Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Marshall Microphones Review - Finally.

48 views
Skip to first unread message

Harvey Gerst

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 2:23:51 PM1/12/01
to
<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 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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 3:26:21 PM1/12/01
to
Thanks very much for the review, Harvey. Now if Mark McQ would just hurry
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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 3:53:30 PM1/12/01
to
Harvey, thanks for the info... and start doing your exercises!!!(I know all
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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 4:21:57 PM1/12/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 4:35:47 PM1/12/01
to
In rec.audio.pro, Harvey Gerst <har...@itrstudio.com> wrote:
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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 5:08:00 PM1/12/01
to
"Robin" <juli...@home.com> wrote:

>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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 5:20:14 PM1/12/01
to
Keith Blackwell <k...@mtdkbux.lvld.agilent.com> wrote:

>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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 5:44:18 PM1/12/01
to
Where to buy Marshall mics? Mars Music has a couple. Where do you go
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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 6:02:10 PM1/12/01
to
Thanks much for the excellent review Harvey!!!!! :-)

John L Rice
Dru...@ImJohn.com

Bob Smith

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 6:14:58 PM1/12/01
to
Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> <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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 6:53:56 PM1/12/01
to
Great job, Harvey. I have some MXL comments, as well.

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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 8:42:01 PM1/12/01
to
Yeah, thanks.

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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 8:52:51 PM1/12/01
to Harvey Gerst
Way, Way, Way cool Harvey...

Thanks, Soooo much for your hard work. Thank Alex and Brent for me (us)
also. Get well soon on the injury!!!!

Chris G.

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 3:40:38 PM1/12/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 11:00:36 PM1/12/01
to
"Chris G." <chri...@txdirect.net> wrote:

>
>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

unread,
Jan 12, 2001, 11:12:21 PM1/12/01
to
Hey Harvey,

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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 1:00:50 AM1/13/01
to
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.

Kind regards,

TB

Harvey Gerst wrote:

--
"Measure twice, cut once."


Harvey Gerst

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 1:11:25 AM1/13/01
to
Tonebarge <Tone...@iscweb.com> wrote:

>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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 1:17:07 AM1/13/01
to
Here's another retailer:

http://www.abemusic.com/marshall.htm

TB

snapp...@my-deja.com wrote:

--
"Measure twice, cut once."


Lyle Caldwell

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 1:25:34 AM1/13/01
to
Chris,
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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 2:12:20 AM1/13/01
to
In article <93o1c0$8fo$1...@nnrp1.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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 7:45:29 AM1/13/01
to
Thanks Harvey,
This will give me something to consider for future purchases.
Mike Kellat

Chris G.

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 3:56:16 AM1/13/01
to
Cool Thanks....yeah it's hard to find dealers who carry the whole Marshall
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.

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 4:01:18 AM1/13/01
to
True...hopefully when I land another job soon, I'll be able to get the
Oktavas.
Chris G.


"Lyle Caldwell" <cald...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:qyS76.1044$BQ6....@news4.atl...

Mark Plancke

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 10:07:01 AM1/13/01
to
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 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.

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 4:18:46 AM1/13/01
to
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) 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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 11:40:12 AM1/13/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 11:48:40 AM1/13/01
to
Mark Plancke <Ma...@Soundtechrecording.com> wrote:

>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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 1:40:11 PM1/13/01
to
Thanks for the very usefull info Harvey! This is the right decade to have a
home studio.
Garth


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

Harvey Gerst

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 4:11:35 PM1/13/01
to
"Chris G." <chri...@txdirect.net> wrote:

>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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 4:13:43 PM1/13/01
to
mri...@d-and-d.com (Mike Rivers) wrote:

> 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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 5:28:53 PM1/13/01
to

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/

--
http://home.att.net/~lcargill

Mike Rivers

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 8:05:08 PM1/13/01
to

> 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

unread,
Jan 13, 2001, 9:26:19 PM1/13/01
to
Mark,

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

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 1:04:06 AM1/14/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 1:25:57 AM1/14/01
to

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

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 2:00:57 AM1/14/01
to

>,,,,,,,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

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 2:40:03 AM1/14/01
to
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.)

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

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 9:38:32 AM1/14/01
to
> Harvey Gerst wrote:
>
> [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

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 10:45:34 AM1/14/01
to
Paul Gitlitz <pa...@pointbob.net> wrote:

>
>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

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 10:52:32 AM1/14/01
to
jpste...@my-deja.com wrote:

>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.

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 5:53:48 AM1/14/01
to
I agree 100%. It was funny when I bought my Marshall MXL-2001, I did an
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.

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 5:59:58 AM1/14/01
to
ACK! OUCH!!!!!!! That must have sucked nuts. I only had a price drop
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.

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 6:27:05 AM1/14/01
to
Good point. I didn't think about that. I guess I'm so used to having my
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

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 4:22:11 PM1/14/01
to
>However your Minimus 7's
>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

unread,
Jan 14, 2001, 6:49:16 PM1/14/01