Aziel wrote: 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...

The 4033 sound absolutely nothing like an 87. It does not have the same type of diaphram, preamp...nothing. Nothing alike.

Big_D wrote:

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:

Nope. It's the nickel diaphram. It is hyped big time on the top. Look at the plots and response chart. Originally designers used nickel for diffuse field mics, so that they could get that top end boost to compensate for distance. Now people are slapping the wrong mics on their applications in the near field and suddenly the mic is too bright. DUH! It's not meant to be used near field.

sheet wrote:
Pull your head out. I didn't say that they suck for everything.

Well then, why did you say you used to have AT mics but now "they're all gone." That implies that you felt they were worthless. Any mic that has some worth would be retained.

It is VERY cheap sounding compared to the Neumann.

What the heck are you talking about -- it is VERY cheap sounding? you can tell the price of a mic based on its sound? I'm impressed! The 4047 sounds DIFFERENT than the Neumann and in some cases I prefer the Neumann and in some cases I prefer the AT.

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

Again, what the hell are you talking about? The AT is NOT NICKEL! It has a nickel baffle - that's it, end of story. The diaphragm is gold sputtered mylar - just like ALL of the newer Neumanns, just like ALL of the newer AKGs, etc.
Besides, nickel diaphragm mics are not predisposed to higher frequencies - where did you get that notion? It has absolutely no scientific basis. If anything - gold, a more "pliable" metal, is more likely to be more sensitive to higher frequencies, NOT NICKEL. Nickel microphones have a tendancy to retain their linearity, hence why they are used primarily as test and measurement mics.

I am not a hobbiest, so I have access to great mics.

Wow, thanks for the insult. Neither am I and neither are others here on the board. Frankly, I personally have over $100,000 invested in microphones and that number grows everyday. My classical microphones alone are worth more than most peoples ENTIRE mic collection, yet still, I find the ATs to be constant performers in comparison with my Gefell mics, my Neumann mics, my AKG mics, and all my others.

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.

See, that's the piss poor attitude that I hate around here. "Cost no object..." blah, blah, blah. Oh, so I should by the more expensive mics because mics at a decent price must be toys?! Com'on, pull your head out. ALL AT 40 series mics are valuable tools, not toys. If you can't figure out how to work one, let me know, I can get you some tutorials.

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.

Again, thanks for the elitist BS insult. So, you can afford to pay for a $6000 mic - because of that, the CRAP (I mean,AT 4033) that everybody else must buy obviously can't turn out the kind of recordings that you do with your fancy microphones. EWWW, we're impressed.

Let me re-iterate my point from an earlier ranting -

Cut the elitist SH*T on this board. It's insulting to the patrons and it shows the caliber of your mentality by showing you think only expensive stuff is worth buying. If you want to show everybody how good you are and how great your studio is, try helping them instead of making them feel like DOGSHIT because they can't afford the same mics you can. Again, as for me, I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford high-end mics, pres, etc. But, have you ever heard me tell someone on this board that what they're using is useless???? No, never. I certainly voice my opinion, but never tell someone their stuff is crap. I may advise against the purchase of something too - but here's the kicker -- I always provide an alternative in a similar budget which IS IMO a quality piece of gear. You did NO such thing. You simply crapped on his idea, told him it was worthless and provided no such alternative other than *it sounds like a toy in comparison to my "cost-no-object" microphones*

Recommending a good vocal mic is impossible. ...There is no mic that will do it all.

Again, BS. Sure you can recommend a good vocal mic. Hell, why don't you recommend 2 or 3 since one mic won't do it all. But you know what, there are some VERY versatile tools out there within Art's budget (including the ATs), but I guess they're worthless since they don't cost over $1000. Again, how about making at least one suggestion. OR, how about this - ask the question "What's the exact intention of the mic?"

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!

Finally, a point we can agree on. But I'll add - not only can it bring out the best and worst in a mic, it can also bring out the best and worst in an engineer. Frankly, if you gave me a mic - hell, any mic and a singer, I would get a good vocal take out of it. Whether I have to make slight EQ or compression adjustments, the fact is, I could make a good vocal recording with a computer microphone and a DJ mixer.

