Another MXL 2001 & 2003 Review

[Recording Engineer]

The new issue of Recording Magazine came in the mail today. In it, it has another review of the MXL 2001 and 2003 by Bob Ross.

For the most part, it was another one of those "Rave Reviews".

 

[Jim Marquard]

You know, I am one of those who bought one of these (MXL2001) mics. In comparison to my Shure 57 it was quite an improvement for vocals without swallowing the damn mic. I have absolutely no idea how it would compare with a much more expensive mic. Why did I buy it? Because I could get it for les than $170 at the time and nothing else in its class cost that little. Three months later, I can now get a Rode NT1 for just a touch more, and from this bulletin board's recommendation as of three months ago, I would have paid the difference to get the NT1. Lately, though, I get the impression that the Rode would have been a poor buy. Now, I know R.E. you have said it isn't a bad mic, especially when compared to some others in its price range, but you certainly give the impression that there are other mics out there that you would prefer. I'm sure there are others I would prefer, but just can't afford.

I'm not mad or anything, just want folks to realize that there are a lot of opinions on this board, some which the pros might either back up or slam. When balancing what is said on this BBS with reviews in mags and pro.rec choosing a mic gets tough. And when a review is given on a mic and we are asked to read it with sarcasm implied it makes it all that much tougher (admittedly, I assume R.E. is implying sarcasm above). I only ask that care be taken when we want to slam a product based on our opinions. It is one thing if our opinion is solicited, but in this case it has not been. R.E., I apologize ahead of time if I am assuming that you are slamming the mic if you are not. It may help if there is some way that we could read the review also--do you have a website. Any other readers looking at this thread--do not mistake this as an endorsement of the MXL2001. It is better than what I had, but I certainly could go for a tube mic to add some much needed warmth and air.

Peace, Jim

 

[Mountaineer]

Just posted my own comparison of the MXL2003 to the AT4033 based on weekend testing.
I still say the MXL2003 is better than two large condensers I tried and sold . . . the AT3525 and the CADE100 . . . but, that's only my opinion. I've never tried the MXL2001, but it's probabably better than the audio snobs would like to admit. I've heard more good than bad in the audio world, so, they are either liars or know-nothings. Still haven't seen a decent review of the 2003 . . . good or bad.

Regards,
PAPicker

 

[Recording Engineer]

Jim Marquard:

"Lately, though, I get the impression that the Rode would have been a poor buy. Now, I know R.E. you have said it isn't a bad mic, especially when compared to some others in its price range, but you certainly give the impression that there are other mics out there that you would prefer. I'm sure there are others I would prefer, but just can't afford."

Yeah I prefer other mics over it, but if the $200US range is what you can afford for a lerge diaphragm mic, then I recommend it over the rest of the $200US range large diaphragm mics because I like it over the rest myself. People can take my suggestion, leave my suggestion, or at least consider my suggestion. And that goes for all my suggestions.

"And when a review is given on a mic and we are asked to read it with sarcasm implied it makes it all that much tougher (admittedly, I assume R.E. is implying sarcasm above)."

Well to clear things up, I sure wasn't slamming the mic. I was simply passing on that there was another "Rave Review" magazines like to give a lot of times; no matter what the product.

I was simply showing that it's one of the many different reviews from different magazines and a whole shit load of different users.

"It may help if there is some way that we could read the review also--do you have a website."

Sorry, but nope. I'm very computer iliteriate (I know the spellings wrong).

PAPicker:

Actually, I've heard many user reviews on r.a.p. which very much favor the 2003, but I have not heard/used it myself. They tend to say it's a mic to hold its own in its price range.

Realize the 2001 and 2003 are completely different. Even the reviewer in Recording Magazine said he noticed this right off. This doesn't come to any suprise to me considering they are manufactuered in to different place by two different companies. The 2001 is made in a factory in Shanghai, China by ? (I think it might be a division of 797 Audio, but I really don't know) along with the ADK A-51, Audix CX-101, and Joe Meek JM-47; while the 2003 is made in Beijing, China by 797 Audio.

But as I said in another thread, the question is how much of what is modified; if any or at all. I've read posts on r.a.p. who have had all 4 right next to eachother. It seems most agree they don't thing there is much of a difference between the 4 to recommend spending more than the cheapest one; which is the MXL 2001. Hmmm... It just makes you wonder...

 

[Mocktwo]

All,

I think I understood R.E.'s sarcazm on the "Rave Review" comment and agree.

Its not so much what product, any product, all products. Its hard to figure anything out from most of the magazine articles. They seem to like everything, and mostly brush over the downfalls.

I can't image them wanting to upset anyone ... they wouldn't get free gear anymore !!

That's why I liked the review in r.a.p. - not that I have to agree with the writer, but he certainly didn't hold any of his opinions back. Hmmm sort of like R.E.

Happy Reading

 

[Jim Marquard]

Hey, if all it takes is some kind words and very little put downs to get free gear from these companies, I'm gain to sell my credibility for that. So come on big companies--use me and abuse me! Ah heck, I couldn't get that lucky. Guess I'll have to keep trying to keep my credibility intact. Dang.

Peace, Jim