Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT but still audio: ok, I gotta ask about this: Behr C2 matched pair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT but still audio: ok, I gotta ask about this: Behr C2 matched pair [message #69611 is a reply to message #69610] |
Thu, 22 June 2006 15:19   |
Mike Audet
Messages: 294
Registered: December 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I didn't like the C1 at all. Maybe it was just the particular mic that I
had, but it had a flabby low mid response (ringy?) and a very unatural high
end boost. I just don't trust Studio Projects, though the mics in question
may be great. I felt that Studio Projects created a mic (with the c1) that
appeared to sound great at first listen - especially to people with less
expereince with great mics - but actually had massive shortcomings that
just didn't jump out like it's overblown high end did. I'd say they are
a lot like Mackie that way. Those VLZ Pro boards sucked - but they shure
sounded "crisp" and full at first listen. Too bad they were messing with
the sound to make that happen.
So, I dunno about the Studio Projects mics.
But, this is just my opinion - many disagree with me!
"John" <no@wellmaybe.com> wrote:
>
>
>That sounds like great advice....or the Studio Projects :-)
>
>"Mike Audet" <mike@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>In my humble opinion, it would be better to get a used set of AKG 535s.
>
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>"John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I don't know about those but the Studio Projects ones are really nice.
>>>
>>>James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Hey Aaron!
>>>>
>>>>Musician's Friend has the MXL993 on sale the pair are $179.99, with free
>>>>shipping. Somebody else mentioned them, I've never tried them though.
>>>>
>>>>James
>>>>
>>>>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-BEH-C2.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Anyone here braved this yet? I'm seriously considering gettin a pair
>so
>>>>I
>>>>>don't have to beat up my Shure condensors at club gigs. $50 for a matched
>>>>
>>>>>set.. sumpin's gotta be wrong here man.
>>>>>Somebody talk to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>AA
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
>>>>>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT but still audio: ok, I gotta ask about this: Behr C2 matched pair [message #69613 is a reply to message #69611] |
Thu, 22 June 2006 15:37 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I'm glad to hear I am not the only one that feels that way about the VLZ's.
I have had experience with (and still own two of the versions) original 1604
pres/XLR10 unit, VLZ, pre VLZ micros and the VLZ pro models. I have to say
at this date my favs are the pre VLZ/original 1604 lines. More musical,
less...sterile I think is the word I'm looking for. It sounds to me like
some kind of dynamic expander is being used and the lower volume stuff is
getting fooled with on the VLZ lines. It is especially notable when I use a
SM57 that the VLZ isn't up to the task of bettering the older preamps. That
what you are hearing Mike? These days, you might be able to give me a
mackie but I sure wouldn't spend my money on it. The new lines are cheap
behringer wanna be crap IMO.
(btw.. love my SP C1, so maybe you did get a bad one?)
AA
"Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote in message
news:449b1754$1@linux...
>
> I didn't like the C1 at all. Maybe it was just the particular mic that I
> had, but it had a flabby low mid response (ringy?) and a very unatural
> high
> end boost. I just don't trust Studio Projects, though the mics in
> question
> may be great. I felt that Studio Projects created a mic (with the c1)
> that
> appeared to sound great at first listen - especially to people with less
> expereince with great mics - but actually had massive shortcomings that
> just didn't jump out like it's overblown high end did. I'd say they are
> a lot like Mackie that way. Those VLZ Pro boards sucked - but they shure
> sounded "crisp" and full at first listen. Too bad they were messing with
> the sound to make that happen.
>
> So, I dunno about the Studio Projects mics.
>
> But, this is just my opinion - many disagree with me!
>
> "John" <no@wellmaybe.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>That sounds like great advice....or the Studio Projects :-)
>>
>>"Mike Audet" <mike@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>In my humble opinion, it would be better to get a used set of AKG 535s.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>"John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I don't know about those but the Studio Projects ones are really nice.
>>>>
>>>>James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey Aaron!
>>>>>
>>>>>Musician's Friend has the MXL993 on sale the pair are $179.99, with
>>>>>free
>>>>>shipping. Somebody else mentioned them, I've never tried them though.
>>>>>
>>>>>James
>>>>>
>>>>>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-BEH-C2.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anyone here braved this yet? I'm seriously considering gettin a pair
>>so
>>>>>I
>>>>>>don't have to beat up my Shure condensors at club gigs. $50 for a
>>>>>>matched
>>>>>
>>>>>>set.. sumpin's gotta be wrong here man.
>>>>>>Somebody talk to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>AA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
>>>>>>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT but still audio: ok, I gotta ask about this: Behr C2 matched pair [message #69614 is a reply to message #69613] |
Thu, 22 June 2006 15:52 |
Mike Audet
Messages: 294
Registered: December 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I thought the VLZ pro pres were "OK" if you wen't out the insert. Something
in the rest of the board was making the low end sound bigger and adding what
sounded like an upper mid bump. My belief (I have no proof!) is that this
was being done vis phase tricks to make the board sound "bigger" and "clearer"
in music stores without showing up in their spec sheet. The borad was "flat"
- but it shure didn't sound flat. I imagine a mic with a lot of mids - like
a 57 - would suffer from this more than most mics.
