Would you consider buying a used microphone post COVID?

I personally would buy used with the mentioned precautions. My son brought the virus from college. His was like a bad flu for a couple of days. The wife ( his main nurse) isolated him but still got a mild case. Another son had mild symptoms. My test was negative and two other kids had no symptoms and were not tested. Unfortunately my 86 yr old father-in law with health problems died last week from the virus. We thought we were very careful. Doesn’t seem to fit a pattern but we still mask and hand wash religiously.
 
Can’t be too careful...

I personally would buy used with the mentioned precautions. My son brought the virus from college. His was like a bad flu for a couple of days. The wife ( his main nurse) isolated him but still got a mild case. Another son had mild symptoms. My test was negative and two other kids had no symptoms and were not tested. Unfortunately my 86 yr old father-in law with health problems died last week from the virus. We thought we were very careful. Doesn’t seem to fit a pattern but we still mask and hand wash religiously.
 
The efficiency of Reverb was fast.

The NT-1a sold in 24hrs. So people must like them.

And have no fear of COVID from used microphones. Not that I have COVID, but the situation is not deterring sales.

So the rest of us arent worried?
 
Last edited:
I tested positive. Just got the notice about 12 hours ago. I've had symptoms since Friday early morning the 18th, I was pretty sure I had it, because of the symptoms I was experiencing, even if they were only mild symptoms.

But, one symptom I do have is extreme weakness. There is no way I'd be doing any recording of any kind, with any microphone. But, I guess it's possible that someone else could, and then infect the workings of the microphone. But, early on, I heard that sunlight kills the virus. I'm not sure how long it takes, but one way to sanitize your mask was to leave it out in the hot sun.

Also, there is an ultraviolet light (UV-C) that will also kill the virus. I'm not sure how much they cost, but you could buy one and then rig up a sanitation box of some sort for said microphone where the rays of the UV-C bulb would bathe the microphone.
 
Last edited:
I tested positive. Just got the notice about 12 hours ago.

Stay tough. Be strong.

Ron, I hope your son didnt give it to him, and kil him. That would make a tragedy.

Rob, the M201 is at amazon $216, 1 left. you think thats a deal, or wait? You seem an expert.
 
Last edited:
Shipping to the UK is pretty high, so US purchases even ebay ones are very expensive. We actually get quite a few ebay US items showing up here, but they want maybe $50 for shipping? My ceiling for a used 201 would be in Dollars, around 80. I'd stick a bid in for that, and if it went above 80, not be interested. Got another bargain today as it happens - 200 pounds on an AKG 451 and CK9 capsule, that will do me nicely.
 
My ceiling for a used 201 would be in Dollars, around 80. cely.
.
That is unexpected..Looking at the completed listings and price guides, they don't go under $180 for used. Haven't in years.

Was that a typo? and mean 180? or is that 80+50? I dont see them going that low 3-4 years back..

I think its a nice microphone with different coloration than the other beyer M series dynamics. $80 bucks only, yeeesh.

If they are $185 used , I thought $216 a good deal new.

Screenshot 2020-12-28 131106.png
 
Nope - 80. I look at ebay most days and always put in the first bid, and always for my maximum, which is always low. Most times you get outbid, but sometimes you suddenly get the email on a product you forgot about saying you have won. If a mic is say 200 new, 50 would be my maximum bid for ebay unknown purchases.

My new mic purchases are always in the special offer sections of well known websites - never pay retail, or close even!
 
Would you think a MD-421 is more essential than the SM-58?

I could sell the NT-1a ( never use this one, just sits) or SM-58 and shoot for the MD-421. Dynamics work well for me. Stick it in my bass cabinet. Every time I see a 421 demo, it impresses.
Not going to buy any used microphone till this blows over. It seems like dumb move during the plague. Is that unfair that I will sell but not buy used? Whatever..

Must say, I like the hyper's in my empty untreated bedroom.

the MD421 was the "solo" mic McCartney used for his Home made album in 1970...plugged straight into the Studer Reel to Reel...because the mixing desk wasnt available yet, and no meter bridge either! so the folklore goes... just move the mic to get the sound right.
 

Attachments

  • PAUL Solo 1.png
    PAUL Solo 1.png
    465 KB · Views: 8
Are there really any truly dire microphones out there with a brand name on them? The AKG C1000 probably has the worst reputation of any mic, ever, but the reality is that it's a perfectly usable microphone, despite the rap sheet. I know I will never buy one after owning one for a short time and being a bit unimpressed - but was it a terrible mic? Like all the mics we talk about they either do one job really well, and others poorly, or they do everything above averagely, but not magically?

I get the impression that we judge mics on their flat EQ performance. Little bumps at 1K can be flattened if you don't like them, or re-created where they don't exist if you do.

The Line 6 radio mics I have can emulate (and Line 6 are very good at modelling) the sound of popular mics - Shures, Sennheiser, Audix etc, but they cannot emulate polar patterns. If you prefer Senn, you can sound like them, and reviewers think the results are accurate but it's just clever tone controls really, isn't it? So much of what we do is personal preference, not quality. With the range and scope of modern EQ, can we really not replicate the bumps and dimples in frequency response? With a treble and bass control with fixed slopes and frequency, we couldn't - but now we can have as many bands as we wish and each with variable Q.

