my current favs for acoustic are the Neumann 87, Rode Nt-5('s), and akg 414. i think the akg 451, and sure sm 81 would do quite well, but i haven't used them in that application.

i own an nt1a and it's honestly not seen much use, i just kinda don't like it, which is personal taste. it's nasally to me, on most things.

The nt-5 is a great, choice for acoustic gtrs, regardless of price point. The vocal aspect of your question is a whole other dimension.

if i were you, i'd pick the magic mic for your gtr which seems to be your primary need. if the same mic works on vocs, great, but vocals are so fickle that a $10 mic, or $25k mic could be the best.

in short, you'd be safe IMHO w/ an nt-5 (pair if your doing steroe acoustic), and an sm58. those are professional mics in the price range of a hobbyist.

OTOH, and I know it's beyond your price range, but you should look into the 414 at some point. It's a great all round mic, probably the best in its price class, a studio standard, and you can use it on everything with great results. It's also got a fig 8 pattern, which, if you were to set it up with another condenser cardioid mic, (like your C1000) would allow you to do M-S miking, which can sound fantastic on acoustic guitar.

You might be able to find one closer to your price range if you checked eBay. I don't think you'll grab one for $250, but ya never know, stranger things have happened over there.

There is generally a lot of love for 414's. They weren't my style. I prefer the sm81.

I should also add- feel free to convince me to keep using the AKG c1000 if you think its good for my needs. As stated I am a hobbyist and I dont need to spend 300$+ on something that I might not even notice a difference in. I recieved the c1000 from a friend and never seriously looked into anything else until now.

Paul999, post: 409575 wrote: There is generally a lot of love for 414's. They weren't my style. I prefer the sm81.

I think it probably all comes down to preference, Paul.

Both are great mics. I prefer the 414 on my own voice, and I say that as the owner of both the U87 and the U89i, along with an EV RE20, an AKG SolidTube.....and yet, 9 times out of 10, when I'm tracking my own vox, I reach for the 414....so go figure. ;)

And, as I stated, the 414 has a variety of patterns to choose from, one being a Figure 8, which would allow the user to try creative arrays like M-S miking, which to my ears, sounds very nice on acoustic instruments like guitar, mando and even drums.

And, we're kinda comparing apples to cantaloupes here....The SM81, while a great mic on it's own, is limited to that cardioid pattern.... but, respectfully and to be fair, it's also less than half the cost of the 414 (retail ).

I'm not saying I think it's a limited mic. For what it offers, and for the price - last time I checked it was around $300 U.S. - you'd be hard pressed to do much better. I've used them in X/Y coincidental pairs on drum kits, on string sections, and it performed wonderfully. In fact, I recently did a session as a hired gun at a studio where I used a pair of 81's about 6 ft back from a horn section - 2 saxes, 1 bone, 2 trumpets and man, I loved the "bite" I got using a pair of 81's in a coincidental array... brother, those mics performed great. I ended up bringing the direct mics for the horns so far down in the mix, that I could have gotten away with using just the 81's.

If given the choice, I'd prefer the 81 to an AKG C1000 almost anytime in terms of silk and subtle, smooth texture and nuance. I also think it's much more rugged than much of the AKG line. (leave it to Shure, right? The only mic you can use to pound roofing nails into your house and still go use it for a gig! thumb So, if I was doing field work, I'd probably opt for the 81, if I was doing work that required a uni directional mic.

Back to the 414... with my comments above, I need to be fair and state that my 414 is a lot older - it's the EB model, made around 1980 (?) or so. ( Lord, I've been at this a long time... ;)

I've used newer 414 models that seem a little less warmer, a bit less silkier than the older 414 models. The newer models seem to be a bit more "edgier" or "brighter" - at least to my ears - but, as I say that, we all know that there are so many variables hidden within that ludicrous statement I just made - LOL - ...the type of pre, the singer, the room, ... and let's face it, if it's a bit too bright, well, heck....that's what EQ is for, right? ;)

I believe that there is no such beast as an "end all - be all" microphone. I've done sessions with vocalists where we've tried the U87's, the 89's, the 414's... and ended up using a 57 or a 58.

