The 4033 is real good mic. I think it is better than the 4040.

Well, it's hard to say that one is better than another -

The 4033 has a meatier, chunkier sound.

The 4040 has a smoother, cleaner sound.

It's your choice.

J.

I would not consider the 4040 as a primary anything mic. It is a nickel diaphram like the 4047. Nickels are a bit strident, especially the 4040 for vocals in my experience. I would use the 4040 as an overhead though.

At one time I had every mic that AT made. They are all gone now. The 4033 is a toy compared to other mics in the studio. I would save my money and buy something bit more tasty.

I never saw the value in those Russian mics. Those things are known to be inconsistant from mic to mic. But, I take into consideration that their economy was not driven by free market competition in the marketplace, so they didn't have to be any better than what they are. Now it's a whole new ball game for all manufacturers over there.

Sheet,

What do you recommend?

sheet wrote: I would not consider the 4040 as a primary anything mic. It is a nickel diaphram like the 4047. Nickels are a bit strident, especially the 4040 for vocals in my experience. I would use the 4040 as an overhead though.

At one time I had every mic that AT made. They are all gone now. The 4033 is a toy compared to other mics in the studio. I would save my money and buy something bit more tasty.

I never saw the value in those Russian mics. Those things are known to be inconsistant from mic to mic. But, I take into consideration that their economy was not driven by free market competition in the marketplace, so they didn't have to be any better than what they are. Now it's a whole new ball game for all manufacturers over there.

Pardon me while I FART!

I may seem overly P.O.'ed about this one, but here goes:

This post is useless! What good is done by stating that the mics suck without providing alternatives or any GOOD reason why you feel that they suck?

First of all - your information is just dead wrong. The diaphragm is gold sputtered on mylar. Only the baffle is nickel and even then, it's a combo of nickel and brass.

Second, where do you get the notion that nickel diaphragm mics are strident? The only ones that I know of that actually use nickel are Microtech Gefell and some DPA mics. Neither of these fit the profile of "strident." Accurate - yes: clean - yes; strident - no.

Then to say that you got rid of all of your AT mics!!!

Why?

Even the most amatuer poster here realizes that virtually no mic is useless if used correctly.

And please don't come back with the response that the only real vocal mic is the Brauner Valvet or the Neumann 149.

Sorry,

Jeremy

Thanks, Jeremy!

I knew something wasn't right with that post because there wasn't an alternative offered. I don't know much about microphones, but I'm trying, and need all of the help I can get.

So far you, Kurt, and AudioGaff have recommended the 4033 and that is enough for me to say is it good.

Here is a kinda ignorant question, but what qualities should I look for in a mic when shopping? I know that freq response is a big thing, but what about build materials.

Nickel was mentioned above as a bad thing, but your response makes it seem like not such a bad thing....I'm confused.

Hey there TheRecordingArt,
I don't currently own any of the AT mics. I did have an opprotunity to use them very extensively though (a couple of projects that spanned several months). I found that the AT4033 was very useful on female vocals. And another AT mic I liked was the AT3035. It worked well for vocals and drum OH. Good Luck!

Hey Art:

Yeah, the AT mics are great mics. All of the 40 series are very viable mics for hundreds of applications. Are there better mics on the market? Well, for some applications, sure.

When shopping for a mic, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on "specs." First, no matter how honest the company, none of the specs are based on a little thing I like to call - "the truth." Not to say there aren't scrupulous manufacturers - simply that they're driven to provide these meaningless specs by the consumers who are all too quick to buy a product based solely on these arbitrary numbers. (Thanks Consumer Distorts!!)

Build quality says a lot about a company's product. Of course, there are only a couple ways to determine this.
1. Touch the mic yourself. Feel it, look at it, inspect it and use it. All of these will help you. If that means you have to waste the sales dude's time at GC poking through his mic selection for 2 hours, go for it. That's what they're paid for.
2. Take peoples opinions. (of course, be careful about this one. Just to illustrate a point, only a couple people on this board know me personally - to all others, I may as well be a blind, deaf, deformed individual that loves the sounds of frogs mating but couldn't care all that much about real music -- So, take everything with a grain of salt.

Company's Reputation - whether a company is easy to deal with (responds to e-mails, answers the phone when you call, etc.) How have their products fared over time? Do reviewers generally like them, or are there a lot of mixed reviews? One piece of advice - if there aren't any reviews it's either b/c the product is too new, or no one will touch it for fear that they'd give a horrible review.

My advice - find a dealer that will allow you to try the mic on your own. They do exist. If you like it, keep it. If not, send it back. I know, as a retailer myself, that I don't mind it if someone sends me a product back. Rather, I feel awful if they kept a product that sucks for their application. Also, a dealer that knows what you do and what gear you have is VERY helpful. They can make informed recommendations that will help you for the rest of your life...

