhode NT2 on the
> body, and a AKG C 414 in the room (about 3 feet overhead). The guitar was a
> Larrivee D-03.
>
> I'm giving some thought to using a Neumann KM 184 to replace the Rhode NT2,
> and I want to hear your opinions about the idea.
>
> Do the Neumann and Rhode compare? Or, do you use each mic to achieve
> different coloring?
>
> Thanks much
> Tom
> Atlanta, GA
| Wright microphones? |
|---|
From: Larry Lundgren <lund1@earthlink...>
Subject: Wright microphones?
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:59:01 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Howdy,
Anyone hear of mic called Wright TSR-2? I recently got one on the
recommendation of a dealer. Sounds good....better than my AKG 414. Any
info or comparisons would be great. The only thing I could find on the
net, is a thread on Dejanews/Goggle. Wonder how it might compare to a
Neumann 184/140?
Thanks,
Larry
| MC012 vs. Audix tr-40 opinions or impressions? [3] |
|---|
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: MC012 vs. Audix tr-40 opinions or impressions?
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:50:23 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<ls1productions@aol...> (LS1productions) wrote:
><< I am looking to purchase a pair of reasonably priced ($3-500/pr) small
>diaphragm condenser mics for my home studio to record my band and
>possibly do some small projects for friends in my home >>
>
>Why do they HAVE to be small diaghram condensors? Why not just two good mics?
>I think if you saved up and doubled your price range you can get two Blue
>Dragonflies, I could do a lot with just two of those mics. But if you want
>to go cheaper then that here is something.....
> Ok, all RAP guys look the other way.... Check out the Studio Projects
>C1s, they sound pretty darn nice to my ears, they can be had for 200 a piece.
>They will give you a lot more body then the C012s, and have a somewhat shimmery
>high end. Check them out.
WEll, I have both the MC012s (from the Sound Room), and a matched pair
of Audix TR-40s, and I love both of them. With the multiple capsules,
the MC012s give me a wide range of colors to play with.
The TR40 has less color, but a wonderfully detailed and etched top end
that never sounds harsh to me. The TR40 is like someone "just cleaned
the window".
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: SoundsGood2Me <SoundsGood2Me@webtv...>
Subject: Re: MC012 vs. Audix tr-40 opinions or impressions?
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:59:25 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
<argon@mods...> (Greg=A0Bianchini) wrote:
<snip>
>I have read through pretty much all of the old
>threads and have decided that a pair of Oktava
>MC012's with omni heads from the soundroom
>or a pair of Audix TR-40's would probably suit
>my needs. Can anyone give a direct
>comparison? A nice natural, detailed and open
>sound is my goal, and a little bit of sweet
>coloration would be ok, but not essential.
Greg, I haven't tried or heard the MC012, so I can't give you a
comparison. I do own a TR-40. I paid approx $180 for it new, IIRC.
I've found that, to my ear, the TR-40 is a more natural-sounding mic
than many small diaphragm mics that I've used, as well as pretty
detailed and open. I wouldn't say that it's going to add any "sweet
coloration" to anything you record with it, but IMHO it does land a bit
more squarely in the "honest and natural" category than many other
lower-priced SD mics out there. YMMV.
- Stan
From: Timothy A. Lyons <bluebass@optonline...>
Subject: Re: MC012 vs. Audix tr-40 opinions or impressions?
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 21:34:33 GMT
Organization: Optimum Online
I can't honestly give you a comparison of any kind not having used the TR-40's but if you
ultimately decide on the '012's' kick in the extra cash and get the FMSP package that the
SoundRoom offers... I do a helluva' lot with these things!
Good Luck,
Tim L
--
Blue Bass Recording
Port Jefferson Station NY
Greg Bianchini wrote:
>
> I am looking to purchase a pair of reasonably priced ($3-500/pr) small
> diaphragm condenser mics for my home studio to record my band and
> possibly do some small projects for friends in my home (but warehouse)
> studio. I have read through pretty much all of the old threads and
> have decided that a pair of Oktava MC012's with omni heads from the
> soundroom or a pair of Audix TR-40's would probably suit my needs. Can
> anyone give a direct comparison? A nice natural, detailed and open
> sound is my goal, and a little bit of sweet coloration would be ok,
> but not essential. Any advice greatly appreciated.
>
> Some background:
>
> I have done one very low budget CD ep already with and analog 4 track
> and think I explored the limits of that setup. I want to make a major
> step up in quality. My bandmates do not want to use a real studio
> since it doesn't go with our homemade shtick.
>
> Instruments are: homemade 14 string acoustic/electric guitar, minimal
> drum kit, tambourine, singers (2), electric dulcimer, acoustic
> dulcimer, Moog Prodigy for bass through JBL 15 in an ultraflex
> cabinet, nylon strung tenor guitar, and finally various odd percussion
> and old keyboards (reed organ, vintage casio, etc).
>
> Current set up is a 1 gig AMD Athlon PC with Cubase VST/32 and a
> Seasound SoloEX. Mics i have are: (2) TLM103, (2) SM58, SM57, AKG1000
> (yeah, I know), RS PZM, Crown PZM, Shure 315s ribbon, and an old
> Thiele tube mic that needs a power supply. I am planning on getting a
> Peavey VMP-2 preamp as well. Might consider a fancy A/D but the
> seasound actually sounds pretty good, and budget is getting strained.
>
> My monitors are homebrewed things with Morel and Focal drivers
> (measure flat) and some Sennheiser HD600's. I also have a pair of
> bellari tube compressors, Teac 3440, Ampex 601/2 with the matching
> powered monitors, Lexicon pcm60, PAIA "tube" pre (yeah, I know), lousy
> spirit folio mixer and various unmentionable stuff.
>
> Greg B
| NT2 vs NTK for Acoustic Guitars and Vocals [6] |
|---|
From: Funkybot <funkybot@aol...>
Subject: NT2 vs NTK for Acoustic Guitars and Vocals
Date: 15 Aug 2001 04:49:22 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hi guys I'm just doing some home recording of stuff just for myself, but I
still like to get the best quality I possibly can. It's time to upgrade to
mics and I need a large diaphram condensor but it has to be dirt cheap. I
don't have a great sounding room, but I'd still like the option of having an
omni pattern. Now I was looking at the NT2s and NTKs after hearing several
nice things about them from people in this group. My question is how big of a
difference is there as far as sound quality between the two mics? The NT2 is
more in my budget (broke college student) than the NTK, but it seems one of the
few things everyone in this group can agree on his that the NTK is great for
it's price. I'm looking for something that will give me a warm acoustic
guitar/vocal tone, without being too shrill. Any recomendations between the
two mics would be appreciated. I know everyone will say the NTK is the better
mic, so I'm hoping you keep in mind I'm broke and not recording professionally.
Someone should just make a website of mic comparisons (same pre-amp, guitar,vocals, drums, player, all tracks dry, etc).
From: Andre Sommer <NN@gua...>
Subject: Re: NT2 vs NTK for Acoustic Guitars and Vocals
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:50:38 +0200
Hey Funkybot,
I was amongst those here who highly recommended the NTK. I still do, If
you can find the budget, this is my number one choice, especially since
you mentioned vocal and acoustic gtr. (Speaking of "warm"). Remember
that this one is not omni capable but cardioid. It really holds it's own
comparing to way more expensive mics, and I used the Neumann M149 a lot.
