Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.
Harvey Gerst
Ok, my pinched sciatic nerve thing died down, and Alex and I finally got around
to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the testing
was done formally, and it's all pretty subjective, but in talking to Brent Casey
at Marshall, he pretty well confirmed what I heard, so I think my comments will
be of some use to people here.
Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll off the
assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms materials, the
porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the line
consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics (about
the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson, Karl
Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that Brent
Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender in the
mic market.
All the mics looked well made, and we had no problems with any of them, or the
supplied shock mounts. Noise levels weren't a problem with any of the mics,
although we didn't do any testing with really quiet instruments.
One of my concerns was consistancy from unit to unit. After we got the first
batch, I had Brent send some extra units (off the shelf) so I could actually
compare two units for possible differences. I'm happy to report that all the
units I received were consistant and would do fine as stereo pairs.
All tests were done thru a Great River MP-2, with the microphone under test
polarity reversed and nulled (to match initial levels), then normalled to do the
actual comparison. We used the level controls on the GR to note differences in
gain.
While I listened to the mics in the studio using headphones, Alex listened in
the control room, using our main speakers (wall-mounted JBL-4311Bs, with a
Cerwin Vega subwoofer). We compared notes and in almost every case, Alex and I
agreed completely on the results (so we didn't hafta trust my "rock-n-roll shot
ears").
The units we listened to included:
1 Marshall MXL "The Fox" hand-held dynamic.
1 Marshall MXL-1000 hand-held condensor
2 Marshall MXL-600 small condensor mics
2 Marshall MXL-603 small condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-2001 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-2003 large condensor mics
1 Marshall MXL-V67 large condensor mic
2 Marshall MXL-V77 tube large condensor mics
Comparison mics included:
1 Neumann TLM-103
2 matched Oktava MC012s w/cardioid capsules
1 Lomo M3 large condensor mic on MC012 body
1 Shure SM-7 dynamic
1 Shure SM-58 dynamic
1 Nady SCM-1000 multi-pattern condensor
The results:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mics we didn't like:
Marshall MXL-2001 $130?? Sorry, I can't find the MSRP right now. Harsh top end,
thin bottom, compared to the TLM-103. It was a little warmer than the Nady
SCM-1000, but the Nady had a smoother top end. The 2001 is everything that I
don't like about all the really inexpensive large diaphragm condensor mics that
I've listened to over the years, including the AKG C3000, the Oktava 219, and
some of the early AT low cost units.
Marshall MXL-600 $270 Veiled top end and exaggerated low-mid, compared to the
Oktava MC-012. About 1 dB lower output than the Oktava. It just sounded very
dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.
The mics we did like:
The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had
good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure
SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back
sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people
having a few around for live gigs.
Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
(The lack of proximity effect that I noted in an earlier report about the 2003,
was due to me accidently hitting the bass rolloff switch while I was putting it
in its shock mount. When I noticed normal proximity effect with a second unit,
I discovered my screwup.)
Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are
easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the
singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd
probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also
a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
Marshall MXL 1000 $99 This was the hand-held condensor mic that Marshall was
pushing as a KM-105. It totally sucked as a hand-held vocal mic. Brent Casey
suggested I try it without the end ball, and I discovered it was basically the
603 in a Shure-type body. Without the ball end fucking up the sound, it was
identical in sound to the 603.
Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's
very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect).
It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference
in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.
Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks,
and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a
C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even
more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103,
with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male
vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared
very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you
wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67.
And it just happens to sound great, too.
The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the
Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the
V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
Well, that's the results - it wasn't a fancy test, and YMMV, but overall, I
think it might be helpful to some people, especially if you're a "bottom feeder"
studio as we are. As I mentioned earlier, Brent said that our tests pretty much
agreed with his findings, and that at least confirmed that we were all hearing
pretty much the same things.
Harvey Gerst
Indian Trail Recording Studio
http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Lyle Caldwell
his ass up with the pres... <g>
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:68A6D1DC414FEF36.CE7C9179...@lp.airnews.net...
Robin
about sciatica...)
Just wondering if you could add your impressions of the MXL-V67 compared to
your memories of the Rode NT2?
Just curious...
I thought I had read about you having one of those around some time in the
past...
Thanks,
Robin Farrell
JuliRob Prod.
Earl Musick
Thanks Harvey, I'll check into the V67 for sure, I'm looking for that type of mic.
Peace!
--
Earl Musick
RockHouse Studio
http://www.reloadrecordcompany.com
http://www.mp3.com/EarlMusick
roc...@flash.net
If music ain't got an edge it's DULL
Keith Blackwell
HG| Well, that's the results - it wasn't a fancy test, and YMMV, but overall, I
HG| think it might be helpful to some people, especially if you're a "bottom feeder"
HG| studio as we are. As I mentioned earlier, Brent said that our tests pretty much
HG| agreed with his findings, and that at least confirmed that we were all hearing
HG| pretty much the same things.
Harvey, thank you. Thanks for taking the time and energy to do this not only
to suit your own needs but to make way for a review you could share with the
rest of us. Thanks for putting together the review and posting here with no
publishing delay, no magazine cost to us, and probably no remuneration to you.
And by the way, thank you.
HG| The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had
HG| good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure
HG| SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back
HG| sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people
HG| having a few around for live gigs.
Since you won't be keeping this one, I suppose we won't hear from
you any results of using this on instruments. Scooped mids might
be fine for some grungy guitar cab miking, or something. At that
price, surely someone will be able to offer some further review
here soon.
HG| Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
HG| thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
HG| top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
HG| similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
A more hyped high-end that the TLM103? And less bottom -- I wonder
if it is therefore similar to the R0de NT-1. But then, you've never
used that one, I think. In any case, since I own an NT1 and your
description makes me think it might be similar, this leads me to think
the 2003 won't be something I go for on my limited budget.
HG| Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
HG| the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
HG| used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are
HG| easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the
HG| singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd
HG| probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also
HG| a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
Amazing. The Oktava MC012 has been on my short list for a while
now, so this will be a contender for that spot. Admittedly, you
get 3 capsules/patterns with the MC012, which probably makes it a
fair value trade-off. Not to mention the LOMO option. But the
603 is dang cheap. Cheaper than a AT Pro 37R. And cheaper than
the Audix TR-40's you've been using for drum OH's. I know you
didn't include the Audix in your comparisions, but since you're
familiar with the Audix measurement mic's performance as OH's,
can you offer comments comparing them without having to go do an
A/B test? Which of this bunch would you guess have the best S/N
ration?
HG| Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's
HG| very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect).
HG| It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference
HG| in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.
And so, for those who simply cannot afford the Neumann....
but then, we have no idea how the V77 or any other MXL mic
will fare over time, do we? At least they appear well-built.
I almost snagged one of these recently, but someone out-bid me. :-)
HG| Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks,
HG| and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a
HG| C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even
HG| more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103,
HG| with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male
HG| vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared
HG| very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you
HG| wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67.
HG| And it just happens to sound great, too.
I think this one fits well on my short list of upcoming mic additions,
based on your description.
HG| The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the
HG| Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the
HG| V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
You can't afford it, and you have a studio that actually makes
money. Hobbiests like me are all the more budget-constrained, so
I very much apprecieate your reviews! Oh, and I don't think I've
said this yet: THANK YOU.
--
Keith W. Blackwell
** If sending email, please edit the return address (remove "NO.UCE.PLEASE.").
** Or use (without the spaces): < keith _ blackwell @ agilent . com > .
** My employer has nothing to do with this posting.
Harvey Gerst
>Just wondering if you could add your impressions of the MXL-V67 compared to
>your memories of the Rode NT2? Just curious...
>I thought I had read about you having one of those around some time in the
>past...
Robin,
Nope, can't comment about the Rode, since I've never heard any of the Rode mics.
Harvey Gerst
>Harvey, thank you. Thanks for taking the time and energy to do this not only
>to suit your own needs but to make way for a review you could share with the
>rest of us. Thanks for putting together the review and posting here with no
>publishing delay, no magazine cost to us, and probably no remuneration to you.
>And by the way, thank you.
It keeps me on my toes and I enjoy doing it. Last time I did a review for a
magazine was in the 60s, and Fred Gretch refused to talk to me for years
afterwards. <g>
>HG| The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had
>HG| good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure
>HG| SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back
>HG| sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people
>HG| having a few around for live gigs.
>
>Since you won't be keeping this one, I suppose we won't hear from
>you any results of using this on instruments. Scooped mids might
>be fine for some grungy guitar cab miking, or something. At that
>price, surely someone will be able to offer some further review
>here soon.
It's an "ok" mic, very good for the price.
>HG| Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
>HG| thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
>HG| top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
>HG| similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
>
>A more hyped high-end that the TLM103? And less bottom -- I wonder
>if it is therefore similar to the R0de NT-1. But then, you've never
>used that one, I think. In any case, since I own an NT1 and your
>description makes me think it might be similar, this leads me to think
>the 2003 won't be something I go for on my limited budget.
It might be. Alex didn't "not" like it, and I thought it sounded pretty damn
good.