As for the materials - Nickel isn't bad. Quite the contrary, it's quite a fine metal for microphonic use. The problem is, pure nickel is expensive and VERY fragile. Hand stretching it to make a diaphragm is tough and many pieces are often broken in the process. Mylar stretches MUCH easier.

The physical properties of nickel make it an ideal metal for transducer use. It is VERY light and VERY rigid. These are two qualities that help to reproduce frequencies with a bit more accuracy. With the proper backplate, damping is quite easy. Factor this in with the mass of the material and you have a very fast responding diaphragm. Nickel diaphragm mics are generally reserved for incredibly expensive measurement mics made by Gefell and DPA. The Gefell M29x series are the only mics that I'm aware of that use a 100% pure nickel (no fillers) diaphragm in recording mics. DPAs use a high nickel content diaphragm as well. Neither of these mics or mic companies could be considered anything less than world class.

I hope this helps.

J.

Studio Projects C1 for vocals. $200 bucks and cant go wrong.

I have the following mics

SM57
NTK
Oktave MC-012
MXL67G
AT4033
MXL 603
MXL 990
AKG D112

Not exactly top of the line but the AT4033 stands out above the rest as a vocal and instrument mic. It is very detailed.

I asked the same question on these forums a while ago and the opinion was split. Some liked the 4040 and some liked the 4033. I eventually found a good deal on a 4033 on eBay, so I got that one instead.

I absolutely love the 4033 (I've only tried it on male vocals, but between the three guys in the band, we have quite a range, from bass/baritone to a very high tenor). It sounds lovely and fits nicely in the mix without much/any EQ.

Thank you very much guys...and Jeremy...you are awesome! Thanks for the response because it was exactly what I was looking for.

I concur with Jeremy on the above. I love AT mics.

Anyway, yeah, the AT range is great. When I record vocals I generally choose the 4047, 4060 or Neumann U87. The thing about mics is that there is no 1-10 scale to judge them on, but I think the 4033 has more in common with the 4047 and U87 IMHO than the 4040. There's a sort of graininess in the 4033 and 4047 (depending on how you use them) that can be wonderful. I bought the 4047 instead of the 4033, but I'd be quite happy using either (not that they are interchangable). I think the 4040 is more neutral and depending on the voice, can work very well indeed.

One thing to bear in mind is the the 4040 and 4033 have slightly different real-world polar patterns and one or the other might feel more at home in your room if it has a strong acoustic characteristic. The 4033 and 4060 are audibly closer to text-book cardioid (the very first thing I noticed). That is not to imply in any way that one is superior to the other, just different in this regard.

If I were you, and there was any way to buy both I would do so. The cleaner sound of the 4040 is very nice.

There's a new mic by AT -the 4035, which is a 4050 in cardioid only mode. I've never heard this one, but you might look into it. I don't know if it really sounds like a 4050.

Enjoy whatever you buy!

John Stafford

my first mic was a 4033SE...now, i have 2 of them...it´s a very versatile mic, can work fine in several kind of voices and it´s pretty good in percussion...it´s what i call a poor man U87 :wink: i own an U87 myself too...

Aziel
I would definitely put the 4033 and 4047 in the same family as the U87. I don't suppose either of us will be ditching our ATs any time soon!

i purchased the 4040 a while back, it was one of my first mic's. i've used it on a number of appilcations and haven't been disappointed at all. team it up with a good pre and you can record male and female vocals, as well as a number of instruments, etc. i havent used the 4033, so i dont know the comparison, but if youre in the market for a great, versatile mic for under $500, i know you won't be disapointed.

Sweet...I have the GT Brick that has made my Oktava MK319 sound wonderful, so I can't wait to use a better mic.

I have owned tons of mics over the past too many years. I have a pair of AT4047s and a 4033. I am appalled that a moderator on RO would be so flip as to write them off as a cheap mic. Especially with the statement about nickel diaphragms...from one who regularly trashes anything that isn't DPA!
The 4033 DOES have a reputation as being a bit "bright" on certain voices. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have its place in a mic locker. I can tell you that the AT4047s are great at pretty much anything that I have thrown at them. Much smoother. Highly recommended. And I have seen them on sale at Full Compass and the like at substantial discounts....And when you hear or read someone trashing those mics, ask them this:"What do YOU own?"
PEACE...

moonbaby,

I am appalled that a moderator on RO would be so flip as to write them off as a cheap mic.

Two mods have weighed in on the subject (AudioGaff and Cucco), and both of them like the AT mics. Who were you talking about?

David, He's referring to Sheet.

BTW, I happen to love AT mics and I don't think you can go wrong with either one Art.

But sheet is not a moderator here.

Yeah he is of the Live Sound forum, at least I think he still is.

