| Neumann KM 184 [6] |
|---|
From: Stonker7 <stonker7@aol...>
Subject: Neumann KM 184
Date: 12 Jan 2002 02:09:23 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Any ideas on the best place to purchase a Neumann KM 184. They list for $699
but I've seen somewhere a price of $549. Any leads are appreciated.
Fred Albert
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:31:42 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Stonker7 <<stonker7@aol...>> wrote:
> Any ideas on the best place to purchase a Neumann KM 184. They list for $699
> but I've seen somewhere a price of $549. Any leads are appreciated.
EAR Professional Audio and Video, in Phoenix:
I've had great service and pricing from Jerry Delgado at EAR:
<jerry@ear...>
EAR PROFESSIONAL AUDIO/VIDEO |
(Engineering and Recording Inc.) |
2641 E. McDowell Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85008 |
Phone: (602) 267-0600 FAX: (602) 275-3277 |
Voice Mail/Direct E-Fax: (800) 861-3132 |
<info@Ear...> or http://www.ear.net |
Also Full Compass:
Also Mercenary Audio in Boston, which of all these places has the most
knowledgeable sales weasels, people who actually do engineering and
production and not just sales:
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
131 Morse Street
Foxboro MA 02035
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
Also, Klay Anderson in Salt Lake City.
1-800-FOR-KLAY
Watch out for grey market Neumanns, because if anything goes wonky with
'em you must return them to Germany for waranty service. Not to worry if
buying from an authorized US dealer. Neumann USA service is keen.
Also, consider the MicroTech Gefell M300, another German small cap
condensor that can be had for under $500. Lance McCollum bought a pair
of these last year and likes them. Good place for those is Studio Tech
Supply, who may have recently moved from Dallas/Ft. Worth to Austin TX.
http://www.studiotechsupply.com/
If phoning, ask for Barbara Priest, who owns the place with her husband
Al.
There are many other suppliers, too, but these are the easy one for me
to find, and good people all 'round.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: 12 Jan 2002 21:37:05 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Stonker7 <<stonker7@aol...>> wrote:
> Any ideas on the best place to purchase a Neumann KM 184. They list for $699
> but I've seen somewhere a price of $549. Any leads are appreciated. >>
Full Compass has some "B-stock" KM-184s for under $500, as listed in a sales
flyer that came in last Weds.
stv
Tar Baby Tunes
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:30:03 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
John Sorell <<jsorell@infi...>> wrote:
> What is B-stock?
Something about which one must know the credibility of the vendor before
deciding to make a purchase with confidence. Sometimes it's as simple as
a box that is no longer factory sealed, or even just that the sealed
packaging looks bruised; sometimes it's a small blemish, or a missing
cord that was initially included, etc. And sometimes it's an impaired
device that you don't want.
So, to me, the key elements to satisfaction buying B-stock are that it
come with original, full-length warranty and that I have faith in the
integrity of the vendor.
In the example of a Neumann microphone from Full Compass I would not
hesitate in the least.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: John Sorell <jsorell@infi...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:10:13 -0700
Yes! Stay away from David Butler (DB Engineering). He does a preponderance
of ebay auctions for gray market Neumann products and he is a jerk. He tried
to screw me over on an auction I "won" on a KM184. I called him on it and
immediately gave negative feedback. He squealed pretty loudly about the
feedback. Apparently it can be devastating to his business (re: the John
Pearce thread). He came up with a satisfactory deal but I hated dealing with
the weasel. Still trying to wash the funk off.
$549 looks like a pretty good price. They are great mics, btw. You will like
it.
John
"Stonker7" <<stonker7@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020111210923.11041.00000826@mb-fv...>...
> Any ideas on the best place to purchase a Neumann KM 184. They list for
$699
> but I've seen somewhere a price of $549. Any leads are appreciated.
>
> Fred Albert
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 04:22:31 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
John Sorell <<jsorell@infi...>> wrote:
> Yes! Stay away from David Butler (DB Engineering).
I had written:
> Watch out for grey market Neumanns, because if anything goes wonky with
> 'em you must return them to Germany for waranty service.
Nuff said? If you doubt the implication, look into grey market Neumanns
& "db" via Google's Advanced Usenet Search in the archives of
rec.audio.pro.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
| akg c1000s [6] |
|---|
From: ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: 16 Jan 2002 03:08:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< >I have wondered how many of those who berate them have actually used them.
>>
How many times do you have to hurt yourself before you know not to take stuff
out of the oven with your bare hands? I haven't USED the C1000 because before I
got that far I HEARD the C1000 on a friend's PA rig. Why go back for more pain?
Scott Fraser
From: YBStudios <ybstudios@aol...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: 16 Jan 2002 16:04:04 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I haven't USED the C1000 because before I
>got that far I HEARD the C1000 on a friend's PA rig. Why go back for more
>pain?
Same here. Heard a large orchestra in a church with close to ten of them thru
a big Soundcraft board. I had a tough time believing the Lord had anything to
do with that setup. In Memphis of all places.
Wayne
From: Bill Roper <roper@typhoon...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:28:03 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: XNet Information Systems, Inc.
In article <a21k76$4j6$<1@panix2...>>,
Scott Dorsey <<kludge@panix...>> wrote:
>In article <92M08.24829$<Vq.229669@rwcrnsc...>>,
>daly <<hughseller@attbi...>> wrote:
>>relative to low price mics, is it as good as its reputed to be? compared to
>>shure sm57,58,etc? thanks.
>
>I had no idea it was reputed to be good. Everyone I know hates the damn
>things.
Not everyone.
It's a pretty reasonable mic for a number of applications.
I've used it as a guitar mic with good success. I only had a problem with
one fellow who had a 12-string with a lot of high end and who plays
"aggressively". Then, it can start to sound a bit brittle. But it worked
well for the other folks I've used it with.
I've used it as a live vocal mic for folks who liked to swallow the mic.
It sounded good on both male and female vocals. It's got a nice presence
peak when you get in close to it, so you pick up the bottom end and
midrange that you can lose with other mics.
It's relatively forgiving of mic placement, because it's relatively
sensitive. If you have a singer who just *will not* get on top of the
mic, you can still get a good vocal take with a C1000s. You won't get
a good vocal under those circumstances with a Shure SM57, which goes
completely tinny when you are at all distant or off-axis.
(For those who say, "Fix the singer", it's sometimes easier said than
done. sigh)
I'm currently experimenting with the Marshall 603s as a guitar mic and
may like it better than the C1000s, but I'm still in experimentation mode.
--
Bill Roper, <roper@xnet...>
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 02 13:14:05 GMT
Organization: Technique, Inc.
In Article <<132a4us65umadfvlrem9j5hj727dtruqts@4ax...>>, Jan Philips
<<jud.mccranie@mindspring...>> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:59:33 GMT, "daly" <<hughseller@attbi...>> wrote:
>
>>relative to low price mics, is it as good as its reputed to be? compared to
>>shure sm57,58,etc? thanks.
>
>you are on a tight budget and just getting into condensor mikes, it
>has a couple of things going for it. (1) It can run on a battery
>instead of a phantom power supply, (2) it doesn't use a shock mount.
The same could be said of a flashlight, but I would use one to record
important audio.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's web site is http://www.jagunet.com/~tford.
Check it out for voiceover samples and audio equipment reviews.
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: 17 Jan 2002 12:33:38 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
In article <<hjjb4u016sa6jgbkd80qa6751cvqqo7ad7@4ax...>>,
Jan Philips <<jud.mccranieNOSPAMM@mindspring...>> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jan 02 13:14:05 GMT, <tford@jagunet...> (Ty Ford) wrote:
>
>>The same could be said of a flashlight, but I would use one to record
>>important audio.
>
>But these could be important if you're just getting started. What if
>oyu don't have a phantom power supply? Some people don't. There was
>a time when I didn't have one. And if you're using a desktop mike
>stand, a clip on works better than a shock mount.
Maybe, but a Radio Shack PZM would have been a better choice than a C1000
a few years ago. I don't really know the really-really-cheap range these
days, and the RS PZM has been discontinued, but there is no excuse for
something that sounds as bad as the C1000 at any price. The SM57 costs
less and is useful, and needs no phantom. Same with the EV 635A.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: YBStudios <ybstudios@aol...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: 16 Jan 2002 15:51:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>you are on a tight budget and just getting into condensor mikes, it
>has a couple of things going for it. (1) It can run on a battery
>instead of a phantom power supply, (2) it doesn't use a shock mount.
The ATM33 will do likewise and is a much better mic IMHO. I hear the AT3035
series is even better and you can get them in either cardiod or omni.
Wayne
Yellow Booth Studios
Montgomery, AL
| microphones [21] |
|---|
From: chaya <chaya@san...>
Subject: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:02:14 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
...
csj
From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@lrbcg...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:12:06 -0500
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
> I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
> that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
> want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
> sources?
I bought a Sennheiser 835 epack that included a really nice boom & stand for
$119. I got mine from American Musical Supply:
http://www.americanmusical.com/item.asp?UID=2002012120022066&menu=&keyword=&
item=SEN+E835PACK
Cut & paste the two lines together for the web page.
I think it does nicely as an entry-level vocal mic.
Of course YMMV.
Good luck,
Frank Wiewandt
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:09:00 -0500
Organization: Library of Congress
Susan,
This Sennheiser ePack combo is a great deal. The E835 mic is at least as good
as a Shure SM58--the industry workhorse. But for about $20 more than the cost
of the mic you get a very good boom stand and I think there's a 20 foot XLR
cable in the pack too. Otherwise you could get an SM58 for $100, a mic stand as
good as the Senn one for $35 and a cable for $15.
We used my Sennheiser mic at EC III along with some of Sparky's--last year we
had a bunch of loaner mics--Audix's I think.
Dick
Frank Wiewandt wrote:
> > I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
> > that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
> > want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
> > sources?
>
> I bought a Sennheiser 835 epack that included a really nice boom & stand for
> $119. I got mine from American Musical Supply:
>
> http://www.americanmusical.com/item.asp?UID=2002012120022066&menu=&keyword=&
> item=SEN+E835PACK
>
> Cut & paste the two lines together for the web page.
>
> I think it does nicely as an entry-level vocal mic.
>
> Of course YMMV.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Frank Wiewandt
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:17:53 GMT
Organization: Cleardata Communications
The newsgroup favorite FQMS carries microphones. http://www.FQMS.com
Also you check the following:
htttp://www.zzounds.com
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:02:14 GMT, chaya <<chaya@san...>> wrote:
>I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
>that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
>want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
>sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
>...
>
>csj
Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:40:30 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"chaya" <<chaya@san...>> wrote in message
news:<3C4CA22B.8C72B9B4@san...>...
> I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
> that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
> want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
> sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
If this mic is to be used for vocals, then for a decent mic that's
affordable it's hard to beat the old standby, Shure SM58. Excellent at
nothing, works okay for most everything, durable, and inexpensive.
First Quality sells them.
Bob Dorgan
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:44:39 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Bob Dorgan <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote:
> "chaya" <<chaya@san...>> wrote in message
> news:<3C4CA22B.8C72B9B4@san...>...
> > I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
> > that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
> > want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
> > sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
> If this mic is to be used for vocals, then for a decent mic that's
> affordable it's hard to beat the old standby, Shure SM58. Excellent at
> nothing, works okay for most everything, durable, and inexpensive.
> First Quality sells them.
As usual, I gotta proclaim that nowadays it's easy to beat a Shure SM58
for almost anything, starting with the Audix OM3xb, at a similar price
point. Smoother response, better off-axis rejection, more controlled
proximity effect, increased clarity, better operation with a wider range
of transformerless input mic preamps, which includes almost all
"affordable" such beasts.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Pete Boyle <peteb44@aol...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 22 Jan 2002 19:08:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
You may also want to check out the Carvin CM68 (vocals) & or CM67(instruments).
Great inexpensive ( 89.99 ) mike on par with Shure. www.Carvin.com
Just my .02
Pete
From: Trek5200CS <trek5200cs@aol...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 22 Jan 2002 19:53:52 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I just bought an AKG C535 EB Condenser mic. It is cyrstal clear and cost around
$225 street. Made SM58's sound like muddy cardboard. The difference was
dramatic. But keep in mind, you need Phantom power. A great value in my mind.
Gary Roberts
From: csj <chaya@san...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 22 Jan 2002 16:54:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Thanks to all those who replied. At some point I remembered that I
worked in a library and found a really interesting article where they
compared seven mics to the SM58. It's in "Electronic Musician," June
98, p. 34-52.
They seem to agree with all of you. For enhanced vocals they liked the
Sennheiser E835 and the Electro-Voice n/d267. For clear, unenhanced
vocals they liked the Audix OM2. Oh yeah, they still like the SM58
too.
Given my voice, I'm now afraid of the Audix - maybe some distortion is
better?
I'll sleep on it some more and come up with some arbitrary decision
real soon ...
csj
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:37:02 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"csj" <<chaya@san...>> wrote in message
news:<8f0efbd.0201221654.528f64dd@posting...>...
> Thanks to all those who replied. At some point I remembered that I
> worked in a library and found a really interesting article where they
> compared seven mics to the SM58. It's in "Electronic Musician," June
> 98, p. 34-52.
>
> They seem to agree with all of you. For enhanced vocals they liked the
> Sennheiser E835 and the Electro-Voice n/d267. For clear, unenhanced
> vocals they liked the Audix OM2. Oh yeah, they still like the SM58
> too.
>
> Given my voice, I'm now afraid of the Audix - maybe some distortion is
> better?
>
> I'll sleep on it some more and come up with some arbitrary decision
> real soon ...
>
> csj
Susan,
I checked the model Audix I have. The one I've got is #OM6.
I can't find the receipt, and I've had it awhile, but I think I paid well
over $200. I can't remember if I tried the Om2, but I went through 5 or 6
different mics that day and I picked the Om6 because it was clean, crisp and
it picked up well off-axis- but the pattern wasn't so wide it would be
troublesome.
If you get bopping around (like I do!) when you play, it's easy to get offthe pattern of a mic and your vocal volume will change radically if you have
one with a real tight pattern if you're moving about.
An overly wide pattern and you start picking up sounds you don't want, so
it's a tradeoff of sorts.
The mic Dick Thaxter recommended is pretty good and is certainly affordable.
Bob Dorgan
From: Jonathan R. Larsson <sti4667@blackfoot...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:50:31 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
"csj" <<chaya@san...>> wrote in message
news:<8f0efbd.0201221654.528f64dd@posting...>...
> Thanks to all those who replied. At some point I remembered that I
> worked in a library and found a really interesting article where they
> compared seven mics to the SM58. It's in "Electronic Musician," June
> 98, p. 34-52.
>
> They seem to agree with all of you. For enhanced vocals they liked the
> Sennheiser E835 and the Electro-Voice n/d267. For clear, unenhanced
> vocals they liked the Audix OM2. Oh yeah, they still like the SM58
> too.
>
> Given my voice, I'm now afraid of the Audix - maybe some distortion is
> better?
>
> I'll sleep on it some more and come up with some arbitrary decision
> real soon ...
>
> csj
FWIW, zzounds.com has the OM2 on sale right now for $59.95 (list - $150.00).
Here's the link.
http://www.zzounds.com/love.music?p=p.AUDOM2&a=em012202a13
Usual disclaimers apply.
Jon Larsson
From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:55:30 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Chaya,
Gotta agree with the concensus here...a year ago I'd have been boosting the
SM58 like a demon...it's all I used for vocals for close to 20years. Last
year though, I broke down and picked up an Audio Technica ATM41HE and I've
never looked back...I still have my old 58's but I mostly use 'em to mic my
amps...say what you like, they are versitile. So...look around...try a few
different makes and models, you'll no doubt find the right one for you and
your pocket book.
Best of Luck, CS
--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me here are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
Trek5200CS <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020122145352.29192.00000299@mb-ch...>...
> I just bought an AKG C535 EB Condenser mic. It is cyrstal clear and cost
around
> $225 street. Made SM58's sound like muddy cardboard. The difference was
> dramatic. But keep in mind, you need Phantom power. A great value in my
mind.
>
> Gary Roberts
From: Trek5200CS <trek5200cs@aol...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 23 Jan 2002 01:45:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
ooops. Missed the original post and was replying to the most recent thread I
had seen. I guess I wanted to brag a little because I finally stepped way up
from my tried and true standard Shure SM57/58's. I was was truly psyched that a
Mic could sound so much better was all. My ego get's me in the most precarious
situations sometimes.
For a sub $100 Mic, I also demo'd the AKG D880 which my local shop sells for
$80. Retails for more than $100. Not sure how much. It made the Shure SM58
also sound rather muddy and bland to my ears as well as the people in my local
music store. I liked the AKG D880 better than the Shure SM87 Condenser Mic that
sells for almost twice as much.
Hope that helps. Have I redeemed myself yet?
Gary
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 23 Jan 2002 15:34:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Susan asked about a low
priced, entry level mic. >>
Altho they can be physically challenging, regarding placement and mounting,
there are small lavalier mics that cost very little and work well. That is,
honestly.
A couple of important points...
The best will be condensor mics, which means that they will need some sort of
power source, a battery or phantom power (from a preamp, a mixer or a direct
box). Many of the inexpensive ones have battery packs with them and will use
common batteries.
The other thing to look for is an "omni" pattern. This means that the mic
listens in a basically spherical pattern around it's little face. The good
news here is that it won't sound bassier as it gets nearer the sound source.
(Omni mics are big favorites for recording guitars in the studio.) The bad
news is that other noises can leak into it since it's not 'focused,' tho if
it's mounted -on- the guitar and close to the strings, this may not be a
problem at all.
While narrower pattern mics (cardioid and hypercardioid) will exclude more
ambient sound, the proximity effect (more bass the closer you get to the sound)
can be weird for an acoustic guitar, tho you
-can- often find a place on the guitar where it sounds good.
Most of these little mics are made for attaching to the body of a narrator.
While YMMV, in general, the more you can spend the better.
At the Cincinnati Celtic Fest last Sept., Ged Foley used a lavalier mic on a
flexy gooseneck for his Stefan Sobell OM. I think it was a Crown 100 (about
$200 list?) and he had a velcro strip on the face of the guitar ready to accept
the other side of the velcro which was mounted to the gooseneck.
It sounded great, but I thought that was a lot of goo to put on a Sobell top
... <g>
HTH,
stv
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:23:07 GMT
Organization: Cleardata Communications
Hmmm. FWIW, I thought the original post was inquiring about on-line
places to purchase mics, as opposed to the ubiquitous "what mic is
best" query. Having already responded to what I thought was the
initial query -- here's a response to the other -- there are lots of
entry level mics available. I have been using an Audio Technica ATM
41HE for my (ahem) very limited vocal excursions and I'm quite happy
with it. An inexpensive dynamic mic that seems to work quite well
through an acoustic guitar amplifier or small PA. Of course, what mic
you should get will depend in part upon what use you want to make of
it. Vocals? Guitar sound reinforcement? Live or studio? If you are
trying to mic your guitar, a condenser is generally a better way to
go, but then you will probably need phantom power unless it takes
batteries. And we won't even go near the SD or LD issue. Lots of
discussion of microphones on Rec. Audio.Pro (lots and lots and lots).
Lots of info on that group, although not nearly as hospitable (and
forgiving) as this one.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:02:14 GMT, chaya <<chaya@san...>> wrote:
>I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
>that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
>want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
>sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
>...
>
>csj
Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:28:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"T-bone" <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote in message news:<3C4E0E68.1F05@fltg...>...
> Trek5200CS wrote:
> >
> > I just bought an AKG C535 EB Condenser mic. It is cyrstal clear and cost
around
> > $225 street. Made SM58's sound like muddy cardboard.
> > Gary Roberts
>
> At 3 times the price, it's supposed to!
> It's always helpful to reply to the question. Susan asked about a low
> priced, entry level mic.
> I can list 10-12 mics that sound better than any of the sub $100 mics,
> but they don't cost less.
>
> This is a pattern I've seen repeated on this group hundreds of times:
>
> "What's a good guitar for under $600?"
>
> "Hey for $850 you can't beat xyz. Or, if you can go a little more-- for
> $1200 xxx beats the shit out of xyz."
>
Ok here is a 60$ mic that eats the SM58 for sound quality but NOT duribility
The Akg d880
George
From: Mike <m.w.keller@verizon...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:32:43 -0500
So is there a decent condensor mic useful for a home studio situation that's
cheap, let's say below $150 street price?
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:19:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Mike" <<m.w.keller@verizon...>> wrote in message
news:a2nrpd$12vd60$<1@ID-126922...>...
> So is there a decent condensor mic useful for a home studio situation
that's
> cheap, let's say below $150 street price?
>
I really don't record so I would look for a used 535
other than that audio technica has some great ics in their 30 series that
should fall in that price range
www.audio-technica.com
George
From: Todd Belden <toddbeld@merr...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:51:03 GMT
Organization: Progressive Technologies, Inc. www.ptwi.com
I bought an Oktava MK 219 for exactly that purpose a few months ago for $100,
and so far it's worked well. It's a large diaphram condensor mic, made in
Russia. Needs phantom power, and the instructions say to try to protect it as
much as possible from humidity. I found mine on eBay (new), so you might need
to shop around to get that price- the new model (MK 319) goes for just under
$200 from Musicians Friend. Good luck-
tb
Mike wrote:
> So is there a decent condensor mic useful for a home studio situation that's
> cheap, let's say below $150 street price?
From: Steve Hawkins <stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:18:53 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc.
In article <<3C502DFD.F82EE65C@merr...>>, Todd Belden <<toddbeld@merr...>> wrote:
>I bought an Oktava MK 219 for exactly that purpose a few months ago for $100,
>and so far it's worked well. It's a large diaphram condensor mic, made in
>Russia. Needs phantom power, and the instructions say to try to protect it as
>much as possible from humidity. I found mine on eBay (new), so you might need
>to shop around to get that price- the new model (MK 319) goes for just under
>$200 from Musicians Friend. Good luck-
>tb
>
>Mike wrote:
>
>> So is there a decent condensor mic useful for a home studio situation that's
>> cheap, let's say below $150 street price?
>
Check out MXL. They have some impressive mics for less than $150. I've been
looking at the MXL 603S.
www.mxlmics.com
Steve Hawkins
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 04:26:52 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Trek5200CS <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote:
> I just bought an AKG C535 EB Condenser mic. It is cyrstal clear and cost
> around $225 street. Made SM58's sound like muddy cardboard. The difference
> was dramatic. But keep in mind, you need Phantom power. A great value in
> my mind.
Very good mic for the money, and as a condensor will work much better
with most of the cheap preamps around, like those in Mackies, than will
some common dynamic mics, such as the SM57 and 58. James Taylor has used
the 535 for onstage vocals.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
| REQ: microphone to record on computer [3] |
|---|
From: canoe <canoe1@moncourrier...>
Subject: REQ: microphone to record on computer
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:55:33 GMT
Organization: Bell Sympatico
The cheap "Cyber Acoustics" one ($15 CAN) records my voice and guitar
as well as a tin can would do, but no better.
Do you know of any reasonably priced microphone wich'd give acceptable
sound? (recording is just a fun domestic pleasure to me).
Thanks if you can help.
Canoe: <CANOE1@MONCANOE...>
From: John Bjorkman <desert2000@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: REQ: microphone to record on computer
Date: 25 Jan 2002 11:19:37 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I'm certainly no expert in this area, but there are several threads
and web pages around that cover home recording, plus the detail notes
from RMMGA's CD-I and CD-II that cover each person's set-up. It's
probably safe to say that it all gets down to what you consider
'reasonably priced', 'acceptable sound', and 'fun domestic pleasure'.
Once you get going, you may find you want to do more and your initial
set-up may need to be totally scrapped.
It also depends on what you able to hook up to your computer. If all
you have is a standard mini-mic jack, you're stuck with all the
various condenser mics that basically have the fidelity of a
telephone. I haven't tried, but you can probably use an adapter to
get to a standard 1/4" jack size, plus another to get to an XLR (three
pin) connector common to better microphones.
The problem you'll run into is the fidelity available through your
computer's sound card, with no mic pre-amp, etc. So you may be able
to rig things up to use a common Shure SM-48 or -58 (around $99 US),
but if you don't get a better sound card, your recording may still be
unacceptable to you.
And that's where my knowledge ends. Personally I use a Tascam 424
(around $300 US currently). It's a four track tape machine, but it
allows various mic input combinations, some mixing, etc. But when you
add up all the mics, cables, accessories and other sundries needed for
recording, I probably have close to $800 US in gear, although much of
it can also be used for live performances.
There are simpler tape machines out there, too. Hard drive or
PC-cards/machines offer lots of really cool features, and are probably
coming down in price, but again, they're way outside my knowledge.
Not really an answer, I guess, but some more to think about. Besides,
your post looked lonely.... ;-)
peace and joy,
jbj
<canoe1@moncourrier...> (canoe) wrote in message news:<<3c50e3fc.2578862@news1...>>...
> The cheap "Cyber Acoustics" one ($15 CAN) records my voice and guitar
> as well as a tin can would do, but no better.
> Do you know of any reasonably priced microphone wich'd give acceptable
> sound? (recording is just a fun domestic pleasure to me).
> Thanks if you can help.
> Canoe: <CANOE1@MONCANOE...>
From: Francis Guidry <fguidry@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: REQ: microphone to record on computer
Date: 25 Jan 2002 15:51:20 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
You need a decent mic, but once you have that you need to "preamplify"
it to make its signal powerful enough to feed the "Line In" connection
on your sound card. And you need the cables and stands to make all
this work:
Mic: The standard is a Shure SM57. It's a dynamic cardioid mic, which
means it does not need phantom power, and it rejects sound coming from
behind the mic. It also means that if you get the mic too close to the
source it emphasizes the bass response, so you have to adjust the mic
position very carefully. There are several other mics that will do the
job, this is just an industry standard because it is simple, musical,
rugged, and fairly cheap (about $100).
Mic stand
Mic cable
Mixer/Preamp: Two possibilities are the Behringer Eurorack 802 (about
$80) and the M-Audio Audio Buddy (about $120). There are many much
better pieces of equipment - these are cheap. These items do provide
phantom power so you can use a condenser mic if you decide to go that
route.
Stereo cable and adapters to get from the mixer to the line-in jack on
your sound card.
You can use http://groups.google.com to search
Rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic, rec.audio.pro, and alt.music.4-track
for equipment recommendations and technical information.
Fran
<canoe1@moncourrier...> (canoe) wrote in message news:<<3c50e3fc.2578862@news1...>>...
> The cheap "Cyber Acoustics" one ($15 CAN) records my voice and guitar
> as well as a tin can would do, but no better.
> Do you know of any reasonably priced microphone wich'd give acceptable
> sound? (recording is just a fun domestic pleasure to me).
> Thanks if you can help.
> Canoe: <CANOE1@MONCANOE...>
| microphone to record on computer |
|---|
From: Jeb <jcmcgee@uwyo...>
Subject: Re: microphone to record on computer
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:17:15 -0700
Organization: Disorganization
The Rode NT-1 can be found on eBay for less than $150 and is well suited to
acoustic instrument and voice...but you'll need a phantom power source.
jeb
"canoe" wrote...
> The cheap "Cyber Acoustics" one ($15 CAN) records my voice and guitar
> as well as a tin can would do, but no better.
> Do you know of any reasonably priced microphone wich'd give acceptable
> sound? (recording is just a fun domestic pleasure to me).
> Thanks if you can help.
> Canoe: <CANOE1@MONCANOE...>
| Small PA for acoustic duo..recommendations??? [2] |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Small PA for acoustic duo..recommendations???
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:51:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
<<minette@minn...>> wrote in message news:<3c54b825.12739326@news...>...
> Nice set up. Where can one get a new OM6 for $150 though? $189 seems
> more typical. Thanks!
sorry its the om5 that is 150$ though there are several used om6's currently
being advertised for 89 to 99 $ in the back of Pro Sound News
www.prosoundnews.com
George
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Small PA for acoustic duo..recommendations???
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:31:02 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> sorry its the om5 that is 150$
And the OM5 is also a very good mic, very well worth that and more.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
| Good recording mic [8] |
|---|
From: Flyfis4fun <flyfis4fun@aol...>
Subject: Good recording mic
Date: 30 Jan 2002 22:30:47 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
Thanks,
Mike
From: Joe Jordan <profjdj@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:38:21 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Flyfis4fun wrote:
>Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
>anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
>Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
>anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
I'm certainly no expert, but I have been researching this
subject pretty heavily for the last few months.
I think if I had $500 for a mic (and I don't, dammit!), I'd
scrape together just a little bit more and get a Neumann
KM184.
You might even be able to find one for that, but they seem
to run more like $550...
Joe
____________________________
Joe D. Jordan
Mobile, AL
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: 30 Jan 2002 23:22:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I recently had the chance to A/B an Oktava 012 cardioid with the KM184.
The Oktava is not as full and rich, but with careful placement, it ain't bad.
My pal bought two of these for something like $150 each (with a nice box, clip
mount and a screw-in 10db pad), and for some more $ you can get a whole
kit with three interchangeable capsules, omni, cardioid and hypercardioid, I
think.
I'd rather have the Neumann, if only because it will hold it's value better,
but for your use, look into the Oktava. Nice.
All the best,
stv
Tar Baby Tunes
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:28:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Large condenser, of some quality. A new Neumann TLM 103 (about $750street price) is wonderful, much fuller and with much higher detail than
small condensers. An AKG 414B is nice too.
Flyfis4fun wrote:
>Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
>anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
>Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
>anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
>
>Thanks,
>Mike
>
From: Rich Kelley <rkelley@vcd...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: 31 Jan 2002 22:24:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Vancouver Site
People can and do use LD cond. mics for recording acoustics. However,
there are a lot of people that also use small D cond. mics. I personally
have both a KM184 and a TLM 103. I have A/B'd them often on acoustic
guitar. I have always chosen the KM184. The 103, as Stephen says, is
fuller (by which I specifically mean more bass). I have all the bass
I can handle with a KM184, I'm not looking for the mic to add more.
Two asides:
- I'm micing the guitars about 6-8 inches over the 5th fret with the
mic pointed at the 7th to 9th fret.
- I liked the KM184's on a Taylor 615, a Collings OM-2C, and a Martin
D-18GE. The 103 might work on the Collings (smaller guitar, less bass).
It really didn't work for me on the Taylor or the Martin.
You might also want to consider omni mics (all the above mics are
cardiod). Omni mics won't have proximity effect and that should help
the bass issue. However, they will pick up more of the room and any
room noises that might be present.
Besides the KM184 you might consider the Shure SM81 and Crown CM700, AT 4053
in that order. The KM184 is probably the best of this group. Avoid the AKG C1000S.
Don't forget a decent preamp and to work with mic placement.
Good luck.
Rich Kelley
Stephen Boyke (<sdelsolray@attbi...>) wrote:
: Large condenser, of some quality. A new Neumann TLM 103 (about $750
: street price) is wonderful, much fuller and with much higher detail than
: small condensers. An AKG 414B is nice too.
: Flyfis4fun wrote:
: >Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
: >anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
: >Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
: >anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
: >
: >Thanks,
: >Mike
: >
From: George W. <whaler_17@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:40:29 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
On 30 Jan 2002 22:30:47 GMT, Flyfis4fun wrote:
>Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
>anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
>Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
>anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
>
>Thanks,
>Mike
I'll give the usual "I'm no expert" disclaimer, followed by a
suggestion anyway. I've been trying to learn something about mics
myself...
I've read good things about the Studio Projects C1 mic. Street price
is around $200. There's a review and some links here:
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/2CAB4F71AF9E2A1C86256A650081ECF9
From: Edward Bianchi <NOSPAMej@bianchiNOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:16:00 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
$500 is quite far out of my price range, but when I went looking I was
steered towards the Marshall MXL 603S condensers, and bought two of
them at $80 / each. So far, I am very impressed with how natural
sounding and noise free the recordings are. The folks over at the
alt-4track group seem to like 'em quite a bit, and compared them side
by side with some of the more expensive mics...
-Ed
On 30 Jan 2002 22:30:47 GMT, <flyfis4fun@aol...> (Flyfis4fun) wrote:
>Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
>anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
>Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
>anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
>
>Thanks,
>Mike
-Ed Bianchi
remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: Marcos <mdswindell@charter...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 14:32:13 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
In article <<20020202140230.17379.00000708@mb-fk...>>, Mcob2
<<mcob2@aol...>> wrote:
> those octqavas get real chaep at guitar center and work good
Indeed they do and indeed they can. What I did a couple years ago was
to pick up 5 and take them home and test each of them. I found two
that sounded very much alike, and sounded good. Then I took the other
three back. Ask before you do it, though, as some places don't allow
mic returns.
Are they a KM84? Not quite. But not so far away as you might think,
either. QC can be bad though, unless you go to the Sound Room. They
cost more there, but are guaranteed to be of the better quality.
Mark
| Microphones -- Yet Again [4] |
|---|
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Microphones -- Yet Again
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 02:46:34 GMT
Organization: Cleardata Communications
Does anyone have any experience with the Alesis GT line of
microphones? Use to be Groove Tubes until that portion of the
business was purchased by Alesis in 1999 or so. Specifically, I am
interested in the AM-30 and AM-40 medium size condensers which would
seem to be appropriate to acoustic guitar. Thanks!
Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Microphones -- Yet Again
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 04:10:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
<<minette@minn...>> wrote in message news:<3c5f469c.3547279@news...>...
> Does anyone have any experience with the Alesis GT line of
> microphones? Use to be Groove Tubes until that portion of the
> business was purchased by Alesis in 1999 or so. Specifically, I am
> interested in the AM-30 and AM-40 medium size condensers which would
> seem to be appropriate to acoustic guitar. Thanks!
> Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
I bet the guys at rec.audio.pro could give you useful advice I can only
say I have never run into it but overall I find Alesis gear severly lacking
in both performance and reliability
BUT
the GT was a quality tag at one time so I JUST DON'T KNOW
George
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Microphones -- Yet Again
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:48:18 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
<<minette@minn...>> wrote in message news:<3c5f469c.3547279@news...>...
> Does anyone have any experience with the Alesis GT line of
> microphones? Use to be Groove Tubes until that portion of the
> business was purchased by Alesis in 1999 or so. Specifically, I am
> interested in the AM-30 and AM-40 medium size condensers which would
> seem to be appropriate to acoustic guitar. Thanks!
> Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
I was getting curious about these too, since they're being unloaded at such
a low price. The AM-40 seems to be the one that might be nice for acoustic
guitar. Here's a review I found (reconstruct the URL, my news software will
probably break it):
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/4CDFE099F47DD60E86256A1D0015
DB00
These mics are not well thought-of on rec.audio.pro, but there's an
automatic anti-Alesis bias in that newsgroup. I didn't get the mic myself
because I saw too many negatives:
1) Alesis is being restructured after a bankruptcy filing. I'm not 100% sure
you'd be able to get warranty service on this mic.
2) I read several places that they're somewhat flimsy.
3) They're probably not being sold with the interchangeable omni capsule,
and you may want that. It's a nice option for avoiding proximity effect with
close mic'ing. You'd have to track down the omni capsule, and it'll increase
the cost by $150 or so.
4) Because they're discontinued and Alesis hasn't got the best rep in the
world, resale value will be low if you decide to sell it later on.
On the positive side, the price is very low right now for the AM-40 so it's
a great opportunity to buy a little more "upscale" than you could
otherwise... that is, if you end up liking the sound. I haven't heard the
mic myself, I'm just passing on some research I did recently. Right now I'm
recording with a pair of Neumann KM-184's that I'm very happy with, but I'm
keeping my eye out for a mic that would add a different tonal color, for
contrast when recording duets. I decided to wait, and I'm thinking about
getting a Soundelux U195 when I can set aside enough money for it. At least
that mic has an established reputation, and I can sell it fairly easily if I
end up not using it.
P.S. I heard that Midiman is picking up the distribution for the new line of
GT mics that will replace this series.
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Microphones -- Yet Again
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 14:07:25 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Yes, that's correct. The fellow who founded GT has in fact bought the
line/name back from Numark, who now owns Alesis.
I've never actually heard those particular mics, but they've gotten decent
reviews in the past. You could always try them and return them so long as
you check their return policy in advance.
Irwin
<<minette@minn...>> wrote in message news:<3c5f6ed0.13840977@news...>...
> Thanks George, I was thinking of trying rec.audio.pro although they
> don't suffer fools gladly over there. Got to get my Kevlar jacket on
> first. I share your concern about Alesis equipment generally. I
> understand that the presale Groove Tube mics were well thought of. I
> haven't been able to find much in the way of reviews of or compelling
> "testimonials" on the post sale stuff. In fact, it looks as if what I
> understood was the current line is now being discontinued - or at
> least it's now listed as discontinued on the Groove Tubes site.
> Groove Tubes has a list of new models on its site for which that I
> haven't even seen any advertising. Alesis doesn't even list the mics
> on its site. Which may explain the rock bottom prices now being
> advertised for the previous (I thought current) line (i.e. a 75%
> discount). Perhaps GT has reacquired the business?
>
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 04:10:13 GMT, "George Gleason"
> <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> >
> ><<minette@minn...>> wrote in message
news:<3c5f469c.3547279@news...>...
> >> Does anyone have any experience with the Alesis GT line of
> >> microphones? Use to be Groove Tubes until that portion of the
> >> business was purchased by Alesis in 1999 or so. Specifically, I am
> >> interested in the AM-30 and AM-40 medium size condensers which would
> >> seem to be appropriate to acoustic guitar. Thanks!
> >> Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
> >
> >I bet the guys at rec.audio.pro could give you useful advice I can only
> >say I have never run into it but overall I find Alesis gear severly
lacking
> >in both performance and reliability
> >BUT
> >the GT was a quality tag at one time so I JUST DON'T KNOW
> >George
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
>
| microphone/Ultrasound update |
|---|
From: chaya <chaya@san...>
Subject: microphone/Ultrasound update
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 04:00:32 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
First thanks to all of you who answered my microphone questions - it
really helped. I actually did not go with one of the most recommeded
models because my research led me to think the mic - the Audix - was
actually too good for my singing ability (it wouldn't hide any of the
faults). Also Musician's Friend (ok, all groan at once) was having a
sale on the Sennheiser, and it was only $49. How could I resist?
I tried it out today, and I really like the mic - thanks to whoever
recommended that one - but it also gave me a chance to finally try out
the Ultrasound's mic chanel. It worked wonderfully at first plug! And as
soon as I learn to walk and chew gum at the same time, I'll try using
the mic and the guitar together ...
One of the things I don't see mentioned that much about these amps is
their ability to resist feedback. I don't know what these guys did, but
when I was testing the mic, I was sitting directly in front of the amp -
nothing. Very impressive - to me at least. Feedback has to be up there
with fingers scratching on a blackboard and a dentist's drill in ugly
sounds.
Oh yeah, if you are finished groaning now, I had no problems at all with
MF. They have perhaps the worst designed payment feature in the history
of the web, but all came as promised, and quickly too. Usually I'd
rather by from small stores and/or people I know, but this was too good
a price to pass up. The cheap price simplified a very confusing decision
for me.
csj
| What is a good low cost phantom power supply? [4] |
|---|
From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: What is a good low cost phantom power supply?
Date: 13 Feb 2002 18:10:57 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Group:
I will be buying my fist ever condenser mike (unless you count that cheap one
with the battery I got from RS), but I do not have phantom power at present.
What is an economical way to address this? I have seen units for around $50
(Rolls). Is this adequate? What do I need to look for? I plan to use the
mikes to do some home studio recording.
Thanks!
Best wishes,
Jim Lowther
From: Mouser9999 <mouser9999@aol...>
Subject: Re: What is a good low cost phantom power supply?
Date: 13 Feb 2002 18:47:39 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
If you just want phantom power, the $50 unit is just fine, and Rolls is a
reliable name. Phantom power is not a fancy thing.
Two suggestions, though: for around $100 you can buy a Behringer 602A mixer or
an ART Tube MP mic preamp. Both of these have phantom power as a feature, and
will provide you will much usefulness for only a few bucks more. This is an
especially good idea if you are using an inexpensive multitrack, as they tend
to have disappointing mic pres.
From: Mouser9999 <mouser9999@aol...>
Subject: Re: What is a good low cost phantom power supply?
Date: 13 Feb 2002 21:58:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I use the MXL through the ART Tube MP, into a Tascam 488 8-track. It's a good
setup. I use it primarily to record acoustic guitar and banjo, and occasionally
voice. I get a fairly transparent, slightly warm sound to tape. If you're used
to cheap dynamic mics, you'll find it waaaay cleaner.
Audio geeks will scoff at this setup, because this is all pretty low-end for
the condensor mic crowd. However, I really don't think it pays to put a $1000
mic in front of a cassette multitrack. What you're planning to do will give you
a much better sound to tape, and I think you'll be pleased with the results.
From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: Re: What is a good low cost phantom power supply?
Date: 14 Feb 2002 04:17:34 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<mouser9999@aol...> (Mouser9999) wrote:
>If you just want phantom power, the $50 unit is just fine, and Rolls is a
>reliable name. Phantom power is not a fancy thing.
>
>Two suggestions, though: for around $100 you can buy a Behringer 602A mixer
>or
>an ART Tube MP mic preamp. Both of these have phantom power as a feature, and
>will provide you will much usefulness for only a few bucks more. This is an
>especially good idea if you are using an inexpensive multitrack, as they tend
>to have disappointing mic pres.
After looking around at what's available, I winder if something like the
Behringer Shark DSP-110 might work (
http://www.gbase.com/gearlist/guitar_picture.asp?guitar=363894 )? Phantom
power plus feedback suppresion, compression, noise gate, etc. Seems like
compression might come in handy on vocals. Also saw the Rolls CL 151 (
http://www.gbase.com/gearlist/guitar_picture.asp?guitar=365376 ), which seems
similar. Any thoughts?
Best wishes,
Jim Lowther
| Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic. [9] |
|---|
From: Danny Taddei <danny@taddei...>
Subject: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:09:52 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I want to get a great live sound out of an acoustic guitar and vocal
performance. As for the vocal mic, I can do a good guess but I want to
attach a good mic on the same stand as the vocal mic for the Guitar
and don't know which mic I should use. I was trying to figure out
which mic it is that is commonly used for the Grand Ol Oprey shows but
couldn't tell what they use. it seems that they stay with the same
mics on most of the shows I have seen but I just can't tell what it
is. That is the sound I am after..... I'm guessing that one of you
there is probably the main man for the show. Anyone know what type of
mics they are or have an opinion as to what I should use?
Thanks
Danny Taddei
From: SOUNDWOODY2 <soundwoody2@aol...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: 25 Feb 2002 01:53:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I would suggest a small diaphram condenser mic. Sometimes in a live setting, I
try flipping the phase on the guitar mic. The vocal gets picked up by the
guitar mic too, and can cause a hollow or boomy sound. This is when I
experiment with throwing the second mic out of phase. You will also get a lot
of the stage monitors comming through the guitar mic. Try to use the guitar's
direct out for the monitors to help reduce feedback. Common small condensers
used for this include: AKG 451/452/460/391/c1000. AT 4051/4041/3041? Shure
sm81. Sennheiser MKH40.Neumann KM. etc.
One of my personal favs for this is the AKG c3000. It is a little larger than
the mics above, but it was price reduced a few years ago and is worth maybe
$150 now. It works well in this situation. It looks impressive to performers
and when you ask them to stay on-mic...and they look at this mic...they seem to
get it better than with the little mics. Sounds dumb, but it is subliminal or
something. The c3000 blocks out the stage mons better too. my2c.
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:40 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
SOUNDWOODY2 <<soundwoody2@aol...>> wrote:
> The vocal gets picked up by the
> guitar mic too, and can cause a hollow or boomy sound.
Not if you orient both mics optimally. I do this often and we do not get
hollow or boomy. Something to do with the Inverse Square Law and aptly
placed cardioid mic patterns. Granted, the guitar player is awesome and
so are his axes. He also knows how to tweak mic positions.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Danny Taddei <danny@taddei...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 06:06:40 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I've got one of the C3000B's already so I'll give it a shot. I was a little
concerned about phase problems but more concerned with performance issues of
recording tracks separately.
The Grand 'Ol Oprey shows always seem to sport the same setups and I am
curious if anyone knows what the mics are that are used on the guitars there.
They are black and look like they might be an AT mic of sorts (sort of a
neumann 103 look)
I've never really been that keen on the sound of the AKG C3000b that I have
but I do like the sound of the Marshall mxl 603s which I have a plenty of.
Both seem like they would carry problems with picking up to much vocal.
Either way I'm sure the sound won't suck. I am just thinking how to make it
the best I can. Cost is only a little factor so if I have to but the right
mic I will do it.
Danny Taddei
George Gleason wrote:
> > One of my personal favs for this is the AKG c3000. It is a little larger
> than
> > the mics above, but it was price reduced a few years ago and is worth
> maybe
> > $150 now.
>
> average street price on a NEW c3000 is around 300$
> George Gleason
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:36 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Danny Taddei <<danny@taddei...>> wrote:
> I want to get a great live sound out of an acoustic guitar and vocal
> performance. As for the vocal mic, I can do a good guess but I want to
> attach a good mic on the same stand as the vocal mic for the Guitar
> and don't know which mic I should use. I was trying to figure out
> which mic it is that is commonly used for the Grand Ol Oprey shows but
> couldn't tell what they use. it seems that they stay with the same
> mics on most of the shows I have seen but I just can't tell what it
> is. That is the sound I am after..... I'm guessing that one of you
> there is probably the main man for the show. Anyone know what type of
> mics they are or have an opinion as to what I should use?
For Porch Swing, the acoustic swing quintet with which I play upright
bass, I put an Atlas CO1B clamp on the boom for Dave Johns' D28 and
Super 400, and in that clamp I have variously put a C451, an Audix OM5,
a Beyer M500, M160, and M88, and usually (hold on...) an SM57 that is
running into the Phoenix GTQ2, which turns a 57 into a thousand dollar
mic, same as does the Great River. The low cut on the GTQ2 comes in
handy. At the end of the boom is generally an M88 for his voice.
Just decide what you like, what you think works well with your own
guitar and preamp combo.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Monte P McGuire <mcguire@TheWorld...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 07:01:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
In article <<3C798EE0.650A97C8@taddei...>>,
Danny Taddei <<danny@taddei...>> wrote:
>I want to get a great live sound out of an acoustic guitar and vocal
>performance. As for the vocal mic, I can do a good guess but I want to
>attach a good mic on the same stand as the vocal mic for the Guitar
>and don't know which mic I should use.
I do a semi-acoustic live show each month and it's not the simplest
thing to get all these things at once: enough vocal monitor gain,
enough guitar monitor gain and freedom from phasing between the vocal
mike and the guitar mike.
To help minimize the problem, I use some really tight pattern mikes,
the KMS 105 for vocals and the EV ND 468 for guitar. The 468 is
pretty simple to position since it swivels around easily. I place it
near the sound hole about 6 inches back or so and point it slightly
down, so that one part of the null is pointing to the monitor and the
other part of the null is more or less pointed to the vocal mike. The
468 and the 105 are both hypercardioid mikes, so your null is a cone,
rather than a line like a cardioid, so you can (sort of) reject two
things at once if you're clever.
This works pretty well overall, but it's a whole lot simpler if the
musician simply has a pickup on the guitar. I know it's blasphemous
to many guitar players to use a pickup, but if they want screaming
monitors, it ain't gonna happen with a couple of high gain mikes
scattered near the wedges, never mind two people with the same
requirements. If you have a pickup, feed that to the monitors
exclusively and get a mix of the mike and pickup to taste for the
house.
The other annoyance is that some people don't know how to handle tight
pattern mikes, and they back off of them or wander around. Backing
off the mike pretty much eliminates the benefits of directionality and
it sounds bad - you lose lots of LF because of the excess proximity
effect that you get with a tight pattern mike. Wandering around gives
you uneven levels and uneven LF response, both of which are annoying
to deal with.
If the person is gonna wander, then give up the idea of using a guitar
mike. It simply isn't practical. I _have_ to use a mike because most
of the people at the show I do are rockers who don't even own an
acoustic guitar, much less a nice one with a nice pickup, so they
borrow someone's shitty axe that still has the same battery that it
came with in 1992. Even one of those crappy Dean Markley magnetic
pickups is way better than nothing at all, but that's sometimes too
much to ask for.
Whaddya gonna do... noisy bar... must be amplified... gotta use the
tight mikes. If the performer can't figure it out, then you're SOL,
but many times, good ones figure it out.
Best of luck!!
Monte McGuire
<mcguire@theworld...>
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:11:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
>
> The other annoyance is that some people don't know how to handle tight
> pattern mikes, and they back off of them or wander around.
Artists generally back off the mic if they think they are too loud even
when they ask for more monitor it is not always proper to supply it ESP if
you see them backing off your mic turn the monitor/foh down and they will
pull right up close
Backing> off the mike pretty much eliminates the benefits of directionality and
> it sounds bad - you lose lots of LF because of the excess proximity
> effect that you get with a tight pattern mike. Wandering around gives
> you uneven levels and uneven LF response, both of which are annoying
> to deal with.
This is annoying but when the talent wants to be heard they will find the
mic what ever oine does tghey should never chase the singer or guitar with
the volume
>
> If the person is gonna wander, then give up the idea of using a guitar
> mike. It simply isn't practical. I _have_ to use a mike because most
> of the people at the show I do are rockers who don't even own an
> acoustic guitar, much less a nice one with a nice pickup, so they
> borrow someone's shitty axe that still has the same battery that it
> came with in 1992. Even one of those crappy Dean Markley magnetic
> pickups is way better than nothing at all, but that's sometimes too
> much to ask for.
I am sorry I thought we were talking about professional artists
>
> Whaddya gonna do... noisy bar... must be amplified... gotta use the
> tight mikes. If the performer can't figure it out, then you're SOL,
> but many times, good ones figure it out.
>
Lots of good points Monty I suggest working for diffrent artists
compared to what you described doing Doc Watso was a breeze
George
From: Monte P McGuire <mcguire@TheWorld...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:22:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
In article <ORpe8.13618$<Im1.901474@bgtnsc05-news...>>,
George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>Artists generally back off the mic if they think they are too loud even
>when they ask for more monitor it is not always proper to supply it ESP if
>you see them backing off your mic turn the monitor/foh down and they will
>pull right up close
Good point - I have done this before and with some people, it can
work. Gotta remember this...
>> Whaddya gonna do... noisy bar... must be amplified... gotta use the
>> tight mikes. If the performer can't figure it out, then you're SOL,
>> but many times, good ones figure it out.
>>
>Lots of good points Monty I suggest working for diffrent artists
>compared to what you described doing Doc Watso was a breeze
That would be nice, but this is Boston and the show is a tiny one in a
smelly club! Maybe some day...
Thanks for the suggestions...
Monte McGuire
<mcguire@theworld...>
From: Lina och Niall <lnjunkNOSPAM@malmo...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:58:55 +0100
"Danny Taddei" <<danny@taddei...>> skrev i meddelandet
news:<3C798EE0.650A97C8@taddei...>...
> I want to get a great live sound out of an acoustic guitar and vocal
> performance. As for the vocal mic, I can do a good guess but I want to
> attach a good mic on the same stand as the vocal mic for the Guitar
> and don't know which mic I should use. I was trying to figure out
> which mic it is that is commonly used for the Grand Ol Oprey shows but
> couldn't tell what they use. it seems that they stay with the same
> mics on most of the shows I have seen but I just can't tell what it
> is. That is the sound I am after..... I'm guessing that one of you
> there is probably the main man for the show. Anyone know what type of
> mics they are or have an opinion as to what I should use?
>
> Thanks
>
> Danny Taddei
>
Hi Danny,
I have just read an article which can be found at:
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/61C4A2485E8EC64686256B1E0
01FB642
where the guy there suggests a hyper-cardioid, for example Neumann KMS 105
or Neumann M149. I haven't used either, but it sounds like a plan to try.
HTH
Lina, Sweden
| live audio |
|---|
From: Monte P McGuire <mcguire@TheWorld...>
Subject: Re: live audio
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:03:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
In article <<20020225162501.11029.00000121@mb-fj...>>,
ScotFraser <<scotfraser@aol...>> wrote:
>
>In article <<de3407aa.0202231952.29cdcd3a@posting...>>,
><thomsutpen@aol...> wrote:
>
><< Any ideas as to a better sounding Mic? >>
>
>Than a beta58? Far easier to make a list of the 3 mics that sound
>worse than a beta58 & eliminate those. Consider all the rest.
