| Marshall Microphones Review - Finally. [13] |
|---|
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:23:51 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<This has been posted to BOTH rec.audio.pro AND alt.music.4-track.>
Ok, my pinched sciatic nerve thing died down, and Alex and I finally got around
to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the testing
was done formally, and it's all pretty subjective, but in talking to Brent Casey
at Marshall, he pretty well confirmed what I heard, so I think my comments will
be of some use to people here.
Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll off the
assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms materials, the
porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the line
consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics (about
the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson, Karl
Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that Brent
Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender in the
mic market.
All the mics looked well made, and we had no problems with any of them, or the
supplied shock mounts. Noise levels weren't a problem with any of the mics,
although we didn't do any testing with really quiet instruments.
One of my concerns was consistancy from unit to unit. After we got the first
batch, I had Brent send some extra units (off the shelf) so I could actually
compare two units for possible differences. I'm happy to report that all the
units I received were consistant and would do fine as stereo pairs.
All tests were done thru a Great River MP-2, with the microphone under test
polarity reversed and nulled (to match initial levels), then normalled to do the
actual comparison. We used the level controls on the GR to note differences in
gain.
While I listened to the mics in the studio using headphones, Alex listened in
the control room, using our main speakers (wall-mounted JBL-4311Bs, with a
Cerwin Vega subwoofer). We compared notes and in almost every case, Alex and I
agreed completely on the results (so we didn't hafta trust my "rock-n-roll shot
ears").
The units we listened to included:
1 Marshall MXL "The Fox" hand-held dynamic.
1 Marshall MXL-1000 hand-held condensor
2 Marshall MXL-600 small condensor mics
2 Marshall MXL-603 small condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-2001 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-2003 large condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-V67 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-V77 tube large condensor mics
Comparison mics included:
1 Neumann TLM-103
2 matched Oktava MC012s w/cardioid capsules
1 Lomo M3 large condensor mic on MC012 body
1 Shure SM-7 dynamic
1 Shure SM-58 dynamic
1 Nady SCM-1000 multi-pattern condensor
The results:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mics we didn't like:
Marshall MXL-2001 $130?? Sorry, I can't find the MSRP right now. Harsh top end,
thin bottom, compared to the TLM-103. It was a little warmer than the Nady
SCM-1000, but the Nady had a smoother top end. The 2001 is everything that I
don't like about all the really inexpensive large diaphragm condensor mics that
I've listened to over the years, including the AKG C3000, the Oktava 219, and
some of the early AT low cost units.
Marshall MXL-600 $270 Veiled top end and exaggerated low-mid, compared to the
Oktava MC-012. About 1 dB lower output than the Oktava. It just sounded very
dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.
The mics we did like:
The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had
good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure
SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back
sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people
having a few around for live gigs.
Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
(The lack of proximity effect that I noted in an earlier report about the 2003,
was due to me accidently hitting the bass rolloff switch while I was putting it
in its shock mount. When I noticed normal proximity effect with a second unit,
I discovered my screwup.)
Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are
easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the
singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd
probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also
a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
Marshall MXL 1000 $99 This was the hand-held condensor mic that Marshall was
pushing as a KM-105. It totally sucked as a hand-held vocal mic. Brent Casey
suggested I try it without the end ball, and I discovered it was basically the
603 in a Shure-type body. Without the ball end fucking up the sound, it was
identical in sound to the 603.
Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's
very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect).
It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference
in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.
Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks,
and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a
C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even
more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103,
with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male
vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared
very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you
wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67.
And it just happens to sound great, too.
The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the
Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the
V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
Well, that's the results - it wasn't a fancy test, and YMMV, but overall, I
think it might be helpful to some people, especially if you're a "bottom feeder"
studio as we are. As I mentioned earlier, Brent said that our tests pretty much
agreed with his findings, and that at least confirmed that we were all hearing
pretty much the same things.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:00:36 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Chris G." <<chrisgie@txdirect...>> wrote:
>
>Thanks for the great review! I wish I could find one of the green V-67's.
>I'll probably end up saving for a V-77, but now that you said that the
>MXL-603's sound like MC-012's I might get those instead as my home studio is
>lacking a pair of high quality small diaphragm condenser mics.
The 603 would be a good choice for an inexpensive small pair.
>I'm still
>surprised that you didn't like the MXL-2001's at all though. I A/B'd it
>directly with a AKG C3000 at Mars Music and thought that it sounded nothing
>like the C3000. I also just got through recording two female vocalists
>last night and the recording came out VERY smooth and warm as it has on all
>of the vocals I've recorded with it so far. I'm not even eq'ing the vocals
>either...just a bit of reverb. Very strange how people either hate or love
>that mic. But I bow to your judgement because you have WAAAAY more
>experience then me with high quality mics.
Chris,
As you well know, I've never been a fan of the AKG C3000, but one of the times
it worked well was on a female voice. The Marshall MXL-2001 isn't a bad mic per
se, but it's similar to a lot of the low end large diaphragm mics that I don't
particularly like, due to the spitty top end (and the C3000 falls into that
category).
I'd probably choose a MXL-2001 over a C3000, if I was forced to use one or the
other. On some female vocals, it would probably sound very good, but it
wouldn't be a mic that got a lot of use in our studio. (Vocals always surprise
me, since I never know exactly which mic will be best for a particular voice;
sometimes it's a high dollar mic; sometimes, it's the bottom of my mic barrel.)
I look for mics that are either "Swiss Army Knives", or "One Trick Ponies", but
they must do that trick VERY well. If you don't have any other large condensor
mics, the MXL-2001 might be ok for some things, and probably better than dynamic
mics in many situations.
As a bottom feeder studio, I hafta watch where the bucks go, and even though the
MXL-2001 is relatively inexpensive, I don't think it would get much use here,
especially when you consider the other choices we have available. Even the V67
is what I'd consider a "One Trick Pony", but it will do that trick really well,
when I need it.
And the standard "YMMV" disclaimer is never more true than when it comes to mic
evaluations. Take mine with a large pinch of salt. <g>
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:11:35 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Chris G." <<chrisgie@txdirect...>> wrote:
>You know what is funny is that on certain vocals with the first Marshall
>MXL-2001 I used the mic did indeed sound harsh and bit "spitty" like the AKG
>C-3000. Even on my own voice it sounded harsh, however that was only on
>Mackie 1202VLZ PRO mic preamps. That same mic sounded nice and warm on my
>older Mackie 1202VLZ and on my Presonus Blue Tube mic preamp. So I'm
>still thinking that the mic pres having something to do with the sound of
>that mic. Although I know at least one person on the alt.music.4-track NG
>said their 2001 mic sucked on their 1202 VLZ. Just to check if my ears are
>toast (because I played in loud metal bands for many years)
Chris,
Some mics are sensitive to loading, and some preamps will interact to tame a
little bit of the top end. And as I've said so many times, not every mic is
perfect for everything. I found one guitarist/singer that sounded amazing when
he used the AKG C3000. For almost everything else, it sucked, at least for the
things I needed it for. What pissed me off the most was that I bought it when
it was retailing for around $850.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:25:34 -0600
Organization: Psionic Media
Chris,
Remember you can get a matched pair of MC012s with just cardioid caps for
not much more at all than the Marshalls, and later you could get the other
capsules. Don't save a little up front but limit your options in the near
future.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"Chris G." <<chrisgie@txdirect...>> wrote in message
news:<t5vgd1mkum1mf9@corp...>...
>
> Thanks for the great review! I wish I could find one of the green V-67's.
> I'll probably end up saving for a V-77, but now that you said that the
> MXL-603's sound like MC-012's I might get those instead as my home studio
is
> lacking a pair of high quality small diaphragm condenser mics. I'm
still
> surprised that you didn't like the MXL-2001's at all though. I A/B'd it
> directly with a AKG C3000 at Mars Music and thought that it sounded
nothing
> like the C3000. I also just got through recording two female vocalists
> last night and the recording came out VERY smooth and warm as it has on
all
> of the vocals I've recorded with it so far. I'm not even eq'ing the
vocals
> either...just a bit of reverb. Very strange how people either hate or
love
> that mic. But I bow to your judgement because you have WAAAAY more
> experience then me with high quality mics.
> Chris G.
>
> "Harvey Gerst" <<harvey@ITRstudio...>> wrote in message
> news:<68A6D1DC414FEF36.CE7C9179E2864446.8AB5A22A30309DA1@lp...>...
> > <This has been posted to BOTH rec.audio.pro AND alt.music.4-track.>
> >
> > Ok, my pinched sciatic nerve thing died down, and Alex and I finally got
> around
> > to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the
> testing
> > was done formally, and it's all pretty subjective, but in talking to
Brent
> Casey
> > at Marshall, he pretty well confirmed what I heard, so I think my
comments
> will
> > be of some use to people here.
> >
> > Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll
> off the
> > assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms
materials,
> the
> > porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the
> line
> > consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics
> (about
> > the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson,
> Karl
> > Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that
> Brent
> > Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender
in
> the
> > mic market.
> >
> > All the mics looked well made, and we had no problems with any of them,
or
> the
> > supplied shock mounts. Noise levels weren't a problem with any of the
> mics,
> > although we didn't do any testing with really quiet instruments.
> >
> > One of my concerns was consistancy from unit to unit. After we got the
> first
> > batch, I had Brent send some extra units (off the shelf) so I could
> actually
> > compare two units for possible differences. I'm happy to report that
all
> the
> > units I received were consistant and would do fine as stereo pairs.
> >
> > All tests were done thru a Great River MP-2, with the microphone under
> test
> > polarity reversed and nulled (to match initial levels), then normalled
to
> do the
> > actual comparison. We used the level controls on the GR to note
> differences in
> > gain.