Oh my good God you're right! Oops! :oops:

Terribley sorry sheet. :(

moonbaby wrote: I have owned tons of mics over the past too many years. I have a pair of AT4047s and a 4033. I am appalled that a moderator on RO would be so flip as to write them off as a cheap mic.

Hey Moonbaby
Lots of people seem to think that the 4040 has a nickel diaphragm. Don't know how that came about though.

I don't know why the 4047 isn't more popular. If only it was multi-pattern :cry: Actually, a multi-pattern 4060 would be really unbelievable.

Hey mister Technica, if you're reading this, why do you only make one multi-pattern mic?

John

All mics have their own"color." What you need to do is decide what will work for you, based upon your "subjective" likes and dislikes" and, of course your budget. I frequently use 4033 and 4050, having 4@4033s and 2@4050s. But, I also frequently use KSM-27 (2@) and KSM-44 (2@) and others. I love Neuman and even some CAD Equitek units. If all else fails for you finding something you like, consider investing in the Antares AMM-1 Microphone Modeler. While not as good as the "real thing," you would be suprised at how well it does work for many applications, including taking an instrument that is recorded "direct" to that of live micing. I do own one, and do put it to use, more frequently in a post-edit application. You can check it out at http:// You can read a review at http://www.antarestech.com/news/reviews/AMM-EM.html

Just remember that everyone has an opinion, and "favorites or hate it," including me.

As far as the moderator is concerned,it was Sheet who voiced his disdain for A-T mics. He is certainly entitled to his opinion.
I heartily agree with Mr. Stafford as to the 4047. I always wondered why the guys at A-T didn't make this dual-diaphragm gem a multi-pattern marvel. Maybe it's because the 4050 fills that niche...
I am surprised the A-T's seem to "play 2nd fiddle" to all the SP and Rode mics on this site. I routinely run across professional engineers from Miami to Nashville who swear by the 4050,4060,4047, and even the 4033. They offer a very consistent
build quality at a price that may be a bit higher than the "el cheapos", but is very well worth it...

moonbaby wrote: ...I am surprised the A-T's seem to "play 2nd fiddle" to all the SP and Rode mics on this site. ...

I'm surprised by this statement...I always thought it was the other way around (that AT was generally considered superior to other similarly priced devices)...

Most of my favorite sounding recordings had a whole slew of ATs on them, , mostly from the 40 series....can't say the same for SP, Rodes, or others...but I will say an online buddy recently provided a scary comparison of the Rode K2 and Neumann M249...the differences were almost nil...

All in all, AT is one of the few constants...always reliable, and work in almost any situation

Looks like everyone has explained it very well, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

I have two 4040's and I love them as over heads on a kit. Super clear sound and sound great on the cymbals.

Unfortunatlly they're also my nicest most accurate mic's, so they get used as a vocal mic and on various other instruments. Yes, they are clean, but IMO are too bright and thin out your sound. I don't think they're warm enough or capture a natural full sound. I don't have an alternative, but that's my opinion on these mic's.

It's interesting that you characterize these as too bright and thinning out the sound. I've found them to be incredibly accurate without being overly bright. Yes, they have a very clear top end, but I find it a welcome contrast from the 2 following common scenarios:
1. Overly present and hyped top end (common on many budget mics)
2. Chunky low end and rolled off highs (common to many tube mics or wannabe tube mics.)

I've used it with a great deal of success on violin and clarinet - two instruments that would definitely be VERY adversely affected by brightness or thinning of sound.

Just my $.02 again. (By now, that puts me at about $674,235.00 that I've provided on this site - is anyone keeping track??) :lol:

J.

BTW... I'm going to weigh in here on another mic that hasn't even been mentioned in this thread anywhere, just to screw all of you guys up.

The Audix SCX-25.

It's a LDC that is quite unique and if you're looking for a GREAT all-in-one mic that sounds great on most anything - this is a great choice. It's also in line with the pricing that you'll find most ATs at too. Just a thought - it wouldn't hurt to check into this one.

J.

BTW... for any of you who are keeping close eye on posters - yes I am a dealer for Audix and no, it's not my intent to boost sales by posting this. The reason I'm a dealer for them is b/c I think their mics are fantastic and a better value than most anywhere near their price. Plus their made in the good ole US of A with German manufactured capsules.

Midlandmorgan:
Please don't misunderstand my last post. I LOVE AT mics! It's just that I have seen a great number of posts at this website that seemed to tout mics by SP and Rode to the exclusion of others (mainly A-T and ADK). This has irritated me a bit because I have found that my 4047s have equalled the performance of several German mics I have used over the years. And those who complain about the higher price...you definitely get what you pay for! My 2 cents...

I've used it with a great deal of success on violin and clarinet - two instruments that would definitely be VERY adversely affected by brightness or thinning of sound.