>HG| Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
>HG| the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
>HG| used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms are
>HG| easy to bottom out on voice, but with a pop filter (and positioned above the
>HG| singer's mouth), they wouldn't be bad as a vocal mic on some singers, and they'd
>HG| probably do fine on acoustic guitar, and many other instruments. They were also
>HG| a perfect match to the Oktava MC012 - they sounded nearly identical.
>
>Amazing. The Oktava MC012 has been on my short list for a while
>now, so this will be a contender for that spot. Admittedly, you
>get 3 capsules/patterns with the MC012, which probably makes it a
>fair value trade-off. Not to mention the LOMO option. But the
>603 is dang cheap. Cheaper than a AT Pro 37R. And cheaper than
>the Audix TR-40's you've been using for drum OH's. I know you
>didn't include the Audix in your comparisions, but since you're
>familiar with the Audix measurement mic's performance as OH's,
>can you offer comments comparing them without having to go do an
>A/B test? Which of this bunch would you guess have the best S/N
>ration?
If you can live with the wide cardioid pattern, don't need the other patterns,
or the -10 dB pad, this is a killer mic. Same thing goes for the MXL-1000
hand-held, without the ball end. It looks a little funny without the ball, but
it sounds the same as the standard 603.
>HG| Marshall MXL-V77 $600 This is the top of the line Marshall tube mic, and it's
>HG| very similar to the TLM-103 in sound (with a little more proximity effect).
>HG| It's a very nice tube mic, especially at the price. There was a 1 dB difference
>HG| in the level between the two V77s we tested, but the sound was identical.
>
>And so, for those who simply cannot afford the Neumann....
>
>but then, we have no idea how the V77 or any other MXL mic
>will fare over time, do we? At least they appear well-built.
I think they should hold up pretty well. I'll see how mine do over the next few
months.
>HG| Marshall MXL-V67 $270 This was the other flat-out winner, both in the looks,
>HG| and sound categories. It's the green-bodied, gold topped Bejing 797 copy of a
>HG| C12, and it looks like it costs around $2500. Lots of proximity effect (even
>HG| more than my RCA ribbon mics) and about 1.5 dB more bottom than the TLM-103,
>HG| with a similar top end to the TLM-103. This is a real winner for some male
>HG| vocals, especially singers that make use of the proximity effect. It compared
>HG| very favorably with the LOMO M3 head for that "bigger than life" sound. If you
>HG| wanna make your studio "look" more expensive than it really is, get the V67.
>HG| And it just happens to sound great, too.
>
>I think this one fits well on my short list of upcoming mic additions,
>based on your description.
From a looks standpoint alone, this thing makes a studio look good. The fact
that it also sounds great is a big plus, but I'd buy it just for the case.
>HG| The studio wound up buying the Marshall MXL-V67, the Marshall MXL-603s, and the
>HG| Marshall MXL-1000 (as an extra 603). I would't hesitate to buy the 2003s or the
>HG| V77 as well, if we could afford them (which we can't, at the moment).
>
>You can't afford it, and you have a studio that actually makes
>money. Hobbiests like me are all the more budget-constrained, so
>I very much apprecieate your reviews! Oh, and I don't think I've
>said this yet: THANK YOU.
We have to watch how we spend our money as well. It's important to us that each
dollar we spend on gear must be accounted for. That's why things like the RNC,
the Speck ASC, the Great River, the Oktavas, the TLM-103, and some other great
items are of vital importance to us, if we want to continue to make money and
offer good value as one of our services.
snapp...@my-deja.com
for the whole line? And thanks for the review, Harvey!
-Kent Powell
Fuzzy Bunny Productions
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John Rice
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com
Bob Smith
>
> <This has been posted to BOTH rec.audio.pro AND alt.music.4-track.>
>
> Ok, my pinched sciatic nerve thing died down, and Alex and I finally got around
> to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the testing
Harvey,
A great big thankyou for taking the time to share this. I hope your
sciatica stays in remission. I can relate. Physical therapy and massage
therapy can do wonders.
bobs
we organize chaos
--
Bob Smith - BS Studios
http://www.bsstudios.com/
rsm...@bsstudios.com
morrison
I picked up an MXL 603s and have been using it a good
bit over the past several days. I've been A/B ing and using it as a stereo
pair(on acoustic) with a new KM-184. Very impressive. It's got a slightly
hotter
output, a very similar upper mid and high end tone and a markedly rounder
low
end than the Neuman. I had the two put up side by side today and had a
singer switch between the 2 without being able to see the logo. I told him
simply that one mic was expensive, one wasn't and would he venture a guess
as to which is which. He immediately called the MXL 'richer and rounder'
and said that the Neuman was 'drier with a nice sound up top'. He said that
if he had to guess, they were both very similar, quality wise, and might
even be 2 different models from the same manufacturer. Not bad for $80.
I also had hands on a 2001P. Yecch. I found the same shortcomings Harvey
did: Nasty top end and it's very prone to overloading on not so loud
sources.
Kevin Morrison
Harvey Gerst wrote in message
<68A6D1DC414FEF36.CE7C9179...@lp.airnews.net>...
Geoff Wood
Much better than a "Mix' reveiw, which is usually a paraphrase of the
advertising material !
--
Geoff Wood
"All my life I wanted to be someone; I guess I should have been more
specific."
"John Rice" <imj...@imjohn.com> wrote in message
news:W1M76.1188$zc4.3...@news.uswest.net...
Ray Boyce
Thanks, Soooo much for your hard work. Thank Alex and Brent for me (us)
also. Get well soon on the injury!!!!
Chris G.
Thanks for the great review! I wish I could find one of the green V-67's.
I'll probably end up saving for a V-77, but now that you said that the
MXL-603's sound like MC-012's I might get those instead as my home studio is
lacking a pair of high quality small diaphragm condenser mics. I'm still
surprised that you didn't like the MXL-2001's at all though. I A/B'd it
directly with a AKG C3000 at Mars Music and thought that it sounded nothing
like the C3000. I also just got through recording two female vocalists
last night and the recording came out VERY smooth and warm as it has on all
of the vocals I've recorded with it so far. I'm not even eq'ing the vocals
either...just a bit of reverb. Very strange how people either hate or love
that mic. But I bow to your judgement because you have WAAAAY more
experience then me with high quality mics.
Chris G.
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:68A6D1DC414FEF36.CE7C9179...@lp.airnews.net...
Harvey Gerst
>
>Thanks for the great review! I wish I could find one of the green V-67's.
>I'll probably end up saving for a V-77, but now that you said that the
>MXL-603's sound like MC-012's I might get those instead as my home studio is
>lacking a pair of high quality small diaphragm condenser mics.
The 603 would be a good choice for an inexpensive small pair.
>I'm still
>surprised that you didn't like the MXL-2001's at all though. I A/B'd it
>directly with a AKG C3000 at Mars Music and thought that it sounded nothing
>like the C3000. I also just got through recording two female vocalists
>last night and the recording came out VERY smooth and warm as it has on all
>of the vocals I've recorded with it so far. I'm not even eq'ing the vocals
>either...just a bit of reverb. Very strange how people either hate or love
>that mic. But I bow to your judgement because you have WAAAAY more
>experience then me with high quality mics.
Chris,
As you well know, I've never been a fan of the AKG C3000, but one of the times
it worked well was on a female voice. The Marshall MXL-2001 isn't a bad mic per
se, but it's similar to a lot of the low end large diaphragm mics that I don't
particularly like, due to the spitty top end (and the C3000 falls into that
category).
I'd probably choose a MXL-2001 over a C3000, if I was forced to use one or the
other. On some female vocals, it would probably sound very good, but it
wouldn't be a mic that got a lot of use in our studio. (Vocals always surprise
me, since I never know exactly which mic will be best for a particular voice;
sometimes it's a high dollar mic; sometimes, it's the bottom of my mic barrel.)
I look for mics that are either "Swiss Army Knives", or "One Trick Ponies", but
they must do that trick VERY well. If you don't have any other large condensor
mics, the MXL-2001 might be ok for some things, and probably better than dynamic
mics in many situations.
As a bottom feeder studio, I hafta watch where the bucks go, and even though the
MXL-2001 is relatively inexpensive, I don't think it would get much use here,
especially when you consider the other choices we have available. Even the V67
is what I'd consider a "One Trick Pony", but it will do that trick really well,
when I need it.
And the standard "YMMV" disclaimer is never more true than when it comes to mic
evaluations. Take mine with a large pinch of salt. <g>
Jim Maxon
Thanks for taking the time to check out all of the MXL's. I totally agree with you
on the V67. I liked mine so much I bought another one. I will check out the 603's
for use on acoustic guitar. I am using Avlex C135's which sound great on acoustics
but if I can get a better sound with the 603's then I am in. Thanks again for all
of your hard work.
Jim Maxon
Harvey Gerst wrote:
--
Becker&James Check Us Out!
