| Neumann KM 184 [6] |
|---|
From: Stonker7 <stonker7@aol...>
Subject: Neumann KM 184
Date: 12 Jan 2002 02:09:23 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Any ideas on the best place to purchase a Neumann KM 184. They list for $699
but I've seen somewhere a price of $549. Any leads are appreciated.
Fred Albert
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:31:42 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Stonker7 <<stonker7@aol...>> wrote:
> Any ideas on the best place to purchase a Neumann KM 184. They list for $699
> but I've seen somewhere a price of $549. Any leads are appreciated.
EAR Professional Audio and Video, in Phoenix:
I've had great service and pricing from Jerry Delgado at EAR:
<jerry@ear...>
EAR PROFESSIONAL AUDIO/VIDEO |
(Engineering and Recording Inc.) |
2641 E. McDowell Rd. Phoenix, AZ 85008 |
Phone: (602) 267-0600 FAX: (602) 275-3277 |
Voice Mail/Direct E-Fax: (800) 861-3132 |
<info@Ear...> or http://www.ear.net |
Also Full Compass:
Also Mercenary Audio in Boston, which of all these places has the most
knowledgeable sales weasels, people who actually do engineering and
production and not just sales:
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
131 Morse Street
Foxboro MA 02035
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
Also, Klay Anderson in Salt Lake City.
1-800-FOR-KLAY
Watch out for grey market Neumanns, because if anything goes wonky with
'em you must return them to Germany for waranty service. Not to worry if
buying from an authorized US dealer. Neumann USA service is keen.
Also, consider the MicroTech Gefell M300, another German small cap
condensor that can be had for under $500. Lance McCollum bought a pair
of these last year and likes them. Good place for those is Studio Tech
Supply, who may have recently moved from Dallas/Ft. Worth to Austin TX.
http://www.studiotechsupply.com/
If phoning, ask for Barbara Priest, who owns the place with her husband
Al.
There are many other suppliers, too, but these are the easy one for me
to find, and good people all 'round.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: 12 Jan 2002 21:37:05 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Stonker7 <<stonker7@aol...>> wrote:
> Any ideas on the best place to purchase a Neumann KM 184. They list for $699
> but I've seen somewhere a price of $549. Any leads are appreciated. >>
Full Compass has some "B-stock" KM-184s for under $500, as listed in a sales
flyer that came in last Weds.
stv
Tar Baby Tunes
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:30:03 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
John Sorell <<jsorell@infi...>> wrote:
> What is B-stock?
Something about which one must know the credibility of the vendor before
deciding to make a purchase with confidence. Sometimes it's as simple as
a box that is no longer factory sealed, or even just that the sealed
packaging looks bruised; sometimes it's a small blemish, or a missing
cord that was initially included, etc. And sometimes it's an impaired
device that you don't want.
So, to me, the key elements to satisfaction buying B-stock are that it
come with original, full-length warranty and that I have faith in the
integrity of the vendor.
In the example of a Neumann microphone from Full Compass I would not
hesitate in the least.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: John Sorell <jsorell@infi...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 05:10:13 -0700
Yes! Stay away from David Butler (DB Engineering). He does a preponderance
of ebay auctions for gray market Neumann products and he is a jerk. He tried
to screw me over on an auction I "won" on a KM184. I called him on it and
immediately gave negative feedback. He squealed pretty loudly about the
feedback. Apparently it can be devastating to his business (re: the John
Pearce thread). He came up with a satisfactory deal but I hated dealing with
the weasel. Still trying to wash the funk off.
$549 looks like a pretty good price. They are great mics, btw. You will like
it.
John
"Stonker7" <<stonker7@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020111210923.11041.00000826@mb-fv...>...
> Any ideas on the best place to purchase a Neumann KM 184. They list for
$699
> but I've seen somewhere a price of $549. Any leads are appreciated.
>
> Fred Albert
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Neumann KM 184
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 04:22:31 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
John Sorell <<jsorell@infi...>> wrote:
> Yes! Stay away from David Butler (DB Engineering).
I had written:
> Watch out for grey market Neumanns, because if anything goes wonky with
> 'em you must return them to Germany for waranty service.
Nuff said? If you doubt the implication, look into grey market Neumanns
& "db" via Google's Advanced Usenet Search in the archives of
rec.audio.pro.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
| akg c1000s [6] |
|---|
From: ScotFraser <scotfraser@aol...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: 16 Jan 2002 03:08:01 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< >I have wondered how many of those who berate them have actually used them.
>>
How many times do you have to hurt yourself before you know not to take stuff
out of the oven with your bare hands? I haven't USED the C1000 because before I
got that far I HEARD the C1000 on a friend's PA rig. Why go back for more pain?
Scott Fraser
From: YBStudios <ybstudios@aol...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: 16 Jan 2002 16:04:04 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>I haven't USED the C1000 because before I
>got that far I HEARD the C1000 on a friend's PA rig. Why go back for more
>pain?
Same here. Heard a large orchestra in a church with close to ten of them thru
a big Soundcraft board. I had a tough time believing the Lord had anything to
do with that setup. In Memphis of all places.
Wayne
From: Bill Roper <roper@typhoon...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 17:28:03 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: XNet Information Systems, Inc.
In article <a21k76$4j6$<1@panix2...>>,
Scott Dorsey <<kludge@panix...>> wrote:
>In article <92M08.24829$<Vq.229669@rwcrnsc...>>,
>daly <<hughseller@attbi...>> wrote:
>>relative to low price mics, is it as good as its reputed to be? compared to
>>shure sm57,58,etc? thanks.
>
>I had no idea it was reputed to be good. Everyone I know hates the damn
>things.
Not everyone.
It's a pretty reasonable mic for a number of applications.
I've used it as a guitar mic with good success. I only had a problem with
one fellow who had a 12-string with a lot of high end and who plays
"aggressively". Then, it can start to sound a bit brittle. But it worked
well for the other folks I've used it with.
I've used it as a live vocal mic for folks who liked to swallow the mic.
It sounded good on both male and female vocals. It's got a nice presence
peak when you get in close to it, so you pick up the bottom end and
midrange that you can lose with other mics.
It's relatively forgiving of mic placement, because it's relatively
sensitive. If you have a singer who just *will not* get on top of the
mic, you can still get a good vocal take with a C1000s. You won't get
a good vocal under those circumstances with a Shure SM57, which goes
completely tinny when you are at all distant or off-axis.
(For those who say, "Fix the singer", it's sometimes easier said than
done. sigh)
I'm currently experimenting with the Marshall 603s as a guitar mic and
may like it better than the C1000s, but I'm still in experimentation mode.
--
Bill Roper, <roper@xnet...>
From: Ty Ford <tford@jagunet...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 02 13:14:05 GMT
Organization: Technique, Inc.
In Article <<132a4us65umadfvlrem9j5hj727dtruqts@4ax...>>, Jan Philips
<<jud.mccranie@mindspring...>> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 01:59:33 GMT, "daly" <<hughseller@attbi...>> wrote:
>
>>relative to low price mics, is it as good as its reputed to be? compared to
>>shure sm57,58,etc? thanks.
>
>you are on a tight budget and just getting into condensor mikes, it
>has a couple of things going for it. (1) It can run on a battery
>instead of a phantom power supply, (2) it doesn't use a shock mount.
The same could be said of a flashlight, but I would use one to record
important audio.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's web site is http://www.jagunet.com/~tford.
Check it out for voiceover samples and audio equipment reviews.
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: 17 Jan 2002 12:33:38 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
In article <<hjjb4u016sa6jgbkd80qa6751cvqqo7ad7@4ax...>>,
Jan Philips <<jud.mccranieNOSPAMM@mindspring...>> wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Jan 02 13:14:05 GMT, <tford@jagunet...> (Ty Ford) wrote:
>
>>The same could be said of a flashlight, but I would use one to record
>>important audio.
>
>But these could be important if you're just getting started. What if
>oyu don't have a phantom power supply? Some people don't. There was
>a time when I didn't have one. And if you're using a desktop mike
>stand, a clip on works better than a shock mount.
Maybe, but a Radio Shack PZM would have been a better choice than a C1000
a few years ago. I don't really know the really-really-cheap range these
days, and the RS PZM has been discontinued, but there is no excuse for
something that sounds as bad as the C1000 at any price. The SM57 costs
less and is useful, and needs no phantom. Same with the EV 635A.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: YBStudios <ybstudios@aol...>
Subject: Re: akg c1000s
Date: 16 Jan 2002 15:51:15 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>you are on a tight budget and just getting into condensor mikes, it
>has a couple of things going for it. (1) It can run on a battery
>instead of a phantom power supply, (2) it doesn't use a shock mount.
The ATM33 will do likewise and is a much better mic IMHO. I hear the AT3035
series is even better and you can get them in either cardiod or omni.
Wayne
Yellow Booth Studios
Montgomery, AL
| microphones [21] |
|---|
From: chaya <chaya@san...>
Subject: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:02:14 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
...
csj
From: Frank Wiewandt <fwphoto@lrbcg...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 21:12:06 -0500
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
> I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
> that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
> want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
> sources?
I bought a Sennheiser 835 epack that included a really nice boom & stand for
$119. I got mine from American Musical Supply:
http://www.americanmusical.com/item.asp?UID=2002012120022066&menu=&keyword=&
item=SEN+E835PACK
Cut & paste the two lines together for the web page.