All you can do is hedge your bets and get a mic that can come as close as possible to doing all the things you need it to do, without breaking your bank account, and IMHO, the 414 falls into that category, and without taking out a second mortgage. LOL

IMHO, of course.

jbourne84, post: 409580 wrote: I should also add- feel free to convince me to keep using the AKG c1000 if you think its good for my needs. As stated I am a hobbyist and I dont need to spend 300$+ on something that I might not even notice a difference in. I recieved the c1000 from a friend and never seriously looked into anything else until now.

The thing is, J, that it really all depends on the other gear in your processing and gain chain... your mic pre, your monitors, your processing...

If you're using a cheap Realtek soundcard, and listening back through a pair of $99 computer speakers, it's doubtful that you'd hear much difference between any mic, regardless of cost or quality.

Your audio chain is only as good as your weakest link, so if you are using budget gear with budget converters and cheap monitors - and also, your room comes into play here as well... (your listening/mixing environment is as crucial as all of these other things I've mentioned), then I doubt very much that you'd hear much of a difference between an $800 414, a $3000 U87, or a $150 C1000.

You mentioned that you were a "hobbyist"... so, what you are using now is probably just fine if you aren't looking at a pro release or thinking about hanging out a shingle as a studio.

But... you also mentioned that the acoustic guitar is a primary detail for you, and at some point, you might want to experiment with stereo or multi mic array recordings on that instrument to add space, depth and silk that you won't get as much of by using just one mic bused to a mono track. At that point, you'd be better off sticking with using the same mics for these multi mic arrays, so you could always add another C1000 without breaking the bank.

However... the C1000 is an SD Condenser (small diaphragm) and you won't get the same kind of "body" in your recordings that you will with an LD condenser.... At the very least, adding an LD of some kind would give you more tonal options when it comes to other recording apps like tracking vocals, guitar amps, upright bass, etc.

That being said, you'd be better off sticking with a quality made SD ( like another C1000, or, as Paul mentioned, a Shure 81, than you would buying a cheap Chinese made LD condenser that's made to resemble a high dollar Neumann but will just aggravate you by sounding brittle, harsh, and pretty nasty all the way around.

IMHO of course.

I know these may be a bit out of your price range but I really like the Mojave mics, particularly the MA200 and the MA201fet for acoustic guitar. The MA201fet is around $750, its one of those mics that you could have for life. I built the kit version of the MA200 which was a modded MXL2001 over 10 years ago and I still use it to this day. On the other hand I checked out a company called 12 Gauge Microphones, they are very cheap ($35 - $80 each depending on the model) and the demos sound fantastic. I ordered one but I have not received it yet so I don't yet know for sure. It definitely depends on your other gear too, interface, pre, etc.

DonnyThompson, post: 409581 wrote: I think it probably all comes down to preference, Paul.

Both are great mics. I prefer the 414 on my own voice, and I say that as the owner of both the U87 and the U89i, along with an EV RE20, an AKG SolidTube.....and yet, 9 times out of 10, when I'm tracking my own vox, I reach for the 414....so go figure. ;)

And, as I stated, the 414 has a variety of patterns to choose from, one being a Figure 8, which would allow the user to try creative arrays like M-S miking, which to my ears, sounds very nice on acoustic instruments like guitar, mando and even drums.

And, we're kinda comparing apples to cantaloupes here....The SM81, while a great mic on it's own, is limited to that cardioid pattern.... but, respectfully and to be fair, it's also less than half the cost of the 414 (retail ).

