M
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Re: i'm a renegade
The 441 is a dandy for sure, but if I only had ONE mic (out of the ones I own) I'd still have to go with a 4033.manning1 said:
johneeeveee
New member
i like the at4033 too, but...
... i actually like the 4050 better on vocals. we ended up using it over a lot of very impressive mics at our disposal on my last recording. it sounded good on just about everything, even though we used more specifically brilliant mics on certain acoustic sources. man, this is a tough question... there are so many variables involved (different voices, instruments, pre's, rooms, how your ears are feeling that day, and on and on
peace- jv
... i actually like the 4050 better on vocals. we ended up using it over a lot of very impressive mics at our disposal on my last recording. it sounded good on just about everything, even though we used more specifically brilliant mics on certain acoustic sources. man, this is a tough question... there are so many variables involved (different voices, instruments, pre's, rooms, how your ears are feeling that day, and on and on
peace- jv
still4given
Got my ticket!
No experience with AT's
Of the micks I own, the NTK. It has that nice smooth high end, but with great body.
Blessings, Terry
Of the micks I own, the NTK. It has that nice smooth high end, but with great body.
Blessings, Terry
zbert
In the swamps of Jersey
I'll also go with the 4033. May not be the best mic for certain applications but it never sucks. As Track Rat said it is the swiss army knife of mics.
P
PinkStrat
New member
This is really difficult but if I had to pick one (of each style) I'd say it would be the Sennheiser MD421 & the AT4047SV....That said, I also love my Sennheiser MD441-U to death! Oh my God what a SOUND!!!!!
R
Robert D
New member
MC-012 with all capsules, plus the LOMO head.....that's one mic that truely can do it all. NTK ain't a bad choice either.
As usual, most replies are drawing on our own equipment, rather than esoterics, so I went with that.
RD
As usual, most replies are drawing on our own equipment, rather than esoterics, so I went with that.
RD
S
Sklathill
Soundcard Junkie
Whenever someone asks for these best overall mic things, how come I'm the only one that mentions stereo mics? Like, oh, the Schoeps colette stereo, or an old Neumann stereo...or maybe the Royer stereo ribbon...
After all...you get 2, 2, 2! in one!
Like, oh, the Schoeps colette stereo, or an old Neumann stereo...or maybe the Royer stereo ribbon...After all...you get 2, 2, 2! in one!
S
sdelsolray
Active member
Hard to say. If I could only have one mic, it would be a Neumann M149.
sweetnubs
New member
u67. Might want to keep it off close mic'd percussion though. Large diaphragms don't like close percussion. fucking beautiful mic. Really.
R
Recording Engineer
Moderator
sweetnubs said:
You're kidding, right? What don't they like about it?
sweetnubs
New member
the problem isn't the sound but the physics of sound. Large diaphragm mics like to break close to high spl's.
Think of a thin peice of plastic film stretched acrcoss a large diaphragm pipe and a smaller diaphragm pipe. Which one is more likely to break? The peice of film stretched across the large diaphragm pipe is analogous to your large diaphragm mic. Add a snare drum hit and the "air pressure" it generates and you have a recipe for breaking that film. However his sweetness with the nubs is known to put a u47 on the kick but I'll put that sucker a little farther out than if I'm using a dynamic. Especially if it is not my 47. Anyhow the u67 is definately my most versatile mic. Sax, vox, I use it as a distant mic for the drum kit, sounds good on most sources. Save up your allowance money and buy one kids. It gets the nubs seal of approval.
Think of a thin peice of plastic film stretched acrcoss a large diaphragm pipe and a smaller diaphragm pipe. Which one is more likely to break? The peice of film stretched across the large diaphragm pipe is analogous to your large diaphragm mic. Add a snare drum hit and the "air pressure" it generates and you have a recipe for breaking that film. However his sweetness with the nubs is known to put a u47 on the kick but I'll put that sucker a little farther out than if I'm using a dynamic. Especially if it is not my 47. Anyhow the u67 is definately my most versatile mic. Sax, vox, I use it as a distant mic for the drum kit, sounds good on most sources. Save up your allowance money and buy one kids. It gets the nubs seal of approval.
T
The Axis
Member
"Best" *Overall*
I think that would have to be the Earthworks QTC1.
Everything recorded with it is going to sound exactly like it really sounds. How can it get any "better" ?
I think that would have to be the Earthworks QTC1.
Everything recorded with it is going to sound exactly like it really sounds. How can it get any "better" ?
R
Recording Engineer
Moderator
LOL... Breaking into your old habits again there nubs? And here I thought you were reformed...
Boy... Don't I wish Stephen Paul was still on this earth!
Your "theory" is rather rediculous! It sounds like a response from a guy who has no idea and you're here preaching it as fact?
Every mic has a Max. SPL rating; having to do with the circuitry. Usually, mics are designed so that the internal preamp overloads WAY before the diaphragm/capsule assembly. You'll blow your ears before you blow the diaphragm; when talking about modern mics!
Try this sample on for size:
http://home.comcast.net/~pjandcompany/Snare_3.wav (24-bit, 48k)
It's a Neumann TLM-103 2-3" in and above and pointed to the center of a snare... Not a problem since it's Max. SPL rating is 138dB and the snare only generates an SPL around 100dB C Weighting.
Boy... Don't I wish Stephen Paul was still on this earth!
Your "theory" is rather rediculous! It sounds like a response from a guy who has no idea and you're here preaching it as fact?
