C1000 any good for acoustic guitar?
Robert Orr
finderstyle solo steel string (a Taylor).
The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
Robert
Harvey Gerst
Robert,
I believe the AKG C1000 is quite a bit longer than the Neumann KM184. I
think the capsules are rather similar in size. They are both low
impedance microphones. The comparison ends beyond that point. If price
is an issue, consider the Oktava MC012.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://ITRstudio.com/
Bill Roberts
Robert Orr wrote:
>
> I want to get a couple of good small diaphram condenser mics for recording
> finderstyle solo steel string (a Taylor).
>
> The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
> compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
They must have been stoned out of their minds.
-- Bill
Barry Blumenthal
<3E38FE69807C86F1.3BB33002...@lp.airnews.net>...
>"Robert Orr" <rw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>I want to get a couple of good small diaphram condenser mics for recording
>>finderstyle solo steel string (a Taylor).
>>
>>The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
>>compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
>
<Harvey's stuff snipped>
Yeah... one less magazine I'll ever have to consider reading, if in fact the
above statement is true. Maybe they liked it because the C1000 will have
you lunging for every EQ device you have in a vain attempt to make it sound
good, thereby reminding you of the mag's name? Better than the KM184?
It'll hold down a stack of papers longer in a high wind, I guess.....
Barry
--
Barry Blumenthal
Freelance Jazz Pianist/Educator/HouseholdFundUsurper
Chase Mills, NY
reply to... bar...@northnet.org or blum...@potsdam.edu
Scott Dorsey
>
>The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
>compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
I want to know what they are smoking.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Stephen Coy
Robert Orr <rw...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7u05m1$nji$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
> The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
> compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
Isn't this the same review that calls the C3000 "warm"? It's nice when the
reviewers give you a common reference point for their comparisons. In this
case it allowed me to quickly write off anything he was saying.
As an aside, in the cheap, small diaphragm condenser search I suggest you
try an AT Pro37R. These can be had for under $140 and sound much better to
me than the C1000 does.
Stephen
carpe...@earthlink.net
Robert Orr wrote:
> I want to get a couple of good small diaphram condenser mics for recording
> finderstyle solo steel string (a Taylor).
>
> The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
> compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
>
> Robert
Comment #1) I don't like KM184's, therefore a mic compared to a KM184 is
already in territory I'm not interested in.
Comment #2) I don't like C1000's, regardless of what they are compared to.
Comment #3) In the C1000 price range I'd check out Audio Technica small
condensers, or look for used SM 81's (which aren't my favorite, but certainly
better than the C1000's), 451's, 460's, or Microtech Gefells.
Comment #4) I would ordinarily recommend the Oktavas or Elations in that price
range, but given the commotion caused by the mere mention of either of those
names, I will refrain from recommending them even though they have a
tremendous bang for the buck ratio; also I will refrain from any mention of
where to buy the afore(un)mentioned mics, even though the general consensus is
that you get quality and service commensurate with the price...
Comment #5) There was no comment #4
Comment #6) No puftas...
Sean Carberry
--
"...Can I get it without the Spam?"
-MPFC
Dave Bakker
guitar. We've used them many times with very acceptable results. They work
very nice in a stereo x-y configuration as well.
However, the C1000 does not compare IMHO with the KM184. The Neumann has much
more detail and realism - the KM184 is simply a much better microphone.
Dave.
Dave Bakker
Lonely Island Studio
http://www.lonelyisland.com
ScotFraser
<<>The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
>compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?>>
That was the April 1st issue I presume.
Scott Fraser
Dirk Offringa
I tried this mic on acoustic guitar (and a couple of other instruments) and
will never try to use it again for anything.
Big deception. Harsh and unnatural, and noisy.
Sorry
Dirk
Robert Orr <rw...@mindspring.com> a écrit dans le message :
7u05m1$nji$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net...
> I want to get a couple of good small diaphram condenser mics for recording
> finderstyle solo steel string (a Taylor).
>
> The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
> compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
>
> Robert
>
>
k_wi...@my-deja.com
"Robert Orr" <rw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I want to get a couple of good small diaphram condenser mics for
recording
> finderstyle solo steel string (a Taylor).
