Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that are a little better
than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95 U.S. ?

Purpose: general instrumental. No need for drums; I already have a good drum
mic.

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

Audio Technica Pro 31?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that are
a little better than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95 U.S. ?

Audio Technica MB 4K?

Purpose: general instrumental.

both mics above are vocal mics.

No need for drums; I already have a good drum mic.

How about some *real* model numbers?

"soundhaspriority" said:

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that are a little better
than these.


Rumour has it that Sony will bring out a new version of the My First
Sony Sing-a-long box, the supplied mic is supposed to be awesome.

The only bugger is the minijack, you culd substitute it with a Neutrik
XLR if you like.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

"François Yves Le Gal" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:57:15 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

The only bugger is the minijack, you culd substitute it with a Neutrik
XLR if you like.

No need to with the My First Sony Pro version, which is fitted with trafo
balanced XLR's for it's analog outputs, a stae of the art preamp, some
awesome 24/192 AD converters as well as a very nice Pultec-inspired eq.
section.
:-)

All this sounds promising.
Can anyone supply actual model numbers for some of these improved balanced
mics?

The board is a Tascam 24/96 8 channel firewire, with two outboard stereo
Midiman preamps.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

Audio Technica Pro 31?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that are
a little better than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95 U.S. ?

Audio Technica MB 4K?

Yes, I have two of them, purchased for vocal use. How do they work as
instrument mics?

Bobo said:

Audio Technica MB 4K?

Yes, I have two of them, purchased for vocal use. How do they work as
instrument mics?

They choke on Krooglish.




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Bobo said:

Audio Technica MB 4K?

Yes, I have two of them, purchased for vocal use. How do they work as
instrument mics?

They choke on Krooglish.

Yes, I know, but dunking them in Holy Water brings them back.

soundhaspriority wrote:

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that are a little better
than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95 U.S. ?

Purpose: general instrumental. No need for drums; I already have a good drum
mic.


Whats "general instrumental": acoustic or miking amps?

A Shure PG57 is hard to beat for the money for amplified music
on the cheap.

Bob


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bob Urz wrote:


soundhaspriority wrote:

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that are a little
better than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95 U.S. ?

Purpose: general instrumental. No need for drums; I already have a
good drum mic.

Whats "general instrumental": acoustic or miking amps?

A Shure PG57 is hard to beat for the money for amplified music
on the cheap.

I've been noticing a lot of broken 57's on ebay and other venues. Most
I've seen--and the one I bought--have been in mint condition
appearance-wise.

In my case, one wire on the inside had become detached from the voice
coil, at the terminal strip. Access to these things is easy, as many
already know. It was 'just' possible to resolder the wire back to the
TS, but there was enough tension on it that it broke again while
reassembling the mic. After about five trys, I got it right. I
succeeded by peeling the tape which carries the wire down side of the
cartridge, splicing a strand of wire to the old (using forceps and
magnifying lamp, fine-tip, temp controlled iron), retaping and soldering
to the TS. Each time I botched it, the wire got shorter and I had to
peel back more tape....

(I've a method for re-installing the plastic pop filter as well.)

Anyway, the question is: have new 57's--specifically--been suffering a
quality issue of late...or are they just inherantly fragile? At any
given time, I'll see newer broken ones for sale. From examination, it
didn't appear to be any worse than the older ones...it's been a long
time (20+ years) since I last serviced one. Now that it's fixe, mine
sounds great. Shure will completely refurb one--no matter what the
problem is--for around $50, IIRC...making it usually uneconomical,
although still not 'cheap', to DIY.

However, if the problem I encountered is the most common, I could come
out ahead by buying a few broken ones and fixing. I've seen 'em for as
cheap as $15 locally (missed that one). I paid way too much for the one
I got, but it's working now for much less than $50...and now I know how
to fix.

jak

Bob


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"jakdedert" wrote in message
...
Bob Urz wrote:


soundhaspriority wrote:

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that are a little
better than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95 U.S. ?

Purpose: general instrumental. No need for drums; I already have a good
drum mic.

Whats "general instrumental": acoustic or miking amps?

Acoustic. Condenser (electret or otherwise) sensitivity required.

"jakdedert" wrote in message
...

