HI everybody!
PLEASE HELP ME DECIDE!
NIC. from Argentina.
Comments
The Luna claims to be 'vintage' sounding. While I'm sure the Shu
The Luna claims to be 'vintage' sounding. While I'm sure the Shure is more detailed and of better quality, the lo-fi sound of the Luna may be something I'd be more interested in. A quirky little mic may stick around longer then a mic that is easily replaced by something that just does a better job at a particular sound.
This guy seems to have had a hands/ears on experience with solar
This guy seems to have had a hands/ears on experience with solaris
http://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=117972
Duardo, post: 98941 wrote: I think it would be interesting to he
Duardo, post: 98941 wrote: I think it would be interesting to hear from someone who has actually used both microphones.
-Duardo
Better late than never. i own both, and think that the Lunas sound just like the cardiod setting on the Solaris. Here's a soundfile of a stereo pair where the instruments are set up about 4 feet from the mics. It's an mp3 file, but still...
chrisfitzgeraldmusic.com/mp3/youdon'tknow.mp3
In short, I like them a lot. Since I'm more of a player than a recording guy, I feel that any advantage I might get from more expensive mics would be nullified by my lack of experience/technique at recording.
Thanks for that review. I think in the seven years since those p
Thanks for that review. I think in the seven years since those posts were made the quality of the M-Audio mics has been established. They are good selections at decent prices. They are NOT, however , found at those introductory prices of seven years hence.
By "both" microphones the previous poster was referring to the comparison mic, the Shure KSM 27 and not two of the M-Audio mics.
I haven't heard either, but Shure is a long time and well respec
I haven't heard either, but Shure is a long time and well respected microphone manufacturer and M-Audio just entered the marked like a year ago, so that may give you some idea. Just my opinion.