And yes, tons of good vocal recordings have been made with the SM57. BTW, have you heard the SM57 - this is an utterly USELESS microphone for any serious vocal recording, yet somehow, many people make decent to downright GOOD recordings with them. Hmm. Kinda makes me think that some good stuff might come out of a well-crafted microphone with a **GOLD SPUTTERED, MYLAR DIAPHRAGMED** mic such as the AT 4033.

Just my $458.02

Jeremy

Cucco wrote:
It's insulting to the patrons and it shows the caliber of your mentality by showing you think only expensive stuff is worth buying. If you want to show everybody how good you are and how great your studio is, try helping them instead of making them feel like DOGSHIT because they can't afford the same mics you can. Jeremy

It's very insulting to the patrons. I'm not jumping in here to gang up on Sheets. Not at all. So please don't take it that way. My intention is to help iterate a point Jeremy made that I just believe "in general". I'm not directing this at Sheets.

Sometimes the "art" of engineering is lost when we don't take the time to push the limits of budget gear, or antique gear, or handmade things that have soooooo much character.

Yes, it's nice to walk into a studio and have the type of equipment that requires very little attention in regards to creative mic placement or hunting and searching for the "sweet spot" on something; whether it be the sweet spot on an instrument, a mic, a room, settings on a compressor or placement on a kit of drums.

Yes, you'll get nice glossy recordings from the nice glossy gear in the sparkling glossy studio.

But sometimes that just really makes a great musical moment boring. Uninteresting. Where did the intimacy go?

If a musician sucks, an SM57 will surely let you know that. LOL. If a guitarist has poor technique, a cheap mic and cheap pre will accentuate that. I love to hear creative music recorded creatively, using a little sweat and effort to find the perfect color to help convey the intention of an artist and engineer who are sharing a moment of talent together. Combining their skills collectively to make a record that is INTERESTING and intimate; not just a pristine recording of a "professional" idea that's been done "by the numbers" in yet another "excercise" that is little more than a reiteration of the last record the engineer "facilitated" with flawless execution of textbook technique and limitless budget.

How many horrible mistakes were made in making the first 4 Zeppelin albums?

And how many of those horrible engineering distasters that are on those albums are exactly the reason why we LOVE them so much? Raw! Powerful! Utterly unique moments of pure artistic freedom as expressed by a group of individuals that just had to seize a moment in time to record a musical idea that was spontaneous and largely undeveloped.

Thankfully our musical hero's haven't been too awfully caught up in the culture of gear snobbing. For the most part anyway.

My $185 worth. :cry:

Live8 in the UK has just finished -I haven't seen the American production in its entirety.

Most popular mics for drum overheads:
Audio Technica 4050 (but it's difficult to tell as three of their black models look similar)

AKG C414 (ULS or XLS).

Others included 4060 (Elton John I think), the usual Sennheisers and Shures on snares etc. I saw what looked like a Neumann M-149 under a snare (!), and a pair of U89s (I think) as overheads. I think there was a couple of 414 EBs as well.

The most popular vocal mic was probably the Neumann KMS 105 along with the usual Sennheisers and Shures.

The reason I mention this is that some feel that the AT range is often represented as a budget range and somehow second rate because of this. The world's wealthiest rock stars, for whom the cost of the most expensive mic in the world may as well be 50 cents, don't seem to share this opinion.

John

Edit: I left out the 'cheap' modular Sennheiser condensers, and I think a couple of TLM-170s.

Cucco wrote: [quote=sheet]
Pull your head out. I didn't say that they suck for everything.

Well then, why did you say you used to have AT mics but now "they're all gone." That implies that you felt they were worthless. Any mic that has some worth would be retained.

It is VERY cheap sounding compared to the Neumann.

What the heck are you talking about -- it is VERY cheap sounding? you can tell the price of a mic based on its sound? I'm impressed! The 4047 sounds DIFFERENT than the Neumann and in some cases I prefer the Neumann and in some cases I prefer the AT.

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

Again, what the hell are you talking about? The AT is NOT NICKEL! It has a nickel baffle - that's it, end of story. The diaphragm is gold sputtered mylar - just like ALL of the newer Neumanns, just like ALL of the newer AKGs, etc.
Besides, nickel diaphragm mics are not predisposed to higher frequencies - where did you get that notion? It has absolutely no scientific basis. If anything - gold, a more "pliable" metal, is more likely to be more sensitive to higher frequencies, NOT NICKEL. Nickel microphones have a tendancy to retain their linearity, hence why they are used primarily as test and measurement mics.

