Audio Technica?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 13th_Omen
  • Start date Start date
13th_Omen

13th_Omen

New member
Let's just say that I might know someone who has worked for AT for like 10 years and could get me a really good deal on mics and the such. What would you say the best mic for recording vocals would be from AT?
 
take your pick. I own the AT3035 and they have to just get better from there! It is amazing! later
 
Hey 13th_Omen,

Let's just say you have lots of friends here at the ole BBS and you want to share your good fortune by arranging some deals on AT mics! Whaddya say?

Fab
 
I have a bunch of AT mics and like them all for different things:

AT3035 - I've had good luck with vocals, guitar cabinets and upright bass. Acoustic guitar is a bit boxy.

AT4033 - Excellent on acoustic guitar. Can be great on some voices, can also be not so great on voices.

AT4050 - A terrific, relatively flat multipattern mic useful for just about anything.

Pro37R small diaphragms - nice overheads, great when mixed with a LDC on acoustic guitar. Not useful for vocals, in my experience.

I am really happy with my AT mics. If I had to pick only one to take with me to a desert island for my own personal use, I'd pick the 4033. But that's me.
 
might as well go for broke and try the 4060. a pair of 4041's wouldn't be a bad thing either, though not for vocals.
 
OK, you've got the AT3035...

Well, the AT4040 is awful nice. I know I keep saying it but I'm going to do it until one of you guys bite.

I think the AT4047, AT4050 and 4060 would follow in priority after the AT4040. Oh yeah, the ATM25 is a good kick mic as well as a good mic for male dialog.

Steve Albini says the AT4033 is a great bass cabinet mic. So, if you like to mic bass cabs, then go for this one as well.

Besides making great mics, Audio-Technica is a great company with polite and knowledgeable people working there.

Steve
www.mojopie.com
 
ozraves said:


I think the AT4047, AT4050 and 4060 would follow in priority after the AT4040.
Click to expand...


So for vocals you prefer the 4040, the 4047, and the 4050 all over the 4060? Interesting.
 
littledog said:
So for vocals you prefer the 4040, the 4047, and the 4050 all over the 4060? Interesting.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm just not totally enamored of tubes in mics. However, I know George Massenburg likes the AT4060 as a vocal mic.

Peter Montessi of A Designs tells me I need to acquire a quality tube mic. So, I'm sure I'll eventually give in and get an AT4060.

OK, I've now gone to Albini and Massenburg. I wonder if they use MXL or Studio Projects mics.

Steve
www.mojopie.com
 
Last edited:
ozraves said:
Nope, I'm just not totally enamored of tubes in mics.
Click to expand...

That's cool. Everyone's entitled to their own taste.

By the way, next time someone dumps one of those unloveable eLAM's, C12's, U47's, etc. (or even a tube-carrying Lawson, Soundelux, Brauner, BLUE, etc.) in your lap, I'll be happy to give them a loving home.

So, which tube mics in particular turned you off to the genre?
 
ozraves said:
A Groove Tubes GT66 went on eBay tonight for $336. I guess I should quit worrying about the $$ and buy a tube mic.
Click to expand...

BZZZZZZZZ! Wrong!

You're no rookie, so you know that's not a good answer.

You don't buy any piece of gear on specs or design concept - you buy it because you like the way it sounds, because it fulfills a necessary function, or provides features and capabilities that you currently don't own. A secondary reason might be to buy something because it will generate more business or because clients "expect" you to have it, although that's an easy rationalization to make for buying anything, and should be used cautiously.

Now, if you've heard the GT66 and like it, then buy it. Or if you've heard nice things about it from reputable sources and want to take a chance, figuring the price is a real bargain and you can always resell it, that's ok too.

The point is you made an interesting statement: "I'm just not totally enamored of tube mics." You also don't own any, so I'm assuming either:

•You've used a number of them elsewhere and never found one you really liked?

•They tend to be more expensive than equivalent solid state models, so perhaps you have a philosophical objection to paying a premium just to get a tube?

Given that the vast majority of vocals have been and continue to be recorded on various tube mics, even by engineers who clearly have the resources to use anything they wish, it behooves you as someone who is involved with reviewing gear to be a little more specific about which mics you have actually used, if any, to support your misgivings about them.
 
littledog,

on this particular gt mic, peter montessi has urged me to buy a certain gt model but i didn't pull the trigger on it as i didn't want to bother peter while he's at aes in order to verify if this was the same model or not.

i don't have any tube mics in my personal collection b/c of personal philosophy, which is essentially stated at www.mojopie.com/micproj.html however, i am a person who likes commercial recording studios so i don't mind going out when i need something i can't get here such as a tube mic or soundfield mic. in the long term, i am looking at a few different tube mics. i am most interested in the at4060 but generally try it for 30 to 90 days before i buy anymore.

anyhow... peace brother.

steve
www.mojopie.com
 
Last edited:
The bottum line is AT mics are very very good for the money so you are one lucky dog if you can get them cheaper, I would give my baby toe if I could get mics at close to cost from AT or any of my favorite brands
 
The bottum line is AT mics are very very good for the money so you are one lucky dog if you can get them cheaper, I would give my baby toe if I could get mics at close to cost from AT or any of my favorite brands
 
Hi Oz,

I went to your link, and a page came up by Dan Richards about building a mic cabinet. I couldn't find anything in there that philosophically objected to tube mics, so maybe that wasn't the page I was supposed to read. (As a matter of fact, a large diaphragm tube mic was step eight I believe.)