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/125/becker__james.html
Tonebarge
the V67 'cause I've been lusting to try one. So, after reading your post, I bopped
over to ebay and found one with cable and shockmount for $184.95. Nailed it. Now
I'm waiting and all excited. Something cool for the same price as an RNC. There
+is+ a God. You'll probably generate several sales for Brent. Nice to hear that
he cares.
Kind regards,
TB
Harvey Gerst wrote:
--
"Measure twice, cut once."
Harvey Gerst
>Thanks for the review, yer Papalness ; ) I was waiting to see what you'd say about
>the V67 'cause I've been lusting to try one. So, after reading your post, I bopped
>over to ebay and found one with cable and shockmount for $184.95. Nailed it. Now
>I'm waiting and all excited. Something cool for the same price as an RNC. There
>+is+ a God. You'll probably generate several sales for Brent. Nice to hear that
>he cares.
TB,
Geez, mine didn't come with a cable or a shock mount! :(
I gotta call Brent on Monday!!
Tonebarge
http://www.abemusic.com/marshall.htm
TB
snapp...@my-deja.com wrote:
--
"Measure twice, cut once."
Lyle Caldwell
Remember you can get a matched pair of MC012s with just cardioid caps for
not much more at all than the Marshalls, and later you could get the other
capsules. Don't save a little up front but limit your options in the near
future.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc
"Chris G." <chri...@txdirect.net> wrote in message
news:t5vgd1m...@corp.supernews.com...
regg...@my-deja.com
Try Tracy over at www.Filamentaudio.com. I've had great service and
fast delivery too. By far the best prices I've encountered...better
than Mars. Marshall is close to his shop and he usually just picks the
mics up from Brent.
-Reggaebop
Michael J. Kellat
This will give me something to consider for future purchases.
Mike Kellat
Chris G.
line. Nice to find a place that is right next to the mic manufacturer.
Chris G.
<regg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93ov4j$vjm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Chris G.
Oktavas.
Chris G.
"Lyle Caldwell" <cald...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qyS76.1044$BQ6....@news4.atl...
Mark Plancke
>Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll off the
>assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms materials, the
>porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the line
>consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics (about
>the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson, Karl
>Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that Brent
>Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender in the
>mic market.
I'm happy Brent is passionate about the Marshall mic line but I can't
help thinking that it may be the beginning of the end for true
innovation in microphone technology. Think about it.
Mark Plancke
SOUNDTECH RECORDING STUDIOS
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
http://SoundTechRecording.com
I don't know the secret of success, but the secret
of failure is to try to please everybody. --Bill Cosby
Chris G.
MXL-2001 I used the mic did indeed sound harsh and bit "spitty" like the AKG
C-3000. Even on my own voice it sounded harsh, however that was only on
Mackie 1202VLZ PRO mic preamps. That same mic sounded nice and warm on my
older Mackie 1202VLZ and on my Presonus Blue Tube mic preamp. So I'm
still thinking that the mic pres having something to do with the sound of
that mic. Although I know at least one person on the alt.music.4-track NG
said their 2001 mic sucked on their 1202 VLZ. Just to check if my ears are
toast (because I played in loud metal bands for many years) if you're
curious about why I rave about the 2001 mic you might check out a recording
I did with only the 2001 and with no eq except on a bohdran in the song.
The song is called "Fire Heart" and is at www.mp3.com/wigon . I've posted
the URL before as reference to the Marshall mics but I don't know if you (or
anyone on RAP) ever heard it or not because no one (or maybe one person)
responded as to whether they checked it out or not probably because they
thought I was just trying to get mp3 hits or something. At any rate the
instruments have a wide range of frequencies as they include a tamborine, a
Bohdran, an ocarina, a small wooden Peruvian flute, and a 12 string acoustic
guitar. All of them I think came out sounding very warm and smooth. The
only effects were a bit of limiting and a bit of reverb on the whole mix.
However the the tone of the mix still sounded the same even without limiting
or reverb so it wasn't any high-end roll-off that made the recording sound
warmer or anything. Anyways if you have a chance it would be interesting to
see if you think it sounded harsh sounding. While the flute playing is not
great I think it is one of my better sounding recordings in terms of the mix
and the sound quality. I just wanna know that I'm not hearing things or
experiencing some kind of user-bias that is warping my brain. :)
Thanks,
Chris G.
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:337AF928ECA1572C.F41841CC...@lp.airnews.net...
Mike Rivers
In article <68A6D1DC414FEF36.CE7C9179...@lp.airnews.net> har...@ITRstudio.com writes:
> Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
> the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
> used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job.
Did you by chance try them as an X-Y pair? I know it's getting pretty
far from your demo, but since the MXL-603 sounding somewhat like the
MC012, which sounds somewhat like a KM-184, which sounds somewhat like
a KM-84, which is my first string X-Y setup for classical and jazz,
I was wondering. Perhaps I could give a pair of those, as a belated
birthday present, to my friend who's always borrowing my KM-84's to
record small contemporary classical music groups.
--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Harvey Gerst
>Harvey Gerst <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>
>>Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll off the
>>assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms materials, the
>>porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the line
>>consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics (about
>>the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson, Karl
>>Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that Brent
>>Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender in the
>>mic market.
>I'm happy Brent is passionate about the Marshall mic line but I can't
>help thinking that it may be the beginning of the end for true
>innovation in microphone technology. Think about it.
Mark,
I'm not as certain of that as you are. When I designed "The Mic" for IMC, the
first cheap multipattern mic (which begat the CAD E-200), I was thinking about
the smaller home studios that were starting to spring up in 1987, and providing
a valuable tool to the hobbiest. A lot of the major mic companies expressed
concern that it was "the beginning of the end" for mic technology, but it in
fact spawned a whole new industry of innovative designs at lower cost, like the
TLM-103, for example.
Stephen Paul's work in thin diaphragms also trickled down to other
manufacturers, creating high quality, wide range transducers that just weren't
possible with the usual 6 micron thicknesses. I personally started looking at
designs using 1 micron glass diaphragms in early 1988 and that's still a viable
medium, with some real benefits.
I personally don't like a lot of the low-cost "build it for this price and the
hell with what it sounds like" mics, but that's an unfortunate side effect of
lowering the bar. I hoped that I was forcing other mic manufacturers to look at
new ways to create products and giving them other options to consider.
Garthrr
home studio.
Garth
"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney
Harvey Gerst
>You know what is funny is that on certain vocals with the first Marshall
>MXL-2001 I used the mic did indeed sound harsh and bit "spitty" like the AKG
>C-3000. Even on my own voice it sounded harsh, however that was only on
>Mackie 1202VLZ PRO mic preamps. That same mic sounded nice and warm on my
>older Mackie 1202VLZ and on my Presonus Blue Tube mic preamp. So I'm
>still thinking that the mic pres having something to do with the sound of
>that mic. Although I know at least one person on the alt.music.4-track NG
>said their 2001 mic sucked on their 1202 VLZ. Just to check if my ears are
>toast (because I played in loud metal bands for many years)
Chris,
Some mics are sensitive to loading, and some preamps will interact to tame a
little bit of the top end. And as I've said so many times, not every mic is
perfect for everything. I found one guitarist/singer that sounded amazing when
he used the AKG C3000. For almost everything else, it sucked, at least for the
things I needed it for. What pissed me off the most was that I bought it when
it was retailing for around $850.
Harvey Gerst
> har...@ITRstudio.com writes:
>
>> Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical to
>> the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni. We
>> used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job.
>Did you by chance try them as an X-Y pair? I know it's getting pretty
>far from your demo, but since the MXL-603 sounding somewhat like the
>MC012, which sounds somewhat like a KM-184, which sounds somewhat like
>a KM-84, which is my first string X-Y setup for classical and jazz,
>I was wondering. Perhaps I could give a pair of those, as a belated
>birthday present, to my friend who's always borrowing my KM-84's to
>record small contemporary classical music groups.
It should work fine, especially as a gift (it's a good looking mike). I will
get a chance to try them as an x/y pair, although as I noted, the pattern
approaches omni as the frequencies go down.
Les Cargill
Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> As a bottom feeder studio, I hafta watch where the bucks go, and even though the
> MXL-2001 is relatively inexpensive, I don't think it would get much use here,
> especially when you consider the other choices we have available. Even the V67
> is what I'd consider a "One Trick Pony", but it will do that trick really well,
> when I need it.
>
It might have a few more tricks :)
I've been able to use a V67* for electric guitar, in a room by itself. It would
be problematic with anything loud in the room with it, but I'm pretty impressed.
This could easily be because it's my "first good mic", but with placement off
axis ( on a plane about six inches up from the top of the cab) and enough
distance to defeat the proximity effect (2-5 feet), it sounds more like the
amp does in the room than a 57 into the grill ( of course ). Nice sparkle, good
100 Hz support, lotsa detail. It is extremely sensitive to placement.
Amp hiss/noise seems much less present than with the "57 into the grille" thing.
I've tried it on acoustic. It's doable, but placement is a rasslin' match and
it's
still not quite right. The 603/SM81/MC012/KM84/KM184 small-di's will work
better,
I suspect.