>
> The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
> compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
>
> Robert
>
Robert,
The review I saw in the September issue of EQ, by David Huber, mentions
that he tried a C3000 on some things along with the Neumann. David is a
big fan of the C3000 (see previous EQ review from a few months back -
March or April?) But what he also says is that it's difficult to
compare a large diaphragm mic to a small diaphragm mic. In other words,
apples to oranges.
I can tell you that each year for the NAMM show, Taylor Guitars borrows
some KM 184s from us for their demo room/performance area.
Respectfully,
Karl Winkler
Neumann/USA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Rivers
> >The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
> >compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
>
> I want to know what they are smoking.
I want to know what they REALLY said. I probably have the issue on my
dining room table. Someone tell me the cover date and page number and
I'll read and interpret it for you.
--
Mike Rivers (I'm really mri...@d-and-d.com)
Idim
big fan of the C3000 (see previous EQ review from a few months back -
March or April?) >>
That previous review of the C3000 goes back to the January '99 EQ.
Joe B
Bill Roberts
ark wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:00:02 GMT, k_wi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >I can tell you that each year for the NAMM show, Taylor Guitars borrows
> >some KM 184s from us for their demo room/performance area.
>
> HDoes Neumann ever consider making a small diaphragm condenser mic
> with a flatter top end? Seems there would be a market for it.
KM131, though it is omni only.
-- Bill
Robert Orr
"comparing favorably to the KM 184"
k_wi...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7u2a9p$soo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7u05m1$nji$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Robert Orr" <rw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> I want to get a couple of good small diaphram condenser mics for
>recording
>> finderstyle solo steel string (a Taylor).
>>
>> The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
>> compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
>>
>> Robert
>>
>
>Robert,
>
>The review I saw in the September issue of EQ, by David Huber, mentions
>that he tried a C3000 on some things along with the Neumann. David is a
>big fan of the C3000 (see previous EQ review from a few months back -
>March or April?) But what he also says is that it's difficult to
>compare a large diaphragm mic to a small diaphragm mic. In other words,
>apples to oranges.
>
>I can tell you that each year for the NAMM show, Taylor Guitars borrows
>some KM 184s from us for their demo room/performance area.
Dirk Offringa
> The EQ article does mention the C3000, but also mentions the C1000 as
> "comparing favorably to the KM 184"
Hi
Check out if AKG has a full page advert in this magazine. If so, you know
why the guy wrote this.
Bye
Dirk
k_wi...@my-deja.com
"Robert Orr" <rw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The EQ article does mention the C3000, but also mentions the C1000 as
> "comparing favorably to the KM 184"
>
Robert, prompted by your post, I re-read the article and now I see that
I had missed the reference to the C1000. Here's what it reads:
"The 184 and an AKG C1000, to my surprise, compared quite favorably on
voice, flute, guitar, mandolin, and upright bass, as did the AKG C3000,
which also was right in the "warm and present" ballpark. (Since the
C3000 is a large-condenser with a protective grille, it wasn't a fair
comparison, but I had to see how the two stacked up.)
I find this passage a bit confusing and see where it could be
interpreted the way you describe. But after reading it a few times, and
compare this paragraph to the one above it, where he mentions "testing
the 184 against a Sanken CU31, Calrec 2050, and the AKG C60 (A vintage,
small-diaphragm tube mic), the 184 sounded noticeably fuller, richer
and less noisy" I think he puts the 184 AND the C1000 above this other
group of mics.
I admit I should have re-read the article before responding to your
post the first time, as I had not remembered the reference to the
C1000. However, I must say that upon re-reading it, I feel that David
did not say whether he preferred the C1000 to the KM 184 or not; only
that he liked both when compared to the previously mentioned mics.
Harvey Gerst
I hate this question - over and over and over again!!!! Lemme see if I
can clear the air once and for all about what's "best" or "good" for
acoustic guitar, and the AKG C1000/C3000's place in the universe.
