Home/Project Studio Mic Suggestion?

[Stu Venable]

I've got a home/project studio, which I've been outfitting lately. I'm
running a Digi002Rack. I record mostly vocalists and acoustic celtic/folk
type instruments (bouzouki, mandolin, guitar, bodhran, etc).

I've budgeted around $600 for a microphone. Can anyone suggest a good
all-around mic in that price range.

Thanks,

Stu Venable

[Stu Venable]

"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
...
> > I've budgeted around $600 for a microphone. Can anyone suggest a good
> > all-around mic in that price range.
> >
> What mic preamp do you have?
>
> Glenn D.

I'm using the on-board preamps that come with the Digi002 rack. They have
phantom power.

Stu Venable

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Stu Venable" > wrote in message
link.net...
> I've got a home/project studio, which I've been outfitting lately. I'm
> running a Digi002Rack. I record mostly vocalists and acoustic celtic/folk
> type instruments (bouzouki, mandolin, guitar, bodhran, etc).
>
> I've budgeted around $600 for a microphone. Can anyone suggest a good
> all-around mic in that price range.
>
What mic preamp do you have?

Glenn D.

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Stu Venable" > wrote in message
link.net...
> "Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > I've budgeted around $600 for a microphone. Can anyone suggest a good
> > > all-around mic in that price range.
> > >
> > What mic preamp do you have?
> >
> > Glenn D.
>
> I'm using the on-board preamps that come with the Digi002 rack. They have
> phantom power.
>
I don't have any suggestions, but knowing what preamp you have will help
those who will have suggestions.

Glenn D.

[xy]

that's kind of a wierd price point. in between the $200 stuff and the
$1000 stuff. but there are mics out there. guitar center was having
this amazing sale on oktava 012 mics. two for $99. those are small
diaphragm condensers, so you could record lots of different
instruments with them. then you could spend $500 on a Studio Projects
C series large diaphragm condenser mic. they make the C1, C2, etc. I
listened to them at AES and felt that each of those were really good
value at the different price points they each come in at. so then
you'd have your vocals covered with that mic.

[Stu Venable]

"xy" > wrote in message
m...
> that's kind of a wierd price point. in between the $200 stuff and the
> $1000 stuff. but there are mics out there. guitar center was having
> this amazing sale on oktava 012 mics. two for $99. those are small
> diaphragm condensers, so you could record lots of different
> instruments with them. then you could spend $500 on a Studio Projects
> C series large diaphragm condenser mic. they make the C1, C2, etc. I
> listened to them at AES and felt that each of those were really good
> value at the different price points they each come in at. so then
> you'd have your vocals covered with that mic.

Thanks for the tip. I'm going to Guitar Center tonite. I'll see if they
still have the Oktava's on sale.

Stu

[Mike Rivers]

In article .net> writes:

> Thanks for the tip. I'm going to Guitar Center tonite. I'll see if they
> still have the Oktava's on sale.

Good deals die hard on the net. They haven't had that sale for almost
a year now. Probably most that were bought on that deal have already
been sold on eBay "brand new, never used" for $80 a piece.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Ty Ford]

In Article >,
(xy) wrote:
>that's kind of a wierd price point. in between the $200 stuff and the
>$1000 stuff. but there are mics out there. guitar center was having
>this amazing sale on oktava 012 mics. two for $99. those are small
>diaphragm condensers, so you could record lots of different
>instruments with them. then you could spend $500 on a Studio Projects
>C series large diaphragm condenser mic. they make the C1, C2, etc. I
>listened to them at AES and felt that each of those were really good
>value at the different price points they each come in at. so then
>you'd have your vocals covered with that mic.

