best overheads
jake ainciart
ADX-51, the audix CX111 and the audix scx1. price is an issue, and i
can get a deal on audix mics, so n e mic under $350. thanks
John L Rice
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com
"jake ainciart" <luvd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:371ac7bc.04022...@posting.google.com...
chetatkinsdiet
This topic has been discussed to death here and on just about any
user group, magazine and just about anywhere else you decide to look.
Also, you've told nothing about what you're looking to do with your
overheads. Are you looking for cymbals only? The whole kit? Is this
always the same kit? The same style of music? Is it for a commerical
studio? Blah, blah, blah....
later,
m
Harvey Gerst
>I really like the Audix TR-40's as overheads.
>
>John L Rice
>Dru...@ImJohn.com
>"jake ainciart" <luvd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> im lookin for the best overhead mics. i was lookin into the audix
>> ADX-51, the audix CX111 and the audix scx1. price is an issue, and i
>> can get a deal on audix mics, so n e mic under $350. thanks
And the Behringer ECM8000 (a copy of the Audix TR-40) ain't too shabby either,
especially at around $35 each.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Wayne
Aside from that, there are at least several dozen small diameter condenser mics
that would fall within your price capacity.
--Wayne
-"sounded good to me"-
John L Rice
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:g45540185bl3prk74...@4ax.com...
Hi Harvey,
I think we went over this before but I can't remember. Do they sound
identical or?
Thanks!
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com
Harvey Gerst
>
>"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
>news:g45540185bl3prk74...@4ax.com...
>> "John L Rice" <Dru...@ImJohn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I really like the Audix TR-40's as overheads.
>> >
>> >John L Rice
>> >Dru...@ImJohn.com
>>
>> >"jake ainciart" <luvd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> im lookin for the best overhead mics. i was lookin into the audix
>> >> ADX-51, the audix CX111 and the audix scx1. price is an issue, and i
>> >> can get a deal on audix mics, so n e mic under $350. thanks
>>
>> And the Behringer ECM8000 (a copy of the Audix TR-40) ain't too shabby
>> either, especially at around $35 each.
>Hi Harvey,
>
>I think we went over this before but I can't remember. Do they sound
>identical or?
>
>Thanks!
>
>John L Rice
Hey John, they're measurement mics that look identical to each other. They're
pretty damn nice sounding, and don't forget the more expensive T.H.E. KP-6M -
another great sounding measurement mic.
John L Rice
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
Thanks Harvey. Ever since I was those I've been wanting to get a pair to
play drums with, literally. I figure if run the pre outputs through a good
limiter and if I start very softly and progressively get louder I should be
able to get a few minutes worth before they die. I'm a little worried about
damaging my cymbals but if I put a layer or two of heat shrink tubing around
the upper shaft it should be ok for the most part.
I think it will be fun to hear what it's like to be at the end of a
drumstick. $70 bucks for the mics, probably wasted drum heads and hopefully
no serious cymbal damage it seems like a worthy experiment.
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com
Ty Ford
Best overheads, look to Schoeps. I don't think Audix is in the same league,
or cost.
If $350 is all you want to throw down for two mics, I'd even consider two
EV635 in coincident omni.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Ty Ford
I made some comparisons tonght between the ECM8000 and a Countryman EMW omni
lav. The EMW Lav had less selfnoise, which I though a bit odd.
I have problems with calling the ECM8000 a measurement microphone. (Thanks
for sending it along Arny) If it is, an EV 635 probably is as well. But by
all means, go for it if that floats your baot.
Mike Rivers
> I made some comparisons tonght between the ECM8000 and a Countryman EMW omni
> lav. The EMW Lav had less selfnoise, which I though a bit odd.
I also thought that it was quite odd that I had considerabe difficulty
attaching the ECM8000 to the front of my shirt.
> I have problems with calling the ECM8000 a measurement microphone.
About all a measurement microphone needs is flat frequency response
and a good omni pattern over the audio frequency range. The self noise
of a measurement mic just limits the lowest level that you can
measure, so if you're measuring rock bands (or drums directly
overhead) the noise isn't really a problem.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Scott Dorsey
>
>I made some comparisons tonght between the ECM8000 and a Countryman EMW omni
>lav. The EMW Lav had less selfnoise, which I though a bit odd.
No, it makes sense. The quality of the FET in that EMW is a whole lot
better, and most of the noise you are hearing out of the ECM8000 is really
1/f noise from the electronics, rather than actual Brownian effect noise
from the capsule.
>I have problems with calling the ECM8000 a measurement microphone. (Thanks
>for sending it along Arny) If it is, an EV 635 probably is as well. But by
>all means, go for it if that floats your baot.
The ECM8000 is designed to have a flat response at a low price point. It's
intended to be used for things like quickie room equalization and speaker
testing, where noise floor doesn't really matter. It's a lot flatter than
the EV 635A but that's not saying very much. I bet the measured distortion
on it is higher too... but again for sweep tests of speakers and rooms,
the high distortion of the ECM8000 is a non-issue.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Ty Ford
>About all a measurement microphone needs is flat frequency response
>and a good omni pattern over the audio frequency range. The self noise
>of a measurement mic just limits the lowest level that you can
>measure, so if you're measuring rock bands (or drums directly
>overhead) the noise isn't really a problem.