> >
> > While I listened to the mics in the studio using headphones, Alex
listened
> in
> > the control room, using our main speakers (wall-mounted JBL-4311Bs, with
a
> > Cerwin Vega subwoofer). We compared notes and in almost every case,
Alex
> and I
> > agreed completely on the results (so we didn't hafta trust my
"rock-n-roll
> shot
> > ears").
> >
> > The units we listened to included:
> >
> > 1 Marshall MXL "The Fox" hand-held dynamic.
> > 1 Marshall MXL-1000 hand-held condensor
> > 2 Marshall MXL-600 small condensor mics
> > 2 Marshall MXL-603 small condensor mics
> > 1 Marshall MXL-2001 large condensor mic
> > 2 Marshall MXL-2003 large condensor mics
> > 1 Marshall MXL-V67 large condensor mic
> > 2 Marshall MXL-V77 tube large condensor mics
> >
> > Comparison mics included:
> >
> > 1 Neumann TLM-103
> > 2 matched Oktava MC012s w/cardioid capsules
> > 1 Lomo M3 large condensor mic on MC012 body
> > 1 Shure SM-7 dynamic
> > 1 Shure SM-58 dynamic
> > 1 Nady SCM-1000 multi-pattern condensor
> >
> > The results:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The mics we didn't like:
> >
> > Marshall MXL-2001 $130?? Sorry, I can't find the MSRP right now. Harsh
> top end,
> > thin bottom, compared to the TLM-103. It was a little warmer than the
Nady
> > SCM-1000, but the Nady had a smoother top end. The 2001 is everything
that
> I
> > don't like about all the really inexpensive large diaphragm condensor
mics
> that
> > I've listened to over the years, including the AKG C3000, the Oktava
219,
> and
> > some of the early AT low cost units.
> >
> > Marshall MXL-600 $270 Veiled top end and exaggerated low-mid, compared
to
> the
> > Oktava MC-012. About 1 dB lower output than the Oktava. It just sounded
> very
> > dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.
> >
> > The mics we did like:
> >
> > The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to
judge -
> it had
> > good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the
> Shure
> > SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it
fed
> back
> > sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see
> people
> > having a few around for live gigs.
> >
> > Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth
overall.
> Alex
> > thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi
> mids and
> > top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it
was
> > similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me
> anyway.
> >
> > (The lack of proximity effect that I noted in an earlier report about
the
> 2003,
> > was due to me accidently hitting the bass rolloff switch while I was
> putting it
> > in its shock mount. When I noticed normal proximity effect with a
second
> unit,
> > I discovered my screwup.)
> >
> > Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost
identical
> to
> > the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching
omni.
> We
> > used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The
diaphragms
> are
> > easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above
> the
> > singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers,
and
> they'd
> > probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They
> were also
> > a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
> >
> > Marshall MXL 1000 $99 This was the hand-held condensor mic that
Marshall
> was
> > pushing as a KM-105. It totally sucked as a hand-held vocal mic. Brent
> Casey
> > suggested I try it without the end ball, and I discovered it was
basically
> the
> > 603 in a Shure-type body. Without the ball end fucking up the sound, it
> was
> > identical in sound to the 603.
> >
> > Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic,
and
> it's
> > very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity
> effect).
> > It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB
> difference
> > in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was
identical.
> >
> > Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the
> looks,
> > and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797
copy
> of a
> > C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect
> (even
> > more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the
> TLM-103,
> > with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some
> male
> > vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It
> compared
> > very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound.
> If you
> > wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the
> V67.
> > And it just happens to sound great, too.
> >
> > The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s,
> and the
> > Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the
2003s
> or the
> > V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
> >
> > Well, that's the results - it wasn't a fancy test, and YMMV, but
overall,
> I
> > think it might be helpful to some people, especially if you're a "bottom
> feeder"
> > studio as we are. As I mentioned earlier, Brent said that our tests
> pretty much
> > agreed with his findings, and that at least confirmed that we were all
> hearing
> > pretty much the same things.
> >
> > Harvey Gerst
> > Indian Trail Recording Studio
> > http://www.ITRstudio.com/
>
>
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:20:14 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Keith Blackwell <<kwb@mtdkbux...>> wrote:
>Harvey, thank you. Thanks for taking the time and energy to do this not only
>to suit your own needs but to make way for a review you could share with the
>rest of us. Thanks for putting together the review and posting here with no
>publishing delay, no magazine cost to us, and probably no remuneration to you.
>And by the way, thank you.
It keeps me on my toes and I enjoy doing it. Last time I did a review for a
magazine was in the 60s, and Fred Gretch refused to talk to me for years
afterwards. <g>
>HG| The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had
>HG| good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure
>HG| SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back
>HG| sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people
>HG| having a few around for live gigs.
>
>Since you won't be keeping this one, I suppose we won't hear from
>you any results of using this on instruments. Scooped mids might
>be fine for some grungy guitar cab miking, or something. At that
>price, surely someone will be able to offer some further review
>here soon.
It's an "ok" mic, very good for the price.
>HG| Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
>HG| thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
>HG| top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
>HG| similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
>
>A more hyped high-end that the TLM103? And less bottom -- I wonder
>if it is therefore similar to the R0de NT-1. But then, you've never
>used that one, I think. In any case, since I own an NT1 and your
>description makes me think it might be similar, this leads me to think
>the 2003 won't be something I go for on my limited budget.
It might be. Alex didn't "not" like it, and I thought it sounded pretty damn
good.
>HG| Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
>HG| the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
>HG| used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are
>HG| easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the
>HG| singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd
>HG| probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also
>HG| a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
>
>Amazing. The Oktava MC012 has been on my short list for a while
>now, so this will be a contender for that spot. Admittedly, you
>get 3 capsules/patterns with the MC012, which probably makes it a
>fair value trade-off. Not to mention the LOMO option. But the
>603 is dang cheap. Cheaper than a AT Pro 37R. And cheaper than
>the Audix TR-40's you've been using for drum OH's. I know you
>didn't include the Audix in your comparisions, but since you're
>familiar with the Audix measurement mic's performance as OH's,
>can you offer comments comparing them without having to go do an
>A/B test? Which of this bunch would you guess have the best S/N
>ration?
If you can live with the wide cardioid pattern, don't need the other patterns,
or the -10 dB pad, this is a killer mic. Same thing goes for the MXL-1000
hand-held, without the ball end. It looks a little funny without the ball, but
it sounds the same as the standard 603.
>HG| Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's
>HG| very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect).
>HG| It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference
>HG| in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.
>
>And so, for those who simply cannot afford the Neumann....
>
>but then, we have no idea how the V77 or any other MXL mic
>will fare over time, do we? At least they appear well-built.
I think they should hold up pretty well. I'll see how mine do over the next few
months.
>HG| Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks,
>HG| and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a
>HG| C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even
>HG| more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103,
>HG| with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male
>HG| vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared
>HG| very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you
>HG| wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67.
>HG| And it just happens to sound great, too.
>
>I think this one fits well on my short list of upcoming mic additions,
>based on your description.
From a looks standpoint alone, this thing makes a studio look good. The fact
that it also sounds great is a big plus, but I'd buy it just for the case.
>HG| The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the
>HG| Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the
>HG| V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
>
>You can't afford it, and you have a studio that actually makes
>money. Hobbiests like me are all the more budget-constrained, so
>I very much apprecieate your reviews! Oh, and I don't think I've
>said this yet: THANK YOU.
We have to watch how we spend our money as well. It's important to us that each
dollar we spend on gear must be accounted for. That's why things like the RNC,
the Speck ASC, the Great River, the Oktavas, the TLM-103, and some other great
items are of vital importance to us, if we want to continue to make money and
offer good value as one of our services.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Tonebarge <Tonebarge@iscweb...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:17:07 -0800
Organization: Psycho Acoustic Ward
Here's another retailer:
http://www.abemusic.com/marshall.htm
TB
<snappy8834@my-deja...> wrote:
> Where to buy Marshall mics? Mars Music has a couple. Where do you go
> for the whole line? And thanks for the review, Harvey!
> -Kent Powell
> Fuzzy Bunny Productions
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
--
"Measure twice, cut once."
From: <reggaebop@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:12:20 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
In article <93o1c0$8fo$<1@nnrp1...>>,
snappy8834@my-deja.com wrote:> Where to buy Marshall mics? Mars Music has a couple. Where do you go
> for the whole line? And thanks for the review, Harvey!
> -Kent Powell
> Fuzzy Bunny Productions
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Try Tracy over at www.Filamentaudio.com. I've had great service and
fast delivery too. By far the best prices I've encountered...better
than Mars. Marshall is close to his shop and he usually just picks the
mics up from Brent.
-Reggaebop
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:13:43 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<mrivers@d-and-d...> (Mike Rivers) wrote:
> <harvey@ITRstudio...> writes:
>
>> Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
>> the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
>> used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job.
>Did you by chance try them as an X-Y pair? I know it's getting pretty
>far from your demo, but since the MXL-603 sounding somewhat like the
>MC012, which sounds somewhat like a KM-184, which sounds somewhat like
>a KM-84, which is my first string X-Y setup for classical and jazz,
>I was wondering. Perhaps I could give a pair of those, as a belated
>birthday present, to my friend who's always borrowing my KM-84's to
>record small contemporary classical music groups.
It should work fine, especially as a gift (it's a good looking mike). I will
get a chance to try them as an x/y pair, although as I noted, the pattern
approaches omni as the frequencies go down.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: David Satz <DSatz@msn...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 09:38:32 -0500
> Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> [re: the 603]
> the pattern approaches omni as the frequencies go down.
and jp wrote:
> Interesting. Is that typical of wide cardioid?