*This is one of the black "Mogami" ones which were on sale at MARS late last
year. I assume it's comparable to the gold/green ones.
>
> Harvey Gerst
> Indian Trail Recording Studio
> http://www.ITRstudio.com/
Mike Rivers
> You know what is funny is that on certain vocals with the first Marshall
> MXL-2001 I used the mic did indeed sound harsh and bit "spitty" like the AKG
> C-3000. Even on my own voice it sounded harsh, however that was only on
> Mackie 1202VLZ PRO mic preamps. That same mic sounded nice and warm on my
> older Mackie 1202VLZ and on my Presonus Blue Tube mic preamp. So I'm
> still thinking that the mic pres having something to do with the sound of
> that mic.
Mic preamps have something to do with the sound of ANY mic. That's
why arguments about which mic preamp is "the best" are often never
settled.
> Although I know at least one person on the alt.music.4-track NG
> said their 2001 mic sucked on their 1202 VLZ.
Is this person qualified, in your mind, to use such a damning term as
"sucked"? That's pretty bad. Or is it that he just liked some
combination better? What didn't suck? And under what conditions?
> The song is called "Fire Heart" and is at www.mp3.com/wigon . I've posted
> the URL before as reference to the Marshall mics but I don't know if you (or
> anyone on RAP) ever heard it or not because no one (or maybe one person)
> responded as to whether they checked it out or not probably because they
> thought I was just trying to get mp3 hits or something.
There's that, but another thing is that many of us don't have the
facilities to listen to MP3 files critically enough to make any
judgements of sound quality of the components that were used in the
recording. In addition, there are so many things going into making
the MP3 sound unlike what came out of your monitors when you recorded
it that without knowing that end of the processing chain and how you
applied it, any differences in mics and preamps are all a wash. My MP3
listening environment is the built-in speakers on my laptop computer,
or, if I'm really enthisiastic and push a button, Minimum 7 speakers
driven by a 15 watt/channel Technics receiver. I really have no other
way to play back an MP3 file. You wouldn't want me to publish a review
based on that playback system, would you? You might as well be trying
to convince me that RCA 44's are fantastic mics (they are) based on a
jazz band recording on a well worn 78 RPM record.
Based on Harvey's review, I might try a couple of Marshall mics.
Based on an MP3 file, I might say "that's interesting music".
JWR
I actually have thought about it and I totally think this is the beginning
of an era of more innovation in microphone building.
I have to be honest and admit that I don't have any of the $6000+
microphones in my closet, but I do have a few in the $1000 to $3000 category
and several in the $500+ category.
I think as companies learn to use current technology to create low cost mics
that can approach the sound quality of the high priced mics at a fraction of
the cost it will spur the "high end" companies to find ways to create better
mics. As there becomes a large number of quality mics in the $500 price
range it will require these companies distinguish themselves to justify the
purchase of their microphones over a competitor's. This is the age where we
are going to cease to list 5 or 6 microphone companies when we seek our next
tool. There will be a multitude at each price point. There will always be
a upper end and a lower end, but the lower end pushes the upper to excel
rather than rest on past accomplishments. I'm glad some of the lower cost
mics are serviceable, soon they will be excellent. Harvey is 100% correct
in saying that Neumann was forced to create something like the 103 because
they started to see powerful competition from lower cost competitors. Well
they are going to have to keep on their toes. And when you can find a
really cool mic for $1000 the upper range guys will have to have something
VERY cool to justify a $3000 mic (and they will). It's exciting and the
real innovation is about to explode.
John
"Mark Plancke" <Ma...@Soundtechrecording.com> wrote in message
news:5or06tkvnlqqg9lsj...@4ax.com...
Paul Gitlitz
Thanks Harvey,
I just bought a M160 off a post on our ng and it turned out to be a
nice sales weasel named Ken with a company called Avant Consulting
specializing in pro audio. He spoke very highly of the V77 and told me
that the supplier was very close to their location and allowed them to
hand pick the items they sold. Sort of like the Soundroom's
arrangement with Octava.
He assured me that this mic was an incredible deal for the money, and
I wouldn't be disappointed with the sound.
I'd love to hear from you about your blue lollipop some time, How do
you think it would sound on a C60 since the 451's are getting to be
rare?
Mike Rivers
In article <znr979395230k@trad> mri...@d-and-d.com (that's me!) writes:
> Minimum 7 speakers
> driven by a 15 watt/channel Technics receiver.
That's "Minimus 7". Darn those digital spelling checkers - the digits
on the ends of my hands only type words that they know.
David Perrault
>,,,,,,,It should work fine, especially as a gift (it's a good looking mike). I will
>get a chance to try them as an x/y pair, although as I noted, the pattern
>approaches omni as the frequencies go down.,,,,,
>
>Harvey Gerst
Disc free Jecklin Disc sound?
DP
jpste...@my-deja.com
<49BFAB9DCB1FB0EE.160F059E...@lp.airnews.net>,
Harvey Gerst <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
[re: the 603]
> It should work fine, especially as a gift (it's a good looking
mike). I will
> get a chance to try them as an x/y pair, although as I noted, the
pattern
> approaches omni as the frequencies go down.
Interesting. Is that typical of wide cardioid? Is there an obviously
perceived frequency point at which they are directional and one where
they are not? I imagine the proximity effect is pretty close to omni,
which is to say minimal if present? I'll have to find a pair and see
what I can do with them. Sound like they could be damn useful.
(Is it just the brain's decoding stuff that makes our two mic ear
arrays directional? I can't remember. Seems like wide cadioid could
at least emulate the directional sense to the highs and the lack of
directional sense on lows.)
Is this a good first and only set of small diaphragm condensors to
recomend to hobbyist friends? I have a friend who wants to do his
band's album all in Cubase (I've tried to warn him . . .) and these
would seem to be a sight better than the ratshack mics he has. The
Sound Room Oktava's would give him sticker shock, but I can't see him
hesitating much at these.
Thanks, Harvey, for giving me so much evidence that it's okay to be
cheap. :-)
jp
David Satz
>
> [re: the 603]
> the pattern approaches omni as the frequencies go down.
and jp wrote:
> Interesting. Is that typical of wide cardioid?
It's typical of cardioids, and even more strongly the case with
wide cardioids.
A cardioid is a 50:50 mixture between pressure response (omni) and
pure pressure gradient reponse (figure-8). You can imagine a cardioid
to be two microphones, one of each type, at the same point in space
with their signals combined "in phase".
All pure pressure gradient transducers have a 6 dB/octave rolloff at
low frequencies; pure pressure transducers do not. Thus as you go
lower in frequency, at some point the contribution from the pressure
gradient response begins to lessen; past that point, more and more of
what you hear will be the contribution of the pressure response, which
is omnidirectional.
A "wide cardioid" is simply a microphone in which the balance of
pressure to pressure gradient is weighted more heavily toward the
pressure component. As a result its output is influenced somewhat
less by the pressure gradient component, which is the directional part.
> Is there an obviously perceived frequency point at which they
> are directional and one where they are not?
No, in conventional microphones it's a smooth crossover.
> I imagine the proximity effect is pretty close to omni,
> which is to say minimal if present?
Hmm. Proximity effect can be enormous, so even in a wide
cardioid you can have quite a noticeable amount of it.
Harvey Gerst
>
>Thanks Harvey,
>I just bought a M160 off a post on our ng and it turned out to be a
>nice sales weasel named Ken with a company called Avant Consulting
>specializing in pro audio. He spoke very highly of the V77 and told me
>that the supplier was very close to their location and allowed them to
>hand pick the items they sold. Sort of like the Soundroom's
>arrangement with Octava.
>
>He assured me that this mic was an incredible deal for the money, and
>I wouldn't be disappointed with the sound.
It's a very good sounding mic - very neutral.
>I'd love to hear from you about your blue lollipop some time, How do
>you think it would sound on a C60 since the 451's are getting to be
>rare?
I don't own a blue lollipop mic - I wish I did.
Harvey Gerst
>In article
><49BFAB9DCB1FB0EE.160F059E...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Harvey Gerst <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>
>[re: the 603]
>> It should work fine, especially as a gift (it's a good looking mike). I will
>> get a chance to try them as an x/y pair, although as I noted, the pattern
>> approaches omni as the frequencies go down.
>Interesting. Is that typical of wide cardioid? Is there an obviously
>perceived frequency point at which they are directional and one where
>they are not? I imagine the proximity effect is pretty close to omni,
>which is to say minimal if present? I'll have to find a pair and see
>what I can do with them. Sound like they could be damn useful.
>
>(Is it just the brain's decoding stuff that makes our two mic ear
>arrays directional? I can't remember. Seems like wide cadioid could
>at least emulate the directional sense to the highs and the lack of
>directional sense on lows.)
David Satz covered all the above questions beautifully in his post.
>Is this a good first and only set of small diaphragm condensors to
>recomend to hobbyist friends? I have a friend who wants to do his
>band's album all in Cubase (I've tried to warn him . . .) and these
>would seem to be a sight better than the ratshack mics he has. The
>Sound Room Oktava's would give him sticker shock, but I can't see him
>hesitating much at these.