I think it does nicely as an entry-level vocal mic.
Of course YMMV.
Good luck,
Frank Wiewandt
From: Dick Thaxter <rtha@loc...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 08:09:00 -0500
Organization: Library of Congress
Susan,
This Sennheiser ePack combo is a great deal. The E835 mic is at least as good
as a Shure SM58--the industry workhorse. But for about $20 more than the cost
of the mic you get a very good boom stand and I think there's a 20 foot XLR
cable in the pack too. Otherwise you could get an SM58 for $100, a mic stand as
good as the Senn one for $35 and a cable for $15.
We used my Sennheiser mic at EC III along with some of Sparky's--last year we
had a bunch of loaner mics--Audix's I think.
Dick
Frank Wiewandt wrote:
> > I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
> > that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
> > want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
> > sources?
>
> I bought a Sennheiser 835 epack that included a really nice boom & stand for
> $119. I got mine from American Musical Supply:
>
> http://www.americanmusical.com/item.asp?UID=2002012120022066&menu=&keyword=&
> item=SEN+E835PACK
>
> Cut & paste the two lines together for the web page.
>
> I think it does nicely as an entry-level vocal mic.
>
> Of course YMMV.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Frank Wiewandt
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 03:17:53 GMT
Organization: Cleardata Communications
The newsgroup favorite FQMS carries microphones. http://www.FQMS.com
Also you check the following:
htttp://www.zzounds.com
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:02:14 GMT, chaya <<chaya@san...>> wrote:
>I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
>that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
>want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
>sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
>...
>
>csj
Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 07:40:30 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"chaya" <<chaya@san...>> wrote in message
news:<3C4CA22B.8C72B9B4@san...>...
> I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
> that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
> want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
> sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
If this mic is to be used for vocals, then for a decent mic that's
affordable it's hard to beat the old standby, Shure SM58. Excellent at
nothing, works okay for most everything, durable, and inexpensive.
First Quality sells them.
Bob Dorgan
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 16:44:39 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Bob Dorgan <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote:
> "chaya" <<chaya@san...>> wrote in message
> news:<3C4CA22B.8C72B9B4@san...>...
> > I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
> > that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
> > want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
> > sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
> If this mic is to be used for vocals, then for a decent mic that's
> affordable it's hard to beat the old standby, Shure SM58. Excellent at
> nothing, works okay for most everything, durable, and inexpensive.
> First Quality sells them.
As usual, I gotta proclaim that nowadays it's easy to beat a Shure SM58
for almost anything, starting with the Audix OM3xb, at a similar price
point. Smoother response, better off-axis rejection, more controlled
proximity effect, increased clarity, better operation with a wider range
of transformerless input mic preamps, which includes almost all
"affordable" such beasts.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Pete Boyle <peteb44@aol...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 22 Jan 2002 19:08:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
You may also want to check out the Carvin CM68 (vocals) & or CM67(instruments).
Great inexpensive ( 89.99 ) mike on par with Shure. www.Carvin.com
Just my .02
Pete
From: Trek5200CS <trek5200cs@aol...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 22 Jan 2002 19:53:52 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I just bought an AKG C535 EB Condenser mic. It is cyrstal clear and cost around
$225 street. Made SM58's sound like muddy cardboard. The difference was
dramatic. But keep in mind, you need Phantom power. A great value in my mind.
Gary Roberts
From: csj <chaya@san...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 22 Jan 2002 16:54:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Thanks to all those who replied. At some point I remembered that I
worked in a library and found a really interesting article where they
compared seven mics to the SM58. It's in "Electronic Musician," June
98, p. 34-52.
They seem to agree with all of you. For enhanced vocals they liked the
Sennheiser E835 and the Electro-Voice n/d267. For clear, unenhanced
vocals they liked the Audix OM2. Oh yeah, they still like the SM58
too.
Given my voice, I'm now afraid of the Audix - maybe some distortion is
better?
I'll sleep on it some more and come up with some arbitrary decision
real soon ...
csj
From: Bob Dorgan <dorgan@fltg...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:37:02 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"csj" <<chaya@san...>> wrote in message
news:<8f0efbd.0201221654.528f64dd@posting...>...
> Thanks to all those who replied. At some point I remembered that I
> worked in a library and found a really interesting article where they
> compared seven mics to the SM58. It's in "Electronic Musician," June
> 98, p. 34-52.
>
> They seem to agree with all of you. For enhanced vocals they liked the
> Sennheiser E835 and the Electro-Voice n/d267. For clear, unenhanced
> vocals they liked the Audix OM2. Oh yeah, they still like the SM58
> too.
>
> Given my voice, I'm now afraid of the Audix - maybe some distortion is
> better?
>
> I'll sleep on it some more and come up with some arbitrary decision
> real soon ...
>
> csj
Susan,
I checked the model Audix I have. The one I've got is #OM6.
I can't find the receipt, and I've had it awhile, but I think I paid well
over $200. I can't remember if I tried the Om2, but I went through 5 or 6
different mics that day and I picked the Om6 because it was clean, crisp and
it picked up well off-axis- but the pattern wasn't so wide it would be
troublesome.
If you get bopping around (like I do!) when you play, it's easy to get offthe pattern of a mic and your vocal volume will change radically if you have
one with a real tight pattern if you're moving about.
An overly wide pattern and you start picking up sounds you don't want, so
it's a tradeoff of sorts.
The mic Dick Thaxter recommended is pretty good and is certainly affordable.
Bob Dorgan
From: Jonathan R. Larsson <sti4667@blackfoot...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 07:50:31 -0700
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
"csj" <<chaya@san...>> wrote in message
news:<8f0efbd.0201221654.528f64dd@posting...>...
> Thanks to all those who replied. At some point I remembered that I
> worked in a library and found a really interesting article where they
> compared seven mics to the SM58. It's in "Electronic Musician," June
> 98, p. 34-52.
>
> They seem to agree with all of you. For enhanced vocals they liked the
> Sennheiser E835 and the Electro-Voice n/d267. For clear, unenhanced
> vocals they liked the Audix OM2. Oh yeah, they still like the SM58
> too.
>
> Given my voice, I'm now afraid of the Audix - maybe some distortion is
> better?
>
> I'll sleep on it some more and come up with some arbitrary decision
> real soon ...
>
> csj
FWIW, zzounds.com has the OM2 on sale right now for $59.95 (list - $150.00).
Here's the link.
http://www.zzounds.com/love.music?p=p.AUDOM2&a=em012202a13
Usual disclaimers apply.
Jon Larsson
From: CyberSerf <nospam.cybrserf@sympatico...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:55:30 -0500
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Chaya,
Gotta agree with the concensus here...a year ago I'd have been boosting the
SM58 like a demon...it's all I used for vocals for close to 20years. Last
year though, I broke down and picked up an Audio Technica ATM41HE and I've
never looked back...I still have my old 58's but I mostly use 'em to mic my
amps...say what you like, they are versitile. So...look around...try a few
different makes and models, you'll no doubt find the right one for you and
your pocket book.
Best of Luck, CS
--
---
The opinions, comments, and advice offered by me here are mine alone.
As such, they carry as much weight as a feather in a snow storm.
Trek5200CS <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020122145352.29192.00000299@mb-ch...>...
> I just bought an AKG C535 EB Condenser mic. It is cyrstal clear and cost
around
> $225 street. Made SM58's sound like muddy cardboard. The difference was
> dramatic. But keep in mind, you need Phantom power. A great value in my
mind.
>
> Gary Roberts
From: Trek5200CS <trek5200cs@aol...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 23 Jan 2002 01:45:43 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
ooops. Missed the original post and was replying to the most recent thread I
had seen. I guess I wanted to brag a little because I finally stepped way up
from my tried and true standard Shure SM57/58's. I was was truly psyched that a
Mic could sound so much better was all. My ego get's me in the most precarious
situations sometimes.
For a sub $100 Mic, I also demo'd the AKG D880 which my local shop sells for
$80. Retails for more than $100. Not sure how much. It made the Shure SM58
also sound rather muddy and bland to my ears as well as the people in my local
music store. I liked the AKG D880 better than the Shure SM87 Condenser Mic that
sells for almost twice as much.
Hope that helps. Have I redeemed myself yet?
Gary
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: 23 Jan 2002 15:34:32 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Susan asked about a low
priced, entry level mic. >>
Altho they can be physically challenging, regarding placement and mounting,
there are small lavalier mics that cost very little and work well. That is,
honestly.
A couple of important points...
The best will be condensor mics, which means that they will need some sort of
power source, a battery or phantom power (from a preamp, a mixer or a direct
box). Many of the inexpensive ones have battery packs with them and will use
common batteries.
The other thing to look for is an "omni" pattern. This means that the mic
listens in a basically spherical pattern around it's little face. The good
news here is that it won't sound bassier as it gets nearer the sound source.
(Omni mics are big favorites for recording guitars in the studio.) The bad
news is that other noises can leak into it since it's not 'focused,' tho if
it's mounted -on- the guitar and close to the strings, this may not be a
problem at all.
While narrower pattern mics (cardioid and hypercardioid) will exclude more
ambient sound, the proximity effect (more bass the closer you get to the sound)
can be weird for an acoustic guitar, tho you
-can- often find a place on the guitar where it sounds good.
Most of these little mics are made for attaching to the body of a narrator.
While YMMV, in general, the more you can spend the better.