The AT4050, come on folks, it ain't that difficult.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Hal Laurent]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...
> In Article >,
> (xy) wrote:
> >that's kind of a wierd price point. in between the $200 stuff and the
> >$1000 stuff. but there are mics out there. guitar center was having
> >this amazing sale on oktava 012 mics. two for $99. those are small
> >diaphragm condensers, so you could record lots of different
> >instruments with them. then you could spend $500 on a Studio Projects
> >C series large diaphragm condenser mic. they make the C1, C2, etc.
>
> The AT4050, come on folks, it ain't that difficult.
>
> Ty Ford

Ty's right about the AT 4050. It's an incredibly good mic for the
price. During a session on Monday recording the Baltimore Mandolin
Orchestra, I had to swap out a KM 86 I was using as a spot mic on
the guitar 'cause the figure-8 pattern wasn't working properly (for
a reason I haven't yet had time to diagnose). I quickly popped in
an AT 4050 in figure-8, and the results were great. The spot mics
on the two mandolins and the mandola were two U89s and a U87,
and the AT4050 held its own with them just fine.

Before the purists hang me for close micing a mandolin quartet, I
should say that I had a pair of Schoeps CMC641 in ORTF at
about two and a half meters or so from the quartet.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

[Arny Krueger]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message

> In Article >,
> (xy) wrote:
>> that's kind of a wierd price point. in between the $200 stuff and
>> the $1000 stuff. but there are mics out there. guitar center was
>> having this amazing sale on oktava 012 mics. two for $99. those
>> are small diaphragm condensers, so you could record lots of different
>> instruments with them. then you could spend $500 on a Studio
>> Projects C series large diaphragm condenser mic. they make the C1,
>> C2, etc. I listened to them at AES and felt that each of those were
>> really good value at the different price points they each come in
>> at. so then you'd have your vocals covered with that mic.
>
> The AT4050, come on folks, it ain't that difficult.

It's about $500 difficult.

;-)

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> > The AT4050, come on folks, it ain't that difficult.
>
> It's about $500 difficult.

If it's not worth using a $500 mic, it's not worth worrying about what
the recording sounds like.

Of course there are many less expensive mics that work well on a
number of sources with a little help with positioning and some EQ, the
SM57 being one of them.

When will people understand that when you have only one mic, it
doesn't matter which one you have. What you record will sound like
that mic.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079094858k@trad...

> If it's not worth using a $500 mic, it's not worth worrying about what
> the recording sounds like.
>
> Of course there are many less expensive mics that work well on a
> number of sources with a little help with positioning and some EQ, the
> SM57 being one of them.
>
> When will people understand that when you have only one mic, it
> doesn't matter which one you have. What you record will sound like
> that mic.
>
Would the OP be better off with a cheaper mic and better pre-amp, eg, Studio
Projects B3 and a RNP?

Glenn D.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079094858k@trad

> In article >
> writes:

>>> The AT4050, come on folks, it ain't that difficult.

>> It's about $500 difficult.

> If it's not worth using a $500 mic, it's not worth worrying about what
> the recording sounds like.

My weekly recording sessions involve something like 11 mics. So, you're
saying that I'm wasting my time because I don't have a $5,500 mic closet?

;-)

> Of course there are many less expensive mics that work well on a
> number of sources with a little help with positioning and some EQ, the
> SM57 being one of them.

I haven't tried a lot of mics, but I've yet to see one that couldn't used
with some degree of versatility.

OTOH, I'd definately put the SM57 at the low end of my pathetic short little
list if ordered by versatility. I used them exclusively for about a year,
and found that it was hard to replace them without getting better sound. OK,
I admit it, I took some people's advice about which are the better cheap
mics.

IMO, the verstility of SM57s suffers because they have relatively low
output. Unless you have wonderful mic preamps with lots of clean gain, it
isn't easy. They have a nasty rough high end with lots of sharp zigs and
zags. This makes them hard to equalize at the high end except to roll off.
If you use them at some distance from the source, the lack of proximity
effect makes them sound thin. As vocal mics they badly need pop filters and
have issues with handling noise.

However, my biggest disappointment is that contrary to popular lore, SM57s
don't make very good hammers. The round cases tend to bend nails, and
frankly they aren't all that durable.

;-)

> When will people understand that when you have only one mic, it
> doesn't matter which one you have. What you record will sound like
> that mic.

What about if you put that mic in different positions and eq it different
ways?

;-)

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> Would the OP be better off with a cheaper mic and better pre-amp, eg, Studio
> Projects B3 and a RNP?

