Favorite mics for drum overheads?

[jeffontheleft]

I'm currently using a pair of NT5s for my drums and they're not bad
but I'm looking to upgrade to something that can do more. A mic with
a pad and maybe switchable polar patterns would be nice, but mostly I
just want something that captures more sound. I've tried out a pair
of MC012s but they weren't much different than the NT5s. I'm aware of
the KM180 line, what are some other good pencil condensers out there?

[Scott Dorsey]

jeffontheleft > wrote:
>I'm currently using a pair of NT5s for my drums and they're not bad
>but I'm looking to upgrade to something that can do more. A mic with
>a pad and maybe switchable polar patterns would be nice, but mostly I
>just want something that captures more sound. I've tried out a pair
>of MC012s but they weren't much different than the NT5s. I'm aware of
>the KM180 line, what are some other good pencil condensers out there?

What is your budget and what is the room like? You can make plenty of
good arguments for anything from the original 451 on up to the Schoeps
and DPA mikes.

There are times when something other than conventional condensers can be
a good idea. For example, the Beyer M160 ribbons can give you a nice clean
top end, with the cymbals smoothed out a little bit. And if you have to
deal with slap echo problems, especially from a low ceiling, PZMs can
sometimes be helpful problem solvers.

And there are still folks who like U87s on overheads... the room effect
is not anything realistic at all, but it's familiar and some folks like
it a lot.

I'd suggest something like the Josephsons or the AT 4051 or 4053 as the
next step up for a reasonable price. But if you spent the money and bought
Schoeps Colettes or DPA 4006es, I think you'd be happy for years.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jeffontheleft]

On Apr 3, 9:22 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> jeffontheleft > wrote:
> >I'm currently using a pair of NT5s for my drums and they're not bad
> >but I'm looking to upgrade to something that can do more. A mic with
> >a pad and maybe switchable polar patterns would be nice, but mostly I
> >just want something that captures more sound. I've tried out a pair
> >of MC012s but they weren't much different than the NT5s. I'm aware of
> >the KM180 line, what are some other good pencil condensers out there?
>
> What is your budget and what is the room like? You can make plenty of
> good arguments for anything from the original 451 on up to the Schoeps
> and DPA mikes.
>
> There are times when something other than conventional condensers can be
> a good idea. For example, the Beyer M160 ribbons can give you a nice clean
> top end, with the cymbals smoothed out a little bit. And if you have to
> deal with slap echo problems, especially from a low ceiling, PZMs can
> sometimes be helpful problem solvers.
>
> And there are still folks who like U87s on overheads... the room effect
> is not anything realistic at all, but it's familiar and some folks like
> it a lot.
>
> I'd suggest something like the Josephsons or the AT 4051 or 4053 as the
> next step up for a reasonable price. But if you spent the money and bought
> Schoeps Colettes or DPA 4006es, I think you'd be happy for years.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Thanks Scott. My room is a 300 sq ft rectangle with an arched ceiling
that is ~15 ft at its peak. The design favors aesthics more than
acoustics, because without any treatment it produces a hellish flutter
echo. I share this space, so I wasn't comfortable with setting up
drums somewhere probably in the center of the room to get the best
natural room sound. Instead, I've foamed and bass trapped just about
everything and stuck the drums in the corner. The drums are on a
homemade riser, they're walled in by homemade gobos with diffusors
attached on the inside and more diffusors and bass traps on the actual
wall behind them, and I draped a thick rug about 4 ft above the
cymbals, so its more or less dead. Obviously I do alot of tweaking &
editing post-recording, so I guess I'm looking for a fuller, more
distinct sound from the mics so that I'll have more to work with when
adding EQ and reverb and whatnot. As for budget, I've got around
$1000 to spend, so the 4051's and Josephons seem like a good fit.
Although, I've been waiting for an excuse to buy another 414 XLS II
and finally have a stereo pair, do you think they'd make good
overheads for my purposes?

[RD Jones]

"jeffontheleft" > wrote:

> I'm currently using a pair of NT5s for my drums and they're not bad
> but I'm looking to upgrade to something that can do more. A mic with
> a pad and maybe switchable polar patterns would be nice, but mostly I
> just want something that captures more sound. I've tried out a pair
> of MC012s but they weren't much different than the NT5s. I'm aware of
> the KM180 line, what are some other good pencil condensers out there?

AKG C480 w/ the CK61 (card) or CK63 (hypecard). There's also
an omni and shotguns available to make it a versatile system.
The caps are fairly consistent from unit to unit. If you wanted
to save money on this setup you could get the C460 bodies
used and have Jim W. mod them to C480 specs.