As for the C1. I don't know if I got a bad one or not. On mine, when I
recorded an acoustic guitar, you could hear that the low mids were *much*
boomier that if I used my 4050 or my slightly moded c3000s. I found myself
using multiband compressors and scooping out the mids to try to deal with
the "splash" of low mid that woul pop out constantly.
What really bothers me about this is that most people will hear a bright
high end much more easily than a boomy mid range. So, if you aren't used
to listening for the mids, the mic sounds great - until you comapre it to
a mic with solid mids (or a recording done with one).
I'm glad yours is working out for you, though. It is certainly possible
that mine just sucked. There was a rumour that the first run of mics sounded
better than the later ones.
Cheers!
Mike
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>I'm glad to hear I am not the only one that feels that way about the VLZ's.
>I have had experience with (and still own two of the versions) original
1604
>pres/XLR10 unit, VLZ, pre VLZ micros and the VLZ pro models. I have to say
>at this date my favs are the pre VLZ/original 1604 lines. More musical,
>less...sterile I think is the word I'm looking for. It sounds to me like
>some kind of dynamic expander is being used and the lower volume stuff is
>getting fooled with on the VLZ lines. It is especially notable when I use
a
>SM57 that the VLZ isn't up to the task of bettering the older preamps. That
>what you are hearing Mike? These days, you might be able to give me a
>mackie but I sure wouldn't spend my money on it. The new lines are cheap
>behringer wanna be crap IMO.
>
>(btw.. love my SP C1, so maybe you did get a bad one?)
>
>AA
>
>
>"Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote in message
>news:449b1754$1@linux...
>>
>> I didn't like the C1 at all. Maybe it was just the particular mic that
I
>> had, but it had a flabby low mid response (ringy?) and a very unatural
>> high
>> end boost. I just don't trust Studio Projects, though the mics in
>> question
>> may be great. I felt that Studio Projects created a mic (with the c1)
>> that
>> appeared to sound great at first listen - especially to people with less
>> expereince with great mics - but actually had massive shortcomings that
>> just didn't jump out like it's overblown high end did. I'd say they are
>> a lot like Mackie that way. Those VLZ Pro boards sucked - but they shure
>> sounded "crisp" and full at first listen. Too bad they were messing with
>> the sound to make that happen.
>>
>> So, I dunno about the Studio Projects mics.
>>
>> But, this is just my opinion - many disagree with me!
>>
>> "John" <no@wellmaybe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>That sounds like great advice....or the Studio Projects :-)
>>>
>>>"Mike Audet" <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In my humble opinion, it would be better to get a used set of AKG 535s.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>"John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know about those but the Studio Projects ones are really nice.
>>>>>
>>>>>James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey Aaron!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Musician's Friend has the MXL993 on sale the pair are $179.99, with
>>>>>>free
>>>>>>shipping. Somebody else mentioned them, I've never tried them though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>>http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-BEH-C2.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anyone here braved this yet? I'm seriously considering gettin a pair
>>>so
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>don't have to beat up my Shure condensors at club gigs. $50 for a
>>>>>>>matched
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>set.. sumpin's gotta be wrong here man.
>>>>>>>Somebody talk to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>AA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
>>>>>>>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT but still audio: ok, I gotta ask about this: Behr C2 matched pair [message #69616 is a reply to message #69614] |
Thu, 22 June 2006 18:33 |
Tom Bruhl
Messages: 1368
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0047_01C69643.73AA6580
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,
I was borrowing an 1981ish U-87 and was using it on vocals for a =
Metallica cover
project (still not done). I had to return the mic before a tune was =
done so=20
I tried with all my might to get a 414ULS, 414EB, Rode NT1, SP C-3 to =
match the sound.
The C-3 was the ticket and was almost better for this singer. He =
doesn't have the=20
beef James has so the low mid bump is almost desirable. The accentuated =
top=20
is very Metallica too. No Exciter needed! Maybe a little too crispy =
but not bad.
I don't think I'll need a deesser. Maybe I got a good C-3.
By the way it kicked 'a' on a hot r&b female vocalist recently. I =
didn't expect it.
Knowing Mackie pres, I wouldn't think they'd be a great match with a SP =
C3
I've been using it through the Precision 8. The Neve was a little too =
brittle.
Maybe the pre is the clincher here? I haven't tried my Telefunken V-72 =
yet...
Hmmm? Can you say metal guitar?!?!
That's just me,
Tom
"Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote in message =
news:449b1f1e$1@linux...
I thought the VLZ pro pres were "OK" if you wen't out the insert. =
Something
in the rest of the board was making the low end sound bigger and =
adding what
sounded like an upper mid bump. My belief (I have no proof!) is that =
this
was being done vis phase tricks to make the board sound "bigger" and =
"clearer"
in music stores without showing up in their spec sheet. The borad was =
"flat"
- but it shure didn't sound flat. I imagine a mic with a lot of mids =
- like
a 57 - would suffer from this more than most mics.