He was referring to a 'plain' 58, not a Beta. I don't really dislike
the Beta 58, but it does have this sort of annoying boost around 6K or
so that isn't always so easy to get rid of. It seems like the
presence peak starts higher on the Beta compared to the normal 58.
The problem with a 'plain' 58 and an acoustic guitar is that the 58 is
an extremely wide pattern mike. You'll get a lot of guitar into the
vocal mike and thus a lot of phasing compared to a tighter mike. If
the vocal mike gain is low, then this is probably irrelevant, but with
some quiet singers, it may be an issue.
Regards,
Monte McGuire
<mcguire@theworld...>
| Oktava Mic retailers...? [18] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: 11 Mar 2002 20:38:26 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <110320020759357902%<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>>, Larry Pattis
<<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> writes:
>Anyone purchase Oktava mics through any reliable source other than
>oktava.com?
>
>Thanks.....
>
>--
>Larry Pattis
>LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
>
>http://www.larrypattis.com
>
Reliable? Meaning available? Or something else? I saw them at my local GC
(the mk012 I wanna say) and the latest Musician's Friend catalog. I pondered
their little condenser mic, but at the price point ($99 that day) I wondered
about the quality. Do we have a "Best Bang/Buck" type item here?
mitch
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:55:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
>
> Reliable? Meaning available? Or something else? I saw them at my local
GC
> (the mk012 I wanna say) and the latest Musician's Friend catalog. I
pondered
> their little condenser mic, but at the price point ($99 that day) I
wondered
> about the quality. Do we have a "Best Bang/Buck" type item here?
Yes comparable to mics costing 4x as much
George
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:35:31 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Larry-
I have a pair of Oktava MC012s that I got years ago, back
when Harris Broadcasting was the US distributor, and before
they were available from the Sound Room, GC, etc.. Although
I'm happy with mine, there definitely are quality control
issues. So I think it is in your best interest to get them
from the Sound Room. Since I own them, I've followed discussion
of them on rec.audio.pro through the years (I can send anyone
a sporadic archive of Oktava posts on request). The Sound
Room has a very good reputation. On the other hand, although
some folks have gotten lucky with Oktavas from other sources,
it has been a gamble. An option if you really want to go
elsewhere is to buy more than you need, make sure they have
a no-questions return policy, pick out the good ones, and
return the others. But I would consider even that a gamble.
The one of mine that has been troublesome only showed its
problems several months after the purchase. BTW, I have had
it worked on by the Sound Room, and although some of its
problems are unsurmountable (nonstandard electronics in the
body of that particular one), they did good work on it.
I'm thinking of buying another one to replace my nonstandard
one, and if I do it will definitely be from the Sound Room.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:28:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3C8D2323.E95F784B@astro...>...
>
> Larry-
>
> I have a pair of Oktava MC012s that I got years ago, back
> when Harris Broadcasting was the US distributor, and before
> they were available from the Sound Room, GC, etc.. Although
> I'm happy with mine, there definitely are quality control
> issues. So I think it is in your best interest to get them
> from the Sound Room. Since I own them, I've followed discussion
> of them on rec.audio.pro through the years (I can send anyone
> a sporadic archive of Oktava posts on request). The Sound
> Room has a very good reputation. On the other hand, although
> some folks have gotten lucky with Oktavas from other sources,
> it has been a gamble. An option if you really want to go
> elsewhere is to buy more than you need, make sure they have
> a no-questions return policy, pick out the good ones, and
> return the others. But I would consider even that a gamble.
> The one of mine that has been troublesome only showed its
> problems several months after the purchase. BTW, I have had
> it worked on by the Sound Room, and although some of its
> problems are unsurmountable (nonstandard electronics in the
> body of that particular one), they did good work on it.
> I'm thinking of buying another one to replace my nonstandard
> one, and if I do it will definitely be from the Sound Room.
Thanks Tom
I noticed poor quality milling on the XLR input(really hard to insert a XLR
but sound wise the ones I ran into have been fine and i was under the
impression that the QC was not such a big issue
Thanks for the heads up
BTW Todd has a pair over at Calf Audio if you need some extras for a gig
some time
George
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:08:05 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
Good information from all sources, thank you.
I will likely do business with the Sound Room based on the
commentary...even though I will pay a bit more.
That's the lesson we keep learning, isn't it? Good service, quality
control, etc. is WORTH something.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:44:18 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Larry Pattis <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
> Good information from all sources, thank you.
> I will likely do business with the Sound Room based on the
> commentary...even though I will pay a bit more.
> That's the lesson we keep learning, isn't it? Good service, quality
> control, etc. is WORTH something.
And the pricing difference isn't as great as it seems at first, because
the Sound Room package includes three capsules (though you can buy an
O12 with a single cap), cardioid, hypercardioid and omni. That offers
much more versatility when chasing a particular sound for a certain
piece of music.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:23:21 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
I'll second the Sound Room recommendation. Taylor Johnson, who runs it, is
a good guy. I bought a pair of MC012's from him a couple of years back.
Taylor basically takes shipments of the things, tests them, matches them
repackages them in a nice cherry box (with all three capsules and -10 pad)
and sends them to you. Mine came with individual frequency response graphs
for each capsule.
Good service, too--fairly early on I had a mic preamp body go bad on me, and
Taylor replaced it promptly.
I like the sound of the mics, although they're not for everything. They are
(to my ears) a little darker than a lot of small capsule condensors--more
like Neumann K84s than K184s, if you've heard either of them. One of my
favorite recording methods with them for acoustic guitar is to use the omni
capsules in a Jecklin disc.
Irwin
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: 12 Mar 2002 02:46:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Taylor basically takes shipments of the things, tests them, matches them
repackages them in a nice cherry box (with all three capsules and -10 pad) and
sends them to you. >>
Cool. That's the way to go, IMO, to get the most value from these mics!
<< I like the sound of the mics, although they're not for everything. They are
(to my ears) a little darker than a lot of small capsule condensors--more
like Neumann K84s than K184s, if you've heard either of them. >>
I compared the cardioid pair with KM184s and found the Oktavas a tad thin in
the mid- and lower-midrange, and the top hyped a bit. But I am pretty partial
to KM184s, I must confess.
I did find the Oktavas to differ more than the 184s when used with different
preamps. The MC012s worked best with my Sytek and Neves.
<< One of my
favorite recording methods with them for acoustic guitar is to use the omni
capsules in a Jecklin disc. >>
A great choice. Omnis are great. So be sure to get all three capsules! (Did
I already say that?)
stv
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:52:30 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:18:40 -0700, Larry Pattis
<<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
>
>How do the Neumann KM-140s compare to the 184s, and how might this
>reflect on the MC012 (or MC011, the 'stage' version odf the 012) Oktava
>mics?
>
>I am going to be experimenting with a classical guitar, and I don't
>want to immediately drill for electronics. I have the 140 already, but
>would prefer to not risk the expensive mic at any shows.
>
>--
The KM-140 is one of the variants of the km-100 series. (You can mount
a variety of capsuleson the same barrel.) If memory serves, it's the
cardoid cap'd version. The cap and the electronics are identical to
the 184 but the pre-amp topography is slightly different. This slight
difference makes for a subtle sonic differnce. Both are quite
useable.
I haven't a clue as to what any of this has to do with the Octava's
you mentioned but if I had to gues, the stagew version is probably
physically more robust than the studio unit.
congrats on the new CD.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:18:28 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <<3c8d797b.18444370@news...>>, Rick Ruskin
<<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:18:40 -0700, Larry Pattis
> <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
>
> >
> >How do the Neumann KM-140s compare to the 184s, and how might this
> >reflect on the MC012 (or MC011, the 'stage' version odf the 012) Oktava
> >mics?
> >
> >I am going to be experimenting with a classical guitar, and I don't
> >want to immediately drill for electronics. I have the 140 already, but
> >would prefer to not risk the expensive mic at any shows.
> >
> >--
>
>
>
> The KM-140 is one of the variants of the km-100 series. (You can mount
> a variety of capsules on the same barrel.) If memory serves, it's the
> cardoid cap'd version. The cap and the electronics are identical to
> the 184 but the pre-amp topography is slightly different. This slight
> difference makes for a subtle sonic differnce. Both are quite
> useable.
I used the 140s for the new CD, so I do like their sound. I definitely
would want to be cautious with them for stage use, however.
> I haven't a clue as to what any of this has to do with the Octava's
> you mentioned but if I had to guess, the stage version is probably
> physically more robust than the studio unit.
I would hope so.
Since we've got you participating here, what mic would you recommend
for solo guitar work on stage, in a situation where no internal
amplification was being used?
That's your normal modus operandi anyway (yes?), so I would truly value
your opinion on this, Rick.
>
> congrats on the new CD.
Thanks.
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
> http://liondogmusic.com
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 06:15:26 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>
>Since we've got you participating here, what mic would you recommend
>for solo guitar work on stage, in a situation where no internal
>amplification was being used?
>
>That's your normal modus operandi anyway (yes?), so I would truly value
>your opinion on this, Rick.
When carrying my own mics, I would use any of the following:
Electrovoice CS-15, Shure SM-81, Sennheiser K2 or K3U w/cardoid cap
(ME40?,) Sennheiser 421, Electrovoice RE-15, Shure SM-59. The 1st 3
are condensers. All the other's are dynamics.
The thing to watch out for is using too hot a mic with a house console
that might have a front-end with no headroom. That can be worse than
a slightly noisier mic. I find the CS-15 to be perfect because it is
very neutral sounding, isn't particularly hot, output-wise and has a
respectable s/n ratio.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:44:23 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Rick Ruskin <<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote:
> When carrying my own mics, I would use any of the following:
> Electrovoice CS-15, Shure SM-81, Sennheiser K2 or K3U w/cardoid cap
> (ME40?,)
I've had one of those for ages, and every time I put it up I seem to
hear some kind of boxiness to the sound. I'm starting to wonder if it
has to do with some kind of resonance in the shell.
> Sennheiser 421, Electrovoice RE-15, Shure SM-59. The 1st 3
> are condensers. All the other's are dynamics.
> The thing to watch out for is using too hot a mic with a house console
> that might have a front-end with no headroom.
You mean like a Mackie? Might be cool to carry an inline pad just in
case.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:15:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020312170315.23205.00000196@mb-cc...>...
> Larry Pattis <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
>
> > Good information from all sources, thank you.
>
> > I will likely do business with the Sound Room based on the
> > commentary...even though I will pay a bit more.
>
> > That's the lesson we keep learning, isn't it? Good service, quality
> > control, etc. is WORTH something.
>
> And the pricing difference isn't as great as it seems at first, because
> the Sound Room package includes three capsules (though you can buy an
> O12 with a single cap), cardioid, hypercardioid and omni. That offers
> much more versatility when chasing a particular sound for a certain
> piece of music.
>
I have found the Omnis to be the best sound of the three street price
about 500$ for the pair with three caps each schock mount and nice wood box
george
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:03:25 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Rick Ruskin <<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:44:23 GMT, <walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich)
> wrote:
> >> Electrovoice CS-15, Shure SM-81, Sennheiser K2 or K3U w/cardoid cap
> >> (ME40?,)
> >I've had one of those for ages, and every time I put it up I seem to
> >hear some kind of boxiness to the sound. I'm starting to wonder if it
> >has to do with some kind of resonance in the shell.
> The CS-15 or the SM-81? The 81 does have a resonance in the sub-bass
> region but I've never run into that with the CS-15.
The K2U with cardioid cap.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:36:12 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Hmm. Well, I guess this simply demonstrates the variety between these mics
(from mic to mic); I find mine not nearly as bright as, say, my Wright TSR
omnis, and pretty full in the mids. I like them better with my Amek pre
than my Manley, which can make them sound too chunky for my tastes.
Irwin
"TarBabyTunes" <<tarbabytunes@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020311214636.17147.00000710@mb-mr...>...
> I compared the cardioid pair with KM184s and found the Oktavas a tad thin
in
> the mid- and lower-midrange, and the top hyped a bit. But I am pretty
partial
> to KM184s, I must confess.
>
> I did find the Oktavas to differ more than the 184s when used with
different
> preamps. The MC012s worked best with my Sytek and Neves.
>
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:44:14 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Tom Loredo <<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
> I have had
> it worked on by the Sound Room, and although some of its
> problems are unsurmountable (nonstandard electronics in the
> body of that particular one), they did good work on it.
> I'm thinking of buying another one to replace my nonstandard
> one, and if I do it will definitely be from the Sound Room.
Did you see Scott Dorsey's recent RAP comments about Oktava O12s sent to
him for repair? Apparently AF McKay, the distributor who feeds MF and
GC, etc., is not too good about warranty service or parts, so Scott has
seen the insides of several of the mics that came through the McKay
route. He said some of them have had mismatched components, as if they
ran out of this resistor or that capacitor on a given day, and some of
them have had completely different circuit boards than what was
intended.
I'd definitely go with the Sound Room for Oktavas.
--
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: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:36:42 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Larry Pattis <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
> Well, since we've got Hank and Rick responding, I guess I also want to
> ask you, Hank, what your live mic preferences would be for guitar.
I've had satisfaction at different times from an AKG C451 (but those are
inconsistent mics, and the one I have is a touch toward the smooth and
mellow side), Beyer M500, M260, M160, and M88, Sennheiser MD421 and
MD441, and from a mic that is often considered only for vox, an Audix
OM5.
When Porch Swing plays, I usually put up a Shure SM57 for Dave Johns'
guitars, a fat and rich '57 D28 and a '51 Super 400, and the mic is
routed to a Great River MP2-MH or Phoenix GTQ2 preamp. The SM57 into a
Mackie or such is not especially satisfying, but into a good preamp it
can surprise folks.
I work with what I have and that I have felt I managed with the mics
listed doesn't mean those mics are the best for the job.
I don't know at what risk the venues in which you play might place a
mic, but Grisman and Co. carry a suitcase of Neumanns, etc., and as long
as you take reasonable care, I doubt you'd have trouble on the road with
your KM184.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Mark Woollard <mark@SPAMTRAPswsoft...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
I have a matched pair bought through Oktava.com, I imported them to the UK
as the quality control and matching was worth it in my opinion. I had an
issue with one of the mics after a few months use but a few emails and
they'd talked me through sorting it out (loose wire). I've found them very
helpful and well worth the extra. I notice that in this months Sound on
Sound someone in the UK has just started doing the 'checked and matched'
boxed set too.
Regards
Mark
In article <110320020759357902%<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>>,
<LarryPattis@NoSpam...> (Larry Pattis) wrote:
> Anyone purchase Oktava mics through any reliable source other than
> oktava.com?
>
> Thanks.....
>
> --
> Larry Pattis
> LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
>
> http://www.larrypattis.com
>
Mark Woollard
email: mark at swsoft.co.uk
| Dumb Mic Question [2] |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Mic Question
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:48:03 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
JimLowther <<jimlowther@aol...>> wrote:
> On a large diaphragm condenser mic like a Marshall 2001 or 2003 how do you
> orient the mic to the sound source? Do you point at the source, like a
> dynamic mic, or use it with the shaft perpendicular to the source? Does
> that make sense?
Most large diaphragm condensor mics are "side address" mics, so on-axis
is perpendicular to the capsule membrane and body, whereas something
like a Shure SM58 is a "front address" mic and on-axis is parallel to
the body of the mic. The former you use like a tennis racket and the
latter you use like a flashlight.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Mic Question
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:17:52 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Not sure if anyone's answered this one, but I believe the Marshalls are
side-address mics and should be perpendicular as opposed to most dynamic
mics which should be straight on.
You also need to consider whether you want to be straight at it or
off-axis--it depends upon the mic and what kind of sound you want. I
believe the Marshalls are cardioid pattern, which means that they will have
a different sound off-axis. You need to experiment with it to see what you
like best. Sometimes a straight-on perpendicular approach can yield too
much lows or highs for your tastes, depending upon the mic. Also, distance
from the source matters a lot with cardioid mics because of the proximity
effect--that is, with a cardioid mic, the closer you get to the source
(i.e., just a couple of inches away), the more bass you get.
If you're using a mic with an omni pattern, there shouldn't be much effect
(exis or proximity). Also, where you're pointing the mic makes a
difference, especially on a guitar. If you point at the soundhole, often
you'll be too boomy; pointing towards the bridge can be too thin. I often
get best results aiming at the 12th fret, but it depends on the guitar.
Bottom line, IMO, you need to experiment with your mics and positioning, but
you definitely want to be perpendicular (unless you're sleeping).
Irwin
Tom from Texas <<trisner52@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020321205334.29469.00000205@mb-fj...>...
> >Here it is:
> >
> >On a large diaphragm condenser mic like a Marshall 2001 or 2003 how do
you
> >orient the mic to the sound source? Do you point at the source, like a
> >dynamic
> >mic, or use it with the shaft perpendicular to the source? Does that
make
> >sense?
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Jim Lowther
>
> I asked a girl once how she oriented her diaphragm and got a body part
> condensed.
>
> Tom from Texas
>
| Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ? [8] |
|---|
From: Hans Andersson <handers@tulane...>
Subject: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: 18 Mar 2002 15:23:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Anyone have experience with these entry level tube mics? I find
surprisingly little comment on the Rady given its inexpensive price
but boasting tube condensor mic characteristics. Is there any good
review info which about these 2 mics? I can find very little on the
web?
The Nady can be had for $300, the Marshall for $4-500.
Thanks
hans
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: 18 Mar 2002 18:33:44 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
In article <<86fb677e.0203181523.50919c3@posting...>>,
Hans Andersson <<handers@tulane...>> wrote:
>Anyone have experience with these entry level tube mics? I find
>surprisingly little comment on the Rady given its inexpensive price
>but boasting tube condensor mic characteristics. Is there any good
>review info which about these 2 mics? I can find very little on the
>web?
>
>The Nady can be had for $300, the Marshall for $4-500.
They are both Shanghai tube mikes. In my experience, Marshall has been
a bit more consistent about production but they both have the same general
electronics and capsules.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: No Busking <nobusking@erols...>
Subject: Re: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 20:01:18 -0500
> So what does this mean to me: . I am obviously new
> to microphine discussions since everyone else seems to understand this
> phrase. It is obviously not favorable but what justifies this judgement
> on "Shanghai mikes"? I would expect a product inferior to Neumann, but
> is it an unacceptable product for a non-professional who wants to record
> acoustic guitar with clarity and warmth. Something better than SM57s?
> Isn't this the next step up and a considerable one at this price? Thanks
> for your info.
Hans...
I don't know what a "Shanghai tube mike" is either, but I'm guessing that he
meant they're both made in China.
Of the two mics you listed, I've only heard the Marshall and haven't
listened to it very extensively...I'd rate it "pretty good for the money"
but not a great mic.
I have another suggestion, though...have you checked out Octava mics from
the Sound Room? I've tested a few Octava MC319's at Guitar Center (and
liked them), but have been hesitant to buy them there because of reports of
spotty quality. The Sound Room says that they do a bit of quality control
before distributing the mics they sell (and the reviews here and elsewhere
say they do a pretty good job). You will pay more at the Sound Room than
from other dealers.
Yes, I'd expect them to sound better than SM-57's (if you're going for more
detail and transparency, anyway)
I'll be buying a pair of condensers soon, and that's likely where I'll get
them. Check 'em out at http://www.sound-room.com/
Larry Pattis started a thread about Octava's a week or two ago, and several
people had interesting things to say about the mic's, quality control, and
the Sound Room...check Google for the thread.
Cheers,
--
Michael Pugh
From: Roger W. Norman <vze23ckv@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:03:19 -0000
Organization: CompuServe Interactive Services
From what others say, yes, they seem to agree that the Sound Room is the
place to get the Octavas. I neglected to mention that I purchased my 3
Marshall mics at www.filamentaudio.com for the original poster. I believe
they also handle the Nady. Out of the two places, the Sound Room guys do
the QC on the Octavas, while Filament buys from Brent Casey, who handles the
QC for Marshall. Both of these seem to have a good rep and dealing with
Filament was easy, but why shouldn't it be?
--
Roger W. Norman
www.SirMusicStudio.com
<Roger@SirMusicStudio...>
301-585-4681
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"No Busking" <<nobusking@erols...>> wrote in message
news:a762o8$l9r$<1@bob...>...
> > So what does this mean to me: . I am obviously new
> > to microphine discussions since everyone else seems to understand this
> > phrase. It is obviously not favorable but what justifies this judgement
> > on "Shanghai mikes"? I would expect a product inferior to Neumann, but
> > is it an unacceptable product for a non-professional who wants to record
> > acoustic guitar with clarity and warmth. Something better than SM57s?
> > Isn't this the next step up and a considerable one at this price? Thanks
> > for your info.
>
> Hans...
>
> I don't know what a "Shanghai tube mike" is either, but I'm guessing that
he
> meant they're both made in China.
>
> Of the two mics you listed, I've only heard the Marshall and haven't
> listened to it very extensively...I'd rate it "pretty good for the money"
> but not a great mic.
>
> I have another suggestion, though...have you checked out Octava mics from
> the Sound Room? I've tested a few Octava MC319's at Guitar Center (and
> liked them), but have been hesitant to buy them there because of reports
of
> spotty quality. The Sound Room says that they do a bit of quality control
> before distributing the mics they sell (and the reviews here and elsewhere
> say they do a pretty good job). You will pay more at the Sound Room than
> from other dealers.
>
> Yes, I'd expect them to sound better than SM-57's (if you're going for
more
> detail and transparency, anyway)
>
> I'll be buying a pair of condensers soon, and that's likely where I'll get
> them. Check 'em out at http://www.sound-room.com/
>
> Larry Pattis started a thread about Octava's a week or two ago, and
several
> people had interesting things to say about the mic's, quality control, and
> the Sound Room...check Google for the thread.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Michael Pugh
>
>
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: 19 Mar 2002 10:17:52 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
In article <<3c96c7a9.15727773@news...>>, <<minette@minn...>> wrote:
>Scott is a regular (and extremely knowledgable) contributor on
>rec.audio.pro. From my sporadic lurking over there (in the vain
>attempt to improve my mind), I gather that many low to mid price point
>condensor mikes are manufactured in China, and Shanghai in particular.
>The same factories actually manufacture many different brands and
>parts for different brands, and thus many of these microphones (of
>different brands) have similar sound and performance characteristics.
>While many of these mikes can be regarded as "pretty good for the
>money," they are generally not yet in the same class as Neumann,
>Soundelux and better AKG, AT and Shure microphones (and of course they
>are not priced in the same tier as those microphones). There have
>also been consistency and quality control issues with these
>microphones, leading to the general admonition that you should really
>try and select from a bunch of them. It is worth noting that may
>current "better" microphone manufacturers, including Shure, Beyer and
>Rode, apparently do use chinese parts (particularly capsules) in some
>of their products. My interpretation of course. Hope that helps.
There are two basic factories in China, which make two basic lines of
large diaphragm microphones, both of which have capsules which are
based on the U87 design to varying degrees.
The mikes made at the Shanghai factory are one of two designs, one with
tube electronics and one with transistor electronics, and each with the
same U87-knockoff capsule. Actually, I have recently seen a new electronics
package from that factory in the last few months which is transformerless
and a big improvement over their previous transistor design (and I have
seen it under three different names too).
Basically, once you know that the mike you are looking at is a 797 or a
Shanghai design, you should be able to do a google search and find out
more than you ever wanted to know about the mikes from that factory.
These mikes are what they are, and they are cheap and useful, but there
is a huge amount of hype surrounding them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Roger W. Norman <vze23ckv@verizon...>
Subject: Re: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:29:48 -0000
Organization: CompuServe Interactive Services
I believe EQ had a mic review of the Nady this month. Fairly complementary.
I think anyone that's a newbie to the discussion of entry level mics should
understand one thing. None of these new Chinese built mics really has
enough history to say whether they are a good buy, since we don't know about
support problems and just how well they stand up to the rigors of use. That
being said, my MXL V67G has done wonderfully for it's first year in
operation, as have my MXL 603s.
On the 603 front, if they both broke today, I got my money's worth out of
them, but it's actually funny I'd say that about the 603s, and be pissed at
the same dollars being spent for an SM57 that only worked for a year. Does
that make sense? I don't think so. If I can expect a 57 to last for years
of guelling punishment and incorrect applications (well, you might NEED a
hammer one day), then I should be able to expect a similarly priced mic to
meet those same requirements, but we just don't know yet.
The point being that they don't have an extensive track record (pun
intended), but it seems that most of these Chinese mics have received some
relatively decent press, including the Nady 1050. You're probably just not
going to find many people here who have used them unless it's on their
Mackie 1202 mic pres. Most people that would have a nice selection of mic
pres are probably going with microphones of greater note and technical
history.
As an aside, if you can swing it, use the Nady to record a good sax player
as a test. If it handles a sax well, I'd look forward to trying it on other
things. Recording sax with my V67G has really been a treat.
--
Roger W. Norman
www.SirMusicStudio.com
<Roger@SirMusicStudio...>
301-585-4681
"guys, it takes a lifetime to just get just a BIT closer..."
George Massenburg
"Hans Andersson" <<handers@tulane...>> wrote in message
news:<212aee0247a0bb497ee31612518b435b.69207@mygate...>...
> "Scott Dorsey" <<kludge@panix...>> wrote in message
> news:a75tgo$fe9$<1@panix2...>...
>
> > In article <<86fb677e.0203181523.50919c3@posting...>>,
> > Hans Andersson <<handers@tulane...>> wrote:
> > >Anyone have experience with these entry level tube mics? I find
> > >surprisingly little comment on the Rady given its inexpensive price
> > >but boasting tube condensor mic characteristics. Is there any good
> > >review info which about these 2 mics? I can find very little on the
> > >web?
> > >
> > >The Nady can be had for $300, the Marshall for $4-500.
> >
> > They are both Shanghai tube mikes. In my experience, Marshall has been
> > a bit more consistent about production but they both have the same
general
> > electronics and capsules.
> > --scott
>
> So what does this mean to me: "Shanghai tube mikes". I am obviously new
> to microphine discussions since everyone else seems to understand this
> phrase. It is obviously not favorable but what justifies this judgement
> on "Shanghai mikes"? I would expect a product inferior to Neumann, but
> is it an unacceptable product for a non-professional who wants to record
> acoustic guitar with clarity and warmth. Something better than SM57s?
> Isn't this the next step up and a considerable one at this price? Thanks
> for your info.
>
> hans
>
>
> --
> Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
From: Hans Andersson <handers@tulane...>
Subject: Re: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:06:25 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Thanks to all for their comments. I am definitely a newbie to the
subject of recording and mics so it is all very useful. I got the
message loud and clear, and it is good advise to try/hear any mic before
purchase. Sound Room's Q/A might be the only exception that rule.
But given that I will not put these mics to extensive use over years - I
am looking to make some as good as possible recordings without much to
spend, it strikes me that these mics (Marshall and Nady) are ones to
consider. If I could, I'd consider KM 100s but that gets me well above
$1k for 2 mics and I can't do that soon. I'll let you know how it works
out as I learn.
Thanks again for the useful experiences that you arre shared.
hans
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
From: James Perrett <jrp@soc...>
Subject: Re: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:56:21 +0000
Hans Andersson wrote:
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <<kludge@panix...>> wrote in message
> news:a75tgo$fe9$<1@panix2...>...
>
> > In article <<86fb677e.0203181523.50919c3@posting...>>,
> > Hans Andersson <<handers@tulane...>> wrote:
> > >Anyone have experience with these entry level tube mics? I find
> > >surprisingly little comment on the Rady given its inexpensive price
> > >but boasting tube condensor mic characteristics. Is there any good
> > >review info which about these 2 mics? I can find very little on the
> > >web?
> > >
> > >The Nady can be had for $300, the Marshall for $4-500.
> >
> > They are both Shanghai tube mikes. In my experience, Marshall has been
> > a bit more consistent about production but they both have the same general
> > electronics and capsules.
> > --scott
>
> So what does this mean to me: "Shanghai tube mikes". I am obviously new
> to microphine discussions since everyone else seems to understand this
> phrase. It is obviously not favorable but what justifies this judgement
> on "Shanghai mikes"? I would expect a product inferior to Neumann, but
> is it an unacceptable product for a non-professional who wants to record
> acoustic guitar with clarity and warmth. Something better than SM57s?
> Isn't this the next step up and a considerable one at this price? Thanks
> for your info.
Scott means that they are made at the Shanghai microphone factory as
opposed to the 797 Audio factory in Beijing. Just about all the budget
priced large diaphragm condenser mics on the market today are made in
one of those two factories.
In my experience the mics are very inconsistent so you need to listen to
the actual mic you are going to buy before parting with your money.
In reply to Roger Norman who questioned the longevity of these mics, I
have a VTL, one of the first Chinese based mics, which I bought over 10
years ago and which still sounds good - as far as I can tell the sound
is the same today as it was new.
Cheers.
James.
| Carvin Mics? [5] |
|---|
From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Carvin Mics?
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 14:30:09 -0400
Posted thois to the 4-track group...no answer so I thought someone
here (George Gleason?) might know....
Is anyone familiar with the Carvin CM-87S Condenser mic and how it
compares with other large-diaphragm mics in this price range? $220
including flight case, shock-mount, cable and 48v phantom power
supply. I'm sure this mic is made by someone other than Carvin. Specs
are here:
http://www.carvin.com/cgi-bin/Isearch.exe?CFG=2&P2=CM-87S&P1=MIC
Thanks.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Carvin Mics?
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:34:32 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:<djc6bu8ju4fbnqv8p72oa73je3ik1eqal8@4ax...>...
> Posted thois to the 4-track group...no answer so I thought someone
> here (George Gleason?) might know....
>
> Is anyone familiar with the Carvin CM-87S Condenser mic and how it
> compares with other large-diaphragm mics in this price range? $220
> including flight case, shock-mount, cable and 48v phantom power
> supply. I'm sure this mic is made by someone other than Carvin. Specs
> are here:
>
> http://www.carvin.com/cgi-bin/Isearch.exe?CFG=2&P2=CM-87S&P1=MIC
>
George that is a 100 dollar mic in a 220$ package
Do you NEED the phantom power supply? most every console can supply phantom
power
I would take the 200$ go to www.americanmusical.com and get the
Alesis/Gtelectronics am52 they have for sale it does not have the phantom
power but is a multi pattern and I bought 2 and am very pleased with them
or for 200$ you could get the Marshall MXL2001/603 combo part #
masmxl2001combo or the RODE NT1 at 200$ a very well respected starter mic
all these mics use the same chinese element that sound pretty good
considering that the next step up it 600$
also try posting over at rec.audio.pro that is THE recording forum
George
From: Scott Kiefer <skiefer@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Carvin Mics?
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 22:40:22 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska
On Tue, 09 Apr 2002 20:34:32 GMT, "George Gleason"
<<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
>"George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
>news:<djc6bu8ju4fbnqv8p72oa73je3ik1eqal8@4ax...>...
>> Posted thois to the 4-track group...no answer so I thought someone
>> here (George Gleason?) might know....
>>
>> Is anyone familiar with the Carvin CM-87S Condenser mic and how it
>> compares..
<specs snipped>
>I would take the 200$ go to www.americanmusical.com and get the
>Alesis/Gtelectronics am52 they have for sale
<more specs and detail snipped>
Greetings--
I took George G's advice a few weeks ago on this issue and purchased
an AM52. I strongly recommend you do the same. It's a great mic--the
bluegrass group I play with has been extremely pleased with the way it
performs. It makes us louder--but adds very little sound character of
its own. It's one of the best values I've run across. Very flexible,
good shockmount, no +48v supply (but most things you're going to plug
it into will provide phantom power) and no cord (I prefer to pick my
own cords anyway).
Listen to Mr. Gleason on this one--you'll be glad you did.
hth,
scott
>
From: Jeb <jcmcgee@uwyo...>
Subject: Re: Carvin Mics?
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 16:41:51 -0600
Organization: Disorganization
"the RODE NT1 at 200$ a very well respected starter mic..."
I can certainly vouch for the NT1...the first microphone to demonstrate to
me what a huge difference a good mic makes.
Regards,
jeb
"George Gleason" wrote...
>
> "George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
> news:<djc6bu8ju4fbnqv8p72oa73je3ik1eqal8@4ax...>...
> > Posted thois to the 4-track group...no answer so I thought someone
> > here (George Gleason?) might know....
> >
> > Is anyone familiar with the Carvin CM-87S Condenser mic and how it
> > compares with other large-diaphragm mics in this price range? $220
> > including flight case, shock-mount, cable and 48v phantom power
> > supply. I'm sure this mic is made by someone other than Carvin. Specs
> > are here:
> >
> > http://www.carvin.com/cgi-bin/Isearch.exe?CFG=2&P2=CM-87S&P1=MIC
> >
> George that is a 100 dollar mic in a 220$ package
> Do you NEED the phantom power supply? most every console can supply
phantom
> power
> I would take the 200$ go to www.americanmusical.com and get the
> Alesis/Gtelectronics am52 they have for sale it does not have the
phantom
> power but is a multi pattern and I bought 2 and am very pleased with them
> or for 200$ you could get the Marshall MXL2001/603 combo part #
> masmxl2001combo or the RODE NT1 at 200$ a very well respected starter
mic
> all these mics use the same chinese element that sound pretty good
> considering that the next step up it 600$
>
> also try posting over at rec.audio.pro that is THE recording forum
> George
>
>
From: Scott Kiefer <skiefer@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Carvin Mics?
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 19:00:20 GMT
Organization: University of Alaska
On 9 Apr 2002 23:08:13 -0700, <skiefer@yahoo...> (Scott Kiefer) wrote:
><discussion of proper etiquette and respectful communication--very
>damn funny, y'all--snipped>
>
>> Scott his question was in regards to recording I don't do any recording so
>> could you help us out here...
>There's another session tomorrow night in a different room with the
>same basic system. I'd be happy to provide off-list details to anyone
>interested.
>
Two things--the live feed and the recording sounded as good in a
different room last night--even with me, usually a bass player, doing
my best to keep up as a rhythm guitarist. It was a good thing I
brought the Martin along....
And, anecdotally, our mandolin player told me that after I'd left
Monday's gig, he was talking with a musician who mentioned that "that
mic over there," pointing to the AM52 that Mr. George G . recommended,
"sounds a lot better than the other one," a large diaphragm
AT--model unknown. He went on to say that the big difference between
the two mics was that the AM52 was much richer and fuller than the AT
mic--and much easier to listen through to the music.
hth,
scott
| Female Vocal Mic recommendations? [5] |
|---|
From: Trek5200CS <trek5200cs@aol...>
Subject: Female Vocal Mic recommendations?
Date: 10 Apr 2002 18:55:25 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hi all,
I've been using AKG C535 EB's for vocals for myself but am now starting an
acoustic Duo with a female Vocalist. Her voice sounds little thinner than I
know it can with this mic. Am I doing something wrong or are there better mics
for female vocals?
What are your favorite Vocal Mic's for female vocals? (acoustic/bluesy duo)
Thanks!
Gary Roberts
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Female Vocal Mic recommendations?
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 19:54:14 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020410145525.00568.00004567@mb-md...>...
> Hi all,
>
> I've been using AKG C535 EB's for vocals for myself but am now starting an
> acoustic Duo with a female Vocalist. Her voice sounds little thinner than
I
> know it can with this mic. Am I doing something wrong or are there better
mics
> for female vocals?
>
> What are your favorite Vocal Mic's for female vocals? (acoustic/bluesy
duo)
> Thanks!
>
the 535 is a pretty good female vox mic but if your getting a thin sound
switch her off the condensor back to a OM5 or sm58 and be sure she sings
CLOSE to get the proximity effect
George
From: <fader@free...>
Subject: Re: Female Vocal Mic recommendations?
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 02:04:21 -0000
Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System, est. 1987 - sdf.lonestar.org
Audix makes some good mics that are suited to female vocal ranges.
-jon kiparsky
>"Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
>news:<20020410145525.00568.00004567@mb-md...>...
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've been using AKG C535 EB's for vocals for myself but am now starting an
>> acoustic Duo with a female Vocalist. Her voice sounds little thinner than
>I
>> know it can with this mic. Am I doing something wrong or are there better
>mics
>> for female vocals?
--
Jon Kiparsky - Portland, Oregon
<fader@sdf...>
From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Female Vocal Mic recommendations?
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:02:50 GMT
I've been using the Audix OM5 for the backup female vocalist in our
band...it has been helping with exactly the issue described.
She has a lovely soprano voice (she's a vocalist at the church where I
play), but in a Rock and Roll context her voice often sounds a little thin.
The OM5 has been perfect for adding a little "body" to the sound.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Michael Pugh
"Jon Kiparsky" <"<fader@f>?????????????????????????? wrote in message
news:<ub9rp5pjaqku11@corp...>...
> Audix makes some good mics that are suited to female vocal ranges.
> -jon kiparsky
>
> >"Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
> >news:<20020410145525.00568.00004567@mb-md...>...
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I've been using AKG C535 EB's for vocals for myself but am now starting
an
> >> acoustic Duo with a female Vocalist. Her voice sounds little thinner
than
> >I
> >> know it can with this mic. Am I doing something wrong or are there
better
> >mics
> >> for female vocals?
> --
> Jon Kiparsky - Portland, Oregon
> <fader@sdf...>
From: Robert Wiersma <robertwiersma@castellablue...>
Subject: Re: Female Vocal Mic recommendations?
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:41:40 +0200
Organization: Essent Kabelcom Groningen
Audio Tech ATM31a. Very good mics for
instruments and vocals without getting expensive. The AKGs we use when
recording guitars, mandolin and dobro, sometimes autoharp are the vintage
AKG451. Now the new model is the AKG460 I think.
The Audio Techs mentioned are ok for live whilst the AKG is just toosensitive for live as it will feed back very easily.
--
Robert Wiersma
http://users.castel.nl/~wierr01/
"George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> schreef in bericht
news:GL0t8.21757$<QC1.1344429@bgtnsc04-news...>...
>
> "Trek5200CS" <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
> news:<20020410145525.00568.00004567@mb-md...>...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've been using AKG C535 EB's for vocals for myself but am now starting
an
> > acoustic Duo with a female Vocalist. Her voice sounds little thinner
than
> I
> > know it can with this mic. Am I doing something wrong or are there
better
> mics
> > for female vocals?
> >
> > What are your favorite Vocal Mic's for female vocals? (acoustic/bluesy
> duo)
> > Thanks!
> >
> the 535 is a pretty good female vox mic but if your getting a thin sound
> switch her off the condensor back to a OM5 or sm58 and be sure she sings
> CLOSE to get the proximity effect
> George
>
>
| What mic for my vox |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: What mic for my vox
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:37:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
--
>
> Thanks VERY much, George. Cut and pasted
> to my files, as is a lot of your stuff.
>
> lumpy
>
Had it happen last night was doing a Holly Near concert put up a neumann
105 for her vox but she was having a tough time in sound check at her
suggestion we took down the neumann and put up a shure sm58
and like magic she found her groove
no one can crediblely argue to me that the 58 is the"better" of these two
mics, but Holly was so used to the sharp mid high presence peak that the 58
has she was lost without it , so in this case the 58 truly was the
"better" mic even though it cost 350$ less than the neumann
just a reminder that sound is very personal and one really need to findwhat is right for them all I can do is make you aware of the options
george
| Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s [10] |
|---|
From: joesixpack123 <jmspivak@pacbell...>
Subject: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: 29 Apr 2002 21:02:14 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I've decided to buy some small condensors for overheads, ac. guitar,
and maybe a vocal alternative to my Akg C3000B. I also own a SM57 and
an Audix OM-1.
After reading many posts here and elsewhere I've narrowed my selection
down to a pair of either of these. I can get the MXL603s for
$150/pair (unknown matching and QC) or the MC012 for $400 (for a
tested "matched pair" at Sound Room). I can basically afford either
one, although the Mrs. Sixpack might disagree.
I use a sytek MPX-4Aii preamp (w/2 ch BurrBrown) and a Delta1010 a/d/a
converter, and doing typical-rock-group-type-demo recordings in a
crappy sounding back bedroom. Hopefully this is all the data you guys
ask for... So, which should I get?
Joe
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: 30 Apr 2002 09:47:33 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
joesixpack123 <<jmspivak@pacbell...>> wrote:
>
>After reading many posts here and elsewhere I've narrowed my selection
>down to a pair of either of these. I can get the MXL603s for
>$150/pair (unknown matching and QC) or the MC012 for $400 (for a
>tested "matched pair" at Sound Room). I can basically afford either
>one, although the Mrs. Sixpack might disagree.
>
>I use a sytek MPX-4Aii preamp (w/2 ch BurrBrown) and a Delta1010 a/d/a
>converter, and doing typical-rock-group-type-demo recordings in a
>crappy sounding back bedroom. Hopefully this is all the data you guys
>ask for... So, which should I get?
Get both. Taylor will let you take a set out on loan. Find a dealer
that will do the same with the MXL603. Then send back the ones you
like less. I suspect you'll go with the MC012, but you might not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: ken thompson <kenny@edp1...>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: 30 Apr 2002 07:39:33 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<jmspivak@pacbell...> (joesixpack123) wrote in message news:<<a04af2fb.0204292002.52661022@posting...>>...
> I've decided to buy some small condensors for overheads, ac. guitar,
> and maybe a vocal alternative to my Akg C3000B. I also own a SM57 and
> an Audix OM-1.
>
> After reading many posts here and elsewhere I've narrowed my selection
> down to a pair of either of these. I can get the MXL603s for
> $150/pair (unknown matching and QC) or the MC012 for $400 (for a
> tested "matched pair" at Sound Room). I can basically afford either
> one, although the Mrs. Sixpack might disagree.
>
> I use a sytek MPX-4Aii preamp (w/2 ch BurrBrown) and a Delta1010 a/d/a
> converter, and doing typical-rock-group-type-demo recordings in a
> crappy sounding back bedroom. Hopefully this is all the data you guys
> ask for... So, which should I get?
>
> Joe
Joe, I have no experience with the Marshall, but have a number of
012s. The 012s are excellent as overheads - probably the best value
around today. However, they are extremely neutral sounding, and may
not suit certain applications where a 'coloured' sound may be
preferable. I would not hesitate to recommend them though.
Ken Thompson
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:33:02 -0500
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
><keith.blackwell@homemail...> (Keith W Blackwell) wrote:
>><jmspivak@pacbell...> (joesixpack123) wrote:
>> After reading many posts here and elsewhere I've narrowed my selection
>> down to a pair of either of these. I can get the MXL603s for
>> $150/pair (unknown matching and QC) or the MC012 for $400 (for a
>> tested "matched pair" at Sound Room). I can basically afford either
>> one, although the Mrs. Sixpack might disagree.
>FYI: the MXL603's are somewhat "sub" cardioid in pattern,
>and I don't know how that would compare to the MC012's you
>mention. In a crappy sounding room, a more directional mic
>might be smarter. I dunno. I'm happy with my MXL603's but
>don't have any Octavas to compare against. The 603's are
>just so dang cheap that it's like a no-brainer to get a pair.
>And with the money saved (ie, unspent), you can start a fund
>for one day buying Schoep's CMC5's with MK41's (about
>$2000/pair, new). Heh heh.
I found the sound of the Marshall 603S very similar to the Oktava MC012. I own a
pair of the 603Ss, and a pair of matched MC012s from the Sound Room.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: joesixpack123 <jmspivak@pacbell...>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: 30 Apr 2002 15:10:30 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
well, i guess I'll order the mxl603s too then. I'll A/B them, and see
if I can save the $250+ difference for a similar sounding mic,
according to Mr. Gerst.
And yes, I will post the results of my highly subjective opinion to
this thread!
Does anyone have an opinion on AT4041 vs. MC012 vs. Crown CM-700 for
overhead? Is it worth my while to test the CM-700 and AT4041 too?
I'm sure I'm gonna piss some music store owner off soon!
-JS
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: 30 Apr 2002 18:22:34 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
joesixpack123 <<jmspivak@pacbell...>> wrote:
>
>Does anyone have an opinion on AT4041 vs. MC012 vs. Crown CM-700 for
>overhead? Is it worth my while to test the CM-700 and AT4041 too?
I was not impressed with the 4041, but I am very impressed with the 4051,
which is a bit more but maybe not too far out of your range.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Mike Tulley <mktsys@invalid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 01:21:19 GMT
On 29 Apr 2002 21:02:14 -0700, <jmspivak@pacbell...> (joesixpack123)
wrote:
>After reading many posts here and elsewhere I've narrowed my selection
>down to a pair of either of these. I can get the MXL603s for
>$150/pair (unknown matching and QC) or the MC012 for $400 (for a
>tested "matched pair" at Sound Room).
[edit]
> So, which should I get?
I have a pair of Oktava MC012 and a pair of Marshall MXL603s. The
MXL603s are a rare bargain, but the MC012 are a better microphone.
If you were using them ONLY for drum overheads, I would suggest that
you save your money and get the MXL603s. But for acoustic guitar, the
MC012 has been the winner every time I've compared them.
I don't think much of either for solo vocal, but I have used the
MC012's in X-Y for a choir.
Mike T.
From: Dean Richard <DRichard@wi...>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: 1 May 2002 07:17:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Mike,
Like you, I have both, and I also pretty much agree with your
assessment of them. Overall, I like the Oktava better, but the MXL603
is nothing to be ashamed of. I consider the Oktava the more "neutral"
of the two.
Some time back there was a poster to RAP (don't remember the name) who
said he used both the Neumann KM184 and MXL603 for classical
recordings, and if I remember correctly he felt the two were nearly
indistinguishable. If he's reading this perhaps he could either
correct or corroborate my memory of his comments. I've personally
never directly compared either the Oktava or MXL to Neumann
microphones.
Dean
Mike Tulley <<mktsys@invalid...>> wrote in message news:<<fegucuk5rn9lp0nvdvchugpa0k7g6sa0ru@4ax...>>...
> On 29 Apr 2002 21:02:14 -0700, <jmspivak@pacbell...> (joesixpack123)
> wrote:
>
> >After reading many posts here and elsewhere I've narrowed my selection
> >down to a pair of either of these. I can get the MXL603s for
> >$150/pair (unknown matching and QC) or the MC012 for $400 (for a
> >tested "matched pair" at Sound Room).
> [edit]
> > So, which should I get?
>
> I have a pair of Oktava MC012 and a pair of Marshall MXL603s. The
> MXL603s are a rare bargain, but the MC012 are a better microphone.
>
> If you were using them ONLY for drum overheads, I would suggest that
> you save your money and get the MXL603s. But for acoustic guitar, the
> MC012 has been the winner every time I've compared them.
>
> I don't think much of either for solo vocal, but I have used the
> MC012's in X-Y for a choir.
>
> Mike T.
From: <nospam>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 10:41:00 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>Mike,
>
>Like you, I have both, and I also pretty much agree with your
>assessment of them. Overall, I like the Oktava better, but the MXL603
>is nothing to be ashamed of. I consider the Oktava the more "neutral"
>of the two.
>
>Some time back there was a poster to RAP (don't remember the name) who
>said he used both the Neumann KM184 and MXL603 for classical
>recordings, and if I remember correctly he felt the two were nearly
>indistinguishable. If he's reading this perhaps he could either
>correct or corroborate my memory of his comments. I've personally
>never directly compared either the Oktava or MXL to Neumann
>microphones.
>
>Dean
I've got them both as well and find them quite similar. I have the
multi cap option for the 012 and like the omni a lot for acoustic.
The post about the 603 and 184 if I remember correctly said the sound
was almost indistinguishable at a distance. For close micing the 603
don't sound as nice a Neumann.
Paul Gitlitz
Glitchless Productions
www.glitchless.net
From: Danny Taddei <calldan@cox...>
Subject: Re: Oktava MC012 vs. Marshall MXL603s
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 15:58:34 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
Mike Tulley wrote:
>
> If you were using them ONLY for drum overheads, I would suggest that
> you save your money and get the MXL603s. But for acoustic guitar, the
> MC012 has been the winner every time I've compared them.
>
> I don't think much of either for solo vocal, but I have used the
> MC012's in X-Y for a choir.
>
> Mike T.
That's funny because I prefer the 603 to the 012 on my martin. I am
matching the sound of the guitar to my voice though and of coarse that is
a one taste opinion.....
--
Danny Taddei
| Bband versus PUTW? |
|---|
From: Gary Hall <ahall@tusco...>
Subject: Re: Bband versus PUTW?
Date: 10 May 2002 10:08:55 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Mitch,
About 8 or 9 years ago, I used a little homemade device (clipped onto
the edge of the sound hole) to hold a little Audio Technica condensor
mic about an inch or so above the fretboard, near the sound hole. It
was very handy for making DAT recordings in a (sometimes) noisy room,
as the close proximity to the guitar gave me more guitar sound and
less crowd noise than could be had with a mic on a stand. It also
allowed me to move around freely with the guitar, as opposed to having
to hold the guitar in place before a mic on a stand.
I certainly didn't get studio quality sound with that setup, but the
mic definitely recorded better (for hard strumming accompaniments, at
least) than the Highlander UST in that guitar. I actually included
one of those live recordings on a CD, and the feedback has been that
it's gotten good local airplay. A crowd yodel-a-long is the main
attraction of that cut, but the guitar sound was at least good enough
to allow airplay.
The drawbacks to this rig were 1) it couldn't add much to the live
sound (because of feedback) in noisy situations where high gain was
needed and 2)the rig got in the way of playing above the octave.
Being a directional mic, I also had to roll off a great deal of bass
(because of the proximity effect). If I were trying this experiment
again, I'd probably try the Joe Mills mic because I hear that it's
omni-directional and an excellent mic. (I LOVE my Earthworks
omni-directional studio mics.)
In any event, I finally decided that the homemade mic rig was more
hassle than it was worth in non-recording situations.
By the way, I'm one of those oddballs who's found (after a week or so
of comparing them) that he prefers than B-Band UST to the B-Band AST.
I hasten to add that I'm running the UST thru my Yamaha AG Stomp and
adding a small amount of mic simulation (15% mic simulation/85% direct
signal). To my ear, a small amount of mic simulation makes a
noticeable improvement in the sound.
I'll admit that the AST has it's attractions - great clarity and
dynamic response. To my ear, though, it has a little of that
"internal mic" sound which drives me nuts.
I haven't had any luck with trying to mix the UST and AST signals. Up
to this point, at least, any mix that I've tried sounds worse that
using either pickup by itself. Never-the-less, I don't regret adding
the AST to my setup. It definitely has an interesting sound, and I
might end up preferring it (to the UST) eventually. At this point,
though, the B-Band UST/AG Stomp combo pleases my ear the most.
That's my $.02 worth of gear talk for today. Time to go employ the
best thing I've found for improving my live sound - practice.
Gary Hall
<mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote in message news:<<20020508185443.13751.00008381@mb-da...>>...
> >In my guitar (Olson SJ, cedar top) I currently use a B-Band AST
> >and an internal mic in a dual-source setup, with most of the signal
> >coming from the AST.
> >
> >Peace,
> >Tom Loredo
>
> Hey Tom. I'm sure you've been asked this a jillion times, so forgive me in
> advance. <g>
>
> Have you tried using an external condenser as the secondary source with any
> success in live situations? My thinking is that it would give a much more
> natural ambience than an internal mic, and used sparingly shouldn't cause any
> big problems. I know it probably doesn't work, or you and many others would be
> doing it. So my question really is, why doesn't it work?
>
> I'm also interested in your comments on the use of an AST/Mic combo vs. an
> AST/UST combo. Most of what I've read here has led me to believe that the
> former is sort of a redundant combination.
>
> I'm looking at single-sourcing with the 1470 AST very soon, hoping that it
> works for me as well as it has for Mr. Pattis. Thanks for commenting.
>
> Mitch
| Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!! [15] |
|---|
From: bluelatune <trek1000@btinternet...>
Subject: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: 20 May 2002 14:08:55 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hello all,
I hope this question hasn't been done to death, but i really need some
help in finding a mic for recording acoustic guitar. I am trying to
record in my bedroom (not the greatest place i know) and is started
off using some really budget mics, which were really bad, then someone
suggested an AKG C3000B, which i got, but frankly i hated it, it just
didn't reproduce what i was hearing (i know that is like the holy
grail in recording acoustics) so i've now been recommened a Shure
SM81. any ideas on how good that is or any other suggestions?
