For the most part, the higher the quality of the mic, the more transparent its characteristics are likely to be. I say "likely", because there are exceptions...there are some high caliber mics that offer their own "coloration", and they are prized because of the coloration that they offer.

Some condensers, even some higher priced models, will have slight presence bumps in the upper frequency ranges, but this shouldn't really deter you, because if the mic is a quality mic, those slight bumps won't really matter much by the time you add EQ relative to what you are tracking... and very few engineers won't add or subtract EQ on a mic regardless of which upper level model they use, because, especially with vocals, each individual is different in their own inherent timbre.

You should be more concerned with the quality of the build... the diaphragm, the wiring, transformers (where applicable), polar response(s), pads, filters, body construction...

Nuemann, AKG, AT, and several other manufacturers all make a full line of exceptional condenser mics.

I would stay away from the current crop of cheap Chinese condensers. Don't be fooled by appearances. Some of these cheap mics can look awfully similar to the big boys, and in fact, that is done on purpose to fool the untrained consumer into thinking that because it looks like a Neumann, that it must sound like one.

Because vocals are on your list of things you want to record, I'd personally suggest a Large Diaphragm condenser (LD) as opposed to a Small Diaphragm (SD).

How much are you looking at spending? Because if you have enough money, you may also want to look into Ribbon mics as a possibility...

SM57? really, i like a pair of 414s.
those will do everything you listed
very well .

As Donny has indicated, we need to know what budget level you are working at. There's no single microphone that will fit everything, so you may have to make an early decision: do I get a general-purpose mic that will for now give reasonable results on most sources, or do I get a mic that is excellent for certain things (e.g. vocals) and will be so-so at others, knowing that I can buy complementary mics later to cover the other areas?

Kurt pointed out the Shure SM57, which would fit in the first category, although it is excellent at certain things like guitar cabinet and snare drum miking. If you were going for a dynamic mic, I would certainly consider the SM57 along with others such as the EV RE20 and the Sennheiser MD421.

In the area of condenser mics, these are divided into large diaphragm and small diaphragm types, although there are others such as the AT 4033A that are medium diaphragm. As a rather over-simplification, the large diaphragm types work well on single-point sound sources such as a singer, and, mainly because of their better off-axis sounds, the small diaphragm types get used where the sound source is spread over a larger area, such as the overhead mics on a drum kit.

Ribbon mics are the interesting type, as they can work well with a lot of different sources, and the Speck pre-amp certainly has enough gain to cater for almost any ribbon mic. However, I would be a little wary of choosing even a high-quality ribbon as my only microphone, particularly where the room acoustics may not be entirely suited to their use.

A few more questions: How large is the group of flutes that you would want to record, as you should normally be recording that sort of source in stereo (needing two mics and a two-channel pre-amp)? Are the kitchen instruments to be recorded in a kitchen or under your studio conditions?

Once you come back to us with an idea of the price bracket you are thinking of, we can be a bit more specific about microphone models in the different types.

Buying a Mic is a bit like buying shoes. There's many who will fit but only a few will suite your feet. + if you choose wrong you might hurt your feet for a long time!

If the vocal your are going to record is only yours, go in a store and blind test any large Diaphragm condenser around your price limit. (bring you favorite headphones and make the seller plug them to a mixer without fancy preamps or effect and with a flat EQ.

If you record friends or customers, you need a few mics to have some alternative or the best all around mic you can afford. The places not to go cheap in a studio is : the mic, cables, preamp, studio monitors and audio interface.

Good thing is, if you invest in a quality mic and take care of it, it can last a life time.

Please tell us you price limit, it will help us give you some suggestions.

Ribbon mics are the interesting type, as they can work well with a lot of different sources, and the Speck pre-amp certainly has enough gain to cater for almost any ribbon mic. However, I would be a little wary of choosing even a high-quality ribbon as my only microphone, particularly where the room acoustics may not be entirely suited to their use.

Absolutely agreed. I guess I was focusing on potential vocal use, and the fact that the OP mentioned that their room had been acoustically balanced.

As far as an all-round mic, there really is no "one mic fits all", although you can hedge your bets with several models and come pretty close.

