chessrock said:
Yea, yea . . . you reviewers are all alike. Never have anything negative to say about anything.
So you plugged it in and it worked and it was wonderful and you have to buy like 100 now and bla bla bla bla bla bla.
Just for once I wanna' hear you guys say: "I tried the ___ on a number of sources, and I must say I was quite impressed at how equally adept it was at literally sucking the life out of everyone one of them, right down the list."
Well, I was one of the first to recommend the dbx 242 as a "best bang for the buck" unit so, unless I'm way off base, I don't think you'll see many negative reviews from most people that actually try it.
Chessrock, did you ever read my initial comments about the
Marshall mics? I don't think I said anything nice about the Marshall 2001 or the 600, if I recall correctly.
Never mind, I found the original article:
"Marshall MXL-2001 $130??
Sorry, I can't find the MSRP right now. Harsh top end, thin bottom, compared to the TLM-103. It was a little warmer than the Nady SCM-1000, but the Nady had a smoother top end. The 2001 is everything that I don't like about all the really inexpensive large diaphragm condensor mics that I've listened to over the years, including the AKG C3000, the Oktava 219, and some of the early AT low cost units."
"Marshall MXL-600 $270
Veiled top end and exaggerated low-mid, compared to the Oktava MC-012. About 1 dB lower output than the Oktava. It just sounded very dull and lifeless. Very easy to bottom out as well."
I've also mentioned owning the AKG C3000, and only found two or three situations where it was the best choice. And I bought one of the first Alesis 3630 compressors, and didn't much care for it, and said so.