(my price range is £200/300 or 300/400 in dollars)
From: Particle Salad <mark@particlesalad...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:48:07 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
I personally like my Shure KSM32, AKG C414EB or my AKG C535, but there's
also SM81, Crown CM-700, etc etc.. try 'em out, bring your guitar to your
dealer and listen for yourself.
bluelatune wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I hope this question hasn't been done to death, but i really need some
> help in finding a mic for recording acoustic guitar. I am trying to
> record in my bedroom (not the greatest place i know) and is started
> off using some really budget mics, which were really bad, then someone
> suggested an AKG C3000B, which i got, but frankly i hated it, it just
> didn't reproduce what i was hearing (i know that is like the holy
> grail in recording acoustics) so i've now been recommened a Shure
> SM81. any ideas on how good that is or any other suggestions?
> (my price range is £200/300 or 300/400 in dollars)
--
-Mark
-- ~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^ Particle Salad/ Noom Room Studio http://www.particlesalad.com mp3 songs: http://www.mp3.com/particlesalad ~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^*~^
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: 20 May 2002 18:24:38 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
bluelatune <<trek1000@btinternet...>> wrote:
>
>I hope this question hasn't been done to death, but i really need some
>help in finding a mic for recording acoustic guitar. I am trying to
>record in my bedroom (not the greatest place i know) and is started
>off using some really budget mics, which were really bad, then someone
>suggested an AKG C3000B, which i got, but frankly i hated it, it just
>didn't reproduce what i was hearing (i know that is like the holy
>grail in recording acoustics) so i've now been recommened a Shure
>SM81. any ideas on how good that is or any other suggestions?
>(my price range is £200/300 or 300/400 in dollars)
The SM81 is okay, certainly a lot nicer than the C3000, but you still
might find it a bit harsh. The Oktava 012 (if you get a good selected
one), or the Crown CM-700 might make you happier in the same price range.
Then again, the dynamic EV N/D 468 is a sleeper too. All of these are
worth trying. Don't buy ANY mike without trying it out first.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Austin Biel <abiel@flash...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 23:22:35 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
must jump in here:
I purchased a Yamaha AG Stomp box, and have been BLOW AWAY with the
recording capabilities. Firstly, there are several mic emulators that are
excellent, and there is a feature to control the "spread" of the emulated
two microphones. Then, it has a digital out (SPDIF, coaxial) and it has made
recording crappy guitars sound listenable, and good guitars very simple and
easy and clean to get a good sound.
Last session I did, I tried the AG Stomp in conjunction with 414, SM81,
C3000b, couple of large tube mics....ended up using the direct out through
the AG stomp and tweaking the parameters as the session progressed. Threw
away the actual mic tracks (even blending them in didn't help much...)
I think this is a tremendous bang for the buck, and experimented with
running a bass through it (only using the onboard limiter and using the dig
out) and thought it worked better than my typical Bass SansAmp di
setup......
$400 at the chain places....I bought it for $300 on Ebay....
VERY worth the trial, and of course, the chain places will take it back if
you don't like it....
DISCLAIMER: I don't have/use any truly HIGH-END acoustic guitars, but use 4
different GOOD mid-range guitars (Taylor, Yamaha, etc.) Perhaps a truly
HIGH-END guitar would improve things with straight mics, as most of those
instruments have no electronics/pickup....
"bluelatune" <<trek1000@btinternet...>> wrote in message
news:<f6bdb283.0205201308.fe59653@posting...>...
> Hello all,
>
> I hope this question hasn't been done to death, but i really need some
> help in finding a mic for recording acoustic guitar. I am trying to
> record in my bedroom (not the greatest place i know) and is started
> off using some really budget mics, which were really bad, then someone
> suggested an AKG C3000B, which i got, but frankly i hated it, it just
> didn't reproduce what i was hearing (i know that is like the holy
> grail in recording acoustics) so i've now been recommened a Shure
> SM81. any ideas on how good that is or any other suggestions?
> (my price range is £200/300 or 300/400 in dollars)
From: Roger W. Norman <Roger@SirMusicStudio...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:37:46 GMT
Can these stomp boxes/DIs really be a substitute for careful mic selection
and placement? I mean, when I see a mic emulator on a preset I have to
wonder. A Neumann U87 in a electronic box? How far out? What's the actual
placement to come up with the algorithm?
I spent a few weeks with a Line6 Axsys 2-12" here but the emulations,
although nice, weren't what one would truly hear were a Vox AC-30 or Fender
Deluxe sitting right in front of a mic. I have to assume that I'm not
really going to be hearing what a Martin or Santa Cruz through a U87 would
sound like coming from one of the boxes but I could be wrong.
--
Roger W. Norman
<Roger@SirMusicStudio...>
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"Austin Biel" <<abiel@flash...>> wrote in message
news:%yfG8.161$<LW7.9439289@newssvr15...>...
> must jump in here:
>
> I purchased a Yamaha AG Stomp box, and have been BLOW AWAY with the
> recording capabilities. Firstly, there are several mic emulators that are
> excellent, and there is a feature to control the "spread" of the emulated
> two microphones. Then, it has a digital out (SPDIF, coaxial) and it has
made
> recording crappy guitars sound listenable, and good guitars very simple
and
> easy and clean to get a good sound.
>
> Last session I did, I tried the AG Stomp in conjunction with 414, SM81,
> C3000b, couple of large tube mics....ended up using the direct out through
> the AG stomp and tweaking the parameters as the session progressed. Threw
> away the actual mic tracks (even blending them in didn't help much...)
>
> I think this is a tremendous bang for the buck, and experimented with
> running a bass through it (only using the onboard limiter and using the
dig
> out) and thought it worked better than my typical Bass SansAmp di
> setup......
>
> $400 at the chain places....I bought it for $300 on Ebay....
>
> VERY worth the trial, and of course, the chain places will take it back if
> you don't like it....
>
> DISCLAIMER: I don't have/use any truly HIGH-END acoustic guitars, but use
4
> different GOOD mid-range guitars (Taylor, Yamaha, etc.) Perhaps a truly
> HIGH-END guitar would improve things with straight mics, as most of those
> instruments have no electronics/pickup....
>
>
> "bluelatune" <<trek1000@btinternet...>> wrote in message
> news:<f6bdb283.0205201308.fe59653@posting...>...
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I hope this question hasn't been done to death, but i really need some
> > help in finding a mic for recording acoustic guitar. I am trying to
> > record in my bedroom (not the greatest place i know) and is started
> > off using some really budget mics, which were really bad, then someone
> > suggested an AKG C3000B, which i got, but frankly i hated it, it just
> > didn't reproduce what i was hearing (i know that is like the holy
> > grail in recording acoustics) so i've now been recommened a Shure
> > SM81. any ideas on how good that is or any other suggestions?
> > (my price range is £200/300 or 300/400 in dollars)
>
>
From: Jeff Hill <jeh652@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: 22 May 2002 14:32:37 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Roger W. Norman" <<Roger@SirMusicStudio...>> wrote in message news:<ucrG8.186$<Je3.42@nwrddc01...>>...
> Can these stomp boxes/DIs really be a substitute for careful mic selection
> and placement? I mean, when I see a mic emulator on a preset I have to
> wonder. A Neumann U87 in a electronic box? How far out? What's the actual
> placement to come up with the algorithm?
>
> I spent a few weeks with a Line6 Axsys 2-12" here but the emulations,
> although nice, weren't what one would truly hear were a Vox AC-30 or Fender
> Deluxe sitting right in front of a mic. I have to assume that I'm not
> really going to be hearing what a Martin or Santa Cruz through a U87 would
> sound like coming from one of the boxes but I could be wrong.
>
> --
> Roger W. Norman
> <Roger@SirMusicStudio...>
> www.SirMusicStudio.com
> 301-585-4681
>
> No your not going to get the sound of the guitar in reality but the
AG stomp is an amazing box. Unlike the previous post I found that for
recording fingerstyle guitar it works great if you add a condensor to
it. Then you do get some reality. The box does take the pickup signal
and give it air, sort of like a pickup signal mixed in with a pair of
condensors. You still get some of the piezo quack from the pickup but
it does give it space and smooths it out tremendously. I have been
experimenting with it for recording but have used it extensively for
gigging in the last 5 months. I can't count how many times I have been
complemented on my sound from other guitar players and musicians.
There really is nor has been anything like it before.
I am extremely happy with mine.
Jeff Hill
> "Austin Biel" <<abiel@flash...>> wrote in message
> news:%yfG8.161$<LW7.9439289@newssvr15...>...
> > must jump in here:
> >
> > I purchased a Yamaha AG Stomp box, and have been BLOW AWAY with the
> > recording capabilities. Firstly, there are several mic emulators that are
> > excellent, and there is a feature to control the "spread" of the emulated
> > two microphones. Then, it has a digital out (SPDIF, coaxial) and it has
> made
> > recording crappy guitars sound listenable, and good guitars very simple
> and
> > easy and clean to get a good sound.
> >
> > Last session I did, I tried the AG Stomp in conjunction with 414, SM81,
> > C3000b, couple of large tube mics....ended up using the direct out through
> > the AG stomp and tweaking the parameters as the session progressed. Threw
> > away the actual mic tracks (even blending them in didn't help much...)
> >
> > I think this is a tremendous bang for the buck, and experimented with
> > running a bass through it (only using the onboard limiter and using the
> dig
> > out) and thought it worked better than my typical Bass SansAmp di
> > setup......
> >
> > $400 at the chain places....I bought it for $300 on Ebay....
> >
> > VERY worth the trial, and of course, the chain places will take it back if
> > you don't like it....
> >
> > DISCLAIMER: I don't have/use any truly HIGH-END acoustic guitars, but use
> 4
> > different GOOD mid-range guitars (Taylor, Yamaha, etc.) Perhaps a truly
> > HIGH-END guitar would improve things with straight mics, as most of those
> > instruments have no electronics/pickup....
> >
> >
> > "bluelatune" <<trek1000@btinternet...>> wrote in message
> > news:<f6bdb283.0205201308.fe59653@posting...>...
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > I hope this question hasn't been done to death, but i really need some
> > > help in finding a mic for recording acoustic guitar. I am trying to
> > > record in my bedroom (not the greatest place i know) and is started
> > > off using some really budget mics, which were really bad, then someone
> > > suggested an AKG C3000B, which i got, but frankly i hated it, it just
> > > didn't reproduce what i was hearing (i know that is like the holy
> > > grail in recording acoustics) so i've now been recommened a Shure
> > > SM81. any ideas on how good that is or any other suggestions?
> > > (my price range is £200/300 or 300/400 in dollars)
> >
> >
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: Tue, 21 May 02 13:06:28 GMT
Organization: Technique, Inc.
In Article <200520022042312718%<moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>>, Jny Vee
<<moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>> wrote:
>From: Jny Vee <<moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>>
>
>pad the room down enough to be tolerable
>get a couple of omni mics.
>
>
Pad down the room a lot and put an EV 635 right in front of the soundhole.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's web site is http://www.jagunet.com/~tford.
Check it out for voiceover samples, audio equipment reviews and other stuff.
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: 21 May 2002 11:10:43 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Ty Ford <<tford@jagunet...>> wrote:
>In Article <200520022042312718%<moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>>, Jny Vee
><<moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>> wrote:
>>From: Jny Vee <<moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>>
>>
>>pad the room down enough to be tolerable
>>get a couple of omni mics.
>>
>
>Pad down the room a lot and put an EV 635 right in front of the soundhole.
I had a guy in with a Macaferri and this turned out to be just the perfect
sound. I was really kind of surprised, but it sounded great soloed and it
fit perfectly into the mix. Not a lot of top end detail, but that's okay.
Notice how well the paragraph is aligned, too. It just happened this way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: 21 May 2002 10:40:09 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
Jay Kahrs <<brownsnd14@aol...>> wrote:
>
>How about an Earthworks mic? They're pretty true. Any kind of omni will usually
>be closer to the source then a cardiod.
The lack of proximity effect on omnis makes them interesting for acoustic
guitar, but you have to position them very differently for the same reason.
You can put them right up in front of the sound hole on some guitars without
them blooming in the bass end. I like that sometimes, but not always.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Brian Middleton <brian.middleton@umb...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:19:28 -0400
Chunky Karma wrote:
>
> I'd also consider any of Earthworks omni mics. I have the TC30k's and
> love them. Very open and natural sounding. You can place it closer to
> the guitar than most mics and get less of your room.
I've never used Earthworks mics, but last year I did a backup vocal
session for a songwriter friend where I had to ask the engineer what
mics were used on the acoustic because it sounded so good, and he said
they were Earthworks omnis--QTC1's I think. Open and natural,
definitely, but also big and rich and sparkly. Just a superb sound.
(It's a nice guitar, which helps, of course, but I've recorded that
guitar and heard other more competent engineers' recordings of it, and
that's the best I've ever heard it sound.)
--
Brian Middleton
Night Kitchen
Dorchester, Mass.
From: John L Rice <Drummer@ImJohn...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 06:54:59 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"bluelatune" <<trek1000@btinternet...>> wrote in message
news:<f6bdb283.0205201308.fe59653@posting...>...
> Hello all,
>
> I hope this question hasn't been done to death, but i really need some
> help in finding a mic for recording acoustic guitar. I am trying to
> record in my bedroom (not the greatest place i know) and is started
> off using some really budget mics, which were really bad, then someone
> suggested an AKG C3000B, which i got, but frankly i hated it, it just
> didn't reproduce what i was hearing (i know that is like the holy
> grail in recording acoustics) so i've now been recommened a Shure
> SM81. any ideas on how good that is or any other suggestions?
> (my price range is £200/300 or 300/400 in dollars)
The combination of an Audix TR-40 ( aprrox $170 street ) and an Audio
Technica 3035 ( ~ $199 ) or other large diaphragm condenser under $200 might
work well for you. ( or just two TR-40's )
Put the TR-40 somewhere over you picking hand shoulder and the other mic
somewhere in the vicinity of the sound hole, give or take a few inches.
Best of luck!
John L Rice
<Drummer@ImJohn...>
From: P Stamler <pstamler@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: 21 May 2002 08:24:22 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
One piece of information that would be really useful: what brand of guitar are
you playing, and what model, and are you flatpicking or fingerpicking, and are
you recording solo guitar or parts in a band arrangement (from your address I
slightly suspect the latter)? All of those factors influence microphone choice.
Peace,
Paul
From: Brian Middleton <brian.middleton@umb...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:32:10 -0400
John L Rice wrote:
>
> Put the TR-40 somewhere over you picking hand shoulder and the other mic
> somewhere in the vicinity of the sound hole, give or take a few inches.
I've been getting decent results lately on an overly thin Takamine
acoustic (is that a redundancy?) with an MXL 603 in the
"over-the-shoulder" position and a Shure KSM32 about 8 inches off the
12th fret, turned inward a little so it's looking at the neck-body joint.
Neither track sounds real good soloed, but together they work pretty
well, and they even sound OK collapsed to mono, though the 3:1 rule is
being bent if not broken.
--
Brian Middleton
Night Kitchen
Dorchester, Mass.
From: Roger W. Norman <Roger@SirMusicStudio...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:32:23 GMT
I would look at an AT4050 (LDC) or AT4051 (SDC). Street price might be a
little higher than you have budgeted, but it might well be worth a listen.
I used mine (4050) on an inspirational country act for both his vocal and
guitar (from about 18" out) with a roomful of musicians and it performed
very well, capturing both his guitar very nicely along with being huge on
his vocals. When I use it on my Ovation Elite it sounds phenomenal,
particularly since you can't really get a good sound out of an Ovation as an
acoustic.
Other than that I've had good luck with Neumann KM184s, and to a lesser
extent (but still quite good) a couple of the Marshall MXL603s.
As for the SM81, well, I'd use one without trepidation, but not on an
acoustic guitar as my first choice. It might end up that it would be the
best choice for a particular acoustic, though.
--
Roger W. Norman
<Roger@SirMusicStudio...>
www.SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
"bluelatune" <<trek1000@btinternet...>> wrote in message
news:<f6bdb283.0205201308.fe59653@posting...>...
> Hello all,
>
> I hope this question hasn't been done to death, but i really need some
> help in finding a mic for recording acoustic guitar. I am trying to
> record in my bedroom (not the greatest place i know) and is started
> off using some really budget mics, which were really bad, then someone
> suggested an AKG C3000B, which i got, but frankly i hated it, it just
> didn't reproduce what i was hearing (i know that is like the holy
> grail in recording acoustics) so i've now been recommened a Shure
> SM81. any ideas on how good that is or any other suggestions?
> (my price range is £200/300 or 300/400 in dollars)
From: Rob Adelman <radelman@mn...>
Subject: Re: Mic for Recording Acoustic Guitar - Help!!
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:37:43 -0500
"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
>
> I would look at an AT4050 (LDC) or AT4051 (SDC). Street price might be a
> little higher than you have budgeted, but it might well be worth a listen.
I have a source for new 4051's for 299.00. Heck of a deal.
-Rob
| FOUL! 3 to 1 rule violation; No penalty?! [2] |
|---|
From: P Stamler <pstamler@aol...>
Subject: Re: FOUL! 3 to 1 rule violation; No penalty?!
Date: 21 May 2002 08:36:18 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>uh, what is the 3 to 1 rule?
To avoid problems with comb-filtering, arising from phase-cancellation when the
same wavefront hits two microphones at different times, a good rule of thumb is
to be sure that the distance between microphones is at least 3 times the
distance from each microphone to its sound source.
As other have said, this is only a rule of thumb, and it assumes sound sources
of approximately equal intensity. It also assumes that you're summing the
outputs of the two microphones; if, for example, the two microphones are panned
hard right and hard left, the problem doesn't arise. This might be the case
with an ORTF setup, for example, where the microphones are angled outwards at
110 degrees, spaced at about 7". Listen in stereo, no comb filtering problems.
Sum to mono, you may have problems.
As someone else said, it's less of an issue with cardioid microphones than with
omnis, but it's still a useful rule of thumb.
Peace,
Paul
From: Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d...>
Subject: Re: FOUL! 3 to 1 rule violation; No penalty?!
Date: 20 May 2002 21:10:34 -0400
Organization: D & D Data, Vienna, VA
In article <<3CE92BC3.35C4CDD@bay...>> <PTUMOLO@bay...> writes:
> The mics are 12 inches apart and each is 3 to 4 feet from the source. A
> clear violation of the 3 to 1 rule. Yet, by all accounts, the recording
> turned out very well.
>
> what gives?
1. The "3:1 Rule" isn't a rule, it's just a good idea.
2. It was suggested for omni mics. Cardioids give you more leeway.
3. Almost certainly the mics were panned to different places in the
sound field, not summed to mono. There wouldn't be much point to that. Because the fiddle is constantly in motion, the change in phase as the instrument moves will give a nice moving spaciousness to the sound.4. It's EQ magazine and they (along with most of the other mags) never
quite tell the whole story. Not that they're afraid of giving away any secrets, they just don't know to ask any further questions or don't allow space to print the answers.--
I'm really Mike Rivers (<mrivers@d-and-d...>)
| New Mic that every one can afford [5] |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: New Mic that every one can afford
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:28:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
small diaphram condensor similar in design to the neumann I used at ec5 at
about 500$ less
I just got a sample and am quite impressed (in my den where I have tried
it)
sounds clean and clear maybe a little dark(usually a good thing)
se1 from Se Electronics a chinese oem manufacture with about 50 years
experiance making microphones
I also got the Se 2500 was less impressed with that one
at around 90$ the Se One is a KILLER mic very comparable to the octavia
small dia condensor
I bet this would find a great home in ANY home studio and on most stages
I can let you sample mine, security deposit would be required
Email me if your intrested in getting into condensor mics
george
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: New Mic that every one can afford
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 02:21:13 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
"George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote in message
news:AqsU8.1680$<Iu6.75848@bgtnsc04-news...>...
> small diaphram condensor similar in design to the
> neumann I used at ec5 at about 500$ less I just got
> a sample and am quite impressed (in my den where
> I have tried it) sounds clean and clear maybe a little
> dark(usually a good thing) se1 from Se Electronics
> a chinese oem manufacture with about 50 years
> experiance making microphones
George,
How is the consistency from one mic to another? That's always
been one of the reasons to pick a name brand (Neumann,
Sennheiser, etc.) over the cheaper (Chinese or Russian) small
condensers... the fact that you could use them in stereo pairs
without having to get consecutive serial numbers from the
factory.
So, are these mic's consistent from one example to another? Have
you actually tested that, or are you only going by your
experience with one mic at a time?
And while we're at it, how do they compare sonically to a stereo
pair of KM-184's?
BTW, I don't have any strong bias here, pro or con. If these are
good-sounding mics at a low price and they are consistently that
way from the factory, then this is very good news for everybody.
A few years ago when I bought my KM-184's, I would have LOVED to
get equivalent mics to a KM-184 on a Shure SM-57 budget!
I also agree that if these mics are a little on the dark side,
that may be a good thing. I like my KM-184's, but sometimes I
have to damp down that 10kHz peak.
Mike Barrs
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: New Mic that every one can afford
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 02:55:37 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote in message
news:tctU8.247364$<_j6.12398659@bin3...>...
> "George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote in message
> news:AqsU8.1680$<Iu6.75848@bgtnsc04-news...>...
>
> > small diaphram condensor similar in design to the
> > neumann I used at ec5 at about 500$ less I just got
> > a sample and am quite impressed (in my den where
> > I have tried it) sounds clean and clear maybe a little
> > dark(usually a good thing) se1 from Se Electronics
> > a chinese oem manufacture with about 50 years
> > experiance making microphones
>
> George,
>
> How is the consistency from one mic to another? That's always
> been one of the reasons to pick a name brand (Neumann,
> Sennheiser, etc.) over the cheaper (Chinese or Russian) small
> condensers... the fact that you could use them in stereo pairs
> without having to get consecutive serial numbers from the
> factory.
>
> So, are these mic's consistent from one example to another? Have
> you actually tested that, or are you only going by your
> experience with one mic at a time?
>
> And while we're at it, how do they compare sonically to a stereo
> pair of KM-184's?
>
> BTW, I don't have any strong bias here, pro or con. If these are
> good-sounding mics at a low price and they are consistently that
> way from the factory, then this is very good news for everybody.
> A few years ago when I bought my KM-184's, I would have LOVED to
> get equivalent mics to a KM-184 on a Shure SM-57 budget!
>
> I also agree that if these mics are a little on the dark side,
> that may be a good thing. I like my KM-184's, but sometimes I
> have to damp down that 10kHz peak.
>
Mike I will let you know I am order six more
I do not intend to give the illusion that a 100$ chinese mic is = to a 650$
neumann I would like to give the illusion that it is fully 80% of the
neumann at 15% of the cost
as to stereo pairs, no I would bet that thier window of acceptable
performance is wider, maybe much wider than the neumann
BUT I do not see a great need for matched stereo pairs in the markets these
sell to
how important is a matched stereo pair when one is micing a piano and the
other a guitar in a church ?
I am offering a clear step up from the 57 at about a 57s price
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: New Mic that every one can afford
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 17:55:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Fill X" <<mothra666@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020703133119.17588.00002237@mb-mh...>...
> >I am offering a clear step up from the 57 at about a 57s price
>
> For certain applications a 57 is the best mic in the world. It also has
> different pattern and rejection charicteristics than the mics you mention.
> There is no "one" microphone, as I'm sure you know.
>
yes the 57 is considered the "default" mic it works well on almosteverything but outstanding on almost nothing
both mics are considered "cardiod" in thier pattern and rejection so no the
se1 has essentially the same pattern and rejection charateristics as the 57
its sensitivity and max sound pressure differ greatly but not the pick up
pattern shape
a condensor is the mic of choice for acoustic string instrument when weather
and abuse are not factors
when it is wet or placed in harms way I go to a Beta 57a or EV cobalt4 if
it is really a hardcore scene
the ev cobalt 4 is another unsung hero at 30$ less than the 57(street price)
it is the 57 equal or better in evrey aspect
from sound, manufacture support, abusability, pattern smoothness, Plus one
can sing into it if forced too
George
From: Mark McDonald <mdm@sonic...>
Subject: Re: New Mic that every one can afford
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 22:09:01 GMT
I think those are great mics. I used the SE line for my latest album, Great
Long Time, and I was very happy with them. I recorded the album live in the
studio and used one SE Electronics 3500 large diaphram condenser mic, and
the outside stereo pair were AKG 414's. Walkin' Blues were done with the
prototype SE Electronics Z5600 large diaphram tube condenser mic.
If you would like to hear an example go to my website and download the song
of your choice. It was not close mic'ed but instead about 6 feet away in a
high ceiling room.
I spoke to the SE people during the recordings and they were very nice
people and aim to please.
--
Mark McDonald
<mdm@sonic...>
http://www.markmcdonaldblues.com
| New Mic that every one can afford/link |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: New Mic that every one can afford/link
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 01:29:28 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
www.seelectronics.com
thanks
george
| Chris you email "reply" is not working |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Chris you email "reply" is not working
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 02:03:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
>
clipped Chris's email to me as I do not know how he would feel about me
posting it
I would not use it in voice without a SERIOUS wind
filter small dia condensors easily get overloaded by
breath pops
excellent on any stringed inst or acoustic piano hihat
or drum overhead
would make a great lectern mic as it will pick up
without being directly addressed
send ch(wait for it to clear) or money order to
George's Pro Sound
26 rt 33
Central Square NY 13036
315 676 3054
315 885 2382
I am ordering 6 more tomorrow it is not a Neumann
there is something special that the other 500$ buys
you if nothing more than saying its a neumann shuts
people up
lol
George
| Another OT Mic Question [3] |
|---|
From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Another OT Mic Question
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:38:20 -0400
I was watching a Bill Monroe documentary tonight and during some old
footage the band was shown playing around a single mic during a
broadcast. It was very small, really no bigger than the gooseneck it
was attached to. I doubt it was bigger that 1/2 inch across, maybe a
bit larger with the windscreen.
I remember seeing these small mics being used on TV by singers in the
past, going back 30 years or so. It always looked odd to me because
they were so small compared to other mics. Don't recall ever seeing
them in a live situation. Anyway, it just got me wondering what they
were and why you don't see them used any more by performers. Anyone
know?
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Another OT Mic Question
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 04:28:39 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:38:20 -0400, George W. <<geowirth@comcast...>>
wrote:
>I was watching a Bill Monroe documentary tonight and during some old
>footage the band was shown playing around a single mic during a
>broadcast. It was very small, really no bigger than the gooseneck it
>was attached to. I doubt it was bigger that 1/2 inch across, maybe a
>bit larger with the windscreen.
>
>I remember seeing these small mics being used on TV by singers in the
>past, going back 30 years or so. It always looked odd to me because
>they were so small compared to other mics. Don't recall ever seeing
>them in a live situation. Anyway, it just got me wondering what they
>were and why you don't see them used any more by performers. Anyone
>know?
I don't know the mic you saw but if everyone was around it, it
probably was omnidirectional. Omni's are not practical for live work
because they are more susceptible to feed-back than directional types.
For what it's worth, if I had to guess without seeing it, the mic was
either an Altec or a Sennheiser condensor. If it was black and shaped
like a coke bottle, it was definitely an Altec.
From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Another OT Mic Question
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 11:24:39 -0400
On Fri, 05 Jul 2002 04:28:39 GMT, Rick Ruskin wrote:
>I don't know the mic you saw but if everyone was around it, it
>probably was omnidirectional. Omni's are not practical for live work
>because they are more susceptible to feed-back than directional types.
>
>
>For what it's worth, if I had to guess without seeing it, the mic was
>either an Altec or a Sennheiser condensor. If it was black and shaped
>like a coke bottle, it was definitely an Altec.
Well, it wasn't coke bottle shaped but it was definitely tiny. You're
probably right about it being an omni. I remember a period some time
back when you'd see performers using these on TV in studio situations.
It always looked odd because they were just a small ball on the end of
a stick. Some of the old game shows also had the host using something
similar. I suppose they were condensers of some kind.
| New mic and preamp. [2] |
|---|
From: Chris Stern <himself@NOSPAMchrisstern...>
Subject: New mic and preamp.
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:46:48 +0100
Got a new mic yesterday, it's an Audio-Technica AT3035. I got a Focusrite
Trak Master preamp to go with it and to also use live as a guitar preamp.
Results so far recording with my Boss BR532 are stunning! Need just a little
more practise with the compressor and I'll have keepers. As on CDII I'm
using just the single mic for guitar and vocal. Doesn't give me much room
for adjustment but it gets "my" sound. I may upgrade the recorder so that I
can run two mics into separate channels and the guitar pickup to a third.
But that means more £££ I ain't got just now.
Chris
From: Tim Sands <sandstim@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: New mic and preamp.
Date: 18 Jul 2002 07:48:15 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"Chris Stern" <<himself@NOSPAMchrisstern...>> wrote in message news:<<3d28c4ed_1@mk-nntp-1...>>...
> Got a new mic yesterday, it's an Audio-Technica AT3035. I got a Focusrite
> Trak Master preamp to go with it and to also use live as a guitar preamp.
>
> Results so far recording with my Boss BR532 are stunning! Need just a little
> more practise with the compressor and I'll have keepers. As on CDII I'm
> using just the single mic for guitar and vocal. Doesn't give me much room
> for adjustment but it gets "my" sound. I may upgrade the recorder so that I
> can run two mics into separate channels and the guitar pickup to a third.
> But that means more £££ I ain't got just now.
>
> Chris
Hi Chris,
I was faced with this dilemma but found that you can get a signal
boosting jack plug to put on the end of a mic cable that means you can
run a second mic by plugging it clean into the guitar input. Works a
treat. Dirt cheap.
Tim
| phantom power for mic - home recording [7] |
|---|
From: mtmikey <mtmikey@hotmail...>
Subject: phantom power for mic - home recording
Date: 7 Jul 2002 19:57:13 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
howdy,
i have a tascam us-428 on order, which i plan to use for home
[computer] recording. the unit does not have phantom power, so i'm
looking for a box of some sort to power a condenser mic or two. i'm
using an akg c2000b, which requires phantom power, and an akg c1000,
which runs on a 9v battery, but can also run phantom. so sayeth the
manuals.
should i get a mic preamp for this kind of setup? is that overkill?
would a phantom power box of some sort do the trick/suit my needs? akg
has a B 18 E phantom power supply on their site
(http://www.akgusa.com/accessories/b18e.html), but i've yet to find
anyone with this in stock. thoughts?
i'm a neophyte with this stuff, but would like to start mic'ing and
recording at home with a bit better equipment. i've been using a
roland ua30 for a year or so and it has worked as far as running from
a pickup in to digital, but i'd like to use mics with xlr inputs,
etc., which led me to the tascam, which led me to the bank...
tired of buying little boxes...
thanks,
mkg
From: Fill X <mothra666@aol...>
Subject: Re: phantom power for mic - home recording
Date: 08 Jul 2002 04:07:54 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
So buy a little mackie 1202 vlz pro. It has 4 mic pres which are good for the
dollar and phantom power to boot. Useful little tool if you're just getting
into this.
P h i l i p
______________________________
"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
- Dorothy ParkerNAWCC member 0151958
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: phantom power for mic - home recording
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:43:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Fill X" <<mothra666@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020708000754.22922.00003658@mb-fh...>...
> So buy a little mackie 1202 vlz pro. It has 4 mic pres which are good for
the
> dollar and phantom power to boot. Useful little tool if you're just
getting
> into this.
or get the Behringer 802 same mixer 1/3 the cost
99$ at www.americanmusical.com
george
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: phantom power for mic - home recording
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 16:43:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Fill X" <<mothra666@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020708123245.11141.00002598@mb-ci...>...
> >or get the Behringer 802 same mixer 1/3 the cost
> >99$ at www.americanmusical.com
> >george
>
> I wouldn't say it's the same mixer. Plus, god help you if you ever want
any
> kind of tech support or warranty support from those guys.
>
>
> P h i l i p
>
Sorry Phillip I would not dream of serviceing a 99$ mixer if it is notwarrentte it is junked
Behringers warrentte service is one step better than Mackies Behringer will
authorize replacments where Mackie a repair on a 1202 can take months as per
recent threads in RAP
George
George
From: Ed B. <nospam-ej@bianchi...>
Subject: Re: phantom power for mic - home recording
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 08:15:41 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
So far I am real happy with my Presonus Blue Tube Mic Preamp - at
$150, its a great deal can do two mics with phantom power. Since the
428 is already a mixer, seems like all you need is phantom power and
pre's for condenser mics...
-Ed B.
On 7 Jul 2002 19:57:13 -0700, <mtmikey@hotmail...> (mtmikey) wrote:
>howdy,
>
>i have a tascam us-428 on order, which i plan to use for home
>[computer] recording. the unit does not have phantom power, so i'm
>looking for a box of some sort to power a condenser mic or two. i'm
>using an akg c2000b, which requires phantom power, and an akg c1000,
>which runs on a 9v battery, but can also run phantom. so sayeth the
>manuals.
>
>should i get a mic preamp for this kind of setup? is that overkill?
>would a phantom power box of some sort do the trick/suit my needs? akg
>has a B 18 E phantom power supply on their site
>(http://www.akgusa.com/accessories/b18e.html), but i've yet to find
>anyone with this in stock. thoughts?
>
>i'm a neophyte with this stuff, but would like to start mic'ing and
>recording at home with a bit better equipment. i've been using a
>roland ua30 for a year or so and it has worked as far as running from
>a pickup in to digital, but i'd like to use mics with xlr inputs,
>etc., which led me to the tascam, which led me to the bank...
>
>tired of buying little boxes...
>
>thanks,
>mkg
-Ed Bianchi
remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: Chris Stern <himself@NOSPAMchrisstern...>
Subject: Re: phantom power for mic - home recording
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:34:16 +0100
More £££ or $$$ but I REALLY like the Focusrite Trak Master I just got.
Superb with my AT3035 and a great guitar pre-amp too. I wondered if I was
going over the top financially but I am very glad I did.
Chris
"Ed B." <<nospam-ej@bianchi...>> wrote in message
news:<c2bjiucg617j58rsqftt8l2slfm6e2e4tp@4ax...>...
> So far I am real happy with my Presonus Blue Tube Mic Preamp - at
> $150, its a great deal can do two mics with phantom power. Since the
> 428 is already a mixer, seems like all you need is phantom power and
> pre's for condenser mics...
> -Ed B.
>
> On 7 Jul 2002 19:57:13 -0700, <mtmikey@hotmail...> (mtmikey) wrote:
>
> >howdy,
> >
> >i have a tascam us-428 on order, which i plan to use for home
> >[computer] recording. the unit does not have phantom power, so i'm
> >looking for a box of some sort to power a condenser mic or two. i'm
> >using an akg c2000b, which requires phantom power, and an akg c1000,
> >which runs on a 9v battery, but can also run phantom. so sayeth the
> >manuals.
> >
> >should i get a mic preamp for this kind of setup? is that overkill?
> >would a phantom power box of some sort do the trick/suit my needs? akg
> >has a B 18 E phantom power supply on their site
> >(http://www.akgusa.com/accessories/b18e.html), but i've yet to find
> >anyone with this in stock. thoughts?
> >
> >i'm a neophyte with this stuff, but would like to start mic'ing and
> >recording at home with a bit better equipment. i've been using a
> >roland ua30 for a year or so and it has worked as far as running from
> >a pickup in to digital, but i'd like to use mics with xlr inputs,
> >etc., which led me to the tascam, which led me to the bank...
> >
> >tired of buying little boxes...
> >
> >thanks,
> >mkg
>
> -Ed Bianchi
> remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: phantom power for mic - home recording
Date: 09 Jul 2002 02:43:06 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<>or get the Behringer 802 same mixer 1/3 the cost
>99$ at www.americanmusical.com
>george
I wouldn't say it's the same mixer. Plus, god help you if you ever want any
kind of tech support or warranty support from those guys.
P h i l i p >>
Agreed, completely. I have both Machie and Behringer mixers in my gearpile.
The Behringers sound the same, pretty much, as the smaller Mackies...but they
do not service as easily and there is NO customer support to speak of.
Still, at about 1/3 the price of he Mackie 1202, I'd consider the Behringer for
a home thing.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
| Yo George Gleason [2] |
|---|
From: Amostagain <amostagain@aol...>
Subject: Yo George Gleason
Date: 22 Jul 2002 03:58:39 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Played a little fly date show today up at the Nascar Race in NH.
Since I got too draw up the stage plot & input list I requested a couple of AKG
535's for the mando & guitar in addition to the DI'd thing. They really worked
well - I've been experimenting with a few different mics lately & these seemed
pretty easy to dial in a usable sound - even had a little coming back in the
wedges & this is with a small drum kit on stage also. Anyway thanks for the
headsup.
Me at:
http://www.geocities.com/mondoslugness
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Yo George Gleason
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:17:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Amostagain" <<amostagain@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020721235839.02742.00001631@mb-co...>...
> Played a little fly date show today up at the Nascar Race in NH.
> Since I got too draw up the stage plot & input list I requested a couple
of AKG
> 535's for the mando & guitar in addition to the DI'd thing. They really
worked
> well - I've been experimenting with a few different mics lately & these
seemed
> pretty easy to dial in a usable sound - even had a little coming back in
the
> wedges & this is with a small drum kit on stage also. Anyway thanks for
the
> headsup.
The Akg 535 is a very good unreconized mic with most people going for the
C1000 at almost the same price
but IMO there is nO comparision the 535 is the better choice
George>
| Really, really stupid mic question (MXL 2001) |
|---|
From: Robert K. McCourty <rkm@metamend...>
Subject: Re: Really, really stupid mic question (MXL 2001)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:17:54 -0700
In article <<ubbuju0ev0ulugc0v0blnk4uog2qfu0thb@4ax...>>, George W.
<<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote:
> I'm embarrassed to have to ask this, but what the hell.....
Don't be, it's a legit question. I also have an MXL 2001, great mic for
the money, even our engineer was impressed. Yes the "symbol" side
represents the cartioid (heart shaped) pattern the mic produces, but
dont be afraid to move it around. Hanging it upside down (grill up in
the air) the pattern is actually fuller than pointing it toward the
floor. Also moving it slightly horizontally and about 8 inches away and
slightly back from the soundhole of your acoustic produces a very nice
"full" guitar sound. Stick the 603 in close and double the track. The
603 produces a brighter sound. Mix the two tracks together and you've
got an awesome blend. The 2000 and 2001 models have many more uses than
vocals only. Don't be afraid to experiment with them.
Hope this helps.
RKM
Robert McCourty
Special Blend
100% Pure Music
http://www.specialblend.ca/
>
> I just got the MXL mic package with the MXL 2001 and the MXL 603. On
> the large diaphragm 2001 which side is the "active" side? I assume
> it's the side with the small symbol on it, since that's the loudest,
> but I just want to make sure.
>
> I think I've got the 603 all figured out. The end where the cable
> doesn't go is the end you play into, right?
>
> Right?
>
> Thanks.
| Octava MC012's [8] |
|---|
From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Octava MC012's
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 11:46:28 GMT
Just thought I'd mention that GC and Musician's Friend are running a "2 pack
for $200" sale on the Octava MC012 small diaphram condenser mics. These are
NOT matched pairs.
Also, it's worth noting that while prices are higher than GC's at The Sound
Room (http://www.oktava.com/) they do a bit of quality control and testing
that GC doesn't do. The Sound Room does MATCHED pairs for $426.
We used a pair from GC for Joe's recording sessions. There was SOME
discernable variation in the unmatched mics, but you had to be trying pretty
hard to hear it.
I thought they sounded incredibly clear and detailed for such inexpensive
mics. We A/B'd them with my ATM 10A's (small diaphram omni condenser mics),
and found them to be both warmer and more precise. Some of that difference
was just cardoid vs. omni, but to me there was no question that the Octava's
sounded better.
For those at EC5, these mic's are essentially copies of the Neumanns that
George used as guitar mics. I'd have to A/B them with the Neumanns to
compare the quality, but I was very impressed with the sound of the Octavas.
Cheers,
--
Michael Pugh
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Octava MC012's
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:22:35 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"No Busking" <<nobusking@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:oW919.9021$<gU1.2238537@news1...>...
> Just thought I'd mention that GC and Musician's Friend are running a "2
pack
> for $200" sale on the Octava MC012 small diaphram condenser mics. These
are
> NOT matched pairs.
>
> Also, it's worth noting that while prices are higher than GC's at The
Sound
> Room (http://www.oktava.com/) they do a bit of quality control and testing
> that GC doesn't do. The Sound Room does MATCHED pairs for $426.
>
> We used a pair from GC for Joe's recording sessions. There was SOME
> discernable variation in the unmatched mics, but you had to be trying
pretty
> hard to hear it.
>
> I thought they sounded incredibly clear and detailed for such inexpensive
> mics. We A/B'd them with my ATM 10A's (small diaphram omni condenser
mics),
> and found them to be both warmer and more precise. Some of that
difference
> was just cardoid vs. omni, but to me there was no question that the
Octava's
> sounded better.
>
> For those at EC5, these mic's are essentially copies of the Neumanns that
> George used as guitar mics. I'd have to A/B them with the Neumanns to
> compare the quality, but I was very impressed with the sound of the
Octavas.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Michael Pugh
>
>
The octavas are fine mics and I can recommend them
they will give you essentially the same performance as the neumann i used
until you are using a very pro level pa system/very high end speakers
i can aslo say the Se1 from se electronics
www.seelectronics.com that I sell for 87$ delivered is = to the octavas
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Octava MC012's
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:53:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Dick Thaxter" <<richard.thaxter@mail...>> wrote in message
news:<3D45E6E5.3014425D@mail...>...
> Right. Now I'm home looking at the ad.
>
> The AKG C1000S are $149 each for two; $199 singly. An audio engineer in
> my dept recommended them a couple of years ago.
>
> Dick Thaxter
>
I bought 4 of them for 165$ each a few years ago used them once and sold
the batch for 400$ cause I hated them so much
they are not well detailed, the best word I can find for them is grainy
also they require a special clip and a VERY STURDY mic stand due to thier
weight
over all I would rate the c1000 a D- as a mic
you would be better served with a Shure Beta 57 at the 150$ price the AKG
condensor that is worthy in the same general price(200ish) is the 535
George
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Octava MC012's
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 11:55:47 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
George Gleason wrote:
> "Dick Thaxter" <<richard.thaxter@mail...>> wrote in message
> news:<3D45E6E5.3014425D@mail...>...
>
>>Right. Now I'm home looking at the ad.
>>
>>The AKG C1000S are $149 each for two; $199 singly. An audio engineer in
>>my dept recommended them a couple of years ago.
>>
>>Dick Thaxter
>>
>>
> I bought 4 of them for 165$ each a few years ago used them once and sold
> the batch for 400$ cause I hated them so much
> they are not well detailed, the best word I can find for them is grainy
> also they require a special clip and a VERY STURDY mic stand due to thier
> weight
> over all I would rate the c1000 a D- as a mic
> you would be better served with a Shure Beta 57 at the 150$ price the AKG
> condensor that is worthy in the same general price(200ish) is the 535
The two C1000S mikes I have are not wonderful vocal mikes but they
seem to fit well with the recording needs of Lowdens, using one aimed at
the 'wood' and one at the 'air', or just regular single miking.
I believe the C1000 (original) underwent a substantial improvement to
the C1000S and there is not much comparison. UK reviewers getting the
latest version about 18 months said it was considerably better than the
original. If you had original C1000 mikes 'a few years ago' you may be
slandering the current version.
DK
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Octava MC012's
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:35:42 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"David Kilpatrick" <<iconmags2@btconnect...>> wrote in message
news:<3D467EA1.3020603@btconnect...>...
>
>
> George Gleason wrote:
>
> > "Dick Thaxter" <<richard.thaxter@mail...>> wrote in message
> > news:<3D45E6E5.3014425D@mail...>...
> >
> >>Right. Now I'm home looking at the ad.
> >>
> >>The AKG C1000S are $149 each for two; $199 singly. An audio engineer in
> >>my dept recommended them a couple of years ago.
> >>
> >>Dick Thaxter
> >>
> >>
> > I bought 4 of them for 165$ each a few years ago used them once and
sold
> > the batch for 400$ cause I hated them so much
> > they are not well detailed, the best word I can find for them is grainy
> > also they require a special clip and a VERY STURDY mic stand due to
thier
> > weight
> > over all I would rate the c1000 a D- as a mic
> > you would be better served with a Shure Beta 57 at the 150$ price the
AKG
> > condensor that is worthy in the same general price(200ish) is the 535
>
>
>
> The two C1000S mikes I have are not wonderful vocal mikes but they
> seem to fit well with the recording needs of Lowdens, using one aimed at
> the 'wood' and one at the 'air', or just regular single miking.
>
> I believe the C1000 (original) underwent a substantial improvement to
> the C1000S and there is not much comparison. UK reviewers getting the
> latest version about 18 months said it was considerably better than the
> original. If you had original C1000 mikes 'a few years ago' you may be
> slandering the current version.
>
Nope, these were some of the first C1000s's
I bought them on a recommendation before I ever heard or handled them I
cring at the thought of them now
George
>
From: Greg Thomas <gjthomas@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Octava MC012's
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 04:37:55 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
"No Busking" wrote in message
> Just thought I'd mention that GC and Musician's Friend are running a "2
pack
> for $200" sale on the Octava MC012 small diaphram condenser mics. These
are
> NOT matched pairs.
>
SNIP> For those at EC5, these mic's are essentially copies of the Neumanns
that
> George used as guitar mics. I'd have to A/B them with the Neumanns to
> compare the quality, but I was very impressed with the sound of the
Octavas.
John Sorell has a couple of Neumanns, I have a couple of Oktavas. While the
Oktavas are, for the price, VERY nice mics, there's no comparison, IMHO,
with the Neumanns. After sitting next to John at rehearsals and gigs for a
year and half and listening to his playing through the Neumanns and my
playing through the Oktavas, the Neumanns win hands down. That said, the
Oktavas are, again, very nice, and compare favorably to the Neumanns.
Greg
From: Fill X <mothra666@aol...>
Subject: Re: Octava MC012's
Date: 31 Jul 2002 07:17:10 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I'll agree with George on that one, there's a saying: "There are no bad mics
only C1000's."
P h i l i p
______________________________
"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
- Dorothy ParkerNAWCC member 0151958
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Octava MC012's
Date: 31 Jul 2002 15:17:35 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< After sitting next to John at rehearsals and gigs for a
year and half and listening to his playing through the Neumanns and my
playing through the Oktavas, the Neumanns win hands down. That said, the
Oktavas are, again, very nice, and compare favorably to the Neumanns. >>
I did an A/B with a pair of the Oktavas and a pair of Neumann KM-184s, and felt
the same. I recorded several acoustic guitar players with different
instruments and styles, but with the same mic setups. The OKts and the 184s in
pretty much the same positions.
The Oktavas I had had the three interchangeable capsules, and the omni capsule
was the best of the three for acoustic guitar recording. Again, IMO, but the
players also liked it best.
The Oktavas are a good value. The Neumanns are a splendid value.
If you can find a pair of the Oktavas with the three interchangeable capsules,
THAT is the best value pkg to get, IMO.
All the best,
stv
Tar Baby Tunes
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
| Octava MC012's (akg C1000s) |
|---|
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Octava MC012's (akg C1000s)
Date: 30 Jul 2002 20:33:47 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I have a studio pal who records a lot of roots rock and blues and he uses
C1000s on acoustic guitars all the time and he gets great results.
I don't like them as well as he does ...
His clients' guitars are often the sort that would not be considered.. um...
masters of tone, but they do fit into the bands' sounds. The C1000s excel at
this.
It's neat to read that they do well with someone's Lowden, too!
thx,
stv
| JT's mic [6] |
|---|
From: john muir <jmuirman1@aol...>
Subject: JT's mic
Date: 9 Aug 2002 19:56:03 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
You can see James Taylor's recording sessions for "October Road" at
this url address. http://channels.netscape.com/ns/music/ch/artists_month.jsp
(click on "behind the scenes")
Just wondering...is the vocal mic a U67? Looks like the mic on his
guitar is a 414. would appreciate your expertise.
Thanks,
John
From: Rob Adelman <radelman@mn...>
Subject: Re: JT's mic
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 03:39:33 GMT
Not sure, but live I have seen him often on my favorite under rated mic, the
c535eb.
john muir wrote:
> You can see James Taylor's recording sessions for "October Road" at
> this url address. http://channels.netscape.com/ns/music/ch/artists_month.jsp
> (click on "behind the scenes")
>
> Just wondering...is the vocal mic a U67? Looks like the mic on his
> guitar is a 414. would appreciate your expertise.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
From: Karl Winkler <kwinkler@sennheiserusa...>
Subject: Re: JT's mic
Date: 13 Aug 2002 13:37:15 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Rob Adelman <<radelman@mn...>> wrote in message news:<<3D548AEF.5E7C3A94@mn...>>...
> Not sure, but live I have seen him often on my favorite under rated mic, the
> c535eb.
>
A recent photo of him in performance from the latest issue of Rolling
Stone shows him with a KMS 105.
-Karl Winkler
http://www.sennheiserusa.com
From: Ted Spencer <prestokid@aol...>
Subject: Re: JT's mic
Date: 10 Aug 2002 15:40:52 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Just wondering...is the vocal mic a U67? Looks like the mic on his
>guitar is a 414. would appreciate your expertise.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John
The vocal mic is either a U87 or a U67, probably an 87 because it looks like
it's got a standard XLR connector on it. 67's have special connectors that go
to the power supply that look different than an XLR.
I watched the video (very cool, a generous 9 1/2 minutes long) but didn't take
notice of any mics on the guitar. No matter though, JT's actual agt recording
setup is a complex combination of several mics and I believe a DI of some sort.
It's important to know that videos like this are almost never of actual
performances. They're lip-synched to the music specially for the shoot. Thus
which mics are used, their placement and distracting things like pop filters
are unimportant. Vvocal mics in a video shoot are often placed about a foot
higher than where they'd be in an actual recording to get them out of the way
of the singer's face. In this case however, JT's mic placement looks pretty
normal aside from the absence of the pop filter he most likely would otherwise
use.
Ted Spencer, NYC
"No amount of classical training will ever teach you what's so cool about
"Tighten Up" by Archie Bell And The Drells" -author unknown
From: john muir <jmuirman1@aol...>
Subject: Re: JT's mic
Date: 10 Aug 2002 18:06:11 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Thanks Ted.
Damn!I've been trying to document Taylor's setup for years and now
there are pictures that aren't accurate! Oh well I basically know what
he has used from album to album. But pictures....worth a thousand
words!
Supposedly his new Cd has some footage of the recording process...may
be like you say though...
Yeah the mic on the guitar happens about 6:06 to 6:18. It sort of pops
up in he photo for just a few seconds.
john
From: Jim Griffith <jim@matthewsgriffith...>
Subject: Re: JT's mic
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:07:53 GMT
Organization: Matthews/Griffith Music, Inc
> Just wondering...is the vocal mic a U67? Looks like the mic on his
> guitar is a 414. would appreciate your expertise.
Vocal mic is an 87. The guitar mic was too fuzzy to see, and anyway it
didn't look like it was being used to record him on that shot-its much too
distant. He's used 452s in the past.
--
Jim Griffith
Matthews/Griffith Music
Burbank, CA
| OT: FMR RNP preamp getting closer |
|---|
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: OT: FMR RNP preamp getting closer
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 17:35:59 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Hey gang,
Just a heads up here, if you're looking to buy a recording preamp
in the next couple of months. The first FMR RNP's (Really Nice
Preamps) are in the hands of beta testers, and it might start
shipping in quantity in September or October. Here are some pics:
http://itrstudio.com/rnpfront.jpg
http://itrstudio.com/rnpback.jpg
It's getting predictable drooling reviews on rec.audio.pro from
the beta testers. My personal take on this (without having HEARD
one, mind you) is that it's going to be a serious contender in
the "clean" preamp area, at a price that will probably be below
$500, and may even be as low as the $300-$350 range (price hasn't
been announced yet).
At this price and size, it's not going to be a substitute for one
of the better $2000+ mic pre's. Still, if you don't already have
a good mic preamp, or you're recording straight into an
integrated digital recorder, this is something that could greatly
improve your sound without having to spend a fortune. With those
high-Z inputs on the front, it might even have some live sound
applications. So I thought ya'll might want the heads-up. If
you're shopping for a clean preamp, then save your money for a
couple of months until this thing is out, and we have a wide
spectrum of user reviews on it. This might be the ticket for
great sound at a very low price.