I am not a hobbiest, so I have access to great mics.

Wow, thanks for the insult. Neither am I and neither are others here on the board. Frankly, I personally have over $100,000 invested in microphones and that number grows everyday. My classical microphones alone are worth more than most peoples ENTIRE mic collection, yet still, I find the ATs to be constant performers in comparison with my Gefell mics, my Neumann mics, my AKG mics, and all my others.

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.

See, that's the piss poor attitude that I hate around here. "Cost no object..." blah, blah, blah. Oh, so I should by the more expensive mics because mics at a decent price must be toys?! Com'on, pull your head out. ALL AT 40 series mics are valuable tools, not toys. If you can't figure out how to work one, let me know, I can get you some tutorials.

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.

Again, thanks for the elitist BS insult. So, you can afford to pay for a $6000 mic - because of that, the CRAP (I mean,AT 4033) that everybody else must buy obviously can't turn out the kind of recordings that you do with your fancy microphones. EWWW, we're impressed.

Let me re-iterate my point from an earlier ranting -

Cut the elitist SH*T on this board. It's insulting to the patrons and it shows the caliber of your mentality by showing you think only expensive stuff is worth buying. If you want to show everybody how good you are and how great your studio is, try helping them instead of making them feel like DOGSHIT because they can't afford the same mics you can. Again, as for me, I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford high-end mics, pres, etc. But, have you ever heard me tell someone on this board that what they're using is useless???? No, never. I certainly voice my opinion, but never tell someone their stuff is crap. I may advise against the purchase of something too - but here's the kicker -- I always provide an alternative in a similar budget which IS IMO a quality piece of gear. You did NO such thing. You simply crapped on his idea, told him it was worthless and provided no such alternative other than *it sounds like a toy in comparison to my "cost-no-object" microphones*

Recommending a good vocal mic is impossible. ...There is no mic that will do it all.

Again, BS. Sure you can recommend a good vocal mic. Hell, why don't you recommend 2 or 3 since one mic won't do it all. But you know what, there are some VERY versatile tools out there within Art's budget (including the ATs), but I guess they're worthless since they don't cost over $1000. Again, how about making at least one suggestion. OR, how about this - ask the question "What's the exact intention of the mic?"

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!

Finally, a point we can agree on. But I'll add - not only can it bring out the best and worst in a mic, it can also bring out the best and worst in an engineer. Frankly, if you gave me a mic - hell, any mic and a singer, I would get a good vocal take out of it. Whether I have to make slight EQ or compression adjustments, the fact is, I could make a good vocal recording with a computer microphone and a DJ mixer.

And yes, tons of good vocal recordings have been made with the SM57. BTW, have you heard the SM57 - this is an utterly USELESS microphone for any serious vocal recording, yet somehow, many people make decent to downright GOOD recordings with them. Hmm. Kinda makes me think that some good stuff might come out of a well-crafted microphone with a **GOLD SPUTTERED, MYLAR DIAPHRAGMED** mic such as the AT 4033.

Just my $458.02

Jeremy

1. I was given them. I used them, not just on my own projects, but other money gigs. The only ones that I had regrets not keeping were the AE series. They are some good live mics.

Your logic about mics and worth is flawed. When a person has access to some of the best mics on the planet, then there really is no reason to keep a bunch of whole-hum mics. Why keep them? It is a waste of studio storage space.

2. The AT4047 in a double blind test with a Fet47 through a Neve 8068, monitored on Gene's, it was really close on plucked stand up bass, and then he bowed it. Then the test was over. It sounded completely unnatural. The bow noise exposed it's weakness. I have used the 4047 outside of the kick like I would a 47. It isn't the same. It doesn't have the depth and body, but it is mucho cheaper to destroy and replace then it is to send the 47 to Korby Audio to have it serviced.

3. No, you are incorrect. The 4047 and the 4040 are nickle diaphramed mics. The 4047 is a double, the 4040 is a single.

4. I am not saying that a nickel mic is only going to make a diffuse field mic, but it is a fact that quite a few manufacturers built like that. Investigate the old KM series Neumanns. They prove my point. Some of the new DPA's do as well. Nickel mics are generally a bit brighter, atleast that's the way that they are manufactured and marketed. It is true that they can be flat, as DPA uses nickel. But, as far as the manufactures are concerned, they most generally have used the nickel to emphasize the boost, or contribute the boost to it.

5. The reason that I don't recommend vocal mics, again, because I do not know the needs of the singer. Can they work the mic, what type of music is it, what is there voice like. For instance, I could recommend an ADK TT. I have a pair. They are ok for some people, terrible on others. They must be used at a distance, because they are plosive sensitive. Much more than say a Telefunken 251. I used that mic because it also has an ultrahyped high end. If it is one mice for all, I would not use a 4033. I don't think that there is a modern mic in that price range that I could use on everybody. If I had to try, I would start at a Neumann 48 Tube. That is a great place to start. But we are talking many times the price.

6. Try sticking that 4033 in front of an amp. Ugh. A dynamic may go much further in a project room. Consider a Beyer M88, Sennheiser MD421, or while your at it some ribbons.

7. As for the crack about the intention of mics. Visit the Neumann forums. You will read all kinds of amusing stuff. People do not know the history behind the mics they have purchased, and are using them for the wrong task. In some cases it can be art and brilliant. But buying a mic designed for diffuse field recording, and them complaining that it's too bright on piano, vocals or guitar is down right funny. Also, I have seen people compain about DPA's because they were not colored enough. DUH!

The 4033 sound absolutely nothing like an 87. It does not have the same type of diaphram, preamp...nothing. Nothing alike

im not telling that "sounds exactly" or its kind of derivated from the U87...im just sayn that its versatile like an U87...so, if you dont have enough money to afford an U87 you can choose an AT mic, in this case, the 4033, like your all around mic...of course, its unfair to compare the 4033 to the NEUMANN U87... :wink:

Aziel wrote:

The 4033 sound absolutely nothing like an 87. It does not have the same type of diaphram, preamp...nothing. Nothing alike

im not telling that "sounds exactly" or its kind of derivated from the U87...im just sayn that its versatile like an U87...so, if you dont have enough money to afford an U87 you can choose an AT mic, in this case, the 4033, like your all around mic...of course, its unfair to compare the 4033 to the NEUMANN U87... :wink:

I don't find the 87 that versatile myself. Not one that hasn't been mofied anyway.

Do me a favor Brent.

Show me anywhere on AT's website or in any of their literature where it shows the 4033 or 4047 are nickel. If you can, I'll shut up. Otherwise, I'm assuming you really don't know what you're talking about.

BTW.. Here's the direct quotes from ATs website.

4033

Transformerless circuitry virtually eliminates low-frequency distortion and provides superior correlation of high-speed transients

Precision-machined, nickel-plated brass, acoustic element baffle provides enhanced element stability and optimal sensitivity

The 2-micron-thick, vapor-deposited gold diaphragm undergoes a five-step aging process so that the optimum characteristics achieved remain constant over years of use

Notice - the baffle (that which HOLDS the diaphragm) is nickel - PLATED brass!
The diaphragm - vapor deposited gold. And, if you're familiar at ALL with Metallurgy (which it's obvious, you aren't) gold won't stick to nickel, nor will it stick to brass! Mylar- sure. Silver, absolutely.

4047

Designed for critical studio, live sound and broadcast applications

Transformer-coupled output and specially-tuned element provide sonic characteristics reminiscent of early F.E.T. studio microphone designs

Exceptionally low self-noise, wide dynamic range and high SPL capability

Dual-diaphragm capsule design maintains precise polar pattern definition across the full frequency range of the microphone

Precision-machined, nickel-plated brass, acoustic element baffle provides enhanced element stability and optimal sensitivity

Again, notice the BAFFLE is nickel plated brass. Once again, no mention of a NICKEL Diaphragm. A feat which I'm sure they'd be proud of. Seeing as how the mics that I know of that use Nickel diaphragms cost well over $1400 each. No one has a nickel mic selling less than that cuz their friggin hard to make. Nickel is not a pliable metal, so stretching it to make a diaphragm is INCREDIBLY difficult.

And as for the older mics (I'm assuming you are referring to the M7 capsules) sounding brighter - check their electronics. They were made to sound bright with their electronics - not their capsules.

Please feel free to read up on the acoustical and vibrational properties of metals before you go and make such bold and incorrect statements as "all nickel diaphragms are bright..."