As for the C1. I don't know if I got a bad one or not. On mine, when =
I
recorded an acoustic guitar, you could hear that the low mids were =
*much*
boomier that if I used my 4050 or my slightly moded c3000s. I found =
myself
using multiband compressors and scooping out the mids to try to deal =
with
the "splash" of low mid that woul pop out constantly. =20
What really bothers me about this is that most people will hear a =
bright
high end much more easily than a boomy mid range. So, if you aren't =
used
to listening for the mids, the mic sounds great - until you comapre it =
to
a mic with solid mids (or a recording done with one).
I'm glad yours is working out for you, though. It is certainly =
possible
that mine just sucked. There was a rumour that the first run of mics =
sounded
better than the later ones.
Cheers!
Mike
"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>I'm glad to hear I am not the only one that feels that way about the =
VLZ's.
>I have had experience with (and still own two of the versions) =
original
1604=20
>pres/XLR10 unit, VLZ, pre VLZ micros and the VLZ pro models. I have =
to say
>at this date my favs are the pre VLZ/original 1604 lines. More =
musical,
>less...sterile I think is the word I'm looking for. It sounds to me =
like
>some kind of dynamic expander is being used and the lower volume =
stuff is
>getting fooled with on the VLZ lines. It is especially notable when I =
use
a=20
>SM57 that the VLZ isn't up to the task of bettering the older =
preamps. That
>what you are hearing Mike? These days, you might be able to give me =
a=20
>mackie but I sure wouldn't spend my money on it. The new lines are =
cheap
>behringer wanna be crap IMO.
>
>(btw.. love my SP C1, so maybe you did get a bad one?)
>
>AA
>
>
>"Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote in message=20
>news:449b1754$1@linux...
>>
>> I didn't like the C1 at all. Maybe it was just the particular mic =
that
I
>> had, but it had a flabby low mid response (ringy?) and a very =
unatural
>> high
>> end boost. I just don't trust Studio Projects, though the mics in=20
>> question
>> may be great. I felt that Studio Projects created a mic (with the =
c1)
>> that
>> appeared to sound great at first listen - especially to people with =
less
>> expereince with great mics - but actually had massive shortcomings =
that
>> just didn't jump out like it's overblown high end did. I'd say =
they are
>> a lot like Mackie that way. Those VLZ Pro boards sucked - but they =
shure
>> sounded "crisp" and full at first listen. Too bad they were =
messing with
>> the sound to make that happen.
>>
>> So, I dunno about the Studio Projects mics.
>>
>> But, this is just my opinion - many disagree with me!
>>
>> "John" <no@wellmaybe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>That sounds like great advice....or the Studio Projects :-)
>>>
>>>"Mike Audet" <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In my humble opinion, it would be better to get a used set of AKG =
535s.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>"John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know about those but the Studio Projects ones are really =
nice.
>>>>>
>>>>>James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hey Aaron!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Musician's Friend has the MXL993 on sale the pair are $179.99, =
with
>>>>>>free
>>>>>>shipping. Somebody else mentioned them, I've never tried them =
though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>James
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>>http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-BEH-C2.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anyone here braved this yet? I'm seriously considering gettin a =
pair
>>>so
>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>don't have to beat up my Shure condensors at club gigs. $50 for =
a
>>>>>>>matched
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>set.. sumpin's gotta be wrong here man.
>>>>>>>Somebody talk to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>AA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
>>>>>>>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>=20
>
>
------=_NextPart_000_0047_01C69643.73AA6580
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I was borrowing an 1981ish U-87 and was =
using it on=20
vocals for a Metallica cover</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>project (still not done). I had =
to return the=20
mic before a tune was done so </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I tried with all my might to get a =
414ULS, 414EB,=20
Rode NT1, SP C-3 to match the sound.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The C-3 was the ticket and was almost =
better for=20
this singer. He doesn't have the </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>beef James has </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>so the low mid bump is almost desirable.</FONT> <FONT =
face=3DArial size=3D2> The accentuated top </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>is very Metallica </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>too. No Exciter needed! Maybe a little too crispy =
but not=20
bad.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I don't think I'll need a =
deesser. Maybe I=20
got a good C-3.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>By the way it kicked 'a' on a hot =
r&b female=20
vocalist recently. I didn't expect it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Knowing Mackie pres, I wouldn't think =
they'd be a=20
