EQ magazine mic voiceover article

mixmkr

mixmkr

we don't need rest!!
OK...OK...so you can't really believe everything you read, but the MXL2001 is right in their with the pack. Nothing so slamming said about the mic. Why does it get slammed so much by everyone here, but ok with this [no-name?] author (Mark Avery)? This article wasn't promoting mics either, it seems.

I find mine to be OK...nothing to jump up and down about, but certainly not as lousy as some people have expressed. If it was as bad as the "one" review (where the guy thought it was broken), how would they sell 'em?

I can imagine all kinds of answers to my questions, and probably some silly stupid ones too....but my ears must be gone:confused:
 
Silly stupid answer #1 :

I dont hink the 2001 sounds horrible either....but it will never get recommended because there are many mics of equal or lesser $$$$ that sound a good bit better than the 2001.....

the reviewer that thought the mic was broken (Rip Rowan) has a great set of ears and can hear imperfections that the average listener (like me) may not detect....the same way Harvey picked up the level of suckness of the 2001......

the 2001 can now go in the category with the Rode NT1 : it may have been a bargain at the time, is still a usable mic, but for those buying now, there are many better options......
 
I believe the major problem with the earlier 2001s was with a bad batch of cheapo output transformers.

Supposedly, this issue has been addressed, so the older 2001's that Bruce Richardson reviewed probably did sound broken at the time.

Gidge, I'm sorry but I have to crack up about the Rip Rowan having great ears comment. :) lol. I just don't know about that guy. I tend to like how Bruce Richardson calls things, though. His honesty and straight-forwardness are pretty refreshing.
 
A new midrange condenser champion?

That was a really interesting article.

Some other comments/findings worthy of note:

Based on several criterea (clarity, presence, richness, versatility, and value), here's how some of the microphones fared:

Marshall mxl 2003 . . . 4.2 overall, 5.0 for value. Comments: "Slightly bright, but a great value."

AKG C414B-TL II . . . . . 4.2 overall.

Shure KSM 32/SL . . . . . 4.2.

Neumann TLM 103 . . . . 4.8 overall, 5.0 for value.

Now get this one:

CAD E-350 . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 in every category. 5.0 overall. Comments: "Why isn't this mic in more studios?"


Top Picks :

* Budget mic: Marshall mxl 2003. "For the price of a decent dynamic, Marshall's mxl 2003 large-diaphragm studio condenser offers exceptional detail, warmth, and features. Runner up: V-67."

* Desert Island mic: "The CAD-E-350 is a standout. With sound, performance, design, packaging and features that match or exceed those of mics two and three times it's price, the E-350 is the next studio condenser star. Runner-up: Neumann TLM-103."

Now I'm really going to have to take a serious look in to this CAD E-350.
 
damn, chester....the mail must be really slow in your parts...or you're just a challenged reader....OR, you subscribe to ALL those FREE mags!! a week later...that's not tooooo bad.
 
Well, initially, I just kinda' skipped over that article untill this moring when it kind of caught my eye while I was on the crapper.

Heck, if someone can bring back that "Newbie Mic Pre Poll," I can bring this one back from last week. :) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top