BTW...I would say that your opinion here is being severely outweighed by EVERYONE else who weighs in on it. Strange, even gear snobs like myself and Kurt haven't slammed any of the AT mics. And Hell, Kurt should friggin hate them, they use Surface Mount Electronics!!!! :lol:

I'm afraid, blind tests amongst your friends to determine which mic sounds better on a guitar cab or on a kick are essentially meaningless here. As it's well known, placement and use of a microphone has as much to do with sound as the mic itself.

Now, I have nothing further to say on the matter. IF you would like to refute any of this, please bring proof and stop conjecturing about metallurgy and your assanine comparisons to mics well outside the reach of most posters on this board.

Thanks!
Jeremy

I don't find the 87 that versatile myself. Not one that hasn't been mofied anyway.

Well... :roll: hmmm...in my world the U87 its a VERY VERY versatile mic...i dont know...but, i think u can do voices, percussion, drums, guitars and achieve great sounds with that mic...sorry if im wrong but that is what my ears tell me... :wink:

Cucco wrote: Do me a favor Brent.

Show me anywhere on AT's website or in any of their literature where it shows the 4033 or 4047 are nickel. If you can, I'll shut up. Otherwise, I'm assuming you really don't know what you're talking about.

BTW.. Here's the direct quotes from ATs website.

4033

Transformerless circuitry virtually eliminates low-frequency distortion and provides superior correlation of high-speed transients

Precision-machined, nickel-plated brass, acoustic element baffle provides enhanced element stability and optimal sensitivity

The 2-micron-thick, vapor-deposited gold diaphragm undergoes a five-step aging process so that the optimum characteristics achieved remain constant over years of use

Notice - the baffle (that which HOLDS the diaphragm) is nickel - PLATED brass!
The diaphragm - vapor deposited gold. And, if you're familiar at ALL with Metallurgy (which it's obvious, you aren't) gold won't stick to nickel, nor will it stick to brass! Mylar- sure. Silver, absolutely.

4047

Designed for critical studio, live sound and broadcast applications

Transformer-coupled output and specially-tuned element provide sonic characteristics reminiscent of early F.E.T. studio microphone designs

Exceptionally low self-noise, wide dynamic range and high SPL capability

Dual-diaphragm capsule design maintains precise polar pattern definition across the full frequency range of the microphone

Precision-machined, nickel-plated brass, acoustic element baffle provides enhanced element stability and optimal sensitivity

Again, notice the BAFFLE is nickel plated brass. Once again, no mention of a NICKEL Diaphragm. A feat which I'm sure they'd be proud of. Seeing as how the mics that I know of that use Nickel diaphragms cost well over $1400 each. No one has a nickel mic selling less than that cuz their friggin hard to make. Nickel is not a pliable metal, so stretching it to make a diaphragm is INCREDIBLY difficult.

And as for the older mics (I'm assuming you are referring to the M7 capsules) sounding brighter - check their electronics. They were made to sound bright with their electronics - not their capsules.

Please feel free to read up on the acoustical and vibrational properties of metals before you go and make such bold and incorrect statements as "all nickel diaphragms are bright..."

BTW...I would say that your opinion here is being severely outweighed by EVERYONE else who weighs in on it. Strange, even gear snobs like myself and Kurt haven't slammed any of the AT mics. And Hell, Kurt should friggin hate them, they use Surface Mount Electronics!!!! :lol:

I'm afraid, blind tests amongst your friends to determine which mic sounds better on a guitar cab or on a kick are essentially meaningless here. As it's well known, placement and use of a microphone has as much to do with sound as the mic itself.

Now, I have nothing further to say on the matter. IF you would like to refute any of this, please bring proof and stop conjecturing about metallurgy and your assanine comparisons to mics well outside the reach of most posters on this board.

Thanks!
Jeremy

Never said the 4033 was. I got the 4050 and 4040 mixed up. I had to go back and read my onw review. It's been about 1 year since. The 4050 is the nickel. The 4047 and the 4040 have the same diaghram, the 4047 is a dual membrane. Sorry for the confusion. The 4050 is the mic that I would not use for vocals. YMMV.

BTW the mic shootout was conducted in a multi million dollard facility, by a Grammy winning, multi-platinum engineer. We also tested the new Telefunkens and didn't buy those either. So why don't discriminate because of price.

We also tested the Korby Convertible, which was very good, and 13 other mics from 300 on up. The goal was to see if there was a justifiable difference in mics. At that time the studio owner was weighing out repair costs, etc with buying new wanna-be mics.