There's the Beyer M200 dynamic with tight pattern.

rd

[RD Jones]

"RD Jones" > wrote:

> There's the Beyer M200 dynamic with tight pattern.

Sorry, that should have been "M201"

rd

[Scott Dorsey]

jeffontheleft > wrote:
>As for budget, I've got around
>$1000 to spend, so the 4051's and Josephons seem like a good fit.

Both are good mikes. I think the C4 is a little cleaner on top than
the 4051, but with the 4051 you have the option of getting omni and
hypercardioid capsules, which can be very handy.

>Although, I've been waiting for an excuse to buy another 414 XLS II
>and finally have a stereo pair, do you think they'd make good
>overheads for my purposes?

I have never used the XLS.... I have used the old 414 B/ULS for overheads,
and never liked what they did to the room ambience... but try recording
with your one 414XLS and see what it sounds like. Two of them will have
the same tonality, just in stereo.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Fraser]

<< I've been waiting for an excuse to buy another 414 XLS II and
finally have a stereo pair, do you think they'd make good overheads
for my purposes?>>

I know I'm in a minority on this, but I find the C414B-ULS (haven't
tried the XLS) to be one of the worst sounding overheads I've heard.
In a direct comparison on a jazz drummer with cheap AKG C391's, 451's,
KM140's, KM84's, & even SM81's, I've found the 414 to be the least
realistic of them all at portraying the full depth of the kit. It was
so dramatically worse with the 414's, both the drummer & I went out to
the tracking room to check that we hadn't inadvertently aimed the null
of the mics at the drums.
Personally I would recommend you NOT get another 414 for the express
purpose of having a drum overhead pair, & I would go with any of about
half a dozen different small diaphragm condensers likely to be
mentioned here. My personal favorites are the KM84's.

Scott Fraser

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Fraser > wrote:
><< I've been waiting for an excuse to buy another 414 XLS II and
>finally have a stereo pair, do you think they'd make good overheads
>for my purposes?>>
>
>I know I'm in a minority on this, but I find the C414B-ULS (haven't
>tried the XLS) to be one of the worst sounding overheads I've heard.

You should try U87s, then. They are even more unnatural.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[coreybenson]

On Apr 3, 1:46 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> You should try U87s, then. They are even more unnatural.
> --scott

I just did, this past weekend. I hear what you're saying about them
sounding "unnatural," but placing it above the drums, sideways, in a
figure 8 pattern, along with a pair of Oktava MC-012's, I finally
found the drum sound I've been looking for.

It might not be "right" but it sure was pleasing!

Of course, now I have to come up with $3k to buy a pair of the darn
things.

Corey

[Craig Ruggels]

I use josephson c42mp's and am very happy with them, matched pair comes
with a pressurized flight case. $800.00 delivered.

--

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> jeffontheleft > wrote:
> >As for budget, I've got around
> >$1000 to spend, so the 4051's and Josephons seem like a good fit.
>
> Both are good mikes. I think the C4 is a little cleaner on top than
> the 4051, but with the 4051 you have the option of getting omni and
> hypercardioid capsules, which can be very handy.
>
> >Although, I've been waiting for an excuse to buy another 414 XLS II
> >and finally have a stereo pair, do you think they'd make good
> >overheads for my purposes?
>
> I have never used the XLS.... I have used the old 414 B/ULS for overheads,
> and never liked what they did to the room ambience... but try recording
> with your one 414XLS and see what it sounds like. Two of them will have
> the same tonality, just in stereo.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Fletch]

On Apr 3, 11:32 am, "Scott Fraser" > wrote:
> << I've been waiting for an excuse to buy another 414 XLS II and
> finally have a stereo pair, do you think they'd make good overheads
> for my purposes?>>
>
> I know I'm in a minority on this, but I find the C414B-ULS (haven't
> tried the XLS) to be one of the worst sounding overheads I've heard.
> In a direct comparison on a jazz drummer with cheap AKG C391's, 451's,
> KM140's, KM84's, & even SM81's, I've found the 414 to be the least
> realistic of them all at portraying the full depth of the kit. It was
> so dramatically worse with the 414's, both the drummer & I went out to
> the tracking room to check that we hadn't inadvertently aimed the null
> of the mics at the drums.
> Personally I would recommend you NOT get another 414 for the express
> purpose of having a drum overhead pair, & I would go with any of about
> half a dozen different small diaphragm condensers likely to be
> mentioned here. My personal favorites are the KM84's.
>
> Scott Fraser


I guess that begs the question...

Of the many versions of the C414, which is the best of the lot for
overall performance?

Opinions?

--Fletch

[Scott Dorsey]

Fletch > wrote:
>
>Of the many versions of the C414, which is the best of the lot for
>overall performance?