Karl W., David J., or whomever, feel free to jump in and correct me on
anything I get wrong. For those of you who don't like being lectured to,
I apologize in advance. (For those of you who don't like dangling
participles, as in the previous sentence, it's just something you'll
hafta put up with.) <g>
Basic stuff:-----------------------------------------
Most things that vibrate (like guitars, banjos, and loudspeakers), and
things that respond to vibrations (like microphones), don't respond
evenly at all frequencies, especially frequencies whose wavelength is
shorter than they are. Instead of acting like a single coherent source
(i.e., like something coming from a rigid piston), they break up and
generate peaks and dips that are not always related to the frequencies
of interest.
For an acoustic guitar, this means that different sounds come from all
over the guitar, because of the different thicknesses and shapes of the
guitar's surface. This complex field of sound WILL CHANGE depending on
the note being played. If you change keys, or even go to another chord,
the sound of the guitar WILL CHANGE!!
In a microphone, peaks and dips occur when the microphone diaphragm
ceases to move as a piston, usually at higher frequencies.
Begin Mind Experiment:------------------------------------
Think of a small rock being tossed into a calm lake. Ripples spread out
thru the water from where the rock entered the water. Imagine a reed in
the water a small distance away, Attached to the reed is a pen which
sits lightly on a piece of paper which is moving past the point of the
pen. A single rock thrown into the lake will cause the reed to move back
and forth, and the attached pen will draw a nice even wavy line, which
dies away gradually.
Now throw in several rocks at once and try to imagine the ripple pattern
and what the pen will draw. The multiple ripples are analogous to the
soundwaves that are coming off the guitar.
Now imagine a second reed/pen, but in another spot. The pen will draw a
completely different pattern of the same event. In this mind experiment,
the reed is analogous to a microphone, BUT...
Imagine the reed does not move evenly at all wavelengths; it likes some
wavelengths, and doesn't respond well to others. So it imposes its own
behaviors patterns on the pen, adding or subtracting in some cases.
End mind Experiment.------------------------------------
Even with an absolutely perfect flat microphone, where you place the mic
in the guitar's complex sound field will change what the mic hears. Add
mics which are less than perfect (like the AKG C1000), and they will add
their own colorations to the sound.
No two acoustic guitars are EXACTLY alike, in looks or in sound - nature
doesn't work that way. *IF* the microphone happens to be in the right
spot in this 3 dimensional "sound lake", and *IF* the microphone's
response characteristics happen to be complementary to the PARTICULAR
guitar being miked, you will get a pleasing recording.
The AKG C3000 and the AKG C1000 have some peaks and dips in their upper
end response. *IF* the guitar being recorded is VERY mellow, these mics
MIGHT be a good choice to bring out top end, but with indeterminate
uniformity, depending on all the interactions I've discussed above.
So the "best" mic really depends on 4 things: the specific guitar being
played; where the mic is placed*; the key and style being played; and
the mic's unique sonic characteristics. There CAN'T be a BEST mic for
all guitars; there are too many factors which are outside the mic's
contribution.
*NOTE: A mic placed closer than 3 feet from the guitar is in the
guitar's "nearfield", where the sound will change dramatically with very
small changes in mic positioning. You're also now in the mic's
"nearfield", where the sound will also change dramatically with very
small changes in mic positioning.
In general, SOME inexpensive mics (like C1000 and C3000) may have peaks
and dips which flatter SOME guitars in some positions. The better small
mics tend to be more neutral sounding, which can seem to add "warmth" by
not emphasizing the treble response of the guitar with mic peaks.
Going into a recording situation with a mic that adds boosted treble
automatically is not usually a recipe for success. That's why most
people here advise against the C1000 and C3000. IT may work for ONE
guitar, but it's not going to be something that works on MOST guitars.
That's the reason you'll usually always see recomendations here for mics
like the Neumann KM184 and the Oktava MC-012 (which is similar in design
to the 184).
It also takes a while to develop your ears to appreciate the differences
between various microphones. People who rave about the AKG C1000 for
guitar (when they first get it) usually become less satisfied with their
purchase over time as their ears improve. They don't hear the peaks as
peaks at first; only as improved clarity over their old mics.
Sorry for the rant, but maybe this will help some of the new people to
understand how some of this basic junk works. For all of you who already
know this stuff, sorry for taking up all this bandwidth.
Robert Orr
Harvey,
Many thanks for the post. I know that recording a guitar is a very "dynamic"
situation where every factor affects the outcome. There is no best mic for
every situation, but some people have more experience than others (me) at
getting a good sound, so some general helpful tips from the well informed
are always appreciated!