It's typical of cardioids, and even more strongly the case with
wide cardioids.
A cardioid is a 50:50 mixture between pressure response (omni) and
pure pressure gradient reponse (figure-8). You can imagine a cardioid
to be two microphones, one of each type, at the same point in space
with their signals combined "in phase".
All pure pressure gradient transducers have a 6 dB/octave rolloff at
low frequencies; pure pressure transducers do not. Thus as you go
lower in frequency, at some point the contribution from the pressure
gradient response begins to lessen; past that point, more and more of
what you hear will be the contribution of the pressure response, which
is omnidirectional.
A "wide cardioid" is simply a microphone in which the balance of
pressure to pressure gradient is weighted more heavily toward the
pressure component. As a result its output is influenced somewhat
less by the pressure gradient component, which is the directional part.
> Is there an obviously perceived frequency point at which they
> are directional and one where they are not?
No, in conventional microphones it's a smooth crossover.
> I imagine the proximity effect is pretty close to omni,
> which is to say minimal if present?
Hmm. Proximity effect can be enormous, so even in a wide
cardioid you can have quite a noticeable amount of it.
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:33:55 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Gunnar Kristiansen <<gunnar.kristiansen@image...>> wrote:
>Hi! Harvey!
>
>Thanks for the review. I did not even know of MXL mikes existence, but heard
>about them because I was considering a BPM CR95 mike for my home studio.
>
>I need a good vocal mike. Then I found out, that BPM had their mikes made in
>China by Beijing 797Audio. The same company who makes the MXL line.
>
>Do you have any experiences comparing MXL, BPM and the TLM-103.
>
>Would the TLM103 do the best job if money wasn't an issue?
Gunnar,
Yes, for most things, the TLM-103 would be my first pick. It, the Shure SM-7,
and an RCA 77DX are my "Swiss Army Knife" mics.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:36:09 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<tford@jagunet...> (Ty Ford) wrote:
>Gunnar Kristiansen <<gunnar.kristiansen@image...>> wrote:
>>Would the TLM103 do the best job if money wasn't an issue?
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Gunnar Kristiansen
>This spurs me to comment on something someone else mentioned; the thing
>about less expensive mic from "new" companies putting pressure on the "old"
>companies. The TLM 103 is the proof that an "old" company like Neumann can
>bring a mic to market at less than $1000 that not only resets the bar for
>"older" companies, but kicks the "new" companies in the butt as well.
Absolutely. I'm not sure that the new companies put pressure on Neumann, as
much as Neumann US probably putting pressure on Neumann Germany, when they (US)
saw an emerging market opportunity for a lower priced Neumann mic.
It's always easier for high quality manufacturers to "trade down" (make a less
expensive produduct) than it is for lower quality manufactures to "trade up".
Would you rather have a $35,000 "scaled down" Rolls Royce, or a $35,000 luxury
Kia?
>I think maybe it was Harvey, a few years back when the TLM 103 had just come
>out, who quipped to someone who was whining about the price of the TLM 103
>that they should stop whining and start thinking about the TLM 103 as a
>$2000 (or more) mic that was really quite a bargain at less than a grand.
And the TLM-103 would still be a bargain at $2,000, IMHO.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:52:11 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"arkk" <<arkkDIE-SPAM@concentric...>> wrote:
>Harvey,
>
>First, i want to add my thanks for the long-awaited review. I hope your
>injury heals soon.
>
>Unfortunately, V57 didn't make it into the review and it's an interesting
>one indeed (it's a replacement for the 2001 or so it seems).
>
>Have your impressions about Nady SCM1000 changed in any way after this
>extensive testing? Would you recommend it over a corresponding MXL?
>
>thanks,
arkk,
Not really. I thought the SCM-1000 was just ok as a cardioid, great as an omni
(but with a slight on axis high frequency rise), and it had a problem as a
figure 8 (the backside of the mic was muffled). At $149, it wasn't bad, but I
don't know how consistent they are from unit to unit, which is a major concern
of mine about buying inexpensive mics.
The Oktavas from Guitar Center are "not" consistent, the units from the Sound
Room are. The Marshall mics are consistent as near as I can tell (although I
didn't check the 2001, which I suspect may be less consistent than the rest of
the Marshall line). Some of the Rode mics are "said" to be inconsistent, but
I've never heard them, so I can't confirm that.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:26:40 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
Paul Gitlitz <<paulg@pointbob...>> wrote:
>Well based partly on your review I have put my order in with Avant and
>Assoc. for a pair if 603's. Ken Avant told me that the capsule
>and electronics in the V67 were identical to the 2001.
Paul,
I just got off the phone with Brent Casey and I asked him about that
specifically. He said that the prototype V67 was identical to the 2001
internally, but the production V67s use a new transformer, a different
transistor, and there are some capacitor values that are changed as well. The
capsule is the same.
The new transformer in the V67 makes all the difference in the world in taming
the spitty high end of the 2001, and the transformer in the 2001 may in fact, be
causing the high end problems I heard. He's using this new transformer in the
high end Marshall mics as well. The self noise on the V67 is now down around 14
dB.
He also gave me the go-ahead to send the mics to Ty Ford for further evaluation.
Hopefully, that will happen in the next few days, if I can get all this stuff
together to ship out.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
| Microphone care? [5] |
|---|
From: John Sorell <jsorell@bouldernews...>
Subject: Microphone care?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:53:04 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Would welcome advice on keeping mics in good condition? Is it not good
practice to leave mics out ready to use, like keeping a guitar out on a
stand so it's handy for playing?
Thoughts....comments?
John
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpamOnRMMGA...>
Subject: Re: Microphone care?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:58:58 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <<3A5F3613.A2CA53F2@bouldernews...>>,
<jsorell@bouldernews...> wrote:
> Would welcome advice on keeping mics in good condition? Is it not good
> practice to leave mics out ready to use, like keeping a guitar out on a
> stand so it's handy for playing?
>
> Thoughts....comments?
>
> John
Put a zip-lock bag over the mic to keep dust from accumulating on it.
Larry Pattis
"My mind is a dangerous place, I never go there alone"
Lpattis "at" xmission "dot" com
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Microphone care?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:49:25 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:07:31 GMT, Bob Dorgan <<d77737@epix...>> wrote:
>One word--- dust.
>Gotta guard against it.
>I usually keep the mics in their cases when not in use.
>Bob Dorgan
Be aware that the foam liner of a mic case will break down over time
and eventually eat away at a mic capsule. A friend of mine lost a
Neumann KM86 from this.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Microphone care?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:57:33 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:00:19 GMT, John Sorell
<<jsorell@bouldernews...>> wrote:
>Rick Ruskin wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:07:31 GMT, Bob Dorgan <<d77737@epix...>> wrote:
>>
>> >One word--- dust.
>> >Gotta guard against it.
>> >I usually keep the mics in their cases when not in use.
>> >Bob Dorgan
>>
>> Be aware that the foam liner of a mic case will break down over time
>> and eventually eat away at a mic capsule. A friend of mine lost a
>> Neumann KM86 from this.
>>
>> Rick Ruskin
>> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
>> http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
>> http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
>>
>
>Rick,
>
>What kind (brand?) of case would you recommend?
>
>John
The boxes the mics came with but either remove the foam or make a mic
condom out of a plastic bag and secure it with a rubber band to keep
moisture and other contaminants out.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: Lumpy <lumpy@digitalcartography...>
Subject: Re: Microphone care?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:06:18 GMT
Organization: Peak to Peak Internet (peakpeak.com)
morrison wrote:
> I keep my workhorse Neuman 103 on it's stand,
> in a shock mount but with a
> Crown Royal bag over it...
I'm only guessing but I think that a Crown Royal
bag is a better choice than a plastic bag, at least
for vocal mics. Singing probably puts lots of vocal
lugie into the works and you probably want evaporation
to do it's thing.
Half blind lyric spittin' lumpy
| Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first? [7] |
|---|
From: Jazzman <Jazzman@oceanbridge...>
Subject: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:39:56 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I'm not looking to rehash all the great threads here covering all aspects of
recording acoustic guitar - the recent one on placement and 'bouts' was
terrific, and I'm astonished at what a great education anyone can get here
thanks to all who share their experience.
Today I'm just asking two very specific questions:
1) When you record finger-picked steel-string guitar as accompaniment to
vocals, what combination of mics and pres do you personally tend to have the
most luck with?
2) Do you always use a compressor, or do you try to do without one at first
to keep the signal path as short and clean as possible? (Let me guess, to
tape or with a tube mic pre, you might be able to do without, but to digital
with a solid-state pre you always use a compressor?)
From: Jazzman <Jazzman@oceanbridge...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 15:38:49 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
JnyVee. <<moc.slore@ybmurbrevlis...>> wrote
> What guitar?
> what player?
> what style?
> what mix?
Classic "pop-folk." Say, Martin D-28, Simon & Garfunkel/Jewel/Eva Cassidy,
initially sparse mix where it's just fingerpicked guitar and vocals (e.g.
Kathy's Song, Old Friends, or Eva Cassidy doing Fields of Gold), or possibly
with bass (e.g. practically anything fingerpicked by Peter, Paul, and Mary),
and possibly joined later by other instruments (e.g. Homeword Bound or The
Boxer).
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:23:13 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
"Jazzman" <<Jazzman@oceanbridge...>> wrote:
>I'm not looking to rehash all the great threads here covering all aspects of
>recording acoustic guitar - the recent one on placement and 'bouts' was
>terrific, and I'm astonished at what a great education anyone can get here
>thanks to all who share their experience.
>
>Today I'm just asking two very specific questions:
>
>1) When you record finger-picked steel-string guitar as accompaniment to
>vocals, what combination of mics and pres do you personally tend to have the
>most luck with?
