I know there are many newer mic from China and Russia these days. But
after owning and test dozens of mics, I still love my AT811 and really
like the fact its battery driven. If your ever in a situation where
fantom power is not available, then what good is a MK-O12? In fact, I
like the AT811 sound better than anything Octava makes, wider and
quicker freq response and less "edgy" than a MK-012 .

All the Best, Ron..

great river wrote:
I know there are many newer mic from China and Russia these days. But
after owning and test dozens of mics, I still love my AT811 and really
like the fact its battery driven. If your ever in a situation where
fantom power is not available, then what good is a MK-O12? In fact, I
like the AT811 sound better than anything Octava makes, wider and
quicker freq response and less "edgy" than a MK-012 .

All the Best, Ron..

OK...
I give...
What the hell is an AT811? No sign of it on the AudioTechnica website.

Andy

Never mind. I googled it, and discovered it to be an '80s vintage A-T
small diaphragm condensor.

I know there are many newer mic from China and Russia these days. But

after owning and test dozens of mics, I still love my AT811 and really
like the fact its battery driven. If your ever in a situation where
fantom power is not available, then what good is a MK-O12?

I'm not sure what good an MK-012 is in any situation regardless, but I
do know that a situation without phantom power is not one I would be
finding myself in. All other things being equal, a battery powered
condenser mic will be noisier than its phantom powered counterpart, so
I don't see that as anything advantageous. Not dissing your AT811,
I've never used one, but the fact of it being battery operated is not
much of a selling point, IMO.

Scott Fraser

................actually it's 1.5 volt AND 48 volt phantom powerable, so best
of both worlds ! And if you like the 811 try a pair of the omni ATM
10a's...they're nice for a room mic with good bottom end. Being electrets
I'm waiting for the charge on the diaphragm to give up one day,,and get
noisy. In the meantime they are good mics..if you can still find a pair ?
Ray
---------------------
"Scott Fraser" wrote in message
oups.comu...
I know there are many newer mic from China and Russia these days. But

after owning and test dozens of mics, I still love my AT811 and really
like the fact its battery driven. If your ever in a situation where
fantom power is not available, then what good is a MK-O12?

I'm not sure what good an MK-012 is in any situation regardless, but I
do know that a situation without phantom power is not one I would be
finding myself in. All other things being equal, a battery powered
condenser mic will be noisier than its phantom powered counterpart, so
I don't see that as anything advantageous. Not dissing your AT811,
I've never used one, but the fact of it being battery operated is not
much of a selling point, IMO.

Scott Fraser

.actually it's 1.5 volt AND 48 volt phantom powerable, so best
of both worlds !

Good. I'd recommend using them with phantom in all cases.

Scott Fraser

I've been using them since the early 80's. They started as the ATM 11
and then changed the name (but not the mic) to 811. As the original
post says, they are quite mellow, not the least bit edgy. I like them
for using on stage for acoustic instruments (guitar, viollin, mandolin,
marimba etc.). They do a pretty good job of rejecting off axis sound.
They produce a very pleasant full sound on an acoustic guitar (from
about 9 inches they have lots of warm bass).

I've also used them in the past for recording with non phantom powered
systems, right into a video camera, cassette, mini disk, or directly
into our Kurzweil. It's nice to have one decent mic that works with
consumer equipment without phantom.

By the way, mine does not work with Phantom!

That said, they aren't normally as good as any of the current breed of
inexpensive condensers I have (I don't have Octavas or any of the other
under $200 condensers). They don't have the clarity or high end I
really need for most situations.

I can imagine situations where they would be great (my glockenspeil for
instance is hideously shrill, the musical saw we use has too much
scratchy high end, and my woodblocks have too much click when played
with regular sticks).
These are the circumstances I usually use a Beyer M88, or AKG 414 ULS,
or Rode NT1.

I'm sure the noise floor is higher than comparable phantom powered
mics, but it isn't that bad and works fine with normal volume
instruments. I've even found it acceptable for gathering sound effects
from quiet sources (the wind, a pond full of frogs etc.).

There is no pad (or hi pass filter), and they easily distort at high
volume. They don't work as a close mic on toms or trumpet for
instance.

Ken Winokur

wrote:
I've been using them since the early 80's. They started as the ATM 11
and then changed the name (but not the mic) to 811. As the original
post says, they are quite mellow, not the least bit edgy. I like them
for using on stage for acoustic instruments (guitar, viollin, mandolin,
marimba etc.).

Among the cheap AT mics, I'd rather use a Pro37 for any of those
instruments on stage. Well, I wouldn't use a Pro37 on acoustic guitar,
but I wouldn't use an ATM11 on it either.

I've got a pair each of the ATM10s (omni) and the ATM11s (cardioid), and
frankly I've never found them to be particularly useful on anything.
They are by far the least used mics in my possession.

I'm glad to hear that some people find them useful. (Heck, make me an
offer! g)

BTW, mine are phantom-powered only.

"Jim Gilliland" wrote in message
news:43b4506a$0$5778

I've got a pair each of the ATM10s (omni) and the ATM11s (cardioid), and
frankly I've never found them to be particularly useful on anything.
They are by far the least used mics in my possession.

I'm glad to hear that some people find them useful.

Anyone know what the relationship of these mics to the ATM91?

Peace,
Paul

Paul Stamler wrote:

Anyone know what the relationship of these mics to the ATM91?

Sold by the same company. g

If you believe the frequency respnse graph (no axis labels) on the
audio-technica Vocal/Instrument Microphone Selector slide rule that I
have, the ATM91 is quite flat with a low end rolloff, the ATM11 starts
rising from the low end and keeps going until it drops off at the top.

The slide rule ranks each mic as 1-2-3 for appropriateness for various
sources. The ATM11 gets a "1" for reeds, brass, acoustic guitar,
acoustic bass, hi-hat, drum overhead, and piano. It doesn't even get a
rating for vocals, and doesn't get any "3" ratings.

The ATM91, which must be a "vocal" mic for Reason #1 (it has a ball
windscreen - Reason #2 for a mic being good for vocals is that it's a
large diaphragm condenser mic) only gets a "2" for vocals. It gets a
"1" for flute and "3" for reeds. I guess they don't like it very much.

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
oups.com...

If you believe the frequency respnse graph (no axis labels) on the
audio-technica Vocal/Instrument Microphone Selector slide rule that I
have, the ATM91 is quite flat with a low end rolloff, the ATM11 starts
rising from the low end and keeps going until it drops off at the top.

That accords with my memory of the ATM91.

The slide rule ranks each mic as 1-2-3 for appropriateness for various
sources. The ATM11 gets a "1" for reeds, brass, acoustic guitar,
acoustic bass, hi-hat, drum overhead, and piano. It doesn't even get a
rating for vocals, and doesn't get any "3" ratings.

The ATM91, which must be a "vocal" mic for Reason #1 (it has a ball
windscreen - Reason #2 for a mic being good for vocals is that it's a
large diaphragm condenser mic) only gets a "2" for vocals. It gets a
"1" for flute and "3" for reeds. I guess they don't like it very much.

I'd give it a zero for vocals -- the ball screen provides approximately no
attenuation of P-pops and breath noises. On the other hand, it turned out to
be useful in most of the places you'd use a small-diaphragm condenser. A
hair noisy, but on a dreadnought guitar or banjo you'd never notice.

Peace,
Paul