In the case of the Marshalls, SEs and Studio Projects, when up against other studio standards in a mix, they usually just aren't in the same league. The marketing and hype behind them would have you to believe differently. The AT's are good general purpose mics. It would say that those and the Shure KSMs are on the same par. Again, up against some standards, they are different, and not what we liked. Some of the people thought that they sounded like plastic compared to a vintage mic, or even something a bit cleaner like a Brauner. Of course they are substancially less. In a mix, these attributes do add up.

It is not about being a gear snob. I use what sounds best to me, because I can. It didn't always used to be like that. I started out low-fi too. But working for people who have "been there done that" before me, have much more knowledge and experience than I, and can afford the nicer toys, have demonstrated it to me time and time again.

I don't care about other peoples opinions and base my purchase decisions on them, because I do not know anyone here from Adam, know their rooms, their wiring, their gear. I base it on what I experience myself in a state-of-the-art facility, with great players and great engineers.

Sorry, the 4050 is not nickel either.

You still make it sound as though the ATs are crap (or not professional gear) in comparison to old school Neumanns. I'm here (as well as hundreds of other seasoned engineers - including multi-platinum, grammy-award winning ones) to tell you otherwise. If you don't like them, fine.

BUT, my point still stands - why come to a thread where someone is asking about mics in this price range, of which the ATs are the finest there are in this range (and quite good at any price) to tell them that they are worthless and shouldn't even be given a glance?

You're not part of the solution with an answer like that.

J.

AT's are Some of the finest in that price range. It may be less than fact that they are The Finest in that range. Just a thought.

In any event I've heard what you've accomplished with your mic collection and absolutely love your onsite work Jeremy. Your most recent recordings have been totally impressive and accomplished with what many would call mid-range gear.

The engineer and musicians are the most important part. The equipment used can sometimes be completely irrelevant.

Thanks CT!
Of course, I really wouldn't consider Schoeps and Gefell mics and True Systems Mic pres as mid- level gear. If, of course, you're referring to the at and Audix mics I would contend that I find these to be every bit as good as some of the finest mics available. That's why I own them and use them. :D

Jeremy...thank you very much for going through all of this...I appreciate it.

Sheet, after reading through your posts...it made me feel like I'm a low life piece of sh%t!!!! With your comments like "I was low-fi once" and "these mics are toys" really makes someone that is busting their ass to accomplish their dreams feel like dog shit on the bottom of a shoe because they aren't buying $6k mics and working multi-million dollar rooms with grammy winning engineers. Im doing the best I can, working more hours than I sleep, and am trying to gain some ground with audio. It's stuff like the "I was low-fi once" that makes me question why I'm busting my ass and buying gear if all I'm ever going to be considered is a low-fi waste of space.

Ok, at least the 57 is nickel.

Here are my favorite vocal mics:

http://www.proaudiosuperstore.com/Shure-527B.html

http://www.proaudiosuperstore.com/Shure-562.html

Here is the best preamp in the world:

http://www.peavey.com/products/browse.cfm/action/detail/item/115024/number/00512000/cat/86/begin/1/PV%AE+6.cfm

Do you get it yet? Why can't you guys get hacksed and keep the Live Sound section going, and what happened to that other cat that was posting double talk here, on gearslutz, and prosoundweb?

Ok, at least the 57 is nickel.

Here are my favorite vocal mics:

http://www.proaudiosuperstore.com/Shure-527B.html

http://www.proaudiosuperstore.com/Shure-562.html

Here is the best preamp in the world:

http://www.peavey.com/products/browse.cfm/action/detail/item/115024/number/00512000/cat/86/begin/1/PV%AE+6.cfm

Do you get it yet? Why can't you guys get hacksed and keep the Live Sound section going, and what happened to that other cat that was posting double talk here, on gearslutz, and prosoundweb?

thanks for the sujestion sheet. ive already plased my order.

therecordingart wrote: Jeremy...thank you very much for going through all of this...I appreciate it.

Sheet, after reading through your posts...it made me feel like I'm a low life piece of sh%t!!!! With your comments like "I was low-fi once" and "these mics are toys" really makes someone that is busting their ass to accomplish their dreams feel like dog shit on the bottom of a shoe because they aren't buying $6k mics and working multi-million dollar rooms with grammy winning engineers. Im doing the best I can, working more hours than I sleep, and am trying to gain some ground with audio. It's stuff like the "I was low-fi once" that makes me question why I'm busting my ass and buying gear if all I'm ever going to be considered is a low-fi waste of space.