If I'm recording it in one pass as a mono channel, I've had great luck with an
RCA 77BX, set about forehead high, 2 to 3 feet away, pointed towards the body of
the guitar. That goes into the Great River MP-2 mic preamp. I also use the
Audix TR-40 Omni mic over the guitarist's shoulder to record dreadnaught-sized
guitars, which seems to minimize the boom and reduce squeeks. That goes into
the GR preamp, too.
I like Massenburg's Lyle Lovett trick of using a figure 8 mic for guitar, but
with the mic turned sideways, so that one side of the mic is picking up the
treble strings, and the other side picks up the bass strings.
I would also suggest we wait for Rick Ruskin (liondog) to weigh in on this
subject, since he's one of the best fingerpickers on Earth. Rick has never
achieved the popularity of someone like Leo Kottke because Rick doesn't play
enough notes. His NPM (notes per minute) count is lower than other, more flashy
fingerpickers. When I pay to go to hear a guitar player, I expect a lot of
notes per minute for my money. If Rick ever gets his NPM count up, he will be a
force to be reckoned with.
>2) Do you always use a compressor, or do you try to do without one at first
>to keep the signal path as short and clean as possible? (Let me guess, to
>tape or with a tube mic pre, you might be able to do without, but to digital
>with a solid-state pre you always use a compressor?)
Depends on the player. If it's not sitting right, I'll hit it with a touch of
RNC compression, but only with the RNC - most other compressors I have available
muddy the sound.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:33:04 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
In article
<<0856E76A521E05E8.50E507B9DD8EDC70.3E4518645DC9ECA6@lp...>>,
Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio.com> wrote:> "Jazzman" <<Jazzman@oceanbridge...>> wrote:
>
> >I'm not looking to rehash all the great threads here covering all
aspects of
> >recording acoustic guitar - the recent one on placement and 'bouts'
was
> >terrific, and I'm astonished at what a great education anyone can get
here
> >thanks to all who share their experience.
> >
> >Today I'm just asking two very specific questions:
> >
> >1) When you record finger-picked steel-string guitar as accompaniment
to
> >vocals, what combination of mics and pres do you personally tend to
have the
> >most luck with?
>
> If I'm recording it in one pass as a mono channel, I've had great luck
with an
> RCA 77BX, set about forehead high, 2 to 3 feet away, pointed towards
the body of
> the guitar. That goes into the Great River MP-2 mic preamp. I also
use the
> Audix TR-40 Omni mic over the guitarist's shoulder to record
dreadnaught-sized
> guitars, which seems to minimize the boom and reduce squeeks. That
goes into
> the GR preamp, too.
>
> I like Massenburg's Lyle Lovett trick of using a figure 8 mic for
guitar, but
> with the mic turned sideways, so that one side of the mic is picking
up the
> treble strings, and the other side picks up the bass strings.
>
> I would also suggest we wait for Rick Ruskin (liondog) to weigh in on
this
> subject, since he's one of the best fingerpickers on Earth. Rick has
never
> achieved the popularity of someone like Leo Kottke because Rick
doesn't play
> enough notes. His NPM (notes per minute) count is lower than other,
more flashy
> fingerpickers. When I pay to go to hear a guitar player, I expect a
lot of
> notes per minute for my money. If Rick ever gets his NPM count up, he
will be a
> force to be reckoned with.
>
> >2) Do you always use a compressor, or do you try to do without one at
first
> >to keep the signal path as short and clean as possible? (Let me
guess, to
> >tape or with a tube mic pre, you might be able to do without, but to
digital
> >with a solid-state pre you always use a compressor?)
>
> Depends on the player. If it's not sitting right, I'll hit it with a
touch of
> RNC compression, but only with the RNC - most other compressors I have
available
> muddy the sound.
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/
>
--
Rick Ruskin
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
For someone singing and playing live:
Take one large cap mic cardoid for the voc and one small cap cardoid for
the instrument.
Then take a pair of small cap cardoids and use as an ortf pair about
eyebrow level (more or less)
Individual mics go up the center. ORTF pair goes full left and right.
EQ and Blend to taste.
For tracking guitar alone: 1 (for mono) or 2 (for stereo) small cap
condensers. EQ to taste.
In either case, use the cleanest mic pre you have. (My choice is
_always_ a Great River MP-2.)
I never compress guitar while preferring wait to see if any is needed in
the final mix.
RE: NPM - Harvey is wrong. It's "Notes Per Measure" not "Minute"
In any event, after I do gigs with other high "NPM" players, it's my
tunes I hear being hummed/whistled as people leave the venues. I never
hear anyone doing that to a fancy 1/64th note run so I figure I'm doing
something right.
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:31:31 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:05:19 GMT, <simplicity108@yahoo...> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Rick Ruskin
>> http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
>>
>> For someone singing and playing live:
>>
>> Take one large cap mic cardoid for the voc and one small cap cardoid
>for
>> the instrument.
>>
>> Then take a pair of small cap cardoids and use as an ortf pair about
>> eyebrow level (more or less)
>>
>> Individual mics go up the center. ORTF pair goes full left and right.
>> EQ and Blend to taste.
>>
>> For tracking guitar alone: 1 (for mono) or 2 (for stereo) small cap
>> condensers. EQ to taste.
>>
>> In either case, use the cleanest mic pre you have. (My choice is
>> _always_ a Great River MP-2.)
>>
>> I never compress guitar while preferring wait to see if any is needed
>in
>> the final mix.
>>
>>Your choice is the GR MP-2. What are you choosing it over (that is
>sitting in your rack - not at the store rental dept...) What pres have
>you tried previously on acoustic guitar?
>>
>
>--
Currently in rack: Spectrasonics 101's, Trident TSM, Front end of my
tascam 2600-32 console.
Total 30+ years experience: Too many to list.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.isomedia.com/homes/liondog
http://www.itrstudio.com/rruskin.html
From: Gallimhabu <gallimhabu@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:48:04 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 06:39:56 GMT, "Jazzman" <<Jazzman@oceanbridge...>>
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Today I'm just asking two very specific questions:
>
>1) When you record finger-picked steel-string guitar as accompaniment to
>vocals, what combination of mics and pres do you personally tend to have the
>most luck with?
>
>2) Do you always use a compressor, or do you try to do without one at first
>to keep the signal path as short and clean as possible? (Let me guess, to
>tape or with a tube mic pre, you might be able to do without, but to digital
>with a solid-state pre you always use a compressor?)
My absolute favorite guitar sound is:
A pair of MV692's into good tube pre's. I do not compress or eq prior
to mixdown. If necessary I use high pass filters, the 75hz filters
on the 692's are a little too obvious, I normally opt for 32-40hz. I
limit, as a safety precaution, especially to digital media.
Mics set close...(within 1 foot) one aimed just below the bridge, one
about 1/2 way between the junction of the body and neck, and the sound
hole.......depending on the instrument and the player. Panned hard
L/R.
For years I used a a pair of Neuman KM84's with excellent result, same
set up. Still do on occasion. OBTW.....Shock mounts are important.
If mic'ing in Mono....I aim for the point just below the bridge.
Gallimhabu
>
>
From: Greg Thompson <grogthom@ix...>
Subject: Re: Quick survey on acoustic guitar: what mics/pres/compressors do you reach for first?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:40:03 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Somebody turned me on to SM-81s a while back. Neve 1066 mic pre.
Distressor set about 4:1 quick attack and release doing about 4-8 dB of
compression on peaks that are outside the normal amount of
strumming/fingerpicking output level. I'll compress more in the mix if I
feel the need.
In the situation where I don't have a Neve and a Distressor, whatever the
cleanest pre and the most transparent/quickest compressor is available
(Sytek/RNC)
On the Neve, I'll do a small amount of boost at the 220Hz freq.
Usually I'll have the mic pointed at the spot where the neck meets the
body, but generally I'll stick my head in front of the guitar and move it
around until I hear the sound I like and put the mic where my ear was.
Greg
| Any opinions on the Rode NT1? [4] |
|---|
From: Paul C. <Paul_member@newsguy...>
Subject: Any opinions on the Rode NT1?
Date: 15 Jan 2001 18:16:10 -0800
Organization: Newsguy News Service [http://newsguy.com]
I'm considering buying a Rode NT1 mic and was looking to see if anyone out there
is using it.
Paul C.
From: McCollum <mccollum@netshel...>
Subject: Re: Any opinions on the Rode NT1?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:33:07 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Paul,
I just sold mine to a friend. I had it just about 3 years (?). I bought it
when they first came out. I test drove it in the store using one of my
guitars and was pretty impressed. When I got home I wasn't as impressed
after dinking around with it for a few days. It had a tendency to sound
nasally in the mid range. I tried different setups running through the
preamps and my Mackie, then running through and Art Tube Pre Amp, which
helped a little bit. But I was never really happy with it. Then I set out
on a quest for the ultimate matched pair of mics and a decent mic pre amp.
I ended up getting a Millennia HV3 pre amp and hooked up the Rode to give it
a test drive. I was blown away at how much better it sounded. It was now a
very usable mic, except I had already ordered a pair of Microtech Gefells
M300s and they were on their way. These are outstanding mics, especially
for the price (about $450 each).
But back to your question. I think that microphones are only as good as pre
amps. If I was to suggest to anybody about where to spend their money, I
would recommend they get a high quality mic pre-amp. And then search for a
mic that you can afford.
Hope this helps,
Lance
McCollum Guitars
http://www.mccollumguitars.com
"Paul C." <<Paul_member@newsguy...>> wrote in message
news:<940ata02b9@drn...>...
> I'm considering buying a Rode NT1 mic and was looking to see if anyone out
there
> is using it.