Mike Barrs
| Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar [29] |
|---|
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:02:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
I've spent the last year or so looking into building a home recordingstudio, simply to record myself playing steel string fingerstyle acoustic
guitar, to make annual CDs for presents, etc. After over one hundred of
hours of research (internet, phone conversations and shop visits) and dozens
of hours of testing and sampling equipment and recording techniques, I made
several decisions and purchased some equipment.
I thought I would share some of what I've learned, in case any of youare traveling a similar path. Perhaps you might save some time, or money,
in your quest.
First, some "realities" I picked up along the way:1) There are several steps in the recording chain. Player, guitar,microphones, preamp, analog to digital converters, computer soundcard,
computer and recording software. Afterwards there's the monitoring chain:
digital to analog converters, amplifier and speakers, so you can hear
things. If you want to "master" the recordings to a CD, there's another set
of equipment, such as effects, compressor, CD burner and software tools.
2) There are numerous products out there for each step in the chain,except the computer (its either Mac of PC). There are basically three
quality classes for this stuff: marginal to good, good to excellent, and
excellent to unreal. Obviously, the cost escalates quickly.
3) In the recording world, acoustic guitar is a sideshow. Vocals anddrums seem to get a lot of attention. Microphones and/or preamps that are
praised for vocals might only be "OK" on acoustic guitar, and vice-versa.
Subjectivity comes into play, in terms of sound. Fingerstyle guitar is a
remote "recording gig" for recording studios and engineers. Most recording
is of strummed acoustic guitar.
4) Your recording chain is only as good as its weakest link. Well,this isn't exactly true, but the greatest preamp and converters in the world
are compromised greatly if, for example, you are using cheesy microphones.
5) The room you record in is very important.There's more, but you get the idea. The gearhead issues anddiscussions in the recording world are different than discussions concerning
acoustic guitar. There's a great mixture of science and art involved, and
the technology is mature and occasionally astonishing.
Any project should have a budget, and mine was no exception. I decidedI wanted a "good to excellent" set of equipment, perhaps leaning towards
excellent. I realized early that an esoteric studio would cost buko bucks.
I set the budget at $10,000. So here's what I decided to get:
1) Microphones: Two (2) Neumann KM 184 small diaphragm condensersand one (1) Neumann TLM 103 large diaphragm condenser. Also, I got a
Sunrise magnetic soundhole pickup. I'll be recording 4 channels. The 184s
is stereo X-Y or ORTF, and the 103 and Sunrise in the center (although they
could be panned slightly). The microphones and Sunrise cost about $1,900
new.
2) Preamps: One (1) Pendulum SPS-1 Acoustic Guitar Preamp, for theTLM 103 and Sunrise. One Pendulum MDP-1 Tube Preamp, for the pair of KM
184s. The SPS-1 can double as a gig preamp. The two preamps cost about
$3,600 new.
3) Digital Converters: RME ADI-8-Pro. Eight (8) channels A/D andeight (8) channels D/A. Cost $1,100 new.
4) Computer Soundcard: Digidesign 001 PCI card, 24 bit, 48k Hz.Cost $800 new.
5) Computer: Apple Macintosh G4. Lotsa RAM. Cost $1,200 used.6) Recording Software: Digidesign ProTools LE (comes with the Digi001 stuff). Cost included above.
7) Effects: TC Electronics M2000. Doubles as a gig effects unit.Cost $550 (used).
8) Compressor: Don't think I need one. If I do, excellent onesare expensive.
9) Power amp: Halfer P3000 Trans Nova. Doubles as a gig poweramp. Cost $550 new.
10) Monitor Speakers: Two (2) Daedelus 803s. Doubles as gigspeakers. Cost about $1,900 new.
11) Miscellaneous Stuff: Analog, optical and S/PDIF cabling,microphone stands, extension cables for CPU lines, rack, workstation,
headphones, etc. Cost about $1,000.
So the total cost has been about $12,600, mostly due to the shift to 4channels instead of just 2 channels. Trust me, all of this stuff is "mid"
grade, with the exception of the Pendulum, Apple and Daedelus products,
which most would consider top shelf.
In any event, the sound is simply incredible, at least to my ears. Inow have the pleasure of fooling around with this stuff to make it work best
together. So far so good. Everything hooked up nicely. Everything works.
Lotsa options.
I hope to have a CD released by the end of the year (2002) and will tryto get a couple of tunes into the RMMGA CD-III project by the October 1,
2002 deadline.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 02 09:37:30 GMT
Organization: Ty Ford Audio, a division of Technique, Inc.
In Article <<gn0plu8qhq215votcnap48bhg6qmpusd5i@4ax...>>, George W.
<<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:02:29 GMT, Stephen Boyke wrote:
>
>>So the total cost has been about $12,600, mostly due to the shift to 4
>>channels instead of just 2 channels. Trust me, all of this stuff is "mid"
>>grade, with the exception of the Pendulum, Apple and Daedelus products,
>>which most would consider top shelf.
>
>Cool. Let's see, my total cost was:
>
>BR-532: $395
>Behringer Mixer: $100
>MXL Mic Package: $159
>
>So that comes to....uh... 4 carry the 1... 5 carry the 1...
>hmmm.....$654! Toss in another few bucks for tax, gas and a Happy Meal
>on the way back from GC. (Bought the recorder and mics online, no tax
>and free shipping.) Let's see, call it $670 even. Seems to work OK, at
>least everything going in comes out sounding the same. Not what I'd
>hoped for but I doubt better equipment would help in that regard.
>Plus, everything looks really neat when all the little lights are
>flashing.
This exactly underscores the points I've been trying to make for the last 5
years. If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter. If you can, it does.
The distance between "seems to work OK" and something better is greater in
dollars (and patience) than most people think or are prepared to pay.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Bill Thompson <bill@audioenterprise...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:53:31 -0400
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 90,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
Ty Ford wrote:
> This exactly underscores the points I've been trying to make for the last 5
> years. If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter. If you can, it does.
This is so true, and so overlooked. It applies to the entire recording
chain from instrument to microphone to preamp to...
It should be the first answer in the FAQ!!!!
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Steve Holt <steve@inner-musicNOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:42:38 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico
> >This exactly underscores the points I've been trying to make for the last
5
> >years. If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter. If you can,
it does.
> I agree, with a slight amendment: If one needs to see the component,
> know the make and know the price in order to "hear" the difference,
> one's conclusion may be less than honest.
The longer you listen to music on good monitors, the more your ears will
change. And when they change, you will start to hear things even on
boomboxes, on music that you've listened to for years, that you never heard
before. Not subtle things, either.
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:06:33 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
Stephen Boyke wrote:
So the total cost has been about $12,600, mostly due to the shift to 4
> channels instead of just 2 channels.
Gee. I have a Roland VS-880 EX, two AKG C1000S mikes (despite criticism
for vocal work they suit 'recording from the wood' and greater distance
work on the Lowdens very well), and whatever pickups are in the guitar.
I don't count the Mac since I already had one, but an Edirol USB
digital-direct transfer box was a late addition to avoid D-A-A-D
processes when getting the files into the Mac. The Roland will do 8
channels, but I always mix down to stereo when transferring to the Mac.
I also have Toast with Jam (previously JAM on its own) in the Mac and
consider that essential for making CDs.
I could not use my Mac for recording, there's too much sound from the
computer itself. The Roland is only JUST acceptable to be sited in the
same space as the player, ideally about 10 feet away. I do also have a
DAT tape recorder which can be used for direct stereo recording via the
EDIROL interface, which acts as a stereo mike preamp with phantom power
and A-to-D converter, and that is probably the ultimate 'silent'
recorder, you could sit it three feet away and not pick up anything.
Total cost $1800 including the software (excluding the AKAI DAT tape
which I don't really use).
It's sufficiently good to have been considered better than several
rather expensive Edinburgh studios of long standing, and if I was
willing to do recordings for people, I'd have queues.
David
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 02 09:47:15 GMT
Organization: Ty Ford Audio, a division of Technique, Inc.
In Article <<3D5CCE7D.2000100@btconnect...>>, David Kilpatrick
<<iconmags2@btconnect...>> wrote:
>
>
>Stephen Boyke wrote:
>
>So the total cost has been about $12,600, mostly due to the shift to 4
>> channels instead of just 2 channels.
>
>
>Gee. I have a Roland VS-880 EX, two AKG C1000S mikes (despite criticism
>for vocal work they suit 'recording from the wood' and greater distance
>work on the Lowdens very well)
David,
Once you get away from the C1000 and toward something like a TLM 103, you'll
discover several things:
1. The C1000 are edgey and have audibly more selfnoise than the TLM 103.
2. Without the selfnoise of the C1000 to cover up the Roland noise, you will
also hear it in the room at 10 feet away.
3. The TLM 103 will also hear other acoustic problems, e.g. extraneous
noises and acoutic anomalies in your space.
4. You'll have to tame the low end of the TLM 103 if you have a particularly
boomy acoustic guitar.
5. You end up with a recording that sounds like a guitar, instead of
something that sounds like a recording of a guitar. This is not double talk.
Once you do all that, get back to us and let us know how your universe has
changed.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Francis Guidry <fguidry@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: 16 Aug 2002 05:59:06 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Stephen's description of his home recording rig did a great job of
clarifying all the components needed, and the list of nice stuff even
triggered a little Gear Acquisition Syndrome flareup. I followed a
slightly different path. First, didn't do enough research, so I
discovered things by making mistakes. Second, I didn't set out with a
budget and a target level of performance, I just bought some stuff.
I'm sure that my rig can't compare to the one Stephen assembled, but
it provides me with sufficient recording quality that I can hear all
my mistakes <g>.
Mics - matched pair of Oktava MC012 small diaghragm condensers from
the Sound Room - $426
Preamp - M-Audio Omni I/O
Soundcard - M-Audio Delta 66 - these two items were purchased as the
Omni Studio bundle - $450
Computer - Dell GX150 PC - 1 Ghz PIII, .5 GB RAM, 20 GB hard drive
plus added 80 GB hard drive - $1200 - this PC is amazingly quiet.
Software - Cool Edit 2000 - $70
Monitor system - my home stereo
Even this level of investment is more than you have to spend to make
listenable recordings. My starter rig used our existing PC, including
a SoundBlaster Audigy sound card, a Behringer mixer, and a used Shure
SM81 mic. By using the Marshall MXL603S mic and Behringer mixer with
existing equipment it's possible to start recording for under $400,
including mic stands and cables.
Then you can work your way up to a semi-pro rig like Stephen's <g>.
Fran
From: Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: 16 Aug 2002 08:59:20 -0400
Organization: D & D Data, Vienna, VA
In article <B981AB9F.4C76B%<sdelsolray@attbi...>> <sdelsolray@attbi...> writes:
> After over one hundred of
> hours of research (internet, phone conversations and shop visits) and dozens
> of hours of testing and sampling equipment and recording techniques, I made
> several decisions and purchased some equipment.
This is good. But you probably could have saved about 90 of those
hours with a visit or three to your friendly local pro audio dealer to
actually audition some equipment. That's my advice, always.
> Fingerstyle guitar is a
> remote "recording gig" for recording studios and engineers. Most recording
> is of strummed acoustic guitar.
Huh? To me, a "remote recording gig" is carrying gear outside the
studio. But for sure, there are more guitar strummers than fancy
fingerpickers. Both are guitars, however, and while no two guitars and
guitarists record identically, there are still some principles in
common with recording acoustic guitar styles which are different from,
say, recording brass or vocals.
> 4) Your recording chain is only as good as its weakest link. Well,
> this isn't exactly true, but the greatest preamp and converters in the world
> are compromised greatly if, for example, you are using cheesy microphones.
A better way of saying this is that you have to consider the entire
system. It may be that in a particular situation, a cheezy microphone
gives the desired result (regardless of the preamp) than a high priced
one. And often changing the preamp can significantly change the sound
you're getting out of a mic.
> 5) The room you record in is very important.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the sound you're shooting
for. It's also a matter of practicality. It would be nice if everyone
could have a selection of rooms, but more often than not, in our
project studios we're limited to either one room we work on to provide
a reasonable recording environment, or we take other rooms as they
are. My dining room is great for acoustic guitars. My living room is
better for drums. My "studio room" isn't particularly good for
anything so I try to record as dry as I can and pour as much
"environment" as I need out of the Lexicon box.
> Any project should have a budget, and mine was no exception. I decided
> I wanted a "good to excellent" set of equipment, perhaps leaning towards
> excellent. I realized early that an esoteric studio would cost buko bucks.
> I set the budget at $10,000.
It's definitely smart to set a budget and stick to it. It's also smart
not to set an unrealistic budget, either low or high. However, more
often than not, we have to offer our sage wisdom to those with a
visible budget of $1,000 or less. (of course they already have the
computer and the guitar and the building and they don't figure on the
cost of software)
I think you came up with a very good set of equipment for your
projects.
> 8) Compressor: Don't think I need one. If I do, excellent ones
> are expensive.
I don't think you need one either, and you can always play with
plug-in processors on your computer to see what they do. An RNC is
good, useful, and not very expensive.
> 10) Monitor Speakers: Two (2) Daedelus 803s. Doubles as gig
> speakers. Cost about $1,900 new.
I have no idea what these are, but I'm suspicious of using speakers
for monitoring the the control room that you also use on a gig.
> 11) Miscellaneous Stuff: Analog, optical and S/PDIF cabling,
> microphone stands, extension cables for CPU lines, rack, workstation,
> headphones, etc. Cost about $1,000.
This is the part that most people don't put into their budget. Take
note! $1,000 (the total budget in many instances) isn't at all out of
line. You don't have to use $100 mic cables, but even at $20-$25, they
do add up.
Good luck.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (<mrivers@d-and-d...>)
From: Jny Vee <moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:56:07 -0400
Organization: Victorian Digital Wire Recorders LLC
In article <<znr1029498654k@tr...>>, <mrivers@d-and-d...> (Mike Rivers)
wrote:
> In article <B981AB9F.4C76B%<sdelsolray@attbi...>> <sdelsolray@attbi...> writes:
> > 10) Monitor Speakers: Two (2) Daedelus 803s. Doubles as gig
> > speakers. Cost about $1,900 new.
>
> I have no idea what these are, but I'm suspicious of using speakers
> for monitoring the the control room that you also use on a gig.
agreed, though The RAMSA series (now damnably defunct... anybody have a
set of the 10"ers for sale?) from a few years back passed that test, as
do teh KLIPSCH road speakers that are reboxed regular Klipsch series
systems.. I happen to like and do good work on things like Cornwalls
but other folks get lousy mileage there.
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 15:11:21 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article <znr1029498654k@tr...>, Mike Rivers at <mrivers@d-and-d...> wrote on
8/16/02 5:59 AM:
>> 10) Monitor Speakers: Two (2) Daedelus 803s. Doubles as gig
>> speakers. Cost about $1,900 new.
>
> I have no idea what these are, but I'm suspicious of using speakers
> for monitoring the the control room that you also use on a gig.
Mike,
Check out:www.daedalusmusic.com
www.daedalusmusic.com/press.htm
--
Stephen T. Boyke
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: 16 Aug 2002 16:25:08 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<(Much Gloved Applause!)
PS: can we have more posts like this from folks,
it'd really help me believe the world ISN'T populated with clueless
spoiled children over 25...>>
It was a truly excellent post.
I sent it to a friend who owns a studio, produces and engineers, and has a
commercial CD-ROM out on the recording of sound.
He says that most choices were good, but that he could have trimmed a couple
thousand off and got the same results.
To check his credentials and CD-ROM, etc, see:
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
From: Bill Thompson <bill@audioenterprise...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:05:48 -0400
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 90,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
Stephen,
an impressive list of gear!
I don't want to make assumptions, but the one item on the list I'd
question is the microphones. Have you tried these microphones,
especially the TLM-103, with your recording guitar?
I regularly record with four guitars, a 70's era Martin D-18, a Pimentel
RH6 which is a rosewood dread, and an OM-10 and L-09 from Larrivee. No
two guitars sound best with the same microphones. However, for a large
capsule condensor, to my ears, the TLM-193 sounds much better than the
TLM-103. If you haven't auditioned it with your guitar you might want to.
While I'd love to have a microphone locker that rivals Mr. Sides, I find
that I can get results that please me with some real oddball microphones
as well. For example, the Martin is kinda boomy, as one would expect
from a dread, and the small capsule microphone that seems to like it
best is this silly little Tascam PE-120. Doesn't seem to work well on
any of the others, but it likes the D-18. So pretty much anything goes!
I might also question the requirement for the soundhole pickup. I use
them from time to time to add a certain sound. I also use a variety of
piezo bridge pickups from time to time to add a certain sound. But if I
am trying to make an acoustic guitar recording I pretty much use
microphones.
I think you will be quite happy without a compressor in the tracking
chain. It takes a little more time to get the placement of the
microphones (especially close placement) right, and it will challenge
your technique as a player, but I'll bet from the description of your
setup that you'll like the results a lot better than if you used a
compressor!
One last tip... keep in mind that your guitars will sound quite
different from the microphone's vantage point. I've experimented with
placing a microphone near my ears, and in fact it does sound a little
more like what I hear when I am playing, but it wasn't as satisfying as
having the micrphones out front from the producers chair<G>!
Good luck!!! I can warn you as an acoustic fingerstyle player and
recordist that recording guitar is challenging for one who is a player.
It may take you some time to find the combination of everything that
sounds good to you.
Bill
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Steve Holt <steve@inner-musicNOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:37:39 -0400
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Personally, I like the AKG 451s for guitar. Also had good results with a U87
and a Brauner Valvet.
--
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
"Bill Thompson" <<bill@audioenterprise...>> wrote in message
news:<3D5D14CC.9050903@audioenterprise...>...
> Stephen,
>
> an impressive list of gear!
>
> I don't want to make assumptions, but the one item on the list I'd
> question is the microphones. Have you tried these microphones,
> especially the TLM-103, with your recording guitar?
>
> I regularly record with four guitars, a 70's era Martin D-18, a Pimentel
> RH6 which is a rosewood dread, and an OM-10 and L-09 from Larrivee. No
> two guitars sound best with the same microphones. However, for a large
> capsule condensor, to my ears, the TLM-193 sounds much better than the
> TLM-103. If you haven't auditioned it with your guitar you might want to.
>
> While I'd love to have a microphone locker that rivals Mr. Sides, I find
> that I can get results that please me with some real oddball microphones
> as well. For example, the Martin is kinda boomy, as one would expect
> from a dread, and the small capsule microphone that seems to like it
> best is this silly little Tascam PE-120. Doesn't seem to work well on
> any of the others, but it likes the D-18. So pretty much anything goes!
>
> I might also question the requirement for the soundhole pickup. I use
> them from time to time to add a certain sound. I also use a variety of
> piezo bridge pickups from time to time to add a certain sound. But if I
> am trying to make an acoustic guitar recording I pretty much use
> microphones.
>
> I think you will be quite happy without a compressor in the tracking
> chain. It takes a little more time to get the placement of the
> microphones (especially close placement) right, and it will challenge
> your technique as a player, but I'll bet from the description of your
> setup that you'll like the results a lot better than if you used a
> compressor!
>
> One last tip... keep in mind that your guitars will sound quite
> different from the microphone's vantage point. I've experimented with
> placing a microphone near my ears, and in fact it does sound a little
> more like what I hear when I am playing, but it wasn't as satisfying as
> having the micrphones out front from the producers chair<G>!
>
>
> Good luck!!! I can warn you as an acoustic fingerstyle player and
> recordist that recording guitar is challenging for one who is a player.
> It may take you some time to find the combination of everything that
> sounds good to you.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
==----------
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
=-----
From: Jny Vee <moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:01:55 -0400
Organization: Victorian Digital Wire Recorders LLC
In article <<3D5D14CC.9050903@audioenterprise...>>, Bill Thompson
<<bill@audioenterprise...>> wrote:
>... No
> two guitars sound best with the same microphones. However, for a large
> capsule condensor, to my ears, the TLM-193 sounds much better than the
> TLM-103. If you haven't auditioned it with your guitar you might want to.
I'll second this. As I think of things, the 193 comes from the 'honest'
line of Neumanns (84/170) while the 103 is descended from the
'flavored' branch of the family (87 etc) which have a better home in
the rock stidio while the 84's and 170's are more at home in the
classical camp where you want to hear what's really there.
This means NOTHING if you really absolutely adore what the 103 is doing
for you, in which case keep it, it's a grand mic.
I would suggest A Project: getting a capable/trainable friend to play
'engineer' (packanimal/grip) and to take this rig out to Some Wonderful
Sounding Place and do some recordings there.
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
From: Ed B. <nospam-ej@bianchi...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 09:04:51 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Excellent - thanks for the info Stephen...
I have picked things up myself over time, and like the sound of it. My
budget has been much less.
By the way, if you find you do need a compressor, Rick Ruskin has an
inexpensive compressor that he told me was an excellent value - check
it out at http://www.liondogmusic.com/pro_audio.htm .
My setup includes 2 Marshall 603s condensor mics ($79 each), a
Presonus Blue tube mic preamp ($150), a yamaha MD4s 4 track studio
(cost me $500 used some time ago, can get now for about $200), and of
course, I have plenty of PCs. I actually use an inexpensive Ensoniq
AudioPCI card's ($30 now - called the Creative AudioPCI) ) line-in for
recording to the computer from the 4 track. It has very good A-D
converters, and does a great job with recording to harddisk. Then I
use Cooledit to do things to the sound afterwards. I have an Alesis
Nanoreverb and Nanocomp, but neither sound very good, so I leave them
out of the chain. I forget what the cabling cost me, but it was more
expensive than I expected. Works for me..
My only problem is, this setup picks up everything with excellent
clarity - so much so, that I am starting now to hear string squeaks
from my picking hand. Argh! All that work to keep my left hand quiet,
and now my picking hand needs work. I know this is a player issue, but
I wish could use a notch filter or something to get rid of it!
-Ed B.
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 02:02:29 GMT, Stephen Boyke <<sdelsolray@attbi...>>
wrote:
> I've spent the last year or so looking into building a home recording
>studio, simply to record myself playing steel string fingerstyle acoustic
>guitar, to make annual CDs for presents, etc. After over one hundred of
>hours of research (internet, phone conversations and shop visits) and dozens
>of hours of testing and sampling equipment and recording techniques, I made
>several decisions and purchased some equipment.
>
> I thought I would share some of what I've learned, in case any of you
>are traveling a similar path. Perhaps you might save some time, or money,
>in your quest.
>
> First, some "realities" I picked up along the way:
>
> 1) There are several steps in the recording chain. Player, guitar,
>microphones, preamp, analog to digital converters, computer soundcard,
>computer and recording software. Afterwards there's the monitoring chain:
>digital to analog converters, amplifier and speakers, so you can hear
>things. If you want to "master" the recordings to a CD, there's another set
>of equipment, such as effects, compressor, CD burner and software tools.
>
> 2) There are numerous products out there for each step in the chain,
>except the computer (its either Mac of PC). There are basically three
>quality classes for this stuff: marginal to good, good to excellent, and
>excellent to unreal. Obviously, the cost escalates quickly.
>
> 3) In the recording world, acoustic guitar is a sideshow. Vocals and
>drums seem to get a lot of attention. Microphones and/or preamps that are
>praised for vocals might only be "OK" on acoustic guitar, and vice-versa.
>Subjectivity comes into play, in terms of sound. Fingerstyle guitar is a
>remote "recording gig" for recording studios and engineers. Most recording
>is of strummed acoustic guitar.
>
> 4) Your recording chain is only as good as its weakest link. Well,
>this isn't exactly true, but the greatest preamp and converters in the world
>are compromised greatly if, for example, you are using cheesy microphones.
>
> 5) The room you record in is very important.
>
> There's more, but you get the idea. The gearhead issues and
>discussions in the recording world are different than discussions concerning
>acoustic guitar. There's a great mixture of science and art involved, and
>the technology is mature and occasionally astonishing.
>
> Any project should have a budget, and mine was no exception. I decided
>I wanted a "good to excellent" set of equipment, perhaps leaning towards
>excellent. I realized early that an esoteric studio would cost buko bucks.
>I set the budget at $10,000. So here's what I decided to get:
>
> 1) Microphones: Two (2) Neumann KM 184 small diaphragm condensers
>and one (1) Neumann TLM 103 large diaphragm condenser. Also, I got a
>Sunrise magnetic soundhole pickup. I'll be recording 4 channels. The 184s
>is stereo X-Y or ORTF, and the 103 and Sunrise in the center (although they
>could be panned slightly). The microphones and Sunrise cost about $1,900
>new.
>
> 2) Preamps: One (1) Pendulum SPS-1 Acoustic Guitar Preamp, for the
>TLM 103 and Sunrise. One Pendulum MDP-1 Tube Preamp, for the pair of KM
>184s. The SPS-1 can double as a gig preamp. The two preamps cost about
>$3,600 new.
>
> 3) Digital Converters: RME ADI-8-Pro. Eight (8) channels A/D and
>eight (8) channels D/A. Cost $1,100 new.
>
> 4) Computer Soundcard: Digidesign 001 PCI card, 24 bit, 48k Hz.
>Cost $800 new.
>
> 5) Computer: Apple Macintosh G4. Lotsa RAM. Cost $1,200 used.
>
> 6) Recording Software: Digidesign ProTools LE (comes with the Digi
>001 stuff). Cost included above.
>
> 7) Effects: TC Electronics M2000. Doubles as a gig effects unit.
>Cost $550 (used).
>
> 8) Compressor: Don't think I need one. If I do, excellent ones
>are expensive.
>
> 9) Power amp: Halfer P3000 Trans Nova. Doubles as a gig power
>amp. Cost $550 new.
>
> 10) Monitor Speakers: Two (2) Daedelus 803s. Doubles as gig
>speakers. Cost about $1,900 new.
>
> 11) Miscellaneous Stuff: Analog, optical and S/PDIF cabling,
>microphone stands, extension cables for CPU lines, rack, workstation,
>headphones, etc. Cost about $1,000.
>
> So the total cost has been about $12,600, mostly due to the shift to 4
>channels instead of just 2 channels. Trust me, all of this stuff is "mid"
>grade, with the exception of the Pendulum, Apple and Daedelus products,
>which most would consider top shelf.
>
> In any event, the sound is simply incredible, at least to my ears. I
>now have the pleasure of fooling around with this stuff to make it work best
>together. So far so good. Everything hooked up nicely. Everything works.
>Lotsa options.
>
> I hope to have a CD released by the end of the year (2002) and will try
>to get a couple of tunes into the RMMGA CD-III project by the October 1,
>2002 deadline.
-Ed Bianchi
remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: Willie K.Yee, M.D. <wkyee@bestweb...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:31:54 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>Ty Ford wrote:
>> This exactly underscores the points I've been trying to make for the last 5
>> years. If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter. If you can, it does.
Mostly, yes. However, there is a point in the development of some of
us, where what we can hear is really limited by the equipment we have,
and where there may not be an opportunity to listen to equipment in a
way required to really learn the stuff. That's where paying attention
to what the learned folks here have to say. Mostly on the basis of
reading this group, I have bought the following stuff without every
having heard it (to my awareness - I sure I have heard some of it on
CDs without knowing it):
RE-20
MD-421
MXL 57G
MXL 603
KSM 32
SM 81
Beyer 160
RNC compressor
Symetrix 202 pre
Plextor CD-R writer
All this stuff has been useful, and I have learned alot learning to
use it. Before I had it, I probably couldn't hear the differences in
some of it. Now that I have worked with it, I can. Ergo, Use your
head, learn from the masters, and you can buy stuff wisely even if you
can't hear the difference _now_.
--
Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://www.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org
From: AudioGaff <AudioGaff@gaff...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:35:41 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Steve Holt <<steve@inner-musicNOSPAM...>> wrote in message news:3Y979.7807
> The longer you listen to music on good monitors, the more your ears will
> change. And when they change, you will start to hear things even on
> boomboxes, on music that you've listened to for years, that you never
heard
> before. Not subtle things, either.
How true. I started with Alesis M1's and moved to JBL 4408
and noticed a big difference as well as new details. Then I got
the Genelec 1031's and was again blown away hearing details
and a sound image I didn't know that existed. I got fresh thrills
from re-listening to my music collection and older mixes. My mixes
are now easier, quicker and translate better. Some of that is my
improved skills and better tools, but a lot of it is a great set of
monitors. Even listening to the radio, I'm hearing details I never
heard or noticed before.
AudioGaff
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 02 15:53:00 GMT
Organization: Ty Ford Audio, a division of Technique, Inc.
In Article <<ulsfd9opan8n03@corp...>>, "Rick Knepper"
<<rick@rknepper...>> wrote:
>"George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message =
>news:<vm4qluois93qn30i34uvavbq8kj29076qb@4ax...>...
>
>> I agree, with a slight amendment: If one needs to see the component,
>> know the make and know the price in order to "hear" the difference,
>> one's conclusion may be less than honest.
>
>For me, price is no object when deciding on an appropriate sound or =
>tool. Can you say the same?
>
>You see, it actually works the opposite of what you are trying to imply =
>and trying so hard to cover up. Price is overwhelmingly the most =
>important criteria in the budget equipment market. The "Sound" of said =
>equipment is usually the rationalization.
>
>Note: I'm not saying price consciousness is invalid (although it seems =
>you are).
>
>___
>Rick Knepper
What I got out of George's comment was that we can fool ourselves into
thinking a more expensive piece is better, by knowing it's more expensive.
While that may occur, it's also a function of what mic (for example) is best
for a particular application.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: 16 Aug 2002 18:16:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< This exactly underscores the points I've been trying to make for the last 5
years. If you can't hear the difference, it doesn't matter. If you can, it
does.
The distance between "seems to work OK" and something better is greater in
dollars (and patience) than most people think or are prepared to pay. >>
Hey Ty,
You've been, as long as I've known you, a source of level-headed audio wisdom.
Having said that, I'll present an analogy for the Ac Gtr crowd:
If you can't tell the difference between the Harmony and the Ryan, the guitar
doesn't matter.
<GG>
Of course, that suggests the inverse, that when one begins to understand the
difference between the MXL mic/Harmony guitar and the KM-184/Ryan guitar, then
things begin to change...
Meeting that change Mr. Boyko has risen to the challenge quite nicely.
The best part has not to do with the componentry that he chose (I, too, have
some differences with those choices), but in the great overview that he
adopted, and so clearly and kindly shared (with a tough audience, too! <GG>).
Folks, if you think this way about your recording setup, you're waaaaay ahead!
Many thanks,
stv
Tar Baby Tunes
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:23:51 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
Ty Ford wrote:
> David,
>
> Once you get away from the C1000 and toward something like a TLM 103, you'll
> discover several things:
>
> 1. The C1000 are edgey and have audibly more selfnoise than the TLM 103.
> 2. Without the selfnoise of the C1000 to cover up the Roland noise, you will
> also hear it in the room at 10 feet away.
> 3. The TLM 103 will also hear other acoustic problems, e.g. extraneous
> noises and acoutic anomalies in your space.
> 4. You'll have to tame the low end of the TLM 103 if you have a particularly
> boomy acoustic guitar.
> 5. You end up with a recording that sounds like a guitar, instead of
> something that sounds like a recording of a guitar. This is not double talk.
>
The only appealing part is the last bit. I don't crank up the C1000s so
high that the self-noise is apparent, and they are normally used for
close miking (my greatest problem has been with clarsach recordings,
where a distance of around four feet is needed to get balance).
I already hear loads of extraneous noises. I prefer to record in a very
live space, I like the sound created by older architecture and the room
is a nice large 1806 lathe-and-plaster with high ceiling and huge
shuttered windows. I have to avoid recording during the day. My last
'paid' recording was plagued by lawn-mowers, and when those had gone, we
ended up with birdsong backing a harp duet. They liked it!
Lowdens are very strong on bass especially when miked behind the bridge,
which give them the most characteristic sound, and maybe the C1000s
mikes do well because they are rather brittle. I don't think I would
upgrade to better mikes without having more control of the room
environment (i.e. an alternative, soundproofed room), and a better
recording unit. I can hear what I don't like about the C1000s mikes, but
they are a useful general stage mike and have to do both jobs; Neumanns
would be lost on the minimal sort of PA I use.
What surprises me is that I do get recordings which are substantially
better, and more natural, than many made at great expense in pro
studios. I won't mention which studio, but one friend had a careful CD
released (Greentrax, not a bad label) with historic lute, oud, guittar,
cittern etc on it - and you can hear trucks reversing, doors closing,
and all kinds of stuff - the whole soundscape of a 21st city centre
faintly in the background to 15-19th c music!
David
From: Bill Thompson <bill@audioenterprise...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:44:29 -0400
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 90,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
Jny Vee wrote:
> I'll second this. As I think of things, the 193 comes from the 'honest'
> line of Neumanns (84/170) while the 103 is descended from the
> 'flavored' branch of the family (87 etc) which have a better home in
> the rock stidio while the 84's and 170's are more at home in the
> classical camp where you want to hear what's really there.
That is a very interesting way to describe the two microphones. I've
struggled with a good description, and I think I'll just borrow yours<G>!
> This means NOTHING if you really absolutely adore what the 103 is doing
> for you, in which case keep it, it's a grand mic.
You are talking to a guy who uses a PE-120 instead of a C61, C451, or
KM-184 on one of his guitars...
> I would suggest A Project: getting a capable/trainable friend to play
> 'engineer' (packanimal/grip) and to take this rig out to Some Wonderful
> Sounding Place and do some recordings there.
Always a lot of fun, and most often quite educational. I especially
enjoy the recordings made by someone with little or no experience. They
hear things differently than I do, and they aren't saddled with the "I
use microphone X located here when I record a guitar" mindset. I've
gotten some really remarkable recordings this way. (OK, I've gotten some
bad ones too<G>!)
Bill
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
From: Jim McCrain <jim@mccrain...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:35:53 -0500
Organization: Walrus Sound Productions
Stephen Boyke wrote a GREAT synopsis on the recording process and gear, which I
snipped:
> 8) Compressor: Don't think I need one. If I do, excellent ones
> are expensive.
Stephen,
Since you are running ProTools, let me suggest a software compressor package
called T-RackS RTAS. It is a VERY good (almost professional) mastering software
package that is fully integrated with ProTools, and can be used for compressing
and equalizing individual tracks as well as the master. It is approximately
$400 (U.S. dollars).
You WILL need a compressor of some sort, and since you have such a great
computer system now, I would recommend T-Racks. If you want an GREAT analogue
compressor, check out the RNC (Really Nice Compressor) by FMR. (Do a Google
search for them to get the URL.)
Good luck with the recording, and I look forward to hearing your work on CD-III.
Jim "Recording Geek" McCrain
--
****************************
Remove "SPAMGUARD" to reply.
****************************
From: David Kilpatrick <iconmags2@btconnect...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 20:45:39 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Icon Publications Limited
Jim McCrain wrote:
>
> You WILL need a compressor of some sort
I wouldn't necessarily agree for pure acoustic guitar. No matter how
small a degree of compression, it seems to have some effect on what I
value in acoustic guitar sound. I'll generally use none now, unless
there are good reasons in the dynamics of the performance; I find
compression on vocals more useful, and the moment you start to get any
kind of percussion and bass, it becomes essential.
I am sure there are compressors which do not affect the decay
characteristics of acoustic guitar, but I fail to see how! That's what
compressors do...
David
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:27:17 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Here's what I'm using:
PUTW model #27
14' Cordex cable
Echo Mona
Dell 1200Mhz 120 Gig HD
Cool Edit Pro running 24 bit 96K.
Sony Headphones
QSC 600 watt (no fan) power amp
EAW studio monitors or Mackie 450 PA speakers
Recording in my living room with kids running in and out and the phone
ringing.
Here's what I'm not using:
EQ
Compression
Microphones
Pre-amps
Effects
Acoustic room treatments
There are 6 professional recording studios within 50 miles of us, and most
of the engineers have visited us. I've invited them to get really picky and
'tweak' the tracks, and after fiddling with them, they always end up doing
nothing.
I'm aware that this approach is not going to work for everyone, but it does
for me and all the people I play and record with.
I own or have access to a lot of top end studio gear, and have recorded a
lot of people's guitar CD's with multiple tracks and blended signal sources.
I might bring in some of this stuff when it comes to mastering, but for now,
my guitar sounds better naked.
David Enke
From: William D Clinger <cesura@qnci...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: 17 Aug 2002 23:14:30 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Stephen Boyke wrote lots of interesting stuff, including:
> 4) Your recording chain is only as good as its weakest link.
The weakest link in my $2000 (including guitar) recording chain
is the signal source, i.e. the guitarist. :(
I realize that Stephen Boyke's signal source is vastly superior
to mine.
Will
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:02:23 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
> Once you go beyond a certain point with this stuff, it's like
> talking about differences in the brand of cable in your stereo
> system. The bottom line is whether you can hear it or not. So
> test, test, test.... and then see what you like.
>
> Mike Barrs
I agree with you Mike, but it's not the brand that's important, it's the
materials, design and construction.
I hear large differences in cables when I have a stable reference to work
off of, but I'm in agreement with your assertion that it is not the brand,
or I'll add, the cost, that always offers the cleanest path.
I just don't want people to think that cables don't matter, because poorly
made/designed ones can impart as much tonal effect as a graphic equalizer
with the settings skewed.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:46:44 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote in message
news:ak6t1g$r4s$<1@slb2...>...
> > Once you go beyond a certain point with this stuff,
> > it's like talking about differences in the brand of cable
> > in your stereo system. The bottom line is whether you
> > can hear it or not. So test, test, test.... and then see
> > what you like.
> >
> > Mike Barrs
>
> I agree with you Mike, but it's not the brand that's important,
> it's the materials, design and construction.
> I hear large differences in cables when I have a stable
reference
> to work off of, but I'm in agreement with your assertion that
it is
> not the brand, or I'll add, the cost, that always offers the
cleanest
> path. I just don't want people to think that cables don't
matter,
> because poorly made/designed ones can impart as much tonal
> effect as a graphic equalizer with the settings skewed.
Roger..... I didn't mean to imply that cables don't matter, but I
can see where it could be read that way. I was just riffing on
the audiophiles who think that $20-per-foot "miracle" cable makes
a difference. :-)
It's important to use good quality cables, and most people just
starting out in recording tend to underestimate what it costs to
hook everything up. I'm using Monster brand audio cables for all
my recording hookups, because I do hear a difference between that
and cheap generic cables. And I try to keep all my cable runs as
short as possible.
There is a place for cheap cables though... especially in the
digital realm, if you don't have to cover much distance. I'm
using gold-plated Radio Shack 75 ohm video cable instead of
high-end audiophile "digital" cable for the S/PDIF connections to
my outboard recording reverb (TC M2000). Also, short-run Toslink
for optical digital connections doesn't have to cost much to work
well. Radio Shack is fine for that kind of thing. I'll throw
serious money on analog cables, but digital cables can be cheap
and still work well, if the cable is short enough.
Mike Barrs
From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 14:53:36 GMT
Mike wrote:
> Also, (and again, in my own opinion) you shouldn't be recording
> in 48 kHz if your final product will be released in 44.1 kHz as
> either an MP3 or audio CD. You'll have a better final product if
> you record in 44.1 kHz. The file size will be slightly smaller
> also.
I'm relatively new to the multi-track digital realm (last 6 months or so)
and recently had a go-round with this. I experimented a little and came to
some interesting conclusions...
I had recorded tracks on an ADAT, using pre-formatted tapes with a sample
rate of 48kHz. I cloned the sound files to my computer for editing, then
created WAV files at 48kHz. Not having any experience with sampling
disparities, I allowed my Adaptec program to convert them to
44.1kHz...YUK!!! I got all sorts of distortion...it was awful.
So I went to Sound Forge and resampled from 48 to 44.1, using anti-alias
filters. In the interest of time (trying to get demos out the door) I
converted using "interpolation accuracy" (whatever the hell that is) of 2
instead of the highest quality of 4 (high accuracy takes a lot of time on my
3-year-old PC, and I had about 25 songs to get ou the door). The files came
out fine, but not quite as transparent as I would have liked.
So, having mailed off the CD's, I ran a few of them at interpolation of
"4"...much better.
Then, I formatted a tape at 44.1kHz, and recorded some acoustic guitar and
vocal music. I recorded the same music on a 48kHz tape. Then I processed
both to a CD at 44.1.
My conclusion was that I got slightly better results recording at 48kHz and
converting at high accuracy...but it added a time-consuming extra step to
the process.
FWIW...my observations.
Cheers,
Mike Pugh
From: Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar
Date: 27 Aug 2002 15:18:48 -0400
Organization: D & D Data, Vienna, VA
In article <QnMa9.26972$<WJ3.4593467@news1...>> <nobusking@yahoo...> writes:
> My conclusion was that I got slightly better results recording at 48kHz and
> converting at high accuracy...but it added a time-consuming extra step to
> the process.
One of the things that's important in engineering is to take the time
necessary to get the results you want. The quickest way to accomplish
what you were shooting for is probably to transfer analog-to-analog in
real time - just play the mix into your sound card. Be careful setting
the levels so you don't overload and don't run at too low a level.
Record at 44.1 kHz, 16 bit, and be done with it. Unless you have a
really crummy sound card, this should be plenty good enough to "get
demos out the door" and probalby more. And for a couple of hundred
bucks, you could get a really good sound card.
Of course direct digital transfer reduces the chances for distortion
of various types, but it also introduces some complexities unless you
have the final output in mind right at the front of the project.
(another good principle of engineering)
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (<mrivers@d-and-d...>)
| Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar...just some thoughts |
|---|
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Recording Solo Acoustic Guitar...just some thoughts
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 02 15:35:56 GMT
Organization: Ty Ford Audio, a division of Technique, Inc.
In Article <<3d5d6d66.84454267@nntp...>>,
<wkyee@bestweb...> (Willie K.Yee, M.D.) wrote:
>RE-20
>MD-421
>MXL 57G
>MXL 603
>KSM 32
>SM 81
>Beyer 160
>
>RNC compressor
>Symetrix 202 pre
>Plextor CD-R writer
>
>All this stuff has been useful, and I have learned alot learning to
>use it. Before I had it, I probably couldn't hear the differences in
>some of it. Now that I have worked with it, I can. Ergo, Use your
>head, learn from the masters, and you can buy stuff wisely even if you
>can't hear the difference _now_.
Nice thought. The caveat that never seems to get mentioned here is that not
everyone who follows your path (or a similar path) will eventually be able
to hear more after they get more experience. Some will hear and understand
more, some less. The more education you have, the more likely you'll solve
the problems.
There are a number of factors that comprise...let's call it "informed
listening." Experience and exposure to better equipment and acoustic
environments are only two. Not everyone who posts to this group will be able
to reach the same level of being able to improve their results by being
better able to understand what they're hearing. That's because the
"democracy" of being able to afford the gear does not extend to the degree
in advancement of our individual capabilities.
That's why some with an excellent understanding of what they hear and only
very limited equipment will turn out better recordings than those with less
of an understanding and much better gear.
Ignorance, Denial and Overt Compromise all play parts. By ignorance I mean
the person hasn't had the opportunity to hear anything better. We see post
all the time on the group in which someone raves about a new mic. We then
discover that they haven't really heard "the good stuff."
Denial occurs when they have heard and understood the difference but remain
committed to a path that is not as pure for reasons of ego (defending their
less than fully-informed purchase), finance (all wallets eventually empty)
or (fill in the blank).
Overt Compromise is a condition in which live mixers find themselves every
night. There is little or nothing they can do about the acoustic conditions
of a venue. It is, nonetheless, their job to make things sound good.
Studios also face Overt Compromise when their resources can not afford them
the money to pay for proper acoustic construction, or the gear they need to
make everything sound as good as they KNOW it can sound.
You may like the sound of an acoustic guitar bouncing around a large living
room with busses passing by and crickets in the background. I find that an
acoustical situation that distracts me from the guitar and its being played.
By claiming that you like it, when you KNOW it ain't perfect, you're either
in denial or participating in overt compromise.
You may be ignorant of what it takes to improve the acoustics (That's one of
your limitations). You may not have the money to change the acoustics
(That's one of your wallet's limitations). If the space is rented, you might
not have the right to alter the structure so as to improve the acoustics
(That's also on you because you could choose to live and or record somewhere
else.)
My caffeine is almost burned up this morning. Time for another jolt.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
| which microphone can I choose [10] |
|---|
From: whoami <whoami7878@yahoo...>
Subject: which microphone can I choose
Date: 22 Aug 2002 02:05:10 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Hello,
I don't know if I'm at the right place for asking this question, but I
decided to try.
I plan to buy a good microphone for classical guitars for a friend,
but I don't know which one to choose, what are the things I have to
pay attention. It's for recording the sound to a PC.
Thanks in advance and sorry for disturbing you, if I'm not at the
right place.
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: which microphone can I choose
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:49:31 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"whoami" <<whoami7878@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:<9bd74c94.0208220105.a700522@posting...>...
> Hello,
>
> I don't know if I'm at the right place for asking this
> question, but I decided to try.
>
> I plan to buy a good microphone for classical guitars
> for a friend, but I don't know which one to choose,
> what are the things I have to pay attention. It's for
> recording the sound to a PC.
Will your friend be recording straight into a sound card? That
would limit your choices to mics that are not ideal for this
application. The better mics will require phantom power and a
clean preamp. So what you're really looking for is a combination
of mic preamp (or mixer) and a microphone. I like small condenser
mics (preferably in stereo) for recording steel string and
classical guitar, but some people prefer large diaphragm mics.
I'll give you some suggestions using the small condenser approach
that will sound very good, starting at the least expensive end of
things:
1) Buy a used Mackie 1202 mixer as a preamp and phantom power
source (Ebay - usually $200), and then get an Octava MC012-01
small diaphragm condenser mic ($150 at musiciansfriend.com). Plug
your output cable halfway into the channel insert, so you're only
tapping the preamp in the Mackie, then run that signal into your
PC sound card. This is the least expensive, good-sounding setup I
know of for recording acoustic guitar. The better your sound
card's A/D quality, the better this will sound.
2) Same as above, but get a Neumann KM-184 mic ($750) instead of
the Octava. The KM-184 will have a more transparent, airy sound
that's a good match for classical guitar. If you can possibly
afford it, get two mics for stereo.
3) Substitute a Grace 101 preamp (about $600) for the Mackie
mixer preamp (or two if you're running stereo).
Past that point, you want to start looking to upgrade the PC
sound card to something that has great A/D converters instead of
the typical Soundblaster quality converters. A few good choices
would be M-Audio Audiophile 2496 at the lower end, or an RME or
Lynx audio card at the high end. There are also preamps that
sound better than the Grace 101, but not without spending a
fortune.
For more information on recording classical guitar, I recommend
searching the Google archives
(http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search) with the
keywords "recording classical guitar", and limit your search to
this newsgroup and the rec.audio.pro newsgroup. You'll find a ton
of information on the rec.audio.pro newsgroup, including some
suggestions on how to set up the mics.
This is a big topic, but I hope this helps get you started.
Mike Barrs
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: which microphone can I choose
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 16:14:57 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Leonardo" <<alcamoz@mwt...>> wrote in message
news:<3D654CD9.580DB502@mwt...>...
>
>
> I'm following this stuff with great interest also, Mike. So,
> you wouldn't touch the Studio Projects stuff as a low end
> condenser for vocal and acoustic?
I've never tried one of the Studio Projects mics, but I've read a
lot of glowing reviews. They're certainly worth checking out,
especially if you need a single mic that can handle vocals as
well as acoustic guitar. My advice in that last post was aimed at
a strictly instrumental guitar recording. Vocals are a whole
different ball game.
Small condensers like the Octava MC012-01 or Neumann KM-184 can
sound too neutral and cold on vocals. Deadly accuracy is not what
most people want to hear with their singing voice. Most people
want a mic with a fuller, rounder, more "colored" sound, and
that's what large diaphragm mics like the C1 are all about. But
it can be tough finding exactly the right one that compliments
your voice. Each large diaphragm mic is a different sonic flavor,
whereas good small condenser mics are more like an attempt to get
a "straight wire with gain" that accurately captures exactly what
you put in front of the mic. So it's easier for me to recommend a
good mic for recording acoustic guitar. When it comes to a vocal
mic, you're just going to have to try different mics and see what
sounds good on your voice.
Remember that the mic preamp is part of the chain, and preamps
come in both "neutral" and "colored" flavors also. So you can mix
and match different qualities of microphone and preamp to get
what you need.
Complicated, ain't it? :-)
Anyway, do check out the Studio Projects C1. From what I've
heard, it's a very good bang for the buck when you're just
starting out. The only real negative I've heard about these
inexpensive Chinese capsule mics is that they can vary a little
more from one example to the next, compared to the high-priced
German mics. This would only be an issue if you're doing classic
stereo mic techniques (X/Y, ORTF, M/S, etc.) that require closely
matched frequency response to preserve the stereo image.
> 500.00 budget. I got 330.00 left
>
> Lenny Alcamo...... big spender
That's where we all started. Welcome to the money pit!
Mike Barrs
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: which microphone can I choose
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:22:05 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> wrote in message
news:<umag2oibqsgd9c@corp...>...
> "whoami" <<whoami7878@yahoo...>> wrote in message
> news:<9bd74c94.0208220105.a700522@posting...>...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I don't know if I'm at the right place for asking this
> > question, but I decided to try.
> >
> > I plan to buy a good microphone for classical guitars
> > for a friend, but I don't know which one to choose,
> > what are the things I have to pay attention. It's for
> > recording the sound to a PC.
>
> Will your friend be recording straight into a sound card? That
> would limit your choices to mics that are not ideal for this
> application. The better mics will require phantom power and a
> clean preamp. So what you're really looking for is a combination
> of mic preamp (or mixer) and a microphone. I like small condenser
> mics (preferably in stereo) for recording steel string and
> classical guitar, but some people prefer large diaphragm mics.
> I'll give you some suggestions using the small condenser approach
> that will sound very good, starting at the least expensive end of
> things:
>
> 1) Buy a used Mackie 1202 mixer as a preamp and phantom power
> source (Ebay - usually $200), and then get an Octava MC012-01
> small diaphragm condenser mic ($150 at musiciansfriend.com). Plug
> your output cable halfway into the channel insert, so you're only
> tapping the preamp in the Mackie, then run that signal into your
> PC sound card. This is the least expensive, good-sounding setup I
> know of for recording acoustic guitar. The better your sound
> card's A/D quality, the better this will sound.
>
> 2) Same as above, but get a Neumann KM-184 mic ($750) instead of
> the Octava. The KM-184 will have a more transparent, airy sound
> that's a good match for classical guitar. If you can possibly
> afford it, get two mics for stereo.
>
> 3) Substitute a Grace 101 preamp (about $600) for the Mackie
> mixer preamp (or two if you're running stereo).
>
> Past that point, you want to start looking to upgrade the PC
> sound card to something that has great A/D converters instead of
> the typical Soundblaster quality converters. A few good choices
> would be M-Audio Audiophile 2496 at the lower end, or an RME or
> Lynx audio card at the high end. There are also preamps that
> sound better than the Grace 101, but not without spending a
> fortune.
>
> For more information on recording classical guitar, I recommend
> searching the Google archives
> (http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search) with the
> keywords "recording classical guitar", and limit your search to
> this newsgroup and the rec.audio.pro newsgroup. You'll find a ton
> of information on the rec.audio.pro newsgroup, including some
> suggestions on how to set up the mics.
>
> This is a big topic, but I hope this helps get you started.
>
> Mike Barrs
>
>
Some real solid info from foldedpath and I will admit my experiance is LIVE
sound not recording but I can find no diffrence in audio quality between
my Behringer 802(79$ NEW ) and a NEW 1202 Mackie for 300$
my recommendation is if you just starting to dip your toes in the recoring
pool start with the 802
the octava's ARE great mics and worth every cent
the Studio projects and the Rode's are in the same quality
I choose the SE Electronics for the low cost condensor issue 87$
delivered(usa) I can set you up with a Se Eklectronics SE1
(www.seelectronics.com)
they also have a wide range of other mics
I am flopping back and forth between the richness of my large diaphram
condensors(Groove Tubes Am series) and my Se 1s usually when I record I
use both with the se on at the fingerboard and the lg dia mic on the bridge
or lower bout
I will say that with a large dia condensor you can record both guitar and
voice, with proper positioning , at the same timeOR seperatly if you are
multitracking
George
I like to record dry and then mix a LITTLE verb in latter
George
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: which microphone can I choose
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:20:42 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Cedric Roux" <<cedric@asim...>> wrote in message
news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0208231405401.2431-100000@bop...>...
