Topic: Cheap mics vs $$$ mics for iffy venue

[Massive Dynamic]

I've tried several over-hyped budget mics (TLs, Audix micros, Peluso) at an annual outdoor festival, but I'm just not satisfied with my results. If the problem is with the stage sound, are more expensive mics likely to bring better results, or will they reveal more clearly the deficiency in sound? My gut tells me that a better mic will increase the odds of getting a better tape, but I'm wondering if anyone's experience has been the opposite. Thanks.

[eric.B]

any "good" condenser mic will produce a "good" tape in "good" conditions..  for instance.. SilentMark has a pair of matched oktava's with the hypers, cards, omni's and IMO they sound real good for the price..  CraigT used to run an LSD2 with real good results..  When moving to higher end mics (as SilentMark and I have done, km140's and tlm170's respectively), it is not to get necessarily "better" tapes, just tapes that sound a certain way.. 

ImO ..   any decent condenser mic can bring great results when placement, config, and venue are all working for you..
this includes (sub $1000 pairs)..

akg 39x
oktava mco12
peluso
josephson
adk
SoundProfessionals
km184
m300

etc.................

I would think the mics you mentioned would make nice recordings if the sound is good and your config is proper..  what are you running behind the mics?

[Brian Skalinder]

If the problem is with the stage sound, are more expensive mics likely to bring better results, or will they reveal more clearly the deficiency in sound?

Your recording is only as good as the source - in this case, the PA as delivered by the sound crew / engineers.  Generally speaking, "better" mics will reveal more clearly the deficiencies of the sound system and/or engineer, largely due to better detail.  But different mics have different sonic characteristics, some of which may match well with the sound you're trying to capture.  In addition, location, mic pattern, and configuration all may help (as wericB already mentioned).

What do you find lacking in your recordings to date?

[lds490]

In general, better mics will give you a better recording.  But you are right that you will get a better recording of crappy sound.  I still think you are better off with high quality mics if you have the $$$.  I do believe there is a point of diminishing returns, though.  You can pay a lot of money for great mics that do sound better that Pelusos, Studio Projects, etc., but it costs a lot for each marginal improvement in your recording.  I run inexpensive mics and am totally satisfied with my recordings (for now).  I am a believer in cheap mics, but if I had the money I'd get some Neumanns or MGs.

[dnsacks]

what were you running behind your "overhyped" mics?  Even the most $$$ mics aren't going to perform at their best unless the pre and a/d are also up to the task at hand.

[Massive Dynamic]

     I ran a p-mod UA-5 with the TLs and micros, the Peluso I just ran line-in to my M1. For folk and acoustic acts, the sound was generally pleasing. For rock, the drum kit/cymbals just sound harsh and piercing. I need a mic that can record both.
     The pmod probably made things worse, and I have since sold it. I also ran near-coincident configs, and that wasn't enough of an improvement. I've been eyeing the AKG 414s, but there's a lot of C4 fluffing going on and I wondered if they would do the job. For the record, the best tapes I've made were with more expensive mics, MBHO and THE, detailed and on the bright side, though the MBHO were too bright on occasion. I've considered the LSD2, but I am not sure I want to give up near-coincident configs, though if I had the 414s, I'd probably run concident all the time (or perhaps subcards NOS). What to do, what to do...

[dnsacks]

Personally, I've really enjoyed the tapes I've made with the lsd2.  Some folks have commented on HF issues with the TLs, but the lsd2 lacks this harshness.  So far haven't had any regrets regarding our inability to run near-coincident with it, and have found the lack of hassle in setting it up to be a REAL plus.  Further, I've found that using the lsd2 in mid-side mode and performing the mid-side decoding on a computer after the fact provides incredible flexibility. 

Given its current $500 pricetag, if you can live with its limitations, could be well worth checking out.  Run ours through a t-mod plus ua5, which I think compliments the lsd2 quite nicely. 

[Massive Dynamic]

Personally, I've really enjoyed the tapes I've made with the lsd2.  Some folks have commented on HF issues with the TLs, but the lsd2 lacks this harshness.  So far haven't had any regrets regarding our inability to run near-coincident with it, and have found the lack of hassle in setting it up to be a REAL plus.  Further, I've found that using the lsd2 in mid-side mode and performing the mid-side decoding on a computer after the fact provides incredible flexibility. 

Given its current $500 pricetag, if you can live with its limitations, could be well worth checking out.  Run ours through a t-mod plus ua5, which I think compliments the lsd2 quite nicely. 

Although I'm not a fan of the UA-5's ergonomics, the T+ mod UA-5 and LSD2 in the yard sale are tempting. Everything I've read about the LSD2 has been positive, but I've been disappointed too many times by sub-$600 mics.

[grider]

if all of those pretty good mics failed you it was the mix and or the PA system that really failed you; or, possibly, your microphone configuration (I've seen some pretty crazy shit so far); I think generally you will pull a better recording with better mics because they will handle poor acoustics better than lesser expensive mics, but also because better quality mics will offer more detail, higher highs, and lower lows, and I believe the expensive mics are much better at rejecting chatter and background noise than inexpensive or moderately expensive mics

[SuperDave]

Have you ever listened to other recordings done by others tapers with the same rig and been happy with that combo?  That may tell you alot.

