PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

On 2003-09-16 08:26, hubird wrote:
sorry, not agree!
crystal clear here!
great pro reviews I've seen also.
I can recommand it as top for that price.

Really!? I was guilty of drawing false conclusions about what £65 could buy you...(oops)

Kudos to Behringer! I may well buy one come the end of the month.

Royston

to be clear: I was talking about the Rode NTK large diaphragm tube condenser microphone, Lemke was talking about

yeah, beringer doesn't usually make good stuff. I certainly wouldn't trust them in my audio chain. I've got a midi foot pedal system of theirs that is kewl, but it's an anomaly as far as I'm concerned.

Sam

Rode NTK sounds very 'bright' but not 'clear' to me. A lot of highs with a slight distortion similar to digital aliasing. I was comparing it face to face to East Germany made Neumann-Gefell UM57, and NTK didn't even stand close to Gefell.
Compared it to lo-end Joemeek LD Condencer JM47, to LOMO 19a18, to Oktava 219 - with the same result/feeling.
And of course nothing in NTK sound is close to higher end mics ( Neumann U87 etc).
You are free to believe pre-paid praises but I think I should tell you my opinion.

I've got Rode NT2, Studio Projects B1, and added a Neumann M147 recently. What a difference . I believe Rode, SP and similar low priced mics sound decent, even great until you get some higher end stuff to compare with. Actually that's my experience with pro audio equipment - differences in the sound of the affordable and high end gear may seem subtle (especially when the ear is still inexperienced), but in the end they sum up... That's not to say that you cannot get a good sounding mix with some behringer stuff, etc. Human factor is the decisive one

ok, check this out and judge:

http://www.industryclick.com/magazinear ... &SiteID=15

cheerz

neumann set up a couple of the chinese mic plants just prior to ww2.these plants have been manufacturing a neumann clone capsule ever since.almost ALL inexpensive mics use this capsule(from cad to rode).even manley and groove tube use this capsule.it is good,the electronics are cheap in cheap mics.

caertainly,they are ALL useful.if one cannot do good work with ANY of the large diaphram condensors on the market,it is not the fault of the mic.for sure,some models will make you happier than others,but the difference is subjective and the preference will not be consistant for every voice(what is crappy for one singer is perfect for another).buy one and be happy.when you have more money buy another.

On 2003-08-28 09:40, krizrox wrote:
Amateurs, on the other hand, pose the biggest problem because they suffer from a variety of mouth-noise problems or poor technique and that makes the mixers' job much harder because now you have to employ tricks or gadgetry to fix the tracks.

Very true. i'm working with a amateur right now...and what a pain i'm having.. ..

It's subjective. Agreed.

Great thread. I have recorded many many singers through the years, and used so many defferend mics.

You just can't say "this is THE mic". It all deppends on the singer and his/hers technic. Like, Put a trashed guitar in the hands of a super guitarist and he will make it sound like heaven.

Did you know that most of the vocals on Peter Gabriels "SO" album is made with Shure SM-58. Check the record and say this is a bad mic. Most guitar amps around in studios is still miced up with sm-57, which on papers doesn't look strong.

Also the hype about tube warmth really annoys me. I find that using tubes mics works really well on male vocals, but on most female vocals I find that condenser mics is much warmer. I have worked with most Nuemann models, including U-47, U-67, U87 and really likes the sound of them. But for the price, not a chance. Sometimes they are too HIFI which is good on specs papers, but in a musical sense doesn't really makes sense. Use your ears, not pricetags.

To say that RØDE mics is crap is really not smart. Read magazines with articles by topnotch technicians, who praise them. I myself use a RØDE classic for many of my vocal recordings (check my tracks on this website), and simply LOVE the sound. I have also used the joemeek mic with great results.

I have in test rigth now a series of microphones by SE Electronics ( http://www.seelectronics.com/ ), which is SOOOO amazing. They are SUPER cheap, but sound like a trillion. The same concept that RØDE did way back, but thoose mics are simply pullling my pants off. Their Tube mics sounds like nothing I heard before. Almost like the first time I heard Earthworks mics.

About preamps: Did you you that a recent test by top-of-the-line technicians in Nashwille did a mic preamp blindtest, to come out with the Mackie XDR preamp sounding best, winning over 5000$ preamps. Again use your ears...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thalamus on 2003-09-17 18:50 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Thalamus on 2003-09-17 19:00 ]</font>

thalamus,i agree.also,isn't it amazing what good p.r. men mackie has?

I'm diggin' this discussion

I love the Mackie XDR preamps. Clean, quiet with just the right amount of warmth and sweetness. It'll be interesting to see if the Mackie product line survives the fallout from the sale of the company to a bunch of accountants.