At the Cincinnati Celtic Fest last Sept., Ged Foley used a lavalier mic on a
flexy gooseneck for his Stefan Sobell OM. I think it was a Crown 100 (about
$200 list?) and he had a velcro strip on the face of the guitar ready to accept
the other side of the velcro which was mounted to the gooseneck.
It sounded great, but I thought that was a lot of goo to put on a Sobell top
... <g>
HTH,
stv
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 03:23:07 GMT
Organization: Cleardata Communications
Hmmm. FWIW, I thought the original post was inquiring about on-line
places to purchase mics, as opposed to the ubiquitous "what mic is
best" query. Having already responded to what I thought was the
initial query -- here's a response to the other -- there are lots of
entry level mics available. I have been using an Audio Technica ATM
41HE for my (ahem) very limited vocal excursions and I'm quite happy
with it. An inexpensive dynamic mic that seems to work quite well
through an acoustic guitar amplifier or small PA. Of course, what mic
you should get will depend in part upon what use you want to make of
it. Vocals? Guitar sound reinforcement? Live or studio? If you are
trying to mic your guitar, a condenser is generally a better way to
go, but then you will probably need phantom power unless it takes
batteries. And we won't even go near the SD or LD issue. Lots of
discussion of microphones on Rec. Audio.Pro (lots and lots and lots).
Lots of info on that group, although not nearly as hospitable (and
forgiving) as this one.
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 00:02:14 GMT, chaya <<chaya@san...>> wrote:
>I know the topic has been discussed to death here and elsewhere, but now
>that I have a dual input amp, I need a mic. The real question is if I
>want to buy an entry-level one like a sure, are there any good online
>sources? Please don't make me drive for an hour to get to Guitar Center
>...
>
>csj
Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:28:11 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"T-bone" <<dorgan@fltg...>> wrote in message news:<3C4E0E68.1F05@fltg...>...
> Trek5200CS wrote:
> >
> > I just bought an AKG C535 EB Condenser mic. It is cyrstal clear and cost
around
> > $225 street. Made SM58's sound like muddy cardboard.
> > Gary Roberts
>
> At 3 times the price, it's supposed to!
> It's always helpful to reply to the question. Susan asked about a low
> priced, entry level mic.
> I can list 10-12 mics that sound better than any of the sub $100 mics,
> but they don't cost less.
>
> This is a pattern I've seen repeated on this group hundreds of times:
>
> "What's a good guitar for under $600?"
>
> "Hey for $850 you can't beat xyz. Or, if you can go a little more-- for
> $1200 xxx beats the shit out of xyz."
>
Ok here is a 60$ mic that eats the SM58 for sound quality but NOT duribility
The Akg d880
George
From: Mike <m.w.keller@verizon...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:32:43 -0500
So is there a decent condensor mic useful for a home studio situation that's
cheap, let's say below $150 street price?
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:19:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Mike" <<m.w.keller@verizon...>> wrote in message
news:a2nrpd$12vd60$<1@ID-126922...>...
> So is there a decent condensor mic useful for a home studio situation
that's
> cheap, let's say below $150 street price?
>
I really don't record so I would look for a used 535
other than that audio technica has some great ics in their 30 series that
should fall in that price range
www.audio-technica.com
George
From: Todd Belden <toddbeld@merr...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:51:03 GMT
Organization: Progressive Technologies, Inc. www.ptwi.com
I bought an Oktava MK 219 for exactly that purpose a few months ago for $100,
and so far it's worked well. It's a large diaphram condensor mic, made in
Russia. Needs phantom power, and the instructions say to try to protect it as
much as possible from humidity. I found mine on eBay (new), so you might need
to shop around to get that price- the new model (MK 319) goes for just under
$200 from Musicians Friend. Good luck-
tb
Mike wrote:
> So is there a decent condensor mic useful for a home studio situation that's
> cheap, let's say below $150 street price?
From: Steve Hawkins <stephen.m.hawkins@tek...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:18:53 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc.
In article <<3C502DFD.F82EE65C@merr...>>, Todd Belden <<toddbeld@merr...>> wrote:
>I bought an Oktava MK 219 for exactly that purpose a few months ago for $100,
>and so far it's worked well. It's a large diaphram condensor mic, made in
>Russia. Needs phantom power, and the instructions say to try to protect it as
>much as possible from humidity. I found mine on eBay (new), so you might need
>to shop around to get that price- the new model (MK 319) goes for just under
>$200 from Musicians Friend. Good luck-
>tb
>
>Mike wrote:
>
>> So is there a decent condensor mic useful for a home studio situation that's
>> cheap, let's say below $150 street price?
>
Check out MXL. They have some impressive mics for less than $150. I've been
looking at the MXL 603S.
www.mxlmics.com
Steve Hawkins
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: microphones
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 04:26:52 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Trek5200CS <<trek5200cs@aol...>> wrote:
> I just bought an AKG C535 EB Condenser mic. It is cyrstal clear and cost
> around $225 street. Made SM58's sound like muddy cardboard. The difference
> was dramatic. But keep in mind, you need Phantom power. A great value in
> my mind.
Very good mic for the money, and as a condensor will work much better
with most of the cheap preamps around, like those in Mackies, than will
some common dynamic mics, such as the SM57 and 58. James Taylor has used
the 535 for onstage vocals.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
| REQ: microphone to record on computer [3] |
|---|
From: canoe <canoe1@moncourrier...>
Subject: REQ: microphone to record on computer
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 04:55:33 GMT
Organization: Bell Sympatico
The cheap "Cyber Acoustics" one ($15 CAN) records my voice and guitar
as well as a tin can would do, but no better.
Do you know of any reasonably priced microphone wich'd give acceptable
sound? (recording is just a fun domestic pleasure to me).
Thanks if you can help.
Canoe: <CANOE1@MONCANOE...>
From: John Bjorkman <desert2000@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: REQ: microphone to record on computer
Date: 25 Jan 2002 11:19:37 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
I'm certainly no expert in this area, but there are several threads
and web pages around that cover home recording, plus the detail notes
from RMMGA's CD-I and CD-II that cover each person's set-up. It's
probably safe to say that it all gets down to what you consider
'reasonably priced', 'acceptable sound', and 'fun domestic pleasure'.
Once you get going, you may find you want to do more and your initial
set-up may need to be totally scrapped.
It also depends on what you able to hook up to your computer. If all
you have is a standard mini-mic jack, you're stuck with all the
various condenser mics that basically have the fidelity of a
telephone. I haven't tried, but you can probably use an adapter to
get to a standard 1/4" jack size, plus another to get to an XLR (three
pin) connector common to better microphones.
The problem you'll run into is the fidelity available through your
computer's sound card, with no mic pre-amp, etc. So you may be able
to rig things up to use a common Shure SM-48 or -58 (around $99 US),
but if you don't get a better sound card, your recording may still be
unacceptable to you.
And that's where my knowledge ends. Personally I use a Tascam 424
(around $300 US currently). It's a four track tape machine, but it
allows various mic input combinations, some mixing, etc. But when you
add up all the mics, cables, accessories and other sundries needed for
recording, I probably have close to $800 US in gear, although much of
it can also be used for live performances.
There are simpler tape machines out there, too. Hard drive or
PC-cards/machines offer lots of really cool features, and are probably
coming down in price, but again, they're way outside my knowledge.
Not really an answer, I guess, but some more to think about. Besides,
your post looked lonely.... ;-)
peace and joy,
jbj
<canoe1@moncourrier...> (canoe) wrote in message news:<<3c50e3fc.2578862@news1...>>...
> The cheap "Cyber Acoustics" one ($15 CAN) records my voice and guitar
> as well as a tin can would do, but no better.
> Do you know of any reasonably priced microphone wich'd give acceptable
> sound? (recording is just a fun domestic pleasure to me).
> Thanks if you can help.
> Canoe: <CANOE1@MONCANOE...>
From: Francis Guidry <fguidry@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: REQ: microphone to record on computer
Date: 25 Jan 2002 15:51:20 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
You need a decent mic, but once you have that you need to "preamplify"
it to make its signal powerful enough to feed the "Line In" connection
on your sound card. And you need the cables and stands to make all
this work:
Mic: The standard is a Shure SM57. It's a dynamic cardioid mic, which
means it does not need phantom power, and it rejects sound coming from
behind the mic. It also means that if you get the mic too close to the
source it emphasizes the bass response, so you have to adjust the mic
position very carefully. There are several other mics that will do the
job, this is just an industry standard because it is simple, musical,
rugged, and fairly cheap (about $100).
Mic stand
Mic cable
Mixer/Preamp: Two possibilities are the Behringer Eurorack 802 (about
$80) and the M-Audio Audio Buddy (about $120). There are many much
better pieces of equipment - these are cheap. These items do provide
phantom power so you can use a condenser mic if you decide to go that
route.
Stereo cable and adapters to get from the mixer to the line-in jack on
your sound card.
You can use http://groups.google.com to search
Rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic, rec.audio.pro, and alt.music.4-track
for equipment recommendations and technical information.
Fran
<canoe1@moncourrier...> (canoe) wrote in message news:<<3c50e3fc.2578862@news1...>>...
> The cheap "Cyber Acoustics" one ($15 CAN) records my voice and guitar
> as well as a tin can would do, but no better.
> Do you know of any reasonably priced microphone wich'd give acceptable
> sound? (recording is just a fun domestic pleasure to me).
> Thanks if you can help.