Affordability wise, one of my favorites is the AKG 414. Last time I checked, they run just shy of a grand or so, and can be used in virtually endless miking apps. Great for vocals, great for acoustic instruments, great for drum overheads (LOL..get 2!) I think the 414 is probably one of my most popular "go-to's" when it comes to mic choices for almost any miking app I can think of.

But as Boswell mentioned, having a couple of nice dynamics in your locker is a good idea too... having a few are a kind of "must have" for things like guitar cabinets, kick drums, toms, snares, and even vocals.

The Shure SM57/58's are tried and true, you'll find them in any common studio, both project level and pro alike, and they won't cost you an arm and a leg.

Another one of my favorite mics, as Boswell also mentioned, is the EV RE20. It's an outstanding all-purpose mic...a Variable-D type dynamic; great for kick drum, horns, vocals, amps...

It would help to know what budget you are working with.

-d.

trana, post: 402488 wrote: I have this setup : Windows 7 64 bit 16GB RAM . Motu UltraLite mk3 hybrid + Mytek Stereo96 DAC .Dynaudio BM5A MKII.
Gonna buy Mytek Stereo 96ADC + Speck micPre 5.0 .
I have a small homestudio room with acoustic treatment, so it sounds balanced .
I have been looking for mic´s , but it´s a jungle for me that never had recorded before .
I´m going to record flutes some vocals , sounds I make from non instruments like kitchen tools , all sorts of odd sounds I can find out .
What sort of mic shall I choose for that purpose ?
I want a mic with a non colored clean sound .
Would be grateful for some advice .

To add some more opinions into the mix,

Because you are using some pretty sweet ADC's I'm guessing you aren't goofing around with mid level audio accuracy so DPA is what I'd be shooting for without a doubt. Also, I see you are "going to buy" the Mytek Stereo 96ADC plus a pre so I would suggests demoing the Lavry AD11 mic/pre usb combo. Its really nice for what you are planning on too and may save you some money for better mics.

DPA's will capture all these flavours from vocals to ultra fast attack transient and peaks with pristine precision. Not cheap though nd since you have never recording, this may be way over the top for you.

The CAD E100S is a very clean mic. No BS with this puppy.

I've used mine on kick, bass, guitar, etc. Very true to the sound....good, bad or otherwise!

Thanks for all advices .
My budget for mic is at least 1500 USD .
I have compared different converters and for me Mytek is outstanding , exactly the sound I´ve searched for .
Mytek improved the sound from my Motu enormously !!!
Why I choosed Speck is that I got a very good price from a friend , I don´t remember but it was at least half the price on the market.

I forgot this: I´m only going to record one instrument at a time .
Do I need a 2 channel pre and 2 mics then ?
Even the kitchen instr. am I going to record in my llittle studio .

you may or may not need to grow in the future and if you do expand your capability you will be glad if you get everything in pairs right from the start. the medium is stereo.

i think the best all around mic for anything has got to be the 414. it comes in two different versions

414XLII
or the 414XLS .

either would be a good choice imho .

geerhakerz.com/salez_bs wrote:
"The 5-pattern C 414 has been one of the most universal and versatile large diaphragm microphone for decades — widely used for accurate, exquisitely detailed pickup of acoustic instruments.

The C 414 XL II (the successor of the famous C 414 B-TL II) differs from the C 414 XLS by offering a slight presence boost and by providing the spatial reproduction capability of the legendary AKG C 12 microphone.

The C 414 XLS is an astonishing microphone. Engineered for highest linearity and neutral sound, it maintains the reliable sonic character of the legendary C 414 B-ULS (the longest-lived C 414 model) while introducing some astonishing new features."

trana, post: 402532 wrote: I forgot this: I´m only going to record one instrument at a time .
Do I need a 2 channel pre and 2 mics then ?
Even the kitchen instr. am I going to record in my llittle studio .

Perhaps, but you can still use multi mic arrays with one instrument.

just a few examples:

acoustic guitar... you can place one mic pointing at the bridge and another pointed towards the neck. An X-Y pattern is great for this, and will add depth and dimension that using only one mic will not.

amps... one mic on the amp and another back into the room... you need a decent room for this, but it can add a space and ambiance that is very pleasing.

drums.... X-Y, A-B or ORTF on the overheads... yes, it's just "one" kit, but you actually have several different instruments within that one kit. You can track it in stereo that will, again, add incredible depth and space... hi hat to the left, ride cymbal to the right, toms moving in same direction through the stereo field, not to mention the sound of the kit as a whole within the space it is played in.