I've been noticing a lot of broken 57's on ebay and other venues. Most
I've seen--and the one I bought--have been in mint condition
appearance-wise.

In my case, one wire on the inside had become detached from the voice
coil, at the terminal strip. Access to these things is easy, as many
already know. It was 'just' possible to resolder the wire back to the TS,
but there was enough tension on it that it broke again while reassembling
the mic. After about five trys, I got it right. I succeeded by peeling
the tape which carries the wire down side of the cartridge, splicing a
strand of wire to the old (using forceps and magnifying lamp, fine-tip,
temp controlled iron), retaping and soldering to the TS. Each time I
botched it, the wire got shorter and I had to peel back more tape....

(I've a method for re-installing the plastic pop filter as well.)

Anyway, the question is: have new 57's--specifically--been suffering a
quality issue of late...or are they just inherantly fragile? At any given
time, I'll see newer broken ones for sale. From examination, it didn't
appear to be any worse than the older ones...it's been a long time (20+
years) since I last serviced one. Now that it's fixe, mine sounds great.
Shure will completely refurb one--no matter what the problem is--for
around $50, IIRC...making it usually uneconomical, although still not
'cheap', to DIY.

However, if the problem I encountered is the most common, I could come out
ahead by buying a few broken ones and fixing. I've seen 'em for as cheap
as $15 locally (missed that one). I paid way too much for the one I got,
but it's working now for much less than $50...and now I know how to fix.

jak

I don't know about where you live, but in this part of the world (southern
hemisphere), there has been a lot of knock-off SM57's hitting the market.
They are often traded on internet auction sites. This has prompted Shure to
take full page adverts out, warning of the knock-offs. These mics look
exactly like the real thing, which makes it impossible to know what you're
buying.

Bill.

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

Audio Technica Pro 31?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that
are a little better than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95
U.S. ?

Audio Technica MB 4K?

Yes, I have two of them, purchased for vocal use. How do
they work as instrument mics?

They will probably sound thin, particularly on instruments that actually
have serious bass. So, you may be able to get away with using vocal mics on
violins and flutes, but not on tubas, pipe organs, an acoustic bass, or
bass drums.

Reason why - vocal mics are usually cardioids and therefore have what is
known as "proximity effect" which is variable bass boost/cut that varies
with the distance from the sound source to the mix. The further away the
mic, the less bass you get.

Cardiod mics designed for use as MI mics generally have more bass - their
proximity effect is tuned for use at greater distances from the source.
Many MI mics have so much bass that they are really only generally usable in
elaborate shock mounts.

Also vocal mics generally have built-in bass cut to reduce handling noise
and sensitivity to popping. Finally, even more bass cut may be added to
improve articulation. Some mics have a bass filter with a switch. This
broadens their range of application.

Vocal mics often have a "presence peak" in the upper midrange. This will
tend to make violins sound more screetchy. In cheap vocal mics, this peak
may be especially big and rough. IOW it may be composed a number of peaks in
the same frequency range. Classic example: Shure SM58.

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

"Bob Urz" wrote in message

soundhaspriority wrote:

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that
are a little better than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95 U.S.
? Purpose: general instrumental. No need for drums; I
already have a good drum mic.


Whats "general instrumental": acoustic or miking amps?

A Shure PG57 is hard to beat for the money for amplified
music on the cheap.

Note: Bob really is a Shure dealer but lacks the sensitivity and class it
would take to provide a proper disclaimer.

Bill Ruys wrote:
"jakdedert" wrote in message
...
I've been noticing a lot of broken 57's on ebay and other venues. Most
I've seen--and the one I bought--have been in mint condition
appearance-wise.

In my case, one wire on the inside had become detached from the voice
coil, at the terminal strip. Access to these things is easy, as many
already know. It was 'just' possible to resolder the wire back to the TS,
but there was enough tension on it that it broke again while reassembling
the mic. After about five trys, I got it right. I succeeded by peeling
the tape which carries the wire down side of the cartridge, splicing a
strand of wire to the old (using forceps and magnifying lamp, fine-tip,
temp controlled iron), retaping and soldering to the TS. Each time I
botched it, the wire got shorter and I had to peel back more tape....

(I've a method for re-installing the plastic pop filter as well.)

