Samson QKick vs. ATM250 vs. Senn e602 vs. Audix D6

  • Thread starter Thread starter KillerV
  • Start date Start date
K

KillerV

New member
Hi All! I'm a new member, but I've been lurking around here for a while. I've got a question about a couple of kick-drum mics:

I own a Samson QKick mic and I have a question about how it differs from a couple of other mics like the Audio-Technica ATM250, Audix D6 and the Sennheiser e602, which have both been recommended to me a as upgrades for a decent kick-drum mic.

I must admit that I'm not that clued-up about mic technology, but these are the similarities I see when I compare these mics: They all feature neodymium magnets, they all have roughly the same kind of frequency response, they all have roughly the same polar pattern and the frequency-charts I could find all have the same type of boosts and cuts EQ-wise. All of them also feature the same type of build ie. aluminium housings, etc.

My question is this: How much do they really differ? What else should I be looking at? To be perfectly honest, I've gotten some really good kick-drum sounds out of my QKick with a small amount of processing (EQ, comp, etc.), but I'm really interested in finding out what makes the other mics better. The other ones are all more expensive and I'm on a budget, so I want to know what I'll be getting extra for my money by upgrading.

BTW, I didn't mention the D112 or Beta52 here because I can clearly see that they are different to these ones by their specs.

Thanx
 
Last edited:
that's a really good question......

if someone could prove to me that the q kick was reasonably equivalent to the d6, i'd probably buy one......
 
just looking at the freq responce...
the bumps on the d6 (low to high) are about 12 and 16db, the bumps on the qkick are about 5 and 12db.
(the d6 is going to be more "scooped")

they may not even be in the same place, as audix fails to actually label their chart with frequency.... so kinda hard to compare.
the audix also has a "double bump" in the high end.

probably, these mics will not sound the same.
 
the e602 is also way more scooped then the qkick, and the bump in the e602 is closer to 5k, where the bump in the qkick is more like 3k.
the's mics will definitely not compare.

the 602 also looks different then the d6 to me, but not by a buss load.



these mics will probably all sound different.
 
Thanks for the replies so far dude! I see what you mean with the frequencies at which each mic is boosted or cut, which makes it clear that each one will sound different.

I meant that it seems to me that each mic has a similar type of thing going on: Boost in the lows, cut in the mids, bump at high-mids? Each mic's boosts and cuts are at different frequencies, but it does seem like they are all different versions of the same type of idea.

Does this make the Qkick different to the others in the same way that, say the e602 differs from the D6 (i.e. just another flavor and not really a question of quality) or is there something that makes the others significantly superior to the Qkick?

BTW, if anyone was wondering: I'm only asking because I really want to know this in order to learn something and not to sound like a smartass about the whole cheap gear vs. expensive gear deal. :)
 
the qkick (with it's bump in the 3k region) is not the sound you're probably quite used to listening to.

(which is the 5k boost, like the d6/e609)
 
don't get too wrapped up in freq response charts--they're so generalized as to render them almost worthless.

also, consider self-noise, sensitivity, electronics, etc. there are lots of things that make similarly-made mics very very different. if that weren't the case, all those chinese condensers would sound like neumanns.

that being said, basically your choice of mic comes down to the sound you're after. no one can say that a d112 is better than a d6 or an re20 is better than a beta 52. all of these mics (as well as others) are top choices for kick drum. i use a d6 because it lends itself well to a modern rock/metal sound (good attack, good depth). many would say the d112 does the same thing, only a little better or worse. i would describe the beta 52 as "boomy" but that's just me. i don't like it. you might.

the only thing i can say as a comparitive note for certain is: the q-kick is not in the same league as the usual choices. neither is the cad kbm-412, the blue kickball, etc. a good kick mic is a good kick mic, and your choices are limited, and normally around $200 (d112, d6, 52, atm250de). not bad for industry-standard mics.

good luck! :)
 
drossfile said:
don't get too wrapped up in freq response charts--they're so generalized as to render them almost worthless.
Click to expand...

people say this, and it's true to a certain extent...... but you can still glean some very useful info from a freq chart.
 
giraffe said:
people say this, and it's true to a certain extent...... but you can still glean some very useful info from a freq chart.
Click to expand...

Dont bother with the frequency graphs and with a kick drum it is going to get eq'd to death anyway. Ok the better you have to start with but all these mics will do the trick with some eq and compression and it all depends ultimately on what sound you are looking for . The kick on a jazz track is totally different to a metal track.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top