As Kurt mentioned, it's a stereo world. Having two 414's at your disposal would be a great thing. And yes, if you are using two mics, you will need an audio I/O with at least two channels that you can track at the same time.

My recommendation is to do research on multiple mic/stereo arrays. It will open up a whole new world for you. I promise.

start here:

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.deltamed…"]STEREO MICROPHONE TECHNIQUES[/]="http://www.deltamed…"]STEREO MICROPHONE TECHNIQUES[/]

fwiw
-d.

Many times I have heard folks ask for a clean mic when in fact they where very happy with a great mc and pre set up.
One friend on mine was always telling me he want a mic that was clean only wanted to hear what was preformed. he spent thousands of dollars chasing that. In the end it was a Lawson that won his heart.
I think and I could be wrong but more often then not it the detail people are wanting to hear? In my experience I don't get that with the bargain mic.
on a side note i do not place all dynamic mic in the bargain category either. personally i feel dynamic are very under rated mic and they are very affordable mics, real bargain and gems to be had in this category of mics. not saying thats what you will want but they are very hand and if you are going to be doing some of these things you talking about it might be worth grabbing a few.
probably look at a Speck, Maag, Forssell, pre or something it this venue, I do not have a speck but I am familiar with Vince work and he is great, the Maag and Forssell get used here and most with dynamic mics: ) .

As a gambling man I would bet a high quality pre and mic would make you happy, but budget maybe an issue?

Pan's got a very good point. Many times a great dynamic mic will be a better fit than a condenser. I can tell you that one of the best flute mics ever made is the Sennheiser MD-441, a mic I recently acquired for my locker. I used one for several years working with a jazz flautist (R.I.P, Ronnie Knight), and it served well on all sorts of acoustic instruments as well as voice. Unreal detail for a dynamic, but with a tighter pattern to isolate the room from the source. Plus, it takes less preamp gain than many other dynamics to bring it up.

Slightly off topic, but following on from Moon's post, [URL="(dead link removed)[/URL]'s a piece by Barry Rudolph about the 1975 recording of the drumkit on the Hall & Oates song "Sara smile", where he used only SM57s to mic the kit.

Today in the digital environment, with our incredible capabilities of our software to all have the ability to go beyond 24 tracks, has allowed the stereo miking of most everything a reality today. And anything with a pair of microphones on it or more, will provide a 3-D stereo soundscape for even greater spacious stereo sounding recordings and mixes.

While I have usually purchased most of my microphones in pairs or even multiple pairs, it's not unusual to use to diametrically opposite sounding microphones for even more interesting stereo textures of single points sound source instruments. MS techniques can even be employed, even where MS microphone, close proximity capsules are not within close proximity of each other. This is where one could simply assign one of those microphones as a Middle designated microphone and the other which could be some distance away as the Side, microphone, even when it wasn't. And utilizing a MS to Left/right matrix decoder can offer up some really incredible ambience stereo and intimate sounding tracks. And where we can then produce some incredible Stereophonic sounding productions beyond the limitations of 24 tracks.

In the end, we do whatever it takes to get whatever it takes of whatever takes of the takes we use and take, to take full advantage of my new timing differentials to create spacious stereo effects and tracks. Of course, during this process, you'll also want to keep checking for Mono, left combined with right compatibility. Something you've made to sound incredibly wide and spacious can virtually cancel out and disappear in monaural from say a table radio or, simple card radio. And I know a lot of very hip, talented, slick, engineers, that never bothered to do that. But that's probably also because, they've learned what not to do earlier on? My large background in FM and television audio just keeps me making sure my stereo, in Mono, is still kosher.

A lot of us had to work strictly in Mono, back in the day. Stereo was just more icing than the cake itself.
Mx. Remy Ann David

sm 81's deserve some love. AT3035's i recommend on budget. 414s i have one xls (the mid2000's on that doesn't have the blue logo), may have been bought before harmon secured akg?, and love it. lot's of realavent choices mentioned.

