Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

TIA,

Lance
www.qbdigital.com

Think of keeping just 1 or 2 sm57 then swich to e609! It's very good for
many other instruments (toms?) and the sound is a little more accurate...
The sound is more fat, not only on the low freq. but nicely in the middles.
It has more presence...
Try it before buying it if you are not sure about the sound but if I were
you I'd buy it anyway right away!
Max


"Lance" ha scritto nel messaggio
news:aTy9d.234$275.133@trndny01...
Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

TIA,

Lance
www.qbdigital.com

"Lance" wrote in message news:aTy9d.234$275.133@trndny01...
Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

I am quite pleased with my e-609. I find it to be less prone to
upper-mid peakiness than a '57 while it retains (perhaps exceeds) the
clarity.

The e-609 is a $99 mic. I'd recommend it as a worthwhile purchase for
recording guitars. It's in the top 3 of my guitar-recording mic list,
along with a 421, and EV635a.

I also like it on drums- it does some interesting odd things to snare
heads.

-dave
www.themoodrings.com

Dave, this is off topic, but I just had a listen to the samples on your
site. Very nice! I really like your style of music. Thanks for the link,
I enjoyed the songs a whole lot.

A little more on topic, I think I will have to get myself an E609 soon.
Been looking for a few good dynamics for my home studio.

Best regards,
Bill Ruys.

"Geetar Dave" wrote in message
m...
"Lance" wrote in message
news:aTy9d.234$275.133@trndny01...
Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

I am quite pleased with my e-609. I find it to be less prone to
upper-mid peakiness than a '57 while it retains (perhaps exceeds) the
clarity.

The e-609 is a $99 mic. I'd recommend it as a worthwhile purchase for
recording guitars. It's in the top 3 of my guitar-recording mic list,
along with a 421, and EV635a.

I also like it on drums- it does some interesting odd things to snare
heads.

-dave
www.themoodrings.com

"Bill Ruys" wrote in message ...
Dave, this is off topic, but I just had a listen to the samples on your
site. Very nice! I really like your style of music. Thanks for the link,
I enjoyed the songs a whole lot.

A little more on topic, I think I will have to get myself an E609 soon.
Been looking for a few good dynamics for my home studio.

Best regards,
Bill Ruys.

Hi Bill.
Hey, thanks for the kind words. I know the e-609 was used for many of
the guitars on "Burning Virginia" (there are a lot, layered).

RAP gives me great insights on how to be better recordist. I'm certain
I heard about the e-609 here first (There, I think we're back on topic
now). I would say it is a good investment.

Back in the spring of this year, I played a pair of, um...
"conventions" is probably the closest word; in front of 1200 and 5500
people respectively. The sound crew put an e-609 on my amp. Sometime
afterwards, they gave us a CD of those events. I gotta say that e-609
sounded great on my amp in that live mix. It caught all the definition
and growl I threw at it.

Maybe I should pick up a second one to keep with my live guitar rig.
;^)

Thanks again for the compliments, and best of luck with your
mic-shopping.

-dave
www.themoodrings.com

"Lance" wrote in message news:aTy9d.234$275.133@trndny01...
Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

TIA,

Lance
www.qbdigital.com

Be aware that there are two versions of the e609 available:
the standard e609 and, the e609 "Silver".
The regular 609 is supposedly the updated/current model of the
classic md409. The "Silver" is a newer release with a much more
pronounced upper-mid presence peak. Probably sounding more 57ish.
The 409 and (normal) 609 are both pretty smooth and make great guitar
amp mikes. I also like the 409 on some vocals - listen to Stevie Ray
at the Montreaux festival ('85 I think) singing into a 409.
Anybody know if the Senn's use a transformer in there?

RD

Thanks for the tip RD.
I have yet to do some side by side tests now that I have the mic.

(RD Jones) wrote in message . com...
"Lance" wrote in message news:aTy9d.234$275.133@trndny01...
Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

TIA,

Lance
www.qbdigital.com

Be aware that there are two versions of the e609 available:
the standard e609 and, the e609 "Silver".
The regular 609 is supposedly the updated/current model of the
classic md409. The "Silver" is a newer release with a much more
pronounced upper-mid presence peak. Probably sounding more 57ish.
The 409 and (normal) 609 are both pretty smooth and make great guitar
amp mikes. I also like the 409 on some vocals - listen to Stevie Ray
at the Montreaux festival ('85 I think) singing into a 409.
Anybody know if the Senn's use a transformer in there?

RD


Is it that Pink Floyd Live at Pompei film where they are all singing
into MD-409 mics? I thought that was a bit odd when i saw it, thought
they must be AKG C414, but i looked close and they were MD409s.

