Am Mittwoch, 11. April 2007 schrieb Robin Gareus: I tried that on the first track of guitar we recorded. The line-signal is very good for stage-use but in the studio (ie. my living room) compared to mic signals from the tube-mic or one of my condensors its just noisy crap... My next step was to use the condensor at the hole in the corpse with 30-40cm distance and the tube-mic at the neck. But after some more track we went for just the tube-mic positioned at 30-40cm distance from the point where the corpse goes into the neck and aimed a bit at the hole. Gives a wonderful sound with concert acoustics and western acoustics (ovation and others)... Arnold -- visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/ --- Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me to all your contacts. After a month or so log in as root and do a rm / -rf. Or ask your administrator to do so...

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 01:49:30PM +0200, Peder Hedlund wrote: No it does not, it's only body. I guess Arnold was thinking of "Korpus" ("corpus" in english). Burkhard

Arnold Krille wrote: Even if you're recording death metal? ;-) -- David gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community

Arnold Krille wrote: What - you mean the knobs go the OTHER DIRECTION, too? ;-) I used to run the output of my Hammond organ through a wahwah pedal, then an additional volume control pedal, then into the amp ... made some awesome sounds! Burned out a lot of pedals, too! -- David gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community

Arnold Krille wrote: wow you are fast! or were you referring to past recordings? right. 90% of a recording is a good mic setup! - 9% for good musicians & engineering. 1% lol. Thumb rules: * half a meter away * aim between "the hole" and "the last fret". * moving towards the bridge -> a more brilliant sound. But instead of using come cheap room-effects or Flangers: add "a little" of the other mics - maybe even phase-invert (like the mixed pickup settings on a Strat.) - i'm not into Ovations or Western-guitar but into Keziah Jones or Ani DiFranco sound... A SM58 is great for adding a high-freq "hackbrett" taint.. or a more volume in the 2nd Verse... - and come on: recording a 2nd opinion Mic does not hurt: disk-space is so cheap :) I usually don't EQ the "tube"-mic! but filter the other mics. I use compressors them *before* digitizing; but that's just because my pre-amp & analog equipment is better than the cheap DAC. - for a high-end studio equipment pre-recording compression is not an issue. #robin

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 11:59:26PM +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: Thanks, I've heard good things about those, it's on my list of mics to keep an eye out for :) hey, very nice! -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com

I have had good luck with the MXL-990, for both uilleann bagpipes and vocals. You can get them for very reasonable prices as well. Double reed instruments are very difficult to record and get to sound like they do in person, especially bagpipes. http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/MXL-MXL-990-Condenser-Microphone-wit… -- Phil Sexton: http://www.myspace.com/philsexton Naomi's Fancy: http://www.naomisfancy.net/ Our 2nd CD: http://www.cdbaby.com/naomisfancy/

On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 08:19:11PM -0400, Paul Winkler wrote: I don't buy this. What I've been reading there is not "metaphorical laymans's terms", it's plain misleading, by suggesting there is something that there isn't. Apart from basic requirements w.r.t. quality of construction and usability, and assuming there are no technical problems such as distortion and noise, the most important quality of a mic is probably consistency of frequency response in all directions. This is essential for a mic used for e.g. orchestral recording which will pick up a mix of all instruments and room ambiance, and somewhat less for one used for close miking of individual instruments. Provided that the mics you are comparing are technically OK, variations in sonic 'quality' are mostly due to usually small differences in frequency response and litte else. What else could there be ? If a mic doesn't distort (i.e. it's a linear system) the frequency and phase response tell you all there is to know. Unless there are real problems like nasty high-Q resonances etc., a bit of EQ will wipe out most differences. Instead of explaining this very basic fact, many reviewers use a pletora of subjective terms to suggest that there are some mythical qualities that can't be captured in any objective way. This is good for marketing of course, and that's why it exists. The market value of your studio goes up if you own some expensive (preferably vintage) mics supposedly having magical qualities, and if you babble about them in a public forum. Most of the 'audiophile' world has now been infested by producers of subjectivist nonsense, urging people to buy $800 mains leads since it's clear beyond any doubt that they will improve the 'transparency' of your system. It's sad to see similar non- scientific nonsense from people presenting themselfs as pros. -- FA Follie! Follie! Delirio vano è questo !