If he's bound and determined to spend $500, yes I think so. But if
he's just learning how to record, he should see how far he can go with
a less expensive dynamic mic and whatever preamp he has. That way
he'll learn more about placement without worrying about whether
he's not getting a great sound because he doesn't have a great mic or
great preamp.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Stu Venable]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079112701k@trad...
>
> In article >
writes:
>
> > Would the OP be better off with a cheaper mic and better pre-amp, eg,
Studio
> > Projects B3 and a RNP?
>
> If he's bound and determined to spend $500, yes I think so. But if
> he's just learning how to record, he should see how far he can go with
> a less expensive dynamic mic and whatever preamp he has. That way
> he'll learn more about placement without worrying about whether
> he's not getting a great sound because he doesn't have a great mic or
> great preamp.
>

I *am* just learning to record. I worked closely with a professional
recording engineer on my band(s)'s last three CDs (he's basically done it
all as a favor). I'm equipping a home studio so he stays on the boss's good
side.

The $500 (actually, $600) figure is just what I have in-hand for
improvement. (I had about $2000 -- $1300 went to the digi002r, plus some
misc. stuff)

I'm currently using a Marshall MXL2001 condenser mic (it was about $150).
The preamp is in the Digi002r.

If there's no noticable improvement with a mic at that price break, I'd
rather just hold on to the money until I have enough for a better mic, or
spend it somewhere else in the signal path.

Stu Venable

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> My weekly recording sessions involve something like 11 mics. So, you're
> saying that I'm wasting my time because I don't have a $5,500 mic closet?

Not at all. I only said you shouldn't worry about what it sounds like.
If you're getting decent recordings with your less expensive mics, I
trust you're smart enough not to worry about it.

> IMO, the verstility of SM57s suffers because they have relatively low
> output. Unless you have wonderful mic preamps with lots of clean gain, it
> isn't easy.

Interesting that you say that. Gain never used to be a problem with
the SM57 but I think something happened in the past few years and it
isn't that the sensitivity of the mic has dropped. One thing is that
few preamps have more than 60 dB of gain these days, where in the
"old" days, even PA system "heads" had more gain than that. The other
thing is that since everything nowadays is connected to something
digital which doesn't have a lot of sensitivity, there's the
perception that we NEED more gain in order to make the meters move all
the way, or fill up the graphical waveform displays.

The meters on my Ampex MM1100 read 0 VU with an input of +4 dBu, and
any more than 10 dB over that and the distortion quickly moves from
"warm analog tape" to "sounds like crap." On the other hand, my Mackie
HDR24/96 requires +24 dBu in order to make the meters hit the peak (0
dBFS), and distortion doesn't set in until it gets all the way there.
So where am I going to get that extra 10 dB of gain? If there's
nothing but the mic preamp between the mic and the recorder, and 60 dB
of gain gets me peaks of +14 dBu with a given mic and source, I need
70 dB of gain in order to get all the way up to digital full scale.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
news:znr1079125980k@trad
> In article >
> writes:

>>"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
>>news:znr1079094858k@trad

>>> Of course there are many less expensive mics that work well on a
>>> number of sources with a little help with positioning and some EQ, the
>>> SM57 being one of them.


>> IMO, the verstility of SM57s suffers because they have relatively low
>> output. Unless you have wonderful mic preamps with lots of clean
>> gain, it isn't easy.

> Interesting that you say that. Gain never used to be a problem with
> the SM57 but I think something happened in the past few years and it
> isn't that the sensitivity of the mic has dropped. One thing is that
> few preamps have more than 60 dB of gain these days, where in the
> "old" days, even PA system "heads" had more gain than that. The other
> thing is that since everything nowadays is connected to something
> digital which doesn't have a lot of sensitivity, there's the
> perception that we NEED more gain in order to make the meters move all
> the way, or fill up the graphical waveform displays.

I'm thinking of the versatility aspect. On the one hand if you user SM57s
for close-micing, gain just isn't a problem. I'm convinced that's what they
were made for. However, put them 20 or 30 feet away from a source even a
pretty loud source, and average mic pres do have enough gain, but noise
often starts intruding. In the context of your claim, repositioning is an
obvious fix, to be specific re-positioning as in very much closer. Other
mics I've switched to have more output than the SM57s, so they work better
at a distance, but they don't clip internally if used close, even with very
loud vocalists.