That's where I want my audio to be measured, over the drum kit.
Ty Ford
wrote:
>The ECM8000 is designed to have a flat response at a low price point. It's
>intended to be used for things like quickie room equalization and speaker
>testing, where noise floor doesn't really matter. It's a lot flatter than
>the EV 635A but that's not saying very much. I bet the measured distortion
>on it is higher too... but again for sweep tests of speakers and rooms,
>the high distortion of the ECM8000 is a non-issue.
And there you have it.
Arny Krueger
news:tford.14...@news.jagunet.com
> In Article <20040229205408...@mb-m05.aol.com>,
> ybst...@aol.com (Wayne) wrote:
>>> "John L Rice" <Dru...@ImJohn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I really like the Audix TR-40's as overheads.
>>>>
>>>> John L Rice
>>>> Dru...@ImJohn.com
>>>
>>>> "jake ainciart" <luvd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> im lookin for the best overhead mics. i was lookin into the audix
>>>>> ADX-51, the audix CX111 and the audix scx1. price is an issue,
>>>>> and i can get a deal on audix mics, so n e mic under $350. thanks
>>>
>>> And the Behringer ECM8000 (a copy of the Audix TR-40) ain't too
>>> shabby either,
>>> especially at around $35 each.
>>>
>>> Harvey Gerst
>>> Indian Trail Recording Studio
>>> http://www.ITRstudio.com/
>>>
>>>
>> "Best" is the mic that sounds best to you.
>>
>> Aside from that, there are at least several dozen small diameter
>> condenser mics that would fall within your price capacity.
>
> I made some comparisons tonght between the ECM8000 and a Countryman
> EMW omni lav. The EMW Lav had less selfnoise, which I though a bit
> odd.
The ECM8000 is about 1/5 the price of the EMw. I suspect this means that it
has a < $1 electret capsule while the EMW features a capsule that cost > $1.
> I have problems with calling the ECM8000 a measurement microphone.
> (Thanks for sending it along Arny) If it is, an EV 635 probably is as
> well. But by all means, go for it if that floats your boat.
IME the ECM8000 is a far better "measurement" mic than a 635. More output,
less directional, flatter response on-axis. Significant negative for some
applications - the ECM8000 requires phantom power, but not much.
Note recent comments about there being two different and distinct mics that
have been sold as ECM-8000s.
Ty Ford
<ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> I made some comparisons tonght between the ECM8000 and a Countryman
>> EMW omni lav. The EMW Lav had less selfnoise, which I though a bit
>> odd.
>
>The ECM8000 is about 1/5 the price of the EMw. I suspect this means that it
>has a < $1 electret capsule while the EMW features a capsule that cost > $1.
yes, that's true about the price.
>> I have problems with calling the ECM8000 a measurement microphone.
>> (Thanks for sending it along Arny) If it is, an EV 635 probably is as
>> well. But by all means, go for it if that floats your boat.
>
>IME the ECM8000 is a far better "measurement" mic than a 635. More output,
>less directional, flatter response on-axis. Significant negative for some
>applications - the ECM8000 requires phantom power, but not much.
Who uses real measurement mics on a regular basis, anyone here? Let us hear
from you.
>Note recent comments about there being two different and distinct mics that
>have been sold as ECM-8000s.
REALLY! both from the B place? I understand Sony got a chuckle out of B
using Sony's long standing ECM prefix.
Harvey Gerst
>"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>> I made some comparisons tonght between the ECM8000 and a Countryman
>>> EMW omni lav. The EMW Lav had less selfnoise, which I though a bit
>>> odd.
>>
>>The ECM8000 is about 1/5 the price of the EMw. I suspect this means that it
>>has a < $1 electret capsule while the EMW features a capsule that cost > $1.
>yes, that's true about the price.
>>> I have problems with calling the ECM8000 a measurement microphone.
>>> (Thanks for sending it along Arny) If it is, an EV 635 probably is as
>>> well. But by all means, go for it if that floats your boat.
>>IME the ECM8000 is a far better "measurement" mic than a 635. More output,
>>less directional, flatter response on-axis. Significant negative for some
>>applications - the ECM8000 requires phantom power, but not much.
>Who uses real measurement mics on a regular basis, anyone here? Let us hear
>from you.
Well, I do, for one. I use the Audix TR40's, the T.H.E. KP-6M's, and the
Behringer ECM8000's. I've used them for overheads on occasion, for hi-hats,
various percussion stuff, and sometimes for upright bass, or fiddle. Dick
Rosmini was also a big fan of B&K measurement mics for use in music.
>>Note recent comments about there being two different and distinct mics that
>>have been sold as ECM-8000s.
The main difference seems to be the transformer; one has it, one doesn't.