These are great mics, at a great price.
Chris G.
A/B test with about a dozen other large diaphragm condenser mics. The one
mic that totally blew me away on my voice and that excelled far and above
the other mics was the TLM-103. I also suprisingly like the AKG 414. If
the "Budget mics" push the famous high-end manufacturers to make mics like
the TLM-103 then I think that this is a VERY good thing. Plus when the
cheap mics are produced by guys like Brent who are passionate about what
they're doing and who also employ people here in the U.S. as well as China,
I think that it is a good trend. RTT is another wonderful "budget" mic
manufacturer (though in Russia) with good people, good products, and good
prices. I think these companies definitely force the high-end market to
produce mics that are truly superior. It's a great time to be into
recording. But still...so many wonderful products yet so little money.
(Sigh).
For me the latest craze has been collecting ethnic instruments now to feed
my gear lust...in the past this was next to impossible, but now with the
internet there has been an explosion of online ethnic instrument
dealers....no more traveling all over the world to try and collect certain
instruments! LOL!
Chris G.
"JWR" <read...@NOSPAMzdnetonebox.com> wrote in message
news:f7886.261483$U46.8...@news1.sttls1.wa.home.com...
Chris G.
with one of my mics which was the Rode NT-1. $300 when I bought it, but now
only $200. Not too bad, and I still think I got my money's worth. I think
it's less harsh then the C-3000 but like it's bigger brother the NT-2 it's a
very bright mic and not always flattering. But occasionally on some
instruments and vocalists it can work some magic so I keep it.
Chris G.
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:22FDDF1643A46A00.A9E9897A...@lp.airnews.net...
Chris G.
DAW hooked up to my studio monitors that I forget that some people only have
their PC multimedia speakers hooked up to their PCs that they normally only
do net surfing and word processing with.
Actually however, the mp3 conversion I did was done with the L3Pro
Fraunhofer encoder which is MUCH better then the other MP3 encoding schemes
and overall the sound quality of the mp3 of that particular song is VERY
close to the original .wav file, otherwise I would never ask anyone to make
any sound quality judgements based on that mp3. The main differences are
slightly less stereo depth, but other then that there are no "metallic"
sounding artifacts typical of other mp3 encoders and you can still readily
hear the sonic differences between mics as I've used the encoder for mic
shootouts on my web site before with good results even at 128kbit. But
yeah you're right that there probably aren't many people with high quality
speakers hooked up to their internet computer. However your Minimus 7's
are probably not much worse then my Alesis Monitor 1 speakers that I use for
monitoring. LOL!!!
Chris G.
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr979395230k@trad...
Jay Kahrs
>are probably not much worse then my Alesis Monitor 1 speakers that I use for
>monitoring. LOL!!!
I owned Monitor Ones for a while and I still own Minimus 7's. Yes, the 7's
sound worse.
---
-Jay Kahrs
Mad Moose Recording Inc.
(formerly BrownSound Studios)
Livingston, NJ (we're moving!!!)
http://members.tripod.com/~BrownSoundStudios
Gunnar Kristiansen
Thanks for the review. I did not even know of MXL mikes existence, but heard
about them because I was considering a BPM CR95 mike for my home studio.
I need a good vocal mike. Then I found out, that BPM had their mikes made in
China by Beijing 797Audio. The same company who makes the MXL line.
Do you have any experiences comparing MXL, BPM and the TLM-103.
Would the TLM103 do the best job if money wasn't an issue?
Best regards
Gunnar Kristiansen
Harvey Gerst
Gunnar,
Yes, for most things, the TLM-103 would be my first pick. It, the Shure SM-7,
and an RCA 77DX are my "Swiss Army Knife" mics.
arkk
First, i want to add my thanks for the long-awaited review. I hope your
injury heals soon.
Unfortunately, V57 didn't make it into the review and it's an interesting
one indeed (it's a replacement for the 2001 or so it seems).
Have your impressions about Nady SCM1000 changed in any way after this
extensive testing? Would you recommend it over a corresponding MXL?
thanks,
-arkk
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:68A6D1DC414FEF36.CE7C9179...@lp.airnews.net...
: <This has been posted to BOTH rec.audio.pro AND alt.music.4-track.>
:
: Ok, my pinched sciatic nerve thing died down, and Alex and I finally got
around
: to finally listening to all the mics in the Marshall line. None of the
testing
: was done formally, and it's all pretty subjective, but in talking to Brent
Casey
: at Marshall, he pretty well confirmed what I heard, so I think my comments
will
: be of some use to people here.
:
: Let me also add that Brent is NOT just buying Chinese mics as they roll
off the
: assembly line. He is working on specing the actual diaphragms materials,
the
: porting, new designs, and he's making a really great effort to keep the
line
: consistant. He impressed the hell out of me with his passion about mics
(about
: the same kind of passion about products that people like Taylor Johnson,
Karl
: Winkler, Stephen Paul, and Brad Lunde have). I honestly believe that
Brent
: Casey is 100% committed to making the Marshall line a serious contender in
the
: mic market.
:
: All the mics looked well made, and we had no problems with any of them, or
: dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.
:
: The mics we did like:
:
: The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge -
it had
: good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the
Shure
: SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed
back
: sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see
people
: having a few around for live gigs.
:
: Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall.
Alex
: thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi
mids and
: top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
: similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me
anyway.
:
: (The lack of proximity effect that I noted in an earlier report about the
2003,
: was due to me accidently hitting the bass rolloff switch while I was
putting it
: in its shock mount. When I noticed normal proximity effect with a second
unit,
: I discovered my screwup.)
:
: Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost identical
to
: the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost approaching omni.
We
: used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job. The diaphragms
:
: Harvey Gerst
Chris G.
they responded saying that it basically is just a cheaper version of the
MXL-2001 made specifically for Mars Music and that they have no plans on
discontinuing the MXL-2001 which is one of their top sellers. To me the
V-57 sounds fairly similar to the MXL-2001 though. But the one I checked
out had the cardoid sybol printed on the wrong spot and just looked like it
wasn't as well made as the MXL-2001 or that the quality control for these
was a bit less perhaps being that they are made to be cheaper for Mars.
What pissed me off however was that the Mars in my city boosted the price on
the V57 up to $129. Bastards.
Chris G.
"arkk" <arkkDI...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:93uhrh$r...@freepress.concentric.net...
Ty Ford
<gunnar.kr...@image.dk> wrote:
>Would the TLM103 do the best job if money wasn't an issue?
>
>Best regards
>
>Gunnar Kristiansen
This spurs me to comment on something someone else mentioned; the thing
about less expensive mic from "new" companies putting pressure on the "old"
companies. The TLM 103 is the proof that an "old" company like Neumann can
bring a mic to market at less than $1000 that not only rests the bar for
"older" companies, but kicks the "new" companies in teh butt as well.
I think maybe it was Harvey, a few years back when the TLM 103 had just come
out, who quipped to someone who was whining about the price of the TLM 103
that they should stop whining and start thinking about the TLM 103 as a
$2000 (or more) mic that was really quite a bargain at less than a grand.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's audio equipment reviews and V/O sound files can be accessed at
http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Ty Ford
"reset." Sorry, not enough coffee here this AM.
Regards,
Ty
Harvey Gerst
>Gunnar Kristiansen <gunnar.kr...@image.dk> wrote:
>>Would the TLM103 do the best job if money wasn't an issue?
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Gunnar Kristiansen
>This spurs me to comment on something someone else mentioned; the thing
>about less expensive mic from "new" companies putting pressure on the "old"
>companies. The TLM 103 is the proof that an "old" company like Neumann can
>bring a mic to market at less than $1000 that not only resets the bar for
>"older" companies, but kicks the "new" companies in the butt as well.
Absolutely. I'm not sure that the new companies put pressure on Neumann, as
much as Neumann US probably putting pressure on Neumann Germany, when they (US)
saw an emerging market opportunity for a lower priced Neumann mic.
It's always easier for high quality manufacturers to "trade down" (make a less
expensive produduct) than it is for lower quality manufactures to "trade up".
Would you rather have a $35,000 "scaled down" Rolls Royce, or a $35,000 luxury
Kia?
>I think maybe it was Harvey, a few years back when the TLM 103 had just come
>out, who quipped to someone who was whining about the price of the TLM 103
>that they should stop whining and start thinking about the TLM 103 as a
>$2000 (or more) mic that was really quite a bargain at less than a grand.
And the TLM-103 would still be a bargain at $2,000, IMHO.
Harvey Gerst
>Harvey,
>
>First, i want to add my thanks for the long-awaited review. I hope your
>injury heals soon.
>
>Unfortunately, V57 didn't make it into the review and it's an interesting
>one indeed (it's a replacement for the 2001 or so it seems).
>
>Have your impressions about Nady SCM1000 changed in any way after this
>extensive testing? Would you recommend it over a corresponding MXL?
