new mic for acoustic guitar to replace AKG c1000 ?

Discussion in 'Guitars' started by jbourne84, Jan 8, 2014.

  1. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    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.
     
  2. callahan studios

    callahan studios Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    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
     
  3. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Home Page:
    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?
     
  4. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Location:
    Akron/Cleveland, OH
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  5. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  6. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Location:
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  7. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2012
    Location:
    Akron/Cleveland, OH
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  8. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    currently Billings
    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
     
  9. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    currently Billings
    Mxl= China. Rode= Australia.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
     
  10. thatjeffguy

    thatjeffguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    Vashon Island, Washington
    Home Page:
    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
     
  11. callahan studios

    callahan studios Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    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
     
  12. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    currently Billings
    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.
     
  13. thatjeffguy

    thatjeffguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    Vashon Island, Washington
    Home Page:
    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
     
  14. callahan studios

    callahan studios Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    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
     
  15. callahan studios

    callahan studios Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    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
     
  16. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    currently Billings
    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
     
  17. thatjeffguy

    thatjeffguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    Vashon Island, Washington
    Home Page:
    I was speaking from an educated professional engineer's standpoint.

    Jeff
     
  18. MrEase

    MrEase Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Location:
    West Suss ex, UK
    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!
     
  19. Davedog

    Davedog Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Location:
    Pacific NW
    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.
     
  20. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Location:
    currently Billings
    Brilliant Dave. I allowed myself to get sucked in. I`ve been away too long.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice