Audix F10 Vs F12

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Cecile Lilien

unread,

Aug 3, 2024, 4:53:39 PM8/3/24

to diagravnadbe

For repairs, please email ser...@audixusa.com Include your name, phone number and model number of product in need of repair and we will email you a Return Authorization Number and instructions within 24 hours (Monday-Friday).

Hi to you all, first post here. I'm a sound mixer based in barcelona, spain. I'm looking for an interior boom mic, i have read a lot of discussions here about hyper and super cardioids mics, i know that a lot of people loves their CMC641 and MKH50 (mkh 8040 and 8050 also), but unfortunately they are out of my budget. People allways recommend on a low budget this two mics the audix and the akg. Here in barcelona it's impossible to rent them and make a side by side comparison, so i would like to know if any of you have used boths and know your reviews as well.

The real difference (I mean the one that matters) between those first two microphones you mentioned is not about the sound quality but that one is an RF condenser design (MKH series) and the other is an AF condenser design. The MKH 50, therefore, is more likely to keep working in moist environments. With that said, I don't know enough about whether the Audix or the AKG are more likely to sputter due to moisture.

Looking it up, the AKG model you mention seems quite expensive.... You could get the MKH series with that much money. When I first saw AKG and Audix in the title I initially thought you'd be referring to the AKG Blue Line series which is of comparable price to the Audix SCX1-HC. I believe the Audix sounds better than this series, however (according to Ty Ford), though I have heard the Blue Line series is generally resistant to humidity.

The AKG C480 (& older C460) w/ CK63 combo is one of the most underrated mics on this board. Extremely low noise, absolutely great sound, sounds as good if not better than the Schoeps CMC641 combo. The two-stage on board low-cut is invaluable for production work. I've never used the Audix, but I would point out that the AKG is twice its price (over $1000).

I've used the AKG C480/460's for years and really like them, they also come up for very reasonable prices second hand. I haven't tried the Audix but the CK63's a true hypercardioid rather than a hyper/super like the MKH50 and Schoeps meaning it's a wider directivity pattern, but gets less room sound. Sounds great and low noise (less than the Schoeps, almost as good as MKH50) though, reason I haven't bought an MKH50 or Schoeps. There's also a (discontinued ) swivel joint for the series

Just to correct what might become a misimpression: while AKG's Blueline mics are very good electret, the C480 series are high-voltage externally polarized condensers. A lot less self-noise. Both have very good acoustic/mechanical design, though the C480 seems made to tighter tolerances.

As of the specs and NOT EXPERIENCE
I would summ up - if you need a indoor mic to cover several people - go for AKG
If you need a mic for quiet situations - go for AKG or MKH 50
If you want small pattern - go for Audix or MKH 50 or MK 41
If you want deep Bass go for MKH 8050
if you want to sound everything natural MK 41 or MKH 8050

I've read the exact same thing about the Audix D2's. This makes absolutely no sense...how can a mic that picks up a flat natural sound give a scooped mid-range response at the same time? That is contradictory.

In a nutshell, I can't see spending the money on MD421's at this point. I'm also sick of using SM57's on toms because those damn "spinny" plastic rings rattle like hell, and I'm just not a fan of the sounds I've been getting.

I've been using the e604's for a couple of years (and 602 on kick). They're very natural sounding to my ears. The drummer who does the majority of work here refers to the tom sound as the "Ringo" sound, if that helps. Sometimes if there are only two toms in the kit, I'll take the 3rd one and clip it to the bottom rim of the floor tom for a clapper mike.

I have used a beta56, e609, AT pro25, a nice radioshack drum mic (kind of looks like the e604), beta 57, beta52 and md421 on toms. I've yet to try a condensor on toms. But in my experience I think that drum sound is more important that the mic, if you have the tunning and the correct drum size for the sound you want then you can move to the mic, and the ones i've like the most would be the pro25- nice smooth low, needs some 4k sometimes though to cut through, and and i've recently tried my e609 with good results on the rack tom, the placement of the 609 is so easy due to its side adress diaphram. I wasn't too happy with the beta56, so i use that as my under snare mic, and surprisingly I do enjoy my radioshack percusion mic, its small has good cut through sound, it just doesn't have much lowend, it says it will go down to 70hz but it seems more like 100-120hz. as for my floor tom i will sitck with my beta52, md421, or the pro25. right now my kit is miced with an e609 on the rack tom, and the md421 on my floor tom going into my nice stock dps24 pres, but i do like the beta52 on the floor tom too.

here is a link of just something our band is working on, this is just a scratch recording but uses the above mics for the toms. I am just a hobby recordist and do some work for other bands, so i'm not a pro engineer and i've not used lots of mics on toms going through really nice pres and comps, that would make a big difference in the sound of the mic too.