> Canoe: <CANOE1@MONCANOE...>
| microphone to record on computer |
|---|
From: Jeb <jcmcgee@uwyo...>
Subject: Re: microphone to record on computer
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:17:15 -0700
Organization: Disorganization
The Rode NT-1 can be found on eBay for less than $150 and is well suited to
acoustic instrument and voice...but you'll need a phantom power source.
jeb
"canoe" wrote...
> The cheap "Cyber Acoustics" one ($15 CAN) records my voice and guitar
> as well as a tin can would do, but no better.
> Do you know of any reasonably priced microphone wich'd give acceptable
> sound? (recording is just a fun domestic pleasure to me).
> Thanks if you can help.
> Canoe: <CANOE1@MONCANOE...>
| Small PA for acoustic duo..recommendations??? [2] |
|---|
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Small PA for acoustic duo..recommendations???
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 02:51:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
<<minette@minn...>> wrote in message news:<3c54b825.12739326@news...>...
> Nice set up. Where can one get a new OM6 for $150 though? $189 seems
> more typical. Thanks!
sorry its the om5 that is 150$ though there are several used om6's currently
being advertised for 89 to 99 $ in the back of Pro Sound News
www.prosoundnews.com
George
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Small PA for acoustic duo..recommendations???
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 05:31:02 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
> sorry its the om5 that is 150$
And the OM5 is also a very good mic, very well worth that and more.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
| Good recording mic [8] |
|---|
From: Flyfis4fun <flyfis4fun@aol...>
Subject: Good recording mic
Date: 30 Jan 2002 22:30:47 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
Thanks,
Mike
From: Joe Jordan <profjdj@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:38:21 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
Flyfis4fun wrote:
>Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
>anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
>Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
>anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
I'm certainly no expert, but I have been researching this
subject pretty heavily for the last few months.
I think if I had $500 for a mic (and I don't, dammit!), I'd
scrape together just a little bit more and get a Neumann
KM184.
You might even be able to find one for that, but they seem
to run more like $550...
Joe
____________________________
Joe D. Jordan
Mobile, AL
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: 30 Jan 2002 23:22:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I recently had the chance to A/B an Oktava 012 cardioid with the KM184.
The Oktava is not as full and rich, but with careful placement, it ain't bad.
My pal bought two of these for something like $150 each (with a nice box, clip
mount and a screw-in 10db pad), and for some more $ you can get a whole
kit with three interchangeable capsules, omni, cardioid and hypercardioid, I
think.
I'd rather have the Neumann, if only because it will hold it's value better,
but for your use, look into the Oktava. Nice.
All the best,
stv
Tar Baby Tunes
steve V. johnson + studio V
Original Music Recordings
All Popular, Ethnic & Formal Musics
Bloomington, Indiana
From: Stephen Boyke <sdelsolray@attbi...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:28:34 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Large condenser, of some quality. A new Neumann TLM 103 (about $750street price) is wonderful, much fuller and with much higher detail than
small condensers. An AKG 414B is nice too.
Flyfis4fun wrote:
>Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
>anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
>Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
>anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
>
>Thanks,
>Mike
>
From: Rich Kelley <rkelley@vcd...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: 31 Jan 2002 22:24:40 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Vancouver Site
People can and do use LD cond. mics for recording acoustics. However,
there are a lot of people that also use small D cond. mics. I personally
have both a KM184 and a TLM 103. I have A/B'd them often on acoustic
guitar. I have always chosen the KM184. The 103, as Stephen says, is
fuller (by which I specifically mean more bass). I have all the bass
I can handle with a KM184, I'm not looking for the mic to add more.
Two asides:
- I'm micing the guitars about 6-8 inches over the 5th fret with the
mic pointed at the 7th to 9th fret.
- I liked the KM184's on a Taylor 615, a Collings OM-2C, and a Martin
D-18GE. The 103 might work on the Collings (smaller guitar, less bass).
It really didn't work for me on the Taylor or the Martin.
You might also want to consider omni mics (all the above mics are
cardiod). Omni mics won't have proximity effect and that should help
the bass issue. However, they will pick up more of the room and any
room noises that might be present.
Besides the KM184 you might consider the Shure SM81 and Crown CM700, AT 4053
in that order. The KM184 is probably the best of this group. Avoid the AKG C1000S.
Don't forget a decent preamp and to work with mic placement.
Good luck.
Rich Kelley
Stephen Boyke (<sdelsolray@attbi...>) wrote:
: Large condenser, of some quality. A new Neumann TLM 103 (about $750
: street price) is wonderful, much fuller and with much higher detail than
: small condensers. An AKG 414B is nice too.
: Flyfis4fun wrote:
: >Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
: >anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
: >Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
: >anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
: >
: >Thanks,
: >Mike
: >
From: George W. <whaler_17@yahoo...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 04:40:29 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
On 30 Jan 2002 22:30:47 GMT, Flyfis4fun wrote:
>Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
>anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
>Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
>anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
>
>Thanks,
>Mike
I'll give the usual "I'm no expert" disclaimer, followed by a
suggestion anyway. I've been trying to learn something about mics
myself...
I've read good things about the Studio Projects C1 mic. Street price
is around $200. There's a review and some links here:
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/2CAB4F71AF9E2A1C86256A650081ECF9
From: Edward Bianchi <NOSPAMej@bianchiNOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:16:00 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
$500 is quite far out of my price range, but when I went looking I was
steered towards the Marshall MXL 603S condensers, and bought two of
them at $80 / each. So far, I am very impressed with how natural
sounding and noise free the recordings are. The folks over at the
alt-4track group seem to like 'em quite a bit, and compared them side
by side with some of the more expensive mics...
-Ed
On 30 Jan 2002 22:30:47 GMT, <flyfis4fun@aol...> (Flyfis4fun) wrote:
>Fella's, can you give me some ideas on a good recording mic or two? Is there
>anything decent under $500 or am I dreaming? I play mostly fingerstyle on a
>Taylor 614c if that helps in the recommendation. I am not trying to do
>anything super fancy just get a nice acoustic sound on my recordings.
>
>Thanks,
>Mike
-Ed Bianchi
remove the NOSPAM to reply via email
From: Marcos <mdswindell@charter...>
Subject: Re: Good recording mic
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 14:32:13 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
In article <<20020202140230.17379.00000708@mb-fk...>>, Mcob2
<<mcob2@aol...>> wrote:
> those octqavas get real chaep at guitar center and work good
Indeed they do and indeed they can. What I did a couple years ago was
to pick up 5 and take them home and test each of them. I found two
that sounded very much alike, and sounded good. Then I took the other
three back. Ask before you do it, though, as some places don't allow
mic returns.
Are they a KM84? Not quite. But not so far away as you might think,
either. QC can be bad though, unless you go to the Sound Room. They
cost more there, but are guaranteed to be of the better quality.
Mark
| Microphones -- Yet Again [4] |
|---|
From: <minette@minn...>
Subject: Microphones -- Yet Again
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 02:46:34 GMT
Organization: Cleardata Communications
Does anyone have any experience with the Alesis GT line of
microphones? Use to be Groove Tubes until that portion of the
business was purchased by Alesis in 1999 or so. Specifically, I am
interested in the AM-30 and AM-40 medium size condensers which would
seem to be appropriate to acoustic guitar. Thanks!
Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Microphones -- Yet Again
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 04:10:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
<<minette@minn...>> wrote in message news:<3c5f469c.3547279@news...>...
> Does anyone have any experience with the Alesis GT line of
> microphones? Use to be Groove Tubes until that portion of the
> business was purchased by Alesis in 1999 or so. Specifically, I am
> interested in the AM-30 and AM-40 medium size condensers which would
> seem to be appropriate to acoustic guitar. Thanks!
> Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
I bet the guys at rec.audio.pro could give you useful advice I can only
say I have never run into it but overall I find Alesis gear severly lacking
in both performance and reliability
BUT
the GT was a quality tag at one time so I JUST DON'T KNOW
George
From: foldedpath <mbarrs@REMOVE-NOSPAM...>
Subject: Re: Microphones -- Yet Again
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:48:18 GMT
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
<<minette@minn...>> wrote in message news:<3c5f469c.3547279@news...>...
> Does anyone have any experience with the Alesis GT line of
> microphones? Use to be Groove Tubes until that portion of the
> business was purchased by Alesis in 1999 or so. Specifically, I am
> interested in the AM-30 and AM-40 medium size condensers which would
> seem to be appropriate to acoustic guitar. Thanks!
> Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
I was getting curious about these too, since they're being unloaded at such
a low price. The AM-40 seems to be the one that might be nice for acoustic
guitar. Here's a review I found (reconstruct the URL, my news software will
probably break it):
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/4CDFE099F47DD60E86256A1D0015
DB00
These mics are not well thought-of on rec.audio.pro, but there's an
automatic anti-Alesis bias in that newsgroup. I didn't get the mic myself
because I saw too many negatives:
1) Alesis is being restructured after a bankruptcy filing. I'm not 100% sure
you'd be able to get warranty service on this mic.
2) I read several places that they're somewhat flimsy.
3) They're probably not being sold with the interchangeable omni capsule,
and you may want that. It's a nice option for avoiding proximity effect with
close mic'ing. You'd have to track down the omni capsule, and it'll increase
the cost by $150 or so.
4) Because they're discontinued and Alesis hasn't got the best rep in the
world, resale value will be low if you decide to sell it later on.
