Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Microphones & Setup => Topic started by: cavernut on December 25, 2008, 07:23:54 PM
-
I am looking at the Josephson C42MP mics for use as both a studio and for audience taping of rock shows. I know that the big limitation is that they are solid and do not have a choice of capsules, they are Cardioid only. However i have read a lot of really good reviews for them and for $800 for a matched pair they seem like a nice choice. Have any of you used these? and what did you think?
I am still looking at several other choices like the AKG 480 and CK 61 - 62 -63 Capsules for $2,500. And also the Beta JZ mics with a matched pair with three capsules each for around 1000, however those capsules do not include a Hyper.
I am also trying to work my budget to include a V3 instead of just an analog Mix Pre (a thousand dollar difference).
Thanks again for all your info and Merry Christmas......
-
For the money I think the beyers are a better option.
The Josephson mics sound excellent up close, but I think they suffer at distance. They also have a bit of a HF bump that some don't care for (I'm one of those).
As far as the JZ mics (or any other mic for that matter) not having a hyper, I say if you need hypers to make it sound good then you're doing it wrong. You need to get up close and run cards (or subcards).
Just my .02
-
if you need hypers to make it sound good then you're doing it wrong. You need to get up close and run cards (or subcards).
Just my .02
x2
-
Bean is going to be pissed :P
-
if you need hypers to make it sound good then you're doing it wrong. You need to get up close and run cards (or subcards) subcards (or omnis).
;)
-
loved the C42's when i ran them, and no, i don't think they don't suck from a distance. if anything, they shine from back there, and seem to get flatter the further you go back:
http://www.archive.org/details/sci2004-11-27.shnf
and this from David Josephson:
David Josephson Jan 22 2004, 2:56 am
The C42 was intended for more distant pickups than close-up. I think
that the flatttering comparisons people have made with respect to the
KM84 might be due to the C42's excellent off-axis response tracking,
which is what we were aiming for. It is definitely a brighter sound
than the KM84, particularly close-up, and might be too bright for
some people. EQ helps. But really we were intending it for more distant
pickups like ensemble work, overall stereo pickups, drum overheads, etc.
and in this application the slight HF boost on-axis makes the whole
stereo picture sound more balanced.
--
Josephson Engineering / Santa Cruz CA / www.josephson.com
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/browse_thread/thread/402168a7fe61748a?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=josephson+c42+distant#d74aaf78c153eeca
-
^^^
Not having used the Neumann SDCs myself, can the same thing be said for the difference in sound between the 184 and the older 84? Or would those of you more intimate with the Neumanns characterize them differently?
-
not to change the subject
but what about the Mercenary Audio
KM-69
they say this
:
The KM-69, is an entirely new microphone developed from our desire for a KM-84 for hi-hats. Of course, these are hard to come by, old, and rather expensive. So what did we do? We began talking to some friends of ours that also happen to be legendary designers, and the idea of the KM-69 was born.
During its design, it came very close to the sound of the KM-84, but the tweaking didn't stop. We tweezed in a tad better clarity and detail without sacrificing depth, making it a stunner for acoustic instruments. It was given a little more air on top, and the sound was carefully balanced so as not to take away from the subtle richness and "velvet" that was one of the main traits that we wanted to emulate.
here http://www.mercenary.com/mamfgkm69.html (http://www.mercenary.com/mamfgkm69.html)
you can get a matched pair http://www.mercenary.com/mammfgkm69pair.html (http://www.mercenary.com/mammfgkm69pair.html)
but there ain't much info about them
now back to the C42's
-
not to change the subject
but what about the Mercenary Audio
KM-69
they say this
:
The KM-69, is an entirely new microphone developed from our desire for a KM-84 for hi-hats. Of course, these are hard to come by, old, and rather expensive. So what did we do? We began talking to some friends of ours that also happen to be legendary designers, and the idea of the KM-69 was born.
During its design, it came very close to the sound of the KM-84, but the tweaking didn't stop. We tweezed in a tad better clarity and detail without sacrificing depth, making it a stunner for acoustic instruments. It was given a little more air on top, and the sound was carefully balanced so as not to take away from the subtle richness and "velvet" that was one of the main traits that we wanted to emulate.
here http://www.mercenary.com/mamfgkm69.html (http://www.mercenary.com/mamfgkm69.html)
you can get a matched pair http://www.mercenary.com/mammfgkm69pair.html (http://www.mercenary.com/mammfgkm69pair.html)
but there ain't much info about them
now back to the C42's
Is this mercenary audio an actual builder of capsules, or just importing chinese gear?
Richard
-
Is this mercenary audio an actual builder of capsules, or just importing chinese gear?
