Audix SCX-25.. .WTF??
BlacklineMusic
silky and clear as hell.... I expected him to tell me he used some esoteric or
vintage tube mics but he told me he used a pair of Audix SCX-25s on a whole
bunch of stuff. What the hell are they and who has them and can someone tell
me more about them?
Rob Adelman
and let me know :-/
<http://64.213.162.194/clearance/aud_hardwired_mics.asp>
Lorin David Schultz
What a coincidence... one of the guys I work with just played me some
tracks he did with Diana Krall with those in the piano. Wow.
To compare I brought up some tracks we did with her a couple years ago
using KM184s. Problem is it was a different piano in a different room,
so how do you compare?
The old tracks sounded cloudy and small compared to the new tracks, but
the old tracks were on a baby Yamaha and the new ones were a 7'
Steinway. I would imagine the Yamahahaha sounds cloudy and small in
comparison to the Steinway, so maybe the mics have nothing to do with
it!
Anyway, the tracks done with the Audix were great. The bottom was big,
the mids were clear and the top was smooth. Too early for a firm
opinion without trying them on a few other things, but we *may* have a
sleeper here.
--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the audio booth
making even bad news sound good
Preben Friis
"BlacklineMusic" <blackli...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021217134727...@mb-fo.aol.com...
http://www.audixusa.com/scx_25.html
/Preben Friis
BlacklineMusic
>tracks he did with Diana Krall with those in the piano. Wow.
I've been listening again to the demo and I just can't get over how clean and
smooth things are... I'm definitely going to try to get a hold of a demo
pair... I'm just surprised that there is NO buzz on them.
Ty Ford
I reviewed them within the last year for MIX. I'm not sure if I've uploaded
the review to my site yet or not. (But then again if I reviewed it for MIX,
it must be just warmed over pablum that Audix paid to have published.)
BTW, I liked them, but the headgrille did have a slight ping.
Regards,
Ty Ford
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford
Buster Mudd
>
> The old tracks sounded cloudy and small compared to the new tracks, but
> the old tracks were on a baby Yamaha and the new ones were a 7'
> Steinway. I would imagine the Yamahahaha sounds cloudy and small in
> comparison to the Steinway, so maybe the mics have nothing to do with
> it!
>
I have *never* heard a Yamaha piano that could be described as
"cloudy". More often they're "bright", bordering on "harsh"
-b
Rob Adelman
they have 1 left :)
I'll let you know what I think of them.
-Rob
(b.t.w. I asked about these quite some time ago and nobody seemed to
know much about them)
Scott Dorsey
It's a Chinese U87-clone capsule, but in a lollipop mounting arrangement
and with conventional and fairly clean transformerless electronics. Sort
of like the Lomo head for the Oktava 012 in concept.
The data sheet makes all sorts of noise about how innovative the lollipop
mounting is, but in fact Neumann was doing it in the thirties. It is still
a pretty good idea, though.
Off-axis response on these things is pretty bizarre, but they are very clean
on-axis and they pass the keychain test very well for a large diaphragm mike.
Pattern is sloppier than you'd expect for a lollipop (since there is less
grille interference trouble than with a larger grille arrangement), but it's
certainly no worse than a lot of other highly touted large diaphragm mikes.
If you like it, buy it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Rob Adelman
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> It's a Chinese U87-clone capsule, but in a lollipop mounting arrangement
> and with conventional and fairly clean transformerless electronics. Sort
> of like the Lomo head for the Oktava 012 in concept.
In the standard 012, is it the capsule or the electronics that are lacking in mid
range clarity? I never tried the Lomo head.
> The data sheet makes all sorts of noise about how innovative the lollipop
> mounting is, but in fact Neumann was doing it in the thirties. It is still
> a pretty good idea, though.
Are you referring to the capsule shock mounting system they are talking about?
> Off-axis response on these things is pretty bizarre, but they are very clean
> on-axis and they pass the keychain test very well for a large diaphragm mike.
What do you mean by bizarre? Peaks and valleys off-axis?
> Pattern is sloppier than you'd expect for a lollipop (since there is less
> grille interference trouble than with a larger grille arrangement), but it's
> certainly no worse than a lot of other highly touted large diaphragm mikes.
Why would less grille interference make the pattern sloppier?
I thought it sounded like a great deal at 500 bucks, so I bought 2 to try. My new
room is a lot more live than I am used to, and the patterns on my microphones has
become more of an issue. I should have some drums in here soon, of course that will
be the real test.
> If you like it, buy it.