I'm not saying I think it's a limited mic. For what it offers, and for the price - last time I checked it was around $300 U.S. - you'd be hard pressed to do much better. I've used them in X/Y coincidental pairs on drum kits, on string sections, and it performed wonderfully. In fact, I recently did a session as a hired gun at a studio where I used a pair of 81's about 6 ft back from a horn section - 2 saxes, 1 bone, 2 trumpets and man, I loved the "bite" I got using a pair of 81's in a coincidental array... brother, those mics performed great. I ended up bringing the direct mics for the horns so far down in the mix, that I could have gotten away with using just the 81's.

If given the choice, I'd prefer the 81 to an AKG C1000 almost anytime in terms of silk and subtle, smooth texture and nuance. I also think it's much more rugged than much of the AKG line. (leave it to Shure, right? The only mic you can use to pound roofing nails into your house and still go use it for a gig! thumb So, if I was doing field work, I'd probably opt for the 81, if I was doing work that required a uni directional mic.

Back to the 414... with my comments above, I need to be fair and state that my 414 is a lot older - it's the EB model, made around 1980 (?) or so. ( Lord, I've been at this a long time... ;)

I've used newer 414 models that seem a little less warmer, a bit less silkier than the older 414 models. The newer models seem to be a bit more "edgier" or "brighter" - at least to my ears - but, as I say that, we all know that there are so many variables hidden within that ludicrous statement I just made - LOL - ...the type of pre, the singer, the room, ... and let's face it, if it's a bit too bright, well, heck....that's what EQ is for, right? ;)

I believe that there is no such beast as an "end all - be all" microphone. I've done sessions with vocalists where we've tried the U87's, the 89's, the 414's... and ended up using a 57 or a 58.

All you can do is hedge your bets and get a mic that can come as close as possible to doing all the things you need it to do, without breaking your bank account, and IMHO, the 414 falls into that category, and without taking out a second mortgage. LOL

IMHO, of course.

I can't really disagree with anything you said here. I had 3 of them for about half a decade? Two newer and one about the same age as you have. It is a perfectly good mic and I used them a lot. I just never heard myself saying WOW when I did. You can use it darn near anywhere and get a great sound when mixing and I be perfectly happy using it in almost any application but I want WOW.

jbourne84, post: 409580 wrote: I should also add- feel free to convince me to keep using the AKG c1000 if you think its good for my needs. As stated I am a hobbyist and I dont need to spend 300$+ on something that I might not even notice a difference in. I recieved the c1000 from a friend and never seriously looked into anything else until now.

The C1000S is an odd mic. It's sometimes my mic of last resort, which just means I tried everything else and it was the only one that worked. Right now it's in semi-permanent use as a live vocal mic for a female singer, after trying every other handheld mic at my disposal.

That brings up two important points. First, you're going to need something else, something more universal like a good LDC. Second, you're going to want to keep the C1000S for those times when a "good" mic just doesn't do it. And while your at it save up for an SM57.

JBourn ask for a 250-300$ mic. Why suggesting a 414 or u87 ?? even used they are not close to that price...

First I must ask what preamps and/or audio interface he is using. I checked the gear list and it says echo miamidi. looked it up on google. No xlr ?? what about phantom power?
Are you running the c1000s on battery ?? Would I ever use a u87 on a miamidi ? NO...

Unless you want to purchase a pro level recording system (preamp - interface/converter - threated room etc...) having just 1 hi-end mic won't cute it for you..
A Dynamic mic may be a better choice so I agree with the sm57 which is a pro mic but may not be the better choice for your voice and may be not for acoustic either (depends on the particular instrument and room).. You must try it to know! Get to a store and try a bunch of mics and pic one that works for you.. What I know is that most cheap condensers are too bright sounding. Newby sometimes believe bright meens quality but it's not true.. It rather sound too harsh in a mix.. if you had a good preamp, I'd say try a ribbon mic.. but they need a lot of gain level so not all preamps do well with a ribbon..

Unless you can easily return the gear, I'd always try before I buy. I know it cuts the easy internet purchase but it's worth taking the time!

