 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.113.204.15
Ive got a budget of around $1000 to $1500 per mike and I was looking at two tube mikes. One from Audio Technica- the 4060 mike, and the other from AKG- the Solidtube. Both are rated 20hz-20khz which is important. There will be some live location recordings to capture room or area sound, and other times will be for close up miking of people- either single persons or a choir type recording. Miking will be in stereo and 10 feet from choir. The recorder will be both a Sony Dolby S cassette deck and an Alesis Masterlink set to 24 bit 96fs. Probably on an 8 channel Mackie Mixer while feeding phantom power to the mikes. Now does anyone have a preference between the AKG or Audio Technica? Im wanting a tube mike.
Follow Ups:
I'm not sure why you want a tube mic specifically. Among both tube and SS mics, there is a wide variation of sonic characteristics.Also, some of the conversation here suggests omnidirectional mics rather than cardioid.
Might I suggest that you consider the Schoeps SS mic with switchable omni/cardioid pattern. They'll be near the top end of your price range, but they're excellent.
http://www.schoeps.de/E-2004/switchable.html
Yes, it's cardiod but I've been recording for 35 years and you have to have almost perfect acoustics to use an omni well. Most of us amateurs don't record in anechoic chambers or studios like RCA studio 1A or Skywalker sound and an empty hall with no audience is a pretty bad acoustic environment to record in without bringing in lots of velour drapes to cover the empty seats. Cardiod mics have to be aimed carefully but don't exaggerate the reverberate fields in a room like omnis do. So If I had to live with just two mics it would be two cardiod large diaphragm condensers. If you could swing more money I would take a pair of the AKG C12VR over the two you mentioned. Great mics! Ray Hughes
"I take you as you are
And make of you what I will,
Skunk-bear, carcajou, bloodthirsty
Non-survivor.
Lord, let me die but not die out." THE LAST WOLVERINE by James Dickey
The 20Hz-20kHz frequency response specification hardly means anything when applied to microphones. Most quality microphones have exceptional frequency response characteristics, but they all sound different, often dramatically so. You really need to use them yourself to know anything about their performance. I'd look for a dealer who is willing to let you try them out.Also, if you're planning to use the microphones in a variety of ways, you might think about getting a mic with switchable polar patterns. You only have the ability to use a few different stereo techniques with a pair of fixed cardioids.
I only have experience with ADK's solid-state, transformerless microphone which I'm quite happy with, but they also offer a tubed multiple pattern mic, the Area 51 TT. It's in your price range, so it might be worth looking into.
-Anthony
Keep in mind that is Canadian pricing- so about $1000-$1200 US dollars per mike. Both the above fit into this range.
Since small diaghram mikes are what I should be looking for - for my type of live recording- how about these: Schoeps MK4 with M222 or CMC6? Or maybe the less expensive Audio Technica 4051a?
Just curious--why do you say you *should* be looking for a small diaphragm mic? I find that small diaphragm mics tend to be more analytical sounding than large diaphragm mics, but maybe that's what you want.The MK4 is a nice sounding cap though, with either body.
-Anthony
From what Ive been told- large diaghram mikes are for vocal pickups or when the sound source is close to the mike. If I'm doing area recording of live music where the mikes are a distance from the source, then a small diaghram mike is prefered. The mikes may be quite a few feet or so from the source- like choir music. Or if you want a sense of space and sound of the room.
I think the reason large diaphragm microphones are used so often in close-mic'ing situations is because of their richer tone. A small diaphragm model may leave something to be desired in those applications. However, LDs are equally suitable for stereo recording at a distance--that's what I use mine for. I would agree that at excessive distances when the direct/reverberant sound ratio is low (where a hypercardiod would be more suitable) small-diaphragm mics are probably a better choice. A "few feet or so" is actually quite close, though.It's not the most accurate of analogies, but loosely put, I'd say that LD is to SD as tubes are to transistors.
-Anthony
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