Or you can always buy it, send it back if you don't.
-Rob
Scott Dorsey
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> It's a Chinese U87-clone capsule, but in a lollipop mounting arrangement
>> and with conventional and fairly clean transformerless electronics. Sort
>> of like the Lomo head for the Oktava 012 in concept.
>
>In the standard 012, is it the capsule or the electronics that are lacking in mid
>range clarity? I never tried the Lomo head.
Depends on the 012 you get. The capsule doesn't have the best midrange
possible, but a lot of the 012s have serious midrange problems because
of the low value leak and polarization resistors.
Cleaning the electronics up is pretty easy, actually. There isn't much
you can do with the capsule other than to replace it with something like
the Lomo head.
>> The data sheet makes all sorts of noise about how innovative the lollipop
>> mounting is, but in fact Neumann was doing it in the thirties. It is still
>> a pretty good idea, though.
>
>Are you referring to the capsule shock mounting system they are talking about?
Right. The capsule is shock mounted and placed in a lollipop thing with
the grille as close to the capsule as possible, rather than in a big grille
like something like the U87.
>> Off-axis response on these things is pretty bizarre, but they are very clean
>> on-axis and they pass the keychain test very well for a large diaphragm mike.
>
>What do you mean by bizarre? Peaks and valleys off-axis?
Peaks and valleys off-axis, and when you get behind the mike, there are
several ranges that have their null at a different location than the
rest of the range, so there is no one null point back there.
>> Pattern is sloppier than you'd expect for a lollipop (since there is less
>> grille interference trouble than with a larger grille arrangement), but it's
>> certainly no worse than a lot of other highly touted large diaphragm mikes.
>
>Why would less grille interference make the pattern sloppier?
A lot of the pattern problems in larger microphones come from the interference
of the grille, especially on something like the U87. That's why measurement
microphones look the way they do; they have a long skinny neck to get the
capsule as far away from the acoustical shadow of the body as possible so
they can get the best off-axis response.
>I thought it sounded like a great deal at 500 bucks, so I bought 2 to try. My new
>room is a lot more live than I am used to, and the patterns on my microphones has
>become more of an issue. I should have some drums in here soon, of course that will
>be the real test.
>
>> If you like it, buy it.
>
>Or you can always buy it, send it back if you don't.
Right. It's a fun mike. It's not what I'd pick for overheads, but if you
like it, use it.
BlacklineMusic
>like it, use it.
>--scott
I went down to my pal's studio and listened to a pair on overheads. It was
much smoother then the 414 TLs that we demoed them against. I think those
things are pretty cool.
Rob Adelman
while back and didn't get any feedback from anyone and kind of forgot
about them. Only way to know for sure is to use them in my studio.
-Rob
Lee Liebner
Rob Adelman
Ty Ford
wrote:
the 414 BULS is very smooth when used with a dark preamp. It requires more
than a Mackie.
Ty Ford
<Jaz...@oceanbridge.com> wrote:
>If you missed Ty's review, it's here:
>http://mixonline.com/ar/audio_audix_scx/
>
>
Thanks Lee,
I was puttering around here yesterday and added that and a few other mic
reviews to my own site.
BlacklineMusic
>than a Mackie.
>
I think the 414 BULS is a nice mic and the preamps they were going to were Neve
1073s. When we put up the Audix's, I found that the crash cymbals had equal
definition and a bit more fluidness if you can understand what that means.
Very surprised with the Audix mics.
Rob Adelman
mic's/mikes ummm, microphones ;)
-Rob
Lyle Caldwell
test.
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc.
"Rob Adelman" <rade...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3E036F77...@mn.rr.com...
EggHd
Wasn't that an albun title for a 70's British band?
---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"
Rob Adelman
fantastic when you find the sweet spot. Super clarity, not harsh at all, balanced
low end, wow. But that sweet spot is awfully small.
Scott Dorsey said this:
>Off-axis response on these things is pretty bizarre, but they are very clean
>on-axis and they pass the keychain test very well for a large diaphragm mike.
>Pattern is sloppier than you'd expect for a lollipop (since there is less
>grille interference trouble than with a larger grille arrangement), but it's
>certainly no worse than a lot of other highly touted large diaphragm mikes.
Boy your weren't kidding. This microphone is beamy. Think of a flashlight beam, that
is the sweet spot. When you move around at all, you get all kinds of weird things
happening. I suppose if you wanted some kind of effect, like a phase shifter...
