At 4033

  • Thread starter Thread starter CPotter82
  • Start date Start date
C

CPotter82

New member
Any opinions on the AT 4033? (specifically for acoustic guitar, but also for any other secondary applications) If you don't like it, does anyone have any alternative recommendations for $300 or less? The salesman at Guitar Center, Boston, suggested the shure ksm27 over it, however he did in the same breath try to tell me that a change of 3 decibles creates a percieved doubling of loudness (if this is true then on most mics I've looked at there would be gigantic peaks in the frequency response and they would all sound horrible lol - has anyone ever seen a 10 dB peak in a mic's freq. resp. chart? maybe if it was from radioshack). Also conveniently enough they had the ksm27 in stock but not the 4033 so I get the feeling he was feeding me bull****. I noticed that in a previous thread someone mentioned that the Octava mk012 worked better for guitar and vocals (simultaneously?) than the 4033... I find this hard to believe, perhaps the micing techniques varied? Anyway, any opinions would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
 
I have been using a 4033 for probably 8 years as my main LD condenser. I love the sound of my Martin acoustic when its miked with the 4033. I have tried the Oktava 012 on the same guitar and I couldn't get the same sound. It was good, but different. As a vocal mike, its worked well for every client I've ever had. At a blind mic test, which included 4 other mics (Neumann, Rode, Cad and an AKG 414) everone chose this mike overall. We did vocal, acoustic guitar and shaken percussion tracks, listening back on Genelec monitors.

I'm not implying that its "better" than others or even the best mic out there these days, because there is a lot of new competition. Still, it has served me well and if I ran across another one for a good price, I'd probably buy it.
 
I have a pair of them and love 'em on acoustic guitars. I have a Martin Dreadnaught too (D-41) and I feel it captures it the best of the mics I own. By the way, the 4033 is a small diaphram not a large, but what the hell, it still sounds great.
 
i alos LOVE mine. I havnt found one thing it hasnt worked on. However not much coloration from the original sound, so if you want coloration you might want to try something else. The small coloration of this mic makes it very versatile for almost anything. And any vocals.

Darnold
 
thanks guys

thanks for all your posts, I will be buying an AT 4033 as soon as the funds are right. I double checked and it is a large diaphragm by the way, perhaps you were thinking of the AT 4041? I'd like one of those too anyway hehe :). Thanks again guys, happy engineering!
 
Re: thanks guys

CPotter82 said:
thanks for all your posts, I will be buying an AT 4033 as soon as the funds are right. I double checked and it is a large diaphragm by the way, perhaps you were thinking of the AT 4041?
Click to expand...
Double checked with whom? Last I heard, a size of at least 1" was standard for "large diaphragm". Has it been lowered to 5/8" (in a larger mount) without anybody telling me about it? Sheesh, nobody ever tells me anything.
 
thanks for all your posts, I will be buying an AT 4033 as soon as the funds are right. I double checked and it is a large diaphragm by the way, perhaps you were thinking of the AT 4041? I'd like one of those too anyway hehe . Thanks again guys, happy engineering!
Click to expand...

large body != large diaphragm

The AT4033 is a small diaphragm electret. That doesn't necessarily mean anything bad about it, but just something to consider.

IMO, the chinese mics have pretty much eclipsed it in quality.
 
ah ok

Thanks for pointing that out to me. I'll still buy it anyway, I've heard smaller diaphragms can work better on acoustic guitar. On a side note, this may be off topic but I'm wondering if anyone here knows of a studio in the Boston area that would offer an internship to an eligible Berklee MP&E student. Thanks again everybody. If anyone has any info they'd like to send, my email is CPotter82@aol.com - I'm also on AOL Instant Messanger under that name quite often.
 
Dolemite said:
IMO, the chinese mics have pretty much eclipsed it in quality.
Click to expand...
IMO, I disagree completely! ;)

I'm not meaning to imply that the Chinese mics are necessarily inferior to it, it's just that it IS an excellent mic - providing excellent results in a number of applications - so how can something "eclipse it" as such??? If it works, it works!

Bruce
 
I also disagree about it being a small diaphragm condenser. I would consider a medium, because its not large, and its defaniately not small. Also i agree with Blue Bear Sound. The mic is amazing for the money.

Darnold
 
I don't know, Darnold -- if Harvey indicates that it's considered a small or medium-dia, I think you can pretty much count on that being the case!

Bruce
 
Last edited:
ooops!! i think i skipped over that post :D. (darnold slaps himself in the face). Yah sorry about that, but he didnt necesarrily say it was a small diaphragm either. Most places i see it listed (like ordering catalogs) i see it called a Medium size diaphragm.
 
Dolemite, what kind of quality are you talking about? The chinese mics usually excel at doing one thing well, like vocals for instance. They dont excel at versatility and thats what the 4033 is all about. Theres almost nothing it doesnt work on. Its more fundamental than the sm57.
 
JuSumPilgrim said:
Dolemite, what kind of quality are you talking about? The chinese mics usually excel at doing one thing well, like vocals for instance. They dont excel at versatility and thats what the 4033 is all about. Theres almost nothing it doesnt work on. Its more fundamental than the sm57.
Click to expand...

Sound quality! Maybe it's versatile, I dunno, I couldn't say. I will say that I'd take an MXL-V67, an MXL-603S, and an SM57 over an AT4033 any day of the week, which I'd say is a fair comparison when you look at the costs. Those 3 mics together are still less than a 4033.

Blue Bear Sound said:
IMO, I disagree completely! ;)

I'm not meaning to imply that the Chinese mics are necessarily inferior to it, it's just that it IS an excellent mic - providing excellent results in a number of applications - so how can something "eclipse it" as such??? If it works, it works!