On the positive side, the price is very low right now for the AM-40 so it's
a great opportunity to buy a little more "upscale" than you could
otherwise... that is, if you end up liking the sound. I haven't heard the
mic myself, I'm just passing on some research I did recently. Right now I'm
recording with a pair of Neumann KM-184's that I'm very happy with, but I'm
keeping my eye out for a mic that would add a different tonal color, for
contrast when recording duets. I decided to wait, and I'm thinking about
getting a Soundelux U195 when I can set aside enough money for it. At least
that mic has an established reputation, and I can sell it fairly easily if I
end up not using it.
P.S. I heard that Midiman is picking up the distribution for the new line of
GT mics that will replace this series.
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Microphones -- Yet Again
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 14:07:25 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Yes, that's correct. The fellow who founded GT has in fact bought the
line/name back from Numark, who now owns Alesis.
I've never actually heard those particular mics, but they've gotten decent
reviews in the past. You could always try them and return them so long as
you check their return policy in advance.
Irwin
<<minette@minn...>> wrote in message news:<3c5f6ed0.13840977@news...>...
> Thanks George, I was thinking of trying rec.audio.pro although they
> don't suffer fools gladly over there. Got to get my Kevlar jacket on
> first. I share your concern about Alesis equipment generally. I
> understand that the presale Groove Tube mics were well thought of. I
> haven't been able to find much in the way of reviews of or compelling
> "testimonials" on the post sale stuff. In fact, it looks as if what I
> understood was the current line is now being discontinued - or at
> least it's now listed as discontinued on the Groove Tubes site.
> Groove Tubes has a list of new models on its site for which that I
> haven't even seen any advertising. Alesis doesn't even list the mics
> on its site. Which may explain the rock bottom prices now being
> advertised for the previous (I thought current) line (i.e. a 75%
> discount). Perhaps GT has reacquired the business?
>
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2002 04:10:13 GMT, "George Gleason"
> <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>
> >
> ><<minette@minn...>> wrote in message
news:<3c5f469c.3547279@news...>...
> >> Does anyone have any experience with the Alesis GT line of
> >> microphones? Use to be Groove Tubes until that portion of the
> >> business was purchased by Alesis in 1999 or so. Specifically, I am
> >> interested in the AM-30 and AM-40 medium size condensers which would
> >> seem to be appropriate to acoustic guitar. Thanks!
> >> Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
> >
> >I bet the guys at rec.audio.pro could give you useful advice I can only
> >say I have never run into it but overall I find Alesis gear severly
lacking
> >in both performance and reliability
> >BUT
> >the GT was a quality tag at one time so I JUST DON'T KNOW
> >George
> >
> >
>
> Yeah, I'm an attorney, but everyone needs a day job.
>
| microphone/Ultrasound update |
|---|
From: chaya <chaya@san...>
Subject: microphone/Ultrasound update
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 04:00:32 GMT
Organization: Road Runner
First thanks to all of you who answered my microphone questions - it
really helped. I actually did not go with one of the most recommeded
models because my research led me to think the mic - the Audix - was
actually too good for my singing ability (it wouldn't hide any of the
faults). Also Musician's Friend (ok, all groan at once) was having a
sale on the Sennheiser, and it was only $49. How could I resist?
I tried it out today, and I really like the mic - thanks to whoever
recommended that one - but it also gave me a chance to finally try out
the Ultrasound's mic chanel. It worked wonderfully at first plug! And as
soon as I learn to walk and chew gum at the same time, I'll try using
the mic and the guitar together ...
One of the things I don't see mentioned that much about these amps is
their ability to resist feedback. I don't know what these guys did, but
when I was testing the mic, I was sitting directly in front of the amp -
nothing. Very impressive - to me at least. Feedback has to be up there
with fingers scratching on a blackboard and a dentist's drill in ugly
sounds.
Oh yeah, if you are finished groaning now, I had no problems at all with
MF. They have perhaps the worst designed payment feature in the history
of the web, but all came as promised, and quickly too. Usually I'd
rather by from small stores and/or people I know, but this was too good
a price to pass up. The cheap price simplified a very confusing decision
for me.
csj
| What is a good low cost phantom power supply? [4] |
|---|
From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: What is a good low cost phantom power supply?
Date: 13 Feb 2002 18:10:57 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Group:
I will be buying my fist ever condenser mike (unless you count that cheap one
with the battery I got from RS), but I do not have phantom power at present.
What is an economical way to address this? I have seen units for around $50
(Rolls). Is this adequate? What do I need to look for? I plan to use the
mikes to do some home studio recording.
Thanks!
Best wishes,
Jim Lowther
From: Mouser9999 <mouser9999@aol...>
Subject: Re: What is a good low cost phantom power supply?
Date: 13 Feb 2002 18:47:39 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
If you just want phantom power, the $50 unit is just fine, and Rolls is a
reliable name. Phantom power is not a fancy thing.
Two suggestions, though: for around $100 you can buy a Behringer 602A mixer or
an ART Tube MP mic preamp. Both of these have phantom power as a feature, and
will provide you will much usefulness for only a few bucks more. This is an
especially good idea if you are using an inexpensive multitrack, as they tend
to have disappointing mic pres.
From: Mouser9999 <mouser9999@aol...>
Subject: Re: What is a good low cost phantom power supply?
Date: 13 Feb 2002 21:58:30 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I use the MXL through the ART Tube MP, into a Tascam 488 8-track. It's a good
setup. I use it primarily to record acoustic guitar and banjo, and occasionally
voice. I get a fairly transparent, slightly warm sound to tape. If you're used
to cheap dynamic mics, you'll find it waaaay cleaner.
Audio geeks will scoff at this setup, because this is all pretty low-end for
the condensor mic crowd. However, I really don't think it pays to put a $1000
mic in front of a cassette multitrack. What you're planning to do will give you
a much better sound to tape, and I think you'll be pleased with the results.
From: JimLowther <jimlowther@aol...>
Subject: Re: What is a good low cost phantom power supply?
Date: 14 Feb 2002 04:17:34 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<mouser9999@aol...> (Mouser9999) wrote:
>If you just want phantom power, the $50 unit is just fine, and Rolls is a
>reliable name. Phantom power is not a fancy thing.
>
>Two suggestions, though: for around $100 you can buy a Behringer 602A mixer
>or
>an ART Tube MP mic preamp. Both of these have phantom power as a feature, and
>will provide you will much usefulness for only a few bucks more. This is an
>especially good idea if you are using an inexpensive multitrack, as they tend
>to have disappointing mic pres.
After looking around at what's available, I winder if something like the
Behringer Shark DSP-110 might work (
http://www.gbase.com/gearlist/guitar_picture.asp?guitar=363894 )? Phantom
power plus feedback suppresion, compression, noise gate, etc. Seems like
compression might come in handy on vocals. Also saw the Rolls CL 151 (
http://www.gbase.com/gearlist/guitar_picture.asp?guitar=365376 ), which seems
similar. Any thoughts?
Best wishes,
Jim Lowther
| Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic. [9] |
|---|
From: Danny Taddei <danny@taddei...>
Subject: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:09:52 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I want to get a great live sound out of an acoustic guitar and vocal
performance. As for the vocal mic, I can do a good guess but I want to
attach a good mic on the same stand as the vocal mic for the Guitar
and don't know which mic I should use. I was trying to figure out
which mic it is that is commonly used for the Grand Ol Oprey shows but
couldn't tell what they use. it seems that they stay with the same
mics on most of the shows I have seen but I just can't tell what it
is. That is the sound I am after..... I'm guessing that one of you
there is probably the main man for the show. Anyone know what type of
mics they are or have an opinion as to what I should use?
Thanks
Danny Taddei
From: SOUNDWOODY2 <soundwoody2@aol...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: 25 Feb 2002 01:53:31 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
I would suggest a small diaphram condenser mic. Sometimes in a live setting, I
try flipping the phase on the guitar mic. The vocal gets picked up by the
guitar mic too, and can cause a hollow or boomy sound. This is when I
experiment with throwing the second mic out of phase. You will also get a lot
of the stage monitors comming through the guitar mic. Try to use the guitar's
direct out for the monitors to help reduce feedback. Common small condensers
used for this include: AKG 451/452/460/391/c1000. AT 4051/4041/3041? Shure
sm81. Sennheiser MKH40.Neumann KM. etc.
One of my personal favs for this is the AKG c3000. It is a little larger than
the mics above, but it was price reduced a few years ago and is worth maybe
$150 now. It works well in this situation. It looks impressive to performers
and when you ask them to stay on-mic...and they look at this mic...they seem to
get it better than with the little mics. Sounds dumb, but it is subliminal or
something. The c3000 blocks out the stage mons better too. my2c.
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:40 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
SOUNDWOODY2 <<soundwoody2@aol...>> wrote:
> The vocal gets picked up by the
> guitar mic too, and can cause a hollow or boomy sound.
Not if you orient both mics optimally. I do this often and we do not get
hollow or boomy. Something to do with the Inverse Square Law and aptly
placed cardioid mic patterns. Granted, the guitar player is awesome and
so are his axes. He also knows how to tweak mic positions.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Danny Taddei <danny@taddei...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 06:06:40 GMT
Organization: Excite@Home - The Leader in Broadband http://home.com/faster
I've got one of the C3000B's already so I'll give it a shot. I was a little
concerned about phase problems but more concerned with performance issues of
recording tracks separately.