>
>thanks,
arkk,
Not really. I thought the SCM-1000 was just ok as a cardioid, great as an omni
(but with a slight on axis high frequency rise), and it had a problem as a
figure 8 (the backside of the mic was muffled). At $149, it wasn't bad, but I
don't know how consistent they are from unit to unit, which is a major concern
of mine about buying inexpensive mics.
The Oktavas from Guitar Center are "not" consistent, the units from the Sound
Room are. The Marshall mics are consistent as near as I can tell (although I
didn't check the 2001, which I suspect may be less consistent than the rest of
the Marshall line). Some of the Rode mics are "said" to be inconsistent, but
I've never heard them, so I can't confirm that.
TEX
<har...@ITRstudio.com> spake thusly and the world did shudder in
amazement:
>Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
>thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
>top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
>similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
Gotta put a good word in for this mic. We just used 3 of them in the
studio for overheads on a drum kit and they were wonderful. Great
sound. Definite bang for the buck.
-TEX
Three Years Down
www.3yearsdown.com
www.mp3.com/3YD/
Harvey Gerst
I agree, I thought this was a really nice mic and as I said in my review, I
wouldn't hesitate in buying this mic for the studio. And I hope I didn't give
the impression that Alex didn't like the mic, he did. We just don't hear the
same things when it comes to the C3000.
YBStudios
>same things when it comes to the C3000.
>
>Harvey Gerst
>Indian Trail Recording Studio
Harvey, I've got two C3000's and have yet to use them in a session. I put 'em
up and they always come down. At least the producers see an AKG emblem. I
guess that's worth something?
Wayne@Yellow Booth Studios
Montgomery, AL
Paolo Tramannoni
ybst...@aol.com (YBStudios) wrote:
> Harvey, I've got two C3000's and have yet to use them in a session. I
> put 'em up and they always come down. At least the producers see an
> AKG emblem. I guess that's worth something?
If so, I would go for a Blue Line. Not a great sound, either, but for
what they are most commonly used (home guitar recording) they are great
value. And a lot of added value in the form of nostalgia: something
smelling of bedroom studio and small early-youth gigs.
Paolo
--
Paolo Tramannoni
Porto Recanati, Italy
Paul Gitlitz
Hi Harvey,
Hope your feeling better. I've had sciatica and it sucks big time.
Well based partly on your review I have put my order in with Avant and
Assoc. for a pair if 603's. Ken Avant told me he has been keeping
close tabs on these new mics and inspecting them closely.
He offer a differing opinion on the V67. He told me that the capsule
and electronics were identical to the 2001.
He thinks the best deal is on the V77. He also really liked the 600,
but had the 603's on sale so I went for it.
Paul Gitlitz
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:23:51 -0600, Harvey Gerst
<har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote:
>dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well.
>
>The mics we did like:
>
>The $30 Marshall Fox hand-held dynamic mic was a little harder to judge - it had
>good high end, good bottom end, but it had scooped mids, compared to the Shure
>SM-7. Alex said it did fine as a vocal mic at a live gig, although it fed back
>sooner than the Shure SM-58. Still, at roughly $30 retail, I can see people
>having a few around for live gigs.
>
>Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
>thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
>top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
>similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
>
>Harvey Gerst
>Indian Trail Recording Studio
Harvey Gerst
>
>Hi Harvey,
>
> Hope your feeling better. I've had sciatica and it sucks big time.
>
>Well based partly on your review I have put my order in with Avant and
>Assoc. for a pair if 603's. Ken Avant told me he has been keeping
>close tabs on these new mics and inspecting them closely.
The two 603s I received from Brent Casey at Marshall were great.
>He offer a differing opinion on the V67. He told me that the capsule
>and electronics were identical to the 2001.
They sound completely different to me. I'll call Brent tomorrow and ask him if
the 2001 and the V67 are identical internally.
>He thinks the best deal is on the V77. He also really liked the 600,
>but had the 603's on sale so I went for it.
I agree that the V77 is an excellent mic, but if he likes the 600 over the 603,
then we disagree completely.
arkk
$99" but when you try to order it it's $129! What are the prices for the
2001 in your area? (none of my local retailers carry MXLs and i haven't
found too many places online either). Plus, i want a place that wouldn't
charge for restocking as buying without listening seems kinda risky...
Actually, i want to try a mic with omni mode thus the Nady SCM-1000.
btw, "a cheaper version of the MXL-2001" ... sounds a little weird, doesn't
it? <g>
- arkk
"Chris G." <chri...@txdirect.net> wrote in message
news:t662e59...@corp.supernews.com...
: Actually the V57 didn't replaced the MXL-2001. I asked Marshall myself
: >
: >
:
:
arkk
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:CF0F93F2E8AB2812.A9AFF45C...@lp.airnews.net...
John Rice
as an omni
> (but with a slight on axis high frequency rise), and it had a problem
as a
> figure 8 (the backside of the mic was muffled). At $149, it wasn't
bad, but I
> don't know how consistent they are from unit to unit, which is a major
concern
> of mine about buying inexpensive mics.
Well, just for the record I decided to try one of the Nady SCM-1000's
and ordered it from Guitar Center. They shipped it surprisingly fast .
.. unfortunately it arrived broken! The shipment could of been packed
better but I suppose it could of been damaged at the warehouse or even
might of come from the factory that way. I didn't even have to take it
out of the sealed plastic bag to notice that the mic element assembly
was loose and freely rattling around inside the wind screen cage! (
uuuhhhh. . . . . is it supposed to do that???? ;-) I still haven't
gotten the replacement yet.
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com
Chris G.
their web site. Technically that is illegal and they can be sued under
state law if you find that they are doing that with many of their products
on their web site. If it's just on the MXL-2001 mic then it's probably just
poor web site maintenance. The MXL-2001 was going for $99 at Mars Music in
San Antonio, TX until they replaced it with the V-57. Unfortunately
however I think Mars Music is the only Marshall mic dealer in my area unless
I go up to Austin which I don't do very often. Yes it does sound VERY
weird that Mars is replacing the 2001 with a "cheaper" version and then
charging more for it. Overall though all the Mars stores have different
products and they never seem to sell the same things so you can probably
still find the 2001 at some of them. Oh yea, get this,.....the 2001 was
actually selling at one California Mars Music store for only $89. But in
general, most places do sell it for between $120-$150. Usually it's $199
with the shockmount.
Chris G.
"arkk" <arkkDI...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:941da1$p...@freepress.concentric.net...
JnyVee.
impressive, annoying but impressive...
arkk wrote:
>
> it's disgusting Chris: on mars music site you can see in one place "price:
> $99" but when you try to order it it's $129! What are the prices for the
> 2001 in your area? (none of my local retailers carry MXLs and i haven't
> found too many places online either). Plus, i want a place that wouldn't
> charge for restocking as buying without listening seems kinda risky...
> Actually, i want to try a mic with omni mode thus the Nady SCM-1000.
actually, a little reality here...
If I want custom color towels to match my drapes and I'm PAYING a LOT
for them... I can mandate that they be JUST right or refuse since I'm
PAYING for that privaledge... but if I'm buying Canon Seconds at the
Outlet Store for $2/per then I would NOT expect them to OK a return
'just cause they aren;t the EXACT shade of mauve as my $4000 bathroom
curtains".
Like unto that, buying a $2k mic from a pro dealer I would think that
it'd be dandy-norm to be able to retirn it gratis if there was no way
besides trying it at the studio to see if it was the tool I wanted...
but with a disposable-priced mic at a McDonald's level store I can see
the Caveat Emptor norm where they can choose to hit you for a take-back
fee since they;re operating at that level, and the profit on somethign
like that ain;t hardly paying the saleschmo to hit the intercom button
and have the warehouse guy haul one up.
YBStudios
>found too many places online either). Plus, i want a place that wouldn't
>charge for restocking as buying without listening seems kinda risky...
I just got a V67 w/shockmount and 2 603s' from
http://www.filamentaudio.com/
Get a quote!
Tonebarge
They sold me two 603s for 93.15 ea including shipping! How'd you do?
Cheers,
TB
YBStudios wrote:
--
"Measure twice, cut once."
JWR
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
> Absolutely. I'm not sure that the new companies put pressure on Neumann,
as
> much as Neumann US probably putting pressure on Neumann Germany, when they
(US)
> saw an emerging market opportunity for a lower priced Neumann mic.
But Harvey, don't you think they "saw" this emerging market because they saw
that other companies lower priced offerings were selling?
>
> It's always easier for high quality manufacturers to "trade down" (make a
less
> expensive produduct) than it is for lower quality manufactures to "trade
up".
> Would you rather have a $35,000 "scaled down" Rolls Royce, or a $35,000
luxury
> Kia?