Buy a used Neumann TLM193. Flattest mic I've ever heard. Everything sounds completely real. Since this isnt even close to your budget, you'll have a few hundred left to buy a nice pair of SDC's....Shure SM81's will do it. Or a really nice dynamic. EV RE20, Heil PR40, Shure SM7b, Sennheiser MD 441/421. Pair of used AKG 414's is a great idea. Recently I have heard the MikTek CV-4. This is a very very nice mic for nearly everything. But if you REALLY want FLAT...TLM-193. done.

I'm gonna throw this out there and see if the cat licks it up, so to speak - and it's just a personal thought and not intended as advice, so put your flame throwers down, please...

"Flat" and "pleasant" aren't always the same thing.

Yeah, having a transparent mic can indeed offer you that "neutral" foundation from which to start and then add your own sonic coloration, but we're not always looking for a "neutral" starting place... while we may strive to make our environments as lab-spec based as we can, we don't always want "flat". While we may look at our foundations as colorless, our end results are anything but colorless, or at least we hope that they aren't colorless.

What most strive for isn't necessarily "flatness" or "transparency" in their final mixes - We want the colors, those sonic textures that particular gear can offer - certain pre amps, compressors, EQ's...and yes, mics are in this equation too... one need only look to classic mics of history to see (or hear) this... U67's, 47's, C12's, RCA and Royer Ribbons, etc., etc., .... all these mics had their own particular sonic signatures and are/were prized because of them.

In the end, often times, those pleasant tones we seek are derived from a neutral/flat source, but many other times, they are not.

IMHO of course.
-d.

Thanks for all advices. I have a lot to try.
I got one more tip : Audio-Technica 4050.
What is your opinion ?

Thanks for all advices. I have a lot to try.
I got one more tip : Audio-Technica 4050.
What is your opinion ?

The 4050 is a good mic. Again, it's really going to depend on what you want to do, but it's a solid condenser with good features, 80hz hi pass, -10db pad, cardioid, omni and figure 8 patterns.

It would be useful in many different applications.

I have a pair of 4050's. They have held up well and are very flexible. I think of them more as "neutral" rather than "flat".

Yeah, neutral as in neutered. A great subservient servant, that can't get you into trouble of a certain known variety. Covering all the bases which got you in trouble to begin with. So when you need to have something recorded, you need to have the microphone just there. And that's one of those kind of there sounding microphones. A.k.a. the common Japanese sound. Always known to be very consistent and delicate like the petals of the cherry blossoms about to bloom by the waterfront on the river in Washington DC. And where a couple of days later, the petals fall off and no one can even remember what it looked like. Because they were just there when you needed them to be there and that was about it.

So while that microphone can capture a beautiful neutral character, it is in fact just that... without character. Now, what's the real need for that? What about the color? Cherry blossoms are cool but can you tell one from the other? Of course not. They all look alike. Just like from where the people they came from LOL. I mean it's really awful when you have a couple of Asian friends and every time you bump into them on the street, your brain does a double take being a stupid American Caucasian like myself. Even Margaret Cho jokes about that. So why do ya want a neutral microphone? What about something that has color or is recognizable? Something with some known Mojo? It's like you're my mother? She liked to paint everything white. No rooms in the house should be painted anything else other than white. I painted my bedroom dark blue and gold. It was psychedelic! Shouldn't your microphone also be on LSD? Lucy in the sky with diamonds only made sense to the four-year-old that created it and the LSD dropping songwriter that wasn't writing about LSD or so the story goes? But who the hell could remember? It was LSD! And so I think he was hallucinating that he wasn't writing about LSD? While probably on LSD? Or just pot? Which he was known to do thanks to Bob Dylan or so that story goes. Yeah... right... sure. It wasn't Bob Dylan! It was Willie Nelson! Jimmy Buffett? Well something like that I can't remember? Too much pot. Makes you too good, at what you do. I guess because many jurisdictions are now legalizing it, we can begin to talk about it?