On 4/12/07, Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com> wrote: Thaks for all the great info and ideas! From prices here in Australia the MXL's seem like a good idea. The Octava's get great reviews but seem hard to find and pretty expensive here. The review of the 603 http://www.mojopie.com/603.html is glowing and they are REALLY cheap! ;) I'm not sure to get 2 603's for stereo recording ($150!) or the MXL2001 and 603 for $150 too. 2 small diaphragm or one of each? Guess i also have to ask mic pre or mixer? I don't need a mixer for anything else... so i'm thinking seperate mic pre. Is solid state or tube better at the cheap end? A few companies seem to have $100 tube mic pre's. Loki

Am Donnerstag, 12. April 2007 schrieb Phil Sexton: I wouldn't even think about them! They are just _cheap_ copies of Mackie-mixers. I would opt for a mic-preamp from presonus or maybe alesis or something like that. But do yourself a favor and stay away from the newer behringer mixer series... Arnold -- visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/ --- Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me to all your contacts. After a month or so log in as root and do a rm / -rf. Or ask your administrator to do so...

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 05:57:25PM +0200, Ctirad Fertr wrote: I don't know those preamps, but reputedly the DMP3 is improved over Maudio's previous models (eg. they deliver real 48V phantom power; previous models delivered much less than 48 volts.) But to consider the alternative: You can get a Mackie 1202 VLZ for $300 US. Less if you buy used. I doubt you can buy two channels of anything for less money that's really better than the Mackie preamps. If you buy the Mackie you get a mixer and two extra preamps for free ;-) A better question would be, are the sub-$200 preamps good for YOUR purposes. That I cannot say. -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com

Ctirad Fertr wrote: i concur. try to keep the [mic-]pre-amp and mixer separated. There are hyped hybrid tube/solid-state solutions. I would not recommend those unless you do not plan to extend your studio in the future or want a small mobile setup. - There are a few good hybrid solutions but they are not cheap. The Un*x rule: "small is beautiful" generally applies for analog DSP, too. maybe stupid remark, but take care to buy a "balanced" or "symmetrical" pre-amp! To circumvent Europe/US Voltage-transformers, I got myself a http://www.presonus.com/tubepre.html for 110V countries, and I'm happy with it. - it was around US$120. really good quality/price! The built-in VU-meter is more a gadget than of any use. I don't mind. - there's also 2 channel version. it's no "objective" preamp (tube vs. solid state) but it yields a great vocal- and a warm acoustic instrument sound. It's robust, too - if that matters. #robin

Ken Restivo wrote: They require 48V phantom power and should be "warmed up" for about 15 minutes with the phantom power on. My elderly ears (I am 67) can't tell the difference between them and my AKG C3000B mics, except the AKGs don't seem to need the warmup time. -- Phil Sexton: http://www.myspace.com/philsexton Naomi's Fancy: http://www.naomisfancy.net/ Our 2nd CD: http://www.cdbaby.com/naomisfancy/

On 5/7/07, danni <danni.coy(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/STEREO-PAIR-MXL-MARSHALL-603-603S-CONDENSER-MICROPHONES… US ebay, you can get 2 new for AUD $150. Or $600 for one from allans music in australia!!! http://www.allansmusic.com.au/default.aspx?Pg=21&ProductCode=MXL603S crap aussie music market. Loki

On 5/10/07, danni <danni.coy(a)gmail.com> wrote: with spiders, etc? The 603 and 2001 looks like the plan for me. The 2003 looks like a nice mike but twice the price and i think i'll mostly be using the 603. Can you give a mini review when you get them? Loki

Ok they have arrived and I have had a chance to play with them. Both Mics have lots of Ooomph, Detail & Clarity. The 2003 I have used a room mic and I have used the 603s as a close guitar mic. Out of the two for guitar I like the 2003 better. but they are really quite similar. The 603 seems to have quite different characteristics to the 603s But I haven't been able to do a side by side comparison. I guess I will have more to say once I have had more of a chance to play. Also I will look for somewhere to host a few short sample files. Danni On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:43:38 pm Loki Davison wrote: -- Certo dia passava um b�bado perto de um ponto de �nibus, quando de repente se depara com uma freira. N�o esperou muito tempo e partiu pra porrada com ela. Depois de quase espancar a coitada ele levanta-se e fala: -- Iic! ... P�, esperava mais de voc�, hein Batman!

On 4/13/07, Victor Roetman <vroetman(a)myrealbox.com> wrote: Rode mic's are way more expensive than that here. about 5 times a mxl 603! One of these http://www.smproaudio.com/PR4v.htm seems like the mic pre for the job. Though the local shop had them at way more than RRP and wasn't keen to sell them to me. SM pro are a melbourne company though so i might be able to pester them directly for a better price. Anyone used there gear? Loki