Art
Every piece of equipment will have its detractors. Sure, a $10,000 Brauner VM-1 KHE is going to be different from an AT4033. I'm currently enjoying the U87 greatly, but it is probably one of the most hated mics in history. Everything that has been said here about the ATs has also been said about the 87. Hunt through the Internet, and you will also see some very nasty remarks about the Brauners, with some malicious accusations I'm not going to repeat here. You will also find people who dislike the venerable Telefunkens of old. You either like a mic or your don't.

The ATs are capable of very fine work, and once you spend some time with one and discover the way to get the sound YOU like, you can look forward to some great recordings.

Just go out and buy the mic today and start enjoying yourself!

John

amen brother 8)

Go with AT. My 4047 is like my Mojo 8) .

This is the first time I have ever read about a professional recording engineer selling a collection of AT mics. At least a pair of something from the 4000 series is standard in almost every high end studio in the world.

This is a case of being infected by hype. AT doesn't surround their products with a veil of hype like most mics. The mics speak for themselves.

If they added $500 to each of their mics and included a rosewood case it would be interesting to see how perception would change.

I certainly would like to know who is telling folks out there that the 4047 has a "nickel diaphragm"...I don't think that it was AT, and mine don't look like they have that particular "feature". I have always understood that the 4000 series used an "aging technique" on their gold-sputtered Mylar diaphragms. Actually, I could give ratsass what they use. I like the way that they work on
my voice and my clients'. And so do they.

"Can't we all just learn to get along?"...Rodney King

Moonbaby
I think I came across a review that said the 4040 was nickel, so maybe that's where it all started. I must hunt down the reviews to see if I can find anything.

Jeff
Given that you like your 4047 so much, have you tried the 4060? That's one serious mic! I've been using it more than my other ATs lately, but I really love the 4047.
All this talk about Audio Technica reminds me I want a second 4047, and at least one 4040, (another 4060 would be nice too :wink: ) . I can't afford them, but I don't suppose any true mic-whore let's that get in the way!

John

I wish, John! I've heard nothing but reverence for the 4060. Especially for vox.
Lots of people say the 4047 is very similar in sound vibes. What do you think?
The only tube mic I own it the ADK TC. It's pretty nice. Too bad it came with all this generic 797 Audio accessory kit. It's like bad C1 deja vu until I plug it in. It's not a spiritual-quality piece like the 4047, but it's a great alt flavor.
Once my recent Sebatron pre purchase fades away from my wife's banking radar, the 4060 will get some consideration. 8)

Jeff
The AT4060 is a wonderful mic by any standards. My initial impression was that I was entering into the exhalted territory occupied by the more famous super-mic's. Like all ATs you need to be careful if the singer is overly nasal. The upper end is realy cool -if you position it too close up on-axis, so as to get pronounced sibilance, it still sounds like silk. I also love the way it sucks up bass from a distance, yet it's not bass-heavy. Another thing that I think I've posted already is that it doesn't make you sound asthmatic like so many tube mics. One more thing, this mic has been used by some very famous vocalists, in very expensive studios -as always, the price of the mic is irrelevant.

Strangely enough, the more I use this mic, the more I appreciate the other AT mics.

John

PS I'd love to try one with a Sebatron!

Ok, so i read as much of this thread as I could take.

I own a pair of 3035's and i use them for drum oh's, were you me, would you bother to step up to the 4040's or is the difference so subtle that it's a waste of my money.

I'm getting the impression they are different mics, rather than step ups... some people here with 4040's still use 4033's for other stuff.

People with 4047's are still using their 4040's, due to one being clearer and transparent, and one being more coloured.

Would this be a fair observation? I'm trying to decide also on a 4040 as a do-much-in-the-studio mic.

Antho wrote: I'm getting the impression they are different mics, rather than step ups... some people here with 4040's still use 4033's for other stuff.

People with 4047's are still using their 4040's, due to one being clearer and transparent, and one being more coloured.

Would this be a fair observation? I'm trying to decide also on a 4040 as a do-much-in-the-studio mic.

The all of the 40 series mics are all very good, so it's really just a matter of taste and suitability for whatever voice or instrument you want to use them on. The 4040 seems to me like an great choice as an all rounder.