Richard
Got no idea
just curious...
but the C42's for a matched pair are about 1/2 the Price of the KM-69's
for more than the C-42's but less than the KM-69s you can get a pair of Milab VM-44- links for about $1280
or check out Busmans mics- he is scheduled to come out with some active cables soon
-- Ian
-
Hve you checked out Beyerdynamic Mc 930's?
http://northern-america.beyerdynamic.com/en/music-performance/products/microphones/studio-mikrofon.html?tx_sbproductdatabase_pi1%5BshowUid%5D%5BshowUID%5D=186&tx_sbproductdatabase_pi1%5BshowUid%5D%5BbackPID%5D=74&cHash=444e7cb3c0
(http://northern-america.beyerdynamic.com/typo3temp/pics/aa032a3b6c.jpg)
Features
True condenser microphone
Cardioid polar pattern for universal applications
Very low self-noise, extraordinary signal-to-noise ration
Very high SPL capability (140 dB)
Switchable pre-attenuation (15 dB)
Switchable low-pass filter
Rugged and compact construction (metal housing)
Supplied with microphone clamp and zipper bag
Technical Specifications
Transducer type True condenser
Operating principle Pressure gradient
Polar pattern Cardioid
Open circuit voltage at 1 kHz (0dB = 1V/Pa) 30 mV/Pa
Nominal impedance 180 Ω
Load impedance 1000 Ω
Connector 3-pin XLR male
Length 128 mm
Shaft diameter 21 mm
Weight without cable 115 g
Frequency response 40 - 20,000 Hz
Max. SPL at 1 kHz 125 dB (with pre-attenuation: 140 dB)
S/N ratio rel. to 1 Pa 71 dB
A-weighted equivalent SPL 16 dB
Power supply 11 - 52 V phantom power
Current consumption 4.6 mA
Variant MC 930
-
A thread I can speak to. I have owned both the C42MP's and the MC930's. I love the detail of the C42's as drum over heads. This is something that the MC930's don't match, IMO. I like the C42's on some of the recordings I've made in the "section". I actually had both for a while, knowing that I would sell off one pair. However, I kept the MC930's and sold the C42's. It wasn't an easy decision, because both are good. For taping (and my half ass home studio), however, the Beyer's were a better choice. If you are looking for mics to pad your studio closet, don't hesitate to pick the C42's. They have plenty of applications in the studio. When I owned them, I used them in a local pro studio with great results. BTW, they are built like tanks.
To sum it up..*to my ears on my playback system*:
C42 = beautifully detailed, bright side
MC930 = warmer, safer bet on more sounds
Examples of both live here, same bar on different nights (V3 included):
http://www.archive.org/details/trt2008-02-29.flac.24
http://www.archive.org/details/wh2008-05-11.flac24
Another comp here (non-scientific A/B):
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,101571.0.html
--Michael
-
A thread I can speak to. I have owned both the C42MP's and the MC930's. I love the detail of the C42's as drum over heads. This is something that the MC930's don't match, IMO. I like the C42's on some of the recordings I've made in the "section". I actually had both for a while, knowing that I would sell off one pair. However, I kept the MC930's and sold the C42's. It wasn't an easy decision, because both are good. For taping (and my half ass home studio), however, the Beyer's were a better choice. If you are looking for mics to pad your studio closet, don't hesitate to pick the C42's. They have plenty of applications in the studio. When I owned them, I used them in a local pro studio with great results. BTW, they are built like tanks.
To sum it up..*to my ears on my playback system*:
C42 = beautifully detailed, bright side
MC930 = warmer, safer bet on more sounds
Examples of both live here, same bar on different nights (V3 included):
http://www.archive.org/details/trt2008-02-29.flac.24
http://www.archive.org/details/wh2008-05-11.flac24
Another comp here (non-scientific A/B):
http://taperssection.com/index.php/topic,101571.0.html
--Michael
Thanks for the clips!
OK, I much prefer the MC930s.
I agree that the Joesphson have more detail. So, why do I like the Beyers? There must be something unpleasant about the Josephson, either the color or maybe some (minor) distortion. Whatever it is, they are not pleasant to listen to!
So, if I had the choice, I'd pick the Beyers, at least for live recording. Now, if I have more money, I'd get the Geffel M200 series. Those seem to have more detail than the Beyer, yet still sound great.
By the way, many omni mics will beat the Beyers. I'm thinking Countryman B3 and/or Nevaton MCE400. This is one reason I've moved to omnis... If I can get them close enough.
Richard
-
Hve you checked out Beyerdynamic Mc 930's?
BEST.
BANG.
FOR.
THE.
BUCK.
No doubt about it.