Another suggestion is to look into the Rode NT 1000 since you didn't
mention it. Same capsule as the NTK but a FET version. If you're
interested, here's a few reviews on both of them:
http://industryclick.com/magazinearticle.asp?magazineid=141&releaseid=64
15&magazinearticleid=105030&SiteID=15 ( From MIX,by Ty Ford)
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/60D13B8C0E0AFA5986256A1D
005425AB (Bruce Richardson)
Many folks seem to be impressed by the Studio Projects C1 ( never heard
it myself). It goes for around $200, street, IIRC. There's reviews on it
here:
http://www.digitalprosound.com/2001/03_mar/reviews/studio-projects.htm
and:
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/2CAB4F71AF9E2A1C86256A65
0081ECF9
A SD mic that some folks also like is the Rode NT3. Review here:
http://www.audiomedia.com/archive/reviews/us-0101/us-0101-rode/us-0101-r
ode.htm#con
or you can do a search on it here:
http://www.sospubs.co.uk/search/query.asp
I've also heard good things about some Marshall mics. Can't remember
which type.
If you want to watch some more discussion on mics here's a place I like
myself:
http://homerecording.com/bbs/forumdisplay.php?s=b36eefa441de82c901bdb7bd
ba90fefa&forumid=27
Of course a good pre (and placement) will bring out the best in any of
those.
Finally, let your own ears be the judge if you possibly can compare them
yourself.
HTH and good luck with you decision.
Andre.
"Funkybot" <<funkybot@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20010815004922.21755.00004292@ng-dd1...>...
> Hi guys I'm just doing some home recording of stuff just for myself,
but I
> still like to get the best quality I possibly can. It's time to
upgrade to
> mics and I need a large diaphram condensor but it has to be dirt
cheap. I
> don't have a great sounding room, but I'd still like the option of
having an
> omni pattern. Now I was looking at the NT2s and NTKs after hearing
several
> nice things about them from people in this group. My question is how
big of a
> difference is there as far as sound quality between the two mics? The
NT2 is
> more in my budget (broke college student) than the NTK, but it seems
one of the
> few things everyone in this group can agree on his that the NTK is
great for
> it's price. I'm looking for something that will give me a warm
acoustic
> guitar/vocal tone, without being too shrill. Any recomendations
between the
> two mics would be appreciated. I know everyone will say the NTK is
the better
> mic, so I'm hoping you keep in mind I'm broke and not recording
professionally.
> Someone should just make a website of mic comparisons (same pre-amp,
guitar,
> vocals, drums, player, all tracks dry, etc).
From: Michael Berard <berardm@cam...>
Subject: Re: NT2 vs NTK for Acoustic Guitars and Vocals
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 00:56:07 -0400
Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service
I recently played a session where I was recorded (on classical guitar
playing a bossa) with an NTK and a 4050. Both the engineer and I liked the
NTK over the 4050.
"Funkybot" <<funkybot@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20010815004922.21755.00004292@ng-dd1...>...
> Hi guys I'm just doing some home recording of stuff just for myself, but I
> still like to get the best quality I possibly can. It's time to upgrade
to
> mics and I need a large diaphram condensor but it has to be dirt cheap. I
> don't have a great sounding room, but I'd still like the option of having
an
> omni pattern. Now I was looking at the NT2s and NTKs after hearing
several
> nice things about them from people in this group. My question is how big
of a
> difference is there as far as sound quality between the two mics? The NT2
is
> more in my budget (broke college student) than the NTK, but it seems one
of the
> few things everyone in this group can agree on his that the NTK is great
for
> it's price. I'm looking for something that will give me a warm acoustic
> guitar/vocal tone, without being too shrill. Any recomendations between
the
> two mics would be appreciated. I know everyone will say the NTK is the
better
> mic, so I'm hoping you keep in mind I'm broke and not recording
professionally.
> Someone should just make a website of mic comparisons (same pre-amp,
guitar,
> vocals, drums, player, all tracks dry, etc).
From: Chris Stevens <chris@fabmusic...>
Subject: Re: NT2 vs NTK for Acoustic Guitars and Vocals
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 05:11:30 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
In my opinion there is a huge difference in sound quality between these two
mics. The NTK blows the NT2 out of the water in most close-mic'd
applications. 90% of the time you'll be using cardiod pattern. If you don't
have a great sounding tube mic yet, Get the NTK. Also check out the SE
Electronics 5000. An amazing tube mic for $299. Hard to believe, but it is
true.
CS
"Funkybot" <<funkybot@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20010815004922.21755.00004292@ng-dd1...>...
> Hi guys I'm just doing some home recording of stuff just for myself, but I
> still like to get the best quality I possibly can. It's time to upgrade
to
> mics and I need a large diaphram condensor but it has to be dirt cheap. I
> don't have a great sounding room, but I'd still like the option of having
an
> omni pattern. Now I was looking at the NT2s and NTKs after hearing
several
> nice things about them from people in this group. My question is how big
of a
> difference is there as far as sound quality between the two mics? The NT2
is
> more in my budget (broke college student) than the NTK, but it seems one
of the
> few things everyone in this group can agree on his that the NTK is great
for
> it's price. I'm looking for something that will give me a warm acoustic
> guitar/vocal tone, without being too shrill. Any recomendations between
the
> two mics would be appreciated. I know everyone will say the NTK is the
better
> mic, so I'm hoping you keep in mind I'm broke and not recording
professionally.
> Someone should just make a website of mic comparisons (same pre-amp,
guitar,
> vocals, drums, player, all tracks dry, etc).
From: Shane A. Bushman <sbushman@gate...>
Subject: Re: NT2 vs NTK for Acoustic Guitars and Vocals
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 05:48:16 GMT
Organization: Category 5
The NT2 and NTK are both great mics. i own them both and could never part with
either. Most people will tell you to get the NTK (it is a super mic for vox...it
is everyone's favorite around here!) but it does have some color...
The NT2 will be less likely to complicate the mix if you use it on a lot of
tracks. I suggest you get the 2 now, and the K later. You'll love them
both...trust me.
P.S. Remember, a preamp is important too. Mackies just don't do good mics
justice!
Shane
Funkybot wrote:
> Hi guys I'm just doing some home recording of stuff just for myself, but I
> still like to get the best quality I possibly can. It's time to upgrade to
> mics and I need a large diaphram condensor but it has to be dirt cheap. I
> don't have a great sounding room, but I'd still like the option of having an
> omni pattern. Now I was looking at the NT2s and NTKs after hearing several
> nice things about them from people in this group. My question is how big of a
> difference is there as far as sound quality between the two mics? The NT2 is
> more in my budget (broke college student) than the NTK, but it seems one of the
> few things everyone in this group can agree on his that the NTK is great for
> it's price. I'm looking for something that will give me a warm acoustic
> guitar/vocal tone, without being too shrill. Any recomendations between the
> two mics would be appreciated. I know everyone will say the NTK is the better
> mic, so I'm hoping you keep in mind I'm broke and not recording professionally.
> Someone should just make a website of mic comparisons (same pre-amp, guitar,
> vocals, drums, player, all tracks dry, etc).
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: NT2 vs NTK for Acoustic Guitars and Vocals
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 01 12:52:28 GMT
Organization: Jagunet Access Services (using Airnews.net!)
