T
The Axis
Member
The salesman was a real saint. He let me try just about every mike in the case. I had an acoustic gutar from the guitar room, and started with the mikes I had done research on and thought were good candidates:
I listened through ATH M40 headphones, which is exactly what I have at home. My home mikes are: AT4033, AKG C3000B, ATM21. I moved the mike placement all over in relation to the guitar and switched back and forth between mikes when trying to narrow it down.
I didn't listen to the $1K+ mikes, because I don't want to know how great they sound.
OKTAVA M319: Very "rustic" design. Looked like technology from about 1920. Switches were mis-aligned and noisy as hell. The shock mount is a rubber band stretched between bent metal strips. This all scared me, but it actually sounded pretty good. I tried two of them and they were nearly identical. A little on the "cardboard boxy" side of sound. The highs were there, but not harsh. For only $200 it seemed like a fair choice.
Shure SM81: I wanted to hear this "razor flat small condenser" to compare to my AT4041, which is in the same category. It was a little warmer and more accurate sounding than my AT4041, but still too "hard edged" for what I wanted.
Rode NT2: VERY CLASSY looking mike, but had the typical "large diaphragm vocal mike" response. In other words, good lows and crisp highs, but kind of scooped in the middle. Very similar to the other mikes I already have, so this isn't what I wanted.
Sennheiser MD421: Somebody was raving about this dynamic mike once, so I thought I would check it out, but it sounded just plain DULL. And the plastic slide-on mount looked really feeble !
AT-4060: another large diaphragm vocal sound. Good mike, just not what I wanted.
Rode NT3: Jackpot. This mike sounded great. Very natural and woody, almost perfect.
CAD C400S: This is one of those Chinese mikes that looks like an imitation of a Rode NT2. I think it is also sold as a Marshall and by Carvin. So i was immeditaely skeptical. But it sounded DAMN GOOD (to me). I started going back and forth between it and the NT3, because I had already decided to buy the NT3, and I couldn't believe the CAD sounded better. I was trying to talk myself into the Rode, but the CAD kept sounding better. Very natural and woody. What finally broke the stalemate was that I noticed that the Rode NT3 was very sensitive to where I was pointing it at the guitar. Even from about 3 ft. away, it would go from tinney to boxey if angled off a little. The CAD was remarkably even in response regardless of angle and position. I ended up buying the CAD. Maybe I just have no taste.
It was marked $200, but rang up at $160 !
When I got it home, and listened in my quieter studio, with my own guitar, I noticed that it is still not "the perfect mike". There is still something missing in the "woodiness" that I can't seem to capture. But hey, I'm only out $160, and this mike sounds as good or better than a lot that are much more expensive. I can afford to keep looking for the holy grail !
Peace,
Rick
I listened through ATH M40 headphones, which is exactly what I have at home. My home mikes are: AT4033, AKG C3000B, ATM21. I moved the mike placement all over in relation to the guitar and switched back and forth between mikes when trying to narrow it down.
I didn't listen to the $1K+ mikes, because I don't want to know how great they sound.
OKTAVA M319: Very "rustic" design. Looked like technology from about 1920. Switches were mis-aligned and noisy as hell. The shock mount is a rubber band stretched between bent metal strips. This all scared me, but it actually sounded pretty good. I tried two of them and they were nearly identical. A little on the "cardboard boxy" side of sound. The highs were there, but not harsh. For only $200 it seemed like a fair choice.
Shure SM81: I wanted to hear this "razor flat small condenser" to compare to my AT4041, which is in the same category. It was a little warmer and more accurate sounding than my AT4041, but still too "hard edged" for what I wanted.
Rode NT2: VERY CLASSY looking mike, but had the typical "large diaphragm vocal mike" response. In other words, good lows and crisp highs, but kind of scooped in the middle. Very similar to the other mikes I already have, so this isn't what I wanted.
Sennheiser MD421: Somebody was raving about this dynamic mike once, so I thought I would check it out, but it sounded just plain DULL. And the plastic slide-on mount looked really feeble !
AT-4060: another large diaphragm vocal sound. Good mike, just not what I wanted.
Rode NT3: Jackpot. This mike sounded great. Very natural and woody, almost perfect.
CAD C400S: This is one of those Chinese mikes that looks like an imitation of a Rode NT2. I think it is also sold as a Marshall and by Carvin. So i was immeditaely skeptical. But it sounded DAMN GOOD (to me). I started going back and forth between it and the NT3, because I had already decided to buy the NT3, and I couldn't believe the CAD sounded better. I was trying to talk myself into the Rode, but the CAD kept sounding better. Very natural and woody. What finally broke the stalemate was that I noticed that the Rode NT3 was very sensitive to where I was pointing it at the guitar. Even from about 3 ft. away, it would go from tinney to boxey if angled off a little. The CAD was remarkably even in response regardless of angle and position. I ended up buying the CAD. Maybe I just have no taste.
It was marked $200, but rang up at $160 !
When I got it home, and listened in my quieter studio, with my own guitar, I noticed that it is still not "the perfect mike". There is still something missing in the "woodiness" that I can't seem to capture. But hey, I'm only out $160, and this mike sounds as good or better than a lot that are much more expensive. I can afford to keep looking for the holy grail !
Peace,
Rick