Doing any kind of drugs, just like driving crazy or driving normally can have their own detrimental effects upon your life and the life of others. I think for those crazy geniuses whose brains don't work like others, it may have inspired great inspiration? At the same time, it inspires nothing but failure for others. And which was obviously the legitimate argument against it even though I was for it, for both medicinal, creative and recreational purposes when done in moderation. An audio recording is no different. I had just as many people to become useless screw ups on marijuana as I do know those others whose genius switch, switches on. I was one of those hyperactive, ADD kids of the early diagnosis of that syndrome. As a result, I was pumped full of amphetamines. Where the amphetamines worked in reverse in a preadolescent child. When I hit adolescence, the speed worked like speed and I could not tolerate that. I can't do caffeine even. And the medical community offered up no viable, focusing and calming medications other than various different versions of speed. I was already an engineer and I had to find a workaround. I had no interest in taking any drugs of any sort that all of my friends were imbibing upon. Speed, LSD, mescaline, cocaine, were very popular, still are. It was just as awful (sounding) as anything the legitimate medical community would give me. Certainly a no go. But there was this other stuff. This perfectly beautiful, neutral, natural, God-given creation (and I'm an atheist must be clear about that) called Mary Wanna? Who's that? Did she create something differently from Dr. Timothy Leary? Oh yes she did! And that was the viable, medicinal replacement I needed, had to have. It was the only thing that would calm down the hyperactive and allow me to focus beyond even where the amphetamines had taken me earlier. My designing and troubleshooting skills advanced exponentially. My music and voice recording skills/technique also went through a fourth dimensional parallelism. It changed my hearing acuteness or rather allowed my brain the time to process that which I was hearing? There was no other way I could have designed and built a large frame, 24 track recording console, from scratch without this additional fourth dimensional perception. And that's time. I transcended the time it would have taken me to have learned that over a period of years in a matter of minutes. It was like science fiction! It's like every time I drive by one of those places that says " PSYCHIC " or like that short-lived crime-fighting sitcom show called PSYCH, I laugh, because I know, it's true for me. Don't know how? I haven't got a clue? I was a complete underachiever in school like Bart Simpson. My hero. One of the best actors on the big screen. So I don't know how this works or why this works but I sure as hell would like to be involved in some of the research work, dammit! And the good that it does for the cancer patients on chemotherapy is undeniable.

It's reported in the news in recent years that HA-ADD has been on an exponential increase along with autism. And maybe all these kids need is some Cocoa Puffs laced with THC? Smothered in 100% lactose-free, ultra pasteurized, milk. As I also suffered from a terrible lactose intolerance OMG! Horrible stomach and intestinal cramps. And what are ya give a person is having that? Milk and lots of it. Jesus F. Christ! Talk about bad engineering! And this is how I've obtain some of my engineering skills as a troubleshooter, triage oriented identifier. So I stay away from dairy products unless I have the adapter called a lactose tablet. And that doesn't need any operating system other than my own. And what happened to me? They kept unplugging milk in only to come out with the same unsuccessful outcome, pain, more pain, continuous pain, gut wrenching pain, like dealing with operating systems on computers or digital audio. All sorts of pain. And then what do the doctors give you? Maalox, Milk of Magnesia, the ever so constipating Pepto-Bismol or is that Pepto-Abysmal? And then ya get the constipation with ever so exquisitely increased pain. Kind of like plug-ins. Plug-ins ya don't need, don't want, do nothing good for ya. It just provides a way to skirt around the need to learn how to do it yourself from your basic software. Which is easy to understand if there's not an app for that. LMAO and that's called a Catch-22. And they gotcha! Which only proves that we are those fools born every minute. And that business plan works all too well.

I like being stupid. It's good being stupid. You don't know that you're stupid.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Uh-Huh.

AT4050

trana, post: 402693 wrote: Thanks for all advices. I have a lot to try.
I got one more tip : Audio-Technica 4050.
What is your opinion ?

The advantage of a multi pattern mic like the 4050 is you get to try the different patterns for different situations. I think the Shure KSM44 is slightly less hard in the midrange, or maybe slightly more transparent. I would highly recommend you purchase a used pair of this type of mic to begin with. That way if you don't like them, sell them at almost the same price. (Ebay) The older KSM44 is really nice and sells at quite a discount to the KSM44A.