By the way I first tought I was on gears..t by mistake. Sorry Donny, you're right, those mics are incredible and it's important to explain to starters the difference. But, I tried to be realistic for JBourne.

Lately on recording.org, I saw a few thread going to discussions that were far from the op question.. Just tought I should voice my consern.

I wasn't suggesting that he look at a U87, I was only using this model in terms of comparison and asking about his current rig set up... mentioning that if he is using a typical "hobbyist" level recording set up with poor converters and preamps, that he could use a Neumann and probably not hear much difference.... that's all I was doing.

I also mentioned to him that he may be best off just sticking with another C1000, at which point he could do some stereo array recording.

OTOH, he may be able to get into a used 414 on Ebay for not a whole lot more than what he is looking to spend, at which point he could open up his options considerably, again, depending on his current rig quality.

current bid, $305 : (Dead Link Removed)

I'm not saying he can get these deals all over the place, but they are out there occasionally. :wink:

The big problem here is that you have a small budget and we don't know that much about your recording setup, guitar, or playing style. So there is no sure-fire recommendation we can make. One thing I recommend against is making a lateral move to another $200 condenser (large or small.) Of course, I have not tried them all, but all that I have tried have a certain harshness to them. Maybe the NT1a is a better mic than the C1000. (It has a better reputation, but I haven't tried either one.) But I guess that it would have the same kind of weakness.

The only sure thing I can recommend for is a better small diaphragm condenser (eg. Rode NT-5 or NT-55 or Shure SM81.) That's at the top of your stated price range (assuming street price for a new mic) but I feel pretty confident that you will like the difference.

There are a couple of other possibilities.

You should try a dynamic. The Shure SM57 and SM58 are well within your price range. The 57 is widely used for acoustic instruments live. It won't have the brightness or "air" of a condenser, but depending on your style, that can be a good thing. Also, the 58 is so widely used as a vocal mic that you may be able to borrow one and try it out. (The 57 and 58 differ only in their wind screen. If you are buying I'd go with the 57, but the 58 will give you a very accurate idea of what it will sound like.)

Another possibility is a ribbon. Cascade and Avantone each have ribbon mics in your price range that can sound really nice. The problem is that ribbons are generally lower output than condensers or even dynamics, so if your preamps don't have a lot of clean gain and you are doing soft fingerpicking on guitar they are the wrong mic for the application.

There were a lot of posts above about relatively expensive large diaphragm condensers (AKG C414 and Neumann U87) but (even ignoring the budget) I don't think they are the answer to your specific question. These are great general purpose mics, and if I owned a U87 I'd probably use it on guitar. But step down a notch or two in price and quality to the C414 and ... well I own two C414s and two SM81s and for guitar I'd go for the SM81. The C414 is a great general workhorse, but if it's exclusively for acoustic guitar, you can do better for the money.

Donny, I'm sorry I didn't know some 414 where going at a low price like that..

I'd bet on trying some dynamic mics specially if the room is not perfect. The sm57 and 58 are great choices for certain vocals and music styles. But you need to try them to hear if they fit...
Btw they are not the same it's not the same capsule and shure say the sm58 to capture 50hz to 15k and the sm57 to be 40hz to 15k. I must admit they sound very similar and it may be a gimmick from shure to keep selling both. ;)

The SM57 and 58 have the same capsule. The different windscreens cause a (slightly) different frequency response. Put a foam pop filter on a 57 and it will be closer to a 58. Unscrew the globe on a 58 and it will sound more like a 57 (but be more vulnerable to damage.)

Sorry I tought the capsule part number were different

Envoyé de mon iPhone à l'aide de [[url=http://[/URL]="http://tapatalk.com…"]Tapatalk[/]="http://tapatalk.com…"]Tapatalk[/]

alot will get it done a 414 is the 57 of condensrs. just 2 good everything mics/

I agree that having a few nice dynamics are a great thing to have, and the good news is that you don't need to spend all that much to get either of these, which are two of the most popular, rugged and good sounding dynamic mics ever made...