(RD Jones) wrote in message . com...
"Lance" wrote in message news:aTy9d.234$275.133@trndny01...
Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

TIA,

Lance
www.qbdigital.com

Be aware that there are two versions of the e609 available:
the standard e609 and, the e609 "Silver".
The regular 609 is supposedly the updated/current model of the
classic md409. The "Silver" is a newer release with a much more
pronounced upper-mid presence peak. Probably sounding more 57ish.
The 409 and (normal) 609 are both pretty smooth and make great guitar
amp mikes. I also like the 409 on some vocals - listen to Stevie Ray
at the Montreaux festival ('85 I think) singing into a 409.
Anybody know if the Senn's use a transformer in there?


The original e609 (black front) was *supposed* to be a replacement for
the MD409, but never caught on the way that the original did. IMO, the
e609 sounded thin, and therefore did not convey the "body" of the
guitar/amp/speaker sound. The newer (and strangely, less expensive)
e609 Silver (with a silver front) sounds much more like the original
MD409, IMO. I found that the 409 and 609 Silver are great for guitar
amps, trombones, low toms, and probably a few other "tenor"
instruments.

YMMV

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

(Karl Winkler) wrote in message . com...
(RD Jones) wrote in message . com...
"Lance" wrote in message news:aTy9d.234$275.133@trndny01...
Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

TIA,

Lance
www.qbdigital.com

Be aware that there are two versions of the e609 available:
the standard e609 and, the e609 "Silver".
The regular 609 is supposedly the updated/current model of the
classic md409. The "Silver" is a newer release with a much more
pronounced upper-mid presence peak. Probably sounding more 57ish.
The 409 and (normal) 609 are both pretty smooth and make great guitar
amp mikes. I also like the 409 on some vocals - listen to Stevie Ray
at the Montreaux festival ('85 I think) singing into a 409.
Anybody know if the Senn's use a transformer in there?


The original e609 (black front) was *supposed* to be a replacement for
the MD409, but never caught on the way that the original did. IMO, the
e609 sounded thin, and therefore did not convey the "body" of the
guitar/amp/speaker sound. The newer (and strangely, less expensive)
e609 Silver (with a silver front) sounds much more like the original
MD409, IMO. I found that the 409 and 609 Silver are great for guitar
amps, trombones, low toms, and probably a few other "tenor"
instruments.

That sounds right to me. I have to orignal 609s and they sound like
**** on guitars. Not bad on toms though.

(Karl Winkler) wrote in message . com...

The original e609 (black front) was *supposed* to be a replacement for
the MD409, but never caught on the way that the original did. IMO, the
e609 sounded thin, and therefore did not convey the "body" of the
guitar/amp/speaker sound. The newer (and strangely, less expensive)
e609 Silver (with a silver front) sounds much more like the original
MD409, IMO. I found that the 409 and 609 Silver are great for guitar
amps, trombones, low toms, and probably a few other "tenor"
instruments.

Interesting. I have only heard the silver 609, and I like what it
does. Does anyone know what the differences are (if any) between the
409 and silver 609? I'd be interested in hearing about a comparison.

-dave
www.themoodrings.com

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:28:30 GMT, "Lance"
wrote:

Thanks for the tip RD.
I have yet to do some side by side tests now that I have the mic.

Please, please, post your results. We get too few real world reviews
from folks with nothing to prove.


Willie K. Yee, M.D. http://users.bestweb.net/~wkyee
Developer of Problem Knowledge Couplers for Psychiatry http://www.pkc.com
Webmaster and Guitarist for the Big Blue Big Band http://www.bigbluebigband.org

In article ,
(Geetar Dave) wrote:

Interesting. I have only heard the silver 609, and I like what it
does. Does anyone know what the differences are (if any) between the
409 and silver 609? I'd be interested in hearing about a comparison.

The original 409 is a good bit smoother and warmer, and the silver 609
is a bit screechier. I'm not a fan of a peak up there, since most of
the time, you get more than enough 3-4KHz by being on axis to a speaker
cone. Who needs more of it...

FWIW, the 609 (non silver) didn't sound as good as the 409 to me on a
guitar amp...

I sure wish we could buy new 409s though!!


Regards,

Monte McGuire

Monte McGuire wrote in message ...

The original 409 is a good bit smoother and warmer, and the silver 609
is a bit screechier. I'm not a fan of a peak up there, since most of
the time, you get more than enough 3-4KHz by being on axis to a speaker
cone. Who needs more of it...

Hmmm... well, I guess maybe I do. ;^) I chronically pull a fairly big
~300hz hump out of any guitar I touch. While this gives my tone a nice
roundness, It can get pretty murky. Perhaps the 609's peak counters
this appropriately for me.

Now as for the 609's peak, I notice mine to be less peaky than a '57.
I recognize all of this has to do with my specific playing,
instruments, amps, and my rooms (with the exception of a couple of
live gigs). So my observations could have to do with my unique
environment and/or an unusual mic.