Anyway, the question is: have new 57's--specifically--been suffering a
quality issue of late...or are they just inherantly fragile? At any given
time, I'll see newer broken ones for sale. From examination, it didn't
appear to be any worse than the older ones...it's been a long time (20+
years) since I last serviced one. Now that it's fixe, mine sounds great.
Shure will completely refurb one--no matter what the problem is--for
around $50, IIRC...making it usually uneconomical, although still not
'cheap', to DIY.

However, if the problem I encountered is the most common, I could come out
ahead by buying a few broken ones and fixing. I've seen 'em for as cheap
as $15 locally (missed that one). I paid way too much for the one I got,
but it's working now for much less than $50...and now I know how to fix.

jak

I don't know about where you live, but in this part of the world (southern
hemisphere), there has been a lot of knock-off SM57's hitting the market.
They are often traded on internet auction sites. This has prompted Shure to
take full page adverts out, warning of the knock-offs. These mics look
exactly like the real thing, which makes it impossible to know what you're
buying.

Huh....

Anyway, I'm in the States. The mics are from all over (the local one I
referenced was here in Nashvegas). If they're knock-offs, I can't tell
the dif'--sound or construction--and I've been inside a few 57's.
Unfortunately, the one I have is my only Sm-57 (not a PG), so I can't
A/B. I do have a few internal parts from 57's I dissected years ago,
and they look the same.

I just recently picked up some more gear after doing only 'briefcase'
live gigs for about 20 years.

jak
Bill.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

Audio Technica Pro 31?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that
are a little better than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95
U.S. ?

Audio Technica MB 4K?

Yes, I have two of them, purchased for vocal use. How do
they work as instrument mics?

They will probably sound thin, particularly on instruments that actually
have serious bass. So, you may be able to get away with using vocal mics
on violins and flutes, but not on tubas, pipe organs, an acoustic bass,
or bass drums.

Reason why - vocal mics are usually cardioids and therefore have what is
known as "proximity effect" which is variable bass boost/cut that varies
with the distance from the sound source to the mix. The further away the
mic, the less bass you get.

Cardiod mics designed for use as MI mics generally have more bass - their
proximity effect is tuned for use at greater distances from the source.
Many MI mics have so much bass that they are really only generally usable
in elaborate shock mounts.

Also vocal mics generally have built-in bass cut to reduce handling noise
and sensitivity to popping. Finally, even more bass cut may be added to
improve articulation. Some mics have a bass filter with a switch. This
broadens their range of application.

Vocal mics often have a "presence peak" in the upper midrange. This will
tend to make violins sound more screetchy. In cheap vocal mics, this peak
may be especially big and rough. IOW it may be composed a number of peaks
in the same frequency range. Classic example: Shure SM58.

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.
Is this electret or traditional?

How much gap is there between this and a no-compromise mic? I was given the
opinion by an outfit that had tested a bunch; they came to the conclusion
that the top strata begins around $400, and there isn't much difference
above this figure.

In article ,
"soundhaspriority" wrote:


How much gap is there between this ($75 mic) and a no-compromise mic? I
was given the
opinion by an outfit that had tested a bunch; they came to the conclusion
that the top strata begins around $400, and there isn't much difference
above this figure.


Sounds like you talked to someone who sells a line of $400 mics. Well,
they're selling some kind of line, anyway.

-dougwood

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"soundhaspriority"
wrote in message


Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's
?

Audio Technica Pro 31?

I'd like to have some phantom electret cardiodes that
are a little better than these.

How about the AT M4K, has a blue handle, around $95
U.S. ?

Audio Technica MB 4K?

Yes, I have two of them, purchased for vocal use. How do
they work as instrument mics?

They will probably sound thin, particularly on
instruments that actually have serious bass. So, you may
be able to get away with using vocal mics on violins and
flutes, but not on tubas, pipe organs, an acoustic
bass, or bass drums. Reason why - vocal mics are usually cardioids and
therefore have what is known as "proximity effect" which
is variable bass boost/cut that varies with the distance
from the sound source to the mix. The further away the
mic, the less bass you get. Cardiod mics designed for use as MI mics
generally have
more bass - their proximity effect is tuned for use at
greater distances from the source. Many MI mics have so
much bass that they are really only generally usable in
elaborate shock mounts. Also vocal mics generally have built-in bass cut
to
reduce handling noise and sensitivity to popping. Finally, even more bass
cut may be added to improve
articulation. Some mics have a bass filter with a
switch. This broadens their range of application. Vocal mics often have
a "presence peak" in the upper
midrange. This will tend to make violins sound more
screetchy. In cheap vocal mics, this peak may be
especially big and rough. IOW it may be composed a
number of peaks in the same frequency range. Classic
example: Shure SM58.