The Grand 'Ol Oprey shows always seem to sport the same setups and I am
curious if anyone knows what the mics are that are used on the guitars there.
They are black and look like they might be an AT mic of sorts (sort of a
neumann 103 look)
I've never really been that keen on the sound of the AKG C3000b that I have
but I do like the sound of the Marshall mxl 603s which I have a plenty of.
Both seem like they would carry problems with picking up to much vocal.
Either way I'm sure the sound won't suck. I am just thinking how to make it
the best I can. Cost is only a little factor so if I have to but the right
mic I will do it.
Danny Taddei
George Gleason wrote:
> > One of my personal favs for this is the AKG c3000. It is a little larger
> than
> > the mics above, but it was price reduced a few years ago and is worth
> maybe
> > $150 now.
>
> average street price on a NEW c3000 is around 300$
> George Gleason
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:36 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Danny Taddei <<danny@taddei...>> wrote:
> I want to get a great live sound out of an acoustic guitar and vocal
> performance. As for the vocal mic, I can do a good guess but I want to
> attach a good mic on the same stand as the vocal mic for the Guitar
> and don't know which mic I should use. I was trying to figure out
> which mic it is that is commonly used for the Grand Ol Oprey shows but
> couldn't tell what they use. it seems that they stay with the same
> mics on most of the shows I have seen but I just can't tell what it
> is. That is the sound I am after..... I'm guessing that one of you
> there is probably the main man for the show. Anyone know what type of
> mics they are or have an opinion as to what I should use?
For Porch Swing, the acoustic swing quintet with which I play upright
bass, I put an Atlas CO1B clamp on the boom for Dave Johns' D28 and
Super 400, and in that clamp I have variously put a C451, an Audix OM5,
a Beyer M500, M160, and M88, and usually (hold on...) an SM57 that is
running into the Phoenix GTQ2, which turns a 57 into a thousand dollar
mic, same as does the Great River. The low cut on the GTQ2 comes in
handy. At the end of the boom is generally an M88 for his voice.
Just decide what you like, what you think works well with your own
guitar and preamp combo.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Monte P McGuire <mcguire@TheWorld...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 07:01:39 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
In article <<3C798EE0.650A97C8@taddei...>>,
Danny Taddei <<danny@taddei...>> wrote:
>I want to get a great live sound out of an acoustic guitar and vocal
>performance. As for the vocal mic, I can do a good guess but I want to
>attach a good mic on the same stand as the vocal mic for the Guitar
>and don't know which mic I should use.
I do a semi-acoustic live show each month and it's not the simplest
thing to get all these things at once: enough vocal monitor gain,
enough guitar monitor gain and freedom from phasing between the vocal
mike and the guitar mike.
To help minimize the problem, I use some really tight pattern mikes,
the KMS 105 for vocals and the EV ND 468 for guitar. The 468 is
pretty simple to position since it swivels around easily. I place it
near the sound hole about 6 inches back or so and point it slightly
down, so that one part of the null is pointing to the monitor and the
other part of the null is more or less pointed to the vocal mike. The
468 and the 105 are both hypercardioid mikes, so your null is a cone,
rather than a line like a cardioid, so you can (sort of) reject two
things at once if you're clever.
This works pretty well overall, but it's a whole lot simpler if the
musician simply has a pickup on the guitar. I know it's blasphemous
to many guitar players to use a pickup, but if they want screaming
monitors, it ain't gonna happen with a couple of high gain mikes
scattered near the wedges, never mind two people with the same
requirements. If you have a pickup, feed that to the monitors
exclusively and get a mix of the mike and pickup to taste for the
house.
The other annoyance is that some people don't know how to handle tight
pattern mikes, and they back off of them or wander around. Backing
off the mike pretty much eliminates the benefits of directionality and
it sounds bad - you lose lots of LF because of the excess proximity
effect that you get with a tight pattern mike. Wandering around gives
you uneven levels and uneven LF response, both of which are annoying
to deal with.
If the person is gonna wander, then give up the idea of using a guitar
mike. It simply isn't practical. I _have_ to use a mike because most
of the people at the show I do are rockers who don't even own an
acoustic guitar, much less a nice one with a nice pickup, so they
borrow someone's shitty axe that still has the same battery that it
came with in 1992. Even one of those crappy Dean Markley magnetic
pickups is way better than nothing at all, but that's sometimes too
much to ask for.
Whaddya gonna do... noisy bar... must be amplified... gotta use the
tight mikes. If the performer can't figure it out, then you're SOL,
but many times, good ones figure it out.
Best of luck!!
Monte McGuire
<mcguire@theworld...>
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 12:11:26 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
>
> The other annoyance is that some people don't know how to handle tight
> pattern mikes, and they back off of them or wander around.
Artists generally back off the mic if they think they are too loud even
when they ask for more monitor it is not always proper to supply it ESP if
you see them backing off your mic turn the monitor/foh down and they will
pull right up close
Backing> off the mike pretty much eliminates the benefits of directionality and
> it sounds bad - you lose lots of LF because of the excess proximity
> effect that you get with a tight pattern mike. Wandering around gives
> you uneven levels and uneven LF response, both of which are annoying
> to deal with.
This is annoying but when the talent wants to be heard they will find the
mic what ever oine does tghey should never chase the singer or guitar with
the volume
>
> If the person is gonna wander, then give up the idea of using a guitar
> mike. It simply isn't practical. I _have_ to use a mike because most
> of the people at the show I do are rockers who don't even own an
> acoustic guitar, much less a nice one with a nice pickup, so they
> borrow someone's shitty axe that still has the same battery that it
> came with in 1992. Even one of those crappy Dean Markley magnetic
> pickups is way better than nothing at all, but that's sometimes too
> much to ask for.
I am sorry I thought we were talking about professional artists
>
> Whaddya gonna do... noisy bar... must be amplified... gotta use the
> tight mikes. If the performer can't figure it out, then you're SOL,
> but many times, good ones figure it out.
>
Lots of good points Monty I suggest working for diffrent artists
compared to what you described doing Doc Watso was a breeze
George
From: Monte P McGuire <mcguire@TheWorld...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 20:22:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
In article <ORpe8.13618$<Im1.901474@bgtnsc05-news...>>,
George Gleason <<g.p.gleason@worldnet...>> wrote:
>Artists generally back off the mic if they think they are too loud even
>when they ask for more monitor it is not always proper to supply it ESP if
>you see them backing off your mic turn the monitor/foh down and they will
>pull right up close
Good point - I have done this before and with some people, it can
work. Gotta remember this...
>> Whaddya gonna do... noisy bar... must be amplified... gotta use the
>> tight mikes. If the performer can't figure it out, then you're SOL,
>> but many times, good ones figure it out.
>>
>Lots of good points Monty I suggest working for diffrent artists
>compared to what you described doing Doc Watso was a breeze
That would be nice, but this is Boston and the show is a tiny one in a
smelly club! Maybe some day...
Thanks for the suggestions...
Monte McGuire
<mcguire@theworld...>
From: Lina och Niall <lnjunkNOSPAM@malmo...>
Subject: Re: Live sound Q's: Acoustic guit. & vocal mic.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 13:58:55 +0100
"Danny Taddei" <<danny@taddei...>> skrev i meddelandet
news:<3C798EE0.650A97C8@taddei...>...
> I want to get a great live sound out of an acoustic guitar and vocal
> performance. As for the vocal mic, I can do a good guess but I want to
> attach a good mic on the same stand as the vocal mic for the Guitar
> and don't know which mic I should use. I was trying to figure out
> which mic it is that is commonly used for the Grand Ol Oprey shows but
> couldn't tell what they use. it seems that they stay with the same
> mics on most of the shows I have seen but I just can't tell what it
> is. That is the sound I am after..... I'm guessing that one of you
> there is probably the main man for the show. Anyone know what type of
> mics they are or have an opinion as to what I should use?
>
> Thanks
>
> Danny Taddei
>
Hi Danny,
I have just read an article which can be found at:
http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/61C4A2485E8EC64686256B1E0
01FB642
where the guy there suggests a hyper-cardioid, for example Neumann KMS 105
or Neumann M149. I haven't used either, but it sounds like a plan to try.
HTH
Lina, Sweden
| live audio |
|---|
From: Monte P McGuire <mcguire@TheWorld...>
Subject: Re: live audio
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 00:03:12 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
In article <<20020225162501.11029.00000121@mb-fj...>>,
ScotFraser <<scotfraser@aol...>> wrote:
>
>In article <<de3407aa.0202231952.29cdcd3a@posting...>>,
><thomsutpen@aol...> wrote:
>
><< Any ideas as to a better sounding Mic? >>
>
>Than a beta58? Far easier to make a list of the 3 mics that sound
>worse than a beta58 & eliminate those. Consider all the rest.
He was referring to a 'plain' 58, not a Beta. I don't really dislike
the Beta 58, but it does have this sort of annoying boost around 6K or
so that isn't always so easy to get rid of. It seems like the
presence peak starts higher on the Beta compared to the normal 58.
The problem with a 'plain' 58 and an acoustic guitar is that the 58 is
an extremely wide pattern mike. You'll get a lot of guitar into the
vocal mike and thus a lot of phasing compared to a tighter mike. If
the vocal mike gain is low, then this is probably irrelevant, but with
some quiet singers, it may be an issue.