great match with a SP C3</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I've been using </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial size=3D2>it=20
through the Precision 8. The Neve was a little too =
brittle.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Maybe the pre is the clincher =
here? I haven't=20
tried my Telefunken V-72 yet...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hmmm? Can you say metal=20
guitar?!?!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That's just me,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Mike Audet" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com">mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com</A>>=
wrote=20
in message <A=20
href=3D"news:449b1f1e$1@linux">news:449b1f1e$1@linux</A>...</DIV><BR>I =
thought=20
the VLZ pro pres were "OK" if you wen't out the insert. =
Something<BR>in=20
the rest of the board was making the low end sound bigger and adding=20
what<BR>sounded like an upper mid bump. My belief (I have no =
proof!) is=20
that this<BR>was being done vis phase tricks to make the board sound =
"bigger"=20
and "clearer"<BR>in music stores without showing up in their spec =
sheet. =20
The borad was "flat"<BR>- but it shure didn't sound flat. I =
imagine a=20
mic with a lot of mids - like<BR>a 57 - would suffer from this more =
than most=20
mics.<BR><BR>As for the C1. I don't know if I got a bad one or=20
not. On mine, when I<BR>recorded an acoustic guitar, you could =
hear that=20
the low mids were *much*<BR>boomier that if I used my 4050 or my =
slightly=20
moded c3000s. I found myself<BR>using multiband compressors and =
scooping=20
out the mids to try to deal with<BR>the "splash" of low mid that woul =
pop out=20
constantly. <BR><BR>What really bothers me about this is that =
most=20
people will hear a bright<BR>high end much more easily than a boomy =
mid=20
range. So, if you aren't used<BR>to listening for the mids, the =
mic=20
sounds great - until you comapre it to<BR>a mic with solid mids (or a=20
recording done with one).<BR><BR>I'm glad yours is working out for =
you,=20
though. It is certainly possible<BR>that mine just sucked. =
There=20
was a rumour that the first run of mics sounded<BR>better than the =
later=20
ones.<BR><BR>Cheers!<BR><BR>Mike<BR><BR>"Aaron Allen" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:nospam@not_here.dude">nospam@not_here.dude</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>>I'm glad to hear I am not the only one that feels that =
way about=20
the VLZ's.<BR><BR>>I have had experience with (and still own two of =
the=20
versions) original<BR>1604 <BR>>pres/XLR10 unit, VLZ, pre VLZ =
micros and=20
the VLZ pro models. I have to say<BR><BR>>at this date my favs are =
the pre=20
VLZ/original 1604 lines. More musical,<BR><BR>>less...sterile I =
think is=20
the word I'm looking for. It sounds to me like<BR><BR>>some kind of =
dynamic=20
expander is being used and the lower volume stuff =
is<BR><BR>>getting fooled=20
with on the VLZ lines. It is especially notable when I use<BR>a =
<BR>>SM57=20
that the VLZ isn't up to the task of bettering the older preamps.=20
That<BR><BR>>what you are hearing Mike? These days, you might =
be able=20
to give me a <BR>>mackie but I sure wouldn't spend my money on it. =
The new=20
lines are cheap<BR><BR>>behringer wanna be crap =
IMO.<BR>><BR>>(btw..=20
love my SP C1, so maybe you did get a bad=20
one?)<BR>><BR>>AA<BR>><BR>> <BR>>"Mike Audet" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com">mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com</A>>=
wrote=20
in message <BR>>news:449b1754$1@linux...<BR>>><BR>>> I =
didn't=20
like the C1 at all. Maybe it was just the particular mic=20
that<BR>I<BR>>> had, but it had a flabby low mid response =
(ringy?) and a=20
very unatural<BR><BR>>> high<BR>>> end boost. I just =
don't=20
trust Studio Projects, though the mics in <BR>>> =
question<BR>>>=20
may be great. I felt that Studio Projects created a mic (with =
the=20
c1)<BR><BR>>> that<BR>>> appeared to sound great at first =
listen -=20
especially to people with less<BR>>> expereince with great mics =
- =20
but actually had massive shortcomings that<BR>>> just didn't =
jump out=20
like it's overblown high end did. I'd say they are<BR>>> a =
lot=20
like Mackie that way. Those VLZ Pro boards sucked - but they=20
shure<BR>>> sounded "crisp" and full at first listen. Too =
bad they=20
were messing with<BR>>> the sound to make that=20
happen.<BR>>><BR>>> So, I dunno about the Studio Projects=20
mics.<BR>>><BR>>> But, this is just my opinion - many =
disagree=20
with me!<BR>>><BR>>> "John" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:no@wellmaybe.com">no@wellmaybe.com</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>> <BR>>>>That sounds like =
great=20
advice....or the Studio Projects =
:-)<BR>>>><BR>>>> "Mike=20
Audet" <mike@...>=20
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> <BR>>>>>In =
my humble=20
opinion, it would be better to get a used set of AKG=20
=
535s.<BR>>>><BR>>>>> <BR>>>>><BR>>>=
>>Cheers,<BR>>>>> <BR>>>>>Mike<BR>>>&g=
t;><BR>>>>>"John"=20
<<A href=3D"mailto:no@no.com">no@no.com</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>I don't know =
about those=20
but the Studio Projects ones are really=20
nice.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>James McCloskey" =
<<A=20
href=3D"mailto:excelsm@hotmail.com">excelsm@hotmail.com</A>>=20
wrote:<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>>Hey=20
=
Aaron!<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>>Musician's =
Friend has the MXL993 on sale the pair are $179.99,=20