The original 414EB with the brass ring capsule is the only one I really
liked much. The original 414TL is not terrible... it is the same
"easy assembly" capsule as the B/ULS but with different electronics.
The 414TLII I never liked much at all.

They all have way too pitched up a top end for my tastes, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Geoff]

jeffontheleft wrote:
>
> adding EQ and reverb and whatnot. As for budget, I've got around
> $1000 to spend, so the 4051's and Josephons seem like a good fit.

Try them first though. I tried the ATs found them not to offer anything
above my NT5s, MC012as and C535EBs !

geoff

[Geoff]

Scott Fraser wrote:
> << I've been waiting for an excuse to buy another 414 XLS II and
> finally have a stereo pair, do you think they'd make good overheads
> for my purposes?>>
>
> I know I'm in a minority on this, but I find the C414B-ULS (haven't
> tried the XLS) to be one of the worst sounding overheads I've heard.
> In a direct comparison on a jazz drummer with cheap AKG C391's, 451's,
> KM140's, KM84's, & even SM81's, I've found the 414 to be the least
> realistic of them all at portraying the full depth of the kit.

Maybe it was broken ? The BBC use them in that application by the
truckload, and they are not exactly stupid . Or maybe they have somespecial
quality they desire that is not related to 'realistic'....


geoff

[[email protected]]

On Apr 3, 6:43 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> Try a Behringer ECM-8000 for fifty bucks.
>
> It might seem ridiculous, but there is a reason why it works:
> 1. A cheap 1/4" capsule has more even hf response than most expensive
> general purpose mikes. It is also better damped.
> 2. The sensitivity and dynamic range of this mike, while not suitable for
> general use, happen to fall right in the range of this application. High
> self noise is not a problem here.
>
> This is a happy circumstance where the capabilities of a limited microphone
> specialize quite nicely to a specific application.



Out of curiousity, are you formulating this theortically from specs?
Because it sounds like a very general statement, not actually tied in
to the experience of hearing them in use, which is the only thing that
matters when recommending a mic.


Just wondering...If you've heard the mics it isn't clear from the
post.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>Out of curiousity, are you formulating this theortically from specs?
>Because it sounds like a very general statement, not actually tied in
>to the experience of hearing them in use, which is the only thing that
>matters when recommending a mic.

I have heard them. They ain't no B&Ks, that is for sure, but they
use a Chinese copy of the Japanese electret capsule that a lot of
the inexpensive omni mikes use. The top end is a little gritty because
of a trick used to extend the top end, and they are noisy, but for fifty
bucks you won't ever do better.

It's a lot easier to make a good omni than a good cardioid... as a result
it's cheaper.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[ChristopheRonald]

good thread. i am curious about the same stuff. i have a small
basement. fairly loud resonating drumset. lots of percussion stuff on
it. what are some good cheaper mics or mic for overheads? preferrably
under 200 a piece, or under 300 or 400 for one if its just one mic...

[Agent 86]

On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:10:44 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> I have heard them. They ain't no B&Ks, that is for sure, but they use a
> Chinese copy of the Japanese electret capsule that a lot of the
> inexpensive omni mikes use. The top end is a little gritty because of a
> trick used to extend the top end, and they are noisy, but for fifty bucks
> you won't ever do better.

OK, here's the $64 question.

For $100, would you prefer a mono 635a with no top end, or a pair of
Behringer omnis with gritty top end?

I've already got some 635s (which I DON"T typically use for drum
overheads), as well as several other choices for OH's. And FWIW, I'm
recording drums in mono more often than not. (And I actually do more
projects without drums than with.)

But I tend to learn a lot from your opinions.

Thanks.

[jeffontheleft]

On Apr 3, 9:22 pm, Agent 86 > wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:10:44 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > I have heard them. They ain't no B&Ks, that is for sure, but they use a
> > Chinese copy of the Japanese electret capsule that a lot of the
> > inexpensive omni mikes use. The top end is a little gritty because of a
> > trick used to extend the top end, and they are noisy, but for fifty bucks
> > you won't ever do better.
>
> OK, here's the $64 question.
>
> For $100, would you prefer a mono 635a with no top end, or a pair of
> Behringer omnis with gritty top end?
>
> I've already got some 635s (which I DON"T typically use for drum
> overheads), as well as several other choices for OH's. And FWIW, I'm
> recording drums in mono more often than not. (And I actually do more
> projects without drums than with.)
>
> But I tend to learn a lot from your opinions.
>
> Thanks.

