acoustic & vocals neumann or at

  • Thread starter Thread starter snapper
  • Start date Start date
S

snapper

New member
I'm going to buy my first large condensor and I'm looking for some opinion on a couple. I will use it as a acoustic guitar and vocals mic. I'll be using the preamps in my mackie board right now but I'm going to get the aphex 1110 after christmas. I'm torn between the at 4033 and at $299. it sounds like a killer deal. But what about the at 4050 with switchable patterns, and the 4047 ? And then their is the neumann tlm103 which I can get new for $750. Its supposed to be super low self noise. If all of these were offered at the same price what would you get??
 
Well

I myself picked the TLM103s as my all-around, general-purpose fixed cardioid large daiphragm condenser mics over the 4033, 4050, 414B/ULS, and 414TL/II. You really to somehow try and listen and compare all those you mentioned. some people will say the 4050 and some will say the 414B/ULs due to them being multi-patterns; which of those two would be a better all-around, general-purpose is what I'd like to know. I'm not even going to make any guesses until I hear some direct audio comparisons.

In regards to the 4047, it is a vewry nice mic too. I want one myself, and will buy one eventually, but not anytime soon. Anyhow, since this is your first large diaphragm condenser purchase, I suggest you don't go for the 4047 and buy something that gives you great versitility for all-around, general-purpose.
 
Has its lack of a db pad ever been an issue for you? Lets say i wanted to try and use it to mic a guitar cab , would it perform well hear too.
 
HUH!

With a max. SPL of 138, you're gonna hurt your ears before you hurt the mic; I've used them on toms withpout a problems in regards to SPL. On loud source like that, you need to be more worried about overloading the input of the preamp more than you need to worry about overloading the mic. So, using pres with pads on them and keeping in-line pads (between the the mic and preamps at a quick grab for the pres that don't is a very important think to do.

In regards to 103s on guitar cabinets, it will take the SPL but it's not usually my first or even second choice for close miking guitar cabs. Now, a 57 up close and 103 4-5 feet back or behind an open-back cab had gotten me some rather nice results.

I do, however, really like the 103 up-close on a really nice bass cab!
 
Oh

And donn't forget the phase reversal switch or in-line adpater on that mic behind the cabinet.
 
Shure

Personally, I think the best mic in your range is the Shure KSM32. It really sounds great. And, yes I AB'd it with the neumann and the AT. I thought the AT sounded way way way too bright and I could tell no clear difference between the neumann and the shure - except the price! The shure is only $549.

Eric
 
R.E.- so if Im micing a guitar cab as I usually do with a 57 am I going to want to put my condensor out of phase if I use it 6-8 feet back. Or am I going to have to compensate for some delay between the mics. I'd love to try this.
 
No

You only need to reverse the phase on a mic behind a cabinet.

There will be a delay if 6-8' back but you won't hear the delay aspect of it. If you go say 12-18' back, you'll notice a really close doubling-delay that can ad fullness. rmember, 1 foot = 1 millisecond. So, 18' back = 18 milliseconds.

Also, experiment with the mic height at amp level, standing ear level, higher than standing ear level, and everything inbetween.
 
its all about the sound

Hi Recording Engineer,

You said that some people would prefer the c414b/uls or the at mics bcos they have multiple patterns.

I dont' think its because of the multiple patterns as ,uch as the excellent sound, and I know people who have ab'd the c414b vs the tlm 103 and came out prefering the 414 as the general purpose mic.

I would still love to get a tlm 103 someday though :)
 
Oh Hardly True TOO MANY Times

It's all about the sound? Is that how the general microphone consumer around the world has been thinking for the past few years? Well, then how do you explain that fact that "low-budget" large diaphragm condensers have, for a few years now, been selling A LOT more than small diaphragm condensers when most of the small diaphragm condensers in the same price ranges generally sound better than the large diaphragms? Why do they keep on bombarding us with yet even a low priced large diaphragm condenser every year?

If that's the case, then how do you explain the general microphone consumer further amplifying all the "hype" from "low-budget" microphone companies and A LOT of these "reviewers" of these mics in the magazines that has been going around for the past few years.

If that is so, then why do we constantly see the general recording gear consumer having their heart set on "tube" rather than focusing on the "sound" regardless of what's in it?

In regards to my remark about the B/ULS and 4050 and some people prefering them over the fixed cardioids for all-around, general-purpose miking due to them being multi-pattern, I was just simply letting him know, that is something to think about in addition to the mic he ends-up liking the "sound" of the most.

For some people, features are the ONLY consideration. For some people, features are a consideration in addition to the "sound". For some people, the "sound" is pretty much the ONLY consideration. For some people, it's somewhere inbetween ALL that. You have to decide for yourself what you're looking for for your particular needs.

For me, at the time, my ONLY requirement was a microphone that sounded "best" to me in cardioid on the greatest number of sound sources since I'd be using cardioid probably at least 90% of the time for my work-horse large diaphragm condensers in my studio.

Unfortunetly, I wasn't able to A/B the ATs and the AKGs, so I had to rely on my memory. However, I was able to A/B the AKGs and TLM103. Out of all those I previously mentioned, my pick just happened to be the TLM103; my second favorite happened to be the B/ULS.