The advantage of the LDC for home recording is that the figure 8 configuration used in the XY Blumlein pattern seems to naturally cancel room resonance sounds that an omni or cardiod does not (negative phase on one side and positive on the other means common pressures on both sides cancel electronically-my deduction through experimentation).

The AT4050 looks way cooler in my opinion ;^) I kept the 4050ST cause I do like that mic for fast setup and recording of piano.

Remy lives in a different planet from your acoustic home recording venue I think (on a higher plane, but still, orthogonal to your needs), I say this because of the comment about a "characterless" sound. In a production mix, or a multitrack with many different textures and kinds of instruments (electronic and acoustic and voice) this may be something to worry about. Two channel recording of acoustic instruments... I think is a simpler world where less "color" is sometimes sought after. My opinion, for which I am ready to be flamed.

But just so you know. I set out 4 months ago thinking I'd find a good mic and be done with it, I now have a library of recordings of the following; AT4022, AT4021, AT4050, Rode NT5, Oktava MK-012, Shure KSM44, Gefell M296, MT800. All purchased used and many resold. Then you will find out that the rest of the chain will affect the sound sometimes as much (preamp, adc, sample rate, bit depth etc.) Oh, right - the system you play back on will also affect your interpretation of the sound. In my case Shure headphones make Shure mics sound better, AT headphones make AT mics sound better (go figure).

It's a process, not an end point.

If flat mics were preferable we'd all be using reference mics with calibration files.

The 4050 is a good mic, but it can be a bit brittle/sterile. I had a bit of a revelation when I connected one through a Solo 610. The mic took on a ton of character that seemed to be missing through more mundane preamps.

bouldersound, post: 402826 wrote: If flat mics were preferable we'd all be using reference mics with calibration files.

The 4050 is a good mic, but it can be a bit brittle/sterile. I had a bit of a revelation when I connected one through a Solo 610. The mic took on a ton of character that seemed to be missing through more mundane preamps.

so perhaps it's an issue with the mic pre?

Ya think? The 610 has a transformer at the front end, almost every mic I've tried with mine (including the 4050) came out
darker and fatter. But with another tube pre - an Aphex 107, transformerless - it was pretty transparent. That arrangement worked well for piano for a jazz festival last year. certainly not "brittle".

Kurt Foster, post: 402827 wrote: so perhaps it's an issue with the mic pre?

Right, the issue is that on ever other pre I've put them on (Tascam M2600II, Drawmer 1960, Seck 1282, Fostex 450, Symetrix SX202, Mackie 1604VLZ Pro & CR1604 etc.) 4050s sound a bit sterile and brittle but it sounds quite pleasant on the Solo 610. I've found the Solo 610 to soften and fatten things, for better or worse.

moonbaby, post: 402829 wrote: Ya think? The 610 has a transformer at the front end

That's likely the difference between the 610 and most or all of the other pres I listed. Maybe the 1960 has a xfmr.

none of the pres you mention (imo) are anything to write home about. most of them are electronically balanced, fixed gain type typically found in pre amps designed to a price point. in these pres, the pre amp actually amplifies the signal at one fixed point and the gain adjustment merely attenuates the output ..these would be the pres in all the consoles you mention including the mackies. i find very little difference between any of the mackies. vlz or the onyx. they are all very steril sounding. of the pres you bring up, the best would be the symetrics which is electronically balanced but uses a burr brown chip which aren't too bad ... these pres are found in Neotek consoles which a lot of people like because it is so transparent. the burr browns do help it warm up a bit in comparison.

the drawmer (of which i owned at one time) is horrible .. a real hiss factory. yes it's transformer balanced but if they are cheap transformers and / or a poorly implemented pre amp design even that won't save it. i bought a new one once and i sold it within a month ... a disgusting piece of gear.

the 610 is very ok but still not the exact same design Putnam built ... but much better than anything else you mentioned. with a pre like the 610 you can make it clean by keeping the input gain down and driving the output stage or you can saturate the signal by driving the input and attenuating the output. the transformers in this design have a lot to do with all of this.