>REALLY! both from the B place? I understand Sony got a chuckle out of B
>using Sony's long standing ECM prefix.
Geez, ECM for "Electret Condenser Mic"? Now there's a trademarkable phrase.
What's next, "Near Field"?
Mike Rivers
> Geez, ECM for "Electret Condenser Mic"? Now there's a trademarkable phrase.
> What's next, "Near Field"?
Actually, I think Ed Long did trademark "near field monitor(ing?)."
Michael Kovach
the BLUE Dragonfly Deluxe prototypes. I just can't say enough good stuff
about these mics. They have great frequency response, beautiful warmth,
great reach and give the impression that the drummer gets from playing his
kit if they placement is right. They ain't cheap, but they sure are good.
Just as a reference, I have over 50 microphones to choose from. They
include the R-121, U 195, TLM 103, ATM 4050. Blueberry, Baby Bottle and many
others. Skipper kicked butt with these mics at that price. I just love 'em
on a lot of stuff.
Mike
"jake ainciart" <luvd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:371ac7bc.04022...@posting.google.com...
Harvey Gerst
>harg...@airmail.net writes:
>
>> Geez, ECM for "Electret Condenser Mic"? Now there's a trademarkable phrase.
>> What's next, "Near Field"?
>Actually, I think Ed Long did trademark "near field monitor(ing?)."
That's why I mentioned it. Very tongue-in-cheek.
Arny Krueger
>>> EMW omni lav. The EMW Lav had less selfnoise, which I though a bit
>>> odd.
>> The ECM8000 is about 1/5 the price of the EMw. I suspect this means
>> that it has a < $1 electret capsule while the EMW features a capsule
>> that cost > $1.
> yes, that's true about the price.
>>> I have problems with calling the ECM8000 a measurement microphone.
>>> (Thanks for sending it along Arny) If it is, an EV 635 probably is
>>> as well. But by all means, go for it if that floats your boat.
>> IME the ECM8000 is a far better "measurement" mic than a 635. More
>> output, less directional, flatter response on-axis. Significant
>> negative for some applications - the ECM8000 requires phantom power,
>> but not much.
I used a 635 as a measurement mic long ago, when I was in college the first
time. It was klutzy.
> Who uses real measurement mics on a regular basis, anyone here? Let
> us hear from you.
I had a borrowed pair of DPA 4006s for a couple of years. I discovered the
ECM 8000 about a year before I returned the DPAs. They DPAs had a little
less output, less noise, and deeper bass and more extended treble. Just like
the respective spec sheets say. Between 40 Hz and 20 KHz the response curves
were well within the calibration accuracy of the DPA.
>> Note recent comments about there being two different and distinct
>> mics that have been sold as ECM-8000s.
> REALLY! both from the B place?
Yes. The old design has a circuit card with a true balanced matching
transformer and a single FET buffer. The new design is impedance-balanced
transformerless and uses an IC buffer. I would be highly surprised if there
were no performance changes, but the spec sheet remained unchanged. The
wiring to the capsule changed in a way that suggests that they changed the
assembly protocol, besides just changing the circuit card.
Here's a picture and schematic of the guts of the "old" ECM 8000:
http://www.imagendv.com/altavoces/micro_med.htm
I suspect that this is the *real* spec sheet for the current version:
http://www.soundfirst.org/audiotoolbox/images/ECM-999_datasheet.pdf
> I understand Sony got a chuckle out of B using Sony's long standing ECM
prefix.
My chuckle came from their appropriation of an acronym that was near and
dear to my heart when I was fixing air defense missile fire control radars
for Uncle Sam.
Ty Ford
<har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>
>Geez, ECM for "Electret Condenser Mic"? Now there's a trademarkable phrase.
>What's next, "Near Field"?
>
>Harvey Gerst
>Indian Trail Recording Studio
>http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Why now that you mention it Harvey, yes "Near Field " is trade or service
marked. Thanks for making it clear.
hank alrich
> Harvey Gerst wrote:
> >Geez, ECM for "Electret Condenser Mic"? Now there's a trademarkable phrase.
> >What's next, "Near Field"?
> Why now that you mention it Harvey, yes "Near Field " is trade or service
> marked. Thanks for making it clear.
How about "neer feeld speeker"? Yeah?
--
ha
Harvey Gerst
Nah, it'll just turn into another "miced vs. miked", "toob vs. tube" arguments.
Geoff Wood
> walk...@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote:
>
>>> Ty Ford wrote:
>>>> Harvey Gerst wrote:
>>>> Geez, ECM for "Electret Condenser Mic"? Now there's a
>>>> trademarkable phrase. What's next, "Near Field"?
>
>>> Why now that you mention it Harvey, yes "Near Field " is trade or
>>> service marked. Thanks for making it clear.
>
>> How about "neer feeld speeker"? Yeah?
>
> Nah, it'll just turn into another "miced vs. miked", "toob vs. tube"
> arguments.
Valve.
geoff
Harvey Gerst
>Valve.
>
>geoff
Leave the British outta this.