John

Indeed. Thanks for this feedback John.

If it helps the original thread starter, I finally settled on an AT4040 from JB sound as a good 'all rounder' as John put it . Took a lot of research and some listening tests, but I feel I've made the right choice for now. Hopefully this helps your quest.

I certainly would like to know who is telling folks out there that the 4047 has a "nickel diaphragm"...I don't think that it was AT, and mine don't look like they have that particular "feature".

No, none of the side-address 40-series AT microphones have nickel diaphragms. They all (including the 4033) have gold-sputtered Mylar diaphragms and nickel-plated brass backplates.

I'm getting the impression they are different mics, rather than step ups... some people here with 4040's still use 4033's for other stuff.

Yes, each of the five side-address microphones in the series are different. As I understand it, the 4040 was originally intended to replace the 4033...it was supposed to be an improvement...but enough people complained that they brought the 4033 back as well. The main differences are the 4033 is really a small-diaphragm (maybe medium...if I recall correctly it's between 1/2"-3/4") electrect condenser microphone, where the 4040 is a large-diaphragm true condenser microphone. It's the size of the capsule that probably makes the biggest difference, sound-wise...the smaller diaphragm is probably why so many people like the 4033 on acoustic instruments, and why the results are so varied on vocals. They're both fairly neutral microphones, but the 4040 does have a sound that's more like what most people expect to hear on a vocalist.

People with 4047's are still using their 4040's, due to one being clearer and transparent, and one being more coloured.

Yes, they're both single-pattern large-diaphragm microphones, but unlike most of Audio-Technica's microphones, the 4047 isn't designed to be a transparent jack-of-all-trades-type microphone...it's designed to have some character to it. Unlike the other solid-state microphones in the series, it has an output transformer which adds that character and is one of the more underrated microphones out there in my opinion. That's kind of surprising, because most of the feedback I read about it online is very positive. Not all, of course.

Would this be a fair observation? I'm trying to decide also on a 4040 as a do-much-in-the-studio mic.

Yeah, that's what I'd recommend if you didn't want to spring for the 4050.

-Duardo

[quote=Duardo]

Unlike the other solid-state microphones in the series, it has an output transformer which adds that character and is one of the more underrated microphones out there in my opinion. That's kind of surprising, because most of the feedback I read about it online is very positive. Not all, of course.
-Duardo

Duardo
I too find it surprising that the 4047 isn't more popular. Just think of the phenomenal success of the others in the series. Maybe it's considered a little expensive for a single pattern mic without having a Neumann logo on the side :wink: What a shame.

John

Cucco wrote: 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."

I was gonna say the same thing. Like Cucco is saying, almost ALL manufactors "DONT" really tell the truth. And why would you?
Somebody will just try to copy your design and undercut you.

It works with everything. For instance, look on a bottle of A1 steaksauce. Read the ingredients. And then try making your own.
What you will find is that, it won't taste ANYTHING like A1.
And most importantly you don't really NEED to know the ingredients to know that it taste really good!
Please keep in mind: I know you are not trying to build your own microphone.
Samething with a microphone. Just because you want something that will sound good (i.e. taste good) to your ear. Does not mean you need to know all the materials (ingredients) it's made of.
I'm alike like you were suggesting, I get on here and ask...
What's your favorite mic?
Then Kurt's on here and then Audiogaff next. Soon after, here comes Massive Mastering and David, and Davedog, and Big D and a whole bunch of other audio Master chefs. :)
If anyone of those guys says "I cook with............"
Then I'm sure that it will taste good to my ears. :D
Just my 2 cents

....Ohhh yeah, Cucco. That cat w/ the gun kicks ass!

I as well like and often use the AT 4047. I also own the 4050 and 4060. Together they make a great collection and cover just about all the bases.

I recently acquired an AT4060 and it is a my preferred mic for vocals. Subtle texture, but just right, clean and rich, natural, good presence. Have not tried any $2000+ mics, but I don't feel the need to now!

I too recently bought an AT4040, I must add partly due to blind faith in threads such as this, which isn't always common for me to do.

Drum overheads (mono) sound fantastic, Vox sound excellent, clear and well represented with the two singers I used it on, one sound a bit like the singer from 'the police' and the other myself...who does housey commercial slightly gravelly vocals.

I'm really happy with it.