Bruce
Click to expand...

That's cool guys...really, I was just offering my opinion, which I suppose I should state more clearly. ;) From what I've heard recorded with a AT4033, it seems to have some of the crisp high-end that I don't like. Maybe not as crisp as some others; a bit smoother but still pretty hyped if that makes any sense. Sometimes this sounds good to me, particulary on acoustic guitar (which our original poster was asking about), but not as much on vocals.

IMO, I think with lower priced options like the MXL-V67 and the C1, I see no reason to spend upwards of $300 on what I'd call an inferior mic. From what I've heard of the AT3035, I would also opt for that over the 4033.

Keep in mind that I don't have all these mics to compare, but I listen to most everything that's posted in the clinic and I always pay close attention to the gear used. I know that doesn't make me an expert by any means and I shouldn't go making such judgements without owning the gear...yada, yada, yada ;) ...but I often think people who don't own the gear and thus have no attachment to it are able to give less biased, though less experienced, recommendations.

I'm sure you've all heard me recommend the M-Audio DMP2/DMP3 a few too many times. ;)
 
I've used Rode NT1's for three years. They work well for my acoustic guitar but have been noticeably harsh on strong female vocals @ 8" - !2". I recently achieved significant relief from the harshness by reducing the meter levels in my DBX 386 and Roland 1680 to rarely exceed -8db and never reach -4db. The NT1 now sounds a little too bright for my taste and lacks warmth, but no longer sounds unbearably harsh.

Yesterday, I compared a borrowed 4033 to my NT1. I can't vouch for the condition or age of the 4033 but it looked pristine. Mic distance and meter levels on each channel of the DBX and the VS1680 were identical for each mic as described above. The differences were evident; not just to me, but to my wife and daughter (whose voice I recorded).

The NT1 provided an accurate rendering of the voice, albeit a little bright. The 4033 significantly lacked the NT1's detail and had slightly more harshness but also added wooliness, overtones and a loss of immediacy. The voice seemed farther away in the 4033. It also added an emphasis to the fundamental frequencies that tended toward boomy/tubby. It almost sounded like the singer was singing into a padded tunnel on the 4033 giving it a constrained sound that lacked openness.

To see if the NT1’s brightness could be reduced, I then recorded two NT1’s, one with the DBX386’s 20 dB pad on and the input “drive” cranked; the other without the 20 dB pad and the input turned down. The clear winner was without the 20 dB pad. The pad did nothing to reduce the brightness but added a noticeable and unwanted reinforcement of the fundamental frequencies and some loss of detail. Even so, the padded take was superior to the 4033 (unpadded). If I had to quantify my impressions on a scale of 10, I’d give the NT1 unpadded a 7.5, the padded NT1 a 5, and the 4033 a 2.

I can live with the NT1's for now but I would like to move to one of the newer low cost mics in hope of retaining the accuracy of the NT1 while replacing its brightness for some magic warmth and sheen.

It may be unfair to the 4033 (in case I borrowed a flawed unit), but I will avoid it (at any price) in future.

Mike.
 
What you described hearing with the 4033, I have never heard with mine!

Either it's too subjective to compare, or you did indeed use a less-than-perfect mic....

Bruce
 
Same here. I have a pair and they're matched pretty well and while they have that "A.T." high end bump, they sound damn good and very usable.
 
Dolemite said:


Sound quality! Maybe it's versatile, I dunno, I couldn't say. I will say that I'd take an MXL-V67, an MXL-603S, and an SM57 over an AT4033 any day of the week, which I'd say is a fair comparison when you look at the costs. Those 3 mics together are still less than a 4033.



That's cool guys...really, I was just offering my opinion, which I suppose I should state more clearly. ;) From what I've heard recorded with a AT4033, it seems to have some of the crisp high-end that I don't like. Maybe not as crisp as some others; a bit smoother but still pretty hyped if that makes any sense. Sometimes this sounds good to me, particulary on acoustic guitar (which our original poster was asking about), but not as much on vocals.

IMO, I think with lower priced options like the MXL-V67 and the C1, I see no reason to spend upwards of $300 on what I'd call an inferior mic. From what I've heard of the AT3035, I would also opt for that over the 4033.

Keep in mind that I don't have all these mics to compare, but I listen to most everything that's posted in the clinic and I always pay close attention to the gear used. I know that doesn't make me an expert by any means and I shouldn't go making such judgements without owning the gear...yada, yada, yada ;) ...but I often think people who don't own the gear and thus have no attachment to it are able to give less biased, though less experienced, recommendations.

I'm sure you've all heard me recommend the M-Audio DMP2/DMP3 a few too many times. ;)
Click to expand...

Ive heard exactly one mix on this board done with the 3035 that sounded ....really good. But that doesnt really establish it as a mic worth getting. And would say listening to the overall mix that it had more to do with (I believe it was LongWaveStudio's) overall mixing skills than the 3035. I love how people listen to fully done mixes and decide on gear based on what was used. So much of the quality of a mix has to do with the quality of the mixing, mastering, etc. Alos theres plenty of gear that will work on 1 out of every 10 possible uses. Maybe.
The v67, C1 and 603 are all good mics but not as diverse as the 4033. The 603 is not a vocal mic and the C1 on acoustic guitar, while cool sometimes is too boomy and has a top end thats too thick and hyped in the wrong places. I dont own the v67 so I cant say exactly what it does on acoustic guitar. Theres really no arguement here bec I dont know anyone who would call any of the mics dolemite mentioned more versatile than the 4033 which is smooth and can be tweaked in many dif ways with out distorting the sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top