At least on paper, Audix OM-7s look like an example of a mic that is even
more attuned to the close-micing sitch.

Key off your word

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I'm thinking of the versatility aspect. On the one hand if you user SM57s
> for close-micing, gain just isn't a problem. I'm convinced that's what they
> were made for. However, put them 20 or 30 feet away from a source even a
> pretty loud source, and average mic pres do have enough gain, but noise
> often starts intruding.

The SM57 is sort of the benchmark for sensitivity. Used to be when
there were only a couple of dozen condenser mics on the market that
they were 15 to 20 dB or so hotter than a typical dynamic (which the SM57
is). Today's popular condenser mics tend not to be so sensitive,
however, because clueless newbies were concerned about "overloading"
from those mics. In fact, one of the design features of the Mackie XDR
preamps was that the gain (trim) control went further down to
accommodate the high quality condenser mics that people were starting
to use with those mixers. The rash of modern condenser mics took the
other approach and reduced their output level to accommodate the
mixers.

They're still somewhat hotter than the average dynamic because
the customers expect it (and it helps the signal-to-noise ratio) but still,
with the perceived requirement for greater signal into the recording
device, it looks like preamps are short on gain. Just look at how many
postings we see about people concerned because they need to
run their preamp wide open.

> In the context of your claim, repositioning is an
> obvious fix, to be specific re-positioning as in very much closer.

The SM57 doesn't really sound all that great when not used close, but
most people tend to go for close-in positioning. If they want to use
mics at a distance, they go for something else, typically a small
diaphragm condenser. But since the mic makers know that most people
are going to use their mics close up, and they also want to save a few
bucks by not putting an attenuation switch on the mic, they just make
its sensitivity suitable for close placement and depend on a preamp
(that's not all that common) with enough quiet gain to use it at a
distance.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Ty Ford]

In Article .net>, "Stu
Venable" > wrote:
>I *am* just learning to record. I worked closely with a professional
>recording engineer on my band(s)'s last three CDs (he's basically done it
>all as a favor). I'm equipping a home studio so he stays on the boss's good
>side.
>
>The $500 (actually, $600) figure is just what I have in-hand for
>improvement. (I had about $2000 -- $1300 went to the digi002r, plus some
>misc. stuff)
>
>I'm currently using a Marshall MXL2001 condenser mic (it was about $150).
>The preamp is in the Digi002r.
>
>If there's no noticable improvement with a mic at that price break, I'd
>rather just hold on to the money until I have enough for a better mic, or
>spend it somewhere else in the signal path.
>
>Stu Venable


Again Stu,

I just checked several websites. The AT4050 sells regularly for $599. You'll
be able to use it for many years. You can't afford a Neumann or Schoeps?
Fine. The AT4050 will work very nicely with the 002 preamps. I know. I have
both.

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Ty Ford]

In Article >, "Arny Krueger"
> wrote:

>
>At least on paper, Audix OM-7s look like an example of a mic that is even
>more attuned to the close-micing sitch.


Than what?

Regards,

Ty Ford

For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

[Arny Krueger]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message

> In Article >, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> At least on paper, Audix OM-7s look like an example of a mic that is
>> even more attuned to the close-micing sitch.
>
>
> Than what?

SM58s, for a near example.

[Glenn Dowdy]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
...
> I just checked several websites. The AT4050 sells regularly for $599.
You'll
> be able to use it for many years. You can't afford a Neumann or Schoeps?
> Fine. The AT4050 will work very nicely with the 002 preamps. I know. I
have
> both.

There you go. All the information you need.

Glenn D.

[Stu Venable]

"Glenn Dowdy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ty Ford" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I just checked several websites. The AT4050 sells regularly for $599.
> You'll
> > be able to use it for many years. You can't afford a Neumann or Schoeps?
> > Fine. The AT4050 will work very nicely with the 002 preamps. I know. I
> have
> > both.
>
> There you go. All the information you need.
>
> Glenn D.
>

Thanks. I appreciate the info.