What's the general consensus on the Avenson STO's? Also, can anyone
hook me up with a pair Josephson C42's for less than the Mercenary
price ($899)? Thanks

[Harry Lavo]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 3, 6:43 pm, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
>> Try a Behringer ECM-8000 for fifty bucks.
>>
>> It might seem ridiculous, but there is a reason why it works:
>> 1. A cheap 1/4" capsule has more even hf response than most expensive
>> general purpose mikes. It is also better damped.
>> 2. The sensitivity and dynamic range of this mike, while not suitable for
>> general use, happen to fall right in the range of this application. High
>> self noise is not a problem here.
>>
>> This is a happy circumstance where the capabilities of a limited
>> microphone
>> specialize quite nicely to a specific application.
>
>
>
> Out of curiousity, are you formulating this theortically from specs?
> Because it sounds like a very general statement, not actually tied in
> to the experience of hearing them in use, which is the only thing that
> matters when recommending a mic.
>
>
> Just wondering...If you've heard the mics it isn't clear from the
> post.
>

I've actually heard a record Bob made using the Behringer on the cymbals and
it is very clean-sounding, accurate, and pleasant. If that is the sound you
want, this apparently is a good mic for it. The fact that it is dirt cheap
is just a lucky extra.

[Harry Lavo]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>>
>>Out of curiousity, are you formulating this theortically from specs?
>>Because it sounds like a very general statement, not actually tied in
>>to the experience of hearing them in use, which is the only thing that
>>matters when recommending a mic.
>
> I have heard them. They ain't no B&Ks, that is for sure, but they
> use a Chinese copy of the Japanese electret capsule that a lot of
> the inexpensive omni mikes use. The top end is a little gritty because
> of a trick used to extend the top end, and they are noisy, but for fifty
> bucks you won't ever do better.
>
> It's a lot easier to make a good omni than a good cardioid... as a result
> it's cheaper.

The Niant Studios omni is cheaper still and apparently uses the same or
similar capsule. Test recordings of a pair on a grand piano were better
than I expected.

[Scott Fraser]

> Maybe it was broken ? >>

No, I've had this pair a long time, purchased new, & I know they are
working properly. I know it is common to exaggerate all out of
proportion on these matters & turn a mild dislike into absolute
suckitude, but this was shocking. The 414s were dramatically worse
than my drummer's C391s, which are so-so mics at best, & all the
others were better than the 391s, as expected. We were on a quest to
find a pair of overheads which would portray a jazz kit as we hear it,
without need of close miking individual drums. The 414s were at the
bottom of the list in that regard.

<<The BBC use them in that application by the
> truckload, and they are not exactly stupid . Or maybe they have somespecial
> quality they desire that is not related to 'realistic'....
>
> geoff>>

They may be using 414EB's, or may not be using them in cardioid. Or
quite likely they may have such superlative rooms that it doesn't
matter what you put up, it will all sound good.

Scott Fraser

[Craig Ruggels]

Cascade Media for c42mps

--

"jeffontheleft" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 3, 9:22 pm, Agent 86 > wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:10:44 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >
> > > I have heard them. They ain't no B&Ks, that is for sure, but they use
a
> > > Chinese copy of the Japanese electret capsule that a lot of the
> > > inexpensive omni mikes use. The top end is a little gritty because of
a
> > > trick used to extend the top end, and they are noisy, but for fifty
bucks
> > > you won't ever do better.
> >
> > OK, here's the $64 question.
> >
> > For $100, would you prefer a mono 635a with no top end, or a pair of
> > Behringer omnis with gritty top end?
> >
> > I've already got some 635s (which I DON"T typically use for drum
> > overheads), as well as several other choices for OH's. And FWIW, I'm
> > recording drums in mono more often than not. (And I actually do more
> > projects without drums than with.)
> >
> > But I tend to learn a lot from your opinions.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> What's the general consensus on the Avenson STO's? Also, can anyone
> hook me up with a pair Josephson C42's for less than the Mercenary
> price ($899)? Thanks
>

[hank alrich]

jeffontheleft wrote:

> I'm currently using a pair of NT5s for my drums and they're not bad
> but I'm looking to upgrade to something that can do more. A mic with
> a pad and maybe switchable polar patterns would be nice, but mostly I
> just want something that captures more sound. I've tried out a pair
> of MC012s but they weren't much different than the NT5s. I'm aware of
> the KM180 line, what are some other good pencil condensers out there?

What kind of sonic difference do you seek? Ever tried a pair of Beyer
M160's for OH?