=
with<BR><BR>>>>>>>free <BR>>>>>>>shipp=
ing.=20
Somebody else mentioned them, I've never tried them=20
=
though.<BR>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>>James<BR >&=
gt;>>>>><BR>>>>>>> "Aaron=20
Allen" <<A =
href=3D"mailto:nospam@not_here.dude">nospam@not_here.dude</A>>=20
=
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>http://www.americanmusical.com/item=
--i-BEH-C2.html<BR>>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>&g=
t;>Anyone=20
here braved this yet? I'm seriously considering gettin a=20
=
pair<BR>>>>so<BR>>>>>>>I <BR>>>>>&g=
t;>>don't=20
have to beat up my Shure condensors at club gigs. $50 for=20
=
a<BR><BR> >>>>>>>matc hed <BR>>>>>>><=
BR> >>>>>>>set. .=20
sumpin's gotta be wrong here =
man.<BR> >>>>>>>Some body talk=20
to=20
=
me.<BR>>>>>>>> <BR>>>>>>>>AA <BR>=
>>>>>>><BR >>>>>>>><BR >>>&=
gt;>>>><BR> >>>>>>>I=20
choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and=20
=
you?<BR>>>>>>>>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html<BR=
>>>>>>>><BR >>>>>>>><BR >>>=
>>>><BR>>>>>> <BR>>>>><BR>>>&=
gt;<BR>>>=20
<BR>><BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML >
------=_NextPart_000_0047_01C69643.73AA6580--
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT but still audio: ok, I gotta ask about this: Behr C2 matched pair [message #69617 is a reply to message #69616] |
Thu, 22 June 2006 20:01 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You and I must have WAAAAY different sets of hearing
perception - I've never heard any kind of Neve preamp that I
would describe as "brittle". Wooly, Mushy, Smooth, Slow...
maybe, but never brittle.
How was your experience in getting the C-1/C-3 to sit well in
the mix? I had one of the earlier C-1's, and I thought the mic
had good fidelity, and it was an exciting mic for singers to
sing through (it comes across well in the cans), but I found it
tough to get to "sit down" in the mix - and it was definitely a
little harsh at times with that big 6k bump... mix-wise, it was
just a beeyatch to find the pocket with that mic. DJ has my old
one now & loves it though... right, Deej?
Neil
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>All,
>I was borrowing an 1981ish U-87 and was using it on vocals for a =
>Metallica cover
>project (still not done). I had to return the mic before a tune was =
>done so=20
>I tried with all my might to get a 414ULS, 414EB, Rode NT1, SP C-3 to =
>match the sound.
>The C-3 was the ticket and was almost better for this singer. He =
>doesn't have the=20
>beef James has so the low mid bump is almost desirable. The accentuated
=
>top=20
>is very Metallica too. No Exciter needed! Maybe a little too crispy =
>but not bad.
>I don't think I'll need a deesser. Maybe I got a good C-3.
>
>By the way it kicked 'a' on a hot r&b female vocalist recently. I =
>didn't expect it.
>Knowing Mackie pres, I wouldn't think they'd be a great match with a SP
=
>C3
>I've been using it through the Precision 8. The Neve was a little too =
>brittle.
>Maybe the pre is the clincher here? I haven't tried my Telefunken V-72
=
>yet...
>Hmmm? Can you say metal guitar?!?!
>
>That's just me,
>Tom
>
>
> "Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote in message =
>news:449b1f1e$1@linux...
>
> I thought the VLZ pro pres were "OK" if you wen't out the insert. =
>Something
> in the rest of the board was making the low end sound bigger and =
>adding what
> sounded like an upper mid bump. My belief (I have no proof!) is that
=
>this
> was being done vis phase tricks to make the board sound "bigger" and =
>"clearer"
> in music stores without showing up in their spec sheet. The borad was
=
>"flat"
> - but it shure didn't sound flat. I imagine a mic with a lot of mids
=
>- like
> a 57 - would suffer from this more than most mics.
>
> As for the C1. I don't know if I got a bad one or not. On mine, when
=
>I
> recorded an acoustic guitar, you could hear that the low mids were =
>*much*
> boomier that if I used my 4050 or my slightly moded c3000s. I found =
>myself
> using multiband compressors and scooping out the mids to try to deal =
>with
> the "splash" of low mid that woul pop out constantly. =20
>
> What really bothers me about this is that most people will hear a =
>bright
> high end much more easily than a boomy mid range. So, if you aren't =
>used
> to listening for the mids, the mic sounds great - until you comapre it
=
>to
> a mic with solid mids (or a recording done with one).
>
> I'm glad yours is working out for you, though. It is certainly =
>possible
> that mine just sucked. There was a rumour that the first run of mics
=
>sounded
> better than the later ones.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mike
>
> "Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
> >I'm glad to hear I am not the only one that feels that way about the
=
>VLZ's.
>
> >I have had experience with (and still own two of the versions) =
>original
> 1604=20
> >pres/XLR10 unit, VLZ, pre VLZ micros and the VLZ pro models. I have =
>to say
>
> >at this date my favs are the pre VLZ/original 1604 lines. More =
>musical,
>
> >less...sterile I think is the word I'm looking for. It sounds to me =
>like
>
> >some kind of dynamic expander is being used and the lower volume =
>stuff is
>
> >getting fooled with on the VLZ lines. It is especially notable when I
=
>use
> a=20
> >SM57 that the VLZ isn't up to the task of bettering the older =
>preamps. That
>
> >what you are hearing Mike? These days, you might be able to give me
=
>a=20
> >mackie but I sure wouldn't spend my money on it. The new lines are =
>cheap
>
> >behringer wanna be crap IMO.