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

Is this electret or traditional?

I don't believe that the 603S is an electret design. It's a traditional
condensor. Not that it matters.

How much gap is there between this and a no-compromise
mic?

A few thousand dollars. ;-)

I was given the opinion by an outfit that had tested
a bunch; they came to the conclusion that the top strata
begins around $400, and there isn't much difference above
this figure.

I don't think there is any scientific law that defines a linear relationship
or even a monotonic relationship between price and sound quality with
microphones or anything else.

Picking and positioning a mic for a given application takes a lot of skill.
The right relatively inexpensive mic used with skill will almost always
sound better than the wrong expensive mic used naively.

"soundhaspriority" wrote

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

Interesting to note that Samson has anounced a 1st
ever USB studio condenser microphone (C01U).
Sells for about $80.
http://www.samsontech.com/products/p...1810&brandID=2

"Powell" wrote in message

"soundhaspriority" wrote

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

Interesting to note that Samson has anounced a 1st
ever USB studio condenser microphone (C01U).
Sells for about $80.

http://www.samsontech.com/products/p...1810&brandID=2

It has been claimed by a user that these mics suffer from ADCs that
restrict the dynamic range of the mic, and make it appear to be noisy. I
don't know if the report is accurate or not.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Powell" wrote in message

"soundhaspriority" wrote

Have cheap mikes advanced much since I got my AT-31's ?

Interesting to note that Samson has anounced a 1st
ever USB studio condenser microphone (C01U).
Sells for about $80.

http://www.samsontech.com/products/p...1810&brandID=2

It has been claimed by a user that these mics suffer from ADCs that
restrict the dynamic range of the mic, and make it appear to be noisy. I
don't know if the report is accurate or not.

Jesus, what do you want? It's got a microphone, a preamp, an ADC and a
computer interface for $80. At that price it's a miracle if it works at
all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Signal" wrote in message

"soundhaspriority" emitted :

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

Is this electret or traditional?

How much gap is there between this and a no-compromise
mic?

Subjectively the MXL captures about 85% of a live
performance. However if you put a banana on your head,
the sound quality may improve as much as tenfold. I
cannot guarantee this but it's worth a try.

Must be a ****-poor live performance you're capturing a Paul as it takes me
about 18 mics to capture 90% of a live performance, resulting in about 5%
of the live performance per mic.

Signal wrote:
"soundhaspriority" emitted :

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

Is this electret or traditional?

How much gap is there between this and a no-compromise mic?

Subjectively the MXL captures about 85% of a live performance. However
if you put a banana on your head, the sound quality may improve as
much as tenfold. I cannot guarantee this but it's worth a try.

Sometimes I think this newsgroup should be called
alt.bad.comedy.and.sarcasm.

Arny Krueger wrote:


Must be a ****-poor live performance you're capturing a Paul as it takes
me
about 18 mics to capture 90% of a live performance, resulting in about 5%
of the live performance per mic.

Perhaps if you gave a bit more thought to your mic choices, placement, &
signal chain, you might get by with fewer mics. Use 18 if it floats your
boat, but some damn fine performances have been captured pretty damn well
with no more than two well chosen & well placed mics.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Signal" wrote in message

"soundhaspriority" emitted :

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

Is this electret or traditional?

How much gap is there between this and a no-compromise
mic?

Subjectively the MXL captures about 85% of a live
performance. However if you put a banana on your head,
the sound quality may improve as much as tenfold. I
cannot guarantee this but it's worth a try.

Must be a ****-poor live performance you're capturing a Paul as it takes me
about 18 mics to capture 90% of a live performance, resulting in about 5%
of the live performance per mic.

LOL

In article ,
Signal wrote:

Jenn wrote:

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

Is this electret or traditional?

