So what's wrong with C3000?

A

amuro73

New member
People seem to have pretty low opinion of C3000. But I haven't found out why... what's wrong with it? If I were to sell my C3000 (going for $100-140) what mic can I get that's better for vocals and acoustic guitar?

Thanks!

ari
 
LOL. How much did you pay for it NEW?

I see it around $300 new.

Myself, I am very impressed, for $100 more than that, with the AT 4033.

George Massenburg admitted that the 4033 is the first mic he goes for when he is tracking acoustic guitar, and he says that 80% of the time, it is the mic he winds up using. I would say that is a pretty good recommendation for the mic, considering that a lot of the work he has done with that mic has won him and his clients grammys! ;)

It also sound pretty respectable on voice.

Others will chime in with their picks. But, I doubt any LD condensor mic under $400 (of course, the 4033 used to sell for almost $1000 when it first came out) has been on as many big time recordings!

I don't like C3000 because it distorts very easily, and it has a weird sort of hyped high end that only work every once in a while. The low end of the mic is not very present, even when used in close proximity. All in all, it is a very marginal sounding mic that for me has had few uses!
 
I was one of those that bought a new 3000 when they came out about 10 years ago. Then they where 500.00 new. I sold it a long time ago cause I used it with a adat and mackie 8 buss mixer. Those 3 things together sounded like someone was killing a cat. (not that thats a bad thing for a cat) But I wish I still had it to try today with some good gear.
Im not so sure it didnt get its bad reputation from those days of cheap crappy digital 16 bit recorders and mackie mixers.
The same bad reputation was attached to the akg c1000 also.
Could have just been the recorders and mixers of the day that where the problem.
 
mics I like better for less money:

AT2020
AT3035
Shure SM58
Shure Sm57

Must I go on? Basically the mic was great when it was one of the first low priced condensers, but it pretty much sucks compared to the current competition.
 
Are we talking just about the origional C3000 or the C3000B?

I've heard that they sound different.

I have the C3000B and it has worked very well for me on alot of singers (but not all) over the past 4 1/2 years. Granted, placement is crucial and it will distort if overpowered, but I've had good luck with mine. I never really had to use EQ, usually just a HPF.

I'm sure that there are "better" mics for recording different things, but on most vocals it's worked well for me if I get it placed in the right spot.

I don't really like it on anything else though, just vocals.

Lucio
 
I've never listened to a 3000 but I had a 3000B which is supposed to sound better than a 3000. To me, the vocal sound was comparable to someone chewing up glass.

Taylor
 
MrZekeMan said:
I've never listened to a 3000 but I had a 3000B which is supposed to sound better than a 3000.
Click to expand...
Actually, I've heard just the opposite. No one seems to like either of them very much, but a lot of people say the 3000B made things worse, not better.
 
I am learning to put a lot of credence in the statement I've seen in someone's signature somewhere.......

something to the effect of "never judge a mic's quality until you have tested it thru a good tube preamp."

Having recently tested a very modest tube preamp, I am forced to agree.......the difference between the tube pre and the solid state pre turned my mics into totally different animals.....
 
Gilliland said:
Actually, I've heard just the opposite. No one seems to like either of them very much, but a lot of people say the 3000B made things worse, not better.
Click to expand...
Yea you're right, now that I hear you say it. I've never listened to a 3000 so I had just forgotten.

As a matter of fact, Harvey took my 3000B and did a listening test and review of it when I still had it. I think his comment about it was something to the effect of "I thought it was impossible that they could make C3000 worse than it already was, but I was wrong."

Taylor
 
soundchaser59 said:
I am learning to put a lot of credence in the statement I've seen in someone's signature somewhere.......

something to the effect of "never judge a mic's quality until you have tested it thru a good tube preamp."

Having recently tested a very modest tube preamp, I am forced to agree.......the difference between the tube pre and the solid state pre turned my mics into totally different animals.....
Click to expand...
Don't get hung up thinking that tube preamps are some kind of magical fix to turn pig microphones into C12's.

Mics sound different through different preamps, be they solid state or tube. Tube gear is not inherently better.

If you've tested a "very modest tube preamp," you've not really tested a tube preamp any way. You've tested a cheap solid state preamp that's added a tube stage to dirty up the signal path.