Perhaps these are the types of instruments best suited for the 4040. Possibly the mic's are not actually too bright, instead they don't accurately represent lower natural frequencies, giving the illusion of being too bright. Whatever it is, I don't think they represent a full natural warm range.

Possibly the mic's are not actually too bright, instead they don't accurately represent lower natural frequencies, giving the illusion of being too bright.

This could be true but it's more likely the accoustic space you're recording in. This can have a profound effect on how the mic sounds. Jeremy is recording in some of the finest concert halls around the DC area. I of course don't know how accurate your space is but if it's anything like mine the Kenedy Center it ain't.

My .02 cents is being charged back to Jeremy. :lol:

I agree with you Moon...

I think the favoritisms of certain products is different at each forum to a degree...some forums tend to see ATs as relatively inexpensive miracles...here they seem to be commented on in the "also" category...

Me? Gimme an AT any day, and I'll make it work. Judt my preferences, really, just as others have theirs...

I think that Big-D has a good point regarding the room's end effect on the sound of the mic. The AT4047's frequency plot shows a bit more extension in the low end, especially compared to the 4033. My 4033's "sound" compared to the 4047 certainly bares this out. It does sound a bit "bright" on some voices, but that is because the LF extension is not as great. Now I want to get a pair of 4050's!!

ive found that when i get a really thin sound its more the fault of the mic pre then the mic.

Good point. I have had questioned my preamp choice at times, and I have had that issue with other mics(RE-20s, etc.) in the past. But my "main" pre is a late 70's Neve Melbourne, a 12-channel broadcast console, with 8 mono "buckets" and (4) stereo line input strips. The input transformers are pretty stable with the AT mics, not so much with the RE-20s. Don't know why. And the low end isn't as good because these pre's were designed more for voiceover work then fullrange audio. They don't use the same trannies and opamps as the "big boards" Rupert designed. Well, nothing in life is fair, is it?

makes me wonder if you would be better off selling it and get a few better outboard pre's

frob wrote: makes me wonder if you would be better off selling it and get a few better outboard pre's

Sometimes it just takes a decent line-amplifier to lend "focus" to the signal.

Even some the most popular mic pre's sacrifice focus for the presence of dimension.

Adding an analog solid state or tube driven line amplifier to a signal path is sometimes all that's needed to lend just the right treatment to a signal that needs to be cradled just a little.

Cucco wrote: [quote=sheet]I would not consider the 4040 as a primary anything mic. It is a nickel diaphram like the 4047. Nickels are a bit strident, especially the 4040 for vocals in my experience. I would use the 4040 as an overhead though.

At one time I had every mic that AT made. They are all gone now. The 4033 is a toy compared to other mics in the studio. I would save my money and buy something bit more tasty.

I never saw the value in those Russian mics. Those things are known to be inconsistant from mic to mic. But, I take into consideration that their economy was not driven by free market competition in the marketplace, so they didn't have to be any better than what they are. Now it's a whole new ball game for all manufacturers over there.

Pardon me while I FART!

I may seem overly P.O.'ed about this one, but here goes:

This post is useless! What good is done by stating that the mics suck without providing alternatives or any GOOD reason why you feel that they suck?

First of all - your information is just dead wrong. The diaphragm is gold sputtered on mylar. Only the baffle is nickel and even then, it's a combo of nickel and brass.

Second, where do you get the notion that nickel diaphragm mics are strident? The only ones that I know of that actually use nickel are Microtech Gefell and some DPA mics. Neither of these fit the profile of "strident." Accurate - yes: clean - yes; strident - no.

Then to say that you got rid of all of your AT mics!!!

Why?

Even the most amatuer poster here realizes that virtually no mic is useless if used correctly.

And please don't come back with the response that the only real vocal mic is the Brauner Valvet or the Neumann 149.

Sorry,

Jeremy

Pull your head out. I didn't say that they suck for everything. They are good for some things. I used the 4040's on toms, overheads, piano. The 4047's are great for plucked stand up bass, overheads, outside of the kick, basically any place that you would use a fet47, except for bowed bass. It is VERY cheap sounding compared to the Neumann. I tried them on vocals and didn't care for them, male or female. Just as I would never use a any nickle mic for vocals, I would not use an AT. That's my experience and opinion.

I am not a hobbiest, so I have access to great mics. Compared to price is no object lockers, I thought the majority of the AT's sounded like toys, and the ones that did not did not have enough quantifiable differences between them to keep them all. The exceptions would be the 4060 and the 4047.

Some of you guys may pick up a 4033, and because of your situation and exposure, may find it the best thing in the world. I am not there so I do not.

Recommending a good vocal mic is impossible. Who's vocals are they for? Are they for male alone? Female? Rock? Pop? Jazz? Classical? There is no mic that will do it all. The voice is a unique instrument that can bring out the best or the worst in any mic. Some great records have been made with a 57!