Stu Venable

[johnnyrock]

"Stu Venable" > wrote in message . net>...
> I've got a home/project studio, which I've been outfitting lately. I'm
> running a Digi002Rack. I record mostly vocalists and acoustic celtic/folk
> type instruments (bouzouki, mandolin, guitar, bodhran, etc).
>
> I've budgeted around $600 for a microphone. Can anyone suggest a good
> all-around mic in that price range.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stu Venable

I'd suggest the following:

(1) AT4050 large diphram condensor aprox 500 dollars

and

(1) AKGC535 small diphram condensor aprox 200 dollars

It's 100 dollars more than you said but I doubt you will get more bang
for your buck than that.

[Wayne]

>
>"Stu Venable" > wrote in message
. net>...
>> I've got a home/project studio, which I've been outfitting lately. I'm
>> running a Digi002Rack. I record mostly vocalists and acoustic
>celtic/folk
>> type instruments (bouzouki, mandolin, guitar, bodhran, etc).
>>
>> I've budgeted around $600 for a microphone. Can anyone suggest a good
>> all-around mic in that price range.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Stu Venable
>
>I'd suggest the following:
>
>(1) AT4050 large diaphram condensor aprox 500 dollars and
>(1) AKGC535 small diaphram condensor aprox 200 dollars

The AT4050 can be had for $479. at the following site:
http://www.zzounds.com/cart--64641

I've got a bunch of mics and the two AT4050's I have seem to find their way
into every session somewhere. It is a good sounding workhorse and the build
quality is excellent. (and no I don't sell them either).

I have a couple of the AKG C535EB's also and they're good and can be found for
about $240. They're also very versatile in application. Voice, drums, cabs,
acoustic, etc.

I also like the MXL603s ($80) small condensor, but it's a different sound than
the AKG. Not quite as bright on the top and the pattern is a little wider.

With three patterns, a shock mount, low cut switch, -10db switch and
reliability, I'd go with the "all-around" AT4050.


--Wayne

-"sounded good to me"-

[Garthrr]

In article >,
(Wayne) writes:

>I've got a bunch of mics and the two AT4050's I have seem to find their way
>into every session somewhere. It is a good sounding workhorse and the build
>quality is excellent. (and no I don't sell them either).

I'll chime in here too with a positive comment on the 4050. It really is a nice
all around mic and it doesnt have an annoying tizzy top end. On some voices I
have found it to have a beautiful midrange quality that I cant quite describe
other than calling it "golden". On the other hand I think some midrangy voices
arent flattered by it.
I've also had success with the 4050 on toms, percussion, guitar amps, sax and
accordion. Once I was trying to find a good sounding mic for a clogger (a type
of dancing) and I was having a very hard time getting the sound of the clogs on
the floor and the room as well. The 4050 was the best thing I tried partially
because of its available omni pattern.

Garth~


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

[Dan [ www.sleepwalkermusic.net ]]

In that range I find the Rode K2 hard to beat. It's around $600 street.

I sell them so you'll have to take some of my recommendations with a grain
of salt, but I don't there's a better mic for the money. I have owned and
used the at4050 plenty, it's a good mic. I'd rather have the K2 or the AKG
414 instead. The AT4050 wasn't that great on my voice, on instruments I was
quite pleased. The k2 and akg 414 on overheads and voice are why I'd give
these the edge. For me at least.

Cheers,
Dan
www.sleepwalkermusic.net
Rode mic dealer



"Garthrr" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

> (Wayne) writes:
>
> >I've got a bunch of mics and the two AT4050's I have seem to find their
way
> >into every session somewhere. It is a good sounding workhorse and the
build
> >quality is excellent. (and no I don't sell them either).
>
> I'll chime in here too with a positive comment on the 4050. It really is a
nice
> all around mic and it doesnt have an annoying tizzy top end. On some
voices I
> have found it to have a beautiful midrange quality that I cant quite
describe
> other than calling it "golden". On the other hand I think some midrangy
voices
> arent flattered by it.
> I've also had success with the 4050 on toms, percussion, guitar amps, sax
and
> accordion. Once I was trying to find a good sounding mic for a clogger (a
type
> of dancing) and I was having a very hard time getting the sound of the
clogs on
> the floor and the room as well. The 4050 was the best thing I tried
partially
> because of its available omni pattern.
>
> Garth~
>
>
> "I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
> Ed Cherney