> >
> >(btw.. love my SP C1, so maybe you did get a bad one?)
> >
> >AA
> >
> >
> >"Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote in message=20
> >news:449b1754$1@linux...
> >>
> >> I didn't like the C1 at all. Maybe it was just the particular mic
=
>that
> I
> >> had, but it had a flabby low mid response (ringy?) and a very =
>unatural
>
> >> high
> >> end boost. I just don't trust Studio Projects, though the mics in=20
> >> question
> >> may be great. I felt that Studio Projects created a mic (with the
=
>c1)
>
> >> that
> >> appeared to sound great at first listen - especially to people with
=
>less
> >> expereince with great mics - but actually had massive shortcomings
=
>that
> >> just didn't jump out like it's overblown high end did. I'd say =
>they are
> >> a lot like Mackie that way. Those VLZ Pro boards sucked - but they
=
>shure
> >> sounded "crisp" and full at first listen. Too bad they were =
>messing with
> >> the sound to make that happen.
> >>
> >> So, I dunno about the Studio Projects mics.
> >>
> >> But, this is just my opinion - many disagree with me!
> >>
> >> "John" <no@wellmaybe.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That sounds like great advice....or the Studio Projects :-)
> >>>
> >>>"Mike Audet" <mike@...> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>In my humble opinion, it would be better to get a used set of AKG
=
>535s.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>>Mike
> >>>>
> >>>>"John" <no@no.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I don't know about those but the Studio Projects ones are really
=
>nice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Hey Aaron!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Musician's Friend has the MXL993 on sale the pair are $179.99, =
>with
>
> >>>>>>free
> >>>>>>shipping. Somebody else mentioned them, I've never tried them =
>though.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>James
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-BEH-C2.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Anyone here braved this yet? I'm seriously considering gettin a
=
>pair
> >>>so
> >>>>>>I
> >>>>>>>don't have to beat up my Shure condensors at club gigs. $50 for
=
>a
>
> >>>>>>>matched
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>set.. sumpin's gotta be wrong here man.
> >>>>>>>Somebody talk to me.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>AA
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
> >>>>>>>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>=20
> >
> >
>
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>All,</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I was borrowing an 1981ish U-87 and was
=
>using it on=20
>vocals for a Metallica cover</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>project (still not done). I had =
>to return the=20
>mic before a tune was done so </FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I tried with all my might to get a =
>414ULS, 414EB,=20
>Rode NT1, SP C-3 to match the sound.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The C-3 was the ticket and was almost =
>better for=20
>this singer. He doesn't have the </FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>beef James has </FONT><FONT =
>face=3DArial=20
>size=3D2>so the low mid bump is almost desirable.</FONT> <FONT =
>
>face=3DArial size=3D2> The accentuated top </FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>is very Metallica </FONT><FONT =
>face=3DArial=20
>size=3D2>too. No Exciter needed! Maybe a little too crispy =
>but not=20
>bad.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I don't think I'll need a =
>deesser. Maybe I=20
>got a good C-3.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>By the way it kicked 'a' on a hot =
>r&b female=20
>vocalist recently. I didn't expect it.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Knowing Mackie pres, I wouldn't think =
>they'd be a=20
>great match with a SP C3</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I've been using </FONT><FONT =
>face=3DArial size=3D2>it=20
>through the Precision 8. The Neve was a little too =
>brittle.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Maybe the pre is the clincher =
>here? I haven't=20
>tried my Telefunken V-72 yet...</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hmmm? Can you say metal=20
>guitar?!?!</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>That's just me,</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><BLOCKQUOTE=20
>style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
>BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV>"Mike Audet" <<A=20
> =
>href=3D"mailto:mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com">mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com</A>>=
> wrote=20
> in message <A=20
> href=3D"news:449b1f1e$1@linux">news:449b1f1e$1@linux</A>...</DIV><BR>I
=
>thought=20
> the VLZ pro pres were "OK" if you wen't out the insert. =
>Something<BR>in=20
> the rest of the board was making the low end sound bigger and adding=20
> what<BR>sounded like an upper mid bump. My belief (I have no =
>proof!) is=20
> that this<BR>was being done vis phase tricks to make the board sound =
>"bigger"=20
> and "clearer"<BR>in music stores without showing up in their spec =
>sheet. =20
> The borad was "flat"<BR>- but it shure didn't sound flat. I =
>imagine a=20
> mic with a lot of mids - like<BR>a 57 - would suffer from this more =
>than most=20
> mics.<BR><BR>As for the C1. I don't know if I got a bad one or=20
> not. On mine, when I<BR>recorded an acoustic guitar, you could =
>hear that=20
> the low mids were *much*<BR>boomier that if I used my 4050 or my =
>slightly=20
> moded c3000s. I found myself<BR>using multiband compressors and =
>scooping=20