While it's possible that it might hide some of the deplorable high frequency characteristics of a hideous mic like the 3000B, those preamps aren't really great for getting a good mix. Sure they might be great for doing a couple of tracks, but they aren't great for getting a track that sits in a mix, IMO.

Taylor
 
MrZekeMan said:
Don't get hung up thinking that tube preamps are some kind of magical fix to turn pig microphones into C12's.

Mics sound different through different preamps, be they solid state or tube. Tube gear is not inherently better.
Click to expand...

I am following you here! Amen!!!

If you've tested a "very modest tube preamp," you've not really tested a tube preamp any way. You've tested a cheap solid state preamp that's added a tube stage to dirty up the signal path.

While it's possible that it might hide some of the deplorable high frequency characteristics of a hideous mic like the 3000B, those preamps aren't really great for getting a good mix. Sure they might be great for doing a couple of tracks, but they aren't great for getting a track that sits in a mix, IMO.

Taylor
Click to expand...

Really?



That song is 38 tracks. I used a certain "very modest tube preamp" on all but 4 tracks. Tell me, which 4 tracks were the Class A pre's used on? Actually, 3 of the 4 that didn't use this certain "very modest tube preamp" used another REAL tube preamp, and the one remaining track used a Class A pre.

Should be pretty easy to tell which is the class A right? So, let me know. I need my memory jogged! ;)

Let's move on and reverse the scenario.



This song had about 17 or 18 tracks. Half of them were a certain "very modest tube preamp", the rest were real Class A pres. Which are which? Should be pretty easy to tell really!

Let me know please. ;)

*edit was to fix links*.
 
Last edited:
neither of your links take me anywhere except to a page that says I've typed in a link that doesn't exist on your site.
 
Ford Van said:
Let's move on and reverse the scenario.



This song had about 17 or 18 tracks. Half of them were a certain "very modest tube preamp", the rest were real Class A pres. Which are which? Should be pretty easy to tell really!

Let me know please. ;)
Click to expand...

I am guessing the toms, bass, and that distant special effect guitar.

Getting back to the orginal post of the thread, the C400B is not much better on vocals, at least compared to the other mics I have in my collection. It seems a bit too brittle for my tastes. I would have to say that it works well when I need to do a group vocal recording in Omni mode... very sensitive and picks up everything.
 
In all fairness to the original C3000, I found exactly two singers that sounded good on the C3000 - in the two years that I owned the mic. When I owned it, it was selling for over $800. It just wasn't useful enough to keep my money tied up in it. I tried to use it on many different instruments, but there was always a mic I already owned that sounded much better, usually cheaper.

The C3000B sounded very boxy to me and wasn't in the same league as the original C3000, IMO.

Judging by the huge sales of these two mics, I wouldn't change anything on the C3000 or the C1000 if I were AKG, but as a studio owner, there really isn't a place for them here. In my opinion, they're overly bright, edgy, and have some nasty hi-end peaks that can't be fixed with eq. You can get that same kind of sound from a lot of lower cost mics, at 1/2 the price.
 
MrZekeMan said:
neither of your links take me anywhere except to a page that says I've typed in a link that doesn't exist on your site.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I fixed the links. I should have checked before I went away from the thread.
 
I don't have any idea except at times the lead vox sounds a little grainy, could be the mic. Other than that, what a great recording man, sounds wonderful, the guitar sits in there withe bass and it just fits so nice. Good feel!
 
3000 vs 3000B

MrZekeMan said:
I've never listened to a 3000 but I had a 3000B which is supposed to sound better than a 3000. To me, the vocal sound was comparable to someone chewing up glass.
Taylor
Click to expand...
My friend, Jeff, has a pair of the old 3000's and uses them for vocals and for drum overheads among other things. Personally, having heard the old and new, I prefer the old. It is not as bright a mic as the new and if I remember correctly, the old is also cardioid, and omni (maybe figure 8 too?) and has a 10dB pad. We A/B'd the 3000 with my old RODE NT2 and the NT2 was definitely a much better mic overall but if I could buy an old 3000 today (aka had the money :rolleyes: ) at a good price, I'd buy one just to have.
BG/HSG
 
homestudioguy said:
The old 3000 is not as bright a mic as the new and if I remember correctly, the old is also cardioid, and omni
Click to expand...
That's because the old C3000 had a 1/4" omni capsule mounted above the 1" capsule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top