I have a session planned for this evening. Maybe I'll arrange a
mic-shootout during the process, and make WAV or mp3 snippets
available for everyone's scrutiny.

-dave
www.themoodrings.com

I agree, the cheaper E609 Silver sounds very nice on guitar cabs,
better (and less 1980's cliche) than a SM-57. Less peaky, and clearer
midrange all around are the two most prominant things I noticed over
the 57. I have no experience with the more expensive 609 non silver,
I can't imagine it being any better than the silver for 99 bucks.

Nathan Eldred
http://www.atlasproaudio.com


(Karl Winkler) wrote in message . com...
(RD Jones) wrote in message . com...
"Lance" wrote in message news:aTy9d.234$275.133@trndny01...
Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

TIA,

Lance
www.qbdigital.com

Be aware that there are two versions of the e609 available:
the standard e609 and, the e609 "Silver".
The regular 609 is supposedly the updated/current model of the
classic md409. The "Silver" is a newer release with a much more
pronounced upper-mid presence peak. Probably sounding more 57ish.
The 409 and (normal) 609 are both pretty smooth and make great guitar
amp mikes. I also like the 409 on some vocals - listen to Stevie Ray
at the Montreaux festival ('85 I think) singing into a 409.
Anybody know if the Senn's use a transformer in there?


The original e609 (black front) was *supposed* to be a replacement for
the MD409, but never caught on the way that the original did. IMO, the
e609 sounded thin, and therefore did not convey the "body" of the
guitar/amp/speaker sound. The newer (and strangely, less expensive)
e609 Silver (with a silver front) sounds much more like the original
MD409, IMO. I found that the 409 and 609 Silver are great for guitar
amps, trombones, low toms, and probably a few other "tenor"
instruments.

YMMV

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.lectrosonics.com

I agree, the cheaper E609 Silver sounds very nice on guitar cabs,
better (and less 1980's cliche) than a SM-57. Less peaky, and clearer
midrange all around are the two most prominant things I noticed over
the 57. I have no experience with the more expensive 609 non silver,
I can't imagine it being any better than the silver for 99 bucks.

I did a live recording a few weeks ago..mixed this week..609 S did a great job
soundwise and even better from an isolation perspective.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

"Lance" wrote in message news:aTy9d.234$275.133@trndny01...
Hey Folks,
Someone just offered me a good deal on a new Sennheiser E609 guitar mic.
I have a few sm 57s and I really don't need it yet.

I'd be inerested in any info from side by side comparisons if anyone has
tried that.

TIA,

Lance
www.qbdigital.com

I bought the silver faced e609 and used it live, mainly for the side
address feature and it worked great. Jazz group. One guitarist was
playing through kind of a PV keyboard rig with a horn. Hung it from
his guitar stand and it sounded great.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

I chronically pull a fairly big
~300hz hump out of any guitar I touch. While this gives my tone a nice
roundness, It can get pretty murky. Perhaps the 609's peak counters
this appropriately for me.

There's three inportant frequency bands to an electric guitar sound - 250Hz
"body", 1kHz "voice", and 3.5kHz "presence". Balancing these is the first
step of getting a decent sound.

The 3.5kHz range tends to be on the low side partly because it's a somewhat
fatiguing and guitarists often dullen the sound, and it also does not
register fully with a close mic placement compared to 10' in front. The 609
is rigged with a big notch at 3kHz to compensate for that. You may still
need less 250Hz, either by EQ or mic positioning.

In live situations, sometimes an SM57 requires that I pull the 250Hz down
over 10dB since there's plenty of that coming off the stage, and the 3.5kHz
up 15dB just to keep up with the cymbals etc.

In the studio I try adjusting the amp's tone before giving up on an SM57,
but the 609 is the next mic I go to if I need more rip.

Sugarite wrote:

In live situations, sometimes an SM57 requires that I pull the 250Hz
down over 10dB since there's plenty of that coming off the stage, and
the 3.5kHz up 15dB just to keep up with the cymbals etc.

OUCH!

Peter
---
http://www.merlinsound.de

Sugarite wrote:

There's three inportant frequency bands to an electric guitar sound - 250Hz
"body", 1kHz "voice", and 3.5kHz "presence". Balancing these is the first
step of getting a decent sound.

How conveniently trite. Please stay the **** away from my guitar sound.

Steps in getting a decent guitar sound include:

1. Decent sounding _guitar player_.

2. Decent sounding guitar.

3. Decent sounding amplification.

4. A decent sounding room.

5. Appropriate choices of amp positioning in the room.

6. Ditto mic selection and placement and mic pre selection.

7. If you're Harvey Gerst, there would be evidence you could skip from
point 2. to Sans Amp and capture a hell of a guitar sound.

Lastly, there are so many contexts for "decent guitar sound" that
calling out frequencies is pointless outside of a specific situation
where you are listening to a specific guitar sound in a specific
context.