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[[email protected]]

I was thinking of trying some M160s, but I've read so many reports of
M160s not being very durable. I realize that ribbons are "fragile" by
nature, but... when used as drum overheads, positioning them pretty
close to the kit, with a drummer who is really hitting VERY hard, can
they be expected to last a long time, or...? I really hate the idea
of having to service a microphone often... I'd sooner then just use
something else, these M160s would have to sound REALLY amazing to
justify periodic servicing. What are your experiences with the M160
regarding durability? Used as OH mics, will they last forever, or
need to be serviced every few months?

Also... on a different note... generally I do like small diaphragm
condensers on OH (such as the 4051, Schoeps MK4, KM184, etc), but
occasionally entertain the idea of trying some large diaphragm models
as well.... but I don't have too many on hand to try. Other than
U87s, what LDC mics might you feel are worth trying out on OH? How
about the AT 4050? Etc?

[hank alrich]

eagle123 wrote:

> I was thinking of trying some M160s, but I've read so many reports of
> M160s not being very durable. I realize that ribbons are "fragile" by
> nature, but... when used as drum overheads, positioning them pretty
> close to the kit, with a drummer who is really hitting VERY hard, can
> they be expected to last a long time, or...? I really hate the idea
> of having to service a microphone often... I'd sooner then just use
> something else, these M160s would have to sound REALLY amazing to
> justify periodic servicing. What are your experiences with the M160
> regarding durability? Used as OH mics, will they last forever, or
> need to be serviced every few months?
>
> Also... on a different note... generally I do like small diaphragm
> condensers on OH (such as the 4051, Schoeps MK4, KM184, etc), but
> occasionally entertain the idea of trying some large diaphragm models
> as well.... but I don't have too many on hand to try. Other than
> U87s, what LDC mics might you feel are worth trying out on OH? How
> about the AT 4050? Etc?

When I place overheads there is no drummer in the world able to reach
them with sticks. I do not use close-micing for overheaeds. If I need to
mic toms or cymbals closely I do so, but not with the OH mics.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Paul Stamler]

Depending on the drum kit and the drummer's style, I'd either want Neumann
KM 84s or Microtech Gefell M930s. ORTF or XY, depending on how much space
you want in the sound. The M930s were a surprise; I've never liked large
diaphragm condensers for drum overheads, but these sounded astonishingly
realistic. This is a mic with a lot less off-axis weirdness than most
large-diaphragm mics, particularly U 87s. They also can take a lot more
level than a KM 84 thanks to the latter's tiny transformer.

Someday I'd like to try the Microtech Gefell small-diaphragm mics on drums.

Peace,
Paul

[AndyP]

Paul Stamler wrote:
> Someday I'd like to try the Microtech Gefell small-diaphragm mics on
drums.

I don't know how the modern Gefell small diaphragm mics compare to the old
ones, but I tried a pair of MV691's with M70 capsules on a drumset in a jazz
group and I really liked them. I also tried the M94 capsules and they have a
very pronounced top end which didn't do much for me (maybe they would be
useful for distant miking).

Andy

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 02:00:23 -0400, wrote
(in article om>):

> I was thinking of trying some M160s, but I've read so many reports of
> M160s not being very durable. I realize that ribbons are "fragile" by
> nature, but... when used as drum overheads, positioning them pretty
> close to the kit, with a drummer who is really hitting VERY hard, can
> they be expected to last a long time, or...? I really hate the idea
> of having to service a microphone often... I'd sooner then just use
> something else, these M160s would have to sound REALLY amazing to
> justify periodic servicing. What are your experiences with the M160
> regarding durability? Used as OH mics, will they last forever, or
> need to be serviced every few months?
>
> Also... on a different note... generally I do like small diaphragm
> condensers on OH (such as the 4051, Schoeps MK4, KM184, etc), but
> occasionally entertain the idea of trying some large diaphragm models
> as well.... but I don't have too many on hand to try. Other than
> U87s, what LDC mics might you feel are worth trying out on OH? How
> about the AT 4050? Etc?
>

The AT4050 is still a LD, but it's not hyped and works pretty much anywhere.
It's one of those good mics people tend to forget about because the marketing
efforts to bring something new get more attention.

Regards,

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Scott Dorsey]

ChristopheRonald > wrote:
>good thread. i am curious about the same stuff. i have a small
>basement. fairly loud resonating drumset. lots of percussion stuff on
>it. what are some good cheaper mics or mic for overheads? preferrably
>under 200 a piece, or under 300 or 400 for one if its just one mic...

You _might_ want to look into PZMs, which aren't a cure for the disasterous
acoustic effects of a small basement, but can be an acceptable workaround.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Agent 86 > wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:10:44 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> I have heard them. They ain't no B&Ks, that is for sure, but they use a
>> Chinese copy of the Japanese electret capsule that a lot of the
>> inexpensive omni mikes use. The top end is a little gritty because of a
>> trick used to extend the top end, and they are noisy, but for fifty bucks
>> you won't ever do better.
>
>OK, here's the $64 question.
>
>For $100, would you prefer a mono 635a with no top end, or a pair of
>Behringer omnis with gritty top end?