My only problem with the cheapo condensors from China are the long-term reliability. Like I mentioned earlier, my Chinese C1 is corroding. I think, in the end, you get what you pay for. They are great for home users who need something better than a used hand-me-down or something left over from band practice but if you're serious about your craft, try to stick with one of the better brand names because they're usually built with better materials and will stand the test of time. Your mic is your first line of defense

I agree with all you who say it's very subjective. The best thing you can do for yourselves is to research what other people are using (like you're doing here) and then make the best decision you can based on your needs and financial resources. Arm yourselves with a few different types and brands so you can pick and choose based on the situation. It's nice to have a bright mic, a darker sounding mic and something really neutral. And yes, the SM57/58's are great industry-standard workhorses. No studio should be without at least one. I noticed no one mentioned Audio Technica yet. They make some great stuff too.

As far as tubes are concerned, I couldn't live without 'em but we all know they will have to be replaced eventually. I don't know about the argument that tubes are better for males vs females. Depends on the singer. Use whatever works. I have some JoeMeek solid-state preamps that almost sound like tube preamps. They are very warm sounding.

Keep it coming guys - wanna hear more about what you are doing.

it's all good,but instead of that sm58 get an audix om3xb.the audix has the identical frequency response,but that response is extended from about 50-12k to 30-18k,making it crisper and livelier(not brittle or harsh though,it's a dynamic).the audix is a much better made mic than the 58 and for live,it is far less susceptable to feedbeck.

Thank you so far to everyone that has contributed to this thread. You have been fantastic in you comments and have made me think about a lot of things.

Again, I am on a budget and haven't really made a choice yet although I have been looking around. All those that say it is subjective - I completely believe you just by reading this thread!

As I originally said, I have a SM-58 and so far for a dynamic mic I haven't had a bad word which is a good start for me!

I was thinking.... I seem to keep going back to the TL Audio 5050 pre-amp/compressor so far for it's price and function (~220 GBP) and was wondering, if anybody here has used one, a small comment on what they think of it? (just looking for an opinion on this one - I am going to have a look at the Mackie ones now).

I guess on the mic side, I am trying to see how this discussion pans out - identifying what mic(s) crop up in this discussion the most and having a look at those. So far, I have had a look at the Audio Technica, AKG, and Rode mics within my price range (~200GBP).

Keep it coming! I really appreciate all the comments you guys have made and have read every word! Peace!

On 2003-09-17 23:49, garyb wrote:
it's all good,but instead of that sm58 get an audix om3xb.the audix has the identical frequency response,but that response is extended from about 50-12k to 30-18k,making it crisper and livelier(not brittle or harsh though,it's a dynamic).the audix is a much better made mic than the 58 and for live,it is far less susceptable to feedbeck.

Oh man - I forgot to mention Audix. Great stuff! I'm using some Audix drum mics and they sound wonderful! Crisp & clean. I use a matched pair of F15's as overheads. Definitely worth looking into if you want something other than Shure.

About TLA 5050.. Some like it some not. It's not a bad thing for the money. If you like 'hissy' voice sound so popular in american r'n'b you can simulate it overdriving the preamp's input of 5050. Funny but I've read that some major studios use that cheap devices because some singers prefer TLAs (to be correct 5051) to Neve and Telefunken.
But if you need something more transparent or 'vintage sounding' look elsewhere.

Want to add smth.. You may give a try to Rane MS1b solid state preamp. It may have slight less gain but built on famous BurrBrown opamps in gain stage. And costs only $150. MS1b and FMR Audio RNC Compressor will cost you about the price of 5050 and are better quality.

This thread has got me thinking about my mic/pre-amp needs.

I've got an extremely bassy voice and have to use severe EQ to render it usable. I'm not in a position to try all the mic options. If you folks have any recommendations I'm keen to hear.

I'll probably buy used, so if I know what some likely options are I can keep my eyes and ears open. The mics available at the moment include: Rode Classic 2, Rode NT 2, Electrovoice RE 20 ..............

Any comments welcome. I'll check out the C series recommended by GaryB also.......I guess I'm just curious what you have found successful for over the top bassy voices.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mikka on 2003-09-19 08:28 ]</font>

Maybe a bigger distance to the microphone (in case proximity is an issue). My guess is, that a lot of natural body (bass) on the voice is rarely a problem. Lack of mid/high frequensies can however easily be a problem. Is this, what you are talking about?

Quick reply........thanks....

Yes, I suspect I'm deficient in high end frequencies. My voice seems quite unbalanced so I need to correct that........