I find that some of the best recordings I hear don't necessarily reflect the price of the rig(I've recently been digging some Audix 1290 sourced recordings recently which I think are great).  It really is a synergy between mics, the preamp, the room, the soundguy, and the musicians.  There are so many variables that I wonder how any of us pull it off regularly.   

[grider]

I've been eyeing the AKG 414s, but there's a lot of C4 fluffing going on and I wondered if they would do the job. For the record, the best tapes I've made were with more expensive mics

the 414's would be a big improvement over the other mics you have tried; the C4's would be a "lateral" move at best; if you are looking for a dramatic improvement in sound, perhaps you should make a dramatic change in mics, and rather than sampling all of the common mics in the few/several hundred dollar range, instead step up to the 1000 or 1200 dollar range and try AKG480's, Neumann km184, Microtel Geffel's, or the AKG414's, I think you would be surprised and pleased at the recordings you would make, great mics that often make great recordings

[Nick Graham]

 

[stirinthesauce]

     I ran a p-mod UA-5 with the TLs and micros, the Peluso I just ran line-in to my M1. For folk and acoustic acts, the sound was generally pleasing. For rock, the drum kit/cymbals just sound harsh and piercing. I need a mic that can record both.
     The pmod probably made things worse, and I have since sold it. I also ran near-coincident configs, and that wasn't enough of an improvement. I've been eyeing the AKG 414s, but there's a lot of C4 fluffing going on and I wondered if they would do the job. For the record, the best tapes I've made were with more expensive mics, MBHO and THE, detailed and on the bright side, though the MBHO were too bright on occasion. I've considered the LSD2, but I am not sure I want to give up near-coincident configs, though if I had the 414s, I'd probably run concident all the time (or perhaps subcards NOS). What to do, what to do...

I've run my Peluso's with several pre-amps in front of it.  HUGE, let me say again, HUGE difference in sound with a pro pre/adc in front.  I love my bm2 and it really shines for acoustic/bluegrass, but for rock in shitty venue, I have been simply amazed with the results when running a v3 or 722.  Just finished tracking/editing a show using Martin's 722.  Shitty bar with a shitty room.  Sound was half decent that night but I am utterly amazed at the results.  I can't speak for the audix or tl's but IME, I don't think you can accurately judge a mic by running line in on a m1. 

Enuff of my Peluso fluffing.
 I don't know shit.

[lds490]

I've been eyeing the AKG 414s, but there's a lot of C4 fluffing going on and I wondered if they would do the job. For the record, the best tapes I've made were with more expensive mics

the 414's would be a big improvement over the other mics you have tried; the C4's would be a "lateral" move at best; if you are looking for a dramatic improvement in sound, perhaps you should make a dramatic change in mics, and rather than sampling all of the common mics in the few/several hundred dollar range, instead step up to the 1000 or 1200 dollar range and try AKG480's, Neumann km184, Microtel Geffel's, or the AKG414's, I think you would be surprised and pleased at the recordings you would make, great mics that often make great recordings

I agree with this.  My point is that my SP mics only cost me around $300 for the pair.  I don't expect them to sound as good as a mic that sells for $1200, but those $1200 mics don't sound 4 times better (however you measure it).  I think it is like speakers for playback.  There are good performers at every price level, but the conventional wisdom is: spend as much as you can afford.  If you don't like the results you got with the less expensive brands, then you need to step up.

[Massive Dynamic]

Thanks to all, +Ts all around, and apologies if it sounded like I was dissing your favorite mic. 

Have you ever listened to other recordings done by others tapers with the same rig and been happy with that combo?  That may tell you alot.

I find that some of the best recordings I hear don't necessarily reflect the price of the rig(I've recently been digging some Audix 1290 sourced recordings recently which I think are great).  It really is a synergy between mics, the preamp, the room, the soundguy, and the musicians.  There are so many variables that I wonder how any of us pull it off regularly.   

I don't have broadband, so downloading shows just isn't an option. Thanks goes out to members of this board who have graciously sent copies of shows made with the mics I eventually decided I didn't like at my venue. My conclusion is that their venue and my venue (among many other variables) could be the biggest difference. There's always possible user error, but I have my ruler and protractor at every show. 

I've run my Peluso's with several pre-amps in front of it.  HUGE, let me say again, HUGE difference in sound with a pro pre/adc in front.  I love my bm2 and it really shines for acoustic/bluegrass, but for rock in shitty venue, I have been simply amazed with the results when running a v3 or 722.

I would hope so!

Just finished tracking/editing a show using Martin's 722.  Shitty bar with a shitty room.  Sound was half decent that night but I am utterly amazed at the results.  I can't speak for the audix or tl's but IME, I don't think you can accurately judge a mic by running line in on a m1. 

Using a $1400 pre/ADC for a $600 mic pair is great if you can borrow the pre, but I'm looking for a mic first. I'm not saying a good pre can't make a mic sound better (different), but I think running a mic line in to an M1 should give one the best idea of what a mic sounds like - no pre to add coloration. I would love to hear others' comments on this.