As Bob pointed out, the 57/58 is a great mic... not only for the price (I don't think the price has changed all that much on those two mics in quite a few years, and if the price has gone up, the rise has been negligible) but also because they perform great and are very rugged. You can use them on endless applications and environments, from drums (the 57 is still pretty much the go-to mic for snare in even the nicest studios), toms, guitar amps, horns, vocals, and more than once I've used a 58 on a kick drum in a studio setting with fine results.

While my first preference for acoustic instruments like guitars, mandolins, violins and flutes would be a nice condenser, if all I had to work with was a 57 or a 58, they would still get the job done. My opinion on those two workhorse mics is that they are great mics not only for the price, but are great mics, period.

Now... a word of caution regarding these two mics.... in the past few years there have been a glut of counterfeit 57's and 58's on both the used and new markets, so stick with buying these new from a reputable dealer.

At the current retail price - $99 for either of them at places like Sweetwater - it's just not worth the risk of buying from an unknown seller just to save $20 bucks or so and risk ending up with a counterfeit piece of junk.

[="http://www.sweetwater.com/store/search.php?s=shure+sm58&Go=Search"]shure sm58 | Sweetwater.com[/]="http://www.sweetwat…"]shure sm58 | Sweetwater.com[/]

So, unless you know the seller well or have dealt with someone before that you can trust, don't go used when buying these.

Regarding the suggestion of the Shure SM81....While I've used the 81 on things like drum overheads and brass sections, I've never personally used one on acoustic guitar, but both Bob and Paul really know what they are doing, so take their word for it regarding this mic as a good choice for acoustic guitar.

On a final note, as I mentioned several times in past posts, I still think you should look at stereo miking at some point; and on acoustic guitar in particular, an M-S array ( but not limited to only this method). I think it will open your eyes, and ears, LOL, as to how great acoustic stringed instruments can sound when recorded. ;)

[[url=http://="http://www.uaudio.c…"]Mid-Side (MS) Mic Recording Basics - Blog - Universal Audio[/]="http://www.uaudio.c…"]Mid-Side (MS) Mic Recording Basics - Blog - Universal Audio[/]

IMHO of course.

DonnyThompson, post: 409622 wrote: Now... a word of caution regarding these two mics.... in the past few years there have been a glut of counterfeit 57's and 58's on both the used and new markets, so stick with buying these new from a reputable dealer.

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://fakesm58.wor…"]How to Spot a Fake Shure SM58 | This blog post will show you the quickest way to spot fake Shure SM58s[/]="http://fakesm58.wor…"]How to Spot a Fake Shure SM58 | This blog post will show you the quickest way to spot fake Shure SM58s[/]

In replacing a mic you have used for 5 or 6 years and at a 'hobbiest' level as described, the real question you need to ask is what part of the recording am I looking to improve upon and is changing out a piece I already know quite well going to bring me this change.... Perhaps telling what you aren't getting from your recordings will give a clue as to what to suggest. It might not not be a piece of gear at all that gives you what you're looking for.

I would go with a Cascade El Roy. It's a multi-pattern tube mic and they sound great for the price of $299. You can upgrade to a better tube for less than $100 and it sounds even better! I would for sure check it out! It's an all around good mic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dunno shouldn't people be faking more profitable mics? I have bought 3 57's so far all are interchangeable to my ears and we're bought from decent people, new and used. To my thinking (thinking is scary), it would be harder to find a fake 57 than a real one. They're cheap mics that are mass produced, and well regarded. I personally feel safe buying a used 57 for the 50 bucks they cost. This interest in fake cheap mics has to be on a theory type basis, nobody has gotten one yet right?

