Out of those you listed, I only know the 4050 as I own one and find it works well in many applications. I would also expect that it would be the best of the lot as well.

The KSM44 does not have the sibelance bite that the 4050 has. Both can sound really good. I have both. I don't like LD's on acoustic much myself. Some people do. It is all relative to the instrument I suppose.

Out of the 4 mics mentioned , 3 share semilar components , & looks while the KSM 44 stands alone. That does'nt mean that the Shure mic is better , but that the others are worth looking at. I've always wanted a 4050 but found that I could do about the same with a 4033 or 3035. The difference is the "omni" & "figure-8" feature found on the 4050 and KSM44. These features are'nt highly saught after now-a-days. You definitely can't go wrong with the B3 , C3 or 4050.

Originally posted by dabmeister17:
The difference is the "omni" & "figure-8" feature found on the 4050 and KSM44. These features are'nt highly saught after now-a-days. You definitely can't go wrong with the B3 , C3 or 4050.

That's because mic technique is a dying art

Originally posted by RecorderMan:

Originally posted by dabmeister17:
The difference is the "omni" & "figure-8" feature found on the 4050 and KSM44. These features are'nt highly saught after now-a-days. You definitely can't go wrong with the B3 , C3 or 4050.

That's because mic technique is a dying art AMEN to that RM. Not sought after? Mabe for those who are dead set on only buying the very cheapest featureless china product they can find. I still find plenty of use for omni and fig-8. Even if you don't need or use them, those mics that have them are usually of a higher calibur and better quality overall.

mic technique is a dying art

I'll second that fella's.

Originally posted by dabmeister17:
Out of the 4 mics mentioned , 3 share semilar components , & looks while the KSM 44 stands alone. That does'nt mean that the Shure mic is better , but that the others are worth looking at. I've always wanted a 4050 but found that I could do about the same with a 4033 or 3035. The difference is the "omni" & "figure-8" feature found on the 4050 and KSM44. These features are'nt highly saught after now-a-days. You definitely can't go wrong with the B3 , C3 or 4050.

Personally, I am dying for a pair of figure-of-8 mics...I have been looking on Ebay for the AT4050 or a nice pair of AKG 414's...

The AT4050 are pretty pricey, even on eBay.

What is the competing product to the AT4050?

Have only used the C3 and the little bro of the B3, the B1.

I love the C3 and think the vocal sounds are lush. The B3 is just the B1 with omni and fig 8. I am not a big fan of the B1 for vocals.

So, for you, I would suggest the C3.

As far as the B1 I do not want to imply that they are not good mics, just that next to the C3, it does not sound as good.

One thing that I have had very good luck recording acoustic guitars using the C3 in figure 8 and a B1 together in an M-S config.

Originally posted by bgavin:
The AT4050 are pretty pricey, even on eBay.

You can get them new for about $480. That's more than a C3, but still not exactly big bucks.

I've heard it said that the 4050 and KSM44 sound almost identical. Any truth to that? Maybe a bit more sibilance with the 4050 as sheet suggests?

I have 3 at4050´s. In my opinion they are slightly better than the C414´s. If sibilance is a problem, nothing that a de-esser can´t handle or vocal technique/mic placement.
Just do not change mic patterns with phantom on and never plug a xlr cable without making shure phantom is off.
I did not like the ksm32, I dunno about the ksm44.

KSM44 is probably a little too "big" for acoustic unless you're looking for a pretty bassy sound. It'll end up being too muddy in a typical rock mix. Small diameter condensers usually have less low end sensitivity and work better on acoustic for rock mixes.

I do love the 44 on vox; it's a pretty warm microphone. It's got the low end fullness of a TLM103 almost, but without that Neumann "spitty thing". It's also a very quiet mic.

You could do a lot worse than the 44. I have a C1, and I don't think it's versatile enough to be a go-to mic. Very aggressive sounding mic.

As for the AT being pricey; I certainly wouldn't call a mic under 1K pricey if you're looking for a "lush" vocal sound.

Dan Roth
Otitis Media
Audio - Video - Film
dan@otitis-media.net

I have 3 at4050´s. In my opinion they are slightly better than the C414´s.

Alecio, can you expound on this topic??? What do you like better about the 4050's than the 414's???

Thanks!

Double, I had the pleasure some time ago to record my voice with both, flat. I could not recognize my tone with the c414.. a little middish, I dunno why. Maybe mic pre?
The At4050 was flatter, sounded nicer at least to me and to the other engineer.
For overheads I also prefer the At´s. Rush and Dave Mathews also use it nowadays, don´t?

I can not remember now if I used the TL or the Buls.
Sorry
:(