> and what about an akg c1000s or a rode nt1 for the
> microphone ? do they behave well on a classic guitar ?
I've never owned a C1000S so I can only report what I've read in
various places. It has a reputation as being a good mic, but not
a great mic. It includes a battery for self-powering, so that's
an advantage if you're plugging into something like a 4-track
cassette or MiniDisk recorder. On the other hand, you can buy
inexpensive phantom power boxes to solve that problem. The C1000S
just doesn't have that great a rep (online at least) as an
acoustic guitar mic, so I hesitate to recommend it. I think you'd
be better off with one or two Octava's (or the small condenser
mic George mentioned), or else save your money until you can
afford a KM-184.
The Rode NT1 is in a different class. It was one of the first
affordable large condenser mics, and it sounds very good (I've
heard it at a friend's studio). It's not as neutral-sounding on
acoustic guitar as the small diaphragm condenser mics I
mentioned. It's a "rounder" or "fuller" sound, which your guitar
may or may not benefit from. But a lot of people do like that
sound, and many people get good results by combining a large
condenser mic like this with a small condenser on the same
guitar. It would be a good choice if you only have the budget for
one mic to start with, and you need to record both vocals and
guitar. Note: the NT1 is the same price and general design as the
Studio Projects C1. So ideally you'd want to go to a store that
had both in stock for demos, and audition them to see which one
you prefer.
> and a dbx minipre or a midiman audio buddy as preamp ?
I haven't heard either one myself, so take this with a grain of
salt.
The Audio Buddy is fairly new, so there aren't a lot of user
reports out yet. The price is attractive, and Midiman/M-Audio has
a reputation for decent (although not world-class) sound with
their other gear. However, this sells for $200, and for just a
wee bit more you could get the FMR/RNP ("Really Nice Preamp")
when it comes out in a month or two, and you'd have something
that will probably be a much nicer preamp for acoustic guitar.
"Nicer" in this case meaning more headroom, lower noise floor,
more detail, better stereo image... all that good stuff. Watch
the FMR web site (http://www.fmraudio.com/) for news on this new
preamp release. The price isn't known yet, but it could be in the
$350 range (just guessing here).
I haven't heard the dbx Mini-Pre either, but I can make some
judgments based on other dbx "tube" gear I've heard, since this
uses a similar circuit. This is an inexpensive solid state preamp
with a tube sidechain for so-called "warmth". Tube preamps can be
useful for taming a too-bright microphone or guitar, and many
people like what tube preamps do for vocals. But it's expensive
to build a high-fidelity tube circuit, and you're not going to
get clean sound in a $99 tube pre like this. What you'll get is
tube mush (compared to a good clean solid state preamp, or a
high-end all-tube circuit). It's like putting a fuzzy warm
blanket over your sound.... not the kind of thing you normally
want for acoustic guitar. I recommend that your first mic preamp
be a solid state design, so you have a reference for what a clean
audio path sounds like. Then get a good tube pre later on, if you
really think you need it for vocals or something. A good choice
might be the Peavey VMP-2, which is an all-tube design and runs
about $700.
Standard disclaimer -- there's a lot of personal opinion here,
your mileage may vary, etc. Advice on the 'Net is useful, but
always try to hear this stuff in person if you can.
Mike Barrs
From: William D Clinger <cesura@qnci...>
Subject: Re: which microphone can I choose
Date: 23 Aug 2002 18:45:28 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Cedric Roux inquired:
> and what about an akg c1000s or a rode nt1 for the microphone ?
> do they behave well on a classic guitar ?
I used an AKG C1000S as the main mic for the mp3 recordings at
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/will/Music/samples.html, which include
nylon-string guitar on "Wayfaring Stranger" and "Fanfare for Jane".
These tracks also use some direct injection and a cheap Radio Shack
electret mic. The AKG C1000S is a step up from most dynamic mics
and from the Radio Shack electret, but from what I've read it's
near the bottom of the barrel compared to most other small-diagram
electret condenser mics. Its main advantage for me is that the
battery power is cheaper than buying a phantom power supply.
Will
From: Musicman72736026 <musicman72736026@aol...>
Subject: Re: which microphone can I choose
Date: 24 Aug 2002 14:52:06 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Hi,
A great mic is the SG 3 manufacturedby Applied Microphone Technology.
I saw Pat Metheney using it on one of his
concerts. Beautiful natural sound.
Their web site is www.appliedmic.com
From: Cedric Roux <cedric@asim...>
Subject: Re: which microphone can I choose
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 14:19:20 +0200
Organization: Universites Paris VI/Paris VII - France
Thank you Mike,
thank you everyone.
With your informations, I went to a shop here in Paris,
specialized in microphones, checking the prices of all those
mics, and here is a summary :
rode nt1: don't sell anymore (see below) (in another shop, it
is around 280 euros)akg c1000s : 274 euros
studio projects c1: he didn't know the studio projects company :)
oktava 12 : 500 euros
se electronics s1: what firm did you say ? :)
neumann km 184: 690 euros
shure sm 57: 133 euros
for fun I asked:
neumann u87: around 2500 euros
For the nt1, he said he would now prefer the akg c2000
which he sells at 258 euros.
What do you think of this choice ?
The funniest is that he personnaly has a nt1 at home :)
I don't understand the oktava price, is it normal to be so
costy ?
I tried the sm58 at home, and the sound is indeed not very clean...
(using my new behringer 802a at 150 euros, and my sound blaster 32 at
1 euro :), and linux at... 0 euro)
Cedric, friend of "whoami".
From: George W. <whaler_17@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: which microphone can I choose
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:10:50 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:43:06 -0500, Leonardo wrote:
>I always thought that making music was cooler then art in a way because
>it's in real time. But decent recording, even at a beginner's level, is
>every bit as demanding, intense, tendious, and time consuming as any of the
>excuses for art that I ever attempted.
>
>500.00 budget. I got 330.00 left
>
>Lenny Alcamo...... big spender
Just caught up with this thread....
My budget was the same as yours. Went up a bit, as I suspect yours
will. <g> I got the MXL 2001/MXL603s package. Two mics, a large and
small condenser. They require phantom power, so I got a Behringer 802
mixer. (Mike B. is making a face, George G. is nodding his head.) $160
for the mics, $100 for the mixer. You can probably do better. I
wouldn't know a "great" mic if it bit me on the butt, but these seem
to make me sound like me. Not necessarily a good thing, but at least
pretty accurate.
G.
From: Leonardo <alcamoz@mwt...>
Subject: Re: which microphone can I choose
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:46:55 -0500
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
George W. wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:43:06 -0500, Leonardo wrote:
>
> >I always thought that making music was cooler then art in a way because
> >it's in real time. But decent recording, even at a beginner's level, is
> >every bit as demanding, intense, tendious, and time consuming as any of the
> >excuses for art that I ever attempted.
> >
> >500.00 budget. I got 330.00 left
> >
> >Lenny Alcamo...... big spender
>
> Just caught up with this thread....
>
> My budget was the same as yours. Went up a bit, as I suspect yours
> will. <g> I got the MXL 2001/MXL603s package. Two mics, a large and
> small condenser. They require phantom power, so I got a Behringer 802
> mixer. (Mike B. is making a face, George G. is nodding his head.) $160
> for the mics, $100 for the mixer. You can probably do better. I
> wouldn't know a "great" mic if it bit me on the butt, but these seem
> to make me sound like me. Not necessarily a good thing, but at least
> pretty accurate.
>
>
I wouldn't either ( the mics). I have been using a borrowed AKG C1000S, which
AFAIK, is the only thing I have ever had in my house that was made in
Austria...........well, maybe some ski wax once, but that was ages ago. Compared
to the Radio Shack something I have, the difference in vocal reproduction is
huge. It doesn't break up or scream certain frequencies. Almost as if I was
running it through a compressor. I like it. Might get my own because it has the
internal battery. I'm recording to a Fostex FD-4 and it hasn't dawned on me yet
why I need a mixer for one guitar and voice one track at a time.
I'm playing back and monitoring through Yamaha ns10m speakers that I inherited.
These speakers are now pooh poohed, but I'm sure they are way better then home
stereo speakers for this application. My power is an ancient gigantic Marantz
that must weigh a good 20 pounds...(real transformers?)
I announced to my SO that I will unavailable this weekend. I'm locking my self
in the music room with a thermos of coffee and some baloney
sandwiches...........(without the bread of course, JD).... I will emerge Monday
with one tune done.
Thanks Bill, Greg, and all, for the hand holding.
Lenny Alcamo
-----= 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! =-----
| acoustic recording [3] |
|---|
From: <veghead666@hotmail...>
Subject: acoustic recording
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:22:31 +0100
Organization: ntl News Service
i am looking at recording myself palying my taylor 410 onto the hard
drive of my computer. my question is what is the best way to record
,ie with a mic or would i be better fitting pickups to the guitar
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: acoustic recording
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:16:29 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
<<veghead666@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:<ogrcmu49ssnd9egrbilv15hv0kgpd74ch9@4ax...>...
> i am looking at recording myself palying my taylor 410 onto
> the hard drive of my computer. my question is what is the
> best way to record ,ie with a mic or would i be better fitting
> pickups to the guitar
Use a mic instead of an internal pickup, if you want to capture
the natural sound of your guitar.
Recording with a pickup is more convenient, and you won't have to
worry about ambient noise problems (the sound of your computer or
outside traffic bleeding into the mic). But I think most people
here would agree that you'll get the best recording quality with
an external microphone.
Modern pickups are very good, and I've done scratch recordings
using my internal pickup (B-Band AST) that have surprised me with
how natural it sounds. But that's only if I don't compare it with
a recording of the same guitar using external microphones and a
good mic preamp. And then it's no contest at all. The track
recorded with the pickup sounds "like" a guitar, while the track
recorded with a microphone is a real live guitar coming through
the speakers.
Check out the thread running here on microphones and Recording
Acoustic Guitar for more info.
Mike Barrs
From: Mike <mpompe2@aol...>
Subject: Re: acoustic recording
Date: 27 Aug 2002 23:10:24 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I use an AKG C 3000B to record my Taylor 514CE. Sounds GREAT!!
>
>i am looking at recording myself palying my taylor 410 onto the hard
>drive of my computer. my question is what is the best way to record
>,ie with a mic or would i be better fitting pickups to the guitar
Mike
| A little Mic help please.. [5] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: A little Mic help please..
Date: 03 Sep 2002 22:13:48 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
A friend of mine has an Audio Technica AT873R condenser that he'll sell me for
$100. Never been used. I've followed the mic threads in the past and haven't
seen this one mentioned. Would those in the know tell me how you think it
would do as an all-purpose mic for acoustic guitar. The price looks right from
what I've been able to find surfing. Here are the specs:
http://www.audio-technica.com/prodpro/profiles/AT873R.html
Thanks for your help.
Mitch
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: A little Mic help please..
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 00:33:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020903181348.20928.00001212@mb-mo...>...
> A friend of mine has an Audio Technica AT873R condenser that he'll sell me
for
> $100. Never been used. I've followed the mic threads in the past and
haven't
> seen this one mentioned. Would those in the know tell me how you think it
> would do as an all-purpose mic for acoustic guitar. The price looks right
from
> what I've been able to find surfing. Here are the specs:
>
> http://www.audio-technica.com/prodpro/profiles/AT873R.html
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Mitch
Its worth 100$ if in great shape
george
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: A little Mic help please..
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 10:16:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020903212608.05970.00000214@mb-fg...>...
> In article <<unalaaa4efi7b7@corp...>>, "foldedpath"
> <<mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>> writes:
>
> >I've never seen or used one, so take this with a grain of salt. Two
> >buzzwords on that brochure page are "hand held" (meaning it's
> >probably intended as a vocal mic, with a frequency bump that won't
> >result in clean guitar reproduction)
>
> I wondered about the "hand held" part, too.
>
> >and "hypercardioid", which may
> >give you problems with close-mic'ing.... although it looks like you
> >can get other capsules for it.
>
> What is preferable for a performance mic? I think that would be my
primary
> use. For recording, I'm just talking about scratch recording for
practice.
>
> >If you're looking for a mic for live sound, then
> >this might be okay... but I'd try to bargain the price down a
> >little. This mic streets for $170 (8thstreet.com). Unless it's one
> >of the desirable "name" mics, I try not to pay more than 1/2 the new
> >street price for a used mic.
This is a physically Small mic about 1/2 the size of a sm58
i almost bought 3 of them but due to lack of funds or lack of real desire i
passed there are plenty of low cost decent mics available today with no
real discerning diffrence between them
this is one of them
the switchable capsule thing is nice though I doubt many people actually do
it
as for the hyper card pattern this IMO tends to make this more a live mic
than a recording mic
the pattern will help reduce monitor howl and isolate the mic from other
instruments on stage
the pattern will also increase the handling noise and make placement much
more critical
a hyper pattern is neither desirable or non desirable it is just another
tool to help one achieve a goal much like haveing mulitiple sized
screwdrivers
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: A little Mic help please..
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 13:07:16 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> Thanks George. How far away should I place it, and at what proximity on
the
> guitar for best results? Consider that this would be my only mic, and
probably
> blended with my pickup in some cases.
> Mitch
the way to mic your guitar alot depends on what your trying to do
when I appoach a unknown guitar I try to have the artist play it for me
then I listen to it
not from 4 feet away but from about 3 inches
I scan the entire guitar with my ear and listen for the spot that is not
thin and also not boomy
the spot that sounds like the sound I want to amplify
this is where I point the mic
with a hyper cap you can also use the pattern to reject sounds you do not
want in the mic
all mics except omnis have a null or weak spot in the pattern with a card
it is 180 degrees opposite the front
with a hyper card there are two nulls at 110 to135 degrees on each side
pointing the null at the monitor will help reduce feedback
with a cardiod mic the monitor should be dead nuts behind the mic
with a super card or hyper card the monitor should be off to the side
pointing at the null( 110 to135 degrees each side)
The closer the mic is to the guitar the more critical the position will be
often ,if possible, it is desirable to have two mics on a guitar esp. for
recording one for the body and one for the neck
If i am running a open mic I will default to either the neck body joint or
the lower bout of the guitar when I can not get the chance to listen closely
to the guitar
George
From: Jonathan Kendall <jkendall@nospam-ryan-engineering...>
Subject: Re: A little Mic help please..
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:45:26 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I have a pair of audix TR40 small capsule omnis that i love for recording
acoustic guitar... it's essentially a flat response, so it doesn't color
the sound. great for a natural "real" sound. just make sure you have a
good room to record in if you use a mic like this.
http://www.audixusa.com/TR40.html
I bought two from fullcompassaudio.com for $169 a piece. More than your
original $100, but still a good value. I've been nothing but happy with
mine.
Remember that with a condensor mic you'll need a preamp, too, with phantom
power.
jonathan kendall
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020903181348.20928.00001212@mb-mo...>...
> A friend of mine has an Audio Technica AT873R condenser that he'll sell me
for
> $100. Never been used. I've followed the mic threads in the past and
haven't
> seen this one mentioned. Would those in the know tell me how you think it
> would do as an all-purpose mic for acoustic guitar. The price looks right
from
> what I've been able to find surfing. Here are the specs:
>
> http://www.audio-technica.com/prodpro/profiles/AT873R.html
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> Mitch
| Pickup vs mics for acoustic [23] |
|---|
From: Cent <nospamming@removed...>
Subject: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 23:13:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Hi,
sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording, and
would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser mic
vs getting a good pickup.
Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
thanks in advance.
From: 1 eyed jack <jamminnotspammin@boogie...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 23:36:35 GMT
"Cent" <<nospamming@removed...>> wrote in message
news:jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>...
> Hi,
> sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording, and
> would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser mic
> vs getting a good pickup.
> Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
> bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
> correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
>
> thanks in advance.
The only reasons I'd use any type of pickup on an acoustic guitar are for
convenience in a live performance or if you intend to add in a lot of signal
processing. If you're looking for a pure guitar sound, use a good mic. I
prefer soundboard transducers (SBT's) such as PUTW or MacIntyre to
undersaddle pickups (UST). If you have to go for a mag pickup, get a
Sunrise.
JD
From: Jny Vee <moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 19:37:34 -0400
Organization: Victorian Digital Wire Recorders LLC
You'll get a plethora of answers on this... all of whioch will have a
lot of good information to mull over.
In general, if the instrument sounds good to your ear, then you're
better off with a mic. Most pickups (and I'm making a bad blanket
statement so caveats apply) are meant to get you a less-feedback-prone
result and that wins over any semblance to what the instrument sounds
like as wood. Nothing really WRONG there as it's a choice, but in the
world of listening to guitars that walk into my life to be recorded or
reproduced, I'm batting 1/30 for pickup installs sounding ANYTHING like
an acoustic guitar, and worse for them sounding like a GOOD acoustic
guitar.. and only TWO in my experieince actually sent the sound of THAT
particular guitar down the wire... but most of them Do sound ok if
you;re not picky about sounding REAL for live work.
So, you want a mic.
In general again, an omni will be a better choice for capturing the
real sound of the instrument. For a wonderful-sounding acoustic
instrument I'd rather start with a dynamic omni than a lo-priced
condensor-cardioid. This being a WHOLLY subjective thing depending on
the result you want and how any one mic works with your guitar.
You have much experimentation to do. Enjoy!
In article <jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>>, "Cent"
<<nospamming@removed...>> wrote:
> Hi,
> sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording, and
> would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser mic
> vs getting a good pickup.
> Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
> bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
> correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
>
> thanks in advance.
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
From: Michael R. Kesti <mkesti@gv...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2002 17:58:14 -0700
Organization: MK Associates
Cent wrote:
>Hi,
>sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording, and
>would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser mic
>vs getting a good pickup.
>Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
>bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
Use the mic if you want it to sound like an acoustic guitar. Otherwise...
>correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
Don't be afraid to experiment with mic placement. Some instruments
emit great sounds come from surprising places.
--
Michael Kesti | "And like, one and one don't make | two, one and one make one." mkesti@gv.net | - The Who, Bargain
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 18:05:33 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Cent" <<nospamming@removed...>> wrote in message
news:jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>...
> Hi,
> sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar
> recording, and would like to find out the pros and cons
> of recording with a condenser mic vs getting a good
> pickup. Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup
> (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be bright and crisp, compared
> to sound produced by a good condenser mic correctly
> placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
In my opinion, you should always use an external mic instead of a
pickup for recording your guitar. An external mic captures the
complete "guitar wave" of sound developed from the strings, the
soundboard, the air waves pumping through the soundhole, and the
resonating neck and headstock, along with the reflected sound
waves from the room you're recording in. Recording with a pickup
is like pressing a stethoscope up against the bridge of your
guitar. You'll get an "acoustic-like" sound, but it's only a
fraction of the total sound the guitar is actually producing.
You're capturing wood vibration sounds, but not the sound of
vibrating air. And that's where the juice is, with acoustic
guitars.
Having said that, I do sometimes use pickups on separate tracks
along with external microphones when recording, but only as a way
to apply special effects without messing with the main sound of
the guitar.
A few years ago, I would have said that low cost was one reason
to consider recording DI with a pickup. But now you can get
great-sounding small diaphragm condenser mics for $100-$150, so
that's no longer an excuse.
Mike Barrs
From: Anthony Cosco <aanthnyc@charter...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 20:12:57 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
There is no pickup that will ever sound as good as a good microphone.The only reason you ever even might want to use a pickup is is you are
playing out and you want to move around alot, but then your sound isn't
going to be nearly as good than it would with a good mic. Pickups make the
guitar sound like garbage, I have never heard one that I liked. There is no
comparison. Go get a good instrument microphone. Shure and audio technica
make some really nice ones. I have never even heard of someone using a
pickup for recording. There are no cons to using a good condenser mic in the
studio, unless you absolutely can't sit still.
If you don't have alot of money your best bet is the shure beta 57-A.It is excellent for acoustic instrument as well as vocals, and works great
on stage. Quite affordable, and definately the best you can get for the
money.
Anthony Cosco
"Cent" <<nospamming@removed...>> wrote in message
news:jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>...
> Hi,
> sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording, and
> would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser mic
> vs getting a good pickup.
> Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
> bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
> correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
>
> thanks in advance.
>
>
From: Rasmus Schwenger <rasmus@dksound...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 09:39:42 -0700
I guess it depends on what the role the guitar will play in the track.
If you need the sound of a beautiful, round acoustic...then definitely go
with a good microphone..but if you're only going for the sound of the
strings being stummed...like in a heavily produced pop song, then a pickup
might do a good job and actually help the guitar cut thru the wall of sound
a little easier....it won't sound like any particular acoustic, but you'll
get that strummin' feeling.
If you have the chance, use both....use the microphone track for body and
overall sound, and add in just a touch of the pickup track for an edge to
cut thru...if needed...phase problems shouldn't be a huge concern, since
you'll only be using the hi end of the pickup track for the edge/shimmer
Hope it helps
Rasmus Schwenger
"Anthony Cosco" <<aanthnyc@charter...>> wrote in message
news:<unnshkl23vj6f1@corp...>...
> There is no pickup that will ever sound as good as a good microphone.
> The only reason you ever even might want to use a pickup is is you are
> playing out and you want to move around alot, but then your sound isn't
> going to be nearly as good than it would with a good mic. Pickups make
the
> guitar sound like garbage, I have never heard one that I liked. There is
no
> comparison. Go get a good instrument microphone. Shure and audio technica
> make some really nice ones. I have never even heard of someone using a
> pickup for recording. There are no cons to using a good condenser mic in
the
> studio, unless you absolutely can't sit still.
>
> If you don't have alot of money your best bet is the shure beta 57-A.
> It is excellent for acoustic instrument as well as vocals, and works great
> on stage. Quite affordable, and definately the best you can get for the
> money.
>
> Anthony Cosco
>
> "Cent" <<nospamming@removed...>> wrote in message
> news:jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>...
> > Hi,
> > sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording,
and
> > would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser
mic
> > vs getting a good pickup.
> > Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
> > bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
> > correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
> >
> > thanks in advance.
> >
> >
>
>
From: Mike Dotson <terapln@aol...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: 09 Sep 2002 04:15:52 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Take a look at the Rode condensors. My bandmate just got one at the Evil
empire's labor day sale for $100.00
It sounds great. Sounded even better with about 20% PUTW mixed in (on a
tricone)
Mike
http://www.MaricopaGuitarCo.com
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 11:56:31 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Cent" <<nospamming@removed...>> wrote in message
news:jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>...
> Hi,
> sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording, and
> would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser mic
> vs getting a good pickup.
> Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
> bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
> correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
>
> thanks in advance.
>
No
George
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: 9 Sep 2002 11:01:37 -0400
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
In article <jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>>,
Cent <<nospamming@removed...>> wrote:
>Hi,
>sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording, and
>would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser mic
>vs getting a good pickup.
>Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
>bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
>correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
No, Pickups never sound like a guitar. Not to say that they can't be
useful now and then when you want a specific weird sort of sound, but they
won't sound like a guitar does. If you are doing something with a dozen
different guitar parts overdubbed, the pickup can be a handy thing to use
on some of them to make them stand out as being different than a normal
guitar, but it's not useful for cutting a guitar track that has to sound
like a guitar.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: leigh marble <maywefunkyou@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: 9 Sep 2002 11:52:56 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> No, Pickups never sound like a guitar. Not to say that they can't be
> useful now and then when you want a specific weird sort of sound, but they
> won't sound like a guitar does.
One instance where I incorporate pickups (even underbridge piezos) for
a "natural" sound is to fill out the bass. I get the main sound from a
mic, but then blend in some pickup signal (low pass filtered) to make
the bass sound big. This is usually only worth doing if the guitar is
the only instrument. In band settings I'm usually cutting bass on an
acoustic anyway.
I know some would argue that with proper micing, I wouldn't need to
augment the bass freqs. However, as a recording technique, it frees me
to place mics for the best high freq detail, knowing that the bass is
taken care of.
Leigh
From: David Enke <putw@mindspring...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 11:48:03 -0600
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
"Cent" <<nospamming@removed...>> wrote in message
news:jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>...
> Hi,
> sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording, and
> would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser mic
> vs getting a good pickup.
> Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
> bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
> correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
>
> thanks in advance.
Hi Cent,
check out www.samusic.com to hear soundbites of the latest pickup
technologies. They also have some of the best prices and customer service.
David Enke
Pick-up the World
www.pick-uptheworld.com
<pickups@rmi...>
719-742-5303
>
>
From: drumsound <drumsound@animail...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: 9 Sep 2002 13:10:20 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Repeat after me..."Acoustic guitar pickups are a necessary evil of the stage!"
Tony
oxide Lounge Recording/SanCastle Mastering
From: Jny Vee <moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:44:25 -0400
Organization: Victorian Digital Wire Recorders LLC
"David Enke" <<putw@mindspring...>> wrote:
> check out www.samusic.com to hear soundbites of the latest pickup
> technologies. They also have some of the best prices and customer service.
technology is just technology.
the only instruments I've encountered that actually managed to send a
darned decent acoustic-guitar sound down the wire had NOTHING in
common, one was a $200 Fishman blender in a nice Martin, the other was
a multi-thousands-$$ install in a Steif. I can only blame the results
on whoever INSTALLED the rig in question, they bothered to install some
magic that they didn;t charge for.
--
Perspective is vital to wisdom. It is indeed a good
thing to know that for every ELECTRIC LADYLAND there
were months/years/decades of tracking The Archies.
>> Help Keep The Net Emoticon Free! <<
From: <jspartz@smumn...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: 10 Sep 2002 05:29:29 -0700
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com]
I just finished a project for a singer/songwriter. His primary instrument is
acoustic guitar. I would always do a guide track of vocals and acoustic DI.
Out of ten songs, only one we felt that we should stay with the acoustic pickup
sound. He has a fishman installed in a custom acoustic. This one song I felt
that the tone (and performance) was better suited for the song. It does have a
different sound to it. We recorded new acoustic guitar tracks on the other
songs (using a variety of mic's based on the song). Now that I think about it
we did run a his pickup into a Fender Acoustisonic amp for a little dirt and
effect on one other song. That sounded like a acoustic DI into an amp. He
liked it.
www.mudstonemusic.com
jason
Jason Spartz
Multimedia & IT Support
Saint Mary's University
Winona MN 55987
<jspartz@smumn...>
From: t f <tfitzgerald@webtv...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 22:56:34 -0500 (CDT)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
The only time I'll ever use the pickup for recording, is when I might
want to blend a little with the miced sound in the mix. Usually on a
hard rock thing. For pure acoustic music though, a microphone ,usually a
Km-84 is the ticket. Make sure the guitar sounds good and has newer
strings.
Todd Fitzgerald
Chief Engineer
OarFin Studios Minneapolis
www.oarfinrecords.com
From: P Stamler <pstamler@aol...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: 09 Sep 2002 06:12:22 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>For pure acoustic music though, a microphone ,usually a
>Km-84 is the ticket.
Everyone's right -- if you want it to sound like an acoustic guitar, a good
microphone is the thing. BUT -- if you want to create a sound, not necessarily
that of an acoustic guitar, a few magnetic pickups, **when blended with the
sound of a good microphone**, can add a slightly electrified edge to the sound.
Definitely a special effect, not a "real" sound, but sometimes, especially with
certain styles of fingerpicking, it can be interesting. See occasional John
Renbourn recordings, for example. And yes, a Sunrise is a good pickup for this
sort of experimentation.
> Make sure the guitar sounds good and has newer
>strings.
But not super-new, because they're likely to sound way too ringy. I tell
clients to change the strings about 36-48 hours before the session.
Peace,
Paul
From: <fader@free...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:23:18 -0000
Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System, est. 1987 - sdf.lonestar.org
In article <7aRe9.1808$<5i.388@nwrddc01...>>,
1 eyed jack <<jamminnotspammin@boogie...>> wrote:
>
>"Cent" <<nospamming@removed...>> wrote in message
>news:jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>...
>> Hi,
>> sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording, and
>> would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser mic
>> vs getting a good pickup.
>> Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro) be
>> bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
>> correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
>The only reasons I'd use any type of pickup on an acoustic guitar are for
>convenience in a live performance or if you intend to add in a lot of signal
>processing. If you're looking for a pure guitar sound, use a good mic. I
>prefer soundboard transducers (SBT's) such as PUTW or MacIntyre to
>undersaddle pickups (UST). If you have to go for a mag pickup, get a
>Sunrise.
One microphone alone will provide a truer reproduction of your guitar's
acoustic tone than any pickup in a recording situation. No question about
that - if you're looking to reproduce your guitar's tone, choose a mic
over a pickup for recording.
On the other hand, I've had some good luck with multiple mics plus pickup
recording setups. The idea is to get as many perspectives on the one take
as you can, and then use them to make a more three-dimensional sound. For
example, you might find that your really nice condensor mic gets a great
overall sound, but it's a bit flat on its own. At the same time, maybe the
pickup sounds too harsh in the high end, so you pull out the high, but it
gives a nice meaty middle. And maybe you've got a beat-to-hell no-name
hand mic that you used for the hell of it that gets no bass at all but
comes in really hot in the high end. And maybe you put a 57 right up by
the soundhole and got a huge bass there. If you take all that together,
and use EQ to pick out what you like in each source, and then use some
panning, you can build a nice big guitar sound.
Just something to try.
--
Jon Kiparsky - Portland, Oregon
<fader@sdf...>
From: Ricky W. Hunt <rickywhunt@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 08:34:17 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
One thing I'd recommend.. Even though I've been recording for nearly twenty
years and had read about the "mic over guitarist shoulder" I'd never tried
it until recently (using a TLM103) and I have to say I was absolutely blown
away. Best/easiest guitar sound I've ever gotten. I'd shied away from this
technique because I hate boomy guitar and wrongly assumed that it would be
bass heavy with the mic nearer the bass strings (than the treble ones). But
when I tried it, it was the most balanced sound I'd gotten and then I
realized the boomy sound comes from the sound hole which in this case is at
90-degree angle to the mic (in this case a cardioid) and is mostly
irrelevant. If you have not tried this method, try it today.
"Jon Kiparsky" <"<fader@f>?????????????????????????? wrote in message
news:<untoamic9k7bdc@corp...>...
> In article <7aRe9.1808$<5i.388@nwrddc01...>>,
> 1 eyed jack <<jamminnotspammin@boogie...>> wrote:
> >
> >"Cent" <<nospamming@removed...>> wrote in message
> >news:jQQe9.232079$<_91.243841@rwcrnsc51...>...
> >> Hi,
> >> sorry for cross posting. I'm a beginner at acoustic guitar recording,
and
> >> would like to find out the pros and cons of recording with a condenser
mic
> >> vs getting a good pickup.
> >> Will the sound produced by a good coil pickup (e.g. Dean Markley Pro)
be
> >> bright and crisp, compared to sound produced by a good condenser mic
> >> correctly placed (e.g. around the lower end neck of the guitar)?
>
> >The only reasons I'd use any type of pickup on an acoustic guitar are for
> >convenience in a live performance or if you intend to add in a lot of
signal
> >processing. If you're looking for a pure guitar sound, use a good mic. I
> >prefer soundboard transducers (SBT's) such as PUTW or MacIntyre to
> >undersaddle pickups (UST). If you have to go for a mag pickup, get a
> >Sunrise.
>
> One microphone alone will provide a truer reproduction of your guitar's
> acoustic tone than any pickup in a recording situation. No question about
> that - if you're looking to reproduce your guitar's tone, choose a mic
> over a pickup for recording.
>
> On the other hand, I've had some good luck with multiple mics plus pickup
> recording setups. The idea is to get as many perspectives on the one take
> as you can, and then use them to make a more three-dimensional sound. For
> example, you might find that your really nice condensor mic gets a great
> overall sound, but it's a bit flat on its own. At the same time, maybe the
> pickup sounds too harsh in the high end, so you pull out the high, but it
> gives a nice meaty middle. And maybe you've got a beat-to-hell no-name
> hand mic that you used for the hell of it that gets no bass at all but
> comes in really hot in the high end. And maybe you put a 57 right up by
> the soundhole and got a huge bass there. If you take all that together,
> and use EQ to pick out what you like in each source, and then use some
> panning, you can build a nice big guitar sound.
> Just something to try.
>
> --
> Jon Kiparsky - Portland, Oregon
> <fader@sdf...>
From: Kim Strickland <kestrick@cox...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 00:01:32 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
In article <<alkoj90rmo@drn...>>, <jspartz@smumn...> wrote:
> I just finished a project for a singer/songwriter. His primary instrument is
> acoustic guitar. I would always do a guide track of vocals and acoustic DI.
> Out of ten songs, only one we felt that we should stay with the acoustic
> pickup
> sound. He has a fishman installed in a custom acoustic. This one song I
> felt
> that the tone (and performance) was better suited for the song. It does have
> a
> different sound to it. We recorded new acoustic guitar tracks on the other
> songs (using a variety of mic's based on the song). Now that I think about
> it
> we did run a his pickup into a Fender Acoustisonic amp for a little dirt and
> effect on one other song. That sounded like a acoustic DI into an amp. He
> liked it.
>
> www.mudstonemusic.com
>
> jason
>
> Jason Spartz
> Multimedia & IT Support
> Saint Mary's University
> Winona MN 55987
> <jspartz@smumn...>
>
While I admit that the best way to amplify a guitar is with a good
microphone through a good speaker system, I have had good results using
a PUTW #20 (Pick Up The World) with a PUTW PowerPlug preamp, then going
through an Ultrasound AG100 DS2 amp. The PUTW #20 is mounted under the
treble wing of the bridge, between the fan braces on my old Taurus
classical. The PUTW sounds natural, it does not have the "quack" tone
of under-saddle piezo crystal pickups. For solo work, it sounds pretty
good. Still not as good as a good condenser mic, but pretty good and
easier to set up and use.
In a group, with drums, bass, high volume, feedback is an issue
and a good notch filter is needed and sometimes even that is not enough.
For that situation, I fall back and use my Gibson Chet Atkins CEC. The
tone is not as nice, but it does not feedback.
Kim Strickland
From: Lawrence Lucier <llucier@shaw...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:04:48 GMT
Organization: @Shaw Network
http://www.orange-fields.com/widepages/acguitmplac.htm
<quote on>
3) Point mic over player's right shoulder looking down on guitar
body (same distance from guitar as player's right ear is )
pointed
vertically down or tilted up to 45° away from right side of
player. A foot out in front of guitar.
<quote off>
http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/aug01/articles/recacgtr0801.asp
<quote on>
For example, if you're after the sound that the guitarist hears,
then a single mic or a pair of mics set up to look over the
player's shoulder at about head height can often capture a
convincing tonal balance, particularly when using a large bodied
guitar that is excessively boomy miked from the front.
<quote off>
http://www.harmony-central.com/Features/FRecAcousticGtr/002.html
<quote on>
Spaced Pair, Version B
Our second technique is a variation on the spaced pair. As in the
setup above, one mic points to the 12th fret. The second mic,
however, is hung from a mic stand at the performer's ear level,
pointing down at either the bridge or at the strings just behind
the soundhole. For example, if the performer is right-handed,
this second mic would be placed over her right shoulder. (Once
again, be sure to follow the 3-to-1 rule.)
<quote off>
Cent wrote:
>
> What's the orientation of the mic 'over the shoulder'.
> Pointed down at the ear level?
>
> "Ricky W. Hunt" <<rickywhunt@hotmail...>> wrote in message
> news:deDf9.283657$<aA.49890@sccrnsc...>...
> > One thing I'd recommend.. Even though I've been recording for nearly
> twenty
> > years and had read about the "mic over guitarist shoulder" I'd never tried
> > it until recently (using a TLM103) and I have to say I was absolutely
> blown
> > away. Best/easiest guitar sound I've ever gotten.
From: Paul Tumolo <PTUMOLO@bay...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 15:09:39 -0700
Organization: CSUnet
On the "over the shoulder" technique...
I assisted Eddie Kramer on one session involving an acoustic guitar,
used as rhythm piece for a country rock sound, and here is how he
applied the over the should tech.
one U87 at shoulder height (right shoulder), about even vertically with
the guitar face, the capsule tilted slightly so it pointed more at the
strings than the floor; a second mic, KM84, pointed at the neck/body
juncture, out in front of the guitar about the same distance away from
the guitar as the over the shoulder mic (i.e., about 1.5 feet). recorded
to separate tracks.
From: Ricky W. Hunt <rickywhunt@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Pickup vs mics for acoustic
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:31:51 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
FWIW, I found the single TLM103 right at ear level pointing right at the
strings (90-degrees to the guitar's face) to be perfect and all that was
needed. A little medium compression with a medium/fast attack, medium
release to let the initial strum attack through and you got perfect country
fill guitar. Make sure you don't get a heavy breather though. A mic in that
position will pick up every little breath and you'll even get a little
phased sound if he rocks back and forth while playing. Otherwise, great.
"Paul Tumolo" <<PTUMOLO@bay...>> wrote in message
news:<3D7FBF23.D32192DF@bay...>...
> On the "over the shoulder" technique...
> I assisted Eddie Kramer on one session involving an acoustic guitar,
> used as rhythm piece for a country rock sound, and here is how he
> applied the over the should tech.
>
> one U87 at shoulder height (right shoulder), about even vertically with
> the guitar face, the capsule tilted slightly so it pointed more at the
> strings than the floor; a second mic, KM84, pointed at the neck/body
> juncture, out in front of the guitar about the same distance away from
> the guitar as the over the shoulder mic (i.e., about 1.5 feet). recorded
> to separate tracks.
| Mic preamp and mic recommendations [4] |
|---|
From: KDS <rjshama@copper...>
Subject: Mic preamp and mic recommendations
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 03:39:43 GMT
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Columbus
I'd like to snag a good mic preamp and mic to record my Taylor's. Any
suggestions? I'm looking at a Focusrite Penta and a Neuman KM-184.
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Mic preamp and mic recommendations
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:22:05 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Mon, 09 Sep 2002 03:39:43 GMT, "KDS" <<rjshama@copper...>> wrote:
>I'd like to snag a good mic preamp and mic to record my Taylor's. Any
>suggestions? I'm looking at a Focusrite Penta and a Neuman KM-184.
>
The KM-184 is an excellent candidate but I doubt the same can be said
for the Focusrite. It's a single channel device so what happens when
you want do record in stereo? With 5 functions in one box at a $495
list, just how good do you think any one function will be? Plus
should any one of them go bad, you lose them all while it's out for
repairs.
For capturing a realistic acoustic guitar sound, you _need_ a quality
mic and pre amp. You may want an eq for final tweaking during record
and/or mix down. (I usually do.) For solo guitar, tube emulation and
compression are usually a waste of time.
FMR audio will be coming out with a new 2-channel mic pre that will
list for just under $500.00. The Beta testers I've talked to all say
it's sounds amazing. If you are on a budget, wait a few months for it
to start shipping. If you need something now, then go for a Great
River Electronics MP-2, which in my opinion, is among the very best
mic pre's on the market. (They're in the $1500.00 range for a
2-channel unit.)
Need more info, contact me directly.
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
From: ESL555 <esl555@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mic preamp and mic recommendations
Date: 09 Sep 2002 18:24:45 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Its been said by quite a few engineers that the Buzz Audio MA2.2 is the finest
most transparent acoustic instument preamp made today.I beleive Guitar Center
carries them as well as other distibutors. Street price is $1800. Check it out.
Steve
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mic preamp and mic recommendations
Date: 09 Sep 2002 18:29:45 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< >I'd like to snag a good mic preamp and mic to record my Taylor's. Any
>suggestions? I'm looking at a Focusrite Penta and a Neuman KM-184.
> >>
The 184 is one of my all-time favorites for acoustic guitars.
The multi-function nature of the Penta is not something that -I'd - choose for
this application.
Your software in mixdown mode is probably as versatile as any box you could
buy, and by doing tweax that way, you can learn more about the guitar and the
microphone... in the 'pure' relationship.
I use a Brent Averill Neve pair of preamps for a lot of acoustic instruments,
and a Summit tube pre.
Summit has some very nice-reading new little preamps out, and at nice prices.
I haven't heard one yet, tho, but if it is anywhere near as nice as my older
pre's it'll be sweet for acoustic instruments.
stv
Tar Baby Tunes
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
| Rane AP 13 for direct recording? [3] |
|---|
From: KDS <rjshama@copper...>
Subject: Rane AP 13 for direct recording?
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 05:20:19 GMT
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Columbus
I was doing a little digging on the internet and saw some interesting stuff
on the Rane AP 13 acoustic preamp. I have b-band's in both of my Taylor's
and I'm wondering if I add internal mics to them and buy an AP 13 if I can
record directly with good results. Is the Rane just for live playing (like
an AG-Stomp) or would it work in a studio too?
I'm concerned that if I chunk out a wad of $$$ for a good mic preamp and
microphone that I'll still be getting less than stellar results due to
recording at home (dealing with bedroom acoustics). Thanks!
From: joe myers <doobashoe@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Rane AP 13 for direct recording?
Date: 9 Sep 2002 09:41:54 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"KDS" <<rjshama@copper...>> wrote in message news:<ncWe9.91900$<ja.17224824@twister...>>...
> I was doing a little digging on the internet and saw some interesting stuff
> on the Rane AP 13 acoustic preamp. I have b-band's in both of my Taylor's
> and I'm wondering if I add internal mics to them and buy an AP 13 if I can
> record directly with good results. Is the Rane just for live playing (like
> an AG-Stomp) or would it work in a studio too?
>
> I'm concerned that if I chunk out a wad of $$$ for a good mic preamp and
> microphone that I'll still be getting less than stellar results due to
> recording at home (dealing with bedroom acoustics). Thanks!
A very good mic pre and microphone is by far a better option, even in
a "bedroom acoustics" environment.
A combo direct/mic signal works well, but a direct signal alone (even
through an AP13 which is nice) is not very workable in my opinion.
The internal mics will help but it is a mic and, even though internal,
may not be void of all "bedroom acoustics" problems. Better to have a
good one outside the box. Sure a dead quiet room is usually more
desirable, but I for one enjoy working around a tad of ambient noise
for the trade off of some great feel and comfort.
I tracked my current project in the Chelsea Hotel in NYC using the
halls, rooms and lobby. Hardly studio quiet. You have to be a little
more attentive to dowsing some of the noise and getting the mics away
from the recording machines, but you still can ge really excellent
results.
Apples and oranges. Hope this helps.
joe myers
http://www.joemyers.net
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Rane AP 13 for direct recording?
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 01:37:39 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article ncWe9.91900$<ja.17224824@twister...>, KDS at
<rjshama@copper...> wrote on 9/8/02 10:20 PM:
> I was doing a little digging on the internet and saw some interesting stuff
> on the Rane AP 13 acoustic preamp. I have b-band's in both of my Taylor's
> and I'm wondering if I add internal mics to them and buy an AP 13 if I can
> record directly with good results. Is the Rane just for live playing (like
> an AG-Stomp) or would it work in a studio too?
>
> I'm concerned that if I chunk out a wad of $$$ for a good mic preamp and
> microphone that I'll still be getting less than stellar results due to
> recording at home (dealing with bedroom acoustics). Thanks!
If you plan to do any serious recording, yu should strongly considerrecording in (at least) two simultaneous channels. Possible, and common,
choces are:
1) mic-mic > two channel pre > recorder. Mics are the same. Record X-Yor ORTF.
2) mic-mic > two channel pre > recorder. Mics are different. Recordon at lower bout, other at 12th fret.
3) mic-pickup > one channel mic pre, pickup pre (including dual sorcepiclup/mic like the AP13 and others) > recorder. Here you can blend the
pickup source(s) with an external mic.
Using only an AP13 with a dual source won't knock anyone's socks off,and will sound, well, like a dual source through an AP13, kinda honky,
though decent. Certainly, it will not be an accurate or faithful
reproduction of the guitar's sound.
You would spend nearly $1,000 or so on an AP13 and adding 2 Joe Millsmics to your two instruments. Better to buy a pair of mics and a pre. For
$1,000 you can get a decent setup (Perhaps a pair of Octava small condensers
and a Presonus MP20 (get the Burr-Brown chip and Jensen transformer
upgrades).
Plus you'll need a recorder, and a playback system, a mixdown setup, aCD burner and.... But that's another discussion.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
| Microphone Placement [8] |
|---|
From: Dar S <darshelton@hotmail...>
Subject: Microphone Placement
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:32:22 -0600
So, I have aSony ECM -DS70P and an AT 4000B that I want to double-mic to my minidisc recorder. I'm not sure if it would be better
to put the Sony above my head (it has two mic heads pointing 180 deg. away from each other) and the AT (small condenser) in
front of the soundhole, or
the other way around.
I don't really like a mic at the fingerboard 'cause of noise, but I'm not ruling it out. If that's the choice, I assume the AT
would go there and the Sony stereo by the soundhole. What thinketh ye'all??.
Dar
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Microphone Placement
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:47:46 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:32:22 -0600, "Dar S" <<darshelton@hotmail...>>
wrote:
>So, I have aSony ECM -DS70P and an AT 4000B that I want to double-mic to my minidisc recorder. I'm not sure if it would be better
>to put the Sony above my head (it has two mic heads pointing 180 deg. away from each other) and the AT (small condenser) in
>front of the soundhole, or
>the other way around.
>
>I don't really like a mic at the fingerboard 'cause of noise, but I'm not ruling it out. If that's the choice, I assume the AT
>would go there and the Sony stereo by the soundhole. What thinketh ye'all??.
>
>Dar
>
You won't get much stereo from the Sony if you place it too close to a
guitar. Put it out in front at a distance that is at least long as
the guitar body's length. Experiment with angle, height, and
left/right placement until you get something you like. The AT, if you
still need/want to use it, can be used to fill in what's missing from
the sonic picture.
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
From: Anthony Cosco <aanthnyc@charter...>
Subject: Re: Microphone Placement
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:08:29 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
that sony is meant to be placed a good distance away from the sound source,
at least a few feet I'd say.
"Dar S" <<darshelton@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:alm3l3$1rh82d$<1@ID-120846...>...
> So, I have aSony ECM -DS70P and an AT 4000B that I want to double-mic to
my minidisc recorder. I'm not sure if it would be better
> to put the Sony above my head (it has two mic heads pointing 180 deg. away
from each other) and the AT (small condenser) in
> front of the soundhole, or
> the other way around.
>
> I don't really like a mic at the fingerboard 'cause of noise, but I'm not
ruling it out. If that's the choice, I assume the AT
> would go there and the Sony stereo by the soundhole. What thinketh
ye'all??.
>
> Dar
>
>
From: PKing26588 <pking26588@aol...>
Subject: Re: Microphone Placement
Date: 11 Sep 2002 04:28:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I don't really like a mic at the fingerboard 'cause of noise, but I'm not
>ruling it out. If that's the choice, I assume the AT
>would go there and the Sony stereo by the soundhole. What thinketh ye'all??.
>
I like Phil Keaggys' explanation of mic placement in a recent Recording mag
interview: "I used one mic and placed it where it sounded good". Experiment.
Recording "Natural Timbre" Steve Howe set up mics and then used an office chair
on wheels to roll around until he found the sweet spot.
Paul K.
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Microphone Placement
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 05:12:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article alm3l3$1rh82d$<1@ID-120846...>, Dar S at
<darshelton@hotmail...> wrote on 9/10/02 5:32 PM:
> So, I have aSony ECM -DS70P and an AT 4000B that I want to double-mic to my
> minidisc recorder. I'm not sure if it would be better
> to put the Sony above my head (it has two mic heads pointing 180 deg. away
> from each other) and the AT (small condenser) in
> front of the soundhole, or
> the other way around.
>
> I don't really like a mic at the fingerboard 'cause of noise, but I'm not
> ruling it out. If that's the choice, I assume the AT
> would go there and the Sony stereo by the soundhole. What thinketh ye'all??.
>
> Dar
>
>
There is only one rule about using two mics to record acoustic guitar:There are no rules. In short, you need to experiment with different
positions and find the sweet spot(s) that you like, subjectively and
objectively.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Microphone Placement
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:59:17 -0400
On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:32:22 -0600, Dar S wrote:
>So, I have aSony ECM -DS70P and an AT 4000B that I want to double-mic to my minidisc recorder. I'm not sure if it would be better
>to put the Sony above my head (it has two mic heads pointing 180 deg. away from each other) and the AT (small condenser) in
>front of the soundhole, or
>the other way around.
>
>I don't really like a mic at the fingerboard 'cause of noise, but I'm not ruling it out. If that's the choice, I assume the AT
>would go there and the Sony stereo by the soundhole. What thinketh ye'all??.
>
>Dar
I think you can drive yourself nuts with mic location. I have a pair
of mini-condensers on 6' leads I use with my MDand I experimented with
using these along with a single MXL603 condenser for the guitar. My
thoughts were that the omni's would pick up the room and the 603 the
guitar. I still think it would work but it really requires a lot of
patience to get things right. I'll try again when I have more time but
for now I just went with the single mic. It's mono but as was
suggested you can come up with some realistic sounding ways of making
it sound stereo. I made a copy of the track, added a very short delay
(40ms) to one, and panned hard L/R. Not bad....
Good luck.
From: Tom Lamson <tomlamson@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Microphone Placement
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:54:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Here is an article by Ed Gerhard on mic placement. I'm pretty happy with the
results although I am using KM184's instead of KM140's.
http://www.virtuerecords.com/subpages/archives/acousticguitarmi.html
Tom Lamson
--
"Dar S" <<darshelton@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:alm3l3$1rh82d$<1@ID-120846...>...
> So, I have aSony ECM -DS70P and an AT 4000B that I want to double-mic to
my minidisc recorder. I'm not sure if it would be better
> to put the Sony above my head (it has two mic heads pointing 180 deg. away
from each other) and the AT (small condenser) in
> front of the soundhole, or
> the other way around.
>
> I don't really like a mic at the fingerboard 'cause of noise, but I'm not
ruling it out. If that's the choice, I assume the AT
> would go there and the Sony stereo by the soundhole. What thinketh
ye'all??.
>
> Dar
>
>
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Microphone Placement
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:55:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article T_Vf9.451160$<UU1.72977@sccrnsc...>, Tom Lamson at
<tomlamson@attbi...> wrote on 9/11/02 10:54 PM:
> Here is an article by Ed Gerhard on mic placement. I'm pretty happy with the
> results although I am using KM184's instead of KM140's.
>
> http://www.virtuerecords.com/subpages/archives/acousticguitarmi.html
>
> Tom Lamson
>
> --
>
> "Dar S" <<darshelton@hotmail...>> wrote in message
> news:alm3l3$1rh82d$<1@ID-120846...>...
>> So, I have aSony ECM -DS70P and an AT 4000B that I want to double-mic to
> my minidisc recorder. I'm not sure if it would be better
>> to put the Sony above my head (it has two mic heads pointing 180 deg. away
> from each other) and the AT (small condenser) in
>> front of the soundhole, or
>> the other way around.
>>
>> I don't really like a mic at the fingerboard 'cause of noise, but I'm not
> ruling it out. If that's the choice, I assume the AT
>> would go there and the Sony stereo by the soundhole. What thinketh
> ye'all??.
>>
>> Dar
>>
>>
>
>
A good article, with excellent detail on recording and mic placement. Ifeel good because three mics is what I have come up with to get a great
stereo field, yet keeping faithful to the instrument's natural sound.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
| SM-81 vs. AKG 535(George bait) [5] |
|---|
From: Amostagain <amostagain@aol...>
Subject: SM-81 vs. AKG 535(George bait)
Date: 16 Sep 2002 15:46:05 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
We used an SM-81 on mando.......AKG-535 on my guitar & the Dobro player brought
a KM-184 with him(not in the equation though). Thought the mando sounded
good.......why might the AKG-535 be a better choice for a live mic(if it is at
all) with very small drum kit on stage? Kind of liked the soond of it.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: SM-81 vs. AKG 535(George bait)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:31:21 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Frank Wiewandt" <<fwphoto@lrbcg...>> wrote in message
news:CBsh9.92281$<gf6.3065099@bin4...>...