K -

I do get your logic, although the 57's and 58's are so widely used - I'm only guessing here - but my hunch is that Shure 57's and 58's, because of their affordability, ruggedness, multi use ability for both studio and live and all round popularity, have outsold higher end mics, like Neumanns, AKG's, etc., probably far and wide.

I'm hard pressed to think of any of my studio/musician peers who don't have at least 2 of them, whereas I can't say the same thing about mics like U87's. Perhaps it's because the 57/8 model line is so affordable to begin with, that paying $50 or so for a used one doesn't really raise any hackles of suspicion like a U89i selling for $400 would.

Also, the higher end mics are generally bought and used by cats that pretty much know their stuff gear wise, where more than a few 17 year old kids starting a garage band buy the 57/8's without really considering the internal workings at all, in part because they don't care, and in part because they are so affordable, not to mention the well-earned reputation over many years as being the "standard go-to" mics for both live and studio.

If I'm gonna drop 3 large on a studio condenser, you can bet I'm gonna make sure it's the real deal... LOL. Whereas most people who buy the Shures will drop the $89 bucks (or so) on them without really thinking much more about it.

What has also happened though, in the last, well, say 10 years or so, is the number of cheap condensers flooding the market that are intentionally made to resemble the aesthetic attributes of the high dollar mics.

It's no real secret why the cheap Chinese condensers resemble the high dollar Neumanns and Telefunkens. Those manufacturers are banking on the kinds of people that watch music videos and see mics like 87's, 89's 47's, 67's, etc., then go to one of the online retailers and see a mic that looks almost exactly the same physically, but with a price tag of $150, and they purchase it because they think that because it looks exactly the same, that it must also sound exactly the same, and you and I both know the truth about that. ;)

So, albeit in a legal way, it is, in my opinion, very misleading to those consumers who simply don't know that the mic they saw in the Sting music video was in reality a $3000 + condenser, but, because the one they just bought for $150 looks just like the one they saw in the video, it must be the same quality.

Just a theory.

D-
i always like your perspective, and respect you.

i think what your getting at is true, rode is one of the many look-a likes of an 87. Similar in color and size and the nt2 could even be similar in sound tendencies.

I didn't watch boulders link because I thought just the notion of a fake 57 was rediculous. I'm gonna watch it after this, but I think I know what you guys are saying about "fake me out's" I know Sampson is a culprit of looking like a 58.

i think I took the post too literally as if people wer stuffing cheap parts into 57s regularly.

Boulder-
just looked at your link, news to me man! Didn't know that was a "thing" maybe mine are fake, gonna have to check now. I mean no offense to you, you seem good at this, I was just ignorant to the scams. It's been 15 years of this stuff, and have never, ever, even thought to check the wiring of the 57s I use. Interesting.

kmetal, post: 409714 wrote: D-
i always like your perspective, and respect you.

i think what your getting at is true, [[url=http://[/URL]="http://rodemic.com/"]RODE[/]="http://rodemic.com/"]RODE[/] is one of the many look-a likes of an 87. Similar in color and size and the nt2 could even be similar in sound tendencies.

.

And I'm not saying that Rode makes a bad mic, K - I've personally never used one, for the money they may be just fine, or even great for that matter, although I have used an MXL condenser on a session I did at a client's studio once and personally I thought it sounded harsh and brittle.
I was just mentioning that it's no coincidence that the manufacturers of cheaper LD condensers are making their product look like the classic LD's .... ;)

And, I suppose it's not all that different from guitar manufacturers like Kramer, ESP, and even cheaper brands like Cort, Hondo and Kingston emulating the most popular body styles of the real things over the years - The Paul, SG, Strat, Tele, 335, Precision, Jazz, etc.

For example, in my guitar collection I have an Oscar Schmidt Delta King - an obvious knock off of a Gibson 330, and it plays well and sounds good. Is it the real thing? Of course not. But then again it didn't cost me $3500 either. ;)

So perhaps I'm being too critical. If someone likes what they are using, then far be it for me to tell anyone otherwise.