>
> Paul C.
>
From: RPM <rpmhlm@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Any opinions on the Rode NT1?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:12:25 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Hi Paul; I used a Rode NT-1 into my Mackie mixer for almost all of my
home recording (guitars and vocals) at my www.mp3.com/RPM33 site, so
you can hear the kind of results you can get (listen to hi-fi plays or
downloads only...lo-fi wouldn't tell you a thing). Overall, I am happy
with this mic. Hope this helps. Rick
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@spacenet...>
Subject: Re: Any opinions on the Rode NT1?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:53:57 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Paul-
You might consider doing a search at Deja in rec.audio.pro; a lot of folks
there have used and commented on the various Rode mics.
If you drop over there now, there are two threads going with good info
about acoustic guitar recording. One mentions acoustic recording in
the thread title. The other is the Marshall microphones review thread
started by Harvey Gerst (I reposted his 1st post here a few days ago;
you might want to check in rec.audio.pro for the voluminous subsequent
discussion).
Also, I've archived some past discussion of acoustic guitar mic'ing
from RMMGA and RAP at the AG site:
http://www.museweb.com/ag/Look in "Technology:Recording." I'll be updating this soon.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
| Mics for acoustic guitars [8] |
|---|
From: JSalam112 <jsalam112@aol...>
Subject: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: 20 Jan 2001 16:32:58 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Would like some opinions on mics specifically suited for acoustic guitars.
Thanks
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: 20 Jan 2001 11:40:47 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
JSalam112 <<jsalam112@aol...>> wrote:
>Would like some opinions on mics specifically suited for acoustic guitars.
Well, I tend to prefer small diaphragm condensers, but on the whole it
depends a lot on the room and the guitar. I've even wound up using
EV 635As on Macaferris because it gave the sound that fit in the mix.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: Fill <mothra666@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: 20 Jan 2001 16:47:49 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
C-60
KM84
MCO12
451
414
U-47
221B
the list goes on....
P h i l i p
________________________________
"I'm too fucking busy and vice-versa"
- Dorothy Parker"If it ain't broke, don't break it"
- Charles Oakley
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:27:59 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<jsalam112@aol...> (JSalam112) wrote:
>Would like some opinions on mics specifically suited for acoustic guitars.
I like mainly small diaphragm condensors; omnis work really well for me, but
cardioids can be pretty nice at times. Some choices in various price ranges
would be:
Neumann KM183 (omni) or KM184 (cardioid)
Oktava MC012 (cardioid and omni capsules)
Audio Technica 4041 and 4051 (cardioid)
Marshall MXL 603S (cardioid)
Audix TR40 or MBHO 551 (omni)
Earthworks (omni)
Shure SM-81
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Dean <jd1192@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:59:52 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Obviously it really depends on alot of factors, the type of guitar,the strings, finger picked or plastic..strummed?, alternate tunings
like DADGAD for example, (may bring the need for a different mic than
if was tuned in a standard tuning), intonation, but the most important
is the player, even the cheap guitar in the hands of real talent can
make an engineers job much easier and enjoyable.
As for microphones and how to caputure that performance, the micsalready mentioned are all good, Neumann, Akg, and Schoeps small
condensers would be the most flexible. Just using your ears, and trying
different mics positions, over the shoulder, or at 14th fret 12" back,
try them all if theres time. Tonight I used a Wright Omni about 2 ft
away and it was just the sound needed. Sometimes a Neumann KM54 or 84
does the trick, its nice to have several, but for all around uses
and price, a ggod cond. KM84 would be first choice.
Regards,
Dean
> Would like some opinions on mics specifically suited for acoustic
guitars.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Twist Turner <Bluzman@webtv...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:54:15 -0600 (CST)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Don't forget to try the Soundelux U195 on acoustic if you get one to
audition, I have had that work really nicely where nothing else would do
it.
Twist Turner
http://members.tripod.com/~Twist_Turner/index.html
From: Garthrr <garthrr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: 21 Jan 2001 20:30:25 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <<1463-3A6B2247-35@storefull-242...>>,
<Bluzman@webtv...> (Twist Turner) writes:
>Don't forget to try the Soundelux U195 on acoustic if you get one to
>audition, I have had that work really nicely where nothing else would do
>it.
Also the U99 when you want bright. Gorgeous highs!
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
From: Gulf Joe <gulfjoe@hotmail...>
Subject: Re: Mics for acoustic guitars
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:14:44 -0500
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Garthrr wrote:
>
> In article <<1463-3A6B2247-35@storefull-242...>>,
> <Bluzman@webtv...> (Twist Turner) writes:
>
> >Don't forget to try the Soundelux U195 on acoustic if you get one to
> >audition, I have had that work really nicely where nothing else would do
> >it.
>
> Also the U99 when you want bright. Gorgeous highs!
> Garth
>
> "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
> Ed Cherney
I just used (3pm Sunday) a 77D for a guitar with chamber orchestra. Loved it!
Remind me tomorrow and I'll throw up an MP3 file for you to listen.
Because of visual constraints in the live concert, I had it looking over the music
stand, so it was about three feet away and shoulder high. I'd have preferred it
lower and a little closer, but that would have blocked the view of the audience.
The 77D is NOT an inconspicuous device!
| Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps? [7] |
|---|
From: Analogeezer <analogeezer@my-deja...>
Subject: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:25:58 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Ok, so I "did the right thing" and ordered a pair of Oktava MC-012's
from the Sound Room, the set that comes with cardiod, omni, and
hypercardiod capsules (well those caps and the pads too).
Now my meager mic "locker" has one multi-pattern large format condensor,
which I've occaisionally used the Figure 8 and Omni patterns on, but
I've never really used small condensors that were other than cardiod.
I'd be real curious to hear what sorts of applications that people here
have found for the omni and hypercardiod capsules from the MC-012,
whatever cool and strange things people are doing with them.
I guess I can imagine the hypercardiod capsule being used for spot
cymbal miking but have people found some "out of the box apps" that I
should know about?
I'd hate to just leave the other caps in the box, lookin pretty...
Thanks,
Analogeezer
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Paul Gitlitz <paulg@pointbob...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 07:21:33 -0800
Organization: Glitchless Productions
>
>I'd be real curious to hear what sorts of applications that people here
>have found for the omni and hypercardiod capsules from the MC-012,
>whatever cool and strange things people are doing with them.
I like the omni much better for acoustic guitar than the cardioid.
From: Lyle Caldwell <caldwell@bellsouth...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:15:36 -0600
Organization: Psionic Media
The hyp cap can sound really great on female vocalists, when you don't want
much (almost any) room sound, and you want to capture every little breath
and, well, lip smacking, etc.
It's also nice when you want an unnaturally wide stereo acoustic guitar
sound.
It's also very nice on toms.
The omni is great really close on acoustic guitars, where you want to hear
every detail with little room sound, as you can get it right up on it
without the boom factor.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"Analogeezer" <<analogeezer@my-deja...>> wrote in message
news:94p9gv$a21$<1@nnrp1...>...
> Ok, so I "did the right thing" and ordered a pair of Oktava MC-012's
> from the Sound Room, the set that comes with cardiod, omni, and
> hypercardiod capsules (well those caps and the pads too).
>
> Now my meager mic "locker" has one multi-pattern large format condensor,
> which I've occaisionally used the Figure 8 and Omni patterns on, but
> I've never really used small condensors that were other than cardiod.
>
> I'd be real curious to hear what sorts of applications that people here
> have found for the omni and hypercardiod capsules from the MC-012,
> whatever cool and strange things people are doing with them.
>
> I guess I can imagine the hypercardiod capsule being used for spot
> cymbal miking but have people found some "out of the box apps" that I
> should know about?
>
> I'd hate to just leave the other caps in the box, lookin pretty...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Analogeezer
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
From: Jay Kahrs <brownsnd14@aol...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: 26 Jan 2001 17:19:28 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I guess I'll chime in here and say I've used the Omni on acoustic quite a bit,
and really liked the results. I use it
>in the 'over-the-shoulder' method. Harvey Gerst had a picture on his website
similar >to the way I use mine.
>
I've tried the 'over-the-shoulder' omni method a few times and I can never get
a sound I'm happy with. It's usually too roomy or too dull and boomy. Are you
guys using any EQ on the way to tape? I must be doing something wrong. Or does
it only work well for sparse arangements and suck wind in a rock DMB type of
band?
---
-Jay Kahrs
Mad Moose Recording Inc.
(formerly BrownSound Studios)
Livingston, NJ
http://members.tripod.com/~BrownSoundStudios
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:48:29 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<brownsnd14@aol...> (Jay Kahrs) wrote:
>>I guess I'll chime in here and say I've used the Omni on acoustic quite a bit,
>>and really liked the results. I use it in the 'over-the-shoulder' method.
>>Harvey Gerst had a picture on his website similar to the way I use mine.
>I've tried the 'over-the-shoulder' omni method a few times and I can never get
>a sound I'm happy with. It's usually too roomy or too dull and boomy. Are you
>guys using any EQ on the way to tape? I must be doing something wrong. Or does
>it only work well for sparse arangements and suck wind in a rock DMB type of
>band?
Jay,
Are you using a good omni? I haven't had any problems using this technique in a
rock mix. The reason I like it so much is that I don't need any eq at all. The
"dull and boomy" comment doesn't make sense to me since you're out of the path
of the sound hole and the direct radiation off the guitar top. It usually
sounds very natural and quite clean, without a lot of finger squeeks. Is the
mic at about ear height and about 6" in front of the head, pointing down at the
guitar?
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Harvey Gerst <harvey@ITRstudio...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:45:37 -0600
Organization: Indian Trail Recording Studio
<brownsnd14@aol...> (Jay Kahrs) wrote:
>>Is the mic at about ear height and about 6" in front of the head, pointing down at
>>the guitar?