> Hey George,
>
> > I would pit my 87$ SE 1 against the 350$ sm81 with great confidence
>
> Any you'd put up against the 535?
no ,it can not double as a vocal mic
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: SM-81 vs. AKG 535(George bait)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 23:28:35 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3D8662A8.FA317A25@astro...>...
> Hedberg wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:31:21 GMT, "George Gleason"
> > <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Frank Wiewandt" <<fwphoto@lrbcg...>> wrote in message
> > >news:CBsh9.92281$<gf6.3065099@bin4...>...
> > >> Hey George,
> > >>
> > >> > I would pit my 87$ SE 1 against the 350$ sm81 with great confidence
> > >>
> > >> Any you'd put up against the 535?
> > >
> > >no ,it can not double as a vocal mic
> > >
> > >George
> > >
> >
> > But the SM81 can.
>
> I think George meant without adding significant wind/pop filtering.
> You'd have to add that to the SM81 if you wanted it to be a decent
> vocal mic. The 535 is designed for vocal use right out of the box.
>
The 81 also suffers from extreame handling noise
even the factory pop filter will not yeild pleasing results from a 81 as a
hand held vocal mic
of course the 81 as well as dozens of similar mics do a fine job picking up
choirs and other distant vocal work
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: SM-81 vs. AKG 535(George bait)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:32:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Frank Wiewandt" <<fwphoto@lrbcg...>> wrote in message
news:CBsh9.92281$<gf6.3065099@bin4...>...
> Hey George,
>
> > I would pit my 87$ SE 1 against the 350$ sm81 with great confidence
>
> Any you'd put up against the 535?
>
Frank the 535 would go against
a Beta 87c
a Beta 57a
a C1000s
a Beyer M88
a Audix 111/211
a neumann 105
a rode nt3? I am not real familiar with the rode part #'s
there is only one(IMO) dog in that group, the C1000s
many of those mics are of diffrent designs but all are very versitile mics
as with most things as quality goes up slowly price rises quickly
you can get two 535's for the price of one 105 that does not make the 105
twice the mic
George
From: Hedberg <hhedberg@swbell...>
Subject: Re: SM-81 vs. AKG 535(George bait)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:28:21 -0500
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 19:00:56 -0400, Tom Loredo
<<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
>Hedberg wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 22:31:21 GMT, "George Gleason"
>> <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Frank Wiewandt" <<fwphoto@lrbcg...>> wrote in message
>> >news:CBsh9.92281$<gf6.3065099@bin4...>...
>> >> Hey George,
>> >>
>> >> > I would pit my 87$ SE 1 against the 350$ sm81 with great confidence
>> >>
>> >> Any you'd put up against the 535?
>> >
>> >no ,it can not double as a vocal mic
>> >
>> >George
>> >
>>
>> But the SM81 can.
>
>I think George meant without adding significant wind/pop filtering.
>You'd have to add that to the SM81 if you wanted it to be a decent
>vocal mic. The 535 is designed for vocal use right out of the box.
>
>-Tom
Shure sells a filter/grille for the SM81. I know that it's not
generally thought of as a vocal mic, but with the grill it works well
if someone wants a quite flat mic.
Harold
| Recording Basics [2] |
|---|
From: Al Evans <al@tbtm...>
Subject: Recording Basics
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:20:02 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Since I record myself a lot, and other people are trying to do that
right now, I thought I'd try to describe a procedure that works for me.
Well, it gets me close to what I want right now, anyway.
In another thread, Christopher said, "I would suggest that to learn how
to NOT use the punch in and instead for each of us to learn how to play
something all the way through 'correctly' and thus to live with one's
'humanity' will make us all the stronger for doing so." I agree with
him to a great extent. I'm not particularly interested in making a
recording that "sounds like a record" -- I want to put out something
that sounds like me, sitting there, playing and singing for you.
1) Preparation: My main tool is my minidisc recorder. For some days
before I'm going to do a "real" recording, I record sets of three of
the song I'm planning to record. Record, listen, record, listen,
record, live with it until tomorrow. I find that little corrections get
made from the first to the third recording. I listen to the third
somewhere between three and ten times, played back on my stereo.
There's a simple method to this madness: I've heard LOTS of songs on my
stereo. Is this one of them? If not, why not? This is a "lather, rinse,
repeat" thing. I try to keep doing it until, one day, the song doesn't
get any better. Then I'm ready to record it.
2) Setup: All you really need are two good mics, one for voice and one
for guitar. I have a pro friend who says, "if you can't get good sound
out of any $250 mic, it's probably not the mic's fault." I think he's
largely right (except that the price of a good mic is a lot lower now
than when he said it, probably more like $100). There's no way to find
the "best" sound except to look for it. But you should be able to get a
very reasonable sound out of almost any guitar in at least two places.
The first is 8-12 inches from the 12th-14th fret, pointed directly
toward the guitar and maybe a little toward the soundhole. The second
is 4-6 inches from the lower bout below the bridge, pointed straight at
the guitar and maybe a little toward the bridge. I set my vocal mic up
with the centerline even with my lower lip, 6-8 inches away, and a
little off to the left pointed toward my mouth. I use a pop filter. Get
your levels set -- if you're recording digitally, you want the absolute
peaks somewhere in the range of -4 to -1 dB on your meters.
3) Recording: Push record and do three or four takes in a row. Your
limit may vary. If you screw up too badly, just start the song over.
Generally, my first take sucks, but I'm happy to have gotten through
the whole thing. After the fourth, I'm too involved in the recording
process to do justice to the song.
4) Assembly: This depends on what you have available to edit with. If
the answer is "nothing", then you've got to just accept one of the
takes you've got, or go back to step 3. What I do is make a little
chart, for example
intro | v1 | ch1 | v2 | ch2 ... 1 2 3 4for four takes. Then I listen, and make some notation that will guide
me in comping together the best recording from these four takes.
Sometimes, nothing will work but to erase it all and come back to it
another day (for me, tomorrow is one of those days for one song:-).
Usually, though, I can put together a nice recording by taking parts
from two, maybe three, of the "takes". My recorder (Roland VS880-EX)
allows me to do this easily. I do my cuts on the leading edge of a
note, right at the beginning of the sound made by the pick contacting
the string. If it takes more than three or four edits to assemble a
good version, I probably need to work on the song some more.
5) Editing: If I have to edit more than one or two little glitches, I
probably need to work on the song some more. But this recording
technique gives me enough separation between the voice and the guitar
that if I flub a bass note, I can probably copy the same note from
another chorus or something, and it'll sound fine. If there's a bad
"skreek" of string noise one place, I can often erase it. Important
note: an edit you can "barely detect" today will probably be inaudible
tomorrow!
6) Finishing Touches: After I've got the song assembled and edited,
I'll probably add some compression on the voice and some reverb on both
guitar and voice when I'm doing the final mixdown. I try to set up my
mics so that I don't need to use any EQ, but if I need it, I use it.
It's like dodging and burning in darkroom work: I do it to make it
sound MORE realistic, not more "produced". The sound you've got
recorded is an abstraction of the real sound, and you've got to "fluff
it up" a little so that it will be correctly reconstituted through a
stereo and a set of speakers.
So there ya go. You can listen to some of my results on my web site. If
particular, "Fairy Lullaby" and "Gotta Leave This Town" were recorded
using variations of the above procedure. I agree with Christopher that
the best recording is the one that best reflects the performance. On
the other hand, as you can see, I don't have a problem with editing the
recording so that it reflects the BEST performance, and so that it is
adapted to the medium in which it will be released and heard. The
audience forgets a mistake in a performance immediately, but a
recording gets listened to over and over, and I don't hesitate to fix
things that would interfere with the song.
Because the music is the important thing!
(Whew! I sure hope someone finds this helpful! :-)
--Al Evans--
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: Recording Basics
Date: 17 Sep 2002 17:10:23 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
There is now a hell of a great interactive CD-ROM out regarding home recording.
I knwo the guy who produced it, and he's a pro. Check it out:
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
| So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar? [4] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar?
Date: 02 Oct 2002 02:22:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>the slapper
>George
Thanks George. BTW, the Beta 57 sounds really good. I'm kinda amazed at how
good. I really haven't A/B'd it carefully against my pickup setup, but my
preliminary opinion is, there's no contest between the two for realism. I'm
really kinda surprised that with the boutique bunch that we are, we discuss so
much about pickups instead of making it work with mics. But more on that
later.
Get the check yet?
Mitch
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar?
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 02:27:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021001222230.14362.00006871@mb-bj...>...
> >the slapper
> >George
>
> Thanks George. BTW, the Beta 57 sounds really good. I'm kinda amazed at
how
> good. I really haven't A/B'd it carefully against my pickup setup, but my
> preliminary opinion is, there's no contest between the two for realism.
I'm
> really kinda surprised that with the boutique bunch that we are, we
discuss so
> much about pickups instead of making it work with mics. But more on that
> later.
>
>Beta 57a not as detailed and open as a condensor but not nearly as
specific as to what it does best either
the beta 57a is one outstanding general use mic
George
From: Steve <sefstrat@aol...>
Subject: Re: So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar?
Date: 02 Oct 2002 02:54:20 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<<the beta 57a is one outstanding general use mic>>
We use them to mic guitar amps, live, for the cover band gigs...with the
exception of one amp, which actually has a good-sounding, speaker-compensated
direct out. The 57s do really well for this application, in particular.
SEFSTRAT
solo webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
band webpage: www.timebanditsrock.com
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: So what does a compressor do on a acoustic guitar?
Date: 02 Oct 2002 15:04:27 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< the beta 57a is one outstanding general use mic
George >>
One singer-songwriter insisted that I use just one Beta-57 for his whole
record, on everything.
It wasn't bad at all.
<G>
stv
Tar Baby Tunes
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
| New mics [2] |
|---|
From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: New mics
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 00:33:10 -0400
The last thing in the world I needed was some new mics, especially
following the CD3 fiasco during which I decided I would never try to
record anything again, ever. So of course I went out and bought some
first chance I got. These are two small cardoids (Audio Technica
831's) with six foot leads terminating to a stereo mini-jack. Since
they're not omnis (which I also have) they tend to pick what they're
pointed at instead of the whole room. And they sound much better than
the omnis for close recording.
They work really, really well. They can create a nice stereo image
when placed a couple of feet apart or can record vocal and guitar to
separate tracks at once with very little bleed. Playing and singing
into them set up for stereo produces a very realistic, open sound.
There's also a guitar clip available for an acoustic guitar and while
I don't have that mount even clipping one to a bridge pin works very
well. I've used them into a mini-disc and mixer to BR-532 with good
results. $109 plus $20 for clips for the pair, with wind screens.
Anyone interested in recording on the cheap might want to consider
these mics. Along with a mini-disc recorder you'd end up with a pretty
good 2-track system you can hold in the palm of your hand.
G.
From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: New mics
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 11:36:44 -0400
On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 15:06:14 GMT, Bob N wrote:
>George W. <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
>news:<mtdvpuk1kn9ihgp2om6efndf88f943p7iq@4ax...>...
>
> These are two small cardoids (Audio Technica
>> 831's) with six foot leads terminating to a stereo mini-jack. Since
>> they're not omnis (which I also have) they tend to pick what they're
>> pointed at instead of the whole room. And they sound much better than
>> the omnis for close recording
>
>George, does this mean that they won't pick up the heavy breathing?
>Recording revealed that my guitar style is similar to Monica Seles's tennis
>game.
No, they still pick up breathing Bob, as well as any discouraging
words muttered while playing. I consider it part of the performance.
<grin>
| Considering giving up the mics.. [3] |
|---|
From: Ed B. <nospam-ej@bianchi...>
Subject: Considering giving up the mics..
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:52:01 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
and instead use a pickup in the guitar. I have two Marshall MXL603s
condensers, going through a Presonus Blue Tube preamp. The sound that
can be achieved is excellent and in general I am happy with the dual
micing sound..
However, what is problematic is setup and getting a good recording.
These things pick up EVERYTHING in their semi-cardiod sphere. They are
so sensitive and realistic sounding, it can be hard to get a good
recording. I don't have a 'real' studio, and so external sounds can
get into the mix pretty easily. They also pickup a lot of finger noise
(from my picking hand), a chair creak, my beathing, its just amazing.
So I was wondering if I might be happier with a decent pickup in the
guitar. Any thoughts on this? I assume that:
1. The best pickup I can get that I like the sound of will still not
sound as good as the Mics. I am ok with that, as long as the sound
from the pickup is very good. I can search google for pickup
recommendations, as I know all of you had made them many times before.
Just wondering how you feel about Mics vs pickups. Remember I am very
amateur when it comes to mics, and my setup in inexpensive.
Thanks for any help you can give...
-Ed B.
-Ed Bianchi
remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: Jonathan Kendall <jkendall@nospam-ryan-engineering...>
Subject: Re: Considering giving up the mics..
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:26:46 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
you might try recording the pickup and mic sounds together and see how you
like that... do separate tracks so you can do a good a/b comparison. of
course, if you don't already have a pickup, that's a big cost for a little
experimenting. i've tried doing that, and i ended up liking the sound from
the mics so much better, that i dropped out the track that was recorded with
the pickup.
personally, i think you ought to experiment more to get your environment
quiet if you like how the mic's sound otherwise. some things are easy to
fix (i.e. get a chair/stool that doesn't squeak, etc)... i can't imagine
your breathing would be loud enough to be distractingly audible, unless
you're coughing or something... kind of adds that sense of "being there"
anyway.
i'd rather hear the little "extra" noises through a mic than the more
sterile sound you'll get from a pickup. i'm recording in my house, and if
you listen really really close, you can hear cars drive by, wind, walnuts
falling from the trees, etc... but it sounds real... it doesn't sound like
it was recorded in a totally quiet studio, but it sounds nice.
you might try different mic placement, too, to see if you can reduce the
finger noise... maybe even just bringing the mic out further away might help
a bit.
jonathan kendall
"Ed B." <<nospam-ej@bianchi...>> wrote in message
news:<cbsarugor5alsgnr53r3krn7sdloa4epqm@4ax...>...
> and instead use a pickup in the guitar. I have two Marshall MXL603s
> condensers, going through a Presonus Blue Tube preamp. The sound that
> can be achieved is excellent and in general I am happy with the dual
> micing sound..
>
> However, what is problematic is setup and getting a good recording.
> These things pick up EVERYTHING in their semi-cardiod sphere. They are
> so sensitive and realistic sounding, it can be hard to get a good
> recording. I don't have a 'real' studio, and so external sounds can
> get into the mix pretty easily. They also pickup a lot of finger noise
> (from my picking hand), a chair creak, my beathing, its just amazing.
>
> So I was wondering if I might be happier with a decent pickup in the
> guitar. Any thoughts on this? I assume that:
>
> 1. The best pickup I can get that I like the sound of will still not
> sound as good as the Mics. I am ok with that, as long as the sound
> from the pickup is very good. I can search google for pickup
> recommendations, as I know all of you had made them many times before.
> Just wondering how you feel about Mics vs pickups. Remember I am very
> amateur when it comes to mics, and my setup in inexpensive.
>
> Thanks for any help you can give...
> -Ed B.
>
>
>
> -Ed Bianchi
> remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Considering giving up the mics..
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 11:53:47 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Ed B." <<nospam-ej@bianchi...>> wrote in message
news:<cbsarugor5alsgnr53r3krn7sdloa4epqm@4ax...>...
> and instead use a pickup in the guitar. I have two
> Marshall MXL603s condensers, going through a
> Presonus Blue Tube preamp. The sound that
> can be achieved is excellent and in general I am
> happy with the dual micing sound..
>
> However, what is problematic is setup and getting
> a good recording. These things pick up EVERYTHING
> in their semi-cardiod sphere. They are so sensitive and
> realistic sounding, it can be hard to get a good recording.
> I don't have a 'real' studio, and so external sounds can
> get into the mix pretty easily. They also pickup a lot of
> finger noise (from my picking hand), a chair creak, my
> beathing, its just amazing.
>
> So I was wondering if I might be happier with a decent
> pickup in the guitar. Any thoughts on this? I assume that:
>
> 1. The best pickup I can get that I like the sound of will
> still not sound as good as the Mics. I am ok with that,
> as long as the sound from the pickup is very good.
> I can search google for pickup recommendations, as
> I know all of you had made them many times before.
> Just wondering how you feel about Mics vs pickups.
> Remember I am very amateur when it comes to mics,
> and my setup in inexpensive.
Hi Ed,
I agree with Jonathan that you should give mics one more try, since
you say you like the sound but are mainly having trouble with side
effects.
I have problems with ambient noise too; things like TV leakage from
other rooms, birds outside the window, occasional traffic noise. The
way you push all that stuff into the background is to make the
guitar itself louder, and the only way to do that is bring the mics
very close to the guitar. This isn't the ideal way to record,
because the guitar sound doesn't develop completely until all the
sound waves mix and combine at some distance from the guitar.
Ideally, you want to record in a room with great natural acoustics
and place the mics several feet away from the guitar. But I don't
have that kind of space to record in, and I need to knock down the
ambient noise interference. So I place the mics real close... about
4-5" away from the guitar, one near the 12th fret, the other near
the lower soundboard.
With some mics you have to be careful about proximity effect (bass
boost) when you work that close, but the ones I use don't have that
problem.... or rather, the small amount of proximity effect is
actually a nice complement to the sound of the guitar. This gives me
a very hot guitar signal, and all the ambient noise is
correspondingly lower in the track. It takes some practice to record
this way, because you're really locked down in your playing
position, and can't move around much. But I've been doing this long
enough that I'm comfortable with it, and it's the only way I've been
able to keep ambient noise from leaking into my recordings. I get a
good strong guitar sound, and not much else.
WRT breathing noise.... the mic that's most likely to pick up my
breath is the one near the 12th fret, and I make sure it's angled
slightly downward and away from my face. You'll also notice less
breath noise if you close-mic the way I've been describing. Mics
that are two or three feet away from the guitar are going to hear
more of your breathing noise as part of the overall sound picture.
If you have another use for a pickup (live performing?), then it
wouldn't hurt to try one, and see if you can live with the recorded
sound. I sometimes record scratch tracks with my B-Band AST, and
sometimes I bring that up underneath the mic tracks for a little
reinforcement. But there's no question that the external mics sound
better. I've never heard a pickup that sounded as good as external
mics on the same guitar, even with a compromised technique like
close-mic'ing.
Mike Barrs
| Ok, now I need a microphone [43] |
|---|
From: Tony Weber <Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>
Subject: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:28:40 -0700
Ok, a week or so ago I posted something about buying a Korg D8
recorder. Which is now sitting in a box in my living room. So, I now
need some way to get my thumb-fingered scratching into it. So I guess
that I need some sort of microphone. Or two. Question is: what? (I
don't want to even start going some way to play it back; one morass at a
time.)
This is a subject that I know absolutely zip about. Carl explained some
basics to me; I now know what phantom power is, and why it is needed
(condenser mics are similar to electrostatic speakers, and need power
through their filament to become active). What I don't know yet, is
where I GET it. Although some mics have a battery option.
I had a look on line last night; primarily at Musician's Friend. Yep,
plenty of mics. Priced from near zero to your basic unobtanium model.
But I have no idea of what sort of characteristics that I should be
looking for.
So, what would you, the mighty collective wisdom of rmmga, suggest? I
think that I should limit my budget to under $200.(including an external
power supply, if one is needed) Being nearly halfway through law
school, my finances have become somewhat suspect at this point, and
esoteric toys like recording equipment is, well...
Suggestions? Thoughts? Ideas? Looking for a mic(s) for recording
acoustic guitar, not vocals.
Speak.
thanks,
Tony Weber
From: J. Mark Lane <mistermax@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:47:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Hey Tony,
I haven't stayed up til the wee hours of the morning jamming with my real
musical buddies lately, so I may not know what you're talking about
(oooohhh) (sorry, reference to another thread).
However, after agonizing over this same question some months ago, after
buying my first digital recorder, and after looking into various mic
options, I settled on what I already had: a Shure SM57 and a Shure SM58.
You can buy both, with cords, for less than $200, at ... say... uh, Elderly.
No external power needed, and they work very well. No point in going nuts.
BTW, I think I read that Gillian Welch and David Rawlings still use this
combo for their recording work... good enough for me.
Mark
Tony Weber wrote in message <<3DB6CE37.9DE48809@speakeasy...>>...
>Ok, a week or so ago I posted something about buying a Korg D8
>recorder. Which is now sitting in a box in my living room. So, I now
>need some way to get my thumb-fingered scratching into it. So I guess
>that I need some sort of microphone. Or two. Question is: what? (I
>don't want to even start going some way to play it back; one morass at a
>time.)
>
>This is a subject that I know absolutely zip about. Carl explained some
>basics to me; I now know what phantom power is, and why it is needed
>(condenser mics are similar to electrostatic speakers, and need power
>through their filament to become active). What I don't know yet, is
>where I GET it. Although some mics have a battery option.
>
>I had a look on line last night; primarily at Musician's Friend. Yep,
>plenty of mics. Priced from near zero to your basic unobtanium model.
>But I have no idea of what sort of characteristics that I should be
>looking for.
>
>So, what would you, the mighty collective wisdom of rmmga, suggest? I
>think that I should limit my budget to under $200.(including an external
>power supply, if one is needed) Being nearly halfway through law
>school, my finances have become somewhat suspect at this point, and
>esoteric toys like recording equipment is, well...
>
>Suggestions? Thoughts? Ideas? Looking for a mic(s) for recording
>acoustic guitar, not vocals.
>
>Speak.
>
>thanks,
>Tony Weber
>
From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:54:25 GMT
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:47:08 GMT, "J. Mark Lane"
<<mistermax@worldnet...>> wrote:
>However, after agonizing over this same question some months ago, after
>buying my first digital recorder, and after looking into various mic
>options, I settled on what I already had: a Shure SM57 and a Shure SM58.
LOL. I hear ya, Mark. After reading 85,000 lines of microphone
posts I went out and bought an SM58. It just seemed easier somehow.
;-)
Sherm
(muddling along as usual)
From: Chris Callahan <chriscal@NO_SPAMrfci...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:41:30 -0400
Tony,
Mics are getting really interesting. If you want one or two mics that double
for vocals and guitar, and don't need phantom power, then the Shure SM57 and
SM58 will fill that bill, as has been suggested.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of condenser mics. With dynamic mics, your breath
or the sound vibrations move the diaphragm. With condenser mics the
diaphragms are active, being electrically powered. I think most condenser
mics are a bit clearer and crisper with generally a wider frequency response
than most dynamic mics.
It used to be the best stringed instrument mic for the money was as Neumann
KM 184, which was around $600. Then the Russian Octavia condensers became
exceptionally popular in the around $180 to $275 category as mics that
delivered 85 % of the Neumanns at 33% of the price.
But recently some Chinese condenser mics have come on the market that are
really exceptional values. I recently bought a small diaphragm condenser
from George Gleason for a great price $90 or less that is great for stringed
instruments, less so for vocals. George advised me it was 80 % of the
Neumann at 15% of the price.<G> Our church also bought a made in China
Superlux 238B large diaphragm condenser that is unbelievable for the price
(under $140). It has the highest gain to feedback of any mic we use, and we
use also Audio Technicas, Shures, and EV's.
I still like the top of the line EV N/D dynamic mics for good all round
mics. Our church uses several of these, both for instruments and vocals.
(Ours are the 757B's, probably replaced by a new number now.) They look well
made and have very low "handling" noise, good gain before feedback, and a
"warm" sound I like.
George Gleason will probably chip in here somewhere, and listen to him. I've
come to trust his "sound" [pun intended] advice. He's pretty hot about some
of these chinese condenser mics as being great values for the money.
Chris
"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3db6d28f.13554400@news...>...
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:47:08 GMT, "J. Mark Lane"
> <<mistermax@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> >However, after agonizing over this same question some months ago, after
> >buying my first digital recorder, and after looking into various mic
> >options, I settled on what I already had: a Shure SM57 and a Shure SM58.
>
> LOL. I hear ya, Mark. After reading 85,000 lines of microphone
> posts I went out and bought an SM58. It just seemed easier somehow.
>
> ;-)
>
> Sherm
> (muddling along as usual)
>
>
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:56:52 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3db6eaaf.19731395@news...>...
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:41:30 -0400, "Chris Callahan"
> <<chriscal@NO_SPAMrfci...>> wrote:
>
> >Tony,
> >
> >Mics are getting really interesting. If you want one or two mics that
double
> >for vocals and guitar, and don't need phantom power, then the Shure SM57
and
> >SM58 will fill that bill, as has been suggested.
> >
> >Personally, I'm a huge fan of condenser mics. With dynamic mics, your
breath
> >or the sound vibrations move the diaphragm. With condenser mics the
> >diaphragms are active, being electrically powered. I think most condenser
> >mics are a bit clearer and crisper with generally a wider frequency
response
> >than most dynamic mics.
>
> A 58's a dynamic mic?
>
> All condenscer mics need phantom power or just some?
>
> Dynamic mics don't need it or some do?
>
> Jeff
>
Jeff perhaps a visit to www.shure.com is in order
but all condensor mics need power no dynamics need power this power can be
from Phantom power (most common) or a battery like the akg c1000
some of the newer neodinimum mics like the beta 57 are making very good
acoustic instrument mics
the mic Chris is talking about is the SE ELECTRONICS se 1 thatI sell
delivereed in the usa fro 87$
www.seelectronics.com
george
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:51:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3db6d28f.13554400@news...>...
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:47:08 GMT, "J. Mark Lane"
> <<mistermax@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> >However, after agonizing over this same question some months ago, after
> >buying my first digital recorder, and after looking into various mic
> >options, I settled on what I already had: a Shure SM57 and a Shure SM58.
>
> LOL. I hear ya, Mark. After reading 85,000 lines of microphone
> posts I went out and bought an SM58. It just seemed easier somehow.
>
> ;-)
>
> Sherm
> (muddling along as usual)
>
>
and while the 58 is a great way to get started shure banks way to much
money from its reputation
you guys really should not fear the AUDIX
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:50:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"J. Mark Lane" <<mistermax@worldnet...>> wrote in message
news:goAt9.598$<VJ5.25657@bgtnsc05-news...>...
> Hey Tony,
>
> I haven't stayed up til the wee hours of the morning jamming with my real
> musical buddies lately, so I may not know what you're talking about
> (oooohhh) (sorry, reference to another thread).
>
> However, after agonizing over this same question some months ago, after
> buying my first digital recorder, and after looking into various mic
> options, I settled on what I already had: a Shure SM57 and a Shure SM58.
> You can buy both, with cords, for less than $200, at ... say... uh,
Elderly.
> No external power needed, and they work very well. No point in going
nuts.
> BTW, I think I read that Gillian Welch and David Rawlings still use this
> combo for their recording work... good enough for me.
>
> Mark
>
Mark I am a BIG W/R fan it is about the only act I care to work with that I
have not yet done production for
They use the 57/58 live in every pic I have seen recording is done with
Neumanns
george
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:07:11 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Chris Callahan" <<chriscal@NO_SPAMrfci...>> wrote in message
news:<UO6cnSGHPKAXQyugXTWcow@rfci...>...
> It used to be the best stringed instrument mic for
> the money was as Neumann KM 184, which was
> around $600.
Although I agree with the general trend here to recommend less
expensive mics to a beginner, I'd like to put in one plug for the
Neumann mics.
Even with the cheaper mics available now, I still think the KM-184's
are a good investment if you plan to stick with recording for a
while. Good mics aren't something that you replace every year for
something better, if you find the right one to start with. A few
years from now, KM-184's may cost more than they do now. You can bet
that Neumann isn't going to ship production overseas on this mic,
and they can't control costs forever and still put out the same
product. If you buy one now, you'll be ahead of that eventual price
increase. Another possibility is that Neumann may retire the mic,
and bring out a different design to stay competitive. The KM-184
itself is a replacement for the earlier KM-84 series. There are
people who say the KM-84 sounds better, and a used KM-84 sells for a
couple hundred bucks more than a new KM-184. You'll probably see the
same cycle, if Neuman is forced to bring out a cheaper version of
the KM-184 to stay competitive. Mic designs don't stay in production
forever.
I decided several years ago to splurge on a pair of KM-184's and I'm
glad I did, even though it was a big financial hit at the time, and
I had to postpone getting a lot of other stuff I wanted. As it turns
out, these mics and my Westlake monitor speakers have outlasted
three generations of recording gear that I've swapped out over the
years, and they'll probably last through all my future upgrades.
They don't have that built-in obsolesence factor that a lot of other
home recording gear has. By the time I was ready to dump my Fostex
4-track cassette recorder, it was worth so little that I ended up
just giving it away to a friend. I'm selling my last digital
recorder (a Roland VS-1680) for less than half what I paid for it
new. I outgrew the capabilities of my Roland digital recorder, but I
can't outgrow these microphones. They're like guitars that way.
They'll always be better than I am, and they'll always inspire me to
keep learning how to use them better.
Okay, that's enough proselytizing for now.
But if there are any other KM-184 users out there, feel free to
shout an "Amen"! ;-)
BTW, Sennheiser and Schoeps small condensers are also very nice, but
more money than the KM-184's. The KM-184's are in my personal "sweet
spot" of price to performance.
> Then the Russian Octavia condensers became
> exceptionally popular in the around $180 to $275
> category as mics that delivered 85 % of the
> Neumanns at 33% of the price.
I've compared both, and I'd say it's more like 80% of the Neumann
sound for 25% of the price. :-) The cardiod-only version (Octava
MC012-01) sells for just $150 now, and it's a very good-sounding mic
for the money. If I have one nitpick, it's that they may not be as
consistent from one example to the next, compared to Neumanns. That
can be important if you're doing traditional matched pair stereo
technique (X-Y, etc.), but otherwise it's not that big a deal.
You can hear that 20% of extra clarity and "air" in the KM-184
compared to the Octava, if your preamp and monitors are good enough.
But it's a subtle difference that you may not want to pay for. Those
last few percentage points in audio quality can really burn a hole
in your bank account. It's the same thing with mic preamps and
monitor speakers. The digital recorders in the middle of the
recording chain are where the real bargains are, because they tend
to follow the Moore's Law rules for computer-related gear.
> But recently some Chinese condenser mics
> have come on the market that are really
> exceptional values. I recently bought a small
> diaphragm condenser from George Gleason
> for a great price $90 or less that is great for
> stringed instruments, less so for vocals. George
> advised me it was 80 % of the Neumann at
> 15% of the price.<G>
The Chinese mics may be competitive with the Octavas, I just haven't
heard them. One thing's for sure... with the prices so low on either
the Chinese or Russian small condensers, I don't think there's any
reason to get a Shure SM-57 or any other dynamic mic. I think Tony's
recorder has phantom power on at least one or two channels, doesn't
it?
Mike Barrs
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:10:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> But if there are any other KM-184 users out there, feel free to
> shout an "Amen"! ;-)
Amen Brother Let the mics be heard!!!
the Neumann is the best of the 'affordable " mics I have never had a
chance to work with some of the esoteric stuff
but if u can't do it with the neumann it can't be done
Praise be to Neumann
for those who do not or are not comfortable with the neumann take a serios
look at the Rodes, Octavas,audio-technicas,Se Electronics and other
offerings in your price range there is a GOOD mic for every budget
George
From: Michael Schultz <hooloovoo25@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: 23 Oct 2002 15:08:08 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Jeff,
Even better, Mars got out of the Audix line this past year and has
been clearing them out even before they abandoned the reorg. I picked
up 3 OM2s for $150, which isn't even right for US built mics. Thus
far, I have no qualms on the durability front. I haven't gone out of
my way to drop them deliberately, but I'm not afraid of their falling.
We're now using five on the snare and toms as a stopgap at church andthey're performing admirably (after serving as mobile, vocal mics).
The OM3s and OM5s should be available at similar savings.
On the Shure front, I think the Beta57 is a good value for the money.
Gonna check out George's connection though and see what's what.
Never can have enough options.
Michael
> >>
> >and while the 58 is a great way to get started shure banks way to much
> >money from its reputation
> >you guys really should not fear the AUDIX
> >George
>
> Yeah, if I could go back I'd probably go for the Audix. I've seen 'em
> at the same sale price since then. Would an Audix take a fall as
> well? It seems like the housing could crack.
>
> Sherm
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 22:12:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
news:<3db6ef40.20900591@news...>...
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:51:51 GMT, "George Gleason"
> <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
> >news:<3db6d28f.13554400@news...>...
> >> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:47:08 GMT, "J. Mark Lane"
> >> <<mistermax@worldnet...>> wrote:
> >>
> >> >However, after agonizing over this same question some months ago,
after
> >> >buying my first digital recorder, and after looking into various mic
> >> >options, I settled on what I already had: a Shure SM57 and a Shure
SM58.
> >>
> >> LOL. I hear ya, Mark. After reading 85,000 lines of microphone
> >> posts I went out and bought an SM58. It just seemed easier somehow.
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >>
> >> Sherm
> >> (muddling along as usual)
> >>
> >>
> >and while the 58 is a great way to get started shure banks way to much
> >money from its reputation
> >you guys really should not fear the AUDIX
> >George
>
> Yeah, if I could go back I'd probably go for the Audix. I've seen 'em
> at the same sale price since then. Would an Audix take a fall as
> well? It seems like the housing could crack.
>
The Audix are tougher I have yet to dent a grill on my audixs(I have about
20) and some have been in (hard)service over 6 years
George
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 05:45:28 GMT
Yeah, for the price of a new SM58, I'd rather have a used OM-5 (or
better yet a used OM-6 if I could get one reasonably).
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 18:51:51 GMT, "George Gleason"
<<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
>"Sherm" <<jshermannospam@lorainccc...>> wrote in message
>news:<3db6d28f.13554400@news...>...
>> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:47:08 GMT, "J. Mark Lane"
>> <<mistermax@worldnet...>> wrote:
>>
>> >However, after agonizing over this same question some months ago, after
>> >buying my first digital recorder, and after looking into various mic
>> >options, I settled on what I already had: a Shure SM57 and a Shure SM58.
>>
>> LOL. I hear ya, Mark. After reading 85,000 lines of microphone
>> posts I went out and bought an SM58. It just seemed easier somehow.
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>> Sherm
>> (muddling along as usual)
>>
>>
>and while the 58 is a great way to get started shure banks way to much
>money from its reputation
>you guys really should not fear the AUDIX
>George
>
From: Jim McCrain <jim@mccrain...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:30:30 -0500
Organization: Walrus Sound Productions
Just please remember that Guitar Center does NOT do a quality control check on
these Russian-made microphones. You may get a LOT MORE than $200 worth of quality
microphone, but you could be getting a LOT LESS quality, too. (These Russian-made
mics are notorious for being inconsistant in the manufacturing quality. Still,
there are good ones out there!) "The Sound Room" sells a matched pair of these
mics for $425, which includes two extra capsules, and they alsodo an actual quality
control test on each mic.
Jim "Still might go to GC anyway" McCrain
Rolavine wrote:
> The Evil Empire (Guitar Center) has Oktavia 219 condenser mics for $100. I
> bought one of these about 6 months ago and have been pleased with it. Oktavia's
> smaller condenser is on sale at 2 for $200.
>
> Rocky
--
****************************
Remove "SPAMGUARD" to reply.
****************************
From: Leonardo <alcamoz@mwt...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:43:54 -0500
Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 80,000+ UNCENSORED Newsgroups.
Tom Loredo wrote:
> Hundreds of posts from past discussion of this are archived here:
>
> http://www.museweb.com/ag/technology.html#recording
>
> Of course, you can also use Google Groups, but I tried to save
> you some work.... 8-)
>
>
I've come to the obvious conclusion that mic choices are easily as
subjective as as guitar choices and acoustic pickup choices.
I've done some reading myself, and wouldn't discourage anyone else from
doing the same to narrow down choices.
I just got the Full Compass wish book in the mail, and at the beginning
they have a little piece called "Why So Many Mics" that talks about "mics
being the source of both the greatest confusion and satisfaction in sound
equipment acquisition."
They conclude by saying that " Even with extensive reading there is no
substitute for experimentation. The mic can best be compared to the
artist's paintbrushes, they each have their special texture"
Great..........more stuff ambiguity.
Fortunately , in a way, my choices are budget driven.
I'm going with the AKG C1000S for guitar and a Studio Projects B3 juiced by
one of those cheapo Behringer mini mixers......... but then again a 57and a
58 would be a comfortable, uncomplicated choice........... I also heard
good stuff about.........ARRRGH!
Lenny Alcamo....... amateur consumer
-----= 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: PKing26588 <pking26588@aol...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: 23 Oct 2002 22:03:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I got a pretty good deal on an Avlex PRA-H7A from Steve Parr at
GuitarTrader.com.It's a large diaphram condensor,and to my uneducated ears
sounds pretty damn good. The price was right too.
Paul K.
From: William D Clinger <cesura@qnci...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: 23 Oct 2002 16:46:36 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Tony Weber wrote:
> ...I should limit my budget to under $200...
>
> Suggestions? Thoughts? Ideas? Looking for a mic(s) for recording
> acoustic guitar, not vocals.
Rode NT3: hypercardioid small-diaphragm condenser, runs on 9V battery
or phantom power, should be obtainable for $160 or less.
Will
From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:16:56 -0400
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:28:40 -0700, Tony Weber wrote:
>Ok, a week or so ago I posted something about buying a Korg D8
>recorder. Which is now sitting in a box in my living room. So, I now
>need some way to get my thumb-fingered scratching into it. So I guess
>that I need some sort of microphone. Or two. Question is: what? (I
>don't want to even start going some way to play it back; one morass at a
>time.)
MXL 2001 Large Condenser for vocal
MXL 603s Small Condenser for guitar
(Both sold as a package for around $160 at MF)Behringer 6 channel mixer with phantom power ($60 at MF)
(Does the D8 supply phantom power?)
Ok, that's $220. Still, I don't know how much better you can do for
that amount.
G.
From: Tony Weber <Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:43:09 -0700
Hmm, pretty much what I've been afraid of; lots of very good answers, but no
definitive answer that I can really use to base my decision on.
Yes, if I go with a condenser mic, I will need a phantom power source
external to the recorder, it does not have phantom power. Either one of the
battery-powered models, or by picking up a small mixing board.
From what reading and research that I'd already done, it seems that
condensers have a greater and more sensitive frequency response than dynamic
mics. (Stands to reason; electrostatic speakers tend to as well, but don't
tend to translate the low-end dynamics of rock, blues and much jazz as
well. Classical, though... unless one is talking about a version of the
1812 Overture with a cannon.)
So, unless I look at a battery-powered condenser, I am looking at needing to
factor in the cost of an inexpensive mixer into the equation, unless there
is some other external phantom source that just powers the mic. Opinions of
the Rode NT-3 that Mr. Clinger suggested? If possible, I'd like to hold off
on the mixer, until I would have the $ to pick up something decent.
Another question would be; large or small diaphragm? I am looking for a mic
for recording my practicing, in my living room. Only the guitar; I don't
need a mic that can double for vocals or anything else at this point. While
I understand the need for multiple mics in recording, I'm not sure that it
is something that I need to consider at this point.
Should I just consider looking for a dynamic mic under $100 for the time
being, and consider it as a "throwaway" until I can get what I actually want
(and can afford it?) in a year or so. Which would mean that Mark Lane and
Sherman's suggestion of a Shure SM57 might turn the trick.
Then again, the chinese condenser that Chris Callahan and George Gleason
suggest might also be the ticket. I did try the link that George put up,
but keep getting a not found response. If I grab this one, what would be
the least that I would have to spend to get phantom power into it. (less
worried about a mixer, at this point. Although if I can get it...)
Good god, this issue looks to make the decision over which capo to use look
like a string discussion.
Thanks for the imput, guys. Much appericated.
Tony Weber
From: Sherm <jshermannospam@lorainccc...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:02:27 GMT
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:43:09 -0700, Tony Weber
<<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote:
>Should I just consider looking for a dynamic mic under $100 for the time
>being, and consider it as a "throwaway" until I can get what I actually want
>(and can afford it?) in a year or so. Which would mean that Mark Lane and
>Sherman's suggestion of a Shure SM57 might turn the trick.
Or the Audix or any of several others in the price range, I guess. I
should mention that I was buying a mic mainly for live bar-band stage
work, not recording so I was just thinking lowest common denominator,
close enough for rock and roll, industry workhorse, known commodity,
etc etc. Seems pretty rugged and its better than what I had before.
For home recording, Tony? Then I'd say maybe it wouldn't hurt to look
a little deeper.
Jeff
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:21:29 -0400
Organization: Cornell University
Tony Weber wrote:
>
> So, unless I look at a battery-powered condenser, I am looking at needing to
> factor in the cost of an inexpensive mixer into the equation, unless there
> is some other external phantom source that just powers the mic.
There are indeed several off-the-shelf products designed specifically to
supply phantom power in a situation like yours. For some examples with
representative prices, visit http://www.markertek.com/ and search for
"phantom". Some examples:
Rolls PB23 $43
Stewart STPM-1 $68
Stewart BPS-1 $99 (battery powered)
AT CP8506 $140 (up to 4 mics)
Markertek is a good outfit with fair prices, but you can probably get
lower prices if you hunt around.
Peace,
Tom
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:08:24 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
news:<3DB8312D.6A7CDD18@speakeasy...>...
> Hmm, pretty much what I've been afraid of;
> lots of very good answers, but no definitive
> answer that I can really use to base my decision on.
Well, there can be no definitive answer here. :-)
Remember -- a microphone is a speaker in reverse. It's the same
basic technology, only miniaturized and flipped backwards. Now think
about how hard it is to recommend good hi-fi speakers to someone.
They all sound different, even the very best ones, and everyone has
their own preferences. Some speakers are good for classical, others
are better for rock. This is why it's so hard to choose a mic, or
get good third-party opinions about mics (except in the general
sense of narrowing down the choices).
> Yes, if I go with a condenser mic, I will need
> a phantom power source external to the recorder,
> it does not have phantom power. Either one of
> the battery-powered models, or by picking up
> a small mixing board.
You can get a two-channel Rolls PB223 external phantom power supply
box at www.markertek.com for $58, or the single channel PB23 for
$43. These would let you choose any condenser mic out there, instead
of limiting your choice to the battery-powered ones.
However, considering that you can get one of those little 6 or 8
channel Behringer mixers for about $60 now, that probably doesn't
make sense. The Behringer mixers will have two channels of phantom
power for mics, and the mic preamps may sound better than the ones
in your digital recorder box.
> From what reading and research that I'd already
> done, it seems that condensers have a greater and
> more sensitive frequency response than dynamic
> mics.
Dynamic mics (especially the cheaper ones) are like having cotton
stuffed in your ears. A good condenser mic is like taking the cotton
out. That doesn't mean they're always better for all things. Dynamic
mics are great when recording electric guitar amplifiers, or snare
drums, where you don't want too much high frequency detail. I'm also
finding that I like the sound of a SM-57 better on my resonator
guitar than my small condenser mic.
> Opinions of the Rode NT-3 that Mr. Clinger
> suggested? If possible, I'd like to hold off on the
> mixer, until I would have the $ to pick up something
> decent.
The NT-3 is a pretty good mic, but (IMO) not quite as good as the
Ovtava MC012-01, and they both cost the same. So for me, that would
be a no-brainer. For the cost of a $60 Behringer mixer, you could
power the Octava and have (maybe) better mic preamps in your setup.
Or, you could get the Chinese small condenser mentioned in this
thread plus the mixer, at about the same net cost as the NT-3.
> Another question would be; large or small diaphragm?
> I am looking for a mic for recording my practicing, in
> my living room. Only the guitar; I don't need a mic that
>can double for vocals or anything else at this point.
> While I understand the need for multiple mics in
> recording, I'm not sure that it is something that I need
> to consider at this point.
Small condensers are often described as sounding "neutral and
accurate", while large condensers are considered "warm and
flattering". That's a gross, sweeping generalization, but maybe it
will help you decide. Or maybe not. ;-)
Ideally, you should go to a local music store that has a few mics
you can try out, so you can hear these differences. There's only so
much we can do with text descriptions.
> Good god, this issue looks to make the decision
> over which capo to use look like a string discussion.
Hey, this is a brand new hobby you're getting into here. It's like
suddenly taking up sailing, and now you have to figure out if you
like fast & twitchy, or slow & seaworthy cruising hull designs. It
really has nothing to do with guitar playing. ;-)
Mike Barrs
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 21:35:01 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
news:<3DB8312D.6A7CDD18@speakeasy...>...
> Hmm, pretty much what I've been afraid of; lots of very good answers, but
no
> definitive answer that I can really use to base my decision on.
>
> Yes, if I go with a condenser mic, I will need a phantom power source
> external to the recorder, it does not have phantom power. Either one of
the
> battery-powered models, or by picking up a small mixing board.
>
> From what reading and research that I'd already done, it seems that
> condensers have a greater and more sensitive frequency response than
dynamic
> mics. (Stands to reason; electrostatic speakers tend to as well, but
don't
> tend to translate the low-end dynamics of rock, blues and much jazz as
> well. Classical, though... unless one is talking about a version of the
> 1812 Overture with a cannon.)
>
> So, unless I look at a battery-powered condenser, I am looking at needing
to
> factor in the cost of an inexpensive mixer into the equation, unless there
> is some other external phantom source that just powers the mic. Opinions
of
> the Rode NT-3 that Mr. Clinger suggested? If possible, I'd like to hold
off
> on the mixer, until I would have the $ to pick up something decent.
>
> Another question would be; large or small diaphragm? I am looking for a
mic
> for recording my practicing, in my living room. Only the guitar; I don't
> need a mic that can double for vocals or anything else at this point.
While
> I understand the need for multiple mics in recording, I'm not sure that it
> is something that I need to consider at this point.
>
> Should I just consider looking for a dynamic mic under $100 for the time
> being, and consider it as a "throwaway" until I can get what I actually
want
> (and can afford it?) in a year or so. Which would mean that Mark Lane and
> Sherman's suggestion of a Shure SM57 might turn the trick.
>
> Then again, the chinese condenser that Chris Callahan and George Gleason
> suggest might also be the ticket. I did try the link that George put up,
> but keep getting a not found response. If I grab this one, what would be
> the least that I would have to spend to get phantom power into it. (less
> worried about a mixer, at this point. Although if I can get it...)
>
> Good god, this issue looks to make the decision over which capo to use
look
> like a string discussion.
>
> Thanks for the imput, guys. Much appericated.
>
> Tony Weber
>
Tony I feel that your best mic would be the Shure Beta 57 it si a great
dynamic mic that will record well also
unfortunatly the only solution to the delimma is to own dozens of mics (I
own 80 some mics) like your children you will learn thier personalities and
be able to select the best for each job
failing the ability to spend 10,000$ on mics you should get the best
general use mic made and IMO that is the shure beta57
George
From: Ed B. <nospam-ej@bianchi...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:26:51 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Tony I have a Shure SM57 thats not in use right now if you want to
borrow it.
I use two Marshall MXL603s's small diaphram condensers after much
research on the 4-track newsgroup. It seemed they were the most bang
for the buck at $80 each. I have music samples of guitar recordings
playing the same thing over many different mics including these two
Marshalls. About their only drawback compared the the Rhodes NT1 was
that the sound wasn't quite as 'big' and full to my ear.
With a little more effort I could lend you these as well, but I'd also
have to lend you my preamp, and to get that I have to unscrew it from
the rack.
Hope this helps - email me if you want to borrow anything...
-Ed Bianchi
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:28:40 -0700, Tony Weber
<<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote:
>Ok, a week or so ago I posted something about buying a Korg D8
>recorder. Which is now sitting in a box in my living room. So, I now
>need some way to get my thumb-fingered scratching into it. So I guess
>that I need some sort of microphone. Or two. Question is: what? (I
>don't want to even start going some way to play it back; one morass at a
>time.)
>
>This is a subject that I know absolutely zip about. Carl explained some
>basics to me; I now know what phantom power is, and why it is needed
>(condenser mics are similar to electrostatic speakers, and need power
>through their filament to become active). What I don't know yet, is
>where I GET it. Although some mics have a battery option.
>
>I had a look on line last night; primarily at Musician's Friend. Yep,
>plenty of mics. Priced from near zero to your basic unobtanium model.
>But I have no idea of what sort of characteristics that I should be
>looking for.
>
>So, what would you, the mighty collective wisdom of rmmga, suggest? I
>think that I should limit my budget to under $200.(including an external
>power supply, if one is needed) Being nearly halfway through law
>school, my finances have become somewhat suspect at this point, and
>esoteric toys like recording equipment is, well...
>
>Suggestions? Thoughts? Ideas? Looking for a mic(s) for recording
>acoustic guitar, not vocals.
>
>Speak.
>
>thanks,
>Tony Weber
-Ed Bianchi
remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: Tony Weber <Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:59:55 -0700
foldedpath wrote:
> Well, there can be no definitive answer here. :-)
>
> Remember -- a microphone is a speaker in reverse. It's the same
> basic technology, only miniaturized and flipped backwards. Now think
> about how hard it is to recommend good hi-fi speakers to someone.
> They all sound different, even the very best ones, and everyone has
> their own preferences. Some speakers are good for classical, others
> are better for rock. This is why it's so hard to choose a mic, or
> get good third-party opinions about mics (except in the general
> sense of narrowing down the choices).
Yeah, speakers in revers is sort of how I've been approaching it. While
I don't care for electrostatics in speakers, I think that they would be
the most revealing and give the widest range of frequency response.
Personally, I have a set of Spica TC 50 satellites and subwoofer at
home, powered by a Hafler XL280, with a Hafler Iris preamp, sourced by a
Harmon Kardon T65C using a Ortofon OM40 for my vinyl and CDs through a
Rotel RCD1070. All are noted for their detail, accuracy, transparency
and soundstage.
I've no doubt that I'll find that I like the same things in microphones.
> You can get a two-channel Rolls PB223 external phantom power supply
> box at www.markertek.com for $58, or the single channel PB23 for
> $43. These would let you choose any condenser mic out there, instead
> of limiting your choice to the battery-powered ones.
>
> However, considering that you can get one of those little 6 or 8
> channel Behringer mixers for about $60 now, that probably doesn't
> make sense. The Behringer mixers will have two channels of phantom
> power for mics, and the mic preamps may sound better than the ones
> in your digital recorder box.
How good are the Behringer mixers? Since I now have a bit of time to
put this together, since to Ed's kind offer, that is how I am now
leaning; get a power source first and then the mic(s). And i'd rather
get a mixer than just a power source, depending on what effect they
might have on the sound.
I know that Carl, when he recorded his CD on this recorder, used a
mixingboard.
> > From what reading and research that I'd already
> > done, it seems that condensers have a greater and
> > more sensitive frequency response than dynamic
> > mics.
>
> Dynamic mics (especially the cheaper ones) are like having cotton
> stuffed in your ears. A good condenser mic is like taking the cotton
> out. That doesn't mean they're always better for all things. Dynamic
> mics are great when recording electric guitar amplifiers, or snare
> drums, where you don't want too much high frequency detail. I'm also
> finding that I like the sound of a SM-57 better on my resonator
> guitar than my small condenser mic.
Sounds about right. But I am looking for a mic specifically for
recording acoustic guitar in my living room. So probably I would want
something that is more directional, as I am not sure how much I want the
ambiance of the who room but rather the sound of the guitar itself. I
will also want something as detailed and accurate as possible, within my
price range. If you are going to record a McAlister, might as well make
the recording as good as the guitar, eh?
>
> The NT-3 is a pretty good mic, but (IMO) not quite as good as the
> Ovtava MC012-01, and they both cost the same. So for me, that would
> be a no-brainer. For the cost of a $60 Behringer mixer, you could
> power the Octava and have (maybe) better mic preamps in your setup.
> Or, you could get the Chinese small condenser mentioned in this
> thread plus the mixer, at about the same net cost as the NT-3.
I've been pointed towards the Octavia MC-12--01 by several people. But
I've also heard about variability in them. How much will this effect me
when I start wanting to record with a pair? Will I need to look into
buying them a a set from someone, or is it realistic to buy them one at
a time, and have their frequency response match up? I'm going to look
into George's suggestion of the chinese condensers as well.
> Small condensers are often described as sounding "neutral and
> accurate", while large condensers are considered "warm and
> flattering". That's a gross, sweeping generalization, but maybe it
> will help you decide. Or maybe not. ;-)
Well, out of the gate, I think that I would want the neutral and
accurate mics. I can see how having a number of mics quickly becomes
desirable, though.
>
>
> Ideally, you should go to a local music store that has a few mics
> you can try out, so you can hear these differences. There's only so
> much we can do with text descriptions.