I like the Drawmer as a compressor, not so much as a pre or direct. Yeah most of those are nothing special but I've gotten mundane pres to work well for me with all sorts of mics from SM57 to Peluso ELAM. The 4050s seem to benefit more from the 610's sound than some other mics.

I do wish I still had that Symetrix.

i hated the comp on the 1960 it sounded, for lack of a better description ... "rubbery" .. but to each his own. maybe i just didn't use it correctly.

i love drawmer gates .. but not the comps, at least not the 1960.

a good mic will sound better with a good pre .. weakest link and all that .. a 57 through a nice transformer balance pre can be a beautiful thing ...

Kurt Foster, post: 402842 wrote: a 57 through a nice transformer balance pre can be a beautiful thing ...

: )

I have quite a few Rode M1's , which I'm told are very similar to 58's ( I should get a few 58's here to compare, last time I had those was in the late 70's lol) Who'd ever think they were this great. I think I paid $55 for them back then. .
Anyway, I finally used the M1's with a Great River MP 2NV and I was blown away on how awesome they sounded. So ya! A $100 dynamic and a pre like this is definitely a beautiful thing indeed!

it must be time to pause and reflect ......:biggrin:

sounds like beer thirty!

Kurt Foster, post: 402842 wrote: i hated the comp on the 1960 it sounded, for lack of a better description ... "rubbery" .. but to each his own. maybe i just didn't use it correctly.

Yeah, I found it takes a bit of tweaking to get something I like. It doesn't do so well with larger amounts of reduction. But I do find uses for it.

bouldersound, post: 402831 wrote: Right, the issue is that on ever other pre I've put them on (Tascam M2600II, Drawmer 1960, Seck 1282, Fostex 450, Symetrix SX202, Mackie 1604VLZ Pro & CR1604 etc.) 4050s sound a bit sterile and brittle but it sounds quite pleasant on the Solo 610. I've found the Solo 610 to soften and fatten things, for better or worse.

I am pretty much with Kurt on this analogy having owned all but the VLZ. The 1960 is one of Drawmers' less effective boxes. Anything that needs even ten minutes of tweaking to get it to sound decent is something unusable for me. The 2600 Tascam is also a rather 'pinched' sounding pre...lots of knobs per square inch though...I have recorded several albums on a Seck. I will defend its ability to sound good...or at least sound like the source but you can't add much of its EQ or gain to the mix or it will collapse. As a straight in wire and distribution its really okay.The Fostex....I bought mine as a portable board for remotes. Grainy and no headroom. The Symetrix....I LOVE all things Symetrix. Not a better bargain in the gear world. Still. The Mackie is an okay board. A lot of cross-talk in the few I have used. The Allen&Heaths and Soundcraft Spirits were so much better...

So like all the KSM Shure mics and some of the AT's, the 4050 is a neutral mic greatly affected by the input. Or even closer to the truth is it ALLOWS the character of the mic amp to shine and has great enough response and sensitivity to not over power or diminish this. By the same token, it should be a mic that is true to the source (which it is). Neutered? I dont agree at all. Mics dont have to all be robust and colored and you certainly wouldn't need that in every situation. I personally like accurate FIRST, Sensitive next, and then if color is needed and not being represented at the source, I'll put up a mic with some color in it. The problem with 'color' is you have to live with it after the red light goes off so it had better be a color you absolutely want before you dial it in permanently.

As someone mentioned earlier, using the figure of 8 in a crappy room is sort of a neat way of eliminating....(well, not entirely), controlling the effects of comb filtering and build up of some nodes in a room. As long as you're not trying to record at 120dbs , this can work.

Ya see what I'm talking about Chris? It's magical. There's a reason why that sound is so popular. It just works. And I would imagine anything patterned after 57 & 58's probably aren't bad either? But I stick with what I know and what works as a given. But then again, I really don't care what microphone might be in use. I recorded this guy on his Heil that had blue LEDs that lit up from phantom power that wasn't necessary because it was a passive dynamic microphone not an active dynamic microphone. And it never once pop without an additional pop filter. It had a darker quality than a 58. Made this guy sound exactly like he should have. And I had never used a Heil. It was one of those real retro looking things resembling a 1953 Buick Grill.

See I'm not crazy.
Mx. Remy Ann David