The Rode mics are far superior to anything MXL. The most usable MXL mic is the 2001 ldc. The mxl line is best served as a platform to send to Michael Joly.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Mxl= China. Rode= Australia.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

On the topic, since Rode was brought up, during my very early studio days my main mics were three Rode NT-3s. These are a great all-around condenser with a very transparent sound and without the crispy high-end that many Chinese condensers suffer from. They are quite a value considering you can pick them up new for $269. I used a pair of these to record acoustic guitar for a couple of years with great results.
Later I invested in a Rode NT-4 stereo mic ($529 new) and used that on acoustic guitar with also great success. I would suggest that the OP check into used NT-3 mics as they deliver big bang for the buck.

Jeff

Every pro engineer I know would not touch a Rode/Rodent (myself included) and MXL's newest professional mic line sounds very good! I put a $1200 MXL Revelation tube mic up against a $9000 Sony c800g tube mic (one of my favorites) and I picked the MXL for the vocals I recorded that day. Do your research and actually listen to different mics if possible. No one hears a mic exactly the same way as another. Also, a big thing in recording gear is YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very true that every engineer hears things differently-and thank goodness for variety. I own or have owned Telefunken, Neumann, AKG, AT, Royer, as well as Rode and MXL. I concede not to have heard the MXL Revelation but have heard most of the other lineup. I stand by my assessment. I will however make anything sound as good as it possibly can if I have to use it. And I am friends with just a few engineers as well.

callahan... now you know a pro engineer who WOULD touch a Rode mic! My post suggesting that the OP check out the NT-3 was to keep within the original poster's stated $300 price range. It seems these discussions have a tendency to drift away from the OP's question into territory that is likely not helpful to the OP.
There really are not a lot of good choices in that price range, I must admit. You do get what you pay for in most instances. The mics I use for recording acoustic guitar are ten times the poster's budget so I will reserve discussing those for a more relevant thread.
Jeff

Hey if you like the sound of a Rode microphone go for it. I'm just saying from an educated professional engineer's standpoint I would never personally use a Rode. Good luck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here are two good companies that should be around your price range. Cascade microphones and Avantone mics. Both make solid mics at good prices.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

callahan studios, post: 409816 wrote: Hey if you like the sound of a Rode microphone go for it. I'm just saying from an educated professional engineer's standpoint I would never personally use a Rode. Good luck.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one is arguing your opinion. It just isn`t universal amongst educated audio engineers. Your suggestion of Cascade and Avantone are excellent imo and more to the point, fit closer to the stated budget.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Hey if you like the sound of a Rode microphone go for it. I'm just saying from an educated professional engineer's standpoint I would never personally use a Rode. Good luck.

I was speaking from an educated professional engineer's standpoint.

Jeff

callahan studios, post: 409793 wrote: Every pro engineer I know would not touch a Rode/Rodent (myself included) and MXL's newest professional mic line sounds very good! I put a $1200 MXL Revelation tube mic up against a $9000 Sony c800g tube mic (one of my favorites) and I picked the MXL for the vocals I recorded that day. Do your research and actually listen to different mics if possible. No one hears a mic exactly the same way as another. Also, a big thing in recording gear is YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First of all I must say I feel quite sorry for the OP. Why? Because so far he has received lots of different mic recommendations but only one post from Davedog actually asks what the OP is looking for from a new mic. Surely this is the key question as the OP only mentions recording acoustic guitar and occasional vocals. Surely to advise him well we need to find out what he feels is missing or what he would like to add to his current recordings.

Now on to the quote. I find this post quite self contradictory on different levels and of little help to the OP.

First off, to paraphrase the quote, your advice seems to be, do your research and actually listen to different mics - so long as it's not a Rode! Does this make any sense? What do you have against Rode? They make a wide range of mic's over a wide application range and to eliminate them all because of the name seems illogical to me.