Regards,
Monte McGuire
<mcguire@theworld...>
| Oktava Mic retailers...? [18] |
|---|
From: MKarlo <mkarlo@aol...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: 11 Mar 2002 20:38:26 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
In article <110320020759357902%<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>>, Larry Pattis
<<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> writes:
>Anyone purchase Oktava mics through any reliable source other than
>oktava.com?
>
>Thanks.....
>
>--
>Larry Pattis
>LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
>
>http://www.larrypattis.com
>
Reliable? Meaning available? Or something else? I saw them at my local GC
(the mk012 I wanna say) and the latest Musician's Friend catalog. I pondered
their little condenser mic, but at the price point ($99 that day) I wondered
about the quality. Do we have a "Best Bang/Buck" type item here?
mitch
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:55:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
>
> Reliable? Meaning available? Or something else? I saw them at my local
GC
> (the mk012 I wanna say) and the latest Musician's Friend catalog. I
pondered
> their little condenser mic, but at the price point ($99 that day) I
wondered
> about the quality. Do we have a "Best Bang/Buck" type item here?
Yes comparable to mics costing 4x as much
George
From: Tom Loredo <loredo@astro...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:35:31 -0500
Organization: Cornell University
Larry-
I have a pair of Oktava MC012s that I got years ago, back
when Harris Broadcasting was the US distributor, and before
they were available from the Sound Room, GC, etc.. Although
I'm happy with mine, there definitely are quality control
issues. So I think it is in your best interest to get them
from the Sound Room. Since I own them, I've followed discussion
of them on rec.audio.pro through the years (I can send anyone
a sporadic archive of Oktava posts on request). The Sound
Room has a very good reputation. On the other hand, although
some folks have gotten lucky with Oktavas from other sources,
it has been a gamble. An option if you really want to go
elsewhere is to buy more than you need, make sure they have
a no-questions return policy, pick out the good ones, and
return the others. But I would consider even that a gamble.
The one of mine that has been troublesome only showed its
problems several months after the purchase. BTW, I have had
it worked on by the Sound Room, and although some of its
problems are unsurmountable (nonstandard electronics in the
body of that particular one), they did good work on it.
I'm thinking of buying another one to replace my nonstandard
one, and if I do it will definitely be from the Sound Room.
Peace,
Tom Loredo
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:28:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"Tom Loredo" <<loredo@astro...>> wrote in message
news:<3C8D2323.E95F784B@astro...>...
>
> Larry-
>
> I have a pair of Oktava MC012s that I got years ago, back
> when Harris Broadcasting was the US distributor, and before
> they were available from the Sound Room, GC, etc.. Although
> I'm happy with mine, there definitely are quality control
> issues. So I think it is in your best interest to get them
> from the Sound Room. Since I own them, I've followed discussion
> of them on rec.audio.pro through the years (I can send anyone
> a sporadic archive of Oktava posts on request). The Sound
> Room has a very good reputation. On the other hand, although
> some folks have gotten lucky with Oktavas from other sources,
> it has been a gamble. An option if you really want to go
> elsewhere is to buy more than you need, make sure they have
> a no-questions return policy, pick out the good ones, and
> return the others. But I would consider even that a gamble.
> The one of mine that has been troublesome only showed its
> problems several months after the purchase. BTW, I have had
> it worked on by the Sound Room, and although some of its
> problems are unsurmountable (nonstandard electronics in the
> body of that particular one), they did good work on it.
> I'm thinking of buying another one to replace my nonstandard
> one, and if I do it will definitely be from the Sound Room.
Thanks Tom
I noticed poor quality milling on the XLR input(really hard to insert a XLR
but sound wise the ones I ran into have been fine and i was under the
impression that the QC was not such a big issue
Thanks for the heads up
BTW Todd has a pair over at Calf Audio if you need some extras for a gig
some time
George
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:08:05 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
Good information from all sources, thank you.
I will likely do business with the Sound Room based on the
commentary...even though I will pay a bit more.
That's the lesson we keep learning, isn't it? Good service, quality
control, etc. is WORTH something.
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:44:18 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Larry Pattis <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
> Good information from all sources, thank you.
> I will likely do business with the Sound Room based on the
> commentary...even though I will pay a bit more.
> That's the lesson we keep learning, isn't it? Good service, quality
> control, etc. is WORTH something.
And the pricing difference isn't as great as it seems at first, because
the Sound Room package includes three capsules (though you can buy an
O12 with a single cap), cardioid, hypercardioid and omni. That offers
much more versatility when chasing a particular sound for a certain
piece of music.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:23:21 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
I'll second the Sound Room recommendation. Taylor Johnson, who runs it, is
a good guy. I bought a pair of MC012's from him a couple of years back.
Taylor basically takes shipments of the things, tests them, matches them
repackages them in a nice cherry box (with all three capsules and -10 pad)
and sends them to you. Mine came with individual frequency response graphs
for each capsule.
Good service, too--fairly early on I had a mic preamp body go bad on me, and
Taylor replaced it promptly.
I like the sound of the mics, although they're not for everything. They are
(to my ears) a little darker than a lot of small capsule condensors--more
like Neumann K84s than K184s, if you've heard either of them. One of my
favorite recording methods with them for acoustic guitar is to use the omni
capsules in a Jecklin disc.
Irwin
From: TarBabyTunes <tarbabytunes@aol...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: 12 Mar 2002 02:46:36 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
<< Taylor basically takes shipments of the things, tests them, matches them
repackages them in a nice cherry box (with all three capsules and -10 pad) and
sends them to you. >>
Cool. That's the way to go, IMO, to get the most value from these mics!
<< I like the sound of the mics, although they're not for everything. They are
(to my ears) a little darker than a lot of small capsule condensors--more
like Neumann K84s than K184s, if you've heard either of them. >>
I compared the cardioid pair with KM184s and found the Oktavas a tad thin in
the mid- and lower-midrange, and the top hyped a bit. But I am pretty partial
to KM184s, I must confess.
I did find the Oktavas to differ more than the 184s when used with different
preamps. The MC012s worked best with my Sytek and Neves.
<< One of my
favorite recording methods with them for acoustic guitar is to use the omni
capsules in a Jecklin disc. >>
A great choice. Omnis are great. So be sure to get all three capsules! (Did
I already say that?)
stv
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:52:30 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:18:40 -0700, Larry Pattis
<<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
>
>How do the Neumann KM-140s compare to the 184s, and how might this
>reflect on the MC012 (or MC011, the 'stage' version odf the 012) Oktava
>mics?
>
>I am going to be experimenting with a classical guitar, and I don't
>want to immediately drill for electronics. I have the 140 already, but
>would prefer to not risk the expensive mic at any shows.
>
>--
The KM-140 is one of the variants of the km-100 series. (You can mount
a variety of capsuleson the same barrel.) If memory serves, it's the
cardoid cap'd version. The cap and the electronics are identical to
the 184 but the pre-amp topography is slightly different. This slight
difference makes for a subtle sonic differnce. Both are quite
useable.
I haven't a clue as to what any of this has to do with the Octava's
you mentioned but if I had to gues, the stagew version is probably
physically more robust than the studio unit.
congrats on the new CD.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
From: Larry Pattis <LarryPattis@NoSpam...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:18:28 -0700
Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/
In article <<3c8d797b.18444370@news...>>, Rick Ruskin
<<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:18:40 -0700, Larry Pattis
> <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
>
> >
> >How do the Neumann KM-140s compare to the 184s, and how might this
> >reflect on the MC012 (or MC011, the 'stage' version odf the 012) Oktava
> >mics?
> >
> >I am going to be experimenting with a classical guitar, and I don't
> >want to immediately drill for electronics. I have the 140 already, but
> >would prefer to not risk the expensive mic at any shows.
> >
> >--
>
>
>
> The KM-140 is one of the variants of the km-100 series. (You can mount
> a variety of capsules on the same barrel.) If memory serves, it's the
> cardoid cap'd version. The cap and the electronics are identical to
> the 184 but the pre-amp topography is slightly different. This slight
> difference makes for a subtle sonic differnce. Both are quite
> useable.
I used the 140s for the new CD, so I do like their sound. I definitely
would want to be cautious with them for stage use, however.
> I haven't a clue as to what any of this has to do with the Octava's
> you mentioned but if I had to guess, the stage version is probably
> physically more robust than the studio unit.
I would hope so.
Since we've got you participating here, what mic would you recommend
for solo guitar work on stage, in a situation where no internal
amplification was being used?
That's your normal modus operandi anyway (yes?), so I would truly value
your opinion on this, Rick.
>
> congrats on the new CD.
Thanks.
>
> Rick Ruskin
> Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
> http://liondogmusic.com
--
Larry Pattis
LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
From: Rick Ruskin <liondog@isomedia...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 06:15:26 GMT
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
>
>Since we've got you participating here, what mic would you recommend
>for solo guitar work on stage, in a situation where no internal
>amplification was being used?
>
>That's your normal modus operandi anyway (yes?), so I would truly value
>your opinion on this, Rick.
When carrying my own mics, I would use any of the following:
Electrovoice CS-15, Shure SM-81, Sennheiser K2 or K3U w/cardoid cap
(ME40?,) Sennheiser 421, Electrovoice RE-15, Shure SM-59. The 1st 3
are condensers. All the other's are dynamics.