Not a 57 fan at all..
They are a close range mic with a really dull responce...
When I head to a studio and they start unpacking 57s i start packing back up...
I've found it's useually old live techs that swear by them...
"I've had 25 years of live experiance.............and a 57 is the Bee's Leg joint"

i think it comes down to the source. To say that the 57 is a crappy mic or that an audix mic will beat it out in all situations is ludicrus. If you put a 57 on every snare drum you record then you have problems, but matching the mic to the source is the key. There are some kick drums where i've exhausted all possibilities and found that the 57 sounds better than anything else. Thats after i've tried a D6 and beta 52. I also prefer the 57 to 421s on many rack toms. Sometimes i don't. I'm still a fan of them on guitar cabs, but if it doesn't sound good i don't blame the mic, i go grab another one. But i still find myself going to a 57 over many other mics quite often for snare drums, the beater side of kick drums, and rack toms. But it is important to have a good source first. I perfectly tuned kit in a perfect room will sound incredible with 2 kareoke mics.... trying to fix inadaquacies in the drums tone with a microphone is the wrong way to look at it. If you want a rock tom sound then go out and buy some rock sounding toms. Then it won't matter what mic you use.

I guess you are referring to the KSM44. Sorry I don't have one. I have heard great things about the KSM44. I also hear great things about SM57's also. :? And I have 3 of those. I imagine I will have a KSM44 one day as well. But I wonder about that. Maybe I could just skip it and go a Neumann U87 ai.

Well U87 is a whole other level of microphones.I wish I had only 87 for everything even toms,and hi hats but well KSM44 is $600 and u87 is over $2000.
A lot of people do not like dark sounding mics.But I kinda dig thr 44 on strings,double bass.It is very clear sounding with less output and dynamics then my tlm 103.
I personaly favor TLM 127 over U87.BUt that is me.

Kswiss wrote: i think it comes down to the source. To say that the 57 is a crappy mic or that an audix mic will beat it out in all situations is ludicrus. If you put a 57 on every snare drum you record then you have problems, but matching the mic to the source is the key.
There are some kick drums where i've exhausted all possibilities and found that the 57 sounds better than anything else.

Sometimes i don't. I'm still a fan of them on guitar cabs, but if it doesn't sound good i don't blame the mic, i go grab another one. But i still find myself going to a 57 over many other mics quite often for snare drums, the beater side of kick drums, and rack toms. But it is important to have a good source first. I perfectly tuned kit in a perfect room will sound incredible with 2 kareoke mics.... trying to fix inadaquacies in the drums tone with a microphone is the wrong way to look at it. If you want a rock tom sound then go out and buy some rock sounding toms. Then it won't matter what mic you use.

I am not saying 57 si crap.It is good for the price and sounds desent on almost everything in home recording...But to be a choice in a studio is just plain wrong.
By the way I hate how the snare sounds in thriller. (-:

impro wrote: Well U87 is a whole other level of microphones.
A lot of people do not like dark sounding mics.
By the way every audix I have heard"mostly on allen and heith mixer wich preamps sounds very well" sounded very small.

I can dig it. But first I feel I must agree with you that the "U87 is a whole other level of microphone". And I would like to add, in comparision, that the Shure KSM44 microphone and the Shure SM57 microphone is also "a whole other level".
But, I LOVE dark sounding mic's. So with your words (and like many, many others on here) I will most likely have a KSM44 sooner than later.
As far as the Allen & Heath pre-amps are concerned....I try REAL hard NOT to use those at all. They are everything that sucks about a compact mixer. It is worth what I paid for it, I just need to upgrade soon. My taste are way too high for budget type gear.
Even though I'm...on a budget :lol: :(
What I will say about the A&H pre's and an Audix OM6 is, it sounds, O.K. at best.
But with the same pre's and a SM57, it still sounds, just O.K. but with a little more bass (in the lower end). And I hate all that bass in the vocals, but maybe it's just my voice.
Now, just forget those damn Allen & Heath pre-amp's. When I use my Great River MP2NV the Audix mic's, it sounds AWESOME. And the SM57's are just not as good, again could just be my voice, my ears, whatever.