Might have to look into that. Can't really count of the Evil Empire for
than one.
Any suggestions down around Seattle?
>
> > Good god, this issue looks to make the decision
> > over which capo to use look like a string discussion.
>
> Hey, this is a brand new hobby you're getting into here. It's like
> suddenly taking up sailing, and now you have to figure out if you
> like fast & twitchy, or slow & seaworthy cruising hull designs. It
> really has nothing to do with guitar playing. ;-)
>
> Mike Barrs
Skis: fast and twitchy. Motorcycles: fast and twitchy. Guitars: fast
and twitchy. Mountain Bikes: fast and twitchy. Women: fast and
twitchy.
Hmm, do I see a pattern here?
Thanks Mike
Tony
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 15:37:01 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
news:<3DBB024B.17FFEF70@speakeasy...>...
>
<snip>
> How good are the Behringer mixers? Since I
> now have a bit of time to put this together, since
> to Ed's kind offer, that is how I am now leaning;
> get a power source first and then the mic(s).
> And i'd rather get a mixer than just a power source,
> depending on what effect they might have on the
> sound.
I don't own a Behringer mixer, but from what I've heard, they're
comparable to Mackie compact mixers. In fact, I heard Behringer
basically stole the preamp design from Mackie.
I used a compact Mackie 1202 mixer for years as my poor man's
recording mic preamp, and it did the job. When I finally bought my
first "real" mic preamp (a Great River MP-2NV) I discovered how much
I had been missing with the Mackie preamps. But still.... listening
back to my old recordings through the Mackie, they don't suck. It
sounds pretty good. The Mackie meant that I could put more money
into other areas, and the Behringer should work the same way for
you.
Spend the least amount you can right now on the mic pre's, so you
can buy a real mic preamp later on (maybe the FMR Really Nice
Preamp?).
<more snippage>
> I will also want something as detailed and accurate
> as possible, within my price range. If you are going
> to record a McAlister, might as well make the
> recording as good as the guitar, eh?
Yep, if you can afford the gear, that's the right way to think. Hey,
you could get hit by a bus tomorrow, right? Might as well get some
good recordings while you're still around.
Of course I'm always happy to help other people spend money, too.
;-) It's almost as much fun as spending it myself. So watch out.
> I've been pointed towards the Octavia MC-12--01
> by several people. But I've also heard about
> variability in them. How much will this effect me
> when I start wanting to record with a pair? Will I
> need to look into buying them a a set from someone,
> or is it realistic to buy them one at a time, and have
> their frequency response match up? I'm going to
> look into George's suggestion of the chinese condensers
> as well.
See my other post about this. I wouldn't obsess too much over this.
The point with the Oktavas (and the Chinese mics) is to get good
results while still keeping costs as low as possible. So I don't
think it makes much sense to spend extra for a matched set, unless
you're SURE you want to use X-Y or one of the other true stereo
setups.
If you were spending tons of money for a pair of the more expensive
(German) condensers, then it might be worth the extra money. For
example, mercenary.com has the stereo pair of KM-184's for just $100
more than the cost of two KM-184's separately. When you're spending
$1,100 for a pair of mics anyway, it makes some sense to go the
extra hundred bucks for a matched pair.
Also check around in the stores... sometimes you get lucky. My
KM-184's are serial #'s 23750 and 23752, probably made on the same
day. I just happened to find them in close serial numbers at Guitar
Center, and I didn't pay extra for a matched pair. It's possible you
might get lucky that way with Oktava's, or anything else you're
looking at.
> > Ideally, you should go to a local music
> > store that has a few mics you can try out,
> > so you can hear these differences. There's
> > only so much we can do with text descriptions.
>
> Might have to look into that. Can't really count
> of the Evil Empire for than one.
>
> Any suggestions down around Seattle?
I don't know the area well enough to suggest anything, and I seldom
get over to the Seattle side. Since I moved out here, I've mostly
been buying online. Maybe someone else here can recommend a place
where they'll let you audition mics?
Unfortunately most stores don't want to let you do this...
especially with vocal mics, because they end up full of nasty stuff
from 1000 people breathing into them. I'm not sure I'd want to get
near one either. But at least the instrument mics should be safe to
audition, if you can find them in a demo area somewhere.
Mike Barrs
From: Hans Andersson <handers@tulane...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: 28 Oct 2002 08:38:07 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote in message news:<<urm68pibjt8q47@corp...>>...
> "Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
> news:<3DBB024B.17FFEF70@speakeasy...>...
> >
> <snip>
> > How good are the Behringer mixers?
I had a 8 channel Behringer that I upgraded to the Mackie 1202VLZ Pro.
You will too. Save yourself the trouble, get the Mackie. The Preamps
are much better, mute button on each channel. Unless you can;t afford
the Mackie, I'd avoid the Behringer.
hans
From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:52:11 -0500
On 28 Oct 2002 08:38:07 -0800, Hans Andersson wrote:
>"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote in message news:<<urm68pibjt8q47@corp...>>...
>> "Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
>> news:<3DBB024B.17FFEF70@speakeasy...>...
>> >
>> <snip>
>> > How good are the Behringer mixers?
>
>I had a 8 channel Behringer that I upgraded to the Mackie 1202VLZ Pro.
>You will too. Save yourself the trouble, get the Mackie. The Preamps
>are much better, mute button on each channel. Unless you can;t afford
>the Mackie, I'd avoid the Behringer.
Still, the Behringer 8-Channel is only $80 compared to about $400 for
the Mackie, and IMO worth much more. Built like a tank, phantom power,
decent preamps....a steal at that price regardless if you upgrade
later. I have no doubt that the Mackie is "better" but most of us
(myself included) are never going to notice any difference. I doubt
very seriously that many people could tell which mixer was used for
any particular simple project.
From: JD Blackwell <jdb5025@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:19:56 GMT
"George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:<m6qqrus2kms25ml2vdgiac183g30pmig87@4ax...>...
> On 28 Oct 2002 08:38:07 -0800, Hans Andersson wrote:
>
> >"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote in message
news:<<urm68pibjt8q47@corp...>>...
> >> "Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
> >> news:<3DBB024B.17FFEF70@speakeasy...>...
> >> >
> >> <snip>
> >> > How good are the Behringer mixers?
> >
> >I had a 8 channel Behringer that I upgraded to the Mackie 1202VLZ Pro.
> >You will too. Save yourself the trouble, get the Mackie. The Preamps
> >are much better, mute button on each channel. Unless you can;t afford
> >the Mackie, I'd avoid the Behringer.
>
> Still, the Behringer 8-Channel is only $80 compared to about $400 for
> the Mackie, and IMO worth much more. Built like a tank, phantom power,
> decent preamps....a steal at that price regardless if you upgrade
> later. I have no doubt that the Mackie is "better" but most of us
> (myself included) are never going to notice any difference. I doubt
> very seriously that many people could tell which mixer was used for
> any particular simple project.
I agree with George. I had a 1202VLZ but in my quest for eliminating
overkill and bulk to my gear the Behringer 802MX won hands down. For 80% of
my use I could get away with using the 602MX which is even smaller and
cheaper at $59. I'm all for using good gear but spending money on specs and
quality we don't need or can't perceive is a fallacy that the "gearhead" in
all of us succumbs to.
JD
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:03:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"JD Blackwell" <<jdb5025@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:0lev9.10578$<FS5.2607@nwrddc04...>...
>
> "George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
> news:<m6qqrus2kms25ml2vdgiac183g30pmig87@4ax...>...
> > On 28 Oct 2002 08:38:07 -0800, Hans Andersson wrote:
> >
> > >"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote in message
> news:<<urm68pibjt8q47@corp...>>...
> > >> "Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
> > >> news:<3DBB024B.17FFEF70@speakeasy...>...
> > >> >
> > >> <snip>
> > >> > How good are the Behringer mixers?
> > >
> > >I had a 8 channel Behringer that I upgraded to the Mackie 1202VLZ Pro.
> > >You will too. Save yourself the trouble, get the Mackie. The Preamps
> > >are much better, mute button on each channel. Unless you can;t afford
> > >the Mackie, I'd avoid the Behringer.
> >
> > Still, the Behringer 8-Channel is only $80 compared to about $400 for
> > the Mackie, and IMO worth much more. Built like a tank, phantom power,
> > decent preamps....a steal at that price regardless if you upgrade
> > later. I have no doubt that the Mackie is "better" but most of us
> > (myself included) are never going to notice any difference. I doubt
> > very seriously that many people could tell which mixer was used for
> > any particular simple project.
>
> I agree with George. I had a 1202VLZ but in my quest for eliminating
> overkill and bulk to my gear the Behringer 802MX won hands down. For 80%
of
> my use I could get away with using the 602MX which is even smaller and
> cheaper at $59. I'm all for using good gear but spending money on specs
and
> quality we don't need or can't perceive is a fallacy that the "gearhead"
in
> all of us succumbs to.
>
I recommend that tact as well . Spend the money where it will do the most
good, on your mics and speakers the electronic are the smallest part of the
signal chain give me good mics and speakers I can even get a old Shure
vocalmaster to make great audio
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 18:01:08 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Hans Andersson" <<handers@tulane...>> wrote in message
news:<86fb677e.0210280838.1ced218a@posting...>...
> "foldedpath" <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote in message
news:<<urm68pibjt8q47@corp...>>...
> > "Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
> > news:<3DBB024B.17FFEF70@speakeasy...>...
> > >
> > <snip>
> > > How good are the Behringer mixers?
>
> I had a 8 channel Behringer that I upgraded to the Mackie 1202VLZ Pro.
> You will too. Save yourself the trouble, get the Mackie. The Preamps
> are much better, mute button on each channel. Unless you can;t afford
> the Mackie, I'd avoid the Behringer.
>
I have owned both there is no audible diffrence between the mackie and the
Behringer they are EQUAL products in everything except COPST, the behringer
costs 1/2 as much
I would not pay the extra just to support mackie marketing campain
George
From: Joe Jordan <profjdj@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 12:44:59 -0600
George Gleason wrote:
> I have owned both there is no audible diffrence between the mackie and the
> Behringer they are EQUAL products in everything except COPST, the
behringer
> costs 1/2 as much
> I would not pay the extra just to support mackie marketing campain
I know I sound like a broken record, but the small Behringers don't have
inserts. I think you have to go up to their 20-channel desk to get them,
whereas Mackie has them even on the 1202 (on the mono channels only).
No inserts means you've got to use external mic pres to put compression on
vocals. And only two channels (the main mix) out if you're recording (the
inserts on a Mackie can be used as "direct channel outs").
Behringer just came out with a new line of compact mixers, and I was hoping
they would correct this shortcoming on the smaller mixers. Alas, no cigar.
Joe
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:21:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Joe Jordan" <<profjdj@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:apk0jg$2av7q$<1@ID-129923...>...
> George Gleason wrote:
>
> > I have owned both there is no audible diffrence between the mackie and
the
> > Behringer they are EQUAL products in everything except COPST, the
> behringer
> > costs 1/2 as much
> > I would not pay the extra just to support mackie marketing campain
>
> I know I sound like a broken record, but the small Behringers don't have
> inserts. I think you have to go up to their 20-channel desk to get them,
> whereas Mackie has them even on the 1202 (on the mono channels only).
>
> No inserts means you've got to use external mic pres to put compression on
> vocals. And only two channels (the main mix) out if you're recording (the
> inserts on a Mackie can be used as "direct channel outs").
>
> Behringer just came out with a new line of compact mixers, and I was
hoping
> they would correct this shortcoming on the smaller mixers. Alas, no cigar.
>
Joe u route to a aux and then a aux return just like a efx loop to compress
I really dont envision any one attemping a complicated mix on any such gear
but if you want it all in a small package there is always the A&H Icon comps
built in, 4 band parametrics,dual programmable efx, gates, stereo channels ,
two channels of power (300 watts ea)
graphic eq, memories , 35 lbs
George
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 15:19:56 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Joe Jordan" <<profjdj@yahoo...>> wrote in message
news:apk0jg$2av7q$<1@ID-129923...>...
> George Gleason wrote:
>
> > I have owned both there is no audible diffrence between the
mackie and the
> > Behringer they are EQUAL products in everything except COPST,
the
> behringer
> > costs 1/2 as much
> > I would not pay the extra just to support mackie marketing
campain
>
> I know I sound like a broken record, but the small
> Behringers don't have inserts. I think you have to go
> up to their 20-channel desk to get them, whereas
> Mackie has them even on the 1202 (on the mono
> channels only).
>
> No inserts means you've got to use external mic pres
> to put compression on vocals. And only two channels
> (the main mix) out if you're recording (the inserts on
> a Mackie can be used as "direct channel outs").
>
> Behringer just came out with a new line of compact
> mixers, and I was hoping they would correct this
> shortcoming on the smaller mixers. Alas, no cigar.
That's a good point, but I think the Behringer mixers are still fine
if all you're looking for is two cheap channels of phantom power and
preamps for recording acoustic guitar. Or maybe guitar plus vocals.
Personally, I'm not a fan of compressing anything before audio hits
the A/D converters in a recording. Maybe drums, maybe electric
bass.... but never acoustic guitar or vocals. But everyone has
different ideas about that. :-)
I do like the way you can use the insert points on the Mackie to tap
the preamp only, and bypass the main buss. That's cool, and it does
result in a cleaner sound. But for the $400 cost of a Mackie, you're
within shooting distance of a real, dedicated recording mic preamp.
If we're going to change the discussion to the best mixers for live
sound instead of recording, that's a different kettle of wax,...or
ball of soup... or something.
Mike Barrs
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:24:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> Don't know if the observation was made here or elsewhere but the point
was that
> the engineering that distingushes the quality between brands (if there is
any)
> does not show until you get up a few notches from the entry level gear,
but the
> relative pricing differential kicks in right away.
>
> Am I making any sense? Do I care if I am?
>
>
Yes len U are making sense the Mackie is way overpriced in todays market
Mackie , like Bose, is all smoke and mirrors with a huge ad budget, if you
really want a little mixer buy the behringer it is about 300$ better than a
similar mackie product of equal usability
George
From: Tony Weber <Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 13:14:25 -0700
George Gleason wrote:
>
> Tony I feel that your best mic would be the Shure Beta 57 it si a great
> dynamic mic that will record well also
> unfortunatly the only solution to the delimma is to own dozens of mics (I
> own 80 some mics) like your children you will learn thier personalities and
> be able to select the best for each job
> failing the ability to spend 10,000$ on mics you should get the best
> general use mic made and IMO that is the shure beta57
> George
Hi George;
Well, ultimately I think that I will be happier with a condenser mic, given the
responses I've seen. Ed B has kindly offered to loan me his Shure SM57, which
allows me some time to do a bit of research and still start making use of the
recorder as soon as possible. So now I can revers my purchase order, and look
for first, a mixer or phantom power source, and then a single or pair of
condenser mics.
Knowing my tastes, and my guitars, and my stereo, I ultimately am going to be
happiest with something that is fairly revealing.
So, what is the deal with sets of condensers? Do they match the frequency
responses of individual mics, or are they just a random pair? Would I be better
off buying a pair, or could I realistically consider buying one at a time? I am
looking for recording practice at the moment, so true stereo multitracking is
not a necessity yet,
Tony
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 14:28:01 -0700
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
news:<3DBAF7A1.5CC1AE04@speakeasy...>...
>
>
> So, what is the deal with sets of condensers? Do
> they match the frequency responses of individual
> mics, or are they just a random pair?
If you pay more for the boxed set than you would buying individual
mics, then they've been tested and selected for matched frequency
response. Sometimes you can get consecutive serial numbers in a box,
without having to pay extra, but then you're just sort of hoping
that they'll be matched.
All manufacturers have some variance from one mic to another on the
assembly line. I think most people feel that expensive German mics
are more consistent than the cheaper Russian and Chinese ones, but
everybody has good and bad days on the factory line. So it's
sometimes just a matter of luck, in how closely matched two mics
are.
> Would I be better off buying a pair, or could I
> realistically consider buying one at a time? I am
> looking for recording practice at the moment, so
> true stereo multitracking is not a necessity yet,
Okay, here's WAY more than you wanted to know about stereo mic'ing.
You only need a "matched pair" if you're using one of the classic,
true stereo mic techniques like coincident, near-coincident,
Blumlein array, Jecklin disk, etc. This is where it's critical to
have matched frequency response. Otherwise, the difference in
frequency response shifts the stereo field around.
Not everyone uses those true stereo recording techniques though. In
fact, I'll bet that most people who record at home don't use them.
What I use myself is a spaced pair, where each mic is looking at an
entirely different part of the guitar, and fairly close-mic'd.
Here are some graphics that show what I'm talking about:
<www.harmony-central.com/Features/FRecAcousticGtr/002.html>
BTW, there are a lot more true stereo techniques than shown here...
X-Y just tends to be a popular and easy method for beginners.
I use a variation on what they're showing as "Spaced pair, version
A", with the left-hand mic moved more towards the lower bout, and
both mics angled in more towards the body. There is no perfect
position, because it's going to vary for every guitar and playing
style.
With the spaced pair techniques shown here, each mic is hearing
something very different from the other one. So you can get away
with mics that are not matched. In fact, many people like to use
completely different types of mics.... maybe a small condenser for
the 12th fret position, and a large condenser aimed at the lower
soundboard. The possibilities are endless, with all the different
mics out there. With spaced pair/close-micing, you basically create
an artificial stereo effect during mixdown, by panning each mic away
from center. With X-Y (or the other true stereo techniques), you
create a stereo effect with the phase relationship between the mics.
It's an entirely different thing, and that's why matched frequency
response is so important.
I prefer spaced pair mics to X-Y and other true stereo techniques
because I have a lot more freedom in exactly where I point the mics
on the guitar. This lets me "pre-EQ" the guitar sound, and I don't
have to screw around as much with EQ during mixing. When I use true
stereo mic'ing, the stereo field is awesome, but I always end up
adding more EQ in the mix stage. I don't like having to do that. The
spaced pair approach is just a lot more flexible in how I can "tune"
various guitars and other acoustic instruments before recording.
So that's the story. If you want to play with X-Y or the other true
stereo techniques, then ideally you want a tested and matched pair
of mics. Otherwise, it doesn't matter, and you might even find that
you prefer using two completely different types of mics at the same
time on your guitar.
Mike Barrs
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 03:59:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article <4tkrruot3spql7kon4d29ofs2gc28lmuhq@4ax...>, George W. at
<geowirth@comcast...> wrote on 10/28/02 4:24 PM:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 14:04:43 -0800, foldedpath wrote:
>
>> we're talking about needing 2 channels of phantom power and clean
>> mic pre's for recording, the Mackie just doesn't make sense now. If
>> you're strapped for cash, then get the Behringer and save up for the
>> FMR/RNP (which will blow away either the Mackie or Behringer pre's,
>> and is the next best thing to a $2,000 mic preamp). If you can
>> afford $400 for a new Mackie, then it's just a tiny stretch to get
>> the FMR/RNP and have a "real" dedicated recording mic preamp.
>
> Mike, as far as a really good mic preamp goes, what exactly do you get
> compared to a cheaper one? Is it something someone like myself could
> hear? I'm assuming it is but I really don't understand what the
> improvements are. Is this something that can make a cheap mic sound
> better, or do you need good mics to make use of it?
>
> You're right, it's amazing how relatively inexpensive good electronic
> equipment has become,
>
> Thanks.
>
> G.
When shopping for and researching about mic pres, I was told severaltimes, "If you can't hear the difference it doesn't matter...If you can hear
the difference, it matters".
I can hear the difference, more now than earlier. Comparing mic pres issomewhat objective, but subjectivity is at play too. Also, the remainder of
the signal chain really matters (instrument, player, mics, converters,
monitoring, etc.) I'll stick my neck out a bit and analogize:
The difference between an inexpensive mic pre (such as a Presonus MP 20($400) and a high end mic pre (like a Great River ($1,750)) is like the
difference between a Yamaha FG-160 and a Goodall Grand Concert (same woods).
Most here would "hear" the difference between the guitars and believe the
difference dramatic. Professional audio folks might not "hear" the guitar
distinction as much, but they will certainly believe the difference between
the Presonus and Great River is night and day.
I've also been told by many in the pro audio area to buy quality:"Better to have one great piece of equipment (which will last a lifetime)
than three or four mediocre pieces (that you'll end up unloading)".
Mixing boards like Mackie, Behringer, Soundcraft, etc. are anotherstory. They are multiple function units. Generally, their mic pres are not
great, merely functional.
Leaving aside the ability of the musician, or the quality of the guitar,the most important parts of the signal chain for digital recording are (in
order of importance):
Microphones Mic pres A/D convertersOf course, you can't hear things well (or accurately) without a goodmonitoring chain, the order of importance being:
Speakers Amplification D/A converters--
Stephen T. Boyke
From: Jim McCrain <jim@mccrain...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:50:27 -0600
Organization: Walrus Sound Productions
I went back to thew original post for this thread to make sure I wasn't
about to stick my foot in my mouth with this comment. It doesn't sound
like you are planning to make "professional" recordings, but instead are
just getting into the recording game. You "seam" to be interested in
making good sounding demo's and other recordings that you will be happy to
share with friends, family, and possibly to get some gigs. If that is
what you are doing, then do not be afraid to usde some of the mixing
boards by Mackie, Behringer, Samson, etc.. They have a very decent sound,
include the mic preamps, phantom power, and EQ, and are very simple and
strait-forward to operate. You will be pleased with the results you get.
Now, if you are interested in making a much higher level of sound
recording, and are willing to put up with a much more complicated system,
then by all means get the better/high-end mic pre's, EQ, and out-board
effects. You will eventually be able to hear the differance. But for
right now, just stick with something basic and simple. If you decide to
up-grade at a later date, pass on your used equipment to someone else that
is just getting started. Make them a great deal on the price, show them
how to use it, and gain a lot of Karma points!
Jim "That's how I got started, and how I continue to do it" McCrain
"George W." wrote:
> Mike, as far as a really good mic preamp goes, what exactly do you get
> compared to a cheaper one? Is it something someone like myself could
> hear? I'm assuming it is but I really don't understand what the
> improvements are. Is this something that can make a cheap mic sound
> better, or do you need good mics to make use of it?
--
****************************
Remove "SPAMGUARD" to reply.
****************************
From: Michael James Richard Brown <rockon02@senet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 19:47:36 +1030
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:52:11 -0500, George W. <<geowirth@comcast...>>
wrote:
>On 28 Oct 2002 08:38:07 -0800, Hans Andersson wrote:
>
>>"foldedpath" <<mbarrs@NOSPAM...>> wrote in message news:<<urm68pibjt8q47@corp...>>...
>>> "Tony Weber" <<Mycroftxxx@speakeasy...>> wrote in message
>>> news:<3DBB024B.17FFEF70@speakeasy...>...
>>> >
>>> <snip>
>>> > How good are the Behringer mixers?
>>
>>I had a 8 channel Behringer that I upgraded to the Mackie 1202VLZ Pro.
>>You will too. Save yourself the trouble, get the Mackie. The Preamps
>>are much better, mute button on each channel. Unless you can;t afford
>>the Mackie, I'd avoid the Behringer.
>
>Still, the Behringer 8-Channel is only $80 compared to about $400 for
>the Mackie, and IMO worth much more. Built like a tank, phantom power,
>decent preamps....a steal at that price regardless if you upgrade
>later. I have no doubt that the Mackie is "better" but most of us
>(myself included) are never going to notice any difference. I doubt
>very seriously that many people could tell which mixer was used for
>any particular simple project.
I've had a Behringer MX 802A for two or three years, and it does a
good job. I'm sure that ther4e are better mixers out there, but for
home recording, the Behringer is fine.
Michael B
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:00:54 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Stephen Boyke" <<sdelsolray@attbi...>> wrote in message
news:B9E347A0.6251%<sdelsolray@attbi...>...
> Leaving aside the ability of the musician, or
> the quality of the guitar, the most important
> parts of the signal chain for digital recording
> are (in order of importance):
>
> Microphones
> Mic pres
> A/D converters
>
> Of course, you can't hear things well (or
> accurately) without a good monitoring chain,
> the order of importance being:
>
> Speakers
> Amplification
> D/A converters
> --
I agree with that order of importance.
I do think the front end (mics, pre's, A/D) is more important to
upgrade first, as you build your system over the years. The process
of taking a weak little electrical signal, amplifying it, and then
shoving it through a digital bit conversion process is where most of
the magic happens. You can train your ears to mix with cheap
speakers and translate that to other speaker systems, so it's
possible to be a little stingy on the back end. You can always get
better speakers later on, and re-mix your old recordings. But there
is no way to replace the lost audio data that didn't make it onto
you hard drive, because the mic, preamp, or A/D couldn't capture it.
Luckily, the prices keep falling while the specs keep improving. For
most of us (including me), the equipment is not the real limitation
on how good our recordings sound. A few years ago, the equipment
available for home recording really WAS a big limitation (anyone
remember cassette tape hiss?).
As a side note: there is one more part of the signal chain that
wasn't mentioned in the list above, and that's the recording
software itself. Digital recording isn't exactly "bits in equals
bits out." Every audio company uses slightly different algorithms
for the mix buss and digital EQ, and different bit depths in the DSP
operations. This means each digital recording system sounds a little
bit different, and some sound better than others.
You can get into raging arguments with people over which digital
recording system sounds better, or closer to analog tape, or
whatever. I won't go into all that. There is plenty of information
(and flame fests) on this subject online.
It's not worth worrying about, if you're doing home recording on a
personal or hobby level. You need very good outboard gear to notice
these subtle differences, and it's also less important if you're
only recording a small number of tracks. It's mainly just a
heads-up, so the above list of items in the recording chain is
complete.
<BLAM!... thump>
Uh oh.... I think that was the sound of Tony's head exploding again.
Mike Barrs
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:44:07 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"George W." <<geowirth@comcast...>> wrote in message
news:<4tkrruot3spql7kon4d29ofs2gc28lmuhq@4ax...>...
> Mike, as far as a really good mic preamp goes,
> what exactly do you get compared to a cheaper
> one? Is it something someone like myself could
> hear?
George,
As others here have said, it depends on the quality of the rest of
your recording chain. With a very good mic, recording system, and
monitoring setup, the differences between say, a Mackie mixer and a
$1,500-$2,000 mic preamp are fairly obvious even if you don’t have
trained ears.
But you’re using cheap dynamic mics, the A/D converters on a basic
Soundblaster card, and Radio Shack computer speakers… well, you
could probably hear some differences, but it’s not going to jump out
and smack your ears the way it would in a higher-end recording
setup.
The better mic pre’s have an open and transparent sound, especially
in the mid and upper-mid frequencies where the guitar lives and
breathes. They also retain definition in individual tracks when you
build up a big multitrack mix. Sometimes differences in preamps aren
’t that obvious if you just record one track and compare, but try
recording a half-dozen tracks and then do some bouncing (combining
of tracks together on a new track). This is where the higher-end
preamps really shine. You still hear individual voices and
instruments, and everything keeps its place in the stereo
soundstage. The same mix done on a Mackie would sound muddier, with
everything washing together in the mix.
So there is a sense in which you’re not getting all the benefits of
a higher-end preamp, if you always record only two tracks of solo
guitar. But you’ll still get some of those transparency and detail
benefits. It’s just not as obvious as it is in a big mix.
> Is this something that can make a cheap
> mic sound better, or do you need good
> mics to make use of it?
A better preamp makes even cheap mics sound better. I was amazed at
how great my SM-57's started to sound, after upgrading from Mackie
pre's to a Great River preamp. However, it won't turn a dynamic mic
into a condenser. It just means that the SM-57 sounds even better
for the things it's good at (electric guitar amps, snare, etc.)
With the cost of condenser mics falling through the floor now, I
think your upgrade path should be mics first, then worry about a
higher-end preamp. When you finally do spring for a better preamp,
it will just make all your mics sound better.
Mike Barrs
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 01:36:21 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"misifus" <<rseibert@cox-internet...>> wrote in message
news:<3DBF1AE9.FD23A241@cox-internet...>...
> George Gleason wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Jeff perhaps a visit to www.shure.com is in order
> > but all condensor mics need power no dynamics need power this power
can be
> > from Phantom power (most common) or a battery like the akg c1000
> > some of the newer neodinimum mics like the beta 57 are making very good
> > acoustic instrument mics
> > the mic Chris is talking about is the SE ELECTRONICS se 1 thatI sell
> > delivereed in the usa fro 87$
> > www.seelectronics.com
> > george
>
> Okay, George, are these primarily for string instruments, or will they
also
> serve for voice?
>
> -Ralph (just getting into this PA business)
>
>
No they are terrible for most vocal applications
the pop filtering is noexistant and breath fricitives sound like atom bombs
I like the Audix om6 or 7or VX-10, beyer m88 ,neumann 105 even a
sennheiser 835 a akg 535 a shure 58 or beta 57 or 58 or a akg d880 you
should find a decent mic in what ever price range you choose
George>
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Ok, now I need a microphone
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 11:28:41 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> > -Ralph (just getting into this PA business)
> >
> >
> No they are terrible for most vocal applications
>
>
the exception being Raph is Choir/ emsemble micing from a distance were the
breath noise will not bbe a problem
i aslo use them for podiums with a pop filter and at last a foot of distance
to the presenter
George
| RNP mic pre, first impressions [3] |
|---|
From: Garthrr <garthrr@aol...>
Subject: Re: RNP mic pre, first impressions
Date: 22 Oct 2002 10:27:07 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <<32e00f67.0210211604.29e565b0@posting...>>, <T-Ed@Juno...>
(Duardo) writes:
> think the same thing happened with the Earthworks microphones a few
>years back...Earthworks came out and said they were noisy in
>comparison to other microphones, when in fact the noise wasn't an
>issue in most cases, and anyone recording in a situation where the
>noise would be an issue would probably know enough about specs and
>microphones in general to make a better selection for that situation.
Its too bad the Earthworks mic arent quieter. I have a pair of Z30X and they
are too noisy for acoustic guitar IMO. I havent tried the QTC or whatever
theyre called. Maybe they are better. I agree that in most cases the self noise
isnt an issue.
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
From: Fill X <mothra666@aol...>
Subject: Re: RNP mic pre, first impressions
Date: 22 Oct 2002 10:34:34 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Its too bad the Earthworks mic arent quieter. I have a pair of Z30X and they
>are too noisy for acoustic guitar IMO. I havent tried the QTC or whatever
>theyre called. Maybe they are better. I agree that in most cases the self
>noise
>isnt an issue.
yeah but the Z's were meant as live mics, the Qtc's are quieter.
P h i l i p
______________________________
"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
- Dorothy ParkerNAWCC member 0151958
From: ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol...>
Subject: Re: RNP mic pre, first impressions
Date: 22 Oct 2002 17:20:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< the Qtc's are quieter.>
Really? I hadnt heard that. Are you sure you arent thinking of the SR series?
Maybe you're right. Would the Z30X be more noisy than the TC 30? I had sort of
assumed that all the Earthworks mics except the QTC were kinda noisy and all to
more or less the same degree. >>
It's the unavoidable physics of a really small diaphragm. Better transient
response due to less mass, less signal output due to smaller diaphragm
movement.
Scott Fraser
| Which Mic? - [13] |
|---|
From: Ken Cashion <kcashion@datasync...>
Subject: Which Mic? -
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 12:39:37 GMT
Organization: Datasync
In the next couple of days, I will order a mic for homerecording with a stand-alone recording console -- multi-track analog
tape and CD. This will be for vocals, and on occasion, acoustical
stringed instruments, though interested in it primarialy for vocals.
Would those familiar with the Shure SM48S and SM57 offer theiropinion on these two for this application?
Thank you.Ken Cashion, Luddite Recording Studio
From: Dick Thaxter <richard.thaxter@mail...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 15:44:10 GMT
Ken,
Don't know about the SM48S, but the workhorse dynamic Shure mics are
usually SM58 for vocals and SM57 for instruments although either can be
used for vocals or instruments. I actually like my SM57 for vocals too;
it works with my vocal frequencies, I guess.
I'd also recommend the Sennheiser 835e as an alternative to the
SM58--there are often mic/stand/cord packages available for about the
same cost as an SM58 ($100). We've used that Sennheiser at some of the
earlier EC gatherings. Others would have you look at some of the Audix
dynamic mics.
The last recordings I did, I used a cheap condensor--Audio Tecnica
Midnight Blues? MB-4000c--for vocals and for guitar. I think I paid
about $59 for it. I doubt it would make a good stage mic though.
Dick Thaxter
Ken Cashion wrote:
>
> In the next couple of days, I will order a mic for home
> recording with a stand-alone recording console -- multi-track analog
> tape and CD. This will be for vocals, and on occasion, acoustical
> stringed instruments, though interested in it primarialy for vocals.
> Would those familiar with the Shure SM48S and SM57 offer their
> opinion on these two for this application?
> Thank you.
>
> Ken Cashion, Luddite Recording Studio
From: Steve Scott <squeegybug@netspace1...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:02:59 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Hi Ken,
My duet was using SM58, had a lot of feedback problems, so I decided to
check alternate mikes. Tried Audix OM6 because of reported better
rejection, and because George G recommends them. These did sound good, but
a little "crispier" than we were used to. As a wild idea I tried some SM57s
I had laying around, and I was pretty amazed at the performance. Similar
sound as the SM58 we were used to, especially the deep-voice "Leo Kottke"
type growl the Shure proximity effect gives you. But way better feedback
resistance, and I thought a little "cleaner" sounding than the 58. Since
the 57 screen is closer to the capsule than on the 58 it will pop more, so I
bought the Shure foam wind screens. These are designed specifically for the
57 and attach with set screws, cost around $10 from MF, they look classy and
work great. Overall I'm very pleased with using 57s for vocals, they are
more directional than the 58s though, so you have to pay a little more
attention to mic technique, but of course that's what helps with feedback
rejection. Plus they're cheap and easy to find. Regards,
Steve
"Ken Cashion" <<kcashion@datasync...>> wrote:
<snipped...>
>This will be for vocals, and on occasion, acoustical
> stringed instruments, though interested in it primarialy for vocals.
> Would those familiar with the Shure SM48S and SM57 offer their
> opinion on these two for this application?
> Thank you.
>
> Ken Cashion, Luddite Recording Studio
From: Ken Cashion <kcashion@datasync...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 17:54:03 GMT
Organization: Datasync
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:02:59 GMT, "Steve Scott"
<<squeegybug@netspace1...>> wrote:
Thanks a bunch, Steve, for the good review. I know that the57 has a great reputation but I'd not heard too much about the 58 and
was curious. I was told once that if a performer had played in five
clubs, he would have used a 57 in one of them...maybe three of them.
Feedback for recording is less likely and the need for mictechnique is not a negative factor with me; I like a directional mic
because it does permit a little more control. "Working" the mic is
important if we want the best sound but it takes a little practise on
a per mic basis.
And yes, I have wind screens and use them on my other mics andwill get one for the 57 if that is what I end up with.
Ken Cashion>Hi Ken,
>My duet was using SM58, had a lot of feedback problems, so I decided to
>check alternate mikes. Tried Audix OM6 because of reported better
>rejection, and because George G recommends them. These did sound good, but
>a little "crispier" than we were used to. As a wild idea I tried some SM57s
>I had laying around, and I was pretty amazed at the performance. Similar
>sound as the SM58 we were used to, especially the deep-voice "Leo Kottke"
>type growl the Shure proximity effect gives you. But way better feedback
>resistance, and I thought a little "cleaner" sounding than the 58. Since
>the 57 screen is closer to the capsule than on the 58 it will pop more, so I
>bought the Shure foam wind screens. These are designed specifically for the
>57 and attach with set screws, cost around $10 from MF, they look classy and
>work great. Overall I'm very pleased with using 57s for vocals, they are
>more directional than the 58s though, so you have to pay a little more
>attention to mic technique, but of course that's what helps with feedback
>rejection. Plus they're cheap and easy to find. Regards,
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>"Ken Cashion" <<kcashion@datasync...>> wrote:
><snipped...>
>>This will be for vocals, and on occasion, acoustical
>> stringed instruments, though interested in it primarialy for vocals.
>> Would those familiar with the Shure SM48S and SM57 offer their
>> opinion on these two for this application?
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Ken Cashion, Luddite Recording Studio
>
>
From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 15:50:20 GMT
> And yes, I have wind screens and use them on my other mics and
> will get one for the 57 if that is what I end up with.
Ken -
The 57 will work OK for vocals...some people prefer them to the 58, but I
don't. The 58 sounds more open and airier to me...much nicer. Even better
is the Audix OM-5. Even better than that is the Octava MK-319, but now
we're up to $200 and a requirement for phantom power.
If you do use a 57 for vocals, you will have to do something about
plosives...they're a real issue with that mic. It won't be enough to use a
little foam ball - you'll actually need a hoop-style screen.
Knowing how you like to tinker, you might want to try making your own...get
a needlepoint hoop (ask your wife if you don't know what it is), and stretch
panty-hose fabric across the face.
Then, find a way to secure it to a mic stand...I bent some wire and used a
hose clamp, but I'm certain you could devise a more elegant way of doing it.
Hope this helps,
Mike Pugh
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 16:41:10 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 12:39:37 GMT, <kcashion@datasync...> (Ken Cashion)
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
> In the next couple of days, I will order a mic for home
>recording with a stand-alone recording console -- multi-track analog
>tape and CD. This will be for vocals, and on occasion, acoustical
>stringed instruments, though interested in it primarialy for vocals.
> Would those familiar with the Shure SM48S and SM57 offer their
>opinion on these two for this application?
> Thank you.
>
> Ken Cashion, Luddite Recording Studio
Ken--I haven't tried the SM48S, but I've used SM57's for years. Great
all-around mic. I'm now using an SM58 for vocals, but the SM57 works
fine. Indestructible mic, sounds great.
They're also dirt-cheap and available anywhere. (And they appeal to
the Luddite in me, too...)
Bill Chandler
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: Ken Cashion <kcashion@datasync...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:59:47 GMT
Organization: Datasync
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 20:18:57 GMT, Joe Jordan <<jjordan@hotpop...>>
wrote:
>Ken Cashion wrote:
Joe, I have snipped my garbage and will address the salientpoints. The mic I liked was black with shiny white screen ball as
shown in your referenced jpg and that of Seibert's jpgs.
>If my info is correct, then for your stated requirements
>(mostly vocals, but some instrument miking), it would seem
>to make sense to go with the SM57 with add-on windscreen
>(which will serve as a pop filter for vocals, but can be
>taken off when you want to mic an instrument, giving a
>"crisper" sound).
This is a good point, Joe. No matter how neat I thought Isounded with a vocal in that venue, I really need it more for
recording. And I have a double-31-step EQ to make me sound wonderful
during mix-down to CD.
But damned, I liked the SM58! :o)>Just to make sure you're straight on which mic was which at
>TX3, my AKG 535 has a black barrel and a black, "egg"-shaped
>screen ball.
This part, I did understand.>As far as how you sounded, I thought you sounded fine both
>nights.
With the AKG535, I got a surprizing pop on "people" and had tostart "sliding" the "pee" to the side of the mic to eliminate the
pop...the same was true for "spread" and other puffy words.
This was my problem and it goes with using the available micsthe best way I can.
>How you sounded on stage could very well be a
>function of how Jim had the monitors set more than which mic
>you were using.
Nawh...I think the "pop" was just an oral Cashonianshock-wave.
So I will opt for the SM57 with screen...I have been known toput various other "restrictors" inside the screen balls to satisfy my
needs.
Again, thanks, Joe. You continue to relieve my microphonicbefuddlement.
Ken Cashion
From: Steve Scott <squeegybug@netspace1...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 17:21:29 GMT
Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com
Yes the 57 and 58 use the same capsule:
<http://shure.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/shure.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=_
X44tNsg&p_lva=2002&p_faqid=142&p_created=953107200&p_sp=cF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9y
b3dfY250PTIwJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9NTcgNTggY29tcGFyaXNvbiZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPTMm
cF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9MiZwX3Byb2RfbHZsMj0xNyZwX2NhdF9sdmwxPX5hbnl_JnBfc29ydF9ieT1k
Zmx0JnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=>
Here's the add-on windscreen:
<http://www.shure.com/accessories/a2ws.asp>
&
<http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/sid=021026233351066137181120158660/sear
ch/g=home/detail/base_id/39059>
I've been using them several months, they work great and look good too, plus
I can get up close for bass notes without chipping a tooth on a metal grill
like on the 58. You can adjust the distance you set the foam from the
capsule, to minimize pops. I got a lot more pops from a stock 58 than I do
from this 57/A2ws combo, and we do sing into them without separate hoop
filters.
Steve
"Deverett2" <<deverett2@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021027084803.21714.00000530@mb-ck...>...
> >It seems like I remember reading once that the SM57 and SM58
> >were essentially the same microphone, except that the SM58
> >has an integrated windscreen/popfilter (inside the ball),
> >whereas the SM57 does not. I may be mistaken on that count,
>
> I heard that, too, Joe, and if you take the round silver screen off of the
58
> you can see the windscreen/popfilter on the 58 and otherwise they look the
> same. I got talked into getting both and certainly can use two mics, but
I
> think they are pretty much the same mic. I am no expert - I could be
wrong.
>
> I am glad someone mentioned the filter for the 57 - good idea.
>
> Donna
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:47:12 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Deverett2" <<deverett2@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021027084803.21714.00000530@mb-ck...>...
> >It seems like I remember reading once that
> >the SM57 and SM58 were essentially the
> >same microphone, except that the SM58
> >has an integrated windscreen/popfilter (inside
> >the ball), whereas the SM57 does not. I may
> >be mistaken on that count,
>
> I heard that, too, Joe, and if you take the round
> silver screen off of the 58 you can see the windscreen/
> popfilter on the 58 and otherwise they look the
> same. I got talked into getting both and certainly
> can use two mics, but I think they are pretty much
> the same mic. I am no expert - I could be wrong.
>
I hate to nitpick (what did Joe call it... correcting the professor?
;-))... but these mics are not quite the same. The frequency plots
are a little different, and they're designed to do two different
jobs.
Check out these two graphs:
<www.shure.com/images/response/fsm58_large.gif>
<www.shure.com/images/response/fsm57_large.gif>
The SM-58 has a presence peak that extends into the upper-mids
(3-4kHz), while the SM-57 has a flatter response in that area. That
peak on the '58 is designed to help a singer cut through a loud band
in a PA mix. It also makes the mic a bit more prone to feedback than
the '57 (as someone else noted earlier).
The '57 rolls off the bass a little earlier, so you have less
trouble with proximity effect (bass boost) when close-mic'ing
instruments. The '58 reaches a little further into the bass so a
singer can work the proximity effect for added "warmth," but it
makes it harder to close-mic an acoustic guitar without getting a
boomy sound.
The differences between these two mics are very obvious with digital
recording and decent monitor speakers. But it's more subtle through
a typical PA setup.
And speaking of which.... if it were me, I wouldn't choose either of
these as dedicated recording mics, because condenser mics are so
cheap now. Both the SM-57 and SM-58 have veiled, muddy-sounding
highs, compared to even a cheap condenser mic. You can get a Studio
Projects B1 large diaphragm condenser (not the best condenser mic
out there, but it's okay for vocals and guitar) for just $79. That's
the same price as a SM-57, and $20 less than a SM-58! With prices
like this, and small condensers going for just $100-$150, there is
no longer any reason to start your home recording journey with a
dull-sounding dynamic mic. Use dynamic mics for live sound, where
you need something simple and bulletproof. Use condensers for
recording.
Mike Barrs
From: Bill Chandler <drink@yourown...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 21:46:48 GMT
Organization: Organization? Surely you jest...
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002 19:38:24 GMT, <kcashion@datasync...> (Ken Cashion)
brewed up the following, and served it to the group:
<snip>
> So you are saying the silver mic with black screen is the
>SM58? It sure sounded good with everyone. But as for feedback, we
>were running a pretty low volume, and for recording, I wouldn't be
>worried about feedback at all.
> I think it is worth the extra $80 or so.
> Why does this have to be so hard? I like conclusive
>things...like 'this one is great and the other one sucks!' :o)
>
> Ken Cashion, mic dumb
Not dumb at all, Ken--there's a million different things to consider.
The one on stage right (left for the audience) was an SM58.
Black/gray body, silver ball screen.
This is a KILLER mic for general application vocals (especially for us
cheap so-and-so's...). The 57 is useful for mic'ing instruments as
well as vocals; the 58 is more specifically designed for vocals. I've
never had much in the way of feedback problems with either mic.
I personally believe the 58 is worth the extra buckage for a good
vocal mic. That's what I'm using these days...upgraded from the 57
(which I still have!).
Bill Chandler
-----
"The truth knocks on the door, and you say, 'Go away, I'm
looking for the truth,' and so it goes away. Puzzling."
--Robert M. Pirsig, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
the above e-mail address remains totally fictional.the real one is <bc9424@spamTH...>!.concentric.net (if you remove spamTHIS!.)
...please check out http://www.mp3.com/BillChandler some time...
...TX-2 Pictures at http://www.concentric.net/~Bc9424/index.html
Bill Chandler
...bc...
From: donh <bounce.spam@driveway...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 21:23:32 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
In <<3dba8bcb.101940@news...>>, on 10/26/02 at 12:39 PM,
kcashion@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) said:> In the next couple of days, I will order a mic for home
>recording with a stand-alone recording console -- multi-track analog tape and
>CD. This will be for vocals, and on occasion, acoustical stringed instruments,
>though interested in it primarialy for vocals.
> Would those familiar with the Shure SM48S and SM57 offer their
>opinion on these two for this application?
> Thank you.
> Ken Cashion, Luddite Recording Studio
Remember the Shure Vocal-Master PAs for wayyyyyyy back? (We all called them
vocal manglers . . ) That's when the SM57 and SM58 mics were developed, and
that's their sound. If that's the sound you want, there you go.
The SM48 is Shure's cheap copy of the SM58.
Please consider an Audix OM series or any of the fine european offerings.
-don-
donh at audiosys dot com
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 06:14:33 GMT
Be aware that the quality control for Oktava mics is spotty. Some
vendors actually do some quality control (see the Soundroom which is
the website you listed) , but you pay for the service. Some don't
(see Guitar Center). While GC seems to regularly run the $100 special
on these mics, the only apparent QC is that they are not DOA. This is
not to say that you can't find a good one at GC. If you want to shop
GC, I would get a handful of them and try them out till you find the
one that sounds best. If you want a matched pair for recording, I
would get a pair from the Soundroom.
Have fun.
Oh yeah, this microphone/preamp/prosound thing has its own variety of
GAS. Beware!
On 28 Oct 2002 16:44:24 GMT, <mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote:
>Mike delved into
>
>>For example, you get a differently
>>flavored microphone by using a tube circuit section behind the same
>>basic capsule.
>>
>>And yeah.... tube mics are cool.But don't even THINK about this
>>until you get the recording basics covered.
>>
>>In fact, just forget I mentioned tube mics.
>
>and then offered
>
>>(oh, I am SUCH a bad boy today.....)
>
>Yes, you are. BUT, given your level of experience I would appreciate your idea
>of the best condenser mic for stage application. I'm real interested in this
>one if you have a chance to take a look:
>
>http://www.oktava.com/
>
>Click on:
>
>RTT/OKTAVA and RTT MICROPHONES - From Russian Transducer Technology , then the
>MC011.
>
>Thanks, Mike.
>
>
>
>
>
>Mitch
>
>
>"He will give beauty for ashes, joy instead of mourning, praise instead of
>despair." - Isaiah 61:3
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Which Mic? -
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 19:03:32 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Ken-
The 58 has a ball-shaped screen; the 57 has a flat end on the screen.
If you can afford it, get the more recent "Beta" model of whichever
one you chose. In particular, the Beta 58 sounds a lot better
to my ears than the 58 for most voices.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| A good microphone for ~$200? [12] |
|---|
From: Geoff Hague <ghague@REMOVE2REPLYshaw...>
Subject: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:04:16 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
Hi all!
I'm looking for a good microphone to record my acoustic guitar... something
in the range of about $200 (though preferably less).
Any suggestions?
Thanks!
__________
Geoff Hague
http://www.CaptainsOfTheWorld.com
From: Jim McCrain <jim@mccrain...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:18:10 -0600
Organization: Walrus Sound Productions
Do you have phantom power? If so, look for a good, cheap condensor mic.
Marshal 603 and Oktava MK012 can be had for that amount. Both work well for
acoustic guitars, but wont do double duty as a vocal mic.
Jim
Geoff Hague wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I'm looking for a good microphone to record my acoustic guitar... something
> in the range of about $200 (though preferably less).
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks!
> __________
> Geoff Hague
> http://www.CaptainsOfTheWorld.com
--
****************************
Remove "SPAMGUARD" to reply.
****************************
From: Rick Ruskin <rick@liondogmusic...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:54:35 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:04:16 GMT, "Geoff Hague"
<<ghague@REMOVE2REPLYshaw...>> wrote:
>Hi all!
>
>I'm looking for a good microphone to record my acoustic guitar... something
>in the range of about $200 (though preferably less).
>Any suggestions?
>Thanks!
>__________
>Geoff Hague
>http://www.CaptainsOfTheWorld.com
>
If you can find a used (the only way to get them now) Electro-voice
CS-15, you will have a great guitat mic and a very useful "do-it-all"
piece as well. Typicall price on thiese is between $100 - $175.00
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle, WA
http://liondogmusic.com
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:25:02 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Geoff Hague" <<ghague@REMOVE2REPLYshaw...>> wrote in message
news:4QPA9.797443$<v53.29808929@news3...>...
> Hi all!
>
> I'm looking for a good microphone to record my acoustic guitar...
something
> in the range of about $200 (though preferably less).
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks!
I sell the Se electronic Se1 for 87$ delivered in the uSA>
If you are recording on anything except the highest profession level this
mic will serve u well
George
From: <please@nospam...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:50:43 GMT
Organization: None
<mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote:
>Hey George. Still enjoying my Beta 57. That was a great recommendation. I
>still want something hotter and more detailed for my solo gigs though. Is this
>mic (the SE1) hyper or just cardiod, and will it work on a battery or just
>phantom?
Beta 57 is a good mic. KM184 is hotter and more detailed. At least I
think that's what Al Evans brought over the other day. My brain is
getting fried from too much music. Or was that too much beer?
Phantom power is good to have. I have a phantom power pre (an
Electronic Musician design, now Paia) that I'd be happy to sell for
small $$. I no longer need it because I have two mixers with phantom
power (one of them is killer good). Don't let PP scare you away from
a good mic.
Al Sato
--
Reply to al_guitar "at" clifftopmusic "dot" com
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 00:00:09 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021114184116.06371.00005448@mb-fm...>...
> >I sell the Se electronic Se1 for 87$ delivered in the uSA>
> >If you are recording on anything except the highest profession level this
> >mic will serve u well
> >George
> >
> >
>
> Hey George. Still enjoying my Beta 57. That was a great recommendation.
I
> still want something hotter and more detailed for my solo gigs though. Is
this
> mic (the SE1) hyper or just cardiod, and will it work on a battery or just
> phantom?
>
it is cardiod and only phantom if youd like send me 87$ you can try it
if you do not like it (3 days max trial) return it on your dime and I will
either return or destroy your check
George
From: Chris Callahan <chriscal@NO_SPAMrfci...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:52:21 -0500
Our church bought one of these from George, and it sounds very good on steel
string instruments like mandolin and guitar. It's less useful for vocal (but
nonetheless works--I use it for that too) and isn't as hot as some other
mics for vocal purposes, but it is a very nice, small, usable mic and a
great buy for the price George sells it at.
Chris
From: John Holbrook <jholbrok@infinet...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:15:50 -0500
Organization: EriNet Online Communications - Dayton, OH
"George Gleason" <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote in message
news:2pVA9.6556$<vM1.439270@bgtnsc04-news...>...
>
> "Geoff Hague" <<ghague@REMOVE2REPLYshaw...>> wrote in message
> news:4QPA9.797443$<v53.29808929@news3...>...
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I'm looking for a good microphone to record my acoustic guitar...
> something
> > in the range of about $200 (though preferably less).
> > Any suggestions?
> > Thanks!
>
> I sell the Se electronic Se1 for 87$ delivered in the uSA>
> If you are recording on anything except the highest profession level this
> mic will serve u well
> George
I just got an Se1 from George, and am very happy with its performance.