In Article <<20010815004922.21755.00004292@ng-dd1...>>, <funkybot@aol...>
(Funkybot) wrote:
>Hi guys I'm just doing some home recording of stuff just for myself, but I
>still like to get the best quality I possibly can. It's time to upgrade to
>mics and I need a large diaphram condensor but it has to be dirt cheap. I
>don't have a great sounding room, but I'd still like the option of having an
>omni pattern. Now I was looking at the NT2s and NTKs after hearing several
>nice things about them from people in this group. My question is how big of a
>difference is there as far as sound quality between the two mics? The NT2 is
>more in my budget (broke college student) than the NTK, but it seems one of the
>few things everyone in this group can agree on his that the NTK is great for
>it's price. I'm looking for something that will give me a warm acoustic
>guitar/vocal tone, without being too shrill. Any recomendations between the
>two mics would be appreciated. I know everyone will say the NTK is the better
>mic, so I'm hoping you keep in mind I'm broke and not recording professionally.
> Someone should just make a website of mic comparisons (same pre-amp, guitar,
>vocals, drums, player, all tracks dry, etc).
Of the two; NTK.
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's audio demos and equipment reviews are available at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
He is a member of the Maryland Production Alliance
http://www.MDproductionalliance.org
| Shure BG4.1 condenser microphone? |
|---|
From: rahul patwari <rahul_patwari@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Shure BG4.1 condenser microphone?
Date: 29 Sep 2001 00:36:57 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I've been using the Shure BG4.1 for a couple of years, and I think it
sounds well. I just use it for recording at home, never took it
outside though.
| Pickups for acoustics. [8] |
|---|
From: Marcos <mdswindell@home...>
Subject: Re: Pickups for acoustics.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 05:04:09 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
In article <3bba916a$<1@kastagir...>>, Michael James Richard
Brown <<rockon02@senet...>> wrote:
> Thanks fellas, That's rather what I expected, but I had to ask the question
> as there are so many variations on the pickup front these days and I don't
> know much about any of them. I'm going to buy another mike soon, a large
> diaphragm condenser, probably an AKG. I'll just have to pick my times for
> recording (like get up in the small hours of the morning)
> Picker
This subject probably for another group, but if your main objective is
recording acoustic guitar, you might want to explore some of the small
diaphram condensors out there before going the large diaphram AKG
route. You may get a more accurate sound.
Marcos
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Pickups for acoustics.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:00:06 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> This subject probably for another group, but if your main objective is
> recording acoustic guitar, you might want to explore some of the small
> diaphram condensors out there before going the large diaphram AKG
> route. You may get a more accurate sound.
>
> Marcos
There is detail and accuracy in the small condensers but there is warmth
and woodyness in the larger ones
I would ask at rec.audio.pro for my experience is mostly in live production
look to Mike Rivers or Jay , possible Hank to give straight answers
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Pickups for acoustics.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:57:15 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Michael James Richard Brown" <<rockon02@senet...>> wrote in message
news:3bba916a$<1@kastagir...>...
> Thanks fellas, That's rather what I expected, but I had to ask the
question
> as there are so many variations on the pickup front these days and I don't
> know much about any of them. I'm going to buy another mike soon, a large
> diaphragm condenser, probably an AKG
The Audio-Technica 4033 is available with spider for 250$
it decimates any AKG product under the 414(which sells at about 700$)
George
From: George W. <whaler_17@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Pickups for acoustics.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:13:37 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:57:15 GMT, George Gleason wrote:
>
>"Michael James Richard Brown" <<rockon02@senet...>> wrote in message
>news:3bba916a$<1@kastagir...>...
>> Thanks fellas, That's rather what I expected, but I had to ask the
>question
>> as there are so many variations on the pickup front these days and I don't
>> know much about any of them. I'm going to buy another mike soon, a large
>> diaphragm condenser, probably an AKG
>
>The Audio-Technica 4033 is available with spider for 250$
>it decimates any AKG product under the 414(which sells at about 700$)
>George
>
George,
Any thoughts on the Studio Projects C1 Condenser? There seems to be a
lot of interest in this mic and it has a street price of around $200.
There's a review here:
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/2CAB4F71AF9E2A1C86256A650081ECF9
G.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Pickups for acoustics.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:01:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> George,
>
> Any thoughts on the Studio Projects C1 Condenser? There seems to be a
> lot of interest in this mic and it has a street price of around $200.
> There's a review here:
No experiance I would post over at rewc.audio.pro
the mic did get a good review in Mix magazine
seems like the days you had to drop 2K$ on a good Large Diaphram condensor
are over
lots of good product out there look at the Rode nt-1
or the Audix 211 too many mics to have first hand knowledge of that is why
a recource like R.A.P. is worth more than gold
Peace
george
>
>
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/2CAB4F71AF9E2A1C86256A650
081ECF9
>
> G.
From: Tim Helmen <thissong@pclink...>
Subject: Re: Pickups for acoustics.
Date: 04 Oct 2001 00:00:42 GMT
Organization: pclink.com Internet Services - Wayzata, MN
>The Audio-Technica 4033 is available with spider for 250$
>it decimates any AKG product under the 414(which sells at about 700$)
>George
The 4033 is a nice mic, but I find it picks up a lot of room sound (much
more than my Rode NT1 mics). In this particular application, given the noise
problems he mentioned, I wonder if that would be a good move.
Tim
From: Marcos <mdswindell@home...>
Subject: Re: Pickups for acoustics.
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 14:13:14 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
In article <<3bbc6006@kastagir...>>, Michael James Richard
Brown <<rockon02@senet...>> wrote:
> I'm certainly getting a lot of new things to check out. The Audio Technica
> has also been recommended by my friendly local music shop (a bit more than
> $250 Australian), but if the Rode is, how should I put it, more selective,
> I'll have a look at that too. Yhanks again to all of you. Picker
The RODE mics used to have a reputation for inconsistent quality
control... be careful. I have an AT-4033. It is a very bright mic,
and can sound good on certain vocals as well as on certain guitasr,
percussion, etc. But it isn't the first mic I'd grab for recording
acoustic guitar.
You haven't explained what kind of guitar, style of playing, or
recording environment/system you'll be using, or if you have, I've
missed it. Those factors are critical to which mics you cosider.
The 4033 is versatile and inexpensive, though, and not a bad choice for
a general purpose mic. If you did a google search on rec.audio.pro
you'd find literally thousands of opinions on the topic of which mic is
best for recording acoustic guitar. I have a couple of Oktava O-12's
(very reasonable Russian small condensor mics) which can hold their own
(well, pretty much) against more expensive Neumann mics, but again QC
is an issue... these were cherry picked.
Rec.audio.pro is the proper forum for this esoteric mic blather though,
so I'll shut up, now.
Good luck,
Marcos
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Pickups for acoustics.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 14:35:06 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
William D Clinger wrote:
>
> I kind of like the extra snap that comes from mixing some
> direct injection into a mic'ed guitar track.
This I think is worth following up on. A number of pros known for
good recorded tone (both Martin Simpson and Phil Keaggy come to mind)
sometimes supplement a good mic signal with some pickup signal.
Perhaps in Michael's case, a bit of pickup + the mic may alleviate
a bit of the noise problem (by letting him use a somewhat lower
mic level).
"Jo[K]er" wrote:
>
> B-Band's AST is
> another great one that many here love, but it requires a battery inside, or
> w/o the battery you then must use their Entity external box. Good luck.
