MXL V93, ART Tube MP, AKG Headphones - $199

[LooneyTunez]

Just thought I'd pass this along, not as SPAM, but just to let you guys know about a deal I ran across at Mars.

I got a big 'ol flyer in the mail the other day, and I see they are selling the MXL V93 (2003) w/shock mount, ART Tube MP, and a pair of AKG K-220M headphones for only $199. If you were to buy these thing separately, you'd be looking at $280.

I've been planning on getting the V93 (2003) already, have heard the MP is pretty decent for some things, and have no idea if the phones are any good (but I can always use another pair of cheap headphones around).

Seems like a good deal to me.

 

[Outrider]

I had just picked up the ART pre-amp a few days before that flyer arrived. I took it all back up there and they gave me the package deal, letting me just pay the difference.

My limited experience with the amp has been very positive. Clean, warm, simple.

The microphone seems to be a very sensetive, studio-quality mic with a 3-way switch for 0dB, -10dB, and roll-off. comes with the rubber shock-mount. I haven't recorded through it yet, but it's *much* more touchy than the on-stage microphones we use with my band. I annoyed the hell out of a club full of people by plugging it into my mic channel on the PA and instantly filling the room with feedback.

The headphones regularly cost $50. Mars had the K-200's on display and I gave them a listen...nice and full with good low end. These are the K-220's and they are still in the package.

So there you have it...my "I havent' used it yet" review. Some of you may find fault with these models, but I'm just starting out (on a budget) and it's all better than the stuff I had, and I don't feel like it was a bad deal at all.

I even went back and bought their $99 "studio-pak" of Auralex foam for the walls of my studio. 16 square feet of foam and 9 little bass-trap thingies. Any tips on how they should be arranged in the room for maximum effect?

 

[doulos]

bass traps in the corners and the foam on the back wall of your mixing area and the sides if you have enough of it oh yeah and if you need more foam egg crate mattress sheets sell less then 10 bucks a queen sheet at walmart spry paint for color lol and kick butt in sound absorbtion best of luck to you

 

[knownuttin]

Haven't tried the phones, but at worst they're probably suitable for tracking. The MP is a subject of debate around here, but it's at least usable as a direct box for bass. Failing that you might recoup somewhat on ebay. If I needed a V93 & some phones, I'd buy this package and sell the MP right away.
-kent

 

[chessrock]

Looks like a good deal.

I always thought the tube mp was pretty good on certain things - namely as a D.I. for bass guitar.

 

[nwsoundman]

Outrider,

Install your foam on the wall your monitors are on. Put the bass traps in the corners of same wall. If you have enough bass traps install the rest in the rear corners. You should always start on the wall your monitors are on, then move to the side walls where you will get reflections from.

9 sure is a weird number of bass traps for a Auralex kit???

Kirk

 

[c9-2001]

b/c they aren't bass traps..

you get 24 Wedgies, 9 MiniFusors, and a tube of Tubetak

 

[littledog]

Outrider,

Install your foam on the wall your monitors are on. Put the bass traps in the corners of same wall. If you have enough bass traps install the rest in the rear corners. You should always start on the wall your monitors are on, then move to the side walls where you will get reflections from.

9 sure is a weird number of bass traps for a Auralex kit???

Kirk

Yeah, I thought nine was funny too. But I guess it's something different than those wedge shaped traps youand I are probably thinking of.

I bought some from RPG, and the manufacturer's recommendation is the opposite of yours, Kirk. They strongly recommend bass trapping the rear corners (wall opposite monitors) of the room first, not the front (monitor wall).

 

[nwsoundman]

Very strange. I never heard of working the rear wall first. I wonder what their reasoning is?

Kirk

 

[littledog]

Actually, that's interesting, becuase i never heard of doing the front wall first!

I would guess the main source of standing waves at low frequencies is waves reflecting off the rear wall (opposite monitors) and coming back and interfering with the direct sound from the speakers. In most small rooms, the speakers are not usually all that far from the wall closest to them (like maybe 3 feet) so at really long wavelengths, sound reflected off of that wall is not going to be the major cause of standing waves, at least compared to the opposite wall which might be 15-25 feet away.

But I'm not an acoustician, so this don't take it as gospel. But it seems to make sense to me.

 

[hokypokynose]

I don't know much, but when I was talking to an accoustition, he said to concentrate on the back wall. He was talking about live venues though. Still, the laws of physics don't change between live and studio.

 

[Scooter B]

If the "back walls" is where the monitors are pointed then thats where your strongest reflections will be and where you want your absorption. If you absoption is effective from the back wall and the sides there should not be much of any thing to worry about reaching the front wall.

I don't quite get where doing the front wall would be of much benefit and as far as live sound mixing - usually there is no front wall as you are mixing from the audiences point of hearing.

Maybe there has been some confusion in semantics whit the front of the speakers pointing towards the back wall.