> out the mids to try to deal with<BR>the "splash" of low mid that woul
=
>pop out=20
> constantly. <BR><BR>What really bothers me about this is that =
>most=20
> people will hear a bright<BR>high end much more easily than a boomy =
>mid=20
> range. So, if you aren't used<BR>to listening for the mids, the =
>mic=20
> sounds great - until you comapre it to<BR>a mic with solid mids (or a=20
> recording done with one).<BR><BR>I'm glad yours is working out for =
>you,=20
> though. It is certainly possible<BR>that mine just sucked. =
>There=20
> was a rumour that the first run of mics sounded<BR>better than the =
>later=20
> ones.<BR><BR>Cheers!<BR><BR>Mike<BR><BR>"Aaron Allen" <<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:nospam@not_here.dude">nospam@not_here.dude</A>>=20
> wrote:<BR>>I'm glad to hear I am not the only one that feels that =
>way about=20
> the VLZ's.<BR><BR>>I have had experience with (and still own two of =
>the=20
> versions) original<BR>1604 <BR>>pres/XLR10 unit, VLZ, pre VLZ =
>micros and=20
> the VLZ pro models. I have to say<BR><BR>>at this date my favs are =
>the pre=20
> VLZ/original 1604 lines. More musical,<BR><BR>>less...sterile I =
>think is=20
> the word I'm looking for. It sounds to me like<BR><BR>>some kind of =
>dynamic=20
> expander is being used and the lower volume stuff =
>is<BR><BR>>getting fooled=20
> with on the VLZ lines. It is especially notable when I use<BR>a =
><BR>>SM57=20
> that the VLZ isn't up to the task of bettering the older preamps.=20
> That<BR><BR>>what you are hearing Mike? These days, you might =
>be able=20
> to give me a <BR>>mackie but I sure wouldn't spend my money on it. =
>The new=20
> lines are cheap<BR><BR>>behringer wanna be crap =
>IMO.<BR>><BR>>(btw..=20
> love my SP C1, so maybe you did get a bad=20
> one?)<BR>><BR>>AA<BR>><BR>><BR>>"Mike Audet" <<A=20
> =
>href=3D"mailto:mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com">mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com</A>>=
> wrote=20
> in message <BR>>news:449b1754$1@linux...<BR>>><BR>>> I =
>didn't=20
> like the C1 at all. Maybe it was just the particular mic=20
> that<BR>I<BR>>> had, but it had a flabby low mid response =
>(ringy?) and a=20
> very unatural<BR><BR>>> high<BR>>> end boost. I just =
>don't=20
> trust Studio Projects, though the mics in <BR>>> =
>question<BR>>>=20
> may be great. I felt that Studio Projects created a mic (with =
>the=20
> c1)<BR><BR>>> that<BR>>> appeared to sound great at first =
>listen -=20
> especially to people with less<BR>>> expereince with great mics =
>- =20
> but actually had massive shortcomings that<BR>>> just didn't =
>jump out=20
> like it's overblown high end did. I'd say they are<BR>>> a =
>lot=20
> like Mackie that way. Those VLZ Pro boards sucked - but they=20
> shure<BR>>> sounded "crisp" and full at first listen. Too =
>bad they=20
> were messing with<BR>>> the sound to make that=20
> happen.<BR>>><BR>>> So, I dunno about the Studio Projects=20
> mics.<BR>>><BR>>> But, this is just my opinion - many =
>disagree=20
> with me!<BR>>><BR>>> "John" <<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:no@wellmaybe.com">no@wellmaybe.com</A>>=20
> wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>That sounds like =
>great=20
> advice....or the Studio Projects =
>:-)<BR>>>><BR>>>>"Mike=20
> Audet" <mike@...>=20
> wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>In =
>my humble=20
> opinion, it would be better to get a used set of AKG=20
> =
>535s.<BR>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>=
>>>Cheers,<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>Mike<BR>>>&g=
>t;><BR>>>>>"John"=20
> <<A href=3D"mailto:no@no.com">no@no.com</A>>=20
> wrote:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>I don't know =
>about those=20
> but the Studio Projects ones are really=20
> nice.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>James McCloskey" =
><<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:excelsm@hotmail.com">excelsm@hotmail.com</A>>=20
> wrote:<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>Hey=20
> =
>Aaron!<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>Musician's =
>
> Friend has the MXL993 on sale the pair are $179.99,=20
> =
>with<BR><BR>>>>>>>free<BR>>>>>>>shipp=
>ing.=20
> Somebody else mentioned them, I've never tried them=20
> =
>though.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>James<BR>&=
>gt;>>>>><BR>>>>>>>"Aaron=20
> Allen" <<A =
>href=3D"mailto:nospam@not_here.dude">nospam@not_here.dude</A>>=20
> =
>wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>http://www.americanmusical.com/item=
>--i-BEH-C2.html<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>&g=
>t;>Anyone=20
> here braved this yet? I'm seriously considering gettin a=20
> =
>pair<BR>>>>so<BR>>>>>>>I<BR>>>>>&g=
>t;>>don't=20
> have to beat up my Shure condensors at club gigs. $50 for=20
> =
>a<BR><BR>>>>>>>>matched<BR>>>>>>><=
>BR>>>>>>>>set..=20
> sumpin's gotta be wrong here =
>man.<BR>>>>>>>>Somebody talk=20
> to=20
> =
>me.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>AA<BR>=
>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>&=
>gt;>>>><BR>>>>>>>>I=20
> choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and=20
> =
>you?<BR>>>>>>>>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html<BR=
>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>=
>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>&=
>gt;<BR>>>=20
> <BR>><BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT but still audio: ok, I gotta ask about this: Behr C2 matched pair [message #69619 is a reply to message #69614] |
Thu, 22 June 2006 21:35 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988
Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
yup... I got in on the first run I believe, so that would fall in line.