Actually, the AST is currently not compatible with the Entity as a
remotely powered system. You can use it with its onboard battery
via the Entity, but Entity can't power the current 2150 preamp that
comes with the AST. One nice thing about the AST is that it is
incredibly quiet. The PUTW #27, in contrast to the AST, is very
noisy. The noise level of the latter is probably acceptable to
many players in a live setting. But for recording I thing many would
find it objectionable. The AST adds only a tiny bit of hiss above
the mic pres on my board, and no hum; the #27 has much more hiss and
noticable (but low level) hum (I was just doing this comparison this
week in fact). The new McIntyre Feather pickup uses similar
technology to the PUTW and is a similar size to the #27, but somehow
manages to produce a hotter signal, retaining some of the characteristics
of the #27 but with a quieter signal. It is still noisier than the
AST, but probably fine for recording. This is an impressive new
pickup; I'll have more to say about it in a later thread.
Simpson uses a Highlander pickup in the studio sometimes; Keaggy's
*Beyond Nature* recording has either his Baggs LB6 undersaddle or
his Sunrise or both supplementing the mics (varies from track to
track). For details on the latter recording, check out the
engineer's notes at:
http://www.olsonguitars.com/jb_bn.html
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Speaking of better sound... [14] |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:12:20 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
GHoff34226 <<ghoff34226@aol...>> wrote:
> The Shure SM81 is an awsome work horse of a dynamic mic.
It's a durable mic, a reliable mic, with some nasty sonic
characteristics, to my own ear. It's nowhere near as smooth to me as are
the Crown CM700 or the AKG 535.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:11:51 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> A good dynamic(beyer m88 300$ USA) will work on acoustic guitar and the
> beta 57a will work but you will not get the "sparkle"
> a reg. 57 is not the first mic I go to for acoustic guitar the 'reach" is
> poor and the proximity effect is boomy causing bad sound ,uncomfortable lack
> of working distance, and lots of feedback
> a bad combination for acoustic guitar
A 57 can sound amazing on acoustic guitar when it is fed to the
appropriate preamp. The catch is that such preamps start at about a
grand, list, and go up from there. But when mated to such a device
(Great River MP2-MH or MP2-NV, Phoenix GTQ2, Hardy M1, API, Neve 1073,
1081, etc.) the result can be startling. Of course, few folks looking to
spend under a hundred bucks for a 57 are also looking to spend two
thousand dollars for a preamp. I discovered the potential of the 57 by
accident when I swapped a 57 from a Mackie 1202 to a Neve 31122 module.
I about fell over. (Hadn't been drinking, either.)
> the c1000 can work but is clumsy to use(need special mic clip and super
> heavy duty stand due to its size and weight)
> I would look to the AKG 535 as a EXCELLENT mic at about 200$ USA
> cheaper the c1000 &beta 57a at the 150ish mark below that you are just
> giving up to much for me to recommend anything
> sure you can get some cheap mics to work but when you some day find out what
> another 60$ would have got you you will cry
> and you will now be 360$(the money you spent and the money you still need to
> spend added) away from a 535
> (a good workable mic but by no means high end esoteric boutique stuff)
I submit the Crown CM700 as another relatively inexpensive small
diaphragm condensor that can work pretty well for acoustic guitar. It
doubles better than the 535 for things other than voice, and vice versa
for the 535, which is also a good onstage (and somtimes in studio) vocal
mic. Either one is a merciful entity compared to the AKG C1000.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:07:15 -0700
Organization: secret mountain
<<minette@minn...>> wrote:
> I've had the AT4041 recommended to me as a good small diaphragm
> condenser mic for live application (as well as studio use). The
> other AT mic that was recommended, for studio rather than live use,
> was the AT3035 large diaphragm condenser. Any thoughts about these
> models?
Both good mics; small cap preferable for live work since it will offer
smoother off-axis response and in this case a tighter pattern.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Unsung96 <unsung96@aol...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: 16 Oct 2001 12:51:54 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< A 57 can sound amazing on acoustic guitar when it is fed to the
appropriate preamp. >>
I've recently discovered that at many Bluegrass Festivals - as in great
sounding acoustic instruments mic'd only - the 57 is the standard mic of choice
for house sound - minus the high dollar mic pres - scary, of course folks will
bring in their own mics also.
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 14:20:38 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Hi Mitch-
MKarlo wrote:
>
> What's the recommendation for a performance mic? I'm thinking of using it for
> solo stuff and not in a loud band setting. I plan to plug it into the mic
> channel on my Raven Labs blender for buffering and EQ.
I would be interested to hear if anyone has had success doing this. There
are a few things to be wary of. First, the industry's inconsistent use of
the term "phantom power" strikes again. In particular, the type of
"phantom power" the Raven offers is not what is officially called phantom
power (it should be called remote power or bias power). It is not suitable
for powering standard condenser mics with XLR jacks (e.g., Shure SM81).
So rule those out.
Second, the Raven is designed to work with small condenser mics mounted
in the guitar. It is really loud inside a guitar! Thus the Raven
provides only very modest gain on the mic channel (15.5 dB, versus up
to 60 dB on a typical mixer's mic input). Also, its signal-to-noise
ratio, while very good for its intended use, is not near what one
would want from a mic preamp for more standard use. Finally, the
internal mics it is designed for have two wires connected via a phone
jack. For standard external mics you'll need to somehow convert the
mic's XLR jack to the phone jack. There are adapters for this, but most
involve a transformer that will compromise the mic signal.
For these reasons I'd go for hottest low-end mic you can find. Better,
get a "real" mic pre and put its output into the Blender. A cheap one
that may be adequate for your use would be the ART Tube MP:
http://www.artroch.com/products_detail.asp?PRODUCTID=32
(I can't believe I'm recommending this!) Sells for $90 at Zzounds.com.
It can provide "real" phantom power for any mic you might choose, and
it can also work as a DI.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: Unsung96 <unsung96@aol...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: 15 Oct 2001 18:40:26 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Tom Laredo wrote:
<<(snip) For these reasons I'd go for hottest low-end mic you can find.
Better,
get a "real" mic pre and put its output into the Blender. A cheap one
that may be adequate for your use would be the ART Tube MP: (snip)>>
This particular thing I've done with an AT 4033, ART Mic Pre & Pocket Blender -
It seemed to work okay but would prefer to send a separate mic line to the
house - but then you have to make sure the house guy(presuming there is one)
actually ues the mic line.
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: 15 Oct 2001 22:34:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Thanks Tom for addressing the "phantom" power issue. I wondered about it, and
whether it would work with a transformer between the mic cable and input.
So forget about that. I'll just run the mic to a real mixer when there is one
or a mic pre. Any other recommendations? What about the Shure BG4.1? I see
it pop up in a lot of searches on condenser mics and the price is right.
One other related question. How close does one of the pencil shaped condenser
mics need to be to the guitar for the best sound? Thanks again for lending me
your ears (uh, eyes) and opinions.
Mitch
From: GHoff34226 <ghoff34226@aol...>
Subject: re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: 16 Oct 2001 10:15:53 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I tend to like to keep the diaphgam 6-8 inchs from the guitar, and I point it
towards the neck joint, more towards the higher strings. You should probably
experiment on your own, though. Remember, if nothing is smoking, you're not
doing anything wrong.
Gabriel Hoffman
www.hoffmanguitars.com
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:55:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20011016101759.01726.00000230@mb-cc...>...