But there was somnething else that caught my attention in that article. Excerpted quotes follow:

Most people setting up project studios just need some kind of mic to get started. For the very first priority, I would recommend a Shure SM57, which is a dynamic mic, or the Studio Projects B1, which is a three-micron condenser.

[SNIP]

The sixth priority would be to get a few more dynamics or a few high SPL three-micron condensers, especially if you're recording drums. A total of three SM57 dynamic mics would be good or you could go with some Studio Projects B1 mics.

Does anyone else find it odd to describe a microphone by the thickness of it's diaphragm, as if that is the defining feature. Is the implication that many mics with non-3 micron diaphragm thicknesses (like a 6 micron U-87 or a 2 micron AT4060) would somehow be less desireable or inferior purely on the basis of that one spec? Why pick out that one feature as defining? Why not specify gold-sputtered mylar, or a 1" diameter, or a built-in pad, or an HPF, or side address, or any of dozens of other features and/or specs?

It just seems strange to focus on 3-microns, like that was some sort of magic number. In fact, by itself, it's probably one of the less meaningful ways of describing a mic.
 
littledog said:
Hi Oz,

I went to your link, and a page came up by Dan Richards about building a mic cabinet. I couldn't find anything in there that philosophically objected to tube mics, so maybe that wasn't the page I was supposed to read. (As a matter of fact, a large diaphragm tube mic was step eight I believe.)

But there was somnething else that caught my attention in that article. Excerpted quotes follow:

Most people setting up project studios just need some kind of mic to get started. For the very first priority, I would recommend a Shure SM57, which is a dynamic mic, or the Studio Projects B1, which is a three-micron condenser.

[SNIP]

The sixth priority would be to get a few more dynamics or a few high SPL three-micron condensers, especially if you're recording drums. A total of three SM57 dynamic mics would be good or you could go with some Studio Projects B1 mics.

Does anyone else find it odd to describe a microphone by the thickness of it's diaphragm, as if that is the defining feature. Is the implication that many mics with non-3 micron diaphragm thicknesses (like a 6 micron U-87 or a 2 micron AT4060) would somehow be less desireable or inferior purely on the basis of that one spec? Why pick out that one feature as defining? Why not specify gold-sputtered mylar, or a 1" diameter, or a built-in pad, or an HPF, or side address, or any of dozens of other features and/or specs?

It just seems strange to focus on 3-microns, like that was some sort of magic number. In fact, by itself, it's probably one of the less meaningful ways of describing a mic.
Click to expand...
I think it's strange... and he sure went out of his way to try and target the SM57 with that B1... I wonder how much PMI paid him to say that crap.
 
littledog said:
Hi Oz,

I went to your link, and a page came up by Dan Richards about building a mic cabinet. I couldn't find anything in there that philosophically objected to tube mics, so maybe that wasn't the page I was supposed to read. (As a matter of fact, a large diaphragm tube mic was step eight I believe.)

But there was somnething else that caught my attention in that article. Excerpted quotes follow:

Most people setting up project studios just need some kind of mic to get started. For the very first priority, I would recommend a Shure SM57, which is a dynamic mic, or the Studio Projects B1, which is a three-micron condenser.

[SNIP]

The sixth priority would be to get a few more dynamics or a few high SPL three-micron condensers, especially if you're recording drums. A total of three SM57 dynamic mics would be good or you could go with some Studio Projects B1 mics.

Does anyone else find it odd to describe a microphone by the thickness of it's diaphragm, as if that is the defining feature. Is the implication that many mics with non-3 micron diaphragm thicknesses (like a 6 micron U-87 or a 2 micron AT4060) would somehow be less desireable or inferior purely on the basis of that one spec? Why pick out that one feature as defining? Why not specify gold-sputtered mylar, or a 1" diameter, or a built-in pad, or an HPF, or side address, or any of dozens of other features and/or specs?

It just seems strange to focus on 3-microns, like that was some sort of magic number. In fact, by itself, it's probably one of the less meaningful ways of describing a mic.
Click to expand...
I think it's strange... and he sure went out of his way to try and target the SM57 with that B1 crap. I wonder what PMI gave him to say that crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top