When we compare X mic with Y mic - what are we really comparing?

If we had some pink noise at exactly the same distance from the mics, and EQ'd it flat for every mic - would they all sound the same? Is that Chinese condenser capable of being EQ'd to sound like the Neumann? We'd all say of course not, but what exactly are we hearing? Any mic is supposed to capture changes in pressure at a range of frequencies. If a mic does it linearly, like a measurement mic, we think it lacks character. I sometimes wonder if everything we do is just subjective, and we never really think about what is happening? We know a Neumann is nice, so is ANY mic with the same EQ response, automatically nice too?
 
Dang Rob you have a huge mic locker! you could better answer the question of "why we compare X to Y"? I will guess application needs, GAS? :p Im only messing minimally with anything these days, maybe some tracking coming up.

I guess to think the EMI engineers chose the MD421 for example, Pauls McCartney 1, Home-Recording setup, because of noise/crap room etc. The EMI engineers knew more about all the technical stuff and probably grabbed a "good mic for a noisy crap room". The engineer probably compared X to Y from his knowledge of patterns and didnt have to do a shootout of his U47 vs U67 vs MD421 vs AKG D etc. EMI I suppose has their mic locker and tossed one to Paul for his project in boredom...the intelligent choice was MD421(Dynamic for multiple purposes?maybe?

But it was kind of a famous album for being the "home-grown weed album" with One Mic and the Reel to Reel, and only Paul on all the instruments...post the Beatle breakup thing. Back then I wasnt aware of gear or mics and only recall the "he did it all himself!?" thing was attached to the album. It was like a bag of HomeGrown and wasnt anything like the previous Abbey Road album deluxe studio..as I recall the vibe. It was like "hhmmm? Paul made this himself alone...no beatles?....in his farm house? with 1 mic plugged straight into a reel to reel....he played drums and guitar and sang?" ...I didnt understand overdubbing until 7yrs later, so it was a weird concept of him doing that "solo" all instruments thing.

sorry too much coffee...
 
I think a lot of microphones are used in the same way that filters are used on cameras. Lots of people will use a soft filter on portraits to get rid of imperfections. How many pin-up girls were air brushed on the pages of Playboy magazine (hint... ALL OF THEM).

I read comments like "it's too detailed, it's sterile, it lacks character". They ask for "rounded transients" (isn't that an oxymoron?), warmth, and all kinds of other subjective terms that mean different things to different people. I interpret a lot of that as "I don't want a mic that shows the warts and all".

If a mic is available for a relatively cheap price, go for it. If you only snag 1 out of 10 that you bid on, great. That's one more tool in the box.
 
Dang Rob you have a huge mic locker! you could better answer the question of "why we compare X to Y"? I e...


Yet he remains strongly ambiguous.

use your ears thing..

I would love to hear some A/B comparisons in that collection. The M201 vs all of them.


Rich, 5-6 is enough...for pop rock in the bedroom.
 
The Line 6 radio mics I have can emulate (and Line 6 are very good at modelling) the sound of popular mics - Shures, Sennheiser, Audix etc, but they cannot emulate polar patterns. If you prefer Senn, you can sound like them, and reviewers think the results are accurate but it's just clever tone controls really, isn't it? So much of what we do is personal preference, not quality. With the range and scope of modern EQ, can we really not replicate the bumps and dimples in frequency response? With a treble and bass control with fixed slopes and frequency, we couldn't - but now we can have as many bands as we wish and each with variable Q. nice too?

I was told that Microphone Response and Spectrum Output are 2 different things. Boost the EQ at 5k is not the same as a response curve with a 5k peak. It colors the end result, not how it responds to the sound.
 
Ok - how does that process work? The 5K peak means the mic has more output at that frequency, which is what EQ does, isn't it? Can you explain why a EQ boost of say 3dB at 5K is different from the mic having it's own 3dB peak at that frequency? What is the physics here? I can't accept 'color' as an objective technical term. I wonder what the person who told you used to make it an objective comment? I'm unconvinced.
 
Active and passive eq are different. Putting the EQ before or after the preamp is different.

Microphone response is pre transformer. That is the same as before the preamp. EQ after would be post. After the transformer has interpreted it.

Transformers multiply on a ratio.

EQs are subtractive.
 
Still not really with you.
Active and passive eq are different. Yep - totally agree, but have missed the point I think?
Putting the EQ before or after the preamp is different. Yes - different but do the same thing, and to me sound the same, as they should if they are transparent.
Microphone response is pre transformer. That is the same as before the preamp. Yes - again, I agree, but before or after, so what?
EQ after would be post. Indeed it would, would it matter if it wasn't?
After the transformer has interpreted it. Transformers, er, transform - they interpret nothing.
Transformers multiply on a ratio. Sort of - they convert from one set of levels and impedances to another with a ratio that is linked to the turns ratio - is this anything to do with what we're on about?
EQs are subtractive. Unless they add gain, then they're not.

I think you're trying to tell men something, but I'm maybe to thick to get it?
 
After the transformer has interpreted it. Transformers, er, transform - they interpret nothing.
I think you're trying to tell men something, but I'm maybe to thick to get it?

Yes the signal goes through the transformer. It changes the voltage. It is interpreted/realized/decoded from the ratio of windings/spit out.
 
Back
Top