>
>
> >I've recently discovered that at many Bluegrass Festivals - as in great
> sounding acoustic instruments mic'd only - the 57 is the standard mic of
choice
> for house sound - minus the high dollar mic pres - scary, of course folks
will
> bring in their own mics also.<
> ><unsung96@aol...>
>
> Interesting Andy. That's one of the things I want to learn from my
orignal
> question. Why a condenser over a dynamic mic or vice-versa? I have an
AKG
> D880 dynamic mic. But I didn't think it would be appropriate as an
instrument
> mic for live sound. Maybe?
>
> Mitch
The 880 is a amazing mic considering what it costs one of the best values
in mics IMO
KICKS the Snot out of a sm58 or Beta 58or any EV n-dyn stuffGeorge
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:53:30 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Unsung96" <<unsung96@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20011016085154.01720.00000151@mb-fw...>...
> << A 57 can sound amazing on acoustic guitar when it is fed to the
> appropriate preamp. >>
>
>
> I've recently discovered that at many Bluegrass Festivals - as in great
> sounding acoustic instruments mic'd only - the 57 is the standard mic of
choice
> for house sound - minus the high dollar mic pres - scary, of course folks
will
> bring in their own mics also.
yes it is much to the dismay of people who want to hear quality reproduction
often a festival mic is chosen for reasons other than its sound
some of those in no order are
ability to get knocked over
not a major issue when it gets stolen
does not "scare" traditional musicians
will work in the rain
can get knocked over
can get knocked over
did I mention it can survive getting knocked over
George
From: George W. <whaler_17@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:28:51 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:02:39 +0930, Michael James Richard Brown wrote:
>Those two are the same mics that I'm considering, together with an ATR55
>Shotgun mic, which has normal and tele settings, and would be useful for
>reducing unwanted ambients. Picker
>
Just passing on this link to a review on the C1 mic made by Studio
Projects. There's been quite a buzz about this mic on other groups and
it has a street price of about $200. Might be something to consider,
and I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who's tried it.
G.
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/2CAB4F71AF9E2A1C86256A650081ECF9
From: GHoff34226 <ghoff34226@aol...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: 19 Oct 2001 08:48:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I was reading an article in some recording magazine (I think it was MIX) some
years ago. They had an article on which mics various famous producers and
engineers would use if they could only use one mic for the rest of there lives.
Most of them where rattling off various esoteric, rare, and expensive"Vintage" microphones. One guy, I don't remember who, said a SM-57. He said,
"If I can only use one mic, I need one that sounds OK on everything. It may
not sound great on anything, but it will always sound OK."
It is also interesting to note that with very few exceptions, the President of
the United States ALWAYS uses two SM-57s when he speaks in public. Many years
ago, the White House audio folks tried hundreds of different mics from all over
the world, including some very famous condensers like Neumanns and ribbon mics
like RCA. All of the mics they tried sounded OK, but they all would fail from
time to time. Weather, or being knocked around, or dirt. Something would
damage the mics. Except for the SM-57s. No matter what they did to them, they
always worked.
I am a stage hand, and we always say, "If you forgot your hammer, grab a `57."
It is not my favorite mic for anything, but it is my favorite mic for
EVERYTHING, if you get my meaning.
Gabriel Hoffman
www.hoffmanguitars.com
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:55:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Yes the 57 is a "all around mic" with some distict"qualities"
just glad I don't require those "qualities "very often
But when doing hardcore metal/rap /and blues I won't use anything but
57&58's
perfect mic for those types of acts
I will never mic a string section at a symphony with a 57 nor will I use one
on a podium as my ONLY source
george
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Speaking of better sound...
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:15:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"GHoff34226" <<ghoff34226@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20011021062852.15464.00000963@mb-mq...>...
> Watch a presidential speech sometime. The ONLY mic they EVER use is a
pair of
> SM-57s with Wind Screens. I use them for corporate meetings all the time.
> They sound fine, as long as the speaker doesn't turn around to look at the
> projection screen or something.
I invite you to continue this discussion at alt.audio.pro.live-sound as this
is too far off topic for a guitar news group and BTW I have done work for
the president and the 57 are NOT the only mics, they are the Only visible
mic and the president require a dynamic mic to be able to work in rain snow
and even then the second mic is only a back-up mic
The president would not ever think of appearing infront of the USA with a
imported mic but the sound you hear on TV IS NOT THE 57's
so I invite you to my newgroup where beside my self we also have the lead
tech for one of the main sound companies that the white house uses(Ralph
Staub) and he can fill you in on what the Presidents sound really is all
about.
George
| Which Microphone ? [6] |
|---|
From: Troubleman <Troubleman@rocketmail...>
Subject: Which Microphone ?
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:55:43 -0400
This question may have been asked previously, but new stuff arrives all the
time...
I'd like to try using a microphone for playing live instead of plugging in.
Although I'll probably have a B-band installed in my new Collings CJ, I've
yet to find an under-saddle transducer with which I'm genuinely pleased. I
think I'll give a whirl at using a microphone aimed at the top of my guitar.
I've seen bluegrass players use them "at volume" without too many feedback
problems. I'll be using it in a church, standing between two other guitar
players (who are plugged in and using under-saddle transducers, next to a
cantor who has a live mic for vocals, and adjacent to a grand piano and a
drummer - close confines.
Any suggestions for types and models? So far I've gotten the suggestion of a
Shure BG4.... Also, any recommendations for ancillary equipment, i.e.
mic-preamps, compressors, etc? Any other tips? It'll be a interesting
learning to stand still while playing; how much of a range in distance is
typical?
mucho gracias,
jb
mucho gracias!
jb
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Which Microphone ?
Date: 23 Oct 2001 21:01:59 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Well, the last (very long!) thread on this started about a week ago and
>still had contributions yesterday. I doubt much new has come out
>since then! 8-)
>
>Use Google groups to look for the thread "Speaking of better sound..."
>
>Peace,
>Tom Loredo
I actually started that thread, and I have to say I didn't come away with much
clarity on the issue. Maybe I didn't get all the posts (an occasional problem
with my newsreader), but I was still left wondering:
-Is it better to go condenser or dynamic?
-Can you get away with a mic on a loud, crowded stage?
-Is the Shure SM57 a good mic or a piece of crap.
I ask all this by the way in relation to mic-ing acoustic guitar.
mk
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Which Microphone ?
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:40:08 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote:
>I actually started that thread, and I have to say I didn't come away with much
>clarity on the issue. Maybe I didn't get all the posts (an occasional problem
>with my newsreader), but I was still left wondering:
>
>-Is it better to go condenser or dynamic?
>
>-Can you get away with a mic on a loud, crowded stage?
>
>-Is the Shure SM57 a good mic or a piece of crap.
>
>I ask all this by the way in relation to mic-ing acoustic guitar.
mk,
Around April this year, I wrote a number of articles about mics and what
to use when, and why. Most of it is in one long thread at:
http://homerecording.com/bbs//showthread.php?s=&threadid=27030
There were also specific threads I was involved in where I tried to
answer all the questions you raise.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Which Microphone ?
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 03:12:46 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20011023170159.11938.00000756@mb-mj...>...
> >Well, the last (very long!) thread on this started about a week ago and
> >still had contributions yesterday. I doubt much new has come out
> >since then! 8-)
> >
> >Use Google groups to look for the thread "Speaking of better sound..."
> >
> >Peace,
> >Tom Loredo
>
> I actually started that thread, and I have to say I didn't come away with
much
> clarity on the issue. Maybe I didn't get all the posts (an occasional
problem
> with my newsreader), but I was still left wondering:
>
> -Is it better to go condenser or dynamic?