(Although it made it plain that I need to do something about MY
performance!)
Seriously, it has a very transparent sound, and a fairly "hot" signal
output.
John
From: Geoff Hague <ghague@REMOVE2REPLYshaw...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 01:34:29 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
(I originally wrote:)
> Hi all!
>
> I'm looking for a good microphone to record my acoustic guitar...
something
> in the range of about $200 (though preferably less).
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks!
(original poster, here...)
Hey again!
Thanks for the responses so far. Here's some more info on my situation:
- I'll be using the microphone primarily with a (fairly low-end) 4-track
tape recorder (Tascam 424mkII). I'm not 100% sure what phantom power is,
but the 4-track recorder has a slider-switch that goes from "Line" up to
"Mic"... if that's of any help.
- I don't need it for vocals. I already have a vocal mic, but am not
pleased with how it records my acoustic guitar.
- I'll probably want to go the "new" route (as opposed to "used"), as I'm
requesting this for a Christmas gift, and I doubt the gift-giver will want
to spend much time hunting around for a good used mic :-)
Anyhoo, any more comments or suggestions you could offer would be greatly
appreciated... thanks again!
__________
Geoff Hague
http://www.CaptainsOfTheWorld.com
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: 15 Nov 2002 16:57:50 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Geoff,
> A real nice, inexpensive guitar (AND vocal) condenser mic that works on
>batteries (and phantom, which you don't have), is an AKG C-1000. @ $179 new,
>I
>think......very hot and detailed. Good up close, and at a distance,
>too........
>Try one!
>
>-Kal
Upon googling, I find this mic takes a lot of flak from the pro-sound
contingent. It seems like a knock-off Asian or Russian mic would be the better
choice. But the fact that the C1000 will take batteries is a good point for
the phantom-powerless.
mk
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:35:47 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"Geoff Hague" <<ghague@REMOVE2REPLYshaw...>> wrote in message
news:EnwB9.838376$<Ag2.28319325@news2...>...
> (original poster here.... again...)
>
> How about the Shure line of microphones,
> like the SM57 or the Beta 57A?
Those are dynamic mics, the only advantage being that they don't
need phantom power and they're fairly bulletproof for stage use.
They used to be the mic that everybody started with in home
recording when you were on a budget. I used 'em for years. But they
are no longer a good choice for a beginner mic, because you can get
very good quality small and large diaphragm condenser mics for
practically the same money (or even cheaper, in some cases).
Dynamic mics have a muddy, damped upper mid and high frequency
response compared to condenser mics. That's actually a desirable
thing when recording snare drum or an electric guitar amp, and it's
why a Shure SM-57 is a classic recording mic for those sources. But
this is not what you want for acoustic guitar. You want something
with a flatter frequency response, and more detail and transparency
in the highs. Only a condenser mic can do that (generally speaking).
For $150 you can get an Octava MC012-01. That's the one I recommend
if you can't stretch for the higher-end stuff like Neumanns. If you
don't have phantom power, there are solutions like a $45 power box,
or mixers and mic pres under $100 from Behringer and M-Audio that
will do the job.
Mike Barrs
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: A good microphone for ~$200?
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 03:58:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article <utd7h4pategu1d@corp...>, foldedpath at
<mbarrs@NOSPAM...> wrote on 11/16/02 11:35 AM:
>> (original poster here.... again...)
>>
>> How about the Shure line of microphones,
>> like the SM57 or the Beta 57A?
Octava MC012, a pair if you want to record in stereo. If you get a pairconsider buying them from the Sound Room, as they match them up nicely. The
MC012 is a Neumann KM 184 knock-off, and a decent one too at about 1/4 the
price.
Don't get bothered about phantom power. If your mixer or preamp doesnot provide it, you can get a simple box that does for about $50 or so.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
| SE Electronics Z 5600 [6] |
|---|
From: HKC <henrikkrogh@mail...>
Subject: SE Electronics Z 5600
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:19:57 +0100
Organization: TDC Internet
Has anybody had any experiences with this mike. Warren Dennis Kahn speaks
highly of it claiming that this mike may be you best you´ll ever buy. They
are pretty cheap, not ridiculously but still. In Denmark where I live they
are completely unknown but I would still love to own one if they are as good
as he claims. I have had the chance to try out the one called S 5000 from
the same company and it rocked and I tried to A/B it with the Røde NKT and
the Audio Technica Tube mike and to me it sounded better than both. The Z
5600 is their top model and if it´s one up on the S 5000(now called S5500)
then it is very good. Still if anybody knows anything I´m interested.
--
Henrik
<henrikkrogh@mail...>
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: SE Electronics Z 5600
Date: 19 Nov 2002 14:38:30 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
In article <3dd9fab8$0$8632$<edfadb0f@dread15...>>,
HKC <<henrikkrogh@mail...>> wrote:
>Has anybody had any experiences with this mike. Warren Dennis Kahn speaks
>highly of it claiming that this mike may be you best you´ll ever buy. They
>are pretty cheap, not ridiculously but still. In Denmark where I live they
>are completely unknown but I would still love to own one if they are as good
>as he claims. I have had the chance to try out the one called S 5000 from
>the same company and it rocked and I tried to A/B it with the Røde NKT and
>the Audio Technica Tube mike and to me it sounded better than both. The Z
>5600 is their top model and if it´s one up on the S 5000(now called S5500)
>then it is very good. Still if anybody knows anything I´m interested.
It's the same Shanghai product a lot of other companies sell under other
names. If you like it, buy it. If you don't like it, pass on it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: HKC <henrikkrogh@mail...>
Subject: Re: SE Electronics Z 5600
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 10:20:00 +0100
Organization: TDC Internet
It's the same Shanghai product a lot of other companies sell under other
names.
What other names would that be, just curious, and BTW I don´t have a
homestudio. I have pretty much everything here, if that´s what it takes to
call it professional,and therefore also many of the more expensive mikes. I
do however seriously think that the S 5500 outperforms all the microphones
in it´s pricerange, the ones I have heard anyway, and should be seen as a
serious contender for anybody´s mike selection. If the Z5600 is even better
I´d say we have a winner but as I stated in the original mail, I haven´t
heard it yet, so all I wanted was some info from people who actually knew
the microphone and I guess I had that so thank y´all.
Henrik
<henrikkrogh@mail...>
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: SE Electronics Z 5600
Date: 20 Nov 2002 09:38:04 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
HKC <<henrikkrogh@mail...>> wrote:
>It's the same Shanghai product a lot of other companies sell under other
>names.
>
>What other names would that be, just curious, and BTW I don´t have a
>homestudio.
Here are some of the FET-input Shanghai mikes:
--cut here--ADK A51 -- Cardioid, bare bones
ADK A51S - Cardioid, pad, internal high pass.
ADK A51SD- Dual pattern, pad, internal high pass.
Audix CX-101 -- Cardioid, bare bones
Audix CX-111 -- Cardioid, pad, internal high-pass
Audix CX-211 -- Cardioid, pad, external high-pass and yoke.
Avlex AVS77 - Cardioid, pad and external high pass and yoke.
Avlex AVS79 - Cardioid, internal high-pass
Avlex AVS80 - Cardioid, pad, external high-pass.
Cascade M-20 - Cardioid, pad, internal high-pass.
Fame SKE C010 - Cardioid, internal high-pass, no pad. Sold in Germany.
Fame SKE C002 - Dual pattern, external high-pass, no pad. Sold in Germany.
NADY SCM 900 - Bare bones cardioid.
NADY SCM 910 - Cardioid, with pad and external high pass.
NADY SCM 920 - Dual pattern, with external high pass.
NADY SCM 980 - Cardioid with pad and external high pass.
Note: I have not inspected the SCM980. The NADY SCM1000 is definitely
different and this board will not fit in it.
Pacific Pro Audio PPA LD-1: Cardoid with internal 10 dB pad.
SE Electronics se1000: Bare-bones cardioid.
SE Electronics se2000: Cardioid with 10 dB pad and (external?) low-cut
SE Electronics SE53: Cardioid and omni, with external low cut and 10 dB pad
SE Electronics SE88: Cardioid, omi, figure-8 with external low cut and 10dB pad
Soundking SKEB001 - Three pattern with 10 dB pad
Soundking SKEB002 - Cardioid with external high pass and external 10 dB pad
Soundking SEKB006 - Cardioid with internal low cut
Stagg MCO-7BK - Dual pattern with (internal) high pass, 10 dB pad (sold in UK)
Yorkville APEX 420 - Dual pattern with (internal?) high pass
Yorkville APEX 430 - Bare bones cardioid
Now, Marshall says that their mikes aren't made by the Shanghai factory at
all but are made in their own factory, but the board configuration is identical
and so you should be able to use this retrofit board in their mikes as well:
Marshall MXL2001P - Cardioid, bare bones (some have internal bass cut)
Marshall MXL2002 - Cardioid, three position switch for bass cut, 10 dB pad.
Marshall V67G - This is a stripped-down cardioid mike with a different case.
Even though the case is different, the board size is the same.(The Marshall MX2003, V77, MXL600 are very different)
Marshall V57 - This one uses a transformerless board.
MCA SP1 - Cardioid, bare bones, transformerless board.
The Langevin microphone is also not made at the Shanghai factory but the case
and capsule seem to be made on the same model. However, the electronics inside
are of Manley's design and a huge improvement over the stuff in the microphones
above; I suspect that this retrofit will degrade rather than improve them.
Langevin CR3A - Cardioid, 10 dB pad, external bass cut
The PML Joe Meek "Meekrophone" and the Behringer B-2 are definitely not
Shanghai mikes at all and as stock this board will not fit it, although
the board they use is larger and it may be possible to cut to fit. The
Studio Projects microphones come from the Beijing factory and also have
different boards. This board will not fit the BPM Studiotechnik mikes
either (for some reason, several folks have asked me about that).
The Groove Tube FET microphones are also made in China but they are made
on a different pattern and with totally different electronics. However,
because they are designed to handle large, well laid-out PC boards unlike
the majority of the Chinese mikes, it might be possible to fit these boards
into place with some mounting. On the other hand, these microphones have
substantially better electronics than the microphones listed above and might
not benefit at all from the retrofit.
Some folks have asked me if they will fit the Brand-X X21F condenser
mikes, but quite frankly I cannot find any information at all about
these microphones. Should you find out what they are, please let me
know in care of the publishers.
"Shanghai Mike is known all along the Yangtze for his dastardly ways."
-- AjD, not Warren Zevon
--cut here--This list is very incomplete and comes from an article I did on retrofit
boards for the Shanghai mikes earlier this year. There are a lot more
mike importers that have popped up since then with these things.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: SE Electronics Z 5600
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 02 13:15:51 GMT
Organization: Ty Ford Audio, a division of Technique, Inc.
In Article <SPDC9.58602$<__1.34325@rwcrnsc51...>>, "Ricky W.
Hunt" <<rickywhunt@hotmail...>> wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" <<kludge@panix...>> wrote in message
>news:are3vm$hsb$<1@panix2...>...
>> In article <3dd9fab8$0$8632$<edfadb0f@dread15...>>,
>> HKC <<henrikkrogh@mail...>> wrote:
>> It's the same Shanghai product a lot of other companies sell under other
>> names. If you like it, buy it. If you don't like it, pass on it.
>> --scott
>
>As usual Scott has given pearls of wisdom. Following this advice hardly ever
>results in buyer remorse compared to people who really like the sound of
>something but buy something total different because everyone tells them they
>should. I find in most home recording environments that better equipment can
>result in worse recordings simply because a good condenser (especially an
>omni) will only degrade their recording as it lets in more of the crappy
>room sound than a SM58 would.
As I've mentioned before, a Schoeps Mk41 hypercardioid (condenser) is the
home studio recordists friend. It doesn't hear the room and it sounds great.
Of course you can buy about 100 SM58s for the same price.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: SE Electronics Z 5600
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 02 13:18:16 GMT
Organization: Ty Ford Audio, a division of Technique, Inc.
hahaha!.
Please forgive me. Not enough caffeine. Make that 10 SM58's the price of the
Schoeps Mk41 has actually come down below $1k recently. Quite the buy.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
| Vocal mics [3] |
|---|
From: Matt Hayden <matthayden@hotmail...>
Subject: Vocal mics
Date: 20 Nov 2002 15:13:00 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
What's a good (preferably stereo) vocal mic that is good for hard disk
recording? I have a friend who's a singer & she needs a MUCH better
mic than what she's got (a relatively cheap computer mic).
thanks
mh
From: Valerie Magee <vlmagee@mageenet...>
Subject: Re: Vocal mics
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:21:14 GMT
Organization: Optimum Online
I would recommend the Marshall V69. It was highly recommended by the owner
of a top recording studio for our particular project which was to record
acoustic folk with a great female vocalist (Cathy Cowette, who posts here
occasionally). I don't remember the list price, but it is modest ($300 or
so), and you can buy new ones for much less on Ebay. If you want to hear
the results, listen to Leader Of The Band, Ribbon Of Darkness or Heaven
Help The Devil on this web page:
http://mageenet.net/Saratoga/Saratogaconcert.html
We also used another mic - which was a stereo mic - for ambient sound, set
a few feet away, but I don't think its effect was critical to the results.
We used a great mixer and sound card too, but the total investment was
modest. (We also got great speakers for the concert; their cost was not so
modest).
If you want more info, send me an e-mail. I'm new at this, but have been
lucky to get advice from some very knowledgeable people.
Matt Hayden wrote:
> What's a good (preferably stereo) vocal mic that is good for hard disk
> recording? I have a friend who's a singer & she needs a MUCH better
> mic than what she's got (a relatively cheap computer mic).
>
> thanks
> mh
--
Regards,
Valerie
AdamApps/Mageenet - Visit some of my web sites
... Gordon Lightfoot at http://gordonlightfoot.com
... Michael Jerling at http://michaeljerling.com
... Artist's retreat Yaddo at http://yaddo.org
... Adam Aircraft at http://adamaircraft.com
... Francos Wine Merchants at http://francoswine.com
... HRH Classics at http://hrhclassics.com
... Lightfoot Tribute Band at http://mageenet.org/LightfootTributeBand
... http://adamapps.biz and http://mageenet.biz
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Vocal mics
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 03:10:49 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article <7302a7d8.0211201512.62a05568@posting...>, Matt Hayden at
<matthayden@hotmail...> wrote on 11/20/02 3:13 PM:
> What's a good (preferably stereo) vocal mic that is good for hard disk
> recording? I have a friend who's a singer & she needs a MUCH better
> mic than what she's got (a relatively cheap computer mic).
>
> thanks
> mh
I don't understand why you would want a stereo mic for vocals. If youwant stereo cababilities, a matched pair of single source mics yields more
functionality. In any event, a Neumann TLM 103 is a decent vocal mic, and
great for acoustic guitar too (although many disagree with this last
opinion). Costs about $650 new from several online dealers. There are
numerous other large condensors (CAD, Oktava, Rode, etc.) that are very good
and less expensive ($200 to $500 range).
As far as recording goes, the mic is perhaps the most important piece inthe recording chain. Don't scrimp.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
| Favorite mic for vocals...Schoeps. [2] |
|---|
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Favorite mic for vocals...Schoeps.
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 02 13:11:09 GMT
Organization: Ty Ford Audio, a division of Technique, Inc.
In Article <qZdD9.101475$<QZ.16087@sccrnsc...>>, "Brad Harper"
<<productionsound@attbi...>> wrote:
>Need to buy a new vocal mic. Must be good all round mic for location
>recording of solo vocals. I use Schoeps for piano and vocal ensemble, but
>need an extra soloist mic.
>
>Brad Harper
>
>
No Problem. Buy another Schoeps. For location recording you want a CMC 6
with MK 41 hyper capsule. It'll also do very nicely for vocals; live (if you
don't eat it or perform in the wind and rain) or in the studio.
Now here's the really neat thing. I just got my second MK 41. They asked if
I wanted a matched mic for stereo work, I said, "Sure."
They went into their records in Germany to find the specs on my mic so they
could sell me one that matched it. The point is, I don't know of any company
with that sort of committment. It took several weeks, but now I have a
matched pair of world class mics.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Richard Kuschel <rickpv8945@aol...>
Subject: Re: Favorite mic for vocals...Schoeps.
Date: 22 Nov 2002 15:01:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>
>No Problem. Buy another Schoeps. For location recording you want a CMC 6
>with MK 41 hyper capsule. It'll also do very nicely for vocals; live (if you
>don't eat it or perform in the wind and rain) or in the studio.
>
>Now here's the really neat thing. I just got my second MK 41. They asked if
>I wanted a matched mic for stereo work, I said, "Sure."
>
>They went into their records in Germany to find the specs on my mic so they
>could sell me one that matched it. The point is, I don't know of any company
>with that sort of committment. It took several weeks, but now I have a
>matched pair of world class mics.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Ty Ford
>
>For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
>click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
>
>
>
I just bought a pair of CMC6/Mk41 Schoeps
and really like them for a lot of the work that I do.
Technically, they are supercardioids not hypercardioids, but that is realy
nitpicking.
The main advantage of these microphones is that they are extremely directional
and they have very even off axis response.
I also purchased the large wind screens, which come in handy if doing any voice
over work with them as well as any outdoor use.
These are a hollow black ball about 4inches in diameter with a plastic mount.
This microphone is absolutely clean. I have a large collection of microphones
and these are the most transparent that I have.
The output on these is so high that the microphone preamp being used becomes
less of a factor than it would with other microphones.
I have found nothing better at eliminating room reverberation and these may be
placed farther back and get close sound than any other microphones that I own
other than shotguns which tend to sound like a telephone.
I also purchased a pair of CUT 2 high pass filters and though I use them
primarily with the Omni pattern MK 2s capsules, they will also work for VO
application and outdoor work.
I have been using them with Great River and Millenia Media preamps, and these
are good enough that the sound and of the microphone becomes readily apparent.
Microphones with a high noise floor (anything over 20dBA) become obvious when
compared with the Schoeps.
Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty
| Home Recording Help: Timing, Mics, Pre-Amps [6] |
|---|
From: Goodfellow <vgoodfellowsk@hotmail...>
Subject: Home Recording Help: Timing, Mics, Pre-Amps
Date: 1 Dec 2002 21:20:10 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I have been making some multi-track recordings for my own amusement
using Pro Tools Free. I can record multiple tracks using a single
channel through an Imic onto my Imac. I find it is really hard to get
the timing right for recordings. If I use a click track to maintain an
even tempo the result sounds very even and mechanical. I like to play
music with varied tempo and pauses. I can record the back-up while
singing and then play back the back up and sing over it and it works
OK but if I am playing lead instrumentals I don't ever get the timing
of the back-up right unless I stick to a measured tempo using a click
track or metronome and then it sounds boring and mechanical. I'm
assuming most professionals either have much better sense of timing or
record multiple tracks simultaneously or both.
Also does anyone have good suggestions for inexpensive microphones for
recording vocals, guitar, mandolin, etc. In another thread someone
recomended a Behringer pre-amp/mixer for around 60 dollars... can I
use mics with 1/4" plugs in the pre-amp channel with this unit. I am
looking for something cheap and effective.
From: Jim Graham <james.graham2@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: Home Recording Help: Timing, Mics, Pre-Amps
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 07:12:31 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
I have a "cheap-mic" tip, I recently bought a Labtec computer mic for about
$20.00 at Business Depot for recording examples for students and I'm quite
surprised at the sound quality. It's not CD material but pretty darn good,
this is with no pre-amp(it has 1/8" jack but you can get adapters
everywhere),
"Goodfellow" <<vgoodfellowsk@hotmail...>> wrote in message
news:<602b3549.0212012120.4cb8f7b@posting...>...
> I have been making some multi-track recordings for my own amusement
> using Pro Tools Free. I can record multiple tracks using a single
> channel through an Imic onto my Imac. I find it is really hard to get
> the timing right for recordings. If I use a click track to maintain an
> even tempo the result sounds very even and mechanical. I like to play
> music with varied tempo and pauses. I can record the back-up while
> singing and then play back the back up and sing over it and it works
> OK but if I am playing lead instrumentals I don't ever get the timing
> of the back-up right unless I stick to a measured tempo using a click
> track or metronome and then it sounds boring and mechanical. I'm
> assuming most professionals either have much better sense of timing or
> record multiple tracks simultaneously or both.
>
> Also does anyone have good suggestions for inexpensive microphones for
> recording vocals, guitar, mandolin, etc. In another thread someone
> recomended a Behringer pre-amp/mixer for around 60 dollars... can I
> use mics with 1/4" plugs in the pre-amp channel with this unit. I am
> looking for something cheap and effective.
From: mtmikey <mtmikey@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Home Recording Help: Timing, Mics, Pre-Amps
Date: 2 Dec 2002 10:38:41 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<vgoodfellowsk@hotmail...> (Goodfellow) wrote in message news:<<602b3549.0212012120.4cb8f7b@posting...>>...
> I have been making some multi-track recordings for my own amusement
> using Pro Tools Free. I can record multiple tracks using a single
> channel through an Imic onto my Imac. I find it is really hard to get
> the timing right for recordings. If I use a click track to maintain an
> even tempo the result sounds very even and mechanical. I like to play
> music with varied tempo and pauses. I can record the back-up while
> singing and then play back the back up and sing over it and it works
> OK but if I am playing lead instrumentals I don't ever get the timing
> of the back-up right unless I stick to a measured tempo using a click
> track or metronome and then it sounds boring and mechanical. I'm
> assuming most professionals either have much better sense of timing or
> record multiple tracks simultaneously or both.
i just finished recording my first effort. my tempo was uneven on a
number of pieces. the slower the piece, the more i fluctuated. i like
playing rubato and stretching phrases, but there's no masking poor
time (i used to be a drummer and time-keeping is pretty fundamental to
me), and i can't call dragging or pushing "phrasing." it bothered me a
lot on the session. i tried playing with a click and it bothered me
more and seemed to make everything stiff and more unnatural. it's
something to work on. i would suggest practicing with a metronome more
frequently if you don't already and then just strive to be even and
groove when recording, and do it without a click. i find that when i
just try to find a groove and stick it there and not worry about it
overmuch i get better results. but my time still kinda sucks.
multitracking is hard, yes. i did a 3-track trio and it was really
hard to get everything to synch. i laid down the first track and just
made myself play the next two to the first, flubs and all.
i also found a lesson the hard way: Do Not Expect Miracles While The
Record Button Is On.
> Also does anyone have good suggestions for inexpensive microphones for
> recording vocals, guitar, mandolin, etc. In another thread someone
> recomended a Behringer pre-amp/mixer for around 60 dollars... can I
> use mics with 1/4" plugs in the pre-amp channel with this unit. I am
> looking for something cheap and effective.
i personally use a mackie vlz1202, which has mic-pres. there is a
behringer copy (i recently got some behringer truth monitors and they
worked fine) of the mackie. it may be the 602? folks have opinions.
either should work for your purposes and either will take 1/4" jacks
as well as XLRs.
i've thrown down too much money on too many little boxes over the last
year. my recommendation would be, if you plan to do any serious
recording in the future and want to sound good, spend the most you can
afford on equipment. in my limited experience, i would say get the
absolute best mics you can afford, and try to afford better than that.
other than your guitar, i think the mics are probably the most crucial
piece of the chain. that's been true for me, anyway. i have made do
with an AKG c1000s and c2000b, recorded stereo, over the past year.
the sound is lacking (and, the truth be told, so am i). if i had it
all do do again, for all the little diddlybits i've bought and
returned and not used or hated, i'd have gone for a 3000b or 4000b at
minimum and i might have scrunged for a pair of c414b/tlIIs. it's a
sick lot of money, but, as was stated elsewhere on this forum
recently, a good mic will last a lifetime. it's worth the money, imho.
having said all of that, there are definitely cheaper options out
there.
i would also suggest making nice with a producer-engineer-type-friend.
good luck.
best,
mkg
From: William D Clinger <cesura@qnci...>
Subject: Re: Home Recording Help: Timing, Mics, Pre-Amps
Date: 2 Dec 2002 13:33:26 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Goodfellow wrote:
> I have been making some multi-track recordings for my own amusement...
> I find it is really hard to get
> the timing right for recordings. If I use a click track to maintain an
> even tempo the result sounds very even and mechanical. I like to play
> music with varied tempo and pauses. I can record the back-up while
> singing and then play back the back up and sing over it and it works
> OK but if I am playing lead instrumentals I don't ever get the timing
> of the back-up right unless I stick to a measured tempo using a click
> track or metronome and then it sounds boring and mechanical....
You can create your click track by banging a spoon against a water
glass while you hum the melody softly or count the beats out loud.
That kind of click track won't be too mechanical.
After recording a click track, I like to record the bass and rhythm
parts first, and then to record the vocals or lead instruments on
top of them. If the lead parts aren't quite in sync with the rhythm
parts, then I'd record new rhythm parts, following along with the
original except for the problem spots, where I'd follow the lead
parts instead. It shouldn't be any harder than playing along with
a CD.
Will
From: George W. <geowirth@comcast...>
Subject: Re: Home Recording Help: Timing, Mics, Pre-Amps
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 23:14:16 -0500
On 1 Dec 2002 21:20:10 -0800, Goodfellow wrote:
>Also does anyone have good suggestions for inexpensive microphones for
>recording vocals, guitar, mandolin, etc. In another thread someone
>recomended a Behringer pre-amp/mixer for around 60 dollars... can I
>use mics with 1/4" plugs in the pre-amp channel with this unit. I am
>looking for something cheap and effective.
I have a small Behringer mixer and you can use XLR or 1/4" plugs on
the mic channels. You'll probably get a bunch of good mic suggestions.
I picked up a MXL package with a large and small diaphragm condenser
for about $150 that I used for the CD3 submissions. I listened to them
recently and think the recording quality is truly bad. To me they now
sound very murky and unnatural, but I'm sure this has to do with my
inexperience with recording and my frustration with the whole process
rather than the mics.
Since then I picked up a pair of mini Audio Technica cardioids
(SP-CMC-2's from Sound Professionals, $119) to use with a minidisc and
they sound so good I wish I had them for the CD recordings. I may sell
the other mics. Turns out I prefer just recording one take to stereo
instead of multi-tracking. Laziness on my part, and the extra work of
multitracking sure didn't improve my playing. Anyway, I'm really
impressed with these mics for recording vocals and guitar. You can
configure them in a number of ways since the come on 6' cords. If you
use them in anything other than a minidisc you'll need a 9v battery
module to supply power for them. (NOT phantom power from the mixer!)
G.
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Home Recording Help: Timing, Mics, Pre-Amps
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 11:06:23 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
"George W." wrote:
>
> Since then I picked up a pair of mini Audio Technica cardioids
> (SP-CMC-2's from Sound Professionals, $119) to use with a minidisc and
> they sound so good I wish I had them for the CD recordings.
I recorded a Christmas concert by a harp/oboe/violin trio a year
ago. The main source was a pair of Oktava MC012s with omni capsules
on a Jecklin disk somewhat above and in front of the trio. However,
I wanted to be able to bring out the harp (the featured instrument)
in the mix, so I wanted to put an ORTF stereo pair in front of the harp.
I didn't have a pair of "normal" mics for this, but at the time I
happened to be working on a portable dual mic gizmo and I had a pair
of Audio Technica AT831 capsules for this (they sell a version of this
mini mic specifically for acoustic guitar, the AT831b). I wired up a remote
power source for them and used them as the ORTF pair for the harp,
and I was surprised at how reasonable they sounded. Not fantastic,
but not bad at all considering the price.
The main thing to keep in mind about using very small mics for
recording is that, as a general rule, smaller diaphragms mean
lower signal-to-noise ratio (more hiss). Thus they aren't really
the best type of mic to consider for recording something quiet
(e.g., your favorite fingerpicked lullabye). But they are certainly
usable, and it can be handy to have a very small and portable mic
in your arsenal.
Peace,
Tom
| Condenser Mic - What would you do? [9] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Condenser Mic - What would you do?
Date: 05 Dec 2002 04:04:49 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I'm about to pull the trigger on a small cap condenser for my live solo stuff.
I've narrowed it down to 3. Here are the models and prices. Which would you
choose and why?
Shure SM81 - $280 new in box
Oktava MC012 - $200 new with windscreen (from The Soundroom)
SE Electronics SE1 - $87 from our own G.G.
Sound quality is my biggest issue so I don't mind spending close to $300 to get
it. Durability is a close second, and I'm not sure about that with the SE or
even the Oktava. But if all things are equal between the three, I don't care
whose name is on it. Oh yeah, I can get the Oktava with a hypercardiod cap and
only cardiod on the other two if that makes any big difference. So whatcha
think? Thanks!
Mitch
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Condenser Mic - What would you do?
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:36:49 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021204230449.13533.00010018@mb-mj...>...
> I'm about to pull the trigger on a small cap
> condenser for my live solo stuff. I've narrowed
> it down to 3. Here are the models and prices.
> Which would you choose and why?
>
> Shure SM81 - $280 new in box
>
> Oktava MC012 - $200 new with windscreen
> (from The Soundroom)
>
> SE Electronics SE1 - $87 from our own G.G.
>
> Sound quality is my biggest issue so I don't mind
> spending close to $300 to get it. Durability is a
> close second, and I'm not sure about that with
> the SE or even the Oktava. But if all things are
> equal between the three, I don't care whose
> name is on it. Oh yeah, I can get the Oktava
> with a hypercardiod cap and only cardiod on
> the other two if that makes any big difference.
> So whatcha think? Thanks!
>
> Mitch
I don't own any of these mics, so take this with a grain of salt.
Based on what I've read online, I'd go for the Octava MC012-01. If
you're not buying a matched pair for stereo, you can save $50 on the
cardioid capsule model by ordering from www.musiciansfriend.com.
That's a hit or miss proposition, but it will help you save money
for the matched pair of stereo Neumann KM-184's that you really
want for recording, later on. ;-)
The main attraction of the Shure SM81 is the mechanical
construction, not the sound. It might survive more stage abuse than
the other mics in this price range.
The SE1 mics that G.G. sells may be just as good as the Octavas....
I don't know, I haven't heard them.
For a stage mic, I would be looking at the mechanical fittings; how
rugged the shell was, the XLR connector, etc. A great-sounding
condenser mic won't work for you if it can't survive a few years of
stage abuse.
Mike Barrs
From: No Busking <nobusking@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Condenser Mic - What would you do?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 12:00:07 GMT
MKarlo asked:
> > I'm about to pull the trigger on a small cap
> > condenser for my live solo stuff. I've narrowed
> > it down to 3. Here are the models and prices.
> > Which would you choose and why?
Mike Barrs replied:
> I don't own any of these mics, so take this with a grain of salt.
> Based on what I've read online, I'd go for the Octava MC012-01. If
> you're not buying a matched pair for stereo, you can save $50 on the
> cardioid capsule model by ordering from www.musiciansfriend.com.
The hypercardoid cap on the Oktava might be handy for live work (they're
great inexpensive stage mics for acoustic instruments). I don't use
hypercardoids in the studio...don't know if others do. If you're not
playing with a loud ensemble, the cardoid is probably fine.
The Oktava's sound great for the money, IMO, and Guitar Center and
Musician's Friend ARE selling the MK012 for $100 each (I just bought a
couple). It's worth pointing out, though, that people on this newsgroup
have had issues with quality control on Oktava mic's before, and dealing
with the Sound Room gives you an extra layer of protection...they really do
stand behind their gear, and are a pleasure to deal with (I bought my MC319
from them).
Bottom line for me, when the price difference was $50, it was a no brainer
to deal with the Sound Room. When the cost of a mic at Guitar Center is
half, though, they get my business and I'll thoroughly check the mic myself.
Mike makes a good point about ruggedness, although it's too early for me to
report on the roadworthiness of the Oktava. They SEEM sturdy enough, but
time will tell, since I bought them primarily for live work. I figured that
at the price, I could afford to burn through a few of them experimenting.
BTW...I noticed that Guitar Center also selling the Octava 319 for $100, and
the MK219 for $70.
Cheers,
Mike Pugh
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Condenser Mic - What would you do?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 07:08:16 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
in article <20021204230449.13533.00010018@mb-mj...>, MKarlo at
<mkarlo@aol...> wrote on 12/4/02 8:04 PM:
> I'm about to pull the trigger on a small cap condenser for my live solo stuff.
> I've narrowed it down to 3. Here are the models and prices. Which would you
> choose and why?
>
> Shure SM81 - $280 new in box
>
> Oktava MC012 - $200 new with windscreen (from The Soundroom)
>
> SE Electronics SE1 - $87 from our own G.G.
>
> Sound quality is my biggest issue so I don't mind spending close to $300 to
> get
> it. Durability is a close second, and I'm not sure about that with the SE or
> even the Oktava. But if all things are equal between the three, I don't care
> whose name is on it. Oh yeah, I can get the Oktava with a hypercardiod cap
> and
> only cardiod on the other two if that makes any big difference. So whatcha
> think? Thanks!
>
> Mitch
The Oktava would be nice, particularly from The Soundroom. Check outthe T.H.E. Mics they have too. Eventually, you might want a pair of mics
for the guitar. No set rules. Many like two of the same model. Others
like two different mics.
If you have the funds, you should consider the Neumann KM 184 or NeumannTLM 103. Further up the food chain are Schoeps, DPA, Lawson or Brauner.
--
Stephen T. Boyke
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: Condenser Mic - What would you do?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 07:35:37 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021204230449.13533.00010018@mb-mj...>...
> I'm about to pull the trigger on a small cap condenser for my live solo
stuff.
> I've narrowed it down to 3. Here are the models and prices. Which would
you
> choose and why?
>
> Shure SM81 - $280 new in box
>
> Oktava MC012 - $200 new with windscreen (from The Soundroom)
>
> SE Electronics SE1 - $87 from our own G.G.
>
> Sound quality is my biggest issue so I don't mind spending close to $300
to get
> it. Durability is a close second, and I'm not sure about that with the SE
or
> even the Oktava. But if all things are equal between the three, I don't
care
> whose name is on it. Oh yeah, I can get the Oktava with a hypercardiod
cap and
> only cardiod on the other two if that makes any big difference. So
whatcha
> think? Thanks!
>
> Mitch
Mitch, I just bought one of those SE1 mics from George, and I'm quite
surprised as to how good it sounds.
I think you need one in your bag if only for a back up.
I haven't taken it out of the house yet, because I'm still working on my
technique (I'm a notorious rocker and bouncer when I play) but I've
experimented with it quite a bit and it sounds really good.
Bob Dorgan
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Condenser Mic - What would you do?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:36:29 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021204230449.13533.00010018@mb-mj...>...
> I'm about to pull the trigger on a small cap condenser for my live solo
stuff.
> I've narrowed it down to 3. Here are the models and prices. Which would
you
> choose and why?
>
> Shure SM81 - $280 new in box
>
> Oktava MC012 - $200 new with windscreen (from The Soundroom)
>
> SE Electronics SE1 - $87 from our own G.G.
>
>
What the nsm81 give you that the others do not is a 3 position bass roll off
switch and a minus 10dB pad
making useful in more situations
you are not buying "better" sound but rather usable sound for more
applications
the sm 81 is a very "thin" sounding mic and its mechanical construction
does not please me, there was a recent thead on sm81 at aapls you may want
to read it
the octava is a fine mic I have used them and have no quarrels with them and
was going to buy some
until
I sampled the SE1 which sounds equally as good as either of these other
mics is more rugged(strong cage around element) I am very happy with the
se1 which is why I sell iif it did not work I would not offer it
the advantage of buying from the sound room or GC or other larger retailer
is that you can return things, I do not accept returns unless it is a used
item that I already own
If i need to buy it special for you I do not want it back
George
From: Roope <roope.palomaki@pp...>
Subject: Re: Condenser Mic - What would you do?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:45:36 GMT
Organization: Sonera corp Internet services
Oktava. Definitely.
R
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> kirjoitti
viestissä:<20021204230449.13533.00010018@mb-mj...>...
> I'm about to pull the trigger on a small cap condenser for my live solo
stuff.
> I've narrowed it down to 3. Here are the models and prices. Which would
you
> choose and why?
>
> Shure SM81 - $280 new in box
>
> Oktava MC012 - $200 new with windscreen (from The Soundroom)
>
> SE Electronics SE1 - $87 from our own G.G.
>
> Sound quality is my biggest issue so I don't mind spending close to $300
to get
> it. Durability is a close second, and I'm not sure about that with the SE
or
> even the Oktava. But if all things are equal between the three, I don't
care
> whose name is on it. Oh yeah, I can get the Oktava with a hypercardiod
cap and
> only cardiod on the other two if that makes any big difference. So
whatcha
> think? Thanks!
>
> Mitch
From: joe myers <doobashoe@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Condenser Mic - What would you do?
Date: 5 Dec 2002 07:00:55 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote in message news:<<20021204230449.13533.00010018@mb-mj...>>...
> I'm about to pull the trigger on a small cap condenser for my live solo stuff.
> I've narrowed it down to 3. Here are the models and prices. Which would you
> choose and why?
>
> Shure SM81 - $280 new in box
>
> Oktava MC012 - $200 new with windscreen (from The Soundroom)
>
> SE Electronics SE1 - $87 from our own G.G.
>
> Sound quality is my biggest issue so I don't mind spending close to $300 to get
> it. Durability is a close second, and I'm not sure about that with the SE or
> even the Oktava. But if all things are equal between the three, I don't care
> whose name is on it. Oh yeah, I can get the Oktava with a hypercardiod cap and
> only cardiod on the other two if that makes any big difference. So whatcha
> think? Thanks!
>
> Mitch
Not one of your 3, but the Gefell M-300 is also quite nice. (Slightly
used around $300 but not easy to find).
Of the 3, I'd choose the Oktava, if it's a good one.
joe myers
http://www.joemyers.net
From: Francis Guidry <fguidry@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Condenser Mic - What would you do?
Date: 5 Dec 2002 08:15:58 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
<mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote in message news:<<20021204230449.13533.00010018@mb-mj...>>...
> I'm about to pull the trigger on a small cap condenser for my live solo stuff.
> I've narrowed it down to 3. Here are the models and prices. Which would you
> choose and why?
>
> Shure SM81 - $280 new in box
>
> Oktava MC012 - $200 new with windscreen (from The Soundroom)
>
> SE Electronics SE1 - $87 from our own G.G.
On rec.audio.pro and other sites, I've heard recommendations for the
AKG 535. It's designed as a handheld vocal mic, I believe, but it is
often recommended for micing acoustic guitars.
I have heard that the MC012 is very sensitive to wind noise if you'll
be outdoors.
I prefer the sound of my Sound Room MC012s to my Shure SM81.
Fran
>
> Sound quality is my biggest issue so I don't mind spending close to $300 to get
> it. Durability is a close second, and I'm not sure about that with the SE or
> even the Oktava. But if all things are equal between the three, I don't care
> whose name is on it. Oh yeah, I can get the Oktava with a hypercardiod cap and
> only cardiod on the other two if that makes any big difference. So whatcha
> think? Thanks!
>
> Mitch
| Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar? [14] |
|---|
From: Brian Huether <brian.huether@dlr...>
Subject: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:17:06 +0100
Organization: http://www.TeraNews.com - FREE NNTP Access
I want a mic that will capture the sparkly high freqs of an acoustic guitar.
My budget is about $200. Any recommendations?
-brian
From: Timothy A. Lyons <bluebass@optonline...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:27:10 GMT
Organization: Blue Bass Recording
Brian Huether wrote:
>
> I want a mic that will capture the sparkly high freqs of an acoustic guitar.
> My budget is about $200. Any recommendations?
>
> -brian
I've had some real nice results with an Oktava mc012. Get one from The Sound Room
and you won't have to worry about QC issues.
Tim L
--
Blue Bass Recording
Port Jefferson Station NY
From: chetatkinsdiet <mwood5@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: 5 Dec 2002 11:56:45 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
> I've had some real nice results with an Oktava mc012. Get one from The Sound Room
> and you won't have to worry about QC issues.
>
> Tim L
I was just recording acoustic guitar last night and had great results
with my mc012 that came from GC. While there might be QC issues, it
was no big deal for me to check a few out and pick the best. I don't
have the money to throw around like some of these big time engineers
that frequent this site...(sarcasm)...so I didn't mind spending an
hour or so checking out the mics in GC to get a couple of nice ones
for $89ea.
later,
m
From: Rob Adelman <radelman@mn...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 10:07:20 -0600
Jny Vee wrote:
>
> AKG 535
I second this. It should also be noted that the placement of the
microphone, even an inch or 2 will effect the frequency response a whole
bunch.
-Rob
From: Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:08:22 +0000 (UTC)
In article <<3DEF79B8.BFB36412@mn...>> Rob Adelman <<radelman@mn...>>
writes:
>
>
> Jny Vee wrote:
> >
> > AKG 535
>
>
> I second this. It should also be noted that the placement of the
> microphone, even an inch or 2 will effect the frequency response a whole
> bunch.
>
> -Rob
Make that 3 votes for the 535. AKG should really increase their range of usage
recommendations for this under-rated mic. But then they might not sell any
C-1000s.
-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: 5 Dec 2002 21:04:48 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
rocksteady <<rocksteady@attbi...>> wrote:
>Gee I hated the AKG 535 when I tried it on guitar (I'm a guitar
>player). I would try an MXL 603 or an Oktava for under $200. But
>since you guys like the 535 so much, I'll give mine another try on
>guitar.
Move it around until you find the right spot. Too far up and you get
clattering stuff. Too far down and it's bass heavy. Find the place
where it's balanced.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Jay Kadis <jay@ccrma...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:10:57 +0000 (UTC)
In article <<1ktvuuobju6nh9okeatb7dft9bp61u2jsq@4ax...>> rocksteady
<<rocksteadyNOSPAM@attbi...>> writes:
> Gee I hated the AKG 535 when I tried it on guitar (I'm a guitar
> player). I would try an MXL 603 or an Oktava for under $200. But
> since you guys like the 535 so much, I'll give mine another try on
> guitar.
>
> Al
>
I've had good backing rhythm sounds with the C535 on my D-18 and I got a cool
sort-of-nylon-string-like sound from my Backpacker for simulating a
hypothetical African instrument, but I generally use a more expensive mic if
the guitar is the main attraction. For a cheap mic, I like the C535 better
than anything else in that price range I've tried.
I have been meaning to try the 603 but haven't had the opportunity yet.
-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 02 15:52:19 GMT
Organization: Ty Ford Audio, a division of Technique, Inc.
In Article <3def168d$<1_8@news...>>, "Brian Huether"
<<brian.huether@dlr...>> wrote:
>I want a mic that will capture the sparkly high freqs of an acoustic guitar.
>My budget is about $200. Any recommendations?
>
>-brian
First, does your guitar actually have sparkly high frequencies? Fortunately
for me, my Martin doesn't.
Second, at $200, any mic you think gives you sparkly high frequencies will
cause you bigger problems than you are prepared to deal with.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: Mike Tulley <mktBOGUSsys@telusplanet...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 16:27:47 GMT
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:17:06 +0100, "Brian Huether"
<<brian.huether@dlr...>> wrote:
>I want a mic that will capture the sparkly high freqs of an acoustic guitar.
>My budget is about $200. Any recommendations?
Marshall MXL603s
Dirt cheap.
If you don't like it, you haven't lost much.
AKG C535
Good, all-round microphone.
You'll find many other uses for it.
Oktava MC012
Good small-diaphragm condenser.
Beware of the QC drop-outs sold by some US chain MI stores.
Marshall MXL2001
Boom & sparkle
Where did the melody go?
Why does the sparkle sound like broken glass?
From: Kevin Kelly <kellykevm@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: 05 Dec 2002 16:56:55 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< I want a mic that will capture the sparkly high freqs of an acoustic guitar.
My budget is about $200. Any recommendations? >>
How about a trusty Shure SM-81? While it doesn't add as much "sparkle" as say
an AKG451, it IS on the bright side, and the going ebay rate is about $160 -
200 used.
Kevin M. Kelly
"There needs to be a 12-step program for us gearheads"
From: Lee Wadsworth <laptoppop@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: 05 Dec 2002 17:25:12 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
If you have a nice sounding room to play in, the Behringer ECM8000 is a
suprisingly nice mic for acoustic guitar. It is an omnidirectional mic so you
need nice space for it. The great thing is that it is very very inexpensive.
Personally, I like the guitar sounds I'm getting by mixing a large diaphram
condensor close mic'd a couple of inches below the bridge with a small diaphram
condensor close mic'd around the 12th fret. However, your results will
undoubtedly vary, depending on the instrument you use, the room you record in,
the res of your equipment, etc.
Good luck!
-lee-
From: Ricky W. Hunt <rickywhunt@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:33:50 GMT
Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet
Studio Projects B3, Marshall MXL 603s, used Shure SM81.
"Brian Huether" <<brian.huether@dlr...>> wrote in message
news:3def168d$<1_8@news...>...
> I want a mic that will capture the sparkly high freqs of an acoustic
guitar.
> My budget is about $200. Any recommendations?
>
> -brian
>
>
From: Booger <booger@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 19:37:40 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
On Thu, 05 Dec 2002 18:33:50 GMT, "Ricky W. Hunt"
<<rickywhunt@hotmail...>> wrote:
>Studio Projects B3, Marshall MXL 603s, used Shure SM81.
Another vote for the SM81. They sound good and have a bass rolloff
switch to kill "whumps". You can also try a large condensor (i.e. Rode
NT1000) which are @ in that budget range and double nicely for vocals.
From: Booger <booger@nospam...>
Subject: Re: Mic under $200 for recording acoustic guitar?
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 22:08:17 GMT
Organization: Cox Communications
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:16:32 +0100, "Brian Huether"
<<brian.huether@t-online...>> wrote:
>thanks for all the advice!! not sure what I'll go with now...
Why not go to a music store and audition a couple of the ones people
mentioned? Set up 2 or 3 of the ones you are interested in and you'll
know pretty quickly which one is right. No one on a newsgroup can
possibly account for your taste and even the particular mic that you
end up with (i.e. 2 of the same model of mics can sound different).
| Oktava mic: Is this right? [8] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Oktava mic: Is this right?
Date: 22 Dec 2002 17:48:27 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In prepartation for the Great Low-End Mic Shootout being held at my place after
the 1st, I'm rounding up the contestants (this is merely for fun and the
learning experience, and just because, I can). I picked up the $99 special at
GC the other day, and when you shake the pre body, there's a rattle like
something loose flying around in there. Should this be?
If you're interested, these are the mics I'm trying, all small cap condesers:
Oktava MK012 (from GC - I'll trade out for a non-rattler if you guys say so)
Shure PG81 (eeeuuuu - it has an on/off switch on it)
SE Electronics SE1 (from George - don't worry G.G. For 87 bucks delivered I
won't be delivering it even if it doesn't "win")
Oktava MC012 from the Soundroom with hyper cap (all others can only do
cardioid)
Any other suggestions? I think these represent a good cross-section of very
affordable mics for the live sound thing. Remember, I am not recording, else I
would drop the cash for a really good Neumann or the like.
Monty Karlo
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Oktava mic: Is this right?
Date: 22 Dec 2002 19:36:13 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< I picked up the $99 special at
GC the other day, and when you shake the pre body, there's a rattle like
something loose flying around in there. Should this be? >>
No. Take it back and swap it for one w/o loose components! The Oktava
fit'n'finish ain't all that great to begin with (check the threadings... not
fun) so don't settle for any of them that have loose bits.
<< Oktava MC012 from the Soundroom with hyper cap (all others can only do
cardioid)
Any other suggestions? >>
Weelllll.... Using the MC012 with a hypercardioid capsule -will- be different.
In my experience the hyper' capsule does respond differently from the stdcardioid capsules of the other mics...
stv
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Oktava mic: Is this right?
Date: 22 Dec 2002 20:04:12 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Weelllll.... Using the MC012 with a hypercardioid capsule -will- be
>different.
> In my experience the hyper' capsule does respond differently from the std
>cardioid capsules of the other mics...
>
>stv
>
In what ways, besides better feedback rejection? Would I have to mic more
closely? My thinking is, I can get away with it in a louder environ with a
hyper cap vs. just cardiod. Am I on the right track?
mk
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oktava mic: Is this right?
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 20:52:23 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021222150412.03148.00000254@mb-cc...>...
> >Weelllll.... Using the MC012 with a hypercardioid capsule -will- be
> >different.
> > In my experience the hyper' capsule does respond differently from the
std
> >cardioid capsules of the other mics...
> >
> >stv
> >
>
> In what ways, besides better feedback rejection? Would I have to mic more
> closely? My thinking is, I can get away with it in a louder environ with
a
> hyper cap vs. just cardiod. Am I on the right track?
>
there is no magic fiarey in the hypercard that creates better feedback
rejection aamof it only has better performance as long as the sounds your
rejecting fall into the nulls(at +/- 135 degrees off axis) of a supercards
pattern
the supercard actully has a LOBE comeing off it 180 degrees opposite the
element where it would be more likely to feedback when compared to a
card(whos Null is 180 degrees opposite the cap)
a super will reach a touch farther but not generally sound quite as good asa card
much as no one tire is right for diffrent terrains and vehicals no one mic
pattern is right for every application
George
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oktava mic: Is this right?
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 01:30:22 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20021222174022.03148.00000255@mb-cc...>...
> >there is no magic fiarey in the hypercard that creates better feedback
> >rejection aamof it only has better performance as long as the sounds
your
> >rejecting fall into the nulls(at +/- 135 degrees off axis) of a
supercards
> >pattern
> >the supercard actully has a LOBE comeing off it 180 degrees opposite the
> >element where it would be more likely to feedback when compared to a
> >card(whos Null is 180 degrees opposite the cap)
> > a super will reach a touch farther but not generally sound quite as good
as
> >a card
> >much as no one tire is right for diffrent terrains and vehicals no one
mic
> >pattern is right for every application
> >George
>
> Thanks for this George. All I'm after is better rejection of the monitors
> which are usually placed somewhere around 135 degrees off axis for me. Are
you
> saying the hyper-card pattern would do that better, or will the cardioid
do
> just as well.
>
> Mitch
monitor placement with a card is 180 degrees off axis
with a supoer card 135 degrees
you can actualy use two monitors with a supercard where with a card there is
only one loction for your monitor
George
From: Hedberg <hhedberg@swbell...>
Subject: Re: Oktava mic: Is this right?
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:06:02 -0800
On 22 Dec 2002 17:48:27 GMT, <mkarlo@aol...> (MKarlo) wrote:
> I picked up the $99 special at
>GC the other day, and when you shake the pre body, there's a rattle like
>something loose flying around in there. Should this be?
>[...]
>Oktava MK012 (from GC - I'll trade out for a non-rattler if you guys say so)
>
[...]
I got a couple from Jim McCrain who got them from guitar center. Mine
DO NOT rattle. I think you should exchange it.
Jim went down to GC and bought a couple hundred of them (ok, maybe 10)
and returned maybe half as not being acceptable. Jim can correct me
if I lied here.
I think they sound fine though I think they are a little noisy as
compared to an SM81 (which costs about 3X as much). But, the SM81
makes a pretty nice vocal mic and Shure makes a nice accessory pop
filter if the supplied sponge doesn't do the trick. For me the sponge
works fine -- contrary to what Lureen says, I'm not a heavy breather.
Well, I don't breathe heavily, anyway.
Harold
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oktava mic: Is this right?
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:38:27 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
> SE Electronics SE1 (from George - don't worry G.G. For 87 bucks delivered
I
> won't be delivering it even if it doesn't "win")
I make the SE-1 available on a fully refundable(except return shipping
costs) basis for 14 days
I have 3 new ones in stock at this time
George
>
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Oktava mic: Is this right?
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 01:34:19 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
TarBabyTunes wrote:
>
> << Oktava MC012 from the Soundroom with hyper cap (all others can only do
> cardioid)
>
> Any other suggestions? >>
>
> Weelllll.... Using the MC012 with a hypercardioid capsule -will- be different.
> In my experience the hyper' capsule does respond differently from the std
> cardioid capsules of the other mics...
Mitch, a mic's pattern affects its off-axis frequency response, and
since any mic is typically picking up sound from many directions, the
pattern difference can change the tone significantly. In this case,
the hyper capsule on the MC012 happens to have a worse reputation
than the card & omni capsules. Do a rec.audio.pro search for some
on this. My own experience with mine (I have a pair with all three
capsules) bears this out. Try to get a card. If you were doing
this for recording, I'd even suggest getting a omni....
Peace,
Tom