>Um. No. I had it at ear height and over the players shoulder aimed at the
>floor. So I guess it should be right between the players eyes about 6" out?
Nope, you had it right. You hafta play with it a little bit on the front to back
distance to get the right high end balance, but it shoulda been in the ballpark.
>I tried it with a both a 414B/ULS which wasn't that great and a MC012 which was
>better but still didn't knock me out. FWIW I usually end up with a 451EB/CK1
>about a foot away and aimed somewhere between the 15th and 8th fret.
It may be the guitar, the player, or the mics - hard to tell. Well, it doesn't
always work for everybody - when it does, it's really cool.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
From: Nate Tschetter <nate@gluethemoose...>
Subject: Re: Uses for MC-012 Omni and Hyper Caps?
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:11:02 GMT
Organization: Glue The Moose
Howdy
Whenever I use Harvey's Over The Shoulder method ("HOTS"?), I find that
the omni is much brighter and more natural sounding than the cardioid. I
typically don't EQ it either and just move the mic around 'til I like
it.
Sometimes it sounds dull and boomy when the guitarist stands up and
wacks their head on the mic, although it depends on the player.
Heh...Our mileage varied...
Cheers
Nate Tschetter
Sonic Taxidermist
www.gluethemoose.com
Jay Kahrs wrote:
>
> >I guess I'll chime in here and say I've used the Omni on acoustic quite a bit,
> and really liked the results. I use it
> >in the 'over-the-shoulder' method. Harvey Gerst had a picture on his website
> similar >to the way I use mine.
> >
>
> I've tried the 'over-the-shoulder' omni method a few times and I can never get
> a sound I'm happy with. It's usually too roomy or too dull and boomy. Are you
> guys using any EQ on the way to tape? I must be doing something wrong. Or does
> it only work well for sparse arangements and suck wind in a rock DMB type of
> band?
> ---
> -Jay Kahrs
> Mad Moose Recording Inc.
> (formerly BrownSound Studios)
> Livingston, NJ
> http://members.tripod.com/~BrownSoundStudios
| Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger" [8] |
|---|
From: Analogeezer <analogeezer@my-deja...>
Subject: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:00:18 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Well I'm not really a guitar player, but I've always wanted a good one
to try and write with, plus guitar players keep bringing in the
skankiest acoustics to my studio; so I bought a Taylor a few weeks back.
The particuliar model is called a 312CE, which for those who don't know
Taylor's nomenclature, is a "Grand Concert" body style, with a cutaway.
It's about an inch thinner than the regular Taylor models, and the
length and width of the body is a bit smaller as well.
Needless to say it has a much more delicate sound than a jumbo or
Dreadnaught, not nearly as much bass.
I actually bought this guitar for a few reasons:
1. I got an incredible deal on it, from I guy that I buy stuff from
(bass stuff really, he doesn't have much pro audio gear) who is a small dealer - real great guy, the kind you want to support.2. Most of my use for an acoustic is for "ear candy", where the track is
kind of in the background, not featured. For this app, having a huge "jumbo" kind of sound is often a drawback3. I have short arms and found the thinner/smaller body much easier to
play than the big TaylorsAnyway, it's a great sounding guitar, but kind of small sounding, and
I've realized that there may be some instances when it's the best
sounding acoustic available (only one of my guitar player friends really
has good acoustics - both 800 series Taylors)but I would need to make it
sound "bigger" than it actually is.
I realize mic placement would likely have a lot to do with this, but are
there some other "tricks" that are used to "fatten up" thinner
sounding acoustics?
Would a large format condensor help more than a small condensor?
I'm figuring that just adding low end EQ isn't going to work all that
well, I need to capture more of it coming off the guitar.
Forgive my ignorance, I've been off in electronics and midi land for the
last 8 years or so, and the only acoustic tracks I've done have been of
the quick and dirty variety, with skanky guitars that sounded like crap
no matter where you put the mic.
Thanks,
Analogeezer
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Garthrr <garthrr@aol...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: 25 Jan 2001 17:14:35 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <94piib$iq6$<1@nnrp1...>>, Analogeezer <<analogeezer@my-deja...>>
writes:
>
>Anyway, it's a great sounding guitar, but kind of small sounding, and
>I've realized that there may be some instances when it's the best
>sounding acoustic available (only one of my guitar player friends really
>has good acoustics - both 800 series Taylors)but I would need to make it
>sound "bigger" than it actually is.
When I first bought the AT 4047 I tried it on an acoustic very much like you
describe. In fact this guitar was practically a toy and had a very small,
midrangy sound in the room. I was recording the player where I couldnt see him.
When I first heard the sound through the mic I thought he must have changed to
a different guitar. I ran right upstairs and was quite surprised to see the
same lame-ass guitar on his lap. In this particular case the 4047 had performed
majic. Worth a try.
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
From: EdGerhard <edgerhard@aol...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: 25 Jan 2001 17:21:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Analogeezer wrote:
<< I realize mic placement would likely have a lot to do with this, but are
there some other "tricks" that are used to "fatten up" thinner
sounding acoustics? >>
One or two things I've found when recording guitars;
Pulling mics back a bit helps a lot. Super close mic'ing can be nice, but if
you can get a little of the room in the recording the guitar's gonna get a bit
bigger. Stereo mic'ing works fine, 3 mics is better. Maintain a good center
image- hearing all the string noise coming from the right and all the bass from
the left is cheesy. Large or small diaphragm doesn't really make that much
difference to me, but my KM 84s sound a bit larger and heftier than my KM 140s-
maybe it's the transformers. Sometimes a little bit of pickup mixed in is nice,
too. Lastly, play it so it sounds fat- all that other advice is useless if you
can't make a reasonable sound come out of the instrument!
Good luck.
Cheers,
Ed
From: Kevin F Rose <kevinfrose@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:37:27 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
If grand concert is a nod to orchestra model (which your description
implies sans cutaway) then your closer than you think. Fullsize D28's
drive me nuts with their boomy/sizzle thing but an OM (thinner) works
wonders in front of a mic.
I've had great luck lately by using a 184 through a Vmp2 combinedwith a Royer 121 iced in with proximity effect to taste. This technique
places the 184 around the 12th fret 8-24 inches out. I then bring the
121 over the guitar sometimes over the guitar player and move it in and
out to gain the ribbons famous proximity effect as needed. It's kind of
like a built in EQ. I'm assuming that 121's aren't in your locker
currently (and don't work on acoustic alone)but up until recently this
upper mic has been many different characters.
Listen while the guitarist is playing in those upper areas for whereyour mic wants to be and I'm positive you will hear it.
Good luck! and fresh strings...
--
Kevin F. Rose
"No the metronome is not slowing down"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: reap <dbrady@mediaone...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:07:44 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
I've had good luck lately using an oktava mc012 at around the 12th
fret (6-8" away) going into a neve 1089 w/hpf at 80 and high shelf
boost @ 8 0'clock. Then a tlm 103 into a vmp-2 just over the
guitarist's right shoulder, both going directly to a otari mx-50, no
compresssion. I then dump it into my daw @ 24/96.
Exquisite! Beats the Hell out of piezzio's <vbg>.
Dan
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:00:18 GMT, Analogeezer
<<analogeezer@my-deja...>> wrote:
>Well I'm not really a guitar player, but I've always wanted a good one
>to try and write with, plus guitar players keep bringing in the
>skankiest acoustics to my studio; so I bought a Taylor a few weeks back.
>
>The particuliar model is called a 312CE, which for those who don't know
>Taylor's nomenclature, is a "Grand Concert" body style, with a cutaway.
>
>It's about an inch thinner than the regular Taylor models, and the
>length and width of the body is a bit smaller as well.
>
>Needless to say it has a much more delicate sound than a jumbo or
>Dreadnaught, not nearly as much bass.
>
>I actually bought this guitar for a few reasons:
>
>1. I got an incredible deal on it, from I guy that I buy stuff from
> (bass stuff really, he doesn't have much pro audio gear) who is a
> small dealer - real great guy, the kind you want to support.
>
>2. Most of my use for an acoustic is for "ear candy", where the track is
> kind of in the background, not featured. For this app, having a huge
> "jumbo" kind of sound is often a drawback
>
>3. I have short arms and found the thinner/smaller body much easier to
> play than the big Taylors
>
>Anyway, it's a great sounding guitar, but kind of small sounding, and
>I've realized that there may be some instances when it's the best
>sounding acoustic available (only one of my guitar player friends really
>has good acoustics - both 800 series Taylors)but I would need to make it
>sound "bigger" than it actually is.
>
>I realize mic placement would likely have a lot to do with this, but are
>there some other "tricks" that are used to "fatten up" thinner
>sounding acoustics?
>
>Would a large format condensor help more than a small condensor?
>
>I'm figuring that just adding low end EQ isn't going to work all that
>well, I need to capture more of it coming off the guitar.
>
>Forgive my ignorance, I've been off in electronics and midi land for the
>last 8 years or so, and the only acoustic tracks I've done have been of
>the quick and dirty variety, with skanky guitars that sounded like crap
>no matter where you put the mic.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Analogeezer
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 01 15:39:35 GMT
Organization: Jagunet Access Services (using Airnews.net!)
In Article <94piib$iq6$<1@nnrp1...>>, Analogeezer
<<analogeezer@my-deja...>> wrote:
>Well I'm not really a guitar player, but I've always wanted a good one
>to try and write with, plus guitar players keep bringing in the
>skankiest acoustics to my studio; so I bought a Taylor a few weeks back.
>
>The particuliar model is called a 312CE, which for those who don't know
>Taylor's nomenclature, is a "Grand Concert" body style, with a cutaway.