Usually condensor though there is a time and place for a dynamic
>
> -Can you get away with a mic on a loud, crowded stage?
YES
>
> -Is the Shure SM57 a good mic or a piece of crap.
in relation to micing a acoustic guitar it is a piece of crap
>
> I ask all this by the way in relation to mic-ing acoustic guitar.
>
> mk
Thank you
George Gleason
From: GHoff34226 <ghoff34226@aol...>
Subject: Re: Which Microphone ?
Date: 24 Oct 2001 03:23:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Well, to give you my opinions on your specific questions:
>-Is it better to go condenser or dynamic?
>
A condenser mic will, in general, give you a much more accurate representation
of the sound of your guitar. They have a wider dynamic range, and usually
have a better frequency response. To most people, this sounds better.
>-Can you get away with a mic on a loud, crowded stage?
>
No, not really. Microphones pick up acoustic bleed. The only way around that
is to use an extremly directional mic. The problem with extremly directional
mics is that they have all sorts of ugly sonic qualities, and a dimished
frequency response. They do not sound as good, in general, to most people.
>-Is the Shure SM57 a good mic or a piece of crap.
>
The Shure SM 57 is a great mic. If I could only use one kind of microphone for
the rest of my life, it would be a SM 57. If I had an unlimited mic cabinet, I
would never use an SM 57 again. They do a passable job on everything, a good
job on many things, and a great job on a few things. The are not, however, the
best mic for anything.
The original post for this thread asked about using a mic with seveal other
guitars, a piano, and a drummer. If you got rid of the drummer, you might be
satisfied with a mic, but with a drummer there, I wouldn't want to try it. I
have had to on a few occasions, and it was awful. You could not heat the
guitar, and if you listened to the guitar's mic through headphone, most of what
you hear is drums. Maybe others have had better luck, but if you are within 20
feet of the drummer, I would suggest against it. You should also keep in mind
the context in which you are playing. In a solo guitar performance, or in a
guitar and vocal performance, the sound of the guitar is critical. However, in
a band situation, the concern is more about being heard without mudding the
mix. This is easier with a sound which, in a solo context, is not very
interesting. You want to find an unocupied place to sit in the mix, and you
don't want to fill up the sonic space where others live. Engineers will end up
thining the sound of your guitar if it is to full, other wise your sound will
interfer with the space of other instruments. In a band situation, it is much
easier to mix a pickup than a mic, even if you discount the bleed on a mic.
Gabriel Hoffman
www.hoffmanguitars.com
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Which Microphone ?
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:06:25 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
In a band situation, it is much
> easier to mix a pickup than a mic, even if you discount the bleed on a
mic.
>
> Gabriel Hoffman
> www.hoffmanguitars.com
We can agree that it is easier to mix a pick up
but it is far far from a chore to do it with just a mic as well ASSUMING the
player has some mic consciousness
if the player wants to run around and sway about then micing him could be a
challenge
I do not have bleed issues but then again I would not mic a acoustic guitar
with a 57 given the choice between a 57 and a uts I would take the pick-up
every time as the 57 is such a poor choice for live micing of acoustic
guitar
but it is one of the best 60$ mics you can buy
people who take the art of sound reproduction to heart will buy the mics
that work not put up with ones that can be made marginal under duress
right now I use neumann 184's or audix scx-ones
for the fret board and a audix 211/AT 4033 for the lower bout in LIVE
situations
I do not record so as to this working for recording I would not know.
Peace
George
| Pickup or mic? [5] |
|---|
From: Keith Selbee <kselbee@neo...>
Subject: Pickup or mic?
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 20:37:29 GMT
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio
I want to begin a recording project in the near future and need to know if I
should buy a pickup or a mic. Which will yield the best sounding results?
The recording will for the most part be solo acoustic. The guitar is a
Seagull which is not the highest end guitar but I can't seem to find
anything else that plays quite to my liking like the Seagull does. Thanks
for any feedback!
Keith
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Pickup or mic?
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 20:48:07 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Keith Selbee" <<kselbee@neo...>> wrote in message
news:d0_C7.149485$<6q.19843138@typhoon...>...
> I want to begin a recording project in the near future and need to know if
I
> should buy a pickup or a mic. Which will yield the best sounding results?
> The recording will for the most part be solo acoustic. The guitar is a
> Seagull which is not the highest end guitar but I can't seem to find
> anything else that plays quite to my liking like the Seagull does. Thanks
> for any feedback!
>
> Keith
>
while I usuallly promote the mic I think you will get your best sound from
using both a mic and a pickup on the seagull
project recording esp the first few times with a limited budget would be a
challenge with a mic alone you just do not have the expriance or budget to
do the mic thing correctly
if you start off on the wrong foot with mics you will be jaded agaisnt them
in the future
buy the pick-up
borrow or rent a mic
From: donh <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: Pickup or mic?
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 16:54:49 -0400 (EDT)
Organization: WebUseNet Corp. - "ReInventing The UseNet"
buy one good recording mic. get the second one later, if you wish to try
for stereo. avoid all mics typically sold in music stores (eg: SM58,
SM57, and knock-offs of same), as they are designed for close-up voice
and suck horribly (ie: go even more non-linear) for distance pickup
(anything past 3-6", in this case).
the mics I am familiar with are Beyer M-201 and M69, tho there are good
competing units from AKG, Sennheiser, and maybe Shure.
Then play with the distance from the guitar to balance room-ambience with
the guitar sound. to do this, get a long cable for the mic and a long
cable for your headphones and have someone play the guitar while you walk
around and listen. it will be obvious. enjoy!
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 20:37:29 GMT, Keith Selbee wrote:
>I want to begin a recording project in the near future and need to know if I
>should buy a pickup or a mic. Which will yield the best sounding results?
>The recording will for the most part be solo acoustic. The guitar is a
>Seagull which is not the highest end guitar but I can't seem to find
>anything else that plays quite to my liking like the Seagull does. Thanks
>for any feedback!
>
>Keith
>
(donh climnbs into the flame-proof suit, and cowers)
donh at audiosys dot com
From: No Busking <nobusking@erols...>
Subject: Re: Pickup or mic?
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:59:54 -0500
Keith asked:
> I want to begin a recording project in the near future and need to know if
I
> should buy a pickup or a mic. Which will yield the best sounding results?
IMO, you'll get MUCH better results with a mic, and even better results with
two of them.
Unless you're willing to spend big bucks on a pickup system (which might be
inappropriate for your Seagull), it won't sound natural going direct to
tape...you'd likely get a lot of "piezo quack". Stuff that sounds OK
through the speakers when you play it will sound like rubber bands when
going direct.
Best bet is a pair of decent condenser mics through good preamps, but if you
want to go cheap, two SM57's in an XY configuration (panned wide left and
right), going through a garden-variety mini-mixer can produce OK results.
Condensers will give you a lot more detail and warmth, but you'd lose a lot
of that if you're using cheap preamps.
You can spend as much as you like, and the sound quality will generally get
slightly better the more you (sensibly) spend. If you're gonna spend big
bucks on mics, make sure you have good equipment all the way through your
signal chain.
--
Michael Pugh
From: MAIB <messerabout@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Pickup or mic?