How much gap is there between this and a no-compromise
mic?

Subjectively the MXL captures about 85% of a live
performance. However if you put a banana on your head,
the sound quality may improve as much as tenfold. I
cannot guarantee this but it's worth a try.

Must be a ****-poor live performance you're capturing a Paul as it takes
me
about 18 mics to capture 90% of a live performance, resulting in about 5%
of the live performance per mic.

LOL

Must be a pretty substantial stand to take all them mics.

I'm trying to imagine recording a solo guitarist with 18 mics!

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Apr 13 2006 6:47 am
Email: "Arny Krueger"

A Shure PG57 is hard to beat for the money for amplified
music on the cheap.

Note: Bob really is a Shure dealer but lacks the sensitivity and class it
would take to provide a proper disclaimer.

I saw no offer to attempt to sell one, did you?

SM57s have been used in that role for years. There's no reason, dealer
or no, to assume that his opinion on a $40 mic is bad.

Go away. You foul enough groups as it is.

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Apr 13 2006 6:47 am
Email: "Arny Krueger"

A Shure PG57 is hard to beat for the money for amplified
music on the cheap.

Note: Bob really is a Shure dealer but lacks the sensitivity and class it
would take to provide a proper disclaimer.

I saw no offer to attempt to sell one, did you?

SM57s have been used in that role for years. There's no reason, dealer
or no, to assume that his opinion on a $40 mic is bad.

Go away. You foul enough groups as it is.

Signal said:

I'm trying to imagine recording a solo guitarist with 18 mics!

Nice example, Jenn.. and if he comes back and says fewer mics are
required for solo guitar, then he's effecively already said solo
guitar MUST be considered "****-poor live performance".

Are there any jesus freak musicians who play solo guitar in Baptist
churches?




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

In article ,
Signal wrote:

Jenn wrote:

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

Is this electret or traditional?

How much gap is there between this and a no-compromise
mic?

Subjectively the MXL captures about 85% of a live
performance. However if you put a banana on your head,
the sound quality may improve as much as tenfold. I
cannot guarantee this but it's worth a try.

Must be a ****-poor live performance you're capturing a Paul as it
takes me
about 18 mics to capture 90% of a live performance, resulting in about
5%
of the live performance per mic.

LOL

Must be a pretty substantial stand to take all them mics.

I'm trying to imagine recording a solo guitarist with 18 mics!

Nice example, Jenn.. and if he comes back and says fewer mics are
required for solo guitar, then he's effecively already said solo
guitar MUST be considered "****-poor live performance".

I think that ol' Arny is just pulling everyone's leg.

Jenn wrote:

I think that ol' Arny is just pulling everyone's leg.

Can you objectively prove that he has a sense of humor?

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 03:54:51 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

I'm trying to imagine recording a solo guitarist with 18 mics!

If someone does, it'll be on the next R.A.P compilation :-)

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 01:10:32 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Are there any jesus freak musicians who play solo guitar in Baptist
churches?

What, and leave all those volunteers and their half-understood sound
equipment with nothing to do? :-)

Jenn wrote:

I'm trying to imagine recording a solo guitarist with 18 mics!

Sadly, I have seen that before, or something frightfully close.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Agent 86" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:


Must be a ****-poor live performance you're capturing a
Paul as it takes me
about 18 mics to capture 90% of a live performance,
resulting in about 5% of the live performance per mic.

Perhaps if you gave a bit more thought to your mic
choices, placement, & signal chain, you might get by with
fewer mics.

Perhaps if you knew about all the work I do with minimal micing, and you
were honest. you'd reconsider that statement.

To summarize, I've done about 100 recordings of about 250 musical works
played by about 90 vocal and instrumental groups in just the past maybe 30
days. All but one of those recordings were done in rooms that had really
pretty good acoustics (one was truely exceptional), and all were done with
the same coincident pair, really pretty good preamps, and a CD recorder
with a portable digital recorder as safety backup.

There are a number of prerequisites for minimal micing. One of them is a
good-sounding room. That wasn't my situation on the day I used 18 mics.

Use 18 if it floats your boat, but some damn
fine performances have been captured pretty damn well
with no more than two well chosen & well placed mics.

Of course, and as I've shown above, I do minmal micing when I can.