Depends what I am doing. For close miking, I'll pick the 635A every time.
For area miking, the Behringer has some advantages.

>I've already got some 635s (which I DON"T typically use for drum
>overheads), as well as several other choices for OH's. And FWIW, I'm
>recording drums in mono more often than not. (And I actually do more
>projects without drums than with.)

The lack of top and bottom end on the 635A is a serious problem for
overheads... remember if your drum submix is midrange-heavy, it's going
to step on the vocals. In a rock mix you're more apt to scoop the
midrange of the drums out in order to make room for the vocals and lead
guitar, so a drum submix that is exaggerated on both ends isn't as bad.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

jeffontheleft > wrote:
>
>What's the general consensus on the Avenson STO's?

I haven't had any for audition yet, but they use the inexpensive Japanese
capsule family that many of the other budget omnis use. The Behringer uses
a Chinese clone of that design. It's not a bad design, but again it ain't
no B&K.

>Also, can anyone
>hook me up with a pair Josephson C42's for less than the Mercenary
>price ($899)? Thanks

Probably not. This stuff has fairly thin margins and is not heavily
discounted. Prices are pretty uniform on higher end products and dealers
tend to be much more polite toward one another.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>I was thinking of trying some M160s, but I've read so many reports of
>M160s not being very durable. I realize that ribbons are "fragile" by
>nature, but... when used as drum overheads, positioning them pretty
>close to the kit, with a drummer who is really hitting VERY hard, can
>they be expected to last a long time, or...? I really hate the idea
>of having to service a microphone often... I'd sooner then just use
>something else, these M160s would have to sound REALLY amazing to
>justify periodic servicing. What are your experiences with the M160
>regarding durability? Used as OH mics, will they last forever, or
>need to be serviced every few months?

They are hypercardioids. They don't need to be placed very close to the
kit. In fact, you will find you have to pull them way, way back, even
in a fairly live room.

They should last for a good long while, though.

>Also... on a different note... generally I do like small diaphragm
>condensers on OH (such as the 4051, Schoeps MK4, KM184, etc), but
>occasionally entertain the idea of trying some large diaphragm models
>as well.... but I don't have too many on hand to try. Other than
>U87s, what LDC mics might you feel are worth trying out on OH? How
>about the AT 4050? Etc?

None of them will give you a good picture of the room, and they will all
give you different wierdly-skewed pictures of the room. The reason folks
like the U87 today is more that it is a familiar sound and all those
records in the early seventies sounded like that, rather than because it
is sounding like an accurate picture of a drum kit. So all you can really
do is toss them up and see what YOU like.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> On Apr 3, 6:43 pm, "Soundhaspriority"
> > wrote:
>> Try a Behringer ECM-8000 for fifty bucks.
>>
>> It might seem ridiculous, but there is a reason why it
>> works:

>> 1. A cheap 1/4" capsule has more even hf response than
>> most expensive general purpose mikes. It is also better
>> damped.

They are also *very* omni. They almost makes 635s sound like cards. ;-)

>> 2. The sensitivity and dynamic range of this mike, while
>> not suitable for general use, happen to fall right in
>> the range of this application. High self noise is not a
>> problem here.

>> This is a happy circumstance where the capabilities of a
>> limited microphone specialize quite nicely to a specific
>> application.

It's good to keep the SPLs up, if you're using them for recording.

> Out of curiousity, are you formulating this theortically
> from specs?

Doesn't matter - what he says pretty well matches up with lots of people's
experience with these mics.

> Because it sounds like a very general
> statement, not actually tied in to the experience of
> hearing them in use, which is the only thing that matters
> when recommending a mic.

I think I own something like a half-dozen of 'em. I have two permanently
hung in front of the organ pipes at church, for example.

> Just wondering...If you've heard the mics it isn't clear
> from the post.

For the price, there's no excuse not to have a few - they have more general
use than some may suspect.

[[email protected]]

Thanks Scott!!!