Not a bad analogy. Now lets look at it with Isuzu. When they entered the
US everyone saw them the same as we see Kia now. But with perserverance and
a quality product now there are LOTS of people who prefer at $35,000 Trooper
over a Jeep, or even a Range Rover because they know they are getting as
good of a tool for the lower cost. Some people will always go for the Range
Rover because of the status symbol that it is, there are even a few people
with more money than brain cells driving that God awful Mercedes SUV. But
others will look on the merits of the tool and choose there. Consider the
number of people like me who prefer to drive an Infinity over the other
luxury cars because we believe in Nissan quality and dependability. Lexus
is doing quite well also. Who would have believed it back in the 70's when
those first Corollas where arriving in the US. My brother-in-law is still
driving his 70's Corolla. One of these low cost Russian/Chinese companies
is going to be a Nissan or Toyota (an yes I'm sure there will be a few Yugos
also). And for all we know the Trooper of mics may already be on the market
just waiting for time to prove it's value. Maybe 25 years from now I'll
still be using my current Octavas as overheads.
> And the TLM-103 would still be a bargain at $2,000, IMHO.
It would have been a bargain I agree, but in the current market I would say
they have priced it right.
The car analogy is a very good one. When you realize that Jaguar had to
sell to Ford because they couldn't stay afloat with their cost of manufactor
to produce a tool that could now be produced far better at a lower cost
through modern technology. The lower priced and moderate priced luxury cars
did them in. Since then they are back with the highest quality offerings in
their history. Mic companies are going to see the status symbol selling
point erode. Their comparable quality competition will be at a grossly
lower price. Some will stay, some will go. It's exciting.
John
Chris G.
in "as new" condition with all the packaging intact, I don't see the need
for any but the smallest restocking fee for the fact that it was used for a
short time period. But a lot also has to do with how much money a store is
losing with restocking returned items vs. how much return business they are
getting because people are able to return items and purchase often more
expensive items if they're not satisfied with their original purchase.
Chris G.
"JnyVee." <moc....@ybmurbrevlis.com> wrote in message
news:3A646E...@ybmurbrevlis.com...
YBStudios
>I disagree. For me $100+ IS a lot of money. As long as the mic is returned
>in "as new" condition with all the packaging intact, I don't see the need
>for any but the smallest restocking fee for the fact that it was used for a
>short time period.
>
I am fortunate enought to also own a commercial equipment repair franchise and
we have 20% restocking on everything except electrical. None of that stuff is
ever accepted back.
There may be a difference in perspective regarding commercial versus home
studios. I suspect there is.
TEX
<har...@ITRstudio.com> spake thusly and the world did shudder in
amazement:
>texs...@yahoo.com (TEX) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:23:51 -0600, Harvey Gerst
>><har...@ITRstudio.com> spake thusly and the world did shudder in
>>amazement:
>
>>>Marshall MXL-2003 $399 I thought the 2003 sounded pretty smooth overall. Alex
>>>thought it had a little less bottom than the 103, but a little more hi mids and
>>>top end than a 103. The Nady had a little less bottom. Alex felt it was
>>>similar to the AKG C3000, but it sounded smoother than a C3000, to me anyway.
>
>>Gotta put a good word in for this mic. We just used 3 of them in the
>>studio for overheads on a drum kit and they were wonderful. Great
>>sound. Definite bang for the buck.
>>
>>-TEX
>>
>>Three Years Down
>>www.3yearsdown.com
>>www.mp3.com/3YD/
>
>I agree, I thought this was a really nice mic and as I said in my review, I
>wouldn't hesitate in buying this mic for the studio. And I hope I didn't give
>the impression that Alex didn't like the mic, he did. We just don't hear the
>same things when it comes to the C3000.
When I saw the engineer at out session pull the Marshalls out of their
cases I looked at him totally crosseyed. He had used them before on a
previous session and A/B'd them with several other mics and loved the
sound. When I heard them I was really impressed. I know what my next
purchase for my studio is going to be.
du...@my-deja.com
rsm...@bsstudios.com wrote:
>
> A great big thankyou for taking the time to share this. I hope your
> sciatica stays in remission. I can relate. Physical therapy and
> massage
> therapy can do wonders.
I am a new "inductee" into the whole Sciatic nerve thing. Friggin'
pisses me off 27 years without a problem then a day at Disneyland
lingers on for months....I hope to get therapy but my HMO is fighting me
on it they keep saying excersise are enough. As far as the review thanks
Harvey...it's great you would put the time in it for us!
dusk
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
YBStudios
>>><har...@ITRstudio.com> spake thusly and the world did shudder in
>>>amazement:
In case I forgot, thanks for putting in that kind of effort on the Marshall MXL
review. You and Alex both deserve 4 million attaboys.
dgkenney
http://www.abemusic.com/marshall/mxl2001.asp
has a deal going... a mxl2001 w/shockmount AND a mxl603 for $169.
Don't know anything about them other than I bump into it on the web.
Dan
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.225 / Virus Database: 107 - Release Date: 12/22/00
Jerry Steiger
<du...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:942has$g1f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> I am a new "inductee" into the whole Sciatic nerve thing. Friggin'
> pisses me off 27 years without a problem then a day at Disneyland
> lingers on for months....I hope to get therapy but my HMO is fighting me
> on it they keep saying excersise are enough.
I've only had one bout with sciatica, at a fairly low level. A trip to the
chiropractor didn't seem to help. This happened several weeks before my
annual backpacking trip with my family. I thought that a week of hauling 50
pounds around on my back and sleeping on a thin layer of foam over lumpy
ground was going to completely do me in. The reality was that my pain went
away the first day on the trail and never came back. YMMV.
Jerry Steiger
Harvey Gerst
>
>"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
>
>> Absolutely. I'm not sure that the new companies put pressure on Neumann, as
>> much as Neumann US probably putting pressure on Neumann Germany, when they (US)
>> saw an emerging market opportunity for a lower priced Neumann mic.
>But Harvey, don't you think they "saw" this emerging market because they saw
>that other companies lower priced offerings were selling?
Yes, the introduction of other companies lower cost Large diaphragm mics proved
the market was viable for a lower cost Neumann near the top of the low end mic
range.
>>It's always easier for high quality manufacturers to "trade down" (make a less
>> expensive produduct) than it is for lower quality manufactures to "trade up".
>> Would you rather have a $35,000 "scaled down" Rolls Royce, or a $35,000 luxury
>> Kia?
>Not a bad analogy. Now lets look at it with Isuzu. When they entered the
>US everyone saw them the same as we see Kia now. But with perserverance and
>a quality product now there are LOTS of people who prefer at $35,000 Trooper
>over a Jeep, or even a Range Rover because they know they are getting as
>good of a tool for the lower cost. Some people will always go for the Range
>Rover because of the status symbol that it is, there are even a few people
>with more money than brain cells driving that God awful Mercedes SUV. But
>others will look on the merits of the tool and choose there. Consider the
>number of people like me who prefer to drive an Infinity over the other
>luxury cars because we believe in Nissan quality and dependability. Lexus
>is doing quite well also. Who would have believed it back in the 70's when
>those first Corollas where arriving in the US. My brother-in-law is still
>driving his 70's Corolla. One of these low cost Russian/Chinese companies
>is going to be a Nissan or Toyota (an yes I'm sure there will be a few Yugos
>also). And for all we know the Trooper of mics may already be on the market
>just waiting for time to prove it's value. Maybe 25 years from now I'll
>still be using my current Octavas as overheads.
True about the Isuzu, but they worked very hard at promoting their image. It's
harder for a company like Peavey for example, to trade up and be taken seriously
in the pro audio market as witness their AMR recording console which didn't do
well. The only products being seen as a possible contender in the low end
studios is their tube mic pre.
>> And the TLM-103 would still be a bargain at $2,000, IMHO.
>It would have been a bargain I agree, but in the current market I would say
>they have priced it right.
Yes, and if it were priced much lower, it would not be good for their image.
>The car analogy is a very good one. When you realize that Jaguar had to
>sell to Ford because they couldn't stay afloat with their cost of manufactor
>to produce a tool that could now be produced far better at a lower cost
>through modern technology. The lower priced and moderate priced luxury cars
>did them in. Since then they are back with the highest quality offerings in
>their history. Mic companies are going to see the status symbol selling
>point erode. Their comparable quality competition will be at a grossly
>lower price. Some will stay, some will go. It's exciting.
The high quality mic market will remain stable simply because some microphones
can not be duplicated in quantity by mass production techniques. The special
Klaus Brauner mic is an excellent example of trading up. Imagine a custom made
Stephen Paul U87 sold by Neumann. It would be a smart marketing move on their
part IMHO.
Erwin Timmerman
"Chris G." wrote:
> I disagree. For me $100+ IS a lot of money. As long as the mic is returned
> in "as new" condition with all the packaging intact, I don't see the need
> for any but the smallest restocking fee for the fact that it was used for a
> short time period.
It depends. What happens a lot is that people buy the mic, use it for a project
and then return it. The cheaper stores get the public that does this a lot more
than the more expensive stores. So they charge restocking fee. It is a matter
that the good have to suffer from the bad, but that's the way it is...
Greetings,
Erwin Timmerman
--
"Experience is what you get when you don't get what you wanted in the first
place" - Fletcher's dad
Links to a lot of recording FAQs: http://go.to/recordingfaq
Chris G.
MXL 603 mics by themselves. Hopefully they can give me a good deal on a
pair of these mics because my home studio really needs a pair of decent
small diaphragm mics because right now all I have are the Radio Shack small
diaphragm mics which aren't too bad, but are not great either.