>
>It's about an inch thinner than the regular Taylor models, and the
>length and width of the body is a bit smaller as well.
>
>Needless to say it has a much more delicate sound than a jumbo or
>Dreadnaught, not nearly as much bass.
Big gets translated differently in at least several ways.
Try a Neumann M149 in Omni (or a click from omni to figure of eight) and put
the mic directly in front of the soundhole. Yes. Directly in front. If you
can't get your hands on a M149, try another omni. I've done this and had
good results with a AT 4050.
Try A Neumann RSM 191 stereo mic and mess with the spread adjustment in L/R
until you get it the way you want.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's audio equipment reviews and V/O sound files can be accessed at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
From: <jpstemwedel@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:50:01 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
You're probably gonna be better off than you think. D-sized guitars
more often than not have unusable bass for recording and the standard
micing tricks for acoustic are tailored to working around them. If you
need low end, take advantage of the proximity effect of your
directional mics or the fact that the soundhole is a great place to
grab bass frequencies. I play and record with a Seagull Grand, an
inexpensive little parlor style guitar, and with careful mic placement
I've never wanted for low end on it, and it's all controlled and
useable. I'm kind of a freak, though, and like large diaphragm
dynamics, sometimes combined with small diaphragm condensors for a bit
more detail and sparkle, since I tend to shoot for a warm, midrangey
and full sound and avoid hypey treble. With two mics, always sum to
mono so you can catch any comb filtering problems.
If you want that larger than life sound like Kotke, Hedges, et al., you
probably ought to get a good magnetic sound hole pickup. Available
bass is typically huge from these things, and combining it with other
micing and pickup techiques can create a big, encompassing sound.
Typical caveats to make sure that you are adding with each method and
not cancelling frequencies.
jp
In article <94piib$iq6$<1@nnrp1...>>,
Analogeezer <analogeezer@my-deja.com> wrote:> Well I'm not really a guitar player, but I've always wanted a good one
> to try and write with, plus guitar players keep bringing in the
> skankiest acoustics to my studio; so I bought a Taylor a few weeks
back.
>
> The particuliar model is called a 312CE, which for those who don't
know
> Taylor's nomenclature, is a "Grand Concert" body style, with a
cutaway.
>
> It's about an inch thinner than the regular Taylor models, and the
> length and width of the body is a bit smaller as well.
>
> Needless to say it has a much more delicate sound than a jumbo or
> Dreadnaught, not nearly as much bass.
>
> I actually bought this guitar for a few reasons:
>
> 1. I got an incredible deal on it, from I guy that I buy stuff from
> (bass stuff really, he doesn't have much pro audio gear) who is a
> small dealer - real great guy, the kind you want to support.
>
> 2. Most of my use for an acoustic is for "ear candy", where the track
is
> kind of in the background, not featured. For this app, having a
huge
> "jumbo" kind of sound is often a drawback
>
> 3. I have short arms and found the thinner/smaller body much easier to
> play than the big Taylors
>
> Anyway, it's a great sounding guitar, but kind of small sounding, and
> I've realized that there may be some instances when it's the best
> sounding acoustic available (only one of my guitar player friends
really
> has good acoustics - both 800 series Taylors)but I would need to make
it
> sound "bigger" than it actually is.
>
> I realize mic placement would likely have a lot to do with this, but
are
> there some other "tricks" that are used to "fatten up" thinner
> sounding acoustics?
>
> Would a large format condensor help more than a small condensor?
>
> I'm figuring that just adding low end EQ isn't going to work all that
> well, I need to capture more of it coming off the guitar.
>
> Forgive my ignorance, I've been off in electronics and midi land for
the
> last 8 years or so, and the only acoustic tracks I've done have been
of
> the quick and dirty variety, with skanky guitars that sounded like
crap
> no matter where you put the mic.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Analogeezer
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: Captain Analogue <captain_analogue@my-deja...>
Subject: Re: Strategies for Making Acoustic Gtr "Bigger"
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:20:30 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
In article <94s9rl$vir$<1@nnrp1...>>,
jpstemwedel@my-deja.com wrote:>
> If you want that larger than life sound like Kotke, Hedges, et al.,
you probably ought to get a good magnetic sound hole pickup. Available
> bass is typically huge from these things, and combining it with other
> micing and pickup techiques can create a big, encompassing sound.
Yeah, I was really disappointed when Kottke showed up for sound check.
I had already set up some nice mics, and he wanted to go direct.
However, he went back in the house, plugged in, and tweeked his own
sound. Easiest night I've had (no monitors), and it sounded great.
Back to the original post, I've had good results with Taylors with the
mic low on the body, aimed toward the bridge, at about 8-10". This was
live with spruce-topped models. Another position, which I've seen Neil
Young use, is on the other side of the sound hole with the mic facing
across the hole. Sound-hole positions can get boomy really fast, just
vary the mic's angle until it fills out enough for you.
--
MUSIC happens in the analogue domain.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
| The Sound Room [3] |
|---|
From: Analogeezer <analogeezer@my-deja...>
Subject: The Sound Room
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:14:13 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
I ordered a pair of mics, along with some shock mounts and a stereo
mic bar from the Sound Room.
Got it pretty quick, but the thing that really impressed me was how well
all the stuff was packed.
Hey I realize they were mics (some extra care is appropriate) but I've
never bought a piece of gear, new or used that was packed as well as
this stuff was.
Every piece (even the shock mounts and T-bars, which came in hard
plastic packaging) was individually bubble wrapped, and a couple of
cardboard tubes were put in the box to take up extra space.
I've often felt that you can tell a lot about a company based on how
they pack a box (that job usually goes to the low guy on the totem
pole) and like I said, this was the best packed box of gear I've ever
seen.
Jay Storey
p.s. FWIW, the order I got from Mercenary Audio (two RNC's a while back)
was a close second...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
From: JP Gerard <jpgerard@advalvas...>
Subject: Re: The Sound Room
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:32:00 +0100
Organization: Planet Internet NV
Yep, I got some Russian NP too.
I just ordered a spare valve and the packaging was THICK!
Taylor's definitely taking care of the merchandise he sends.
Gotta love it!
JPG
<<jslator@millerthomson...>> a écrit dans le message news:
9546rq$15m$<1@nnrp1...>...
> I also enjoyed the Russian newspapers wrapped around the cedar box with
> my Oktava's in it. Nice touch.
>
> - J. Slator
>
> In article <<3A7592DE.44BF1E31@stack...>>,
> Erwin Timmerman <<erwint@stack...>> wrote:
> > Analogeezer wrote:
> >
> > > I ordered a pair of mics, along with some shock mounts and a stereo
> > > mic bar from the Sound Room.
> > >
> > > Got it pretty quick, but the thing that really impressed me was how
> well
> > > all the stuff was packed.
> >
> > I second this. I remember that when the package came, that I was even
> a bit
> > annoyed that I had to put so much effort into unwrapping them. My
> first
> > LDC's, I wanted to look at them as soon as possible, but all the &^%&%
> > bubble wrappers were between me and the mics :-)
> >
> > Of course I was glad the were packed thoroughly, I was just impatient.
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Erwin Timmerman
> >
> > --
> > "Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted in the
> first
> > place" - Fletcher's dad
> >
> > Links to a lot of recording FAQs: http://go.to/recordingfaq
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
From: Taylor Johnson <htjohnson@prodigy...>
Subject: Re: The Sound Room
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:36:39 -0500
Organization: The Sound Room
Guys:
I'm glad you enjoy my packing. Since I like to burn in most
of the stuff right before it goes out - I have the packing
area next to the test bench - so I do most of it anyways.
Isn't this what CUSTOMER SERVICE is supposed to be about?
You should see how my Russian partners pack the incoming
shipments ---- three years of practice and it's down to a
science!
I like the Russian Newspapers,too , but the LUCKY ones get
the English Version of the MOSCOW TIMES!!!!
Thank's so much for the support - I'll pat the staff on the
back and go get another pint of coffee ice cream.....
Taylor
Chief cook, bottle washer
tester, engineer, shipper,
designer, ....... driver
--
The Sound Room
http://www.sound-room.com
Specialists in:
Russian Microphones (RTT,ELATION,OKTAVA,BYETONE,NEVATON,) SABRASOM accessories, ON-STAGE stands/racks EBTECH signal products, RAMTECH cable & FUNK LOGIC accessoriesCheck out Taylor's NEW line of microphones
http://www.theaudio.com
| Condenser mic for home recording [3] |
|---|
From: Mike Rivers <mrivers@d-and-d...>
Subject: Re: Condenser mic for home recording
Date: 31 Jan 2001 11:19:54 -0500
Organization: D & D Data, Vienna, VA
In article <<3A775FDC.7762F4DE@earthlink...>> <cedricl@earthlink...> writes:
> Try to find the original AKG C3000 if you can, not the new 3000B. The
> old one
> has cardiod and hypercardiod paterns. Two mics in one.
Even AKG recognized that the mic needed to sound better. That's why
they redesigned it. For a beginner, a cardioid and a hypercardiod are
not "two mics in one". I wouldn't recommend it for a poor student.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (<mrivers@d-and-d...>)
From: Keith Blackwell <kwb@mtdkbux...>
Subject: Re: Condenser mic for home recording
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 19:24:12 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Northern Colorado
Cedric Lathan <<cedricl@earthlink...>> wrote:
CL| Try to find the original AKG C3000 if you can, not the new 3000B. The
CL| old one
CL| has cardiod and hypercardiod paterns. Two mics in one. There must be a Guitar
CL| center around that has a pair. The C1000 are nice also. They have an
CL| adapter to
CL| go from cardiod to hyper also.