I tried voice and 12 string guitar. Useless as far as I am concerned. I would guess
saxaphone, horns, anything that moves around much would make this transducer
unusable. Drum overheads could actually work. The drums don't move much and as I
said the SCX-25 sounds fantastic if you find the sweet spot and stay there. Then
again even the crash cymbol moving *could* be too much for it, not sure. I don't
have any drums at the moment to try.
The Audix's go back. Oh, and the at4051's are for sale too. I don't like them
anymore. 600 bucks gets the pair, almost brand new, just a few testing sessions.
Still searching for overheads. Maybe I have to spring for the Schoeps?
> It's a Chinese U87-clone capsule, but in a lollipop mounting arrangement
> and with conventional and fairly clean transformerless electronics. Sort
> of like the Lomo head for the Oktava 012 in concept.
Well it proves that the Chinese capsule can sound good, if implemented properly, or
maybe not?
What does sound good to me at the moment. My Gefell M900 and especially my Neumann
M71. On everything.
> The data sheet makes all sorts of noise about how innovative the lollipop
> mounting is, but in fact Neumann was doing it in the thirties. It is still
> a pretty good idea, though.
Oh, you said that already.
> If you like it, buy it.
> --scott
I bought it, but I don't like it. Really a shame, they are very pretty microphones.
-Rob
Ty Ford
Think so. The 414 gets into trouble when sound comes in at 45 degree angles.
Try it. That 90 degree bend in the headgrille does some weird things to HF
information.
Turns out it was earlier this year that I reviewed the SCX-25. I put that
review up on my site yesterday.
BlacklineMusic
>really
>fantastic when you find the sweet spot. Super clarity, not harsh at all,
>balanced
>low end, wow. But that sweet spot is awfully small.
That sucks that you don't like it. I really dug how on overheads, I didn't
have to eq out all the "crud" in the low mids and the high end of the cymbals
actually sounded like cymbals. Compass will let you return them no? What did
you try it on? I feel bad because it was my review that spurred you to get
them. I know a lot of people here who are digging them. The Tonight Show uses
them for piano.
Steve
Rob Adelman
BlacklineMusic wrote:
> That sucks that you don't like it. I really dug how on overheads, I didn't
> have to eq out all the "crud" in the low mids and the high end of the cymbals
> actually sounded like cymbals. Compass will let you return them no? What did
> you try it on? I feel bad because it was my review that spurred you to get
> them. I know a lot of people here who are digging them. The Tonight Show uses
> them for piano.
> Steve
Actually I was going to suggest they may be great for piano, as it
doesn't move. The sound really changes as you move around, big time.
Full Compass will take them back, but he did say something about a
restocking fee. They are closed today so I don't know. You want to buy
them from me?
Rob
Peter Andersson
>
>
> What does sound good to me at the moment. My Gefell M900 and especially my Neumann
> M71. On everything.
>
Rob, have you tried the M900 as an overhead mic?
Rob Adelman
Peter Andersson wrote:
Actually I was thinking about this, but it is for my guitar. The guitar has to be going
on with the drums!
Surprisingly, I find my cardioid tube Neumann M71, which has a similar capsule sounds
fairly similar to the M900. That is why I just but the UM70 (also the M7 capsule) to see
if it could work with the M71 as overheads. If so, I will have a couple of great mics
for overdubing all kinds of stuff after the initial drum tracks are laid. And all pretty
reasonably priced.
Wow, I've turned into a Neumann/Gefell junkie. Thanks a lot, Ty! <g>
-Rob
Ty Ford
wrote:
>
>
Rob,
Jesus! It's for your own good! :) If the rest don't follow, who cares.
Now about the Schoeps.......
Regards,
Ty (It doesn't matter if you can't hear the difference) Ford
Rob Adelman
I do have to give you a hard time about your SCX-25 review. Man, this thing has the
strangest off axis responce I have ever heard. In fact it could sound like a whole
locker full of microphones depending on the angle you hit it at.
-Rob
Lyle Caldwell
--
Lyle Caldwell
Psionic Media, Inc.
"Rob Adelman" <rade...@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3E064F2F...@mn.rr.com...
Ty Ford
wrote:
>Ty,
>
>I do have to give you a hard time about your SCX-25 review. Man, this thing has
the
>strangest off axis responce I have ever heard. In fact it could sound like a
whole
>locker full of microphones depending on the angle you hit it at.
>
>-Rob
Rob,
I did quite a bit of spinning with that mic and the one they sent me was
much more even than a 414 BULS. Perhaps they changed something between the
one they sent me and the one they shipped you.
Regards,
Ty Ford