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 21:08:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
I have a Shure SM57 (about $70 on sale typically), a Tascam 424 MKII ($250
on close out at a local store), a stand ($25), a cable ($25), an Alesis
Nanoverb (under $100) and a cheap old stereo to play it all through. I use
this to record my guitars so I can hear my mistakes (always a depressing
venture). The quality of the sound using this under-$500 set-up is, to my
amateur ears, pretty damn good. It far exceeds the quality of the playing
that runs through it.
Mark
| recording mics [6] |
|---|
From: RPM <rmhm@home...>
Subject: Re: recording mics
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 03:37:01 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Hi there; It's really hard to say what the 'best' is, as price points can
vary quite a bit. I have a Rode NT-1 which I use in conjunction with a
b-band and PUTW for recording. I think they are around $200 or so, and do a
decent job. At Jose Feliciano's home studio, he has some AKG C414's, and my
Martin J-40M sounded incredible thru those...so much so that I may consider
getting one myself (but they are Soooo expensive), after I do some intense
A/B comparisons between the two...those run around $900 or so (which I'm
thinking is really out of my league, but it's always fun to consider<g>).
Those are the only experiences I really have. It really boils down to what
you are willing to spend. Hope this helps. Rick
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@home...>
Subject: Re: recording mics
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 04:49:48 GMT
Organization: Family
As far as mikes go (as oppossed to internal pickups, etc.), I'vefound the best combination (for me at least) is two mikes, one a large
condenser and the other a small condenser. You can spend a little (such
as Oktavias) or a lot (like Neumanns). You pretty much get what you pay
for. After quite a search, I chose the Neumann TLM 103 (large condenser
about $800) and the Neumann KM 184 (small condenser about $550). A
decent preamp is needed for these mikes, and the rest of your recording
equipment should not contain any junk. The Neumanns are simply wonderful.
==
Stephen T. Boyke
Bob S. wrote:
>Where's a good place to start looking for recording mics for my Taylor 510
>&555? Does this newsgroup have an FAQ on recording acoustic guitars? Thanks!
>
>
From: Edward Bianchi <NOSPAMej@bianchiNOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: recording mics
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 08:47:54 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
There are many expensive Mics to look at, but a pair of Shure SM57s or
SM58s will do the job quite nicely for a lot less money. It all
depends on what you are trying to do. There are a number of tracks on
the RMMGA CDs that I thought just sounded awesome, and later found out
they were recorded with the Shure SM microphones. Other things are
very important, like you Microphone pre-amps, the mixer, the effects
unit (compressor and reverb), and the recording media. A well
maintained Tascam Multitracker tape machine such as the 424 MkIII will
do very well recording guitar for very little money comparatively.
Digital recorders can tend to be better, but Tascam has the
Mic-preamps that are quite good.
Look that the Multi-track recording FAQ's at Harmony Central...
http://www.harmony-central.com/Recording/faqs.html
there is a number of FAQ's including a Microphone FAQ..
Hope this helps..
-Ed
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 02:51:32 GMT, "Bob S." <<rjs@insight...>> wrote:
>Where's a good place to start looking for recording mics for my Taylor 510
>&555? Does this newsgroup have an FAQ on recording acoustic guitars? Thanks!
>
-Ed Bianchi
remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: Francis Guidry <fguidry@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: recording mics
Date: 21 Nov 2001 08:53:45 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Bob S." <<rjs@insight...>> wrote in message news:<UEEK7.12813$<Y11.3248235@typhoon...>>...
> Where's a good place to start looking for recording mics for my Taylor 510
> &555? Does this newsgroup have an FAQ on recording acoustic guitars? Thanks!
I occasionally read another Usenet news group, rec.audio.pro, that
covers recording at a professional level. Using Google Groups it's
easy to search the postings for the last few years. Here's the URL
for a search on "mic acoustic guitar" and it turned up thousands of
hits:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mic+acoustic+guitar&hl=en&meta=group%3Drec.audio.pro
Fran
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: recording mics
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 00:35:47 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On 21 Nov 2001 23:02:35 GMT, <ghoff34226@aol...> (GHoff34226) wrote:
>>he has some AKG C414's, and my
>>Martin J-40M sounded incredible thru those...so much so that I may consider
>>getting one myself
>
>Make sure you get the right ones. The TL's and the B/UL's sound quite
>different.
The qc window of the entire 414 series is _very_ wide. It took me
years to find one that actually sounded good to me.
From: GHoff34226 <ghoff34226@aol...>
Subject: Re: recording mics
Date: 21 Nov 2001 23:25:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
It depends on your budget. A good starting point is one or two small diaphragm
condensers. Options abound, but I have experience with Shure SM-81's, AKG
535s, AKG 450s, AKG 460s, AKG 480s (the current version), Neumann 84's, 184s,
and (my favorite) B&K 4011s. These all sound good, and I have listed them in
roughly ascending order of cost. Someone is bound to tell you that I am stupid
for liking the SM-81, but it is very nice for the price (IMO).
You could then consider going to a large diaphragm mic. My low end favorite
would be an AKG C3000. This is very similar to the justly famous AKG 414
B/ULs, but much less expensive, with fewer patterns, and a little brighter.
The next step up for me would be an AKG 414 TL. This mic is transformerless,
and has a bit more character than the B/ULS model, to my ear. The gold
standard of large diaphragm mics is the Neumann U87, which is a marvelous mic.
This was Frank Sanatra's vocal mic, by the way. But then, it has probably
recorded more vocal sessions than any other mic in history. It sounds
wonderful on guitars, and is probably one of the most versatile condenser mics
in the world. It sounds great on everything, just don't put it in a kick drum.
(would sound glorious for about a minute.) After that, it all becomes amatter of taste. The Neumann TLM 147 is a large diaphragm tube mic. You will
never find a mic as warm as the 147.
Of course, none of this really matters if you don't have good ears. A good set
of ears can make any mic sound good, and bad ears can ruin any mic.
Good Luck with your search for you favorite mic, and I hope I have been
helpful.
Gabriel Hoffman
www.hoffmanguitars.com
| Microphone choice: ADK A-51 versus AT-3035??? |
|---|
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Microphone choice: ADK A-51 versus AT-3035???
Date: 22 Nov 2001 18:21:45 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Hap <<mjaron@backpacker...>> wrote:
>
>Although I am a novice re microphones, I have looked around a little
>and am considering a pair of either the ADK A-51 or the Audio Technica
>AT-3035, to be used either as 2 mics on the guitar or 1 for guitar, 1
>for vocals. Both of these mics have some pretty good reviews, and are
>comparable in price (street around $179 each). I understand that they
>are entry level large condenser mics, and that they are not going to
>sound like Earthworks or Neumann, but you have to start somewhere.
I don't know about the 3035, but the ADK doesn't have a tight enough
pattern to be a real good PA mike. If you want something flatter than
the SM57 and you don't want to spend $200 for the AKG C535, look into
something like the EV N/D 468. Tight, solid pickup so you don't get a
lot of leakage, which reduces feedback problems. There are a lot of
other good mikes out there, but what you want for PA is not the same
thing you want for recording necessarily, and when in doubt go for
a narrower pattern for PA. Try listening to your guitar on these and
seeing how they sound.
>I'm also considering a Shure Beta SM58 for a vocal mic. Again, I'd
>appreciate any other comments or other suggestions.
I don't know. Do you pop your P's? Listen to how you sound on it and see.
You might prefer a Beta 57, or maybe the original SM-57, or maybe some other
good vocal PA mike. They all sound different and work on different voices.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
| Recording Mics [5] |
|---|
From: Bob S. <rjs@insight...>
Subject: Recording Mics
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 05:03:53 GMT
Organization: Road Runner Columbus
Any recommendations for high quality guitar recording mics? Thanks!