Robert
hank alrich
> Robert Orr <rw...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >The EQ magazine review of the Neuman KM 184 mentions that the C1000
> >compares favorably to the KM 184. Any comments?
>
> I want to know what they are smoking.
Drinking, maybe. Personally, smoking doesn't render unto the mind that
particular type of perceptual distortion.
--
hank - secret mountain
Note: the rec.audio.pro FAQ is at http://recordist.com/rap-faq/current
Read it and reap!
Ty Ford
>I admit I should have re-read the article before responding to your
>post the first time, as I had not remembered the reference to the
>C1000. However, I must say that upon re-reading it, I feel that David
>did not say whether he preferred the C1000 to the KM 184 or not; only
>that he liked both when compared to the previously mentioned mics.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Karl Winkler
>Neumann/USA
Mr. Winkler,
This english language is a bitch. Although there are a surprising number of
well-spoken persons on this newsgroup, there are a larger number who tell us
much about themselves by the way in which they communicate.
If I don't read "Strunk's Little Book" aka Elements of Style, once in a
while, I begin to forget what lucid communication with the written word is.
If you haven't read the book, it's worth it. Especially if you want to use
words with which to communicate. (That last sentence was me trying not to
end one with a preposition.)
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's equipment reviews and V/O files can be found at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Ty Ford
>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:30:15 GMT, har...@ITRstudio.com (Harvey Gerst)
>wrote:
>
>>Going into a recording situation with a mic that adds boosted treble
>>automatically is not usually a recipe for success. That's why most
>>people here advise against the C1000 and C3000. IT may work for ONE
>>guitar, but it's not going to be something that works on MOST guitars.
>>That's the reason you'll usually always see recomendations here for mics
>>like the Neumann KM184 and the Oktava MC-012 (which is similar in design
>>to the 184).
>
>though... not a flat mic at all.
>
>Al
The one I've heard had a rise, but I'd say it wasn't "quite a bit." Most,
but not all, condensers have a rise unless they are measurement mics or old
dudes with phlegm and smoke covered diaphragms.
You want bright? try an M149, a Manley Classic or a Brauner Valvet.
Scott Dorsey
>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:30:15 GMT, har...@ITRstudio.com (Harvey Gerst)
>
>>automatically is not usually a recipe for success. That's why most
>>people here advise against the C1000 and C3000. IT may work for ONE
>>guitar, but it's not going to be something that works on MOST guitars.
>>That's the reason you'll usually always see recomendations here for mics
>>like the Neumann KM184 and the Oktava MC-012 (which is similar in design
>>to the 184).
>
>though... not a flat mic at all.
The KM184 has a tipped-up top end like having a stubbed toe. It's
tipped up, but it's clean.
The C1000 has a shrieky top end like being hit by a locomotive. It's
way brighter, and it's not only bright, it's also harsh as hell.
Personally, I am not a fan of the KM-184, because I find it too bright
for most of the work I do, but it has a lot of uses in places where
that brightness is helpful.
The C1000s brightness is not helpful.
GabeHorn
Scott Dorsey wrote in message <7u5rbl$2o0$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>...
>In article <380a6ec2...@news.aa.net>, ark <a...@aa.net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 17:30:15 GMT, har...@ITRstudio.com (Harvey Gerst)
>>
>>>automatically is not usually a recipe for success. That's why most
>>>people here advise against the C1000 and C3000.
>The C1000 has a shrieky top end like being hit by a locomotive. It's
>way brighter, and it's not only bright, it's also harsh as hell.
>
>The C1000s brightness is not helpful.
>--scott
Mercy, Mercy, Mercy.
I'm gonna be getting a multi track recording to mix next week or so that is
recorded in
a bad sounding sanctuary with not one, but four c1000's used as the primary
vocal mic.
I advised against the akg's and offered other alternatives to no avail. The
recording is being done by one of the parisoners for free and on a
Berhringer board. Looks like it's going to be one huge challenge to be able
to do anything with this. Probably a no win situation, but they have been
warned and I already have a deposit. Oh my Oh my.
til then,
GAbe