MXL 2001? hunka crap or diamond in the rough?

[guitar junkie]

I been looking at the MXL pack from Front End Audio with with the 603s and a 2001 LDC its in my budget and might work for what i need but is it any good at all? i have heard someone say its a hunk a crap while i have read stuff from people saying "oh its wonderful! and" blah blah blah blah BULLSHIT!

does any body here have one/ used one?

is it really a bad mic does it really suck that much?

my budget is such that i need to run the money i have as far out as i can. with a 603s and a 2001 i am wondering if i can get some good female vocals and some accoustic guitar with one of these...

thanks guys someday here i will make a poll of all the mics i am looking at but for now i ask about this one eh?

 

[PhilGood]

More like a hunka crap in the rough!

The 603 - Yay!!

The 2001 - Booo!

 

[guitar junkie]

More like a hunka crap in the rough!

The 603 - Yay!!

The 2001 - Booo!

would you give any reasons why they suck then?

i mean i have heard some people say that they make a lot of racket while others love them but....
why do you hate this mic?

i am looking for reasons if its bad.

 

[PhilGood]

would you give any reasons why they suck then?

i mean i have heard some people say that they make a lot of racket while others love them but....
why do you hate this mic?

i am looking for reasons if its bad.

Here's the jist of it: The 2001 has a poorly constructed circuit and a cheap transformer. The parts are sub-standard, including using ceramic capacitors where something better like mylars should be used. Ceramic capacitors have a very non-linear response. The MXL 2001 has the stereo typical cheap chinese sound: harsh grainy high end and a slightly scooped midrange. This means the mic will never cut through a mix without drastic EQ. Using too much EQ can harm the sound and means inconsistenies when played on different systems.

 

[kidvybes]

...as usual, Phil's on point...I think he'd probably agree that you're much better off with this MXL Pro Pack:
http://www.bananas.com/productdetail.asp/pid_9409 (free shipping!)

 

[guitar junkie]

thanks for the info. what i have seen is people talking about it from a few years ago so did they change the design? because most of the stuff i was hearing from back then said "awesome, works great!" or something like " i put this mic up with a Rode that i had" or that other "mic there that sells for $500" so i am guessing that the 2001 is not the same mic it once was then? what is up with this?

 

[stevetat]

If you can afford the extra $70, then the 2003/603s bundle is a better option.

 

[kidvybes]

... so i am guessing that the 2001 is not the same mic it once was then? what is up with this?

...actually, it's exactly what it once was...MXL's weakest product...you'd be much better off with a 2003 or V67G...(or for that matter, a Studio Projects B1)

 

[PhilGood]

Yes, the 2003 is a MUCH better mic. Plus it has the bass roll-off and a 10dB pad. It also uses a 797 capsule and better electronics.

 

[snow lizard]

I've got a couple of 2001 mics and I have to agree with the people saying they're not good. I've used them a lot for demo stuff, mostly on drums. They're sort of decent on drums, nothing special but they work. The 603's sound better.

For a vocal mic, they're excellent for capturing sibilance. There's just not a whole lot of meat behind the sibilance. There's other mics in the same price class that are supposed to sound much better. Again, the 603 sounds better on my voice, even though it's not really a vocal mic. My SM 57 puts it to shame for what I've done with it.


sl

 

[BigRay]

I completely disagree.
I wish I could dig up the samples I have of it, but I used it just for kicks to record a band, and it sounded great. Frequency response similar to schoeps, made in the same factory as the ADK TLs. The MXL are budget mics, and all of them use what are considered to be cheaper components, and all could benefit from modding, but , for the money , the MXL 2001s sound great, in my opinion, as do all the mxl mics.

i guess i am in the minority here with this assessment, but I really think they sound good. Try em out, and if you like them, thats what matters.

teddy

Here's the jist of it: The 2001 has a poorly constructed circuit and a cheap transformer. The parts are sub-standard, including using ceramic capacitors where something better like mylars should be used. Ceramic capacitors have a very non-linear response. The MXL 2001 has the stereo typical cheap chinese sound: harsh grainy high end and a slightly scooped midrange. This means the mic will never cut through a mix without drastic EQ. Using too much EQ can harm the sound and means inconsistenies when played on different systems.

 

[noisedude]

Teddy - I'm interested by this comment you make. I've read you say a couple of times that this mic has "frequency response similar to Schoeps". Do you mean they sound the same as a particular Schoeps mic, or that they have the same kinda looking graphs as them?

Just wondering, because nowhere have I read that they sound even as good as a good loud burp, let alone as a significantly more expensive mic.

 

[MadAudio]

Didn't the 2001 used to be the V93?

 

[PhilGood]

Didn't the 2001 used to be the V93?

No, the V93 became the 2003.

 

[PhilGood]

Teddy - I'm interested by this comment you make. I've read you say a couple of times that this mic has "frequency response similar to Schoeps". Do you mean they sound the same as a particular Schoeps mic, or that they have the same kinda looking graphs as them?

Just wondering, because nowhere have I read that they sound even as good as a good loud burp, let alone as a significantly more expensive mic.

I'd be curious to understand this as well. I owned 3 Oktavas before buying the 2001, which I only bought to do the Royer tube mod. I tested it side by side with the Oktavas (219 and 319) and it sounded horrible. I later got a 2003, which was also superior. After turning it into a tube mic I REALLY realized just how bad it was, because the tube circuit showed me how the sound was meant to be. It was a completely different beast afterward.

 

[guitar junkie]

I'd be curious to understand this as well. I owned 3 Oktavas before buying the 2001, which I only bought to do the Royer tube mod. I tested it side by side with the Oktavas (219 and 319) and it sounded horrible. I later got a 2003, which was also superior. After turning it into a tube mic I REALLY realized just how bad it was, because the tube circuit showed me how the sound was meant to be. It was a completely different beast afterward.

so you are saying that the 2003 is also bad?

 

[PhilGood]

No, The 2003 is a pretty good mic. With a few component changes, it can be even better! I was referring to the 2001 in the tube mod.

 

[BigRay]

I'd be curious to understand this as well. I owned 3 Oktavas before buying the 2001, which I only bought to do the Royer tube mod. I tested it side by side with the Oktavas (219 and 319) and it sounded horrible. I later got a 2003, which was also superior. After turning it into a tube mic I REALLY realized just how bad it was, because the tube circuit showed me how the sound was meant to be. It was a completely different beast afterward.

made in the same factory and are virtually the same mic as the ADK 51s(same capsule I think). Their freq. response GRAPH closely resembles the schoeps MK5 capsule. That doesnt mean anything though...To me they sound good.

is a sample made with em.

 

[BigRay]

Teddy - I'm interested by this comment you make. I've read you say a couple of times that this mic has "frequency response similar to Schoeps". Do you mean they sound the same as a particular Schoeps mic, or that they have the same kinda looking graphs as them?

Just wondering, because nowhere have I read that they sound even as good as a good loud burp, let alone as a significantly more expensive mic.

 

[guitar junkie]

not bad! might i ask how you did that recording? how was it set up? you used the 2001 for that? i am guessing it was live from the sound of that ending....

its pretty nice sounding clip all said and done what Pre did you use? signal path etc etc...