Secondly, "you get what you pay for". As a general rule I agree but there are always exceptions - as in your example. You chose a $1200 MXL on vocals over a $9000 Sony. This takes us full circle back to "listen to different mics!

We all (should) know that whatever we record we tend to have "go to" mics (and pre's) for the job. We should always experiment though or we will become very narrow minded! This surely is a true mark of an "educated professional engineer". Discarding a whole range of mic's because of a name does not fit in with this for me. Please add me to the list of professional engineers that are quite happy to use Rode mic's if they fit the bill.

Of course the latter part of this post is of no use whatsoever to the OP!

I shall 'opine' here briefly...because I can.

In answering these posts, many times the original objective of the poster becomes clouded by our (i include me here also) predilection towards solving a problem with a piece of equipment. We, here, all know what gear-hounds we are. And most recognize the VAST selection of gear available to anyone anywhere anytime. It wasn't always like that. But sometimes this becomes the crutch we, as recording engineers, tend towards in trying help out a fellow human searching for an answer to their dilemma involving reproduction of source through media.....ie: recording crap in a closet. MOST of the answers to these problems can be sourced to FIRST AND FOREMOST- technique.

Even the most minimal gear set-up these days can make decent to quality sounding recordings given an adherence to time tested recording techniques and control of the environment in which the source is presented. I'm not saying there is no quality difference between a $100 condenser and a $3000 condenser, I AM saying that taking the environment into serious consideration will DEMONSTRATE these differences in a obvious audible way.

In my collection of gear there are somewhere around 30 microphones. All different shapes sizes and styles. Not a SINGLE one of these mics makes a damn bit of difference if I don't understand where to point them, how to point them, what to point them at, and how to amplify their signal before they get to the recording media.

I didn't learn how to do this by simply buying another mic because the one I currently was using didn't please me at that moment.

The key in this phrase is "at that moment".

Most newer recordists don't really look at the big picture about exactly what they are doing. They want to record something they have written and they want to hear it back. Right now. This holds true for some people with a lot of time spent doing this too. A capture is a little time machine. Its the performance of that moment in time, frozen in stasis, waiting to be manipulated through another part of the process of producing a musical performance. Some will listen back and know in their heart that it isn't what they hear in their heads and this starts the search for a better mousetrap. Some will come on to sites like this and ask meaningful questions of a community they hope will have the answers to their dilemmas, or at least form a kinship with like-minded folks who have , perhaps, experienced the things they are going through and can lend a direction or a solution.

Most don't have the 'language' of recording techniques sorted out well enough to be clear on their intentions or their desires, and of course the old adage " Talking about music is like dancing about architecture" holds completely true. I feel that most of the posters here truly want to help. And most do a great job of working through the language barrier to help those just starting or those who haven't the nomenclature down to a usable level.

There a tendency to immediately start suggesting gear to replace gear without ever really understanding the nature of the need or the problem. Part of that is fueled by the posters themselves. "What mic should I use for this under $XXX and I have no way to test them ??" It has to do with the "right now" aspect to making what they just heard better without the base knowledge of Why Does This Suck So Bad? at their disposal. Since we have no way, being as remote from their reality as we are, of knowing the circumstances or the environments they are experiencing, then its the old reach for a piece of gear we might know and throw that into the ring.

Generally, this isn't going to make ANY difference to the OP at all. Knowing what mic to use on what source and how to isolate the source to bring the quality of the capture up a level or two will make a difference.

I have found that my mic collection has simply become little "tone generators" for whatever I'm pointing them at and the selection of any one of them for a particular use depends entirely on what they will be capturing and how this sound, once captured, can be used in a production of the overall sound of the piece.

But if I had only ONE MIC, these truths would still hold true.

Brilliant Dave. I allowed myself to get sucked in. I`ve been away too long.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Ah. John. I wasn't REALLY pointin fingers....(heehee)