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@home...>
Subject: Re: Recording Mics
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 04:24:36 GMT
Organization: Family
A pair of mikes works best. Some say a matched pair can provideexcellent results. Others prefer two different mikes. I'm in the
latter camp. For recording fingerstyle acoustic guitar, a large
diaphram conderser and a small diaphram condenser work very well for me.
A decent setup might be the Rode NT-1 (large) and a AKG C1000 (orC2000) as the small condenser. A higher quality set would be the
Neumann TLM 103 (large) and the Neumann KM 184 (small). Quite a
combination. It is what I now use. You can improve further, but the
prices accelerate quickly.
All these mikes require phantom power and, most importantly, aquality preamp, which is another subject entirely.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
Bob S. wrote:
>Any recommendations for high quality guitar recording mics? Thanks!
>
>
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Recording Mics
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 00:01:32 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
Bob S. <<rjs@insight...>> wrote:
> Any recommendations for high quality guitar recording mics? Thanks!
A budget is a handy thing to reference... before I tell you that
acoustic guitars have sounded marvelous through a Brauner VM1-S, which
goes for only seventy-five hundred US dollars.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Recording Mics
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:12:03 -0800
Organization: secret mountain
dars <<darshelton@hotmail...>> wrote:
> And while we're on the subject of recording mics , what's a decent
> inexpensive LDC mic to use in conjunction with a cheap $100 SDC mic.?
Why do you seek this combination? What approach to micing the guitar do
you intend?
> Rode
> NT-1's any good ?.(knowing I need to ask for real,
> but hey! look at what I just wrote... now look at the header title....
> maybe there's hope.)
I haven't tried this mic, but Ty Ford suggests it's an outstanding
value, currently being overlooked in the marketplace: Audio-Technica
3035. It's under $400 list, IIRC.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Recording Mics
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 05:12:45 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 21:32:52 -0700, "dars" <<darshelton@hotmail...>>
wrote:
>
>hank alrich <<walkinay@thegrid...>> wrote in message news:<1f3r1ik.18i3x601pkvkanN@209-162-27-91...>...
>> dars <<darshelton@hotmail...>> wrote:
>>
>> > And while we're on the subject of recording mics , what's a decent
>> > inexpensive LDC mic to use in conjunction with a cheap $100 SDC mic.?
>>
>> Why do you seek this combination? What approach to micing the guitar do
>> you intend?
>>
>> > Rode
>> > NT-1's any good ?.(knowing I need to ask for real,
>> > but.........
>>
>> I haven't tried this mic, but Ty Ford suggests it's an outstanding
>> value, currently being overlooked in the marketplace: Audio-Technica
>> 3035. It's under $400 list, IIRC.
>>
>> --
>> hank alrich * secret__mountain
>
>Jeez, I can't even remember how I was going to setup the large and small diaphragm mics. Uh....
>however Rick Ruskin suggested a couple of years ago, and how I read about in magazines.... duh
>.......
>I know I had settled on a configuration, I just don't remember it !. I lost touch with the process till I got better at playing.
>Large diaphragm in front of the soundhole (a foot away?) , small one offset and pointed at the fingerboard??. Don't you use an
>identical pair in an "X" arrangement?. Guess I'm getting old.
>
>AT 3035... probably have a review somewhere.............thanks.
>Dar
>
>
Rick Ruskin (that's me) _never_ uses a large diaphragm mic on
acoustic guitar. Even the best of them are too colored for what I
like. If I'm doing stereo: 2 small cap condensers, peferably the
same make/model. If I'm doing mono I use only one. Placement tends
to differ depending on the tune, instrumernt, and whatever sonic
joob-joob is in the room.
| Question about Behringer ECM8000 omni microphone. [4] |
|---|
From: Garthrr <garthrr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Question about Behringer ECM8000 omni microphone.
Date: 17 Dec 2001 00:10:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <<20011216185815.08575.00000500@mb-mu...>>, <rockmusic510@aol...>
(justin pizzoferrato) writes:
>I think I'm going to get a pair of of Behringer ECM8000 omni mics. $36 for
>one
>sounds like I cant really lose but I was wondering what those of you that
>have
>used them think of them? I've heard nothing but good so far. Thanks.
>-justin
I have a pair and have used them for recording a marimba. The player and I were
both very happy with the results. I dont know what the self noise figure is but
I suspects it's kinda high. On acoustic guitar the mics were not as pleasing to
my ears as the Oktava MC 012s I usually use but they were decent and,
presumably because of their omni pattern, they didnt give me the low end bump
from proximity. For the price I dont think you can lose.
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Question about Behringer ECM8000 omni microphone.
Date: 17 Dec 2001 10:27:47 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
In article <<20011216185815.08575.00000500@mb-mu...>>,
justin pizzoferrato <<rockmusic510@aol...>> wrote:
>I think I'm going to get a pair of of Behringer ECM8000 omni mics. $36 for one
>sounds like I cant really lose but I was wondering what those of you that have
>used them think of them? I've heard nothing but good so far. Thanks.
They look to me like a knockoff of the inexpensive Josephson electret
measurement mikes.
The capsules are made in China and are a copy of the Panasonic capsules,
but not a bad looking copy. They are maybe a bit noisier.
For $36 I suppose you can't complain much.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Question about Behringer ECM8000 omni microphone.
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 12:58:40 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<kludge@panix...> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>In article <<20011216185815.08575.00000500@mb-mu...>>,
>justin pizzoferrato <<rockmusic510@aol...>> wrote:
>>I think I'm going to get a pair of of Behringer ECM8000 omni mics. $36 for one
>>sounds like I cant really lose but I was wondering what those of you that have
>>used them think of them? I've heard nothing but good so far. Thanks.
>
>They look to me like a knockoff of the inexpensive Josephson electret
>measurement mikes.
>
>The capsules are made in China and are a copy of the Panasonic capsules,
>but not a bad looking copy. They are maybe a bit noisier.
>
>For $36 I suppose you can't complain much.
scott,
I just tried mine on an acoustic guitar last night and it was pretty
damn good - almost 10dB hotter than the Audix TR-40. Didn't check the
noise level, but it wasn't a problem, for this track anyway. We wound
up using the Behringer instead of the Audix. A little different
sounding than the Audix, but no big, ugly peaks or dips that I could
hear. And the lowest price I've seen the ECM8000 sell for is $33.95.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Luk Van de Heyning <luk@cut-the-crap-lvdh...>
Subject: Re: Question about Behringer ECM8000 omni microphone.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 19:02:54 GMT
Organization: KPNQwest customer news service
On 16 Dec 2001 23:58:15 GMT, <rockmusic510@aol...> (justin
pizzoferrato) wrote:
>I think I'm going to get a pair of of Behringer ECM8000 omni mics. $36 for one
>sounds like I cant really lose but I was wondering what those of you that have
>used them think of them? I've heard nothing but good so far. Thanks.
>-justin
The only thing (except measruments :-) I use the ECM8000 for is:
recording "ambience". Crowd, applause (if any :-) etc.
When recording this kind of "noise" I never noticed any "real noise".
Never had to pay attention to it really (in these circumstances that
is).
And I paid mine "a lot more in those days"...
So if you need a "bloody cheap" omnidirectional mike: go for it.