Contrary to your rediculous claim, I don't get my rocks off muling around
mic stands, pulling over 1,000 feet of mic cables and doing time-consuming
multichannel mixdowns. It's just that this is what was required in the
particular situation to get an acceptable result because the room acoustics
basically sucked, big time. BTW, the 18 mics included 4 coincident pairs,
mostly hypercardioids. The non-coincident mics were almost all cardioids.

"Signal" wrote in message

Agent 86 wrote:

Must be a ****-poor live performance you're capturing a
Paul as it takes me
about 18 mics to capture 90% of a live performance,
resulting in about 5% of the live performance per mic.

Perhaps if you gave a bit more thought to your mic
choices, placement, & signal chain, you might get by
with fewer mics. Use 18 if it floats your boat, but
some damn fine performances have been captured pretty
damn well with no more than two well chosen & well
placed mics.

The key phrase here is "well placed".

Wrong. The major prerequisite for minimal micing is a room that has good
basic acoustics. In a good room mic placement is relatively non-critical.
Not uncritical, just relatively non-critical.

"Signal" wrote in message

Jenn wrote:

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

Is this electret or traditional?

How much gap is there between this and a no-compromise
mic?

Subjectively the MXL captures about 85% of a live
performance. However if you put a banana on your head,
the sound quality may improve as much as tenfold. I
cannot guarantee this but it's worth a try.

Must be a ****-poor live performance you're capturing a
Paul as it takes me about 18 mics to capture 90% of a
live performance, resulting in about 5% of the live
performance per mic.

LOL

Must be a pretty substantial stand to take all them mics.

Right - three of the stands were Atlas MS-25s with extension tubes. It would
have been 4 had they been available.

BTW Paul, feel free to look Atlas MS-25 mic stands up on the web so you
will know what a MS-25 is. ;-)

Interestingly one of the MS-25s dates back to the 1950s - my church bought
it to do a radio program.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Signal wrote:

Jenn wrote:

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

Is this electret or traditional?

How much gap is there between this and a
no-compromise mic?

Subjectively the MXL captures about 85% of a live
performance. However if you put a banana on your head,
the sound quality may improve as much as tenfold. I
cannot guarantee this but it's worth a try.

Must be a ****-poor live performance you're capturing
a Paul as it takes me
about 18 mics to capture 90% of a live performance,
resulting in about 5% of the live performance per mic.

LOL

Must be a pretty substantial stand to take all them mics.

I'm trying to imagine recording a solo guitarist with 18
mics!

I've never used more than six mics on a solo guitarist.

Do try to follow the discussion Jenn - the performance in question was
composed of two choirs and about 20 instruments including piano and pipe
organ. No guitars and no electronic instruments at all.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Signal said:

I'm trying to imagine recording a solo guitarist with
18 mics!

Nice example, Jenn.. and if he comes back and says fewer
mics are required for solo guitar, then he's effecively
already said solo guitar MUST be considered "****-poor
live performance".

Are there any jesus freak musicians who play solo guitar
in Baptist churches?

Shows what little you know about churches - Middius. There are a great many
such musicians.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Signal wrote:

Jenn wrote:

A *classic* good cheap MI mic is the MXL 603S.

Is this electret or traditional?

How much gap is there between this and a
no-compromise mic?

Subjectively the MXL captures about 85% of a live
performance. However if you put a banana on your
head, the sound quality may improve as much as
tenfold. I cannot guarantee this but it's worth a
try.

Must be a ****-poor live performance you're
capturing a Paul as it takes me
about 18 mics to capture 90% of a live performance,
resulting in about 5%
of the live performance per mic.

LOL

Must be a pretty substantial stand to take all them
mics.

I'm trying to imagine recording a solo guitarist with
18 mics!

Nice example, Jenn.. and if he comes back and says fewer
mics are required for solo guitar, then he's effecively
already said solo guitar MUST be considered "****-poor
live performance".

I think that ol' Arny is just pulling everyone's leg.

No, you were pulling someone's leg with that mention of a solo guitar.

One of your students come to mind?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
oups.com
Jenn wrote:

I think that ol' Arny is just pulling everyone's leg.

Can you objectively prove that he has a sense of humor?

You mean you can't hear me laughing at you?

LOL! ;-)