AA
"Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote in message
news:449b1f1e$1@linux...
>
> I thought the VLZ pro pres were "OK" if you wen't out the insert.
> Something
> in the rest of the board was making the low end sound bigger and adding
> what
> sounded like an upper mid bump. My belief (I have no proof!) is that this
> was being done vis phase tricks to make the board sound "bigger" and
> "clearer"
> in music stores without showing up in their spec sheet. The borad was
> "flat"
> - but it shure didn't sound flat. I imagine a mic with a lot of mids -
> like
> a 57 - would suffer from this more than most mics.
>
> As for the C1. I don't know if I got a bad one or not. On mine, when I
> recorded an acoustic guitar, you could hear that the low mids were *much*
> boomier that if I used my 4050 or my slightly moded c3000s. I found
> myself
> using multiband compressors and scooping out the mids to try to deal with
> the "splash" of low mid that woul pop out constantly.
>
> What really bothers me about this is that most people will hear a bright
> high end much more easily than a boomy mid range. So, if you aren't used
> to listening for the mids, the mic sounds great - until you comapre it to
> a mic with solid mids (or a recording done with one).
>
> I'm glad yours is working out for you, though. It is certainly possible
> that mine just sucked. There was a rumour that the first run of mics
> sounded
> better than the later ones.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Mike
>
> "Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>I'm glad to hear I am not the only one that feels that way about the
>>VLZ's.
>
>>I have had experience with (and still own two of the versions) original
> 1604
>>pres/XLR10 unit, VLZ, pre VLZ micros and the VLZ pro models. I have to say
>
>>at this date my favs are the pre VLZ/original 1604 lines. More musical,
>
>>less...sterile I think is the word I'm looking for. It sounds to me like
>
>>some kind of dynamic expander is being used and the lower volume stuff is
>
>>getting fooled with on the VLZ lines. It is especially notable when I use
> a
>>SM57 that the VLZ isn't up to the task of bettering the older preamps.
>>That
>
>>what you are hearing Mike? These days, you might be able to give me a
>>mackie but I sure wouldn't spend my money on it. The new lines are cheap
>
>>behringer wanna be crap IMO.
>>
>>(btw.. love my SP C1, so maybe you did get a bad one?)
>>
>>AA
>>
>>
>>"Mike Audet" <mike@mikeF-SPAMaudet.com> wrote in message
>>news:449b1754$1@linux...
>>>
>>> I didn't like the C1 at all. Maybe it was just the particular mic that
> I
>>> had, but it had a flabby low mid response (ringy?) and a very unatural
>
>>> high
>>> end boost. I just don't trust Studio Projects, though the mics in
>>> question
>>> may be great. I felt that Studio Projects created a mic (with the c1)
>
>>> that
>>> appeared to sound great at first listen - especially to people with less
>>> expereince with great mics - but actually had massive shortcomings that
>>> just didn't jump out like it's overblown high end did. I'd say they are
>>> a lot like Mackie that way. Those VLZ Pro boards sucked - but they
>>> shure
>>> sounded "crisp" and full at first listen. Too bad they were messing
>>> with
>>> the sound to make that happen.
>>>
>>> So, I dunno about the Studio Projects mics.
>>>
>>> But, this is just my opinion - many disagree with me!
>>>
>>> "John" <no@wellmaybe.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That sounds like great advice....or the Studio Projects :-)
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Audet" <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In my humble opinion, it would be better to get a used set of AKG 535s.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>>Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>"John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know about those but the Studio Projects ones are really nice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hey Aaron!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Musician's Friend has the MXL993 on sale the pair are $179.99, with
>
>>>>>>>free
>>>>>>>shipping. Somebody else mentioned them, I've never tried them though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>James
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Aaron Allen" <nospam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>>>>>>>>http://www.americanmusical.com/item--i-BEH-C2.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Anyone here braved this yet? I'm seriously considering gettin a pair
>>>>so
>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>>don't have to beat up my Shure condensors at club gigs. $50 for a
>
>>>>>>>>matched
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>set.. sumpin's gotta be wrong here man.
>>>>>>>>Somebody talk to me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>AA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
>>>>>>>>http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 30 00:03:22 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.09222 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
