Marshall 2001 v 2003 v 603 v b. ecm8000

O

o-ron

New member
Many of you may remember me going through the pains of choosing my next big investment in microphones and I *finally* have to the money to start buying! (still on a very limited budget, though).

I will almost certainly buy a pair of ECM8000's as I need some good omni's and these seem to be the absolute best bang for the buck.

Now, I'm scrounging around between the Marshall 2003 or also I found the 2001p bundled with the 603 (for $50 more each).

I'm wondering, would I be better off with the 2003, or would i better off with the 2001 and 603? (i'll be buying a pair of whichever i end up choosing).

I usually do acoustic/classical - guitar/vocal/choral/violin/piano and occasionally rock groups (although they are not high on my priority as far as sound quality goes).

Opinions welcome!

Thanks!
 
I don't know about the 2003, but most people consider the 2001 to be complete crap. I have an se electronics se1000 which I guess is supposed to be the same thing as an MXL 2001, and it isn't too bad, but mine must be a fluke because it doesn't suck like everyone says it should. I would stay away from the 2001 if I were you. The 603s are supposed to be REAL nice and I've heard some quality recordings with them.
 
Good call.

The 2003 is a great all-purpose mic; buy with confidence. Ditto for the 603.

The v67 is also worth a look - good vocal mic.
 
Sometimes I use the 2001s for drum overheads. My pair usually sound great. I think the 603 is much better for overheads and cheaper. I use the ECM 8000s for room mics with great results. I've never heard the 2003 or the V67.
 
ah, here we go again, again. FOR WHAT YOU ARE RECORDING, the Octava 012 will the smoothest sounding, with the 603 coming in the next closest among the mics you cited.

Based on my own experience recording classical music, and ownership of the mics under discussion. YMMV.
 
marshall 2003

I use this mic for classical guitar and I have to say it sounds Fantastic. Don't bother with the V67, I have one and the 2003 is MUCH better. Try any mic before you buy it. Also look into studio projects mic. All of the clips I have heard are awesome.
 
The 2003, or my Mars version (V93M) is excellent if you're looking for a less-hyped, more natural tone. Very, very nice for $150 w/ shockmount.

The V67G is another nice mic. The green color gives it a nice smooth upper-mid range, and the gold screen really makes the high end above 7Khz more resilient. I almost bought another one just for display in my maple wall unit.

I have found that the 603s' don't have as much "finesse" or ability to catch subtleties as for example KM184. But there's a huge price difference here, so I don't think it's fair to compare it to a Neumann so critically. Nevertheless, the 603s' will ALWAYS be a part of my cabinet. For the price, they are remarkably good mics. They matched nicely with a Rode NTK on some recent acoustic guitar tracks I worked on using a Taylor 614 (through a Mackie 1604 VLZ/Pro - patched RNC 1733).

Hey I was kidding about the V67G color/sound statement.


Bowisc
 
Large diaphragm?

Given your description of what you record, I'm wondering why you feel you need a large diaphragm condensor. You may well be better off with something like one or more MXL 603s (unbundled), Oktava 012s, or something along those lines. But what do I know?
 
Bowisc said:
The V67G is another nice mic. The green color gives it a nice smooth upper-mid range, and the gold screen really makes the high end above 7Khz more resilient.
Bowisc
Click to expand...

:D ROFL!!

Pete
 
yes, i remember now that i had considered the oktava very carefully, and now I'm wonering if that might be better in place of the marshalls.

The large diaphragm mic I thought would be better at capturing the full spread of a grand piano - which I often record. Otherwise, true, I'm not sure I would need a large diaphragm mic, and the oktava would probably sound quite nice for the violin.

Also, before the Oktava was more expensive than the 2003, but i just now looked it up again and the price has gone down and now they're the same...

Hhhmmm....
 
FOR WHAT YOU ARE RECORDING, small diaphragm mics, YES! Also, consider self-noise, as your acoustic sources are not powerful compared to, say, a close-miced vocal, or an amplifier cabinet, or overhead on drums, etc. My Oktava 012 is significantly quieter than the 603, although be careful about variations from mic to mic (or buy from the Sound Room). The ECM8000 almost certainly has more self-noise than all of the mics you are considering. Not an issue if you are close micing relatively powerful sources, but you will hear it in pianissimo passages, between movements, etc.
 
Large mics, Small mics

How much a "spread" a mic captures is really more a function of its pattern (e.g. cardioid), rather than diaphragm size. Indeed, if you're worried about spread, I'd tend to favor a small diaphragm mic, as their off-axis sound tends to be more balanced than that of a large diaphragm mic.

On the subject of patterns, one nice thing about the Oktava 012 is that you can get it with three interchangeable capsules with different patterns: omni, cardioid and super-cardioid.
 
o-ron said:

I'm wondering, would I be better off with the 2003, or would i better off with the 2001 and 603? (i'll be buying a pair of whichever i end up choosing).

I usually do acoustic/classical - guitar/vocal/choral/violin/piano and occasionally rock groups (although they are not high on my priority as far as sound quality goes).

Opinions welcome!

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Funny. Yesterday I visited a friend in his home studio. He is a violinist and just finished recording a demo of his chamber quartet. He was closemicing everything because of the noisy enviroment (too close to the main road) and was using the 2003 on the violin. It sounded very good. I once assisted him with a recording of a different project with some afro-cuban percussion involved and we used the 2003 on the congas. I would have preferred a md421 but the 2003 did very well, too.
 
Last edited:
ok, which do you think would be better for violin between these two:
oktava mc012 or marshall mxl-2003??
 
I am not shure, haven't compared them directly. I did some recordings with a stereo pair of the mc012 in ORTF recording a young violin player in a theatre with mediocre acoustics, it came out very well. Later I used a pair of earthworks SROs on a string quartet with the friend who owns the 2003 playing 1st violin. He was floored by the sound of these recordings, and he told me yesterday that these recordings were still the best sound he ever had (we also had the mc012s put up as backup and they didn't cut it that time). What I want to check out hopefully next week is a beyer m260. I think this might work even better. FYI the SROs go for about 250$ each and the m260 can be found used for very little money (under 200) or you can buy the newer 260.80 from www.musicians-gear.com for around 300$ incl shipping. You will need a preamp with lots of gain to make it work on violin though.
hope this helps you somehow...
 
Love the m260, especially for closer micing. Yes, a good pre is essential. I think the 2003 has more off-axis coloration than the oktava 012, and more high-frequency emphasis on-axis. BTW, the 260.80 sounds very different than the 260, due to a strong proximity effect filter (unfortunately not switchable). To my ear it is too lacking in bass to record instruments well. BTW, the AKG SE300/CK91 sounds very good with strings, albeit at a bit higher price point. And when you get the bucks, the AKG 480/CK61 is KILLER for this application.
 
I found the AKG SE300/CK91 but am a bit confused. Is the SE300 just a base and then the CK91 the actual diaphragm housing? Or is it a pattern converter, or...?

Thanks!
 
It's a modular system (like the oktava), where there is a body that contains electronics for preamplification, impedance conversion and biasing (SE300B), mated to a series of CK capsule modules for various pickup patterns. CK91 is the cardiod capsule, which is the most commonly used, and is also sold bundled with the SE300B, which is referred to as the C391B.
 
thanks for clarifying that.

I would also just like to add a BIG FAT THANK YOU to EVERYBODY who replies to my posts with such great and helpful information. Keep up the good work everyone! Hopefully when I become more experienced and knowledgeable, i will be able to reciprocate by helping others out as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top