Chris G.
"dgkenney" <dgke...@sinewave.com> wrote in message
news:S6696.132331$A06.4...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
arkk
- arkk
"John Rice" <imj...@imjohn.com> wrote in message
news:_BX86.372$rD4....@news.uswest.net...
: > Not really. I thought the SCM-1000 was just ok as a cardioid, great
:
:
:
arkk
: chiropractor didn't seem to help. This happened several weeks before my
: annual backpacking trip with my family. I thought that a week of hauling
50
: pounds around on my back and sleeping on a thin layer of foam over lumpy
: ground was going to completely do me in. The reality was that my pain went
: away the first day on the trail and never came back. YMMV.
:
: Jerry Steiger
that's a great story. i wish there were more stories like this...
- arkk
:
:
Roger W. Norman
for $250, but that doesn't seem like a buyer's dream in pricing for a $270
list mic. And what type of tube does the VX77 use? Not worth buying a tube
product if you can't find a replacement tube.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"Harvey Gerst" <har...@ITRstudio.com> wrote in message
news:CF0F93F2E8AB2812.A9AFF45C...@lp.airnews.net...
> "arkk" <arkkDI...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Harvey,
> >
> >First, i want to add my thanks for the long-awaited review. I hope your
> >injury heals soon.
> >
> >Unfortunately, V57 didn't make it into the review and it's an interesting
> >one indeed (it's a replacement for the 2001 or so it seems).
> >
> >Have your impressions about Nady SCM1000 changed in any way after this
> >extensive testing? Would you recommend it over a corresponding MXL?
> >
> >thanks,
>
> arkk,
>
> Not really. I thought the SCM-1000 was just ok as a cardioid, great as an
omni
> (but with a slight on axis high frequency rise), and it had a problem as a
> figure 8 (the backside of the mic was muffled). At $149, it wasn't bad,
but I
> don't know how consistent they are from unit to unit, which is a major
concern
> of mine about buying inexpensive mics.
>
> The Oktavas from Guitar Center are "not" consistent, the units from the
Sound
> Room are. The Marshall mics are consistent as near as I can tell
(although I
> didn't check the 2001, which I suspect may be less consistent than the
rest of
> the Marshall line). Some of the Rode mics are "said" to be inconsistent,
but
> I've never heard them, so I can't confirm that.
>
Tonebarge
Go here and ask for an online quote. Get the quote with the shock mount.
You'll be pleasantly surprised!
TB
"Roger W. Norman" wrote:
--
"Measure twice, cut once."
LS1productions
product if you can't find a replacement tube.
-- >>
6072
Nate Tschetter
www.filamentaudio.com quoted me $182.85 for the MXL-V67G and $25 for the MXL-57.
Cheers
Nate Tschetter
Sonic Taxidermist
www.gluethemoose.com
m a r t i n
m a r t i n
cheers, you beat me on that one!
Martin
Chris G.
selling for $129??????? Sheeet that's cheaper then a Radio Shack dynamic
mic. I'd buy a whole ton of them for that price.
Chris G.
"Nate Tschetter" <na...@gluethemoose.com> wrote in message
news:3A673175...@gluethemoose.com...
John Rice
number! ;-) Check out http://www.mxlmics.com/shockmnt.html
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com
"Chris G." <chri...@txdirect.net> wrote in message
news:t6enq3r...@corp.supernews.com...
rroob...@my-deja.com
Just ordered mine for $185+shipping, for mic, shock mount, and a cable..
Robin Farrell
JuliRob Productions
Nate Tschetter
deal if that's the kinda thing you're looking for.
Chris G.
thought you were talking about. Ok...NoooProb. I'll probably end up
getting a pair of 603 mics.
Chris G.
"Nate Tschetter" <na...@gluethemoose.com> wrote in message
news:3A67D72E...@gluethemoose.com...
Jeff Hill
acoustic. I set them up this morning in an XY about shoulder level 18"
out, Pointed about 30 degrees down at the 14th fret. I burned the
tracks to CD and listened on my way to work. My initial impression is
that they are going to require very little EQ, they don't heavily color
the sound. My Breedlove finally sounds like a Breedlove. I think I am
going to be very happy with them. Very well rounded bass, warm present
mids, and non-fatigue-ing highs. I initally had trouble finding two
which would work with the phantom power on my board, I called Marshall
and talked to Scott, they are very responsive and first rate in
customer service. He is going to look into the problem when all their
people get back from NAMM. Another note is that out of auditioning
approximately 10 microphones there was very little variability in them.
Easy to find a pair which would work together.
I am far from having experience with the great mics but thats my two
cents worth.
Jeff Hill
In article <znr979389665k@trad>,
mri...@d-and-d.com wrote:
>
> In article
<68A6D1DC414FEF36.CE7C9179...@lp.airnews.net>
har...@ITRstudio.com writes:
>
> > Marshall MXL-603 $99 This was a flat-out winner, folks. Almost
identical to
> > the MC012 in sound, with a wide cardioid pattern, almost
approaching omni. We
> > used them as drum overhead mics, and they did a great job.
>
> Did you by chance try them as an X-Y pair? I know it's getting pretty
> far from your demo, but since the MXL-603 sounding somewhat like the
> MC012, which sounds somewhat like a KM-184, which sounds somewhat like
> a KM-84, which is my first string X-Y setup for classical and jazz,
> I was wondering. Perhaps I could give a pair of those, as a belated
> birthday present, to my friend who's always borrowing my KM-84's to
> record small contemporary classical music groups.
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mri...@d-and-d.com)
Dave Merrill
guitar well, but *which* MXL did you get a pair of?
--
Dave Merrill
Jeff Hill <taylo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:949smg$nd3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Nathan West
rroob...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Abe's Music: http://www.abemusic.com/Default.htm
>
> Just ordered mine for $185+shipping, for mic, shock mount, and a cable..
--
Regards,
Nathan West
Riverwest Entertainment
riverwest.e...@home.com
pr
Les Cargill
pr wrote:
>
> filamentaudio.com
Their website leaves much to be desired. They only show list price,
with a "Request a Price Quote" button. Feh.
No 603, but some others.
dgkenney
shipping. (in California)
Dan
Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A6A424F...@worldnet.att.net...
Nathan West
initial thoughts?
dgkenney wrote:
> I picked up two (2) 603s from filament the other day for 169.90 including
> shipping. (in California)
--
Roger W. Norman
about them. I'd say it was worth the wait on filament.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
www.SirMusicStudio.com
Roger....@verizon.net
Ro...@SirMusicStudio.com
301-585-4681
www.mp3.com/buddywhite
www.mp3.com/thelivewireband
"Les Cargill" <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3A6A424F...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
dgkenney
have a chance to give them a try. My hope is that they will prove useful as
a flavor for some acoustic guitars hanging around here.
Dan
Nathan West <nate...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A6A7505...@home.com...
John Rice
"arkk" <arkkDI...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:94694t$2...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> please share your impressions when you get the replacement and try it
out...
Hi arkk,
Just to let you know I contacted Musicians Friend to find out what
happened to my SCM-1000 replacement. They said they credited my credit
card on the 6th, which is odd since I instructed them twice to just send
me another one. ( I guess that's what I get for buying from MF, at least
they gave me a credit without a hassle! )
Since Harvey's impression of the SCM-1000 wasn't particularly good and
since they don't seem to be made well at least from my experience ( it
broke during shipping ) I think that I'll hold off on getting another
one ( at least for now ).
I already have enough medium to large diaphragm 'cheap' to medium priced
mics to choke ( and record ;-) a horse, a bunch of dynamic mics, a few
PZM's and some other odds and ends so I really think I need to get a
GOOD pair of small diaphragm condensors. Here's what I currently have :
Med to large diaphragm cond. :
2 x CAD E-200
2 x Marshall 2001P
1 x ADK A-51s
2 x Shure KSM32
Small diaphragm cond. :
2 x AKG C1000
Dynamics :
2 x AKG D12E
3 x Shure SM57
1 x Shure Beta56
1 x AudioTechnica ATM25
1 x AKG 3400
1 x Beyer M201TG
PZMs :
2 x Radio Shack
1 x Crown Sound Grabber
2 x Crown 180
and a misc. mics!.
I'd really like to get both a pair of Neumann KM184's and a pair of
KM183's but that is really beyond me right now. I'm seriously
considering getting that matched set of Oktava MC012's from the Sound
Room for $650 but I'm gonna have to scrape to even get those. ( I'd also
like a Neumann TLM103 or a Soundelux U195 PLUS a Royer SF-1 and a whole
stack of fancy mic pres but . . . ... )
If anyone has a suggestion as to what might be a good next purchase
instead of the Oktavas I'd be open to hear it.
Besides recording a whole lot of drums and percussion tracks I'll be
recording :
Male and female solo vocals
a five person female choir
guitar and bass amps
acoustic violin and cello
mandolin
flute
bagpipes ( several types )
acoustic guitars
etc
Thanks all!
John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com