Trite approaches to this stuff is what has the world filled with trite
sounding crap largely indistinguishable from the next steaming heap of
trite crap.

--
ha

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:55:26 -0400, "Sugarite"
wrote:

I chronically pull a fairly big
~300hz hump out of any guitar I touch. While this gives my tone a nice
roundness, It can get pretty murky. Perhaps the 609's peak counters
this appropriately for me.

There's three inportant frequency bands to an electric guitar sound - 250Hz
"body", 1kHz "voice", and 3.5kHz "presence". Balancing these is the first
step of getting a decent sound.

You know, as an electric guitarst, blanket generalized pronouncements
of this sort irritate the hell out of me. There are as many kinds of
guitar tones as there are kinds of guitar music, and to imply that one
size fits all as far as EQ goes is just idiotic IMO.

Al

Peter Duemmler wrote:

Sugarite wrote:

In live situations, sometimes an SM57 requires that I pull the 250Hz
down over 10dB since there's plenty of that coming off the stage, and
the 3.5kHz up 15dB just to keep up with the cymbals etc.

OUCH!

Which is why sensible people often choose different mics instead of
hoping to massacre sound with EQ.

"Just to keep up with the cymbals"... Gotta love that. Like it's race or
something.

--
ha

hank alrich wrote:

Sugarite wrote:

There's three inportant frequency bands to an electric guitar sound -
250Hz
"body", 1kHz "voice", and 3.5kHz "presence". Balancing these is the
first step of getting a decent sound.

How conveniently trite. Please stay the **** away from my guitar sound.

Steps in getting a decent guitar sound include:

1. Decent sounding _guitar player_.

2. Decent sounding guitar.

3. Decent sounding amplification.

4. A decent sounding room.

5. Appropriate choices of amp positioning in the room.

6. Ditto mic selection and placement and mic pre selection.

7. If you're Harvey Gerst, there would be evidence you could skip from
point 2. to Sans Amp and capture a hell of a guitar sound.

OR, as somebody here once said about snare drums, "If you can't get a
usable guitar (or snare) sound with a 57, the problem ain't the mic".

In article writes:

the 3.5kHz up 15dB just to keep up with the cymbals etc.

"Just to keep up with the cymbals"... Gotta love that. Like it's race or
something.

With guitars, who needs cymbals?


--
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 he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

agent86 wrote in message ...

OR, as somebody here once said about snare drums, "If you can't get a
usable guitar (or snare) sound with a 57, the problem ain't the mic".

Be sure to that to Jon Brion.

play-on wrote in message . ..

There's three inportant frequency bands to an electric guitar sound - 250Hz
"body", 1kHz "voice", and 3.5kHz "presence". Balancing these is the first
step of getting a decent sound.

You know, as an electric guitarst, blanket generalized pronouncements
of this sort irritate the hell out of me. There are as many kinds of
guitar tones as there are kinds of guitar music, and to imply that one
size fits all as far as EQ goes is just idiotic IMO.

Yeah, that kind of irritated me too.

I agree with you about the diversity of tones. I want no part of the
current wall-of-distortion sound I hear on the radio. Other players
would kill for it.

-dave
www.themoodrings.com

Mike Caffrey wrote:

agent86 wrote in message
...

OR, as somebody here once said about snare drums, "If you can't get a
usable guitar (or snare) sound with a 57, the problem ain't the mic".

Be sure to that to Jon Brion.

I'm not familiar with him. And his website is about the least informative
I've ever seen. Please enlighten me.

Mike Caffrey wrote:

Be sure to that to Jon Brion.

Did you mean, "Be Shure that to Jon Brion"?

--
ha

In live situations, sometimes an SM57 requires that I pull the 250Hz
down over 10dB since there's plenty of that coming off the stage, and
the 3.5kHz up 15dB just to keep up with the cymbals etc.

OUCH!

Which is why sensible people often choose different mics instead of
hoping to massacre sound with EQ.

It's hardly senseless when driving an opening band with no soundcheck.
We're talking about sound reinforcement here, not recording. Guitar amps
routinely fill small- and medium-sized rooms with substantial 250-1.5k, and
you've got to drive the high-midrange rip to complete the tone.

"Just to keep up with the cymbals"... Gotta love that. Like it's race or
something.

Last I checked it's a balancing act. I'm not one of those techs that just
says "that asshole drummer is too loud" and doesn't bother tightening up the
mix. And the 3.5kHz response can be 15dB shy of what's needed with a SM57
and a "bedroom guitar tone" even if the drummer isn't that loud. It's
better to have it massacred-but-audible than none at all, especially since
there's no guitar tone in that frequency range bleeding off stage if an
adjustment that severe is required.

Besides, I imagine the 3kHz notch of an E609 introduces the same phase
shifting problems that an EQ does.