[Fletch]

On Apr 4, 5:13 am, Ty Ford > wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 02:00:23 -0400, wrote
> (in article om>):
>
>
>
> > I was thinking of trying some M160s, but I've read so many reports of
> > M160s not being very durable. I realize that ribbons are "fragile" by
> > nature, but... when used as drum overheads, positioning them pretty
> > close to the kit, with a drummer who is really hitting VERY hard, can
> > they be expected to last a long time, or...? I really hate the idea
> > of having to service a microphone often... I'd sooner then just use
> > something else, these M160s would have to sound REALLY amazing to
> > justify periodic servicing. What are your experiences with the M160
> > regarding durability? Used as OH mics, will they last forever, or
> > need to be serviced every few months?
>
> > Also... on a different note... generally I do like small diaphragm
> > condensers on OH (such as the 4051, Schoeps MK4, KM184, etc), but
> > occasionally entertain the idea of trying some large diaphragm models
> > as well.... but I don't have too many on hand to try. Other than
> > U87s, what LDC mics might you feel are worth trying out on OH? How
> > about the AT 4050? Etc?
>
> The AT4050 is still a LD, but it's not hyped and works pretty much anywhere.
> It's one of those good mics people tend to forget about because the marketing
> efforts to bring something new get more attention.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
>
> --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
> Acting and Voiceover Demoshttp://www.tyford.com
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU


I will concur on the versatility of the AT4050; I have the CM/5's and
they are just an all around great mic.

I also have a pair of 4041's that work very well on OH position. Not
too bright on the top end. They aren't transparent, of course, but the
character they do bring for Rock, Blues and Country is complimentary
to these styles.

--Fletch

[[email protected]]

Go for a pair of Apex 435s or 430s(large) don't go for the small
condenser mics because they dont capture the snare well...and they
pick up the toms too much.

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> Go for a pair of Apex 435s or 430s(large) don't go for the small
> condenser mics because they dont capture the snare well...and they
> pick up the toms too much.

That last statement is ridiculous. Someone needs to learn about lots of
different mics, and then about placement.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Geoff]

Scott Fraser wrote:
>
> They may be using 414EB's, or may not be using them in cardioid. Or
> quite likely they may have such superlative rooms that it doesn't
> matter what you put up, it will all sound good.

ULSs. Watch almost any live BBC music show on TV (do you get Later, With
Jools Holland over there ?).

geoff

[Phil Hadaway]

I like my M-50s the best.
In a pinch... a pair of C-12s. I really like using my SM-2 on jazz and
big band sessions.


On 3 Apr 2007 07:13:26 -0700, "jeffontheleft" >
wrote:

>I'm currently using a pair of NT5s for my drums and they're not bad
>but I'm looking to upgrade to something that can do more. A mic with
>a pad and maybe switchable polar patterns would be nice, but mostly I
>just want something that captures more sound. I've tried out a pair
>of MC012s but they weren't much different than the NT5s. I'm aware of
>the KM180 line, what are some other good pencil condensers out there?

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Hadaway > wrote:
>I like my M-50s the best.

See, I never liked the M-50s. They are too beamy to use them as regular
omnis, but they aren't beamy enough to use them without baffles in my
opinion. I like the B&K 4145 to do the kind of thing most people seem
to like M-50s for.

Tonally, I like M-50s a lot, but I can't find any stereo method that really
works right for me. And no, I don't like the Decca tree, which I think is
really overrated.

>In a pinch... a pair of C-12s. I really like using my SM-2 on jazz and
>big band sessions.

What is actually inside the SM-2? Are they U-87 style capsules? I have
never taken one apart. I don't think I have ever used the C-12 for distant
field miking before.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Michael Wozniak]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Phil Hadaway > wrote:
>>I like my M-50s the best.
>
> See, I never liked the M-50s. They are too beamy to use them as regular
> omnis, but they aren't beamy enough to use them without baffles in my
> opinion. I like the B&K 4145 to do the kind of thing most people seem
> to like M-50s for.
>
> Tonally, I like M-50s a lot, but I can't find any stereo method that
> really
> works right for me. And no, I don't like the Decca tree, which I think is
> really overrated.
>
>>In a pinch... a pair of C-12s. I really like using my SM-2 on jazz and
>>big band sessions.
>
> What is actually inside the SM-2? Are they U-87 style capsules? I have
> never taken one apart. I don't think I have ever used the C-12 for
> distant
> field miking before.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

My dark horse: A pair of well-placed Royer 121s - tho a bit pricey for the
OP, IIRC.