Every mic has a Max. SPL rating; having to do with the circuitry. Usually, mics are designed so that the internal preamp overloads WAY before the diaphragm/capsule assembly. You'll blow your ears before you blow the diaphragm; when talking about modern mics!
Try this sample on for size:
http://home.comcast.net/~pjandcompany/Snare_3.wav (24-bit, 48k)
It's a Neumann TLM-103 2-3" in and above and pointed to the center of a snare... Not a problem since it's Max. SPL rating is 138dB and the snare only generates an SPL around 100dB C Weighting.
L
littledog
New member
I'll sort of agree with Sweetnubs, but not for his reasons. Large diaphragm condensers suck on certain types of percussion instruments - namely the ones that put out a plethora of high frequencies.
Most large diaphragms just aren't fast enough to accurately capture them. A lot of times, instead, they create strange sounding artifacts that have little or nothing to do with the real sound.
Perhaps, speaking of Stephen Paul, large diaphragms with one of Stephen's sub-micron modifications would work fine, but most mics (including all of mine) don't have that modification, and most of us can't afford to get one.
Don't take my word for it. Get any of your favorite LD condensers with a 3-6 micron diaphragm and record a tambourine and a triangle. Now compare it to a recording of those same instruments with, say, an Earthworks QTC. The results won't even be close.
Most large diaphragms just aren't fast enough to accurately capture them. A lot of times, instead, they create strange sounding artifacts that have little or nothing to do with the real sound.
Perhaps, speaking of Stephen Paul, large diaphragms with one of Stephen's sub-micron modifications would work fine, but most mics (including all of mine) don't have that modification, and most of us can't afford to get one.
Don't take my word for it. Get any of your favorite LD condensers with a 3-6 micron diaphragm and record a tambourine and a triangle. Now compare it to a recording of those same instruments with, say, an Earthworks QTC. The results won't even be close.
R
Recording Engineer
Moderator
Now THAT was more of the type of response I was hoping for and absolutely knew I wouldn't get from our esteemed master leader nubs himself whom everyone aspires to become!
I completely agree with you littledog...
Still I wouldn't ever hesitate to close-mic a drum set with large-diaphragms; though in that case, I'd probably use small-diaphragms as overhads.
And of course, I DON'T hesitate to use TLM-103s as overheads, which I do on a regular basis...
I completely agree with you littledog...
Still I wouldn't ever hesitate to close-mic a drum set with large-diaphragms; though in that case, I'd probably use small-diaphragms as overhads.
And of course, I DON'T hesitate to use TLM-103s as overheads, which I do on a regular basis...
sweetnubs
New member
Master nubs has seen ruptured diaphragms my friend. It hurts to pay for it. A snare hit can approach 150db. That's lots of air volume moving toward your mic. Large diaphragms also suck on drums 'casue their off axis response tends not to be as accurate as small diaphragms in addition to the transient response deficencies of which littlenubs speaks. However i still use 'em as overheads from time to time. Bruce swedian uses large diaphragm condensers on drum kits all the time so you are not in bad company. I just don't like the gamble. ahhhh back in the day when a young nubs broke that expensive mic . . . . you can't tell the nubs diaphragms don't rupture. The qtc1 is a kick ass mic. I've got a matched set and rarely a day goes by without me using them. My new favorite trick with qtc1's: I put a pair on the floor quite a bit out from the drum kit. Since the diaphragms are so tiny you can get them really close to the floor. Once you get them as close as you can, tape them down. You got yourself a kick ass PZM. Thanks uncle nubs.
Marik
Pro Microphone Design
<Large diaphragm mics like to break close to high spl's.>
????
Never heard of this. I just cannot see how it possibly could happen, considering the whole construction of the capsule.
The diaphragm displacement even under high SPLs is well below 1 micron. Even to consider that it was much more, still the backplate would work as a "stopper". Usually, the spacing between diaphragm and backplate is about 1 mil, or 24 micron. Think about it as a few times thinner than regular paper. Such a little excursion wouldn't be enough to break the diaphragm. There are other things like air cution between diphragm and backplate, which would effectively damp very high SPLs, etc. In fact, even ribbon mics, which considered much more fragile, can handle high SPLs easily. For example RCA BK5 could handle a gunshot sound right infront of the mic!
I would think the problem might possibly arise only using very old capsules with diaphragms made out of PVC. This material tends to dry over the time. If it breaks, it is a good sign that it's time to replace it.
????
Never heard of this. I just cannot see how it possibly could happen, considering the whole construction of the capsule.
The diaphragm displacement even under high SPLs is well below 1 micron. Even to consider that it was much more, still the backplate would work as a "stopper". Usually, the spacing between diaphragm and backplate is about 1 mil, or 24 micron. Think about it as a few times thinner than regular paper. Such a little excursion wouldn't be enough to break the diaphragm. There are other things like air cution between diphragm and backplate, which would effectively damp very high SPLs, etc. In fact, even ribbon mics, which considered much more fragile, can handle high SPLs easily. For example RCA BK5 could handle a gunshot sound right infront of the mic!
I would think the problem might possibly arise only using very old capsules with diaphragms made out of PVC. This material tends to dry over the time. If it breaks, it is a good sign that it's time to replace it.
R
Recording Engineer
Moderator
Right-Oh Marik!!! You expressed everything and probably more than I would have! The backplate was my first thought!
And nubs... A 150dB snare drum? Come-on!
And nubs... A 150dB snare drum? Come-on!