Omigosh. Well, ok, let's all say that the C1000s can actually be useful
in certain applications to achieve a certain sound. Andy Hong was recently
interviewed in Tape Op, and he praised these mics as having the purest,
sweetest mid-range of any small cardioid condenser. The general consensus,
however, is that they are not a good value for general-purpose condensers
when compared to others in a similar price range (which others have identified
as the Octavas, Crown CM700, Marshall MXL-603s, and if you want omni, the
Audix TR-40), primarily because of their harsh and spitty high-end.
NEVERTHELESS, I have 2 C1000s that I am ready to get rid of, but I want some
money for them so I can afford to buy something better. If you really want
some C1000s, then I'll sell you mine for $155 each. They're in like-new
condition, never abused, etc. Indeed, they do have a pattern converter to
switch from cardioid to hypercardioid, and each pattern has a different off-
axis response, making them a bit more versatile than you might otherwise
think at first. Besides that, they can run off 9V batteries instead of
phantom power, which could be an additional advantage for some folks. So
sure, someone might actually want these mics. Just not me. If you want
them, please buy mine. But the advice being given here is that you
probably *don't* want them.
I'm serious about selling them, by the way. Aren't I a great salesman?
--
Keith W. Blackwell
** If sending email, please edit the return address (remove "NO.UCE.PLEASE.").
** Or use (without the spaces): < keith _ blackwell @ agilent . com > .
** My employer has nothing to do with this posting.
From: George Perfect <xgeorgep@byline...>
Subject: Re: Condenser mic for home recording
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:30:20 -0000
Organization: Byline Group
The Oktava MC012 - I have a pair of them and they knock spots off the pair
of AKG C1000S that were an early purchase (though I occasionally prefer the
AKGs on female choirs).
Digital Village has the MC012 at £179 (haggle, though - I paid less for
mine) for the package with three capsules and a pad or about £100 with the
cardioid capsule alone. Their web site is www.digitalvillage.co.uk
Usual disclaimers - no connection etc. You'll also find these mics at
similar prices at several of the retailers that advertise in SOS so shop
around if you must or, better still, find one locally that lets you listen
before you buy and, even better still, lets you return or exchange after a
couple of weeks if it really doesn't suit you when you get it home.
-- George
My real name is George Perfect
(remove leading 'x' from email address for anti-spam - thanks)
"Tim" <<tim.moss@btinternet...>> wrote in message
news:9577ch$416$<1@plutonium...>...
> I'm looking to get a condenser mic for home recording, I've been
recommended
> a few. Most notably the AKG C1000 and C3000, and there was an Audio
Technica
> one as well.
>
> Anyone have any suggestions/recommendations? It's not for anything
specific.
> I'll probably be recording vocals, acoustic guitars and double bass at
> least, but I'm not restricted to that.
>
> I'm a poor student so preferably not far above the £200 limit.
>
> Cheers,
> Tim.
>
>
| Microphone Question [2] |
|---|
From: Dale Palmer <dalebaby@home...>
Subject: Microphone Question
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:28:41 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I've got a question about microphones. I need to buy a mic and I would like
to spend about $50 for it. Here is my situation. I play banjo and guitar.
I like bluegrass and I also strum a guitar and sing many styles of song.
I have recently started jamming with a country music band most of whom play
electric guitars with amps. I like to play an acoustic guitar and sing as
does the band leader. So far, when it is my turn to sing, someone passes me
their mic.
The band leader asked me to buy a microphone to plug into his mixer (6 or 8
mics) which feeds his amp. The plugs are 1/4 inch plugs. His mic and the
fiddler's mic go to this mixer now.
My plan is to use a mic stand that I own and put a flexible neck on it to
hold a mic which will go to the band leader's amp. I've been trying to
figure out what mic to buy for about $50. I've been reading and am almost
totally confused about low impedance, high impedance, dynamic, and
condenser, cord lengths, plug types (3 prong, 1/4 inch, and 1/8 inch). What
I want to do is have one mic with a 1/4 inch plug and sing and play into it
such that it picks up my voice and the guitar.
What type, make, etc mic would you recommend? Omnidirectional, etc? plug
type? condenser/dynamic? cord length? impedance?
I've already got a cheap mic (good sound though) which has a 1/8 inch plug.
Will an adapter to 1/4 inch work ok? That way I can use the one I already
have. It says 600 ohms which I guess is high impedance and it is a dynamic
mic.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Microphone Question
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:22:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Dale Palmer <<dalebaby@home...>> wrote in message
news:t%Ce6.221485$<iy3.51627758@news1...>...
> I've got a question about microphones. I need to buy a mic and I would
like
> to spend about $50 for it. Here is my situation. I play banjo and
guitar.
> I like bluegrass and I also strum a guitar and sing many styles of song.
>
> I have recently started jamming with a country music band most of whom
play
> electric guitars with amps. I like to play an acoustic guitar and sing as
> does the band leader. So far, when it is my turn to sing, someone passes
me
> their mic.
>
> The band leader asked me to buy a microphone to plug into his mixer (6 or
8
> mics) which feeds his amp. The plugs are 1/4 inch plugs. His mic and
the
> fiddler's mic go to this mixer now.
>
> My plan is to use a mic stand that I own and put a flexible neck on it to
> hold a mic which will go to the band leader's amp. I've been trying to
> figure out what mic to buy for about $50. I've been reading and am almost
> totally confused about low impedance, high impedance, dynamic, and
> condenser, cord lengths, plug types (3 prong, 1/4 inch, and 1/8 inch).
What
> I want to do is have one mic with a 1/4 inch plug and sing and play into
it
> such that it picks up my voice and the guitar.
>
> What type, make, etc mic would you recommend? Omnidirectional, etc? plug
> type? condenser/dynamic? cord length? impedance?
>
> I've already got a cheap mic (good sound though) which has a 1/8 inch
plug.
> Will an adapter to 1/4 inch work ok? That way I can use the one I already
> have. It says 600 ohms which I guess is high impedance and it is a
dynamic
> mic.
>
> Thanks for any help you can provide.
>
The AKG D880 will fill your bill I think it is under 60$ at
www.musiciansfriend.com, DO NOT GET any low cost shure or audio technica
mics they are for crap
George Gleason
| acoustic recording [5] |
|---|
From: Jim Figurski <uglijim@mediaone...>
Subject: acoustic recording
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 03:39:16 GMT
I'm doing some mic recording of an acoustic on my comp. I'm using a
shure-sm 57. I realize this is not the ideal choice for micing acoustics,
however at the same time, i'm trying to be economical. If you could, please
tell me what would be the best mic for recording acoustic guitars in the
$100 range, $200, $300 and $400.
thanks
jim figurski
--
The Unofficial Homepage of Akira Ifukube
http://people.mw.mediaone.net/uglijim
From: Greg Thomas <gjthomas@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: acoustic recording
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:53:24 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Jim Figurski <<uglijim@mediaone...>> wrote in message
news:EDJg6.385$<Q5.274475@typhoon...>...
> I'm doing some mic recording of an acoustic on my comp. I'm using a
> shure-sm 57. I realize this is not the ideal choice for micing acoustics,
> however at the same time, i'm trying to be economical. If you could,
please
> tell me what would be the best mic for recording acoustic guitars in the
> $100 range, $200, $300 and $400.
>
> thanks
> jim figurski
I've had reasonably good luck with Rode NT-1 (about $180) and better with
Rode NT-2 (about $300). Now if you want a really nice sound, try anything
by Neuman (from about $500 on up to as much as you want to spend)
Greg
From: Raymond Varona <gte491n@prism...>
Subject: Re: acoustic recording
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:34:28 -0500
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA, USA
"Jim Figurski" <<uglijim@mediaone...>> wrote in message
news:EDJg6.385$<Q5.274475@typhoon...>...
> I'm doing some mic recording of an acoustic on my comp. I'm using a
> shure-sm 57. I realize this is not the ideal choice for micing acoustics,
> however at the same time, i'm trying to be economical. If you could,
please
> tell me what would be the best mic for recording acoustic guitars in the
> $100 range, $200, $300 and $400.
>
> thanks
> jim figurski
>
>
>
> --
> The Unofficial Homepage of Akira Ifukube
> http://people.mw.mediaone.net/uglijim
>
>
I'm not sure if all the old threads are still around and I remember this
being brought up before, but I'll chip in my two cents. If you don't
already have a preamp or mixer, I'd strongly suggest you get one of those
first. I'd suggest somthing like the Spirit powerpad or Behringer Eurorack
series. Both can be had for under $200, and they usually have 4 XLR ins
with phantom power and mic pre's. There's also those ART preamps for about
$100. If you've been going straight from the SM57 to the soundcard via a
mess 'o adapters, I'm sure you'll find the preamp/mixer to be a vast
improvement.
Microphones are a tricky matter, since the only advice I could possibly give
would begin with the phrase, "Well it depends on..." It all really does
depend on your room, style of play, mic distance, tone, etc, etc, etc. In
general though, some of the previously suggested mics are good. In my
humble opinion, I find the Rodes to be a little too harsh (especially the
NT-1) for acoustic guitar. The NT-2 seems fairly good, but when I first
tried the NT-1 it made me cringe. The Marshall is a pretty good value,
considering it's ridiculously cheap, but then again, I prefer the sound of
the SM57. Go figure. Give it a listen though, maybe you'll find that you
like it. I personally use Oktava's now, given my miniscule budget. They're
dirt cheap (at GC, $150 for the MK012 small-diaphragm, and $200 for the
MK319 large-diaphragm), but be warned that they're REALLY inconsistent. I
asked the salesman to bring out three of each and they all sounded
different. One sounded like Niagra falls was next door and another had that
lovely BBBBZZZZ!!! that we all know and love. Generally though, t