The thing to watch out for is using too hot a mic with a house console
that might have a front-end with no headroom. That can be worse than
a slightly noisier mic. I find the CS-15 to be perfect because it is
very neutral sounding, isn't particularly hot, output-wise and has a
respectable s/n ratio.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:44:23 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Rick Ruskin <<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote:
> When carrying my own mics, I would use any of the following:
> Electrovoice CS-15, Shure SM-81, Sennheiser K2 or K3U w/cardoid cap
> (ME40?,)
I've had one of those for ages, and every time I put it up I seem to
hear some kind of boxiness to the sound. I'm starting to wonder if it
has to do with some kind of resonance in the shell.
> Sennheiser 421, Electrovoice RE-15, Shure SM-59. The 1st 3
> are condensers. All the other's are dynamics.
> The thing to watch out for is using too hot a mic with a house console
> that might have a front-end with no headroom.
You mean like a Mackie? Might be cool to carry an inline pad just in
case.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: George Gleason <g.p.gleason@worldnet...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:15:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"MKarlo" <<mkarlo@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020312170315.23205.00000196@mb-cc...>...
> Larry Pattis <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
>
> > Good information from all sources, thank you.
>
> > I will likely do business with the Sound Room based on the
> > commentary...even though I will pay a bit more.
>
> > That's the lesson we keep learning, isn't it? Good service, quality
> > control, etc. is WORTH something.
>
> And the pricing difference isn't as great as it seems at first, because
> the Sound Room package includes three capsules (though you can buy an
> O12 with a single cap), cardioid, hypercardioid and omni. That offers
> much more versatility when chasing a particular sound for a certain
> piece of music.
>
I have found the Omnis to be the best sound of the three street price
about 500$ for the pair with three caps each schock mount and nice wood box
george
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:03:25 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Rick Ruskin <<liondog@isomedia...>> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:44:23 GMT, <walkinay@thegrid...> (hank alrich)
> wrote:
> >> Electrovoice CS-15, Shure SM-81, Sennheiser K2 or K3U w/cardoid cap
> >> (ME40?,)
> >I've had one of those for ages, and every time I put it up I seem to
> >hear some kind of boxiness to the sound. I'm starting to wonder if it
> >has to do with some kind of resonance in the shell.
> The CS-15 or the SM-81? The 81 does have a resonance in the sub-bass
> region but I've never run into that with the CS-15.
The K2U with cardioid cap.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:36:12 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Hmm. Well, I guess this simply demonstrates the variety between these mics
(from mic to mic); I find mine not nearly as bright as, say, my Wright TSR
omnis, and pretty full in the mids. I like them better with my Amek pre
than my Manley, which can make them sound too chunky for my tastes.
Irwin
"TarBabyTunes" <<tarbabytunes@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020311214636.17147.00000710@mb-mr...>...
> I compared the cardioid pair with KM184s and found the Oktavas a tad thin
in
> the mid- and lower-midrange, and the top hyped a bit. But I am pretty
partial
> to KM184s, I must confess.
>
> I did find the Oktavas to differ more than the 184s when used with
different
> preamps. The MC012s worked best with my Sytek and Neves.
>
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:44:14 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Tom Loredo <<loredo@astro...>> wrote:
> I have had
> it worked on by the Sound Room, and although some of its
> problems are unsurmountable (nonstandard electronics in the
> body of that particular one), they did good work on it.
> I'm thinking of buying another one to replace my nonstandard
> one, and if I do it will definitely be from the Sound Room.
Did you see Scott Dorsey's recent RAP comments about Oktava O12s sent to
him for repair? Apparently AF McKay, the distributor who feeds MF and
GC, etc., is not too good about warranty service or parts, so Scott has
seen the insides of several of the mics that came through the McKay
route. He said some of them have had mismatched components, as if they
ran out of this resistor or that capacitor on a given day, and some of
them have had completely different circuit boards than what was
intended.
I'd definitely go with the Sound Room for Oktavas.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:36:42 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
Larry Pattis <<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>> wrote:
> Well, since we've got Hank and Rick responding, I guess I also want to
> ask you, Hank, what your live mic preferences would be for guitar.
I've had satisfaction at different times from an AKG C451 (but those are
inconsistent mics, and the one I have is a touch toward the smooth and
mellow side), Beyer M500, M260, M160, and M88, Sennheiser MD421 and
MD441, and from a mic that is often considered only for vox, an Audix
OM5.
When Porch Swing plays, I usually put up a Shure SM57 for Dave Johns'
guitars, a fat and rich '57 D28 and a '51 Super 400, and the mic is
routed to a Great River MP2-MH or Phoenix GTQ2 preamp. The SM57 into a
Mackie or such is not especially satisfying, but into a good preamp it
can surprise folks.
I work with what I have and that I have felt I managed with the mics
listed doesn't mean those mics are the best for the job.
I don't know at what risk the venues in which you play might place a
mic, but Grisman and Co. carry a suitcase of Neumanns, etc., and as long
as you take reasonable care, I doubt you'd have trouble on the road with
your KM184.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Mark Woollard <mark@SPAMTRAPswsoft...>
Subject: Re: Oktava Mic retailers...?
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:39 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
I have a matched pair bought through Oktava.com, I imported them to the UK
as the quality control and matching was worth it in my opinion. I had an
issue with one of the mics after a few months use but a few emails and
they'd talked me through sorting it out (loose wire). I've found them very
helpful and well worth the extra. I notice that in this months Sound on
Sound someone in the UK has just started doing the 'checked and matched'
boxed set too.
Regards
Mark
In article <110320020759357902%<LarryPattis@NoSpam...>>,
<LarryPattis@NoSpam...> (Larry Pattis) wrote:
> Anyone purchase Oktava mics through any reliable source other than
> oktava.com?
>
> Thanks.....
>
> --
> Larry Pattis
> LP "at" larrypattis "dot" com
>
> http://www.larrypattis.com
>
Mark Woollard
email: mark at swsoft.co.uk
| Dumb Mic Question [2] |
|---|
From: hank alrich <walkinay@thegrid...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Mic Question
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 03:48:03 GMT
Organization: secret mountain
JimLowther <<jimlowther@aol...>> wrote:
> On a large diaphragm condenser mic like a Marshall 2001 or 2003 how do you
> orient the mic to the sound source? Do you point at the source, like a
> dynamic mic, or use it with the shaft perpendicular to the source? Does
> that make sense?
Most large diaphragm condensor mics are "side address" mics, so on-axis
is perpendicular to the capsule membrane and body, whereas something
like a Shure SM58 is a "front address" mic and on-axis is parallel to
the body of the mic. The former you use like a tennis racket and the
latter you use like a flashlight.
--
hank alrich * secret__mountain audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
From: Irwin Shur <ishur@earthlink...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Mic Question
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:17:52 GMT
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Not sure if anyone's answered this one, but I believe the Marshalls are
side-address mics and should be perpendicular as opposed to most dynamic
mics which should be straight on.
You also need to consider whether you want to be straight at it or
off-axis--it depends upon the mic and what kind of sound you want. I
believe the Marshalls are cardioid pattern, which means that they will have
a different sound off-axis. You need to experiment with it to see what you
like best. Sometimes a straight-on perpendicular approach can yield too
much lows or highs for your tastes, depending upon the mic. Also, distance
from the source matters a lot with cardioid mics because of the proximity
effect--that is, with a cardioid mic, the closer you get to the source
(i.e., just a couple of inches away), the more bass you get.
If you're using a mic with an omni pattern, there shouldn't be much effect
(exis or proximity). Also, where you're pointing the mic makes a
difference, especially on a guitar. If you point at the soundhole, often
you'll be too boomy; pointing towards the bridge can be too thin. I often
get best results aiming at the 12th fret, but it depends on the guitar.
Bottom line, IMO, you need to experiment with your mics and positioning, but
you definitely want to be perpendicular (unless you're sleeping).
Irwin
Tom from Texas <<trisner52@aol...>> wrote in message
news:<20020321205334.29469.00000205@mb-fj...>...
> >Here it is:
> >
> >On a large diaphragm condenser mic like a Marshall 2001 or 2003 how do
you
> >orient the mic to the sound source? Do you point at the source, like a
> >dynamic
> >mic, or use it with the shaft perpendicular to the source? Does that
make
> >sense?
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Jim Lowther
>
> I asked a girl once how she oriented her diaphragm and got a body part
> condensed.
>
> Tom from Texas
>
| Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ? [8] |
|---|
From: Hans Andersson <handers@tulane...>
Subject: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: 18 Mar 2002 15:23:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Anyone have experience with these entry level tube mics? I find
surprisingly little comment on the Rady given its inexpensive price
but boasting tube condensor mic characteristics. Is there any good
review info which about these 2 mics? I can find very little on the
web?
The Nady can be had for $300, the Marshall for $4-500.
Thanks
hans
From: Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix...>
Subject: Re: Nady tube mic TCM 1050 vs Marshall V77 ?
Date: 18 Mar 2002 18:33:44 -0500
Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000)
In article <<86fb677e.0203181523.50919c3@posting...>>,
Hans Andersson <<handers@tulane...>> wrote:
>Anyone have experience with these entry level tube mics? I find
>surprisingly little comment on the Rady given its inexpensive price
>but boasting tube condensor mic characteristics. Is there any good
>review info which about these 2 mics? I can find very little on the
>web?
>
>The Nady can be had for $300, the Marshall for $4-500.
They are both Shanghai tube mikes. In my experience, Marshall has been
a bit more consistent about production but they both have the same general
electronics and capsules.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
From: No Busking <nobusking@erols...>
Subject: Re: Nad