Now at first, I admit I was leaning more toward the B/ULS even though it was my second favorite simply because it is multi-pattern and what happens when I do need it that 10% of the time? But the more I thought about, I knew I was going to buy another large diaphragm condenser within another 6months-1year, so I figured I'd just buy a multi-pattern then and fixed carioid would be just fine right now.
 
Now now RE...

Don't forget that in our little shoot out last summer, the AT 4033 sounded WAY better on the acoustic the the Nuemann did!

On my voice though, the Nuemann sounded a little better.

The 4050 is a warmer sounding mic then the 4033, and if you feel you need a little more warmth then the 4033, and you need multi patterns, then it may be just about the best mic in the price range.

I would like to commend snapper though for not including that sucky sounding NT1, or any of that low end AKG crap in the mix.....;)

Ed
 
The Last Thing I Did Was Forget

You know, I WAS going to mention EXACTLY that; thinking you AND others would get the wrong impression or browse over what I was saying.

Here's the "key" sentence on that.

For me, at the time, my ONLY requirement was a microphone that sounded "best" to me in cardioid on the greatest number of sound sources since I'd be using cardioid probably at
least 90% of the time for my work-horse large diaphragm condensers in my studio.

I even put it as it's own paragraph so it wouldn't be looked over. That's why I decided not to add what you mentioned.

Yes, you're sure right, Ed. The 4033 DID sound slightly better on acoustic guitar than the TLM103; as does the Microtech Gefell M930. The TLM103 DID sound slightly better on vocals than the 4033 and to a M930.

However, I feel significant changes can be made either way depending on preamps.

Also, we both know we should take our results with a BIG grain of salt; even more than usual; besides the guitar and V/O rather than vocals we used.

We WILL do it again just like we sorta planned in the next few months. The best time would be when we're ready to cut vocals with my band for our next album. It won't be for awhile since tonight is only our second session for it, but it'll be reasonably soon.
 
hmm

re,

you said that the TLM 103 DID sound slightly better than the 4033 on vocals.

I have heard both mics and I personally like them both, but when I was searching, I was torn between the more expensive 103 or also very good sounding 4033.

Now, there is a $600 price difference btw the TLM 103 and the at 4033, but only a slight improvement , so could you please tell the board and future readers the major differences btw the TLM 103 and the 4033.

The reason I am asking is so that people who desire a high quality sound will not be afraid to go out and buy a $300 mic(by the way, the At 4033 has been used on many hit records.)I myself did not go that route cos I thought I would be getting a rode nt1 sound.

Secondly, could you please tell us the small diaphragm mics in the budget market that sound better than the large diaphragm crap destroying recordings the world over. the reson for this is that, as a mic buyer, I myself was led to belive that small diaphragm mics were solely for capturing instruments, and large diaphragms were meant for vocals.

Also, can you compare your small diaphragm, the venerable oktava mc012 from the sound room only , to the venerable at 4033 in terms of sound quality both on instruments and on vocals.

finally, how big of a difference do preamps make. Will an at 4050 through a dbx 586 sound better than a U87 through a blue tube?If so, what would be your ultimate recommendation in terms of sound quality and value for money for a mic/pre combo, even though ones ears are the best judge.

thanks man, I am sure everybody will appreciate and learn from your response.
 
I compared.......

the TLM 103, AT 4033, AT 4050 and AT 4047 on vocals one right after the other and back-and-forth in a sound room. If they all cost the same I would choose the TLM 103. If you're comparing price, keep in mind that the TLM does not come with a shockmount and the Audio Technicas all do. I thought that the 4033 sounded good, the 4050 sounded a tiny bit better and the 4047 sounded the best of the ATs. (I don't care about multiple patterns, mainly because I don't understand them.) I bought the 4047 and so far so good!
 
hi li slim,

Is the 4047 more expensive as the 4050? I know it's newer, and I suspect it's cheaper. If it is, then that is absolutely fabulous news for everyone looking for a budget mic.

did you happen to compare the 4047 to the shure ksm32?

thanks
 
Hey CJ-

I did try the Shure KSM 32 although not as carefully as the ATs; my strong impression was that the ATs sound better for vocals than comparably priced Shures.

Yes, the AT 4047 costs less than the 4050 (since it has only the single pattern). I paid something like $469 at B&H Photo in NYC (see http://www.bhphoto.com). I think it was about $100 less than the 4050. The sales pitch is that it's designed to sound like old fashioned quality tube mics. Not ever having used an old fashioned quality tube mic, I wouldn't know. I'm not real good at expressing these things, but it sounded warm yet real (compared, say, to "warm yet not all there", which is how I would describe the famous NT1). I thought it came in second to the tlm 103 in the category of all mics in the B&H sound room for less than $800 (the 103 was $799).

We are insane, you know: 500 bucks is "budget"!

-Slim
 
AT4047 vs KSM32

I own the AT4047 and the KSM32 - after useing each in various applications my opinion is as follows. The 4047 seems to work better for vocals, it is "warmer" sounding which is consistant with the AT claim that it is designed to replicate the "old tube sound". The KSM32 seems to work better with instruments, accustic guitars, drum overhead etc. However, the 4047 worked best recording a gorgous sounding 100 year old violin (the KSM32 was a little too brite). That being said, both mics work very well in many applications. As always, trust your own ears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top