Mikey Wozniak
Nova Music Productions
This sig is haiku

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Michael Wozniak" > wrote in message link.net...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Phil Hadaway > wrote:
> >>I like my M-50s the best.
> >
> > See, I never liked the M-50s. They are too beamy to use them as regular
> > omnis, but they aren't beamy enough to use them without baffles in my
> > opinion. I like the B&K 4145 to do the kind of thing most people seem
> > to like M-50s for.
> >
> > Tonally, I like M-50s a lot, but I can't find any stereo method that
> > really
> > works right for me. And no, I don't like the Decca tree, which I think is
> > really overrated.
> >
> >>In a pinch... a pair of C-12s. I really like using my SM-2 on jazz and
> >>big band sessions.
> >
> > What is actually inside the SM-2? Are they U-87 style capsules? I have
> > never taken one apart. I don't think I have ever used the C-12 for
> > distant
> > field miking before.
> > --scott
> >
> > --
> > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> My dark horse: A pair of well-placed Royer 121s - tho a bit pricey for the
> OP, IIRC.
>
> Mikey Wozniak
> Nova Music Productions
> This sig is haiku


Give me...

AKG C-451EB

AT ATM4051

Sony C-535P

or in a pinch,

AKG C-414Buls

Omnis don't do a thing for me.


DM

[Ty Ford]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 18:01:36 -0400, Geoff wrote
(in article >):

> Scott Fraser wrote:
>>
>> They may be using 414EB's, or may not be using them in cardioid. Or
>> quite likely they may have such superlative rooms that it doesn't
>> matter what you put up, it will all sound good.
>
> ULSs. Watch almost any live BBC music show on TV (do you get Later, With
> Jools Holland over there ?).
>
> geoff
>
>

Where are the Polar Bears these days?

Ty Ford


--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Scott Dorsey]

Michael Wozniak > wrote:
>
>My dark horse: A pair of well-placed Royer 121s - tho a bit pricey for the
>OP, IIRC.

You know, these things are really starting to grow on me. Really narrow
angle of acceptance so you need a big room. But the effect is kind of
like the M-160, but with a presence peak, a little more crispness, and a
lot more output.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

> Where are the Polar Bears these days?
>
> Ty Ford



Did you mean Jules Shear (and the Polar Bears)?

[[email protected]]

On Apr 3, 9:13 am, "jeffontheleft" > wrote:
> I'm currently using a pair of NT5s for my drums and they're not bad
> but I'm looking to upgrade to something that can do more. A mic with
> a pad and maybe switchable polar patterns would be nice, but mostly I
> just want something that captures more sound. I've tried out a pair
> of MC012s but they weren't much different than the NT5s. I'm aware of
> the KM180 line, what are some other good pencil condensers out there?

A pair of KM84's for rock and louder kits. and AT 4050 for Jazz or
light playing.

[Ty Ford]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 10:29:36 -0400, wrote
(in article om>):

>
>> Where are the Polar Bears these days?
>>
>> Ty Ford
>
>
>
> Did you mean Jules Shear (and the Polar Bears)?
>

yup.

Ty

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU

[Richard Kuschel]

jeffontheleft wrote:
> I'm currently using a pair of NT5s for my drums and they're not bad
> but I'm looking to upgrade to something that can do more. A mic with
> a pad and maybe switchable polar patterns would be nice, but mostly I
> just want something that captures more sound. I've tried out a pair
> of MC012s but they weren't much different than the NT5s. I'm aware of
> the KM180 line, what are some other good pencil condensers out there?

My absolute favorites, hands down are the Neumann KM 84. Most others
sound too brittle.

Some omnis also sound great in this application, but the room often
becomes a problem when using them.

[Phil Hadaway]

SM-2s have KM-56 capsules back to back and stacked on top of each
other. So don't screw them up. Impossible to repair and a NOS head
will cost you a fortune.


On 4 Apr 2007 19:58:02 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:


>
>What is actually inside the SM-2? Are they U-87 style capsules? I have
>never taken one apart. I don't think I have ever used the C-12 for distant
>field miking before.
>--scott

[Les Cargill]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> "jeffontheleft" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>I'm currently using a pair of NT5s for my drums and they're not bad
>>but I'm looking to upgrade to something that can do more. A mic with
>>a pad and maybe switchable polar patterns would be nice, but mostly I
>>just want something that captures more sound. I've tried out a pair
>>of MC012s but they weren't much different than the NT5s. I'm aware of
>>the KM180 line, what are some other good pencil condensers out there?
>>
>
> Try a Behringer ECM-8000 for fifty bucks.
>
> It might seem ridiculous, but there is a reason why it works:
> 1. A cheap 1/4" capsule has more even hf response than most expensive
> general purpose mikes. It is also better damped.
> 2. The sensitivity and dynamic range of this mike, while not suitable for
> general use, happen to fall right in the range of this application. High
> self noise is not a problem here.
>
> This is a happy circumstance where the capabilities of a limited microphone
> specialize quite nicely to a specific application.
>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894
>
>

I've used a pair for overheads, but spaced omnis can be a
problem. I like cards in XY or ORTF. I have yet